How do you play tactics games?

[Kae]

So a simple question, I for example like to restart missions until I get perfect results[footnote]Basically until every single unit makes it out alive and depending on the game collecting all possible items before the battle ends.[/footnote].

In any case I would also like to know why, perhaps you are too attached to your units to let them die[footnote]Something Fire Emblem is excellent at this by giving each unit a story and personality, but this may also happen in games like X-Com where they have no other personality besides the one you project into them, it's also happened to me with random characters in Tactics Ogre but damn when I let Ivanna die in Knight of Lodis, that was awful because she was gone for good and I saved after, pretty sure I restarted the whole game because of that.[/footnote], maybe you just feel it's more authentic to live with the consequences of your actions, perhaps you are a perfectionist, regardless I think I would love to hear everybody's reasons for their style of play in this kinds of games, if you also want to share some experiences or which are your preferred games in the genre[footnote]It's a pretty wide area since there are so many different types though I think there may be more Tactics RPGs than anything else.[/footnote] I would love to read that too.

 

[shrekfan246]

I'm a bit of a perfectionist, but I think it's mostly because I've only really been playing tactical RPGs for the past year or two and am still utterly awful at them.

I do try to space out my leveling between characters just in case, but I'm not very comfortable with not having the safety net of being able to reload to an earlier state when something inevitably goes wrong.

As for favorite titles? XCOM: Enemy Unknown is an obvious answer, though I've got a great liking for Age of Wonders III as well. I've enjoyed what I've played of Disgaea and Fire Emblem: Awakening, but I need to play more of them, and there are a bunch of other games I still need to start like Final Fantasy Tactics and Jagged Alliance 2.

 

[3asytarg3t]

Unless I believe the dev designed the game based on the assumption you would repeatedly die and learn in which case I feel free to "game" the results by repeatedly playing an engagement till I get the results necessary to move the campaign forward, I tend to let the chips falls where they may.

As a result I actually routinely find myself losing. Games I play recently like this: Xcom, AOW3, all of the Total War series and sae for Combat Mission, list goes on an on.

In summary, I intend to play the game as I understand it was intended to be played, I may not always be spot on, not like I'm asking the devs first hand what they intended, but in general I want the difficulty to reflect what I perceive was designed and have no perfectionist or ego issues in repeatedly losing.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

So a simple question, I for example like to restart missions until I get perfect results

This is called "save-scumming".

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SaveScumming

Some games, like the new XCOM, tried to mitigate it by using a "fixed seed", so the same numerical calls happen in sequence regardless of reloading (leading a lot of people to erroneously believe the RNG was "broken"). Other games, like Civilization, allow you to turn that function off, allowing you to engineer your preferred "perfect result".

I prefer letting the chips fall where they may and living with the outcomes, but it depends on the game. The newer XCOM is extremely unforgiving to failure states on the strategic layer, which means you either play perfectly (and the game becomes easy/boring) or you play imperfectly and things rapidly spiral out of control. JA2 is a game where you can play imperfectly for the first half, but the difficulty curve turns into a difficulty cliff, and save-scumming becomes mandatory if you want to progress.

So, I'm flexible. I played XCOM on Ironman because it increased the tension, but I'm not above scumming in other games if I feel it will increase my enjoyment. I scummed like a madman in late-stage JA2, that game become hilariously punishing.

 

[veloper]

I rarely reload a session. I just restart when a game is starting to look hopeless.

 

[happyninja42]

I tend to restart the game if a teammate dies, simply because I don't like having them die. The other objectives I don't really care about much, but having squadmates or wingmen dying bothers me. I remember playing the Wing Commander games, and becoming a fucking badass pilot when it came to blowing people up, because I was determined to have everyone in my wing survive.

