Does tactics play a role in PA micro?

I feel like this game needs a tactical approach when it comes to micro and strategy when it comes to macro. Micro number one priority should be tactics based not apm based. I assuming that the majority of us don't want a micro mechanics like starcraft 2, because of the PA larger scale requires higher amounts micro that the average player couldn't handle doing it on large quantity of units.
I describe myself a slow but extreme smart type of guy and I really think that the overall combination of tactics and strategy should be the main deciding factor, not apm.


So what do you think? Should tactics be a major role in micro strategy?

So, choosing the appropriate units, putting them in the right places, and timing attacks well?

If so, sounds reasonable.

Strategy: I will use gunships to escort my mobile artillery, using them to bombard the enemy's base.

Tactics: I will place my artillery on the top of a cliff side to shield them against enemy tanks.

Strategy and tactics must be the most-abused words on forums like this. Strategic thinking is about making judgment calls. Strategy is deciding what tasks are important and deciding how to allocate your resources to accomplish them.

Tactics is getting a specific job done with specific assets. Tactics is figuring out how to accomplish a task most efficiently. Your commander gives you a job to do, and a certain quantity of troops, hardware, and time to get it done. Typically it is to defeat an enemy army with as few losses as possible. But it may be to seize a position as quickly as possible, or to stall an enemy advance for as long as possible. Good tactics means you can get tasks done with less commitment, potentially allowing your forces as a whole to be in more places, and get more done as a whole.

Tactics typically involves more detail than strategy because tactics requires a much larger number of possible choices, and possible results, before it becomes interesting. If there are only a few tricks or techniques, or only a few factors involved in a confrontation, or if the outcome is basically determined already, then in tactical terms there isn't much to do for the player. The outcome was decided at the strategic level when resources were committed by both sides. Micromanagement is the player making a large number of decisions in a short time, requiring a large amount of input to communicate those choices. I think most players are fine with needing fast hands to communicate their selections for interesting decisions. However a lot of people really dislike Starcraft style micro, which frequently involves very repetitive or uninteresting combat execution, like manual abilities, dodging attacks, stutter-step, or kiting.



I want PA's increased scale to entire planets to also result in an increase in the scope of the game's strategic scale. Deciding where on the planet is important, how much of your economy to put into economy or military, or what type of military assets to build. Strategy is very large-scale, involving entire armies. Directing a battlegroup to attack a continent (or region within a continent if they are very large), deciding what types of assets a large army should have, etc. Strategic decisions about where needs what, when, and whether you have other concerns that might take precedence.

It should be a strategic mistake to send a huge group to do a job a few units could have done, since those units' time is wasted, while they could have been useful somewhere else. It is also a mistake to have too few units where the enemy is operating- such as sending too small a reinforcement group, causing an enemy's attack to succeed in destroying one of your bases. Having good information lets the player make better-informed strategic decisions, such as correct estimations of enemy movements and group sizes, and the player should be keenly aware of the need for intel, and the need to pay resources to get it, and to deprive the enemy of the same. Having extremely cheap and effective intelligence systems like SupCom radar and omni detracts from gameplay.

I also think PA should have a rich tactical level, where units are detailed, and small battles are interesting to watch and control, rather than the very boring, deterministic SupCom/FA skirmishes. Taking a base should be a tactical puzzle, not just a strategic one where you just throw a big enough blob at the enemy and it will succeed. That approach should work, but it is likely to cost you a LOT of units where a smarter method would have done the same job with less units (allowing you to make those units useful elsewhere) and with far fewer casualties.

So we will be able to active flank and things like that right?

umm...I don't know of a RTS where you can't flank.

With the game even as it is, the longer ranged more delicate units like artillery tend to be towards the back of groups. This means flanking is just inherently better as they can't bring their full power against you and you can hit all their damage dealing units instead of their chaff.

As far as i've heard, despite discussion there has been no mention as yet of statistical benefits for flanking.

I almost feel the need for AOE2's box formations to save them!

More generally, any force either static or mobile is going to have a shape of some kind. Maneuver to exploit the enemy's distribution of forces is what you're really after. Flanking is a name for a particularly common type of maneuver.

Often a line of battle is ideal, because it puts enemies in range of your guns and minimizes the amount of exposure to enemy guns. However a line depends on the enemy being in a specific direction. An enemy coming from the side will be able to focus their guns on the edge of your line, while the majority of your forces down the line are unable to fire at the enemy. "Crossing the T" is not exactly a "flank" which is more often used to refer to getting an enemy from a side where they have no cover, but it's a similar maneuver in some ways.

When units can turn instantly to face new opponents, it's hard to say that flanking exists.

As a type of tactic there should be the option of custom artillery barrage patterns, so that you can concentrate fire or blanket area or even do a creeping barrage.


Also with 40 person games as long as their is an easy alliance mechanic to avoid friendly auto fire "pincer" attacks might become very common.

Well even in that case, against AOE weapons flanking is the best way is mitigating the losses.

For one, I fully agree with ledarsi.
Very well said.

Another agreed here.

I'm thankful that, without "Higher-Tech = More Power", swarming will be much less viable against even the most basic of skill opponent with a few specialised units/defences.

Thing is about flanking is that, IRL, and in some games, it is done because an enemy is usually more vulnerable from the side or the back. Where is most of the armor on bulletproof suits? The vest, arms and legs. Where is most of the important mechanical stuff on a tank? The back. Where does a BattleMech have the least armor? The back. Where does an enemy keep his important Eco stuff? WAAAAY in the back.

Obviously there are some 'unflankable' things, such as Trenches or Land Raiders, or phalanxes of Baneblades, but you get my point. The point of flanking isn't to mitigate return fire, but to overwhelm an enemy and strike at his weak points while he/she cannot respond to the attack.

On that note, I'm all for weaker back armor on some Tanks and KBots. I'm also all for units shooting from cover, but it seems like that's impossible to do on an RTS this scale. *cough*InverseKinematics*cough*

Everyone here might not know what Land Raiders and Baneblades are.

No, micromanagement in PA should not require high amounts of apm, that something that in starcraft 2 that essentially determine the skill level of a player. I'm pretty sure that no one in PA community wants that.

From what I understand:

Strategy: How you plan on beating your opponent. Your grand scheme. This usually happens before the games starts. Example:

"I'm going to turtle, and grind him down with artillery."

Or

"I'm going to K-bot rush him."

Tactics: How you execute your strategy. This usually happens on the fly, or can be part of your strategy. Example:

"In order to get my dragonsteeth-walls up to turtle, I need to focus on building them, instead of wasting metal on tanks."

"Since I'm rushing K-bots, I need to build extra Energy-Towers before I take the extra metal deposits."

It's not the same.
What people generally don't like in Starcraft is that one decision need multiple actions. Like kitting. So you need a lot of constant action, even if you don't make any decisions.
PA should follow another path, trying to make that one decision only need one action.
But still, when the game become really intensive there should be a lot of orders to give.

red-herring
I was talking about the rate of apm itself not the what and why it is being used for.