tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9319479.post110803183506884346..comments2024-03-07T15:32:53.014+02:00Comments on Yehuda: Puerto Rico Strategy vs TacticsYehuda Berlingerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16038826060312027387noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9319479.post-24323571319827857432010-11-26T11:32:16.023+02:002010-11-26T11:32:16.023+02:00I still think Puerto Rico is a (wonderful) tactica...I still think Puerto Rico is a (wonderful) tactical game where strategies are important, but not as tactics are. Two examples:<br /><br />* Risiko is more a strategic than a tactic game. During the game you make choices depending more on your ultimate goal than everything esle. Not much space is left to tactics because the mechanisms of the game are simple and there are not many alternatives a player can pick. I am not saying there is no tactics in Risiko, but strategy dominates tactics. If you choose a bad strategy it is difficult to compensate with your tactical skill.<br /><br />*Chess is a tactical game. Of course there are several strategies, but if you have great tactical skill you can win the game even if pick a bad strategy: you do not start fighting for the center but you still win because your opponent make more tactical mistakes than you, and you are able to capture more a lot of pieces.<br /><br />Of course, both in Chess and in Puerto Rico strategy is important. In particular, a good strategy is fundamental when players have more or less the same tactical skill. But usually the player with the best tactical skill is the player with the best chances to win in both games. In risiko the player who choose the right strategy is the player with the best chances to win the game.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17274345354638065916noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9319479.post-44865396186162593652008-02-09T20:15:00.000+02:002008-02-09T20:15:00.000+02:00"Of course, it's not Always that straightforward; ..."Of course, it's not Always that straightforward; sometimes you need to take a role here or there out of your strategy to prevent a calamity."<BR/><BR/>Exactly right, and this is when things get really interesting in board games. <BR/><BR/>At what point is a strategy a losing one, and how do you distinguish a setback from a calamity? I've been playing a lot of 1960: The Making of a President recently, and there are a lot of moments in the game where you have to either soldier on in spite of a bad turn or reconsider the map layout because of a mixed hand.Troy Goodfellowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02891972271809557897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9319479.post-69060101769009465262008-02-09T19:02:00.000+02:002008-02-09T19:02:00.000+02:00Thanks for the comments.I've written additional po...Thanks for the comments.<BR/><BR/>I've written additional posts about strategy and tactics, which I'll reference as I go on doing my Roundups.<BR/><BR/>To more understand the difference in Puerto Rico:<BR/><BR/>I might start with a strategy in PR of something like "30 points from buildings and 15 points in shipping". Then I will use opportunity's each round to achieve the strategy.<BR/><BR/>The problem with PR is that one's strategy becomes difficult to achieve as you win and lose battles. At which point you may make new strategies.<BR/><BR/>One mistake many players make is abandoning their strategy for what's best for them in a single round. Bad Bad Bad! If you need to win via building, you have to keep pushing that building button; every opportunity you pass up is more opportunity for the shippers to build up points. And vice versa.<BR/><BR/>Of course, it's not Always that straightforward; sometimes you need to take a role here or there out of your strategy to prevent a calamity.<BR/><BR/>YehudaYehuda Berlingerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16038826060312027387noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9319479.post-18082360565489402202008-02-09T18:51:00.000+02:002008-02-09T18:51:00.000+02:00"One of the things I'm exploring is phasing this o..."One of the things I'm exploring is phasing this out in favour of "real time" (for tactical) and "turn based" (for strategic)."<BR/><BR/>As a computer gamer, I plea for you not to do this Chris. It would further muddy the already contentious debate over whether traditional real time strategy games have any strategy. (I think that they do, similar to how Yehuda outlines strategy in PR) and there is no shortage of turn based games that are purely tactical. Best to keep to terms that are clearly connected and have their own baggage, like strategy/tactics, instead of bringing in someone else's bags as well.<BR/><BR/>I think part of the problem is that strategy does happen at different levels. Not that it is simply tactics writ large, it isn't. But when you think about Civilization or Diplomacy, people speak in terms of "grand strategy" - controlling which areas at which stage of the game. In this sense, strategy seems little different from a "plan.<BR/><BR/>Then you have the in-game strategy that Yehuda describes. In Caylus, for example, do you go for structures or gold or castle pieces, and when?<BR/><BR/>Adjusting to the realities on the ground is generally seen (per military history stuff) as tactics. Use of terrain is not that much different from counting cards.<BR/><BR/>In many games, I suspect, the distinction is purely academic. Games are about having options, and, ideally, limiting those of your opponent. To what semantic level they rise is beside the point.Troy Goodfellowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02891972271809557897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9319479.post-11072720358354057432008-02-09T15:49:00.000+02:002008-02-09T15:49:00.000+02:00Very impressive and instructive post about this be...Very impressive and instructive post about this beautiful game. Thanks for your insight.<BR/><BR/>LM<BR/>http://bordspellen.blogspot.comLHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650474943106372329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9319479.post-70486611855523762232008-02-08T17:31:00.000+02:002008-02-08T17:31:00.000+02:00Wish I knew this game well enough to comment direc...Wish I knew this game well enough to comment directly. :)<BR/><BR/>What caught my interest is the use of the terms "strategy" and "tactics", since I use "Strategic" and "Tactical" as terms in my play style work right now, following Temperament theory.<BR/><BR/>One of the things I'm exploring is phasing this out in favour of "real time" (for tactical) and "turn based" (for strategic). Obviously this *doesn't* work in a boardgame context, when the terms mean more what you imply here (although I dispute that one must have a strategy in order to deploy tactics - to which you could counter that no strategy is still a strategic choice! ;) )<BR/><BR/>One of the reasons I want to phase out the terms is because they are so overloaded, and so likely to be deployed with variable meaning. Real-time and turn-based are clearer - what's less certain at this time is whether I can use the contraction of "the Tactical skill set" to real-time play (in videogames) or whether this contraction will create a schism in what is meant by "the Tactical skill set".<BR/><BR/>This probably goes beyond sensible hope of discussion, though, because it gets into what Berens et al consider "the Tactical skill set", and so gets into psychological minutae. :(<BR/><BR/>Instinctively, I feel that boardgame *tactics* can still be solved by "the Strategic skill set" - in fact, your descriptions here are faint evidence of this. Can boardgame tactics be solved by "the Tactical skill set?" This, I am less sure.<BR/><BR/>Sorry, I've gone beyond the useful part of this comment, I fear. :)<BR/><BR/>Anyway, hope all is well!Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07550565723765898399noreply@blogger.com