Ah, I see what you are saying now. So you would define the battles in the Total War series as 'real time tactical' games which simulate operations, and the 'map' portions as grand strategy.
My apologies for not recognizing which bits were humourous- I am not the best at recognizing written humour.
I don't intend that Starcraft, Age of Empires, Homeworld or any of the games that I've mentioned feature grand strategy at national scales. However, I do feel that my use of the term 'strategy' is justified, and that your definition of strategy is overly specific and not in keeping with the common use of the term. By your definition, chess is not a strategic game. If you would agree to that, then we can simply accept that we hold widely differing views on what exactly constitutes strategy: what you call strategy is 'grand strategy' and what I call strategy is 'operations', to use your terminology.
I don't claim that strategies are composed solely of collections of tactics. Rather, I simply state- as you said- tactics can be used to further a strategy.
Perhaps I should clarify the terminology I'd use for games. Europa Universalis is a Grand Strategy, Civilization is a Turn Based Strategy, Starcraft is a Real Time Strategy, while a game like Ground Control or the Campaign of Dawn of War II is a Real Time Tactical.
My main differentiation between RTS and RTT is simply that RTS incorporates economical systems, while RTT gives you a limited number of units and possesses no complex economy system. RTT is, as a result of this, typically more linear and contains a less diverse variety of ways to win.
At any rate, if you're talking of the Starcraft campaigns rather than Starcraft multiplayer, then we're in much greater agreement. Many Starcraft campaign missions are very linear, and some are focused entirely around the careful control of a small group of units.
So, uh, to summarize all of that, I think we just disagree about what 'strategy' means.
You claim it applies exclusively to grand-scale events, while I will additionally apply it to operational-level events. The games you mentioned definitely sound like what I would refer to as 'strategy' games, of some description.
Starcraft, in my view, is a fairly even mixture of tactics and strategy on the operational level, while you would rather call it a tactical game taking place on an operational level. I don't think either of us would claim that it works on a grand strategic level, due to the lack of continuity between games or even missions in a fairly linear campaign.
My apologies for not recognizing which bits were humourous- I am not the best at recognizing written humour.
I don't intend that Starcraft, Age of Empires, Homeworld or any of the games that I've mentioned feature grand strategy at national scales. However, I do feel that my use of the term 'strategy' is justified, and that your definition of strategy is overly specific and not in keeping with the common use of the term. By your definition, chess is not a strategic game. If you would agree to that, then we can simply accept that we hold widely differing views on what exactly constitutes strategy: what you call strategy is 'grand strategy' and what I call strategy is 'operations', to use your terminology.
I don't claim that strategies are composed solely of collections of tactics. Rather, I simply state- as you said- tactics can be used to further a strategy.
Perhaps I should clarify the terminology I'd use for games. Europa Universalis is a Grand Strategy, Civilization is a Turn Based Strategy, Starcraft is a Real Time Strategy, while a game like Ground Control or the Campaign of Dawn of War II is a Real Time Tactical.
My main differentiation between RTS and RTT is simply that RTS incorporates economical systems, while RTT gives you a limited number of units and possesses no complex economy system. RTT is, as a result of this, typically more linear and contains a less diverse variety of ways to win.
At any rate, if you're talking of the Starcraft campaigns rather than Starcraft multiplayer, then we're in much greater agreement. Many Starcraft campaign missions are very linear, and some are focused entirely around the careful control of a small group of units.
So, uh, to summarize all of that, I think we just disagree about what 'strategy' means.
You claim it applies exclusively to grand-scale events, while I will additionally apply it to operational-level events. The games you mentioned definitely sound like what I would refer to as 'strategy' games, of some description.Starcraft, in my view, is a fairly even mixture of tactics and strategy on the operational level, while you would rather call it a tactical game taking place on an operational level. I don't think either of us would claim that it works on a grand strategic level, due to the lack of continuity between games or even missions in a fairly linear campaign.
