[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/vst/ - Video Games/Strategy

[Advertise on 4chan]


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.


[Advertise on 4chan]


When will we finally get a good operational level game? Why is there no middle ground between moving abstract icons on a hex map and having to autistically micromanage every single fucking tank? Why can't we get something like steel division's army general mode but with battles where you can delegate the lowest level tactical decisions? Something like units in TW games but with AI.
>>
>>506694
Would RUSE be what you're looking for?
>>
>>506694
Command Ops 2 is a thing.
>>
>>506698
Certainly a step in the right direction but it's too much of a spreadsheet game. Stick something like its control system on top of an actual 3d game engine and you'd have a start.
>>
>>506712
>Stick something like its control system on top of an actual 3d game engine
For what purpose? To appeal to zoomers who need pretty graphics to enjoy a game? They won't appreciate a game like CO2 anyway, so why bother.
>>
>>506715
3D graphics look nice. I like 3D graphics. I am not knocking boomers and their hyper elaborate spreadsheets, I can understand the appeal, but it's not something me or the vast majority of other gamers are into.

The reason I bring up steel division 2 is that I feel like it comes frustratingly close but fails by being a fucking tank micro APM game. The delegated unit command system from CO2 on top of a game like that could probably work.
>>
>>506694
what is this shit looks like hoi4 but on a tiny map
>>
>>506721
So what you're saying is you want a game that nigh plays itself and has lots of pretty explosions? Don't have that, but I can jingle a keyring for you which I feel is close enough.
>>
>>506694

Agreed. Operational is where it's at. But normies can't grasp it.
>>
If you need shiny 3d graphics to enjoy a game, you lack imagination. And that is how I know you're a zoomer spoiled and tainted by modern media.
>>
>>506767
Most fucks dont know the difference between a tactics game and a strategy game, let alone what operational level means.
>>
>>506727
>plays itself
Do total war games play themselves just because you can't order the individual soldiers in a unit around? I think a game like steel division, where you play in command of a division sized unit, would be much better suited to having AI-controlled subunits that you can give more general orders to, with certain exceptions like assigning divisional fires and such.
>>
>>506769
Alas, that may well be the truth. But I like pretty explosions and I cannot lie
>>
>>506821
You can't explain the difference between any of those pseud
>>
>>506769
'Spectacle' RTS have their appeal, and there is alot of catharsis in a successful bombing run/artillery barrage that flips the tide of a battle/engagement. Things like your clusterbombs falling straight onto the enemy's armored collumn and creating a breach.
>>
>>506947
you would love someone to hold your hand and explain the big boys world to you, yeah you would faggot.
>>
>>506694
can you blob? can you do wq as rukuy? yeah no? then fuck of
>>
>>506769
>>506715
>>506727
>>506988
>oh you want a game with 3D GRAPHICS?????????
>fucking adhd-ridden zoomer
you're taking this hardcore gamer larp too far. do you hear yourselves? you're shitting on him because he wants a strategy game that's 3d? are games not allowed to be 3d anymore? do you go to any other threads and shit on people who discuss other games which are 3d?
did this board's existence make you feel less special now that you're separated from the low iq masses of /v/ that you're now trying to find something new to be elitist about and you chose 3d graphics?
douchebags
>>
>>507030
zoom zoom
>>
>>506769
If you need computer to enjoy a game, you lack imagination. And that is how I know you're a zoomer spoiled and tainted by modern media.
>>
File: 548a95c12cfc7.jpg (205 KB, 800x1153)
205 KB
205 KB JPG
>>506694
Armored Brigade is probably not quite on the scale you want but it's close(r).
>>
>>507050
There is literally nothing wrong with being a zoomer. I am a zoomer, but I am also a 25 year old grown ass man with an engineering degree and a considerable disposable income that game developers might wish to pander to. Surely you have nothing against market forces correcting mismatches in supply and demand?
>>
File: cmo-ground.png (1.92 MB, 1920x1040)
1.92 MB
1.92 MB PNG
>>507030
I'm shitting on those who claim to like strategy games yet refuse to play a good game because it does not have shiny graphics.
Also, zoom zoom.
>>
File: 1552851910612.jpg (32 KB, 800x450)
32 KB
32 KB JPG
>>507087
>Zhirinovsky's Falcons
A weird one to pick, but whatever, sure.
>'95-'96
>Soviet Army
Wo bu mingbai, I guess?
>AEMYL
...?

