Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Strategy vs. Tactics

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> Strategy vs. Tactics Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Strategy vs. Tactics - 9/21/2007 6:41:12 PM   
Alan_Bernardo

 

Posts: 204
Joined: 5/17/2002
From: Bowling Green, Ohio
Status: offline 		I've always thought that I understood the difference between strategy and tactics. Tactics is the manner of doing things, such as maybe a heavy artillery bombardment before the infantry attacks a position or using a flanking movement to capture a suppy depot in the enemy's rear. Strategy, then, would be an actually objective, like capturing that supply depot or capturing and occupying a town in order to divide enemy forces.

But in doing some reading on WWI-- after reading three nonfiction titles-- I am now currently reading Solzhenitsyn's August 1914

Realizing that this novel is a translation, I came across the following passage:

"In that battle, for hours, the Neva regiment pressed back a German force of up to divisional strength (they even
scattered the remnants of a divisional headquarters consisting of a general and eight soldiers) and pushed their
way through several miles of dense forest until at twilight they emerged as victors. But though successful, the
action was pointless: the forest was of no tactical value."

Am I correct in my definitions of the differences between strategy and tactics, and is Solzhenitsyn's use of the word "tactical"just a matter of translation? Or is it that the capturing of the forest, in the above quote, was of no tactical use because possibly the actual forest did not in the end allow for certain tactics to be used, such as, for example, a surprise bayonet charge?

I'm interested to see what others think about this.

Thanks,

Alan

< Message edited by Alan_Bernardo -- 9/21/2007 8:16:07 PM >
Post #: 1
RE: Strategy vs. Tactics - 9/21/2007 7:37:32 PM   
morvwilson


Posts: 510
Joined: 11/30/2006
From: California
Status: offline 		One of the old sayings I have come across is "amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics."

It could be that the way this applies to your passage is that since there was no road through the forest, it would prove too difficult to bring up reinforcements and supplies. Or maybe this advance produced a salient that was too deep and narrow to be defended against counter attacks. It could also be that this advance did not go in the right direction to support the main objective. It is difficult to know for sure with out knowing the full context of the battle being fought.

As for your thoughts on what tactics and strategy is, I think you are close enough.

(in reply to Alan_Bernardo)
Post #: 2
RE: Strategy vs. Tactics - 9/21/2007 7:45:24 PM   
cdbeck


Posts: 1374
Joined: 8/16/2005
From: Indiana
Status: offline 		The websters dictionary definition has "of or relating to small-scale actions serving a larger purpose" and "of or occurring at the battlefront <a tactical defense> <a tactical first strike>." I would say that the definition holds up within that reading.

I think you are a bit confused as to the definitions yourself. Tactics is, as you said, a method of doing things or maneuvering forces in combat, but it tends to have the connotation of smaller military actions (or a grouping of smaller military actions). Strategy is also used to define actions, but typically broader more general actions (as in, moving 12 divisions to the flank while 3 divisions keep the enemy pinned down in front).

In actuality, while members of the military tend to use these words in specific situations, in average writing and conversation, the words tend to be interchangeable (all you grogs settle down). Your author (just realized this was Solzhenitsyn, who was in the army), even if he was a member of the military, might have not be so picky about the word if writing for a non-military audience. Just as PC games are called Real-Time Strategy (even if the game is more tactical) and Grand Strategy (which may fit the military definition better), the definition can be very broad. I have asked 3 soldiers about the difference between tactics and strategy and got 3 different answers.

Also, it seems to me that the Russian word for Tactics and Tactical is remarkably similar to the German and English words. "Tactics" is "тактик" in Russian, right?

SoM



< Message edited by Son_of_Montfort -- 9/21/2007 7:47:36 PM >

_____________________________

"Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoscet!"
(Kill them all. God will know his own.)

-- Arnaud-Armaury, the Albigensian Crusade

(in reply to Alan_Bernardo)
Post #: 3
RE: Strategy vs. Tactics - 9/21/2007 8:15:01 PM   
Alan_Bernardo

 

Posts: 204
Joined: 5/17/2002
From: Bowling Green, Ohio
Status: offline
quote:

I think you are a bit confused as to the definitions yourself. Tactics is, as you said, a method of doing things or maneuvering forces in combat, but it tends to have the connotation of smaller military actions (or a grouping of smaller military actions). Strategy is also used to define actions, but typically broader more general actions (as in, moving 12 divisions to the flank while 3 divisions keep the enemy pinned down in front).


