Tactical vs Operational vs Strategic?

[Gary McClellan]

In your gaming, especially of this era, what's your preference?

Tactical- simulations of individual battles (or games with multiple battles in them)
HPS Napoleonics
Wellington's Victory
La Battille...

Operational: Simulations of a Campaign, turns from 4 hours to a few days
Adanac/Matrix games on the Jena and Wagram Campaigns
The legendary Zucker games (Napoleon at Bay, Napoleon in Italy, Struggle of Nations et al)

Strategic: Large scale simulations of the wars
Crown of Glory
Empires in Arms
War and Peace


I like a bit of a mix, but I have to say, I'd like to see more Operational games myself. The Adanac games never quite "got" me, but I love that scale.

[KG_RangerBooBoo]

I'd have to say the HPS games, mainly because I've never played any of the others. However, didn't I see where Matrix was getting really close to releasing PC Empire in Arms

[Gary McClellan]

I haven't checked the Matrix forums for awhile, bit it's been 9 months away for three years...

[FM WarB]

Tactical: Ah, Wellington's Victory,,,and Terrible Swift Sword. And Panzerblitz (my First wargame). I wore out alot of cardboard with these. The true ancestors of Talonsoft and HPS' tactical games.
Operational: Wacht am Rhein, Drang nach Osten, 1776, And Napoleon's last battles Quadrigame. I have not tried all the computer operational games, but none that I have tried, or not tried, based on users' feedback seem to hit the mark. It seems too often their attempt to combine both operational and tactical levels in one game causes them to fall short in both.
For the moment, I stick to tactical level computer games.