This is a silly post to the core.

Both games have players managing abilities on cooldowns.  Offensive and defensive.  Teams with strong leadership and organization win battles against teams that just "zerg".  Blah blah blah.  Warhammer isn't some tactical simulator and plays just like most MMOs. 

I'll grant that the design of "tanking" in pvp is a nice addition and perhaps my favorite twist, but I don't see some tactical breakthrough that didn't already exist in other MMOs.  For example, putting skirmishers [stealthers] on the enemy teams healers isn't exactly a new concept. 

At the end of it all I just don't see how this game is any more tactical than than the next game with hotbars and cooldowns.  The objectives might take more organizing to get under way, but I bet the same big winners in this game are the same people that acceled in WoW. 

Honestly the most important tactic in the game seems to be focus firing down your enemy since there are so damn many stalemant/attrition encounters between classes. 

[edit: I forgot to mention collision detection which is nice and I really enjoy it, but I don't think it adds enough to claim some tactical superiority over another game] 

Originally posted by Meridion

Originally posted by wjrasmussen

Didn't WOW have organized groups who would fight PUGs in those BG(?). 

 

The problem in WoW was the lack of real goals, in Alterac you could zerg the whole BG, because it was mainly a PvE instance with enemy players. In Warsong the healer and the rogues carried the flags, while the rest bashed heads no need for larger tactical decisions and Arathi basin, well, this was the only one that required a minimum of human resource management to be successful.

Still, all BGs, like the scenarios in WAR, are just nice little minigames to level or do something different. World RvR is the meat! WoW does not have this, at all...

M

Those kind of differences are important to S&T games.  I wish more attention was paid to military history and taking objectives, however, games are more arcade-like than military-like in how they are built.  Part of it is also players and how they don't like PITA situations in games.

Allow one side to destroy a bridge and force the other side to have a 30 minute hike to get somewhere as a result is something which would be cool in a military campaign game, but would be highly complained about by players.

Sadly, I imagine the followship of the ring using today's mmorpg player base would have a lot of complaints about travel time and demands for ports or flight paths to mount doom.

I have played both and i love both and i have to say after getting my white lion to 28 and various other classes its not very tactical at all. Unless your saying tactics are killing the healers first and then whatever after. They have Cds and stuff. I do believe that WAR got PvP right compared to WoW, and they should have as thats what the game is about PvP. But in the end both are pretty much zerg  fests coming down to lvl and gear (be is arena for wow or renown for WAR). I cant speak for lvl 40 in WAR as i havnt gotten there but im sure many things change. None the less. From what ive seen and played thats what it boils down to. Best of luck to both games but ill be playing WoW because my system cant properly play WAR. GL everyone have fun in your games.

I guess people have different ways of looking at the word's "tactics and strategy"

If you ask me this game has anything but strategy, ive yet to be in a battle in which players actually developed a plan to use on the enemy, or anything similar to 8v8/zerg groups in Daoc.

WAR does have logic to it, that being casters in the back, tanks in the front, don't let anyone through. Thats just obvious.

I remember back in open beta our zerg constantly getting wiped by just 1 or 2 groups because they had guys flanking us everytime we started a fight, something like that I would consider strategy.

I don't think its that WAR doesn't have strategy, its that the players don't have it.

Does zerging count as a tactic? If so you are 100% correct

As a military Officer (indeed - hard to believe perhaps). :)))

I can say that military strategy and tactics hardly exist in PvP games AT ALL.
I know ONE on line game which had a rather accurate model of FIBUA (Fighting in build up areas) and that was Close Combat #1 back in 1996.

Why? Because it had a very ingenious system of morale and consisted of a company ranged force (WW2 Normandy scale of each 2D map 500 meters to 2000 meters).
Internet battles never lasted longer than 15 to 20 minutes after which one force broke due to morale (losses of about 25% were enough).

Useless to say that the next in that series CC2, CC3 etc were nothing more than advanced childish Warcraft like RTS games, which lacked completely the military morale rules of the original. But graphics primes everything so they sold.

