Damage Types: Pierce, Slash, and Crush

[st.patrik]

It is important to make a distinction betwen tactics and strategy - there is a very real distinction.

Tactics is about how to win against an opponent on the smaller scale - i.e. if I get this combination of attacks, placed at these locations, then I should be able to defeat 3 of his guys for every 1 of mine I lose. The current discussion is about adding a new tactical element (or increasing the tactical importance of certain factors). I think Warcraft III is a game with a lot of tactics, but next to no strategy.

Strategy on the other hand is big picture - i.e. assuming we have roughly equal losses [or whatever set proportion], where will I attack such that he is forced to open a hole in his defenses, etc. Risk is an example of a game which has strategy, but no tactics (i.e. you can't change the effectiveness of your armies in any particular battle at all).

This change would add to the tactical options, but would not, by definition, add to strategy at all. Maybe the doubt being articulated by several people could be explained as a desire not to turn the game into a primarily tactical exercise, but maintain the emphasis on strategy. Right now I think Dominions has a pretty good balance between the two - enough tactics that you can plan killer combinations of troops and of spells, and yet a certain amount of strategy - it's not just about fielding the largest, most effective army - it's also what you do with it.