Strategy and Tactics revisited
Author
I thought it''d be a good idea to get some feedback on what people think the differences are between strategy and tactics.
To start off, here is my explanation of the difference between the two:
Strategy is about generalship and about making your plans effective.
Tactics is about how to implement your goals, and make sure your plans are efficient.
It''s a very simple explanation, but hopefully the point is made that strategy is about both leadership and coming up with an overall plan that will be successful in achieving your goals in the most optimal way posible. A part of strategy can be determing the goals, and the priorities of said goals as well. Tactics takes the goals and priorities from strategic thinking, and formulates plans to achieve them.
As a side question, are people more interested about military strategy and tactics, or a game about tactics and strategy in general (for example, chess, go, backgammon, etc.)
How does everyone else see the differences between strategy and tactics, and how the differences would be played out in game terms?
I know someone will chime in and say, "does it really matter?", but I think it does. The difference between strategy and tactics is a useful distinction and helps us think about what goes into the game.
My definitions of the terms are a little looser. I view strategy as the long-term, large-scale decisions, and tactics as the short-term, small-scale decisions. Some games allow for both, but most cater mainly to one or the other. In Civilization I consider my strategy to be my placement of cities and choice of technologies, whereas the tactics are deciding what resources to collect and which units to make and use. Most RTS games I play don''t really offer much in the way of strategy, preferring to focus on tactical use of different troop types. But sometimes the boundary is a little blurred... the old game Laser Squad (precursor to X-Com, if that helps) let you choose the weapons for your units before you began the mission. Whereas the individual weapons you use is a tactical consideration, the fact that you had to choose them before the game began, and that this would obviously influence how you used your units, made it more strategic to me. Others may disagree.
Personally I find that although a successful strategy can be very rewarding to the player, an unsuccessful one can be extremely dissatisfying as it can doom the player to fail, no matter how good the individual tactical decisions. This is possibly why strategy is underused in games - there is a lot of negative feedback while the player climbs the learning curve.
[ MSVC Fixes | STL | SDL | Game AI | Sockets | C++ Faq Lite | Boost | Asking Questions | Organising code files | My stuff ]
My definitions of the terms are a little looser. I view strategy as the long-term, large-scale decisions, and tactics as the short-term, small-scale decisions. Some games allow for both, but most cater mainly to one or the other. In Civilization I consider my strategy to be my placement of cities and choice of technologies, whereas the tactics are deciding what resources to collect and which units to make and use. Most RTS games I play don''t really offer much in the way of strategy, preferring to focus on tactical use of different troop types. But sometimes the boundary is a little blurred... the old game Laser Squad (precursor to X-Com, if that helps) let you choose the weapons for your units before you began the mission. Whereas the individual weapons you use is a tactical consideration, the fact that you had to choose them before the game began, and that this would obviously influence how you used your units, made it more strategic to me. Others may disagree.
Personally I find that although a successful strategy can be very rewarding to the player, an unsuccessful one can be extremely dissatisfying as it can doom the player to fail, no matter how good the individual tactical decisions. This is possibly why strategy is underused in games - there is a lot of negative feedback while the player climbs the learning curve.
[ MSVC Fixes | STL | SDL | Game AI | Sockets | C++ Faq Lite | Boost | Asking Questions | Organising code files | My stuff ]
Author
Never heard of Laser Squad before, but that''s an interesting situation with lots of ramifications. To me with many current strategy games, the strategy comes from trying to guess what your opponent will build and then building your army to suit. I think you hit it spot on when you mention that a poor strategy will doom a player to failure no matter how good a tactician the player is. Look at Vietnam for example. The American forces "won" virtually every battle fought and yet still lost the war. Their tactical strength could not be matched, but they were essentially fighting a strategy that could not allow them to win. You could also look at England''s strategy in the American revolution. Basically the English won the vast majority of battles (with some exceptions...Cowpens and Guilford Courthouse), but for all intents and purposes, the American troops fought a defensive war in which american forces had to retreat off the field. And yet thanks to America''s strategic alliance with France, America was able to win. England''s strategy of conquering cities and it''s European formation style of warfare were simply ineffective. IT worked in Europe, but not in America.
I also agree that Strategic is more of a "big picture" thing, while tactics focuses on the smaller. In reality, you can''t have one without the other, but sometimes I''m not sure if games make the lines a little more clear.