That's one weird guide.
>>
>>507115
>That game
Shitty AI
>>
>>507253
You must be confusing it with something else. CMO has no AI whatsoever.
>>
>>507270
It does have AI for individual units, but other than that it is indeed a pure pvp game.
>>
>>506698
Neat game anon, thanks for bringing it up now I have a new game to play.
>>
>>507087
>Addidas stripes on a IFV...
>>
Graviteam Tactics, you can micromanage everything but you can also choose to move an entire squad. also has a campaign map where you move entire combat groups or whatever the fuck they are called around.
>>
>>507578
>entire squad.
A divisional commander shouldn't be keeping track of what every squad is doing.

I think overly micro-intensive games miss the point of ww2 tactics entirely.
>>
>>507384
Heh
>>
>>507115
Wait, does CMO have ground unit modelling worth playing with now?
>>
>>506694

Campaigns on the Danube is the ULTIMATE but it's a bitch to get running properly on Windows 10.
>>
>>506694
Grand Tactician: Civil War
>>
Modern war is simply too complex than Napoleonic, muh huge army open battle warfare.
>>
Alternatively just play Go, all videogames devolve into hp vs dpsxdamagerolls
>>
>>506694
John tiller software games are good sorta. It goes from army level to company. It also has okay graphics so you won't have to look at spread sheets all the time.
>>
>>506694
Grand tactician the civil war is another game that represent brigade to army level.
>>
>>507084
Miniatures wargaming bro
>>
>>507749
Napoleonic warfare was the first that had an operational scale with top level commanders delegating nearly all tactical decisions to corps and division commanders. A good napoleonic game should not be about precisely positioning your firing lines either.
>>
>>507657
Not really, but it is sufficient for certain stuff like this scenario, where you defend against a large offensive.
>>
I wish more games attempted the HoI3 thing where you could hand some stuff to the AI. I rather do some planning, set a goal and handle the logistics than micromanage everything. It's understandable though as AI is a crapshot between shit and acceptable.
>>
>>508180
If AI is straightforward and consistent for both sides it shouldn't matter.
>>
>>506694
>Why can't we get something like steel division's army general mode but with battles where you can delegate the lowest level tactical decisions?
Graviteam Tactics
>>
The Decisive Campaigns games are my favorite. The interface just works for me. Everything you need is in a single strip of hotkey-able buttons, no menu diving. I don't play them that often as there is just a little bit too much chit shuffling. I wish there was a way to give broader objectives to some corps/divisions and then manage other units on a more granular level. The thing is I think that is harder to program as you'd need competent offensive AI, which is not something I've ever really seen in a strategy game.
>>
>>507115
>zoom zoom lol
That's not CMANO. You enjoying your fancy grafix and itunes interface? How do those 3D dogfights look fellow grogchad boomster?
>>
>>507584
The command system really discourages micro anything. GT players always seem to say that battles are mostly set em and forget em affairs. I've always met with failure trying to play fast and reactive as though it's Steel Division or something. I just wish that GT campaign maps worked more like SD2. And I wish SD2 had a command system kinda like GT.
>>
>>508653
>That's not CMANO.
Nice larp, but a real grognard would say "That's not Harpoon".
>>
>>508670
>The command system really discourages micro anything.
It discourages you from issuing multiple orders in a short timespan, but it is still micro heavy since you have to position every single tank or platoon on the field.
>GT players always seem to say that battles are mostly set em and forget em affairs.
That's because AI is retarded, so all you need to do is to set up a defensive line and then watch AI bum rush it.
>>
>>508704
damn your sleuthing, you've caught me
>>
>>508715
>That's because AI is retarded, so all you need to do is to set up a defensive line and then watch AI bum rush it.
Or offensively, scout their locations, pin them from the front and flank from the side. They never do anything about it.
>>
>>508589

