How do I get into strategy games /v/? I don't think I've

>>367672579
>(I'm of course talking about the real time battles)
You know you can pause the battles right?

>>367672852
Yes. And that has nothing to do with any of my post.

We're talking about battlefield theory here, not game mechanics to make situations easier to manage.

>>367673023
>Combat mission is turned based
>You could play TW games in a semi-turned based way to get a grasp of the tactics.
This is why you were an 11B anon.

>>367672579
Total War pretty much just involve flanking and spamming hammer and anvil for 90% of the games. Everything after the first two games has a mindlessly easy campaign for the most part as the game quickly snowballs in your favor.

>>367673353
You're trying to insult me when you're the moron lacking reading comprehension.

NOTHING in my post has anything to do with whether or not a game is turn-based or rtwp. I'm interested in the THEORY of battlefield tactics.

I knew I was going to get a few teenagers and neets in here, but I was hoping at least someone competent would comment in this thread.

>>367673467
Sure, I've won battles in Total War series by doing things like hiding cavalry in the trees then sending them behind a unit, but I want to know more of the theory behind battlefield strategies.

It's not about specific games or whether or not you thought they were difficult. Again, it's about the theory behind this type of warfare.

>>367673892
>You're trying to insult me
No, I am.
>you're the moron lacking reading comprehension.
Your post stated you were shit at the TW series, my post was suggesting a means of correcting that. You also asked for literature which would help. You are in /v/, not /k/ and you call my reading comprehension bad.

If you served as any kind of half decent 11B you should have observed how different weapons systems and the use of formations and terrain can be used in combat. If you are as dumb as a fucking rock and can't do that I'm glad you discharged/got kicked out.

>>367673892
/v/ is one of the most immature boards on 4chin.
Full of teens and nignogs.

>>367672579
Not sure if real world tactics apply to well in video game form as they depend on understanding how your opponent thinks. Putting that logic against an AI gives very simple and repetitive tactics.

But it mainly comes down to speed and adaptability. Try reading up on anything about Napoleon. 33 Strategies of War is also pretty good.

Hope that helps.

>>367672579
Put soldiers in a line equal or bigger than the enemy's
Put reserves behind them
Flank with spare divisions
Congrats you're Nappy now

>>367674710
The mention of TW was obviously in passing and an example of the type of battlefield tactics I am talking about.

And not a damn thing learned in modern military tactics applies to formations of infantry, cavalry, and archers in medieval warfare.

Quit projecting. I can tell you're a loser that's never done anything with your life. I served my two years and went straight to college and I'm working through grad school now. Does knowing all of that bring out those insecurities? Whatever problems you have in your life, I'm not the cause, and you'd be better off directing your frustration and regret at yourself. This is a board for video games--something that is purely entertainment. Perhaps you could do with a bit of introspection.

>>367674901
Yeah, I took basically the same thread and posted it on /lit/ and got some wonderful discussion and suggestions in only three posts. This place is shit.

>>367676043
>Put soldiers in a line equal or bigger than the enemy's

When you say this, are you saying that a larger line is more effective because it can collapse around the opposing formation? Wouldn't there be a risk of spreading your soldiers to thin to where initial contact results in men being forced to fight 3-on-1 or 2-on-1?

File: IMG_0526.jpg (4MB, 5152x3864px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 5152x3864px

>>367676705
>And not a damn thing learned in modern military tactics applies to formations of infantry, cavalry, and archers in medieval warfare.
The use of terrain, how weapons systems can/should be employed was as relevant then as it is now anon. Should you be bothered to actually read any literature someone recommends you'll realise this.
>I served my two years
Good. Now don't re-enlist. If you didn't take even a passing interest in your job we're all better off.
>This is a board for video games
True. Which is why you should never have made this thread.

>>367677872
>Australian

Hahahahahaha. Holy fuck. Thank you so much. This is wonderful. Fucking Aussies. God damn.

>>367677872
lol cute

>>367676926
Sorry I'm not theory fighting

Study On War by Carl von Clausewitz

>>367673467
flanking; spamming hammer and anvil and proper use of ranged assets is most of military theory though

it's just that air has added a whole new dimension (and when air control is uncontested airstrikes are usually your hammer with mobile armour or entrenched infantry being your anvil) and artillery has a much larger range

Everything boils down to concentration of firepower (or other kinds of force application depending on era/game). Practice or watching people better than you is all you need.

HAMMER AND ANVIL