I also agree that Strategic is more of a "big picture" thing, while tactics focuses on the smaller. In reality, you can''t have one without the other, but sometimes I''m not sure if games make the lines a little more clear.
Usually when people talk about strategy and tactics, I assume they''re talking about large-scale decision-making as opposed to small-scale - kinda like Kylotan''s usage.
But if you want to make a more concrete distinction such as defining strategy as something like the plan, and tactics as something like the implementation of that plan, then you end up with problems.
Because people often give examples like : the strategic part is when I send my army to destroy that city, and the tactical part is how I accomplish that goal. But destroying the city with my army then requires another plan - let''s pretend that we siege the walls and then march in with infantry. Sieging the walls requires a plan, as does the infantry assault. Plans and implementation do not divide cleanly. At some point it will look like we''re planning in situations which are quite evidently tactical situations (eg. the plan to kill an enemy company may be to flank it at a particular junction).
So it doesn''t seem like we can use planning vs implementation to distinguish the two.
If we want a sharp definition we could say :
- tactics is positional strategy
or
- given that we know the whole game, strategy is any plan with the goal of winning, and tactics is any other strategy in the game.
But if you want to make a more concrete distinction such as defining strategy as something like the plan, and tactics as something like the implementation of that plan, then you end up with problems.
Because people often give examples like : the strategic part is when I send my army to destroy that city, and the tactical part is how I accomplish that goal. But destroying the city with my army then requires another plan - let''s pretend that we siege the walls and then march in with infantry. Sieging the walls requires a plan, as does the infantry assault. Plans and implementation do not divide cleanly. At some point it will look like we''re planning in situations which are quite evidently tactical situations (eg. the plan to kill an enemy company may be to flank it at a particular junction).
So it doesn''t seem like we can use planning vs implementation to distinguish the two.
If we want a sharp definition we could say :
- tactics is positional strategy
or
- given that we know the whole game, strategy is any plan with the goal of winning, and tactics is any other strategy in the game.
AFAIK, strategy is all the planning, resource management/logistics, large scale maneuvers, political intrigue, diplomatice, intelligence gathering, etc; all that will be of influence, and eventually lead to or avoid combat.
Combat is the last thing that happens in war, everything is all about maimizing your chances to win in a case of combat, but as Sun Tzu points out, if you can win without ever fighting, that''s the best thing you can do.
Tactics is the art of combat, how to deal with the battle itself once it''s started.
Well, I think it''s that''s simple anyway
The trick is to think about all the little things that fall under one or the other categories. (for instance, I dont mention anything for tactics, but I could talk about maneuvering, formations, use of terrain, etc)
Sancte Isidore ora pro nobis !
Combat is the last thing that happens in war, everything is all about maimizing your chances to win in a case of combat, but as Sun Tzu points out, if you can win without ever fighting, that''s the best thing you can do.
Tactics is the art of combat, how to deal with the battle itself once it''s started.
Well, I think it''s that''s simple anyway
The trick is to think about all the little things that fall under one or the other categories. (for instance, I dont mention anything for tactics, but I could talk about maneuvering, formations, use of terrain, etc)
Sancte Isidore ora pro nobis !
Hello, me again =P
Well, not here to rant or rave (if you can believe that) but i would just like to point out something that is not currently found in games.
A big difference between real life battles and computer simulated battles, I think, is that you do not have human contact. Sure your player has human contact with other players, but the units do not. I think that this matters a whole lot, because I mean if you look at most real life battles (And i''m going to use canada''s boring old battles as an example) they do not result in absolute eradication of the "enemy". For instance, when the brit''s were fighting the french over on the east cost, the brit''s eventually won, but they allowed some French to continue to live here in Canada (this is after the American Revolution, i believe.) This was suppost to be, basically new england. Instead, a hundred years later, the French have total control over this country. No, Canada is not a hostile place nor did the french demand control of this country. But i''d just like to point out that although real life battles are almost the only thing we can base our simulated wars against, we cannot recreate them exactly, and expect them to be flexible. So maybe what i''m saying is that you can have your tactics, or your strategy, but you can''t have your real life war. I''m not really sure if i have a point yet in this yet or not, but I guess when you compare something to say, the Vietnam war, you can''t possibly take into consideration everything that happend. Everything that happens every time there is a war. Devistation. Economic and political reaction. Population jerks and major changes. There are more, probably some that nobody knows about. These are the effects of a war. I think that when people play a game, they do not want to relive these effects. I guess this is the same reason why I seriously do not think that the *MAJORITY* games "cause" people to go out and murder someone. I really think that people should strive to create a very realistic environment, create very realistic characters, and create very realistic doodads and neutral units, but keep the war and the blood and gore comical. I really don''t want to come off as some person who doesn''t like war and thinks that games are too violent. I really think that the majority of them are not. I just think that, when talking about realism and comparing games to real life, you have to be.. well, i guess realistic.
