tain.totalcodex.net

Posted: **Fri Jul 09, 2004 2:01 pm**

What's more important in competitive multi-player Myth games, strategy or tactics?

I consider strategy to be the the big picture type of planning. For example, deciding on a three-prong attack vs. an overloaded middle attack. Truly ffective strategy requires detailed knowledge about a map's layout, the strengths and weaknesses of different units, and the capabilities of the players on your own team. Good strategies also incorporate a number of contingencies -- for example, what should change if you execute a three prong attack but one of your flanks encounters no opposition?

Tactics are more like short-term problem solving. They involves micro-managing units and adapting quickly to ever changing battlefield. Good tactics usually involve a lot of on the spot improvising. I think two classic examples of pure tactics in Myth are Ghol pussing and warlock vs. warlock battles.

Of course you need both good strategy and good tactics to win consistently in Myth, but I'm curious about what your opinions are on the level importance of each. Is the average Myth game 10% strategy and 90% tactics, or is it closer to 50/50? Do you wish the game had more of one and less of the other? If your team's tactics are superior to your opponents' does strategy even matter? Does a team of average players with a superior strategy have a realistic chance of beating a more tactically skilled team that has no real plan?

Thanks for your comments!

Posted: **Fri Jul 09, 2004 4:31 pm**

I'd say both are equally important, but strategy is more important in the beginning and then end and tactics are more important on a situation to situation basis.
eg. Strategy is important in the beginning because you and your team have to know what to do, where to go, and how you want to work together. Once you hand out units and head off, tactics becomes important because you need to know how to react once you run into the other teams units. You need to know how to use the units that were given to you. Once both teams have met this is where they are both important. You need to know where you want to go (strategy), how you are going to do it with the available units (tactics) and what to do when facing your opponent (tactics). eg. you are trying to capture the other teams flag and get away and an opposing player is incoming on your left flank. Do you retreat, engage the other player, or run towards the flag, that's tactics. Planning your primary objective is strategy.

Posted: **Fri Jul 09, 2004 7:55 pm**

It depends on the map and gametype really.

Posted: **Fri Jul 09, 2004 9:49 pm**

strat is critical to all games, but easier to get mostly right. if you do an even 3-prong in team games, you are mostly right - you have given yourself the opportunity to win vs most opponents. if you pick a ballanced set of units in ffa you have an opportunity to win. any moron can do these things, or at least watch film of others and copy it. not everyone can apply themselves tactically in game.

it would be easy to say strat and tactics are 50/50 in importance, but better tactics will likely create a victory, and better strat will only improve your odds. tactics 80, strat 20.

Posted: **Fri Jul 09, 2004 11:29 pm**

I think igmo said it pretty well.

Posted: **Sat Jul 10, 2004 7:15 pm**

mauglir wrote:What's more important in competitive multi-player Myth games, strategy or tactics?

TFL is more strategy based. SB is more tactics based.

In most TFL games when the game started I generally had (had - i.e. I haven't really played TFL in the last several years) a good idea of where I wanted my units to be on the particular map based on map, gametype, and time left. Micromanaging of individual battles could have a significant effect, but in most cases within my experience the person who choses the circumstances (units, location) of the battle is going to win the game, regardless of the battles outcome.

In SB none of that really seemed to matter. Whoever could micromanage an individual fight the best had a huge advantage over the other team/player(s) - with unit clumping SB fights would tend to finish up much faster once one side was able to get a slight advantage over the other.

In other words:

TFL is less forgiving of strategic mistakes and more forgiving of tactical mistakes.

SB is more forgiving of strategic mistakes and less forgiving of tactical mistakes.

Posted: **Sun Jul 11, 2004 7:23 pm**

Heh, I don't know. I've been absolutely obliterated in TFL by opponents who deliberately initiated battle downhill from me an in a mixed up box formation, but micro'd their way to victory such that they hardly lost a unit. Due to lack of clumping there is a lot more that can be controlled tactics-wise in TFL, such that the gap between ho-hum players like me and really good players can be huge, regardless of strategy.

Posted: **Sun Jul 11, 2004 11:04 pm**

im gonna say teams 75% tactics 25% strategy and FFA 40% tactics 60% strategy.

Posted: **Mon Jul 12, 2004 1:34 pm**

hmm...as someone who reads alot of philosophy.. I would have to say..
Which ever team or individual had the most fun. For the most part, I agree with what Woden said..but hell what do I know..I camp!

tain.totalcodex.net

Strategy or tactics? - Discussing classic myth gameplay