But stating that both War and Wow have even the basics of military strategy is a laugh because of COMPLETE lack of morale rules and death respanws on the fly.

PUG's in both games exist, but even these groups lack completely the military structures needed to have any decent strategy and tactics compared to real warfare. And there is of course a complete lack of morale rules within the battle system.
 

Originally posted by bodypass

As a military Officer (indeed - hard to believe perhaps). :)))

I can say that military strategy and tactics hardly exist in PvP games AT ALL.
I know ONE on line game which had a rather accurate model of FIBUA (Fighting in build up areas) and that was Close Combat #1 back in 1996.

Why? Because it had a very ingenious system of morale and consisted of a company ranged force (WW2 Normandy scale of each 2D map 500 meters to 2000 meters).
Internet battles never lasted longer than 15 to 20 minutes after which one force broke due to morale (losses of about 25% were enough).

Useless to say that the next in that series CC2, CC3 etc were nothing more than advanced childish Warcraft like RTS games, which lacked completely the military morale rules of the original. But graphics primes everything so they sold.

But stating that both War and Wow have even the basics of military strategy is a laugh because of COMPLETE lack of morale rules and death respanws on the fly.

PUG's in both games exist, but even these groups lack completely the military structures needed to have any decent strategy and tactics compared to real warfare. And there is of course a complete lack of morale rules within the battle system.
 

 

Officers are idiots. Always have been.  Ill respect a NCO before Ill give a sh*t about some officer. I remember a guy in my unit thru a grenade into the officers tent. Thats what they get for shiping him off when he was suppose to get out in a matter of weeks.

To the OP I agree. Dont mind the haters, there just mad cause noone makes games for them anymore.

Nono it's not about the cool down. I agree with the OP that this is tactical. The enemies NPC move in a more realistic strategic way. If you kill an NPC that's behind a barcade or something others run around from location to location to fill spots while others patrol. The only thing in WoW is "Patrols" but in this NPCs move around in a combat ready type way.... it' makes it more challening sometimes frustrating but always more rewarding and exciting.

In the business world strategy is what objectives you decide to meet.

For example, a company may pursue a mass production strategy in which its objectives are large econimies of scales. That is one strategy for profit.

Another is product differentiation, in which your objective is establishing a brand name or catering to a niche. The tactics ar ethe short term variables you change to reach these objectives. For example, how much you will ivnest in marketing vs. a competitor's investment  in marketing.

What this translates to in war in wow is simply what the point of each match is. There is no other strategy. It's not like in chess where you can win several different ways. You either kill the other players or capture some territory. It's not like a war wher eyou can poison their watersupply, or set up assassinations, or sabotage markets, etc.........The strategy simply is the core game mechanics. Now some games might make it so you can win two different ways, this would in a sense almost be two different strategies, however, usually there is an optimul way to win every time, and this is known to all players, and once adopted, this is the strategy for winning, it never changes.

Tactics, on the other hand are short term variables that can be changed, for example, race/class combinations, physical formations in battle, attack sequences, combo sequences, all these decisions are short term and conditional. But what is not are the overal goals, and these goals are the strategy, which in mmorpg is the same every time you log on, it never changes...so in a sense the strategy is the same for every, its not an rts its an mmorpg....

Originally posted by bodypass

As a military Officer (indeed - hard to believe perhaps). :)))

I can say that military strategy and tactics hardly exist in PvP games AT ALL.
I know ONE on line game which had a rather accurate model of FIBUA (Fighting in build up areas) and that was Close Combat #1 back in 1996.

Why? Because it had a very ingenious system of morale and consisted of a company ranged force (WW2 Normandy scale of each 2D map 500 meters to 2000 meters).
Internet battles never lasted longer than 15 to 20 minutes after which one force broke due to morale (losses of about 25% were enough).

Useless to say that the next in that series CC2, CC3 etc were nothing more than advanced childish Warcraft like RTS games, which lacked completely the military morale rules of the original. But graphics primes everything so they sold.

