Strategy or tactics?

[Pikeman]

In MTW, the strategy was almost non- existant, or only at a very high level. In this game, I've noticed that the battles will be much smaller, but your armies move around freely. Am I right in thinking that KoH will be more strategy- orientated (finely positioning your armies, guarding mountain passes and rivers, intercepting enemy armies by surprise) than tactics (like in MTW). If so, how strategical can you get in this game?

[Henrik]

If your question related to the close view screen, then'll think it will be "fairly" limited - please bear in mind that the game don't freeze while you do battle - so i wouldn't think that this would leave much room long battles where you can use "your own brilliant tactics" - ie you don't have "the time" to ;)

Regarding protecting mountain passes i would think that you can build an outpost here in order to controll whos comming through.

but this is what I think - maybe it's totally different :confused:

[Frank Fay]

Deciding which battle to lead by your own is a strategic decision.

[KOSKnight]

most all games have strategy to em just depends on how well the person who is playin plays and how good of a strategist he/she is :)

[Pikeman]

What I am talking about is more room for manouvre. If you can only move armies from province to province, I don't call that a very strategical game. If you can move your men to the extent of finding a good battle ground, if you can build temporary bridges, or if you can plan ambushes and patrols, then I'm talking about real strategy. All I'm asking is: How strategical will it be in KoH?

P.S. Welcome, KOS!:cheers:

[Jerome]

the difference between strategy and tactics can be a matter of debate. but maybe some other time..

i think KoH will be more strategy orientated. like the Devs said before; you can play the game without having to worry about the micro-management. Does that not mean that it will basicly be played on a strategic level?

:cheers:

[Henrik]

Originally posted by Jerome
the difference between strategy and tactics can be a matter of debate. but maybe some other time..


IMHO: stragtegy is when you set a goal - tactics is the means you use to achive that goal ;)

[greywulf]

KoH will involve ambushes, river crossings, and defense of mountain passes like you say, though we don't know most of the details about them yet. There's also the day/night cycle which seems to have a good "strategic" effect on your troops.

[Henrik]

Originally posted by greywulf
KoH will involve ambushes, river crossings, and defense of mountain passes like you say, though we don't know most of the details about them yet. There's also the day/night cycle which seems to have a good "strategic" effect on your troops.

One could also say that in order to defeat an invading army, your best strategy would be to attack at night by using an ambush/hit-and-run tactics ;)

I think that we have talked enough of the diffinitions of the verbs Strategy & tactics :rolleyes:

:D

[Jorghan]

Originally posted by Henrik


I think that we have talked enough of the diffinitions of the verbs Strategy & tactics :rolleyes:



Those are not verbs, the are substantives. :D

[Pikeman]

Let's stop arguing. We all know they're nouns:p.

[Henrik]

Originally posted by Jorghan
Those are not verbs, the are substantives. :D

I did sorta ask for THAT one myself :blush: - didn't i :D

[King Yngvar]

Hopefully, the battles will need strategy, unlike Rise of Nations where you just sent in the forces and went back to the economy.

[Angryminer]

Battles feature all the cool stuff from today's RTS-games... terrain-advantage, morale, scissor-stone-principle, etc.
That's what gives the skirmish-MP it's sense.

Angryminer

[Henrik]

Originally posted by Angryminer
Battles feature all the cool stuff from today's RTS-games... terrain-advantage, morale, scissor-stone-principle, etc.
That's what gives the skirmish-MP it's sense.

Angryminer

I'm a bit affraid that you just seemed to be carried away back there Angryminer, coz we haven't really been told much about the terrain advantage yet - as far as i can recall we "only" know that archers will get an advantage when they shoot from towers - I would also like to see reduced line-of-sieght when battles occur in terrain where there are trees and hills ;)

[Angryminer]

As you said, the above statement is true because of those archers (I gave that some thoughts before posting, too). ;)
There is a screenshot called "Ambush" or something like that, with some cavalry hiding near a forrest. But I personally don't think that our units will have a line of sight in close combat. Most surely we'll be able to see every soldier in the place, even the enemy's.
But please note that this is just a personal believe.
Anyway, a real line of sight which recognizes terrain and objects would be pretty cool.

Angryminer