They are my favorite as well. I wish the same engine was used for other wars (musket-era, mainly).
>>
File: Image 1.png (3.16 MB, 1920x1080)
3.16 MB
3.16 MB PNG
>>507729

It works no problem with the 2017 patch. Fun stuff. I'm currently doing a terrible job as Napoleon in the 1805 Ulm campaign. I am in a good position but the Austrians are slipping away and the Russians gave me a bad bloody nose, knocking back two corps heavily.
>>
>>506694
>operational level

You keep using that word but you don't understand what it means. War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition is the Operational Level the Game, but it is literally moving abstract icons on a map.
>>
Graviteam is exactly what you are looking for
>>
>>509445
>hurr durr
What level do you think SD2's army general mode is, mr clausewitz?
>>
>>509928
Haven't played, but OP seems to put it at the same level as Total War without micro. Which is literally tactics.
>>
>>507584
>graviteam is too much micro-oriented for /vst/
there is no hope
>>
>>507584
Divisional commander isn't concerned about the tactics in any case. Germans figured this out pre-ww2. I know US still struggles with the concept of having agency in their officer ranks.
>>
>>510114
Who are you quoting?
>>
File: germany_1985_03.png (32 KB, 960x600)
32 KB
32 KB PNG
>>506694
I think it started way back in early SSI games. Seems to be that a lot of the boomers that play this strategy genre stick to the basics. Example. Germany 1985. I loved this shit back then.
>>
>>510109
OP game is a mix of operational and tactical play. The problem with it is that one one level the granularity is at the regiment scale, on the other it's individual tanks. The game would be much better if the tactical layer was higher level with unit AI.
>>
>>506694
OP have you played Planetary Annihilation? It's pretty damn cool.
>>
>>507578
Its tactical sim mainly, the operational level exists only as a framework for the tactical battles.
>>
>>512443
then OP wants command ops 2
>>
>>506712
>too much of a spreadsheet game
instant torrent, thank you for the recommendation anon
>>
>>508870
Is that using a mod of some sort? The map looks way better than most of the John Tiller games.
>>
File: 333.jpg (503 KB, 1896x1016)
503 KB
503 KB JPG
>>512784

I don't think it's a Tiller game though? But yes the map is beautiful. And the game is awesome. There is nothing else like it. You have actual supply depots and supply trains and you send orders to divisions/corps that take time to arrive. It is a true operational game.
>>
>>506694
...Supreme Commander?
>>
>>513082
He would probably dislike needing to micro ACUs, experimentals, strat bombers and such. If playing against a competent human.
>>
>>512915
Ah, yeah I see that now. I inferred based on anon's comments that it was a Tiller game, but I see it's up on the Matrix Games website. I'll have to scoop this one up.
>>
>>513420