But stating that both War and Wow have even the basics of military strategy is a laugh because of COMPLETE lack of morale rules and death respanws on the fly.

PUG's in both games exist, but even these groups lack completely the military structures needed to have any decent strategy and tactics compared to real warfare. And there is of course a complete lack of morale rules within the battle system.
 

 

I have to disagree here completely with you.

Morale and organizational structures do exist in this game - but they are up to the players.

On a tactical level keep battles are won almost exclusively through morale - if the participant players loose the will to win they are toast... and this is where leadership comes into play. Just one player within a warband who manages to project authority is usually enough to ensure victory.

As for strategy - the campaign-level operations - when you look at the WAR campaign as a whole, multi-level organizational structures definitely come into play. Multiple warbands coordinating on multiple fronts attacking/defending different keeps and objectives are a really effective way of beating a more numerous but disorganized opponent.

There is no comparison between WAR and WoW on a STRATEGIC level. WAR has a strategic level and WoW doesn't. Heck, the whole game is one huge campaign with multiple fronts and objectives within them.

Yes, you can play it as a game of chess - I personally led an order warband with an attendant group which managed to steal and hold 2 keeps almost simultaneously under destruction noses even though they outnumbered us 2-1 at least (and during primetime). I was able to use feinting and strategic reconnaissance for example - I got lucky with a pug WB which actually did listen to my suggestions - thanks to a few of my guildies among them. I played the role of strategic leader and was lucky enough to have two other guys who had a good tactical knowledge (they actually knew how to take keeps and took over leadership when the actual siegings begun).

/add

as for "deah respawns on the fly". In WAR world RvR run routes from warcamps to the points of conflict play the role of  supply lines. Yes, actually the game is set up to have a logistical component. A viable tactic is to set up a harassing group or two with strong CC to patrol these supply lines and cut off the reinforcements.

Originally posted by markoraos

Originally posted by bodypass

As a military Officer (indeed - hard to believe perhaps). :)))

I can say that military strategy and tactics hardly exist in PvP games AT ALL.
I know ONE on line game which had a rather accurate model of FIBUA (Fighting in build up areas) and that was Close Combat #1 back in 1996.

Why? Because it had a very ingenious system of morale and consisted of a company ranged force (WW2 Normandy scale of each 2D map 500 meters to 2000 meters).
Internet battles never lasted longer than 15 to 20 minutes after which one force broke due to morale (losses of about 25% were enough).

Useless to say that the next in that series CC2, CC3 etc were nothing more than advanced childish Warcraft like RTS games, which lacked completely the military morale rules of the original. But graphics primes everything so they sold.

But stating that both War and Wow have even the basics of military strategy is a laugh because of COMPLETE lack of morale rules and death respanws on the fly.

PUG's in both games exist, but even these groups lack completely the military structures needed to have any decent strategy and tactics compared to real warfare. And there is of course a complete lack of morale rules within the battle system.
 

 

 

I have to disagree here completely with you.

Morale and organizational structures do exist in this game - but they are up to the players.

On a tactical level keep battles are won almost exclusively through morale - if the participant players loose the will to win they are toast... and this is where leadership comes into play. Just one player within a warband who manages to project authority is usually enough to ensure victory.

As for strategy - the campaign-level operations - when you look at the WAR campaign as a whole, multi-level organizational structures definitely come into play. Multiple warbands coordinating on multiple fronts attacking/defending different keeps and objectives are a really effective way of beating a more numerous but disorganized opponent.

There is no comparison between WAR and WoW on a STRATEGIC level. WAR has a strategic level and WoW doesn't. Heck, the whole game is one huge campaign with multiple fronts and objectives within them.

Yes, you can play it as a game of chess - I personally led an order warband with an attendant group which managed to steal and hold 2 keeps almost simultaneously under destruction noses even though they outnumbered us 2-1 at least (and during primetime). I was able to use feinting and strategic reconnaissance for example - I got lucky with a pug WB which actually did listen to my suggestions - thanks to a few of my guildies among them. I played the role of strategic leader and was lucky enough to have two other guys who had a good tactical knowledge (they actually knew how to take keeps and took over leadership when the actual siegings begun).