It''s late my time so if i wasn''t clear or went on for a few paragraphs about dancing monkeys and don''t even know it, don''t blame me.
Fuzztrek
¬_¬
Well, not here to rant or rave (if you can believe that) but i would just like to point out something that is not currently found in games.
A big difference between real life battles and computer simulated battles, I think, is that you do not have human contact. Sure your player has human contact with other players, but the units do not. I think that this matters a whole lot, because I mean if you look at most real life battles (And i''m going to use canada''s boring old battles as an example) they do not result in absolute eradication of the "enemy". For instance, when the brit''s were fighting the french over on the east cost, the brit''s eventually won, but they allowed some French to continue to live here in Canada (this is after the American Revolution, i believe.) This was suppost to be, basically new england. Instead, a hundred years later, the French have total control over this country. No, Canada is not a hostile place nor did the french demand control of this country. But i''d just like to point out that although real life battles are almost the only thing we can base our simulated wars against, we cannot recreate them exactly, and expect them to be flexible. So maybe what i''m saying is that you can have your tactics, or your strategy, but you can''t have your real life war. I''m not really sure if i have a point yet in this yet or not, but I guess when you compare something to say, the Vietnam war, you can''t possibly take into consideration everything that happend. Everything that happens every time there is a war. Devistation. Economic and political reaction. Population jerks and major changes. There are more, probably some that nobody knows about. These are the effects of a war. I think that when people play a game, they do not want to relive these effects. I guess this is the same reason why I seriously do not think that the *MAJORITY* games "cause" people to go out and murder someone. I really think that people should strive to create a very realistic environment, create very realistic characters, and create very realistic doodads and neutral units, but keep the war and the blood and gore comical. I really don''t want to come off as some person who doesn''t like war and thinks that games are too violent. I really think that the majority of them are not. I just think that, when talking about realism and comparing games to real life, you have to be.. well, i guess realistic.
It''s late my time so if i wasn''t clear or went on for a few paragraphs about dancing monkeys and don''t even know it, don''t blame me.
Fuzztrek
¬_¬
How about:
Strategy: A set of steps/a plan, leading to a goal.
Tactics: The means by which those steps are implemented.
For example, in Civ III:
Strategy:
1.Capture enemy city to establish foothold
2.Break lines of communication
3.Disrupt production
4.Expand ownership of enemy territory, until a suitable result is achieved (annihilation, obtaining a resource, getting a decent peace offer, etc) or until continuation of war becomes problematic (overexpansion of own lines, political unrest)
Tactics:
1. Select a strategically important city. Move carrier fleet/transports into range.
2. Establish military units on the ground, to prevent reinforcement from neigboring cities. Initiate bombing/bombardment of city. Occupy high production/strategic resource tiles if possible.
3. When spies indicate that the city is vulnerable, attack with land units until captured. Reinforce the city heavily.
4. Target strategic resources - break roads or capture them, to cripple your opponent''s military capabilities.
5. Continue bombardment of nearby cities, capturing and occupying them. Expand in such a way as to break the opponent''s realm into multiple, unconnected pieces.
Strategy: A set of steps/a plan, leading to a goal.
Tactics: The means by which those steps are implemented.
For example, in Civ III:
Strategy:
1.Capture enemy city to establish foothold
2.Break lines of communication
3.Disrupt production
4.Expand ownership of enemy territory, until a suitable result is achieved (annihilation, obtaining a resource, getting a decent peace offer, etc) or until continuation of war becomes problematic (overexpansion of own lines, political unrest)
Tactics:
1. Select a strategically important city. Move carrier fleet/transports into range.
2. Establish military units on the ground, to prevent reinforcement from neigboring cities. Initiate bombing/bombardment of city. Occupy high production/strategic resource tiles if possible.
