Slitherine

My problem with tactical and many strategic games is that I suck at multitasking and I am easily frustrated. It's not so much that I don't understand general tactical principles (force concentration) or common tactical tricks (defeat in detail, etc.) but that I have no concept of how to implement them in relation to the enemy's movement and to keep track of how the various brigades actually relate to each other spatially.
I also have a terrible sense of space.

These last two issues are why I actually do better at real time, tracking how long different units and enemy units will take to get places on a IGYG turn game is just more effort than I even want to put into it.

I jive well with some games, and I like a lot of detail. I just don't do well at tactical games (or competitive ones) and would much rather be able to tell an AI to implement the general battle strategy instead of trying to do it solider-by-soldier (which is not only ineffective, in my case, but also utterly tedious).

Essentially, in a tactical game I want to be the general, not guiding my officers by the reigns and worrying about stupid crap that an actual field commander would do as a matter of rote. Equipping troops, setting up their order of battle, and so forth is fun; but I find actually moving them around unrealistically difficult (i.e. I make mistakes that even I, as a person who has only ridden a horse three times, would not make in real life). The 'situational awareness' that comes automatically to me in situ utterly defies me in the world of square movement.

This all relates to the fact that I kind of dig the roleplaying/history elements the most out of it. This is what attracts me to the grognard games, but I wish most of them had some kind of 'automated' feature for all the things I don't care about, or an easy mode that didn't still presume you're doing hex counting. Because I'm just not going to do that. Don't care.

I do very well at grand strategy games like Europa Universalis, because I can take things at my own pace. I also dislike being forced into wars, I like to take them at my leisure; which is usually possible in grand strategy games if you don't act too offensively but pretty much never in operational or tactical games, where being constantly attacked is the default assumption.

I really would much rather have an extremely historical sandbox rather than a game 'about' anything. This is why Hearts of Iron III doesn't interest me, I am done with WW2 games.

Just generally I don't want games anymore, I want the ability to engage in detailed self expression with mechanical systems. Because of my interest in history and strategy I am attracted to these games but I have to be realistic that I am not going to put effort into learning anything where the curve is going to get me killed. I'll just quit. A high learning curve is fine, but not if you have to know a bunch of minutia to eve perform in a mediocre fashion. The horrible tutorials of most niche games doesn't help anything, either.

I have never been competitive, and while a game should have some curve of difficulty I basically want it to be optional; i.e. in EU IV I get into wars because of my own finagling; or in Minecraft there's no danger unless I decide I want to get fancy things for my hut. That's the sort of challenge I want, an 'as you like' optional feature, rather than baked-in and inevitable. Another reason I am so done with WW2 games.

A very interestingly put argument in favour of non turn based

Myself, I find real time's biggest flaw, is there is nothing real about the way it uses time at all.

Not that I find turn based more 'real', but I have never claimed it was. But I like the Chess like aspect. I like the ability to examine and determine if such and such course of action had been taken would it have lead to superior results. Some games though, are set at too high a level of work load, and in the process the gamer is left wondering 'wasn't this supposed to be fun?'.

Battle Academy can be fun while War in the East is only going to be fun to an accountant.

I think your desire to be able to say to a unit, 'do this' and then not need to tell it to go from this hex to this hex to this hex over and over the whole way, might mean you might want to look into the games from Panther Games if you want credible real time feeling experiences. Battles from the Bulge is real time, but, your decisions must have a certain level of intelligent choice, because unlike the majority of real time designs, constantly changing your mind WILL be punished. The design enforces a chain of command which WILL be employed. There is no off mode for this.

But it is WW2, so it might have lost out on you if you wish to journey out of that time period.

I am not sure how to suggest something 'non competitive' though. I've watched my son play Starcraft 2. He studies other players intensely in videos of their games. He can tell precisely what they are going to build and how they are going to behave from just the smallest of indications in their initial choices. He's damned good, and playing him means you are most assuredly competing or you get most definitely trashed

I like Battle Academy for more or less the same experience, that being challenge, but, it happens in Chess like fashion, where I am attempting to make the best choices possible given the current situation. The board becomes known, the forces reasonably finite and the best choices not quite so numerous. I'd much rather challenge a person to Battle Academy than War in the East.

Some games simply do a better job of the same thing than others do it. I think over all, Steel Panthers is a great game, but too many of it's scenarios are a bit heavy in units and the map a bit large. Often given a choice, I find Battle Academy delivers the challenge more efficiently. Alas, Battle Academy has not had quite as many years to acquire quite as many settings and force selections as Steel Panthers has.

Some designs can offer a lot of differing settings. Same program under the hood though. Battle Academy likely could be scifi or fantasy genre with nothing more than new graphics. Tiger tank or Dragon, or Predator all essentially can be about the same thing eh.

Steel Panthers has a modern setting capacity, Battle Academy does not.

I am unsure how readily Battles from the Bulge can go post war modern in setting.
I know that Combat Mission has mastered the ability to be WW2 or Modern.

You might like the Close Combat design, it actually has a modern release as well. But it is not as well known as the WW2 offerings.
It has the advantage of finite maps, finite forces, and uses real time so you are not forced to hand hold units to every destination.

Have you played X-Com. That is turn using, but almost feels like real time once you get good at it. And it delivers quite a challenge and it isn't WW2 and is very immersive.

I really like the interface of Battle Academy, it was a fast pick-up for me, and I am playtesting Pike & Shot. Certainly the lack of overwhelming detail (which is usually stuff command staff would do in an actual battle or operational situation).
The annoyance at 'hex tracking' in turn based games is an ancient bane of mine, for example, I play Hearts of Iron and Europa Universalis paused most of the time. However, in that game a unit is either moving or not, and if I have intel on an enemy I can hover over him and it'll guestimate how long it will take him to reach a province. Because of the way orders are given, especially in individual-unit game (as opposed to a more leader/command structure oriented game, like the Great Battles of History series) there are way more possibilities about where the figurine is going to go.