Just make sure you install the patches. It used to be a bitch to get working but it works just fine for me now with the patches. If it is giving you trouble, post here and I can help. You can try the usual running in compatibility mode, running as admin, etc.
>>
>>506694
Because it's in a rather awkward spot between games like Men of War/CoH and grandstrat.
If you don't micro at all, you have AI do it for you, which means it needs very good AI to not fuck up. If you abstract away to icons, it's a lot easier as you don't have to simulate anywhere near as much. Have you seen the level of AI in most games even in 2021? Can you imagine planning an amazing operational level plan that gets fucked over by the AI being fucking retarded on the tactical level?
>oh look my tanks decided to pathfind around this obstacle the wrong way around exposing their ass to enemy fire, RIP my tank platoon
>oh look my infantry advanced into a house next to one garrisoned by enemies with flamethrowers/thermobaric weapons, RIP my infantry
It would be enraging.
>>
>>506821
New fangled shit, take me back to pitched battles
>>
>>513795
>enemy AT governed by similarly retarded "AI" accidentally shoots down their own helicopters instead of half of your tanks
>enemy anti-infantry in that house get stuck inside the house's model and eventually blow up from the engine freaking out trying to model their oscillations
Eh.
>>
File: tenor.png (367 KB, 532x398)
367 KB
367 KB PNG
>>507030
>oh no, this game has three dimensions niggerman help I'm losing my mind...
>>
>>507100
akshually if you're 25 you're a millenial
but this is internet where anyone older than you is boomer and anyone yonger is a zoomer, even if he's 40, apparently
>>
>>507030
this post just zooms by
>>
>>506694
Distant Worlds
>>
>>506694
>Why is there no middle ground
A few different reasons.
One, time compression: actual wars take months if not years while an in-game war will be resolved within a few hours of play time. the two easy ways to cope with this are to either send APM to inhuman levels or to abstract away as much as possible, striking a balance between starcraft combat and civilization combat requires tons of effort.
Two, AI: computers can click really fast and accurately but they are bad at thinking and planning in an organic way, so to give the player a challenge you either make click spam very effective or make the strategic aspect as simple and clear cut as possible, so once again it's hard to come up with something that's not autistic tank micro or niggas on hexes.
This also applies to more subtle AI stuff, like unit target prioritization, autokiting, autoretreat, and similar things: it's easy to make them manual or abstract them away, it's hard to provide a satisfying automated solution.
Third, processing power: the more you simulate and the more you automate, the harder your computer must crunch numbers, and once again it's easy to either not automate and let the player spamclick instead or not simulate and provide very abstract gameplay.
Four, RTS is a niche genre so very few publishers are willing to risk money on new stuff, copying older stuff is cheaper.

After all of that, you'll have faggots like >>506727, the esports wankers, and the entirety of the Paradox fanbase insulting you for not catering to their tastes specifically.
>>
>>523699
>actual wars take months if not years
A modern air operation can last as long as two days.
>the two easy ways to cope with this are to either send APM to inhuman levels or to abstract away as much as possible, striking a balance between starcraft combat and civilization combat requires tons of effort.
>you either make click spam very effective or make the strategic aspect as simple and clear cut as possible
>unit target prioritization, autokiting, autoretreat, and similar things
None of this applies to wargames.
>faggots like >>506727, the esports wankers
You didn't even understood what that anon was talking about.
Did you ever play a wargame?
>>
>>523720
>claiming the gulf war is in any way representative of the average war, let alone a good standard for wars in games
>acting as if wargames like CMANO are the norm
>pretending not to see a comma
Fine bait.
>>
>>523720
>>523739
iirc the USAF estimates that an air war with a peer nation would be decided one way or the other in about six weeks
>>
>>523739
Look up how long it took for Germany to conquer France, Netherlands and Belgium 81 years ago. Once you're done, look up Cold war wargames (real life ones) and their estimates.
>>
>>523763
>six weeks
Sure, that's on the low end of "months if not years", unlike the Desert Storm curbstomp or basically any scenario involving nukes.

>>523802
>WW2 ended with the German rush securing their victory
>totally didn't drag on for multiple years on many fronts
The bait keeps getting better.
>>
>>523829
>WW2 was a single operation
ngmi
>>
>>523829
>Real world estimates are bait!
>I play strategy games so I would know!
alright pal
>>
The Operational Art of War
>>
HoI2 and 3 have 'mini' campaigns that only cover a specific conflict. The Russo-Japanese War is one, I believe.

Never played any, but that one in particular seems pretty interesting; like playing Vicky with HoI combat.
>>
As others have said, an operational-sized game that isn't abstracted like a Grand Strategy but isn't also micro-intensive would need some kind of god-tier AI to keep the player from ripping their hair out.

That doesn't exist ATM and probably never will to the point that devs would be comfortable giving the player absolutely no way to micro their troops. Best you can hope for are 'scenarios in existing Grand Strategy games which limit you to a single theater, but at that point you're just playing what



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.