3. When spies indicate that the city is vulnerable, attack with land units until captured. Reinforce the city heavily.
4. Target strategic resources - break roads or capture them, to cripple your opponent''s military capabilities.
5. Continue bombardment of nearby cities, capturing and occupying them. Expand in such a way as to break the opponent''s realm into multiple, unconnected pieces.
Author
argus-
Good point that there is no clear cut off between strategy and tactics. Sorta like the yin and yang, there''s a little bit of each in the other. Your definition is interesting though, in that I''ve seen some military texts say very much the same....that tactics is about positioning.
fuzztrek-
You actually bring up a good point. Games that feature warfare as a part of their gameplay do not really factor in the human sociology and psychology of warfare, and I don''t just mean things like morale. For example, what about taking prisoners? Many thought the Japanese were barbarians for treating prisoners inhumanely and the mere fact that troops knew that meant they took extra risks not to get caught. I also remember someone saying that you could use your opponents land to equip your own troops. But there''s a problem with that in that the local populace will not be keen on conquerors taking over their resources. And what of annhilating a unit to the last man? While Genghis Khan did this with great effectiveness (I mean, who was going to beat him?) if you have neutral parties not involved in your game world''s background then they may take an immediate hatred to your side''s position.
This is where strategy comes into play...where you must consider the overall ramifications of your plan. For example...taking Vietnam as an illustration again...American politics prevented troops from going into Laos and Cambodia, even though we knew parts of the Ho Chi Minh trail went through there. The bombing campaigns met with great public disapproval even. And I think politics and sociology in general are not really factored in. Look at how Bush is currently trying to win american popular support for an invasion against Iraq. As Clausewitz said, war is just the extension of political policy.
Good point that there is no clear cut off between strategy and tactics. Sorta like the yin and yang, there''s a little bit of each in the other. Your definition is interesting though, in that I''ve seen some military texts say very much the same....that tactics is about positioning.
fuzztrek-
You actually bring up a good point. Games that feature warfare as a part of their gameplay do not really factor in the human sociology and psychology of warfare, and I don''t just mean things like morale. For example, what about taking prisoners? Many thought the Japanese were barbarians for treating prisoners inhumanely and the mere fact that troops knew that meant they took extra risks not to get caught. I also remember someone saying that you could use your opponents land to equip your own troops. But there''s a problem with that in that the local populace will not be keen on conquerors taking over their resources. And what of annhilating a unit to the last man? While Genghis Khan did this with great effectiveness (I mean, who was going to beat him?) if you have neutral parties not involved in your game world''s background then they may take an immediate hatred to your side''s position.
This is where strategy comes into play...where you must consider the overall ramifications of your plan. For example...taking Vietnam as an illustration again...American politics prevented troops from going into Laos and Cambodia, even though we knew parts of the Ho Chi Minh trail went through there. The bombing campaigns met with great public disapproval even. And I think politics and sociology in general are not really factored in. Look at how Bush is currently trying to win american popular support for an invasion against Iraq. As Clausewitz said, war is just the extension of political policy.
There are also unknown side effects that even in real life people do not consider. For instance, the pollution of the war is usually not considered unless it involves some sort of neuclear device or bioware, and not until recently have post-war mental illnesses been delt with. I don''t know how much this has to do with a game, but if you are looking to separate tactics from strategy, and picking apart every aspect of a game, you can''t ignore it. I think that game companies have done a good job by.. well, "smoothing" it over. Blizzard usually puts emotions into it''s storyline and adds comical emotional comments in gameplay. I''m not saying that we should all copy cat blizzard, but i think that making a game extremely real and adding in all of these factors (if it could be done) would not be a good idea.
Fuzztrek
¬_¬
Fuzztrek
¬_¬
You have to consider the overall ramifications of your plan in tactical situations as well.
Take Sandman''s example (since he obviously skipped over my last post).
Take Sandman''s example (since he obviously skipped over my last post).
quote:1. Select a strategically important city. Move carrier fleet/transports into range.Selecting a city requires its own plan (or algorithm), and thus the ramifications of attacking the city must be considered (for instance if you''re not the US you might consider the geneva convention for warfare). Moving a fleet into range is also not a planless act - you don''t move the fleet through a mined area, and you path the route so that you stay out of neutral waters.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