It actually made for some fun moments, like in Wing Commander: Prophecy, there is a mission where you are rescuing a squad of Kilrathi fighters/bombers. If you are badass enough, and slaughter the enemy forces quickly enough, they communicate their respect for your combat prowess during the fight. There was something very satisfying to have a giant, humanoid lion tell me it thought I was a badass. xD

 

[Savagezion]

I mostly like to let casualties happen as I feel it makes each game a more unique experience. That said, I will reload if I have a total team wipe or something sometimes in X-Com. Sometimes i will let a whole team get wiped though. (Mostly if they are all rookies)

It takes a total disaster or something I feel is completely unfair for me to reload. I have had times where on my turn EVERYTHING I do is ineffective despite holding a huge advantage. For example, imagine playing X-Com, 4 soldiers are still alive vs a heavily wounded muton with 1 or 2 health notches left. First guy moves into flanking position with 92% chance to hit 75% chance to critical and misses. Second guy does the same at 95% chance to hit. 3rd guy misses at 92% flanking position. 4th guy can't flank but gets a 74% chance to hit and misses. Now all are clustered and he throws a grenade and kills your team. Yeah, I tend to reload if stuff like that happens.

Or those fun moments where the LAST guy to move on your turn spawns 4 crysallids who run at you when spotted. Then its their turn, and they run up and get 2 guys right off the bat. Sometimes I just consider stuff like that a team wipe I find unacceptable and reload.

 

[FPLOON]

Step 1: Send out all the troops!
Step 2: Launch the Odama!
Step 3: Play some pinball!
Step 4: Shout commands!
Step 5: VICTORY!

Other than that, match the most offensive troops with the most defensive troops so that they compliment each other's combat styles, keep the long-range troops in the rear while having them make the first move, and then restart any battle if shit's not working in my favor... Works every time 100% of the time...

 

[Lufia Erim]

I'll live with the decisions i made. If i lose a unit in Fire emblem or final fantasy tactics I'll leave em dead. Also the fights not over until a game over screen comes up. At the very least I'll have leaned something.

 

[wings012]

Aggressively and savescummy as possible.

I used to be quite into the Nippon Ichi games, Disgaea, Phantom Brave etc. but never got a console after the PS2 so I'm quite behind in that regard. Also played the Game Boy Advance Fire Emblems.

X-COM: Enemy Within would be the most recent title I played. I favour the use of a lot of Assault class troops, using run and gun to get close and scoring a lot of quick kills. Snipers are worthless to me until Archangel Armour. The MECs were really fun too.

I'm not too into dragging my feet too much, making sure I don't expose enemies on my last soldier's turn and all that jazz.

Talk about fixed seeds, Fire Emblem totally had that going IIRC(you can savescum in FE with emulators and save states). There's still ways to scum around it though. If your attack would miss, just get another guy to move or attack first and then go back to him for a different result. Does limit how scummy you can be though.

 

[Rebel_Raven]

On n3ds mostly! Yay being away from home way too much!

I'll play according to whim. I can live with an imperfect run at times, at others, I'll just restart the battle. Also depends on the game and my goal.

 

[The Madman]

I try to keep myself from save-scumming too vigorously, sometimes even going so far as to use an Ironman mode if the game has one just to keep myself from the temptation of constantly trying over for the ideal results.

In a game like Fire Emblem a certain level of save-scumming is essential just because you'd be missing out on story otherwise, but for games like XCOM which have less definite characters I'll usually try to keep myself from being too cheap.

 

[tippy2k2]

The only time I have ever save-scrummed in Tactic games is when I played Valkryia Chronicles tired and neglected to see that an enemy was in position to kill the dancer of the group (sorry gal, I don't remember your name). I was tired and not paying enough attention and her "last words" absolutely broke my heart. I turned the game off (losing the progress I had in the battle but saving her).

Other than that, if you bite the dust, you stay dead. I am of the mind that a good tactics game is the kind of game that will fairly but brutally punish you if you make a mistake and to me, save scumming is making mistakes without taking your rightful punishments.