/add

as for "deah respawns on the fly". In WAR world RvR run routes from warcamps to the points of conflict play the role of  supply lines. Yes, actually the game is set up to have a logistical component. A viable tactic is to set up a harassing group or two with strong CC to patrol these supply lines and cut off the reinforcements.

You never saw a guy killed by a bomb next to you did you ? Well I saw a captain killed by a .50. His chest was gone. It isn't even allowed in the Geneva convention.

In your game. You die and go fight again within 30 seconds. And if you are TIRED of the mindless headbashing you leave the game.

That kind of mechanism has nothing to do with warfare, it has everything to do with being bored of dying.

Bored.

Originally posted by bodypass

Originally posted by markoraos

Originally posted by bodypass

As a military Officer (indeed - hard to believe perhaps). :)))

I can say that military strategy and tactics hardly exist in PvP games AT ALL.
I know ONE on line game which had a rather accurate model of FIBUA (Fighting in build up areas) and that was Close Combat #1 back in 1996.

Why? Because it had a very ingenious system of morale and consisted of a company ranged force (WW2 Normandy scale of each 2D map 500 meters to 2000 meters).
Internet battles never lasted longer than 15 to 20 minutes after which one force broke due to morale (losses of about 25% were enough).

Useless to say that the next in that series CC2, CC3 etc were nothing more than advanced childish Warcraft like RTS games, which lacked completely the military morale rules of the original. But graphics primes everything so they sold.

But stating that both War and Wow have even the basics of military strategy is a laugh because of COMPLETE lack of morale rules and death respanws on the fly.

PUG's in both games exist, but even these groups lack completely the military structures needed to have any decent strategy and tactics compared to real warfare. And there is of course a complete lack of morale rules within the battle system.
 

 

 

I have to disagree here completely with you.

Morale and organizational structures do exist in this game - but they are up to the players.

On a tactical level keep battles are won almost exclusively through morale - if the participant players loose the will to win they are toast... and this is where leadership comes into play. Just one player within a warband who manages to project authority is usually enough to ensure victory.

As for strategy - the campaign-level operations - when you look at the WAR campaign as a whole, multi-level organizational structures definitely come into play. Multiple warbands coordinating on multiple fronts attacking/defending different keeps and objectives are a really effective way of beating a more numerous but disorganized opponent.

There is no comparison between WAR and WoW on a STRATEGIC level. WAR has a strategic level and WoW doesn't. Heck, the whole game is one huge campaign with multiple fronts and objectives within them.

Yes, you can play it as a game of chess - I personally led an order warband with an attendant group which managed to steal and hold 2 keeps almost simultaneously under destruction noses even though they outnumbered us 2-1 at least (and during primetime). I was able to use feinting and strategic reconnaissance for example - I got lucky with a pug WB which actually did listen to my suggestions - thanks to a few of my guildies among them. I played the role of strategic leader and was lucky enough to have two other guys who had a good tactical knowledge (they actually knew how to take keeps and took over leadership when the actual siegings begun).

/add

as for "deah respawns on the fly". In WAR world RvR run routes from warcamps to the points of conflict play the role of  supply lines. Yes, actually the game is set up to have a logistical component. A viable tactic is to set up a harassing group or two with strong CC to patrol these supply lines and cut off the reinforcements.

 

You never saw a guy killed by a bomb next to you did you ? Well I saw a captain killed by a .50. His chest was gone. It isn't even allowed in the Geneva convention.

In your game. You die and go fight again within 30 seconds. And if you are TIRED of the mindless headbashing you leave the game.

That kind of mechanism has nothing to do with warfare, it has everything to do with being bored of dying.

Bored.

 

 

 

WAR is a game FYI. It is not a modern warfare simulator designed to harden troops before actual engagements. It is a multi-level war game.

