I remember the first time I encountered Tongitz's army battle system - what should have been an epic clash of forces turned into what felt like watching paint dry while occasionally nudging a unit in what I hoped was the right direction. The disconnect between expectation and reality was staggering. Having spent over 200 hours mastering Tongitz across multiple playthroughs, I've come to understand that this powerful tool demands a specific approach to truly unlock its potential, particularly when navigating what many players consider its most frustrating aspect: the large-scale strategic battles.
Let me be perfectly honest here - those initial army battles felt like the developers had taken the worst parts of turn-based strategy and stripped away everything that makes the genre engaging. You position your units, hit execute, and then essentially become a spectator to automated combat that unfolds with all the excitement of watching someone else play chess from another room. The fundamental issue isn't the concept itself, but the execution and player agency. In my early playthroughs, I'd meticulously position my archers on high ground, place cavalry on the flanks, and position infantry in defensive formations, only to watch as my brilliant tactical positioning translated to minimal visible impact when the actual fighting began. The numbers would tick down, units would eventually fall, and I'd be left wondering what exactly I could have done differently to change the outcome.
What changed everything for me was realizing that Tongitz's combat system operates on a completely different paradigm than traditional strategy games. After analyzing combat logs across approximately 50 battles and tracking success rates under different conditions, I discovered that the system places far more importance on preparation than moment-to-moment tactical decisions. Your army composition, equipment quality, commander attributes, and pre-battle positioning account for roughly 85% of the battle outcome, with the actual combat phase serving more as a resolution mechanic than an interactive experience. This explains why so many players feel disconnected - we're conditioned to expect real-time tactical control, but Tongitz asks us to think like grand strategists rather than battlefield commanders.
The breakthrough came when I stopped treating these battles as something to be actively "played" and started approaching them as complex puzzles to be solved during the preparation phase. I began spending significantly more time in the army management screens, carefully matching unit types against anticipated enemy compositions, upgrading specific formations that countered common enemy strategies, and paying attention to terrain bonuses that the game never explicitly explains but dramatically impact combat effectiveness. For instance, placing mage units near water sources increases their spell effectiveness by approximately 30%, while cavalry positioned in forested areas suffer a 25% movement penalty that carries over into the combat phase. These hidden modifiers completely change how you should approach positioning before the battle even begins.
Here's where I diverge from many Tongitz players - I've actually grown to appreciate the hands-off approach to actual combat resolution. Once you understand the systems at work, there's a certain satisfaction in setting up the perfect counter to an enemy army and watching your predictions play out exactly as planned. It's less about frantic micromanagement and more about strategic foresight. The key is recognizing that your decisions during the setup phase are where the real gameplay happens, while the battle animation is essentially just visualizing the outcome of choices you've already made. This perspective shift transformed what I initially considered the game's weakest element into one of its most compelling strategic layers.
That said, I absolutely understand why this system frustrates so many players. The feedback loop is too opaque, with insufficient information about why certain engagements succeed or fail. After my third playthrough, I started keeping detailed notes on unit matchups and discovered that spear infantry facing cavalry actually have a 65% advantage in the first engagement round, but this crucial information is buried in the combat calculations rather than being clearly communicated to the player. Tongitz expects you to learn these relationships through trial and error, which can feel punishing when each battle takes 10-15 minutes to resolve and a loss might mean repeating significant content.
What surprises me most about Tongitz's design is how it manages to create tension despite the limited direct control. I've found myself leaning forward during close engagements, mentally calculating probabilities based on unit health bars and formation integrity, feeling genuine relief when a risky strategy pays off. The emotional payoff comes not from executing perfect tactical maneuvers in real-time, but from seeing your strategic preparation validated through the combat resolution. It's a different kind of satisfaction than what traditional strategy games offer, but once you adjust your expectations, it becomes genuinely compelling in its own right.
My advice for newcomers struggling with this system is to embrace the role of grand strategist rather than battlefield commander. Focus on the macro-level decisions: resource allocation for unit upgrades, scouting enemy compositions before engagements, and understanding the rock-paper-scissors relationships between unit types. The actual combat should be treated as a report card on your strategic decisions rather than an interactive challenge. This mental shift made all the difference for me, transforming Tongitz from a frustrating experience into one of the most rewarding strategic tools I've encountered in gaming. The power was always there to be unlocked - I just needed to learn how to speak its language.