I do not disrespect people who do save scum but I will do my very best to resist that temptation, even if it costs me my game (Hi XCOM! [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/groups/view/Tippy2k2-s-XCOM-Army-Let-s-Play])

 

[WhiteFangofWhoa]

For Fire Emblem, I focus on training 12 to 16 units to elite status since most battles have a cap anyway. The rest will live or die on their own merits, though I will usually reset if I take more than 1 casualty per battle. My brother always goes for a perfect run but I haven't the patience for that. Ironically, I've been the worst at keeping Kellam alive in Awakening.

Final Fantasy Tactics has fewer characters and gives you a three turn grace period before permadeath, so I tend to only reset if someone gets crystallized, even if I have to use an inordinately large number of Phoenix Downs and other healing items to keep everyone up. Hey, they're there for a reason. I blew through like 20 on my low-level run at Golgorand Execution Site, but everyone made it through in the end.

Front Mission makes it costly to replace destroyed Wanzers, but no pilots can permanently die, plus 3 and 4 allow grinding on easy simulator missions if you're stuck. I suppose without that it would be technically possible to sink into so much debt from your losses that you can't buy the equipment for late game missions and get wiped out instantly.

Haven't tried XCOM, but I would probably be conservative about it since it is apparently possible to lose enough personnel and funds that the following battles are impossible and you can't grind.

Come to think of it, that might be an interesting premise- a 'survival' Tactical RPG with permadeath where after the first 10 story battles or so, you are given some kind of option to quit and start a new file with your resources and knowledge carried over, but the further you make it into the game without giving up, the better your ending becomes. Kind of like Dragon Quarter, but better executed with more variations on the 'bad ending' depending on how far you get.

 

[Scarim Coral]

On war related games like Suprememe Commander I usually take my time (unless there is a time restriction) and overwhelmed the enemy with sheer number! Yes I know this is not the best tactis at times but hey I played against the AI on easy mode!

For games like Fire Emblem, I tend to try to level up the new/ weaker/ lowest level characters first. When I get more characters than I can actually deployed I picked my favourite and the most useful/ better stats out of the lots. Also yes I do skirmishs to level their up and supports.

 

[Doom972]

It depends on the game. On XCOM, for example, I would usually let a rookie or two die. Later on I expand that rule to squaddies and even later on corporals. If I get most of my squad killed or get completely wiped out I restart/reload a save. On Fallout tactics I very rarely let anyone die, because I want to keep the soldiers I use.

My favorites of the genre are XCOM: Enemy Within, SWAT 4 and Fallout Tactics.

 

[Feraswondervahnn]

Really it depends on the game. In Fire Emblem I generally try to keep my main team around the same level, but with one or two characters a bit higher and a defensive play style. I'll only restart if I lose a favourite character. Command and Conquer Red Alert 2 on the other hand I play very aggressively, keeping constant pressure and using Spies in conjunction with the constant attacks.
Kessen was a favourite back in the day, and I played incredibly patiently and thoughtfully.

Something like Civ or Total War though depends on the team I am playing as. Rome Total War as the Brits is a great excuse for me to quickly dominate the map due to the Chariot Archers, but as Roman Factions I play much more slowly, just taking what I need.

 

[BeerTent]

Lately I've been addicted to XCOM.

Like there's this great hivemind collective, and it's like... [sub]xcom XCOM[/sub] xcom XCOM xcom XCOM!!

OH, GLORIOUS AND WONDERFUL TENT. I BESTOW NO FUCKING CHOICE TO YOU. YOU MUST INSTALL LONG WAR AND BEAT IT! XCOM NEEDS YOU! SAVE THE WORLD! SAVE YOURSELF!!

So, I've neglected my pet plant, and fired up XCOM. I've been playing it non-stop for like, 3 months. Even the girlfriend's gotten tired of it. Then again, she brought up FFT, so maybe not?

As for how I play it? Long War introduces a lot of bugs, so I do play bronzeman. Whenever I make a severe tactical fuck up which takes about 45% of my squad away, or a slew of bullshit occurs. However, I'm okay with making it through with a few severely wounded or one or two solders killed. Sometimes it's just not possible, and how am I going to learn if I never make mistakes?