And FYI your war traumas are of no import to this discussion. I sympathize but you shouldn't be pulling heavy personal artillery into the fray because I've got some of my own... and it wasn't a captain that got it in my case but people much closer to me. Sorry but you Americans never experienced actual warfare on your own soil since the civil war 150 years ago so forgive me if I find your trauma with the captain not really impressive at all. Maybe that is the reason US public is so keen on supporting "war" presidents and us Europeans are more into peaceful solutions.

This is a war game. And I like it precisely because it is a game with glowy special effects and groovy elves and orks rather than a realistic simulator thing because I couldn't bear it that way.

 There is no more strategy in WAR than there is in WoW/AOC or any other game out atm. The closest I can think of is EVE, but even then ultimatly it just comes down to numbers.

Saying there is strategy in WAR is laughlable. The side with most numbers win, simple as that.

Originally posted by Raztor

 There is no more strategy in WAR than there is in WoW/AOC or any other game out atm. The closest I can think of is EVE, but even then ultimatly it just comes down to numbers.

 

Saying there is strategy in WAR is laughlable. The side with most numbers win, simple as that.

This is simply not true as demonstrated many times.

It would be true if WAR was fought over one keep. However if you look at the game area as a whole the strategic level is demonstrably present.

Sadly 90% of the players I encountered in the game so far are unable to see beyond the particular pairing or even keep they are in and they do get the impression that if there is too much opposition locally that there is no chance of winning. However this couldn't be further from the truth because WAR is fought on multiple fronts. 

Just persuade your warband to rush into another pairing which is weakly defended and here you go - basic blitzkrieg. WoW and AoC don't have anything comparable to this and it is just one of the most basic strategies this game is capable of supporting. Only EVE has a comparable level of strategic complexity built-in into the game world.

With time more players will become aware of WAR's strategic component and we'll see much more interesting situations on the global battlefied arise than what is the norm right now.

 I wouldn't call that strategy Mark, just moving away from the opponents to attack somewhere that no one is defending and no one cares about is simply running away from the battle. The OP is talkingn about strategy in terms of battle strategy, ie using tactics, pincer attacks, using tanks to block stairways and so on. 

So far I have haven't encountered any of this in WAR (or in any other MMO for that matter). 

 haha that made me laugh, tactical lol funny guy. 

I cant even give my account away lol 

HAHA.

"war is about tactics and strategy". hahaha.. how many of you kids are still kidding yourself this game is not about the big zerg steamrolling the smaller zerg?

war is tactical is the biggest BS I have heard in this game. I love war but it sure isnt any tactical at all:

1. There is hardly any reactionary to the skills I use as a WE. I spam same combo over and over again without paying attention to my opponent and still works fine.

2. the open RvR is nothing byt outnumbering the others. There are not tactics. We rush, we steamroll Order and we repeat. No tactics, no strategy.

And these kinds of threads popping up going "this is about strategy" only proves people like me correct. You must feel so insecure that you need to repeat this over and over again and hope to fool yourselves.

Just enjoy the big zerg fest, nothing wrong with the zerg, personally I love it!!

Originally posted by Raztor

 I wouldn't call that strategy Mark, just moving away from the opponents to attack somewhere that no one is defending and no one cares about is simply running away from the battle. The OP is talkingn about strategy in terms of battle strategy, ie using tactics, pincer attacks, using tanks to block stairways and so on. 

 

So far I have haven't encountered any of this in WAR (or in any other MMO for that matter). 

Oh really? Pray tell what is strategy or tactics by your account?

Don't make me laugh. So germans in 1940 didn't use superior strategy on campaign level when they sidestepped the Maginot line and thus won over the numerically and technologically superior french forces?

I suppose that is "running away from battle" for you then? I hope you play on destruction because you'll make my job much easier.

It is very simple:

In WAR tactical level is the keep or objective and its immediate surroundings. WAR has plenty to offer on that level - yes, flanking, pincer attacks, controlled retreat, supply line harrasment... all of this is possible, viable and welcome as means to accomplish victory. If you haven't encountered any of it yet in the game then make an effort and organize and lead your warband or guild. I know I did and I have to say we are winning 80%+ of the time whenever I'm around.

Strategic level is the campaign as a whole fought over different pairings, tiers and individual objectives concurrently. The ultimate strategic goal in the game is taking over the enemy's capital - just like in any other "total" war. I suppose WWII didn't have a strategic component because capital cities were the ultimate goals there as well? LOL.  In addition do not neglect the contribution of scenarios to zone control - they act as an additional dimension to mere territory ownership. In that sense scenarios take the place not entirely dissimilar to that of air superiority in modern warfare.

Originally posted by baso80

HAHA.

 

"war is about tactics and strategy". hahaha.. how many of you kids are still kidding yourself this game is not about the big zerg steamrolling the smaller zerg?

 

war is tactical is the biggest BS I have heard in this game. I love war but it sure isnt any tactical at all:

 

1. There is hardly any reactionary to the skills I use as a WE. I spam same combo over and over again without paying attention to my opponent and still works fine.

Have you even read my post? I SAID it was less of a CC, stun, when-if-else-skills than other games, focusing on team tactical, not strategical decisions. While you, as a witchelf, will surely use Kiss of Death and silence-cut against casters while trying to maintain high DPS against tanks (which is surely not "spamming the same combo over and over agein", if you do, learn to use the skills please), I SAID 1 vs 1 is a very un-tactical issue in this game. Like in RL, when you start a fight with someone you pretty much both end up with bruises and bleeding noses.

2. the open RvR is nothing byt outnumbering the others. There are not tactics. We rush, we steamroll Order and we repeat. No tactics, no strategy.

Just untrue, if Order defends a keep with a zerg mentality, you can steamroll the order zerg. Granted. if Order defends a keep clever, you will fail, up to an advantage in numbers of roughly 3:1.

But let's get to meat of tactical possibilities or a defender party, already in tier 2:

- Assigning taskforces that attack assault party's siege weapons and players that use them.

- Assigning taskforces that flank and interrupt the ram users by exiting through the backdoor and range dpsing them.

- Using artillery type weapons to interrupt ram usage.

- Forming a tank/heal group that exits the main door and attacks the tanks that use the ram while a dps group goes through the backdoor and flanks the enemy dps/heal department

- When the assaulting group is already in the keep, wait for NPC respawn send stealth units down and let them attack with the NPCs, so in the general confusion they can interrupt the healers, at the same time storm the entrance floor with a tank/ranged DPS force

- When the assaulting party wants to storm the second floor, block the stairs with 3, 4 well positions tanks. Will work, I promise.

Boils down to, if you, as a zerg, try to steamroll a keep where a warband of my guild or any other guild with - magic word here - COMMUNICATION defends, you will need 3 or 4 times the people we have to even get into the damn thing, because we won't let you use the ram, flank you, kill your lonely siege weapon guys and break your line and hand your ass to you.

you think zerg works because you only zerg against a zerg. zerg against a real team and you lose, once again promised.

 

 And these kinds of threads popping up going "this is about strategy" only proves people like me correct. You must feel so insecure that you need to repeat this over and over again and hope to fool yourselves.

 

Just enjoy the big zerg fest, nothing wrong with the zerg, personally I love it!!

M

Originally posted by Azrile

Sounds great in theory except that

1.  RvR is totally about numbers.   Tactics won't help you win when you are vastly outnumbered, and there is no time/need for tactics when you are steamrolling.  The vast majority of RvR battles are so lopsided that nobody even bothers with 'tactics'.   On the rare occasion that you do end up with an even match, by the time you do realize tactics could help, things are so chaotic that it's hard to put anything into action... it's like trying to 'outflank' your opponent after all your troops are already in a big cluster in the middle of the field.

2. Scenarios are so small and fast that again.. simply 'zerging' is the best tactic.

You can theorize all you want, but if you actually played the game you'd see the majority of battles/scenarios require no tactics, which is why nobody bothers with them.  It doesn't help that the chat system is terrible.

QFT