I don't think this is correct.  Strategy does not define actions themselves, which are tactics, but objectives on a grand scale.  I do think that your description of a flank movement is more to strategy than tactics, in a way, so I was incorrect there.  I think also that by its definition tactics would more than likely include smaller forces, and strategy, larger forces.  So it is only through the nature of the meaning of the terms that it could be said that tactics involves smaller forces and strategy larger.  If a small group has as its object the capturing of a hill overlooking a valley, that is strategy.  How it goes about capturing that hiill is tactics.  Thus a small force could be used both tactically and strategically, the one following the other constantly, one would think.

That's the way I understand it.


(in reply to cdbeck)
Post #: 4
RE: Strategy vs. Tactics - 9/21/2007 8:25:00 PM   
FlashfyreSP


Posts: 1193
Joined: 7/6/2002
From: Combat Information Center
Status: offline 		The phrase "of no tactical value" is often used by military commanders to indicate that a particular terrain feature is not of major importance in the "tactical" sense, that it is not going to be a factor in the tactical actions taken by forces.

In this case, the "dense forest" was probably considered to be too difficult to deploy forces in (and maintain cohesiveness), or that the enemy would most likely ignore it in any counterattack, moving around it if possible. Terrain must be of significant value to an army for it to spend resources to capture and hold it; dense forest, in the time of WWI, was nearly impossible to supply and manuever through, given the technology of the time. Supplies would likely have to be hand-carried into it, making any build-up of forces problematical, and, if dense enough, would prevent artillery from operating effectively from it.

We don't know exactly why the author considered the forest area to be "of no tactical value", so we can only assume, based on well-known military thinking, wht the reasons might have been.


_____________________________


(in reply to cdbeck)
Post #: 5
RE: Strategy vs. Tactics - 9/21/2007 9:59:40 PM   
shunwick


Posts: 2426
Joined: 10/15/2006
Status: offline 		Tactics - banging a nail into a wall.

Operational Art: Knowing where the nail has to go, that there are no hidden electricity cables or water pipes at the chosen location, and rummaging around in your toolbox for a hammer and a nail.

Strategy: Sitting in your armchair and thinking to yourself "I'll hang that damn painting this afternooon."

Grand Strategy: Buying the hammer and the nails in the first place.

Politics: When you are sitting at the breakfast table, nursing that first cup of coffee of the day, and a strident female voice says, "Are you ever going to get off your fat butt and hang Aunt Maud's painting?"

Best wishes,


_____________________________

I love the smell of TOAW in the morning...

(in reply to Alan_Bernardo)
Post #: 6
RE: Strategy vs. Tactics - 9/21/2007 10:41:31 PM   
shunwick


Posts: 2426
Joined: 10/15/2006
Status: offline 		Politics: We need a plan.

Grand Strategy: What sort of plan?

Strategy: This sort of plan.

Operational Art: I'm supposed to carry out this plan?

Tactics: Who thought up this bloody plan?

Politics: Good news! We are lowering interest rates.

Best wishes,


_____________________________

I love the smell of TOAW in the morning...

(in reply to shunwick)
Post #: 7
RE: Strategy vs. Tactics - 9/21/2007 11:23:02 PM   
ravinhood


Posts: 3891
Joined: 10/23/2003
Status: offline 		Strategy is planning and gathering of resources to take the objective(s), tactics is how you get there and try to take the strategic choices. Operational is the grand theater/campaign map of all the strategic objectives and the grand theater/campaign map of all the tactical battles on this theater/campaign map using masses of men an equipment as in Armies, Corps, Divisions and Regiments to depict the grand scale war instead of individual units or squads or platoons or companies. Thas how I see it anyways and why I prefer strategic and tactical games combined like a Total War or a Forge of Freedom or a Crown of Glory and if small scale tactical with no grand strategic objectives then games like Combat Mission or Steel Panthers.
Even in small scale tactical games though there are still minor objectives and strategic options like taking a building over a woods area or rough area or a hill or a ridge, but, the grand strategy is taking over the whole town or hill area etc, a grid of many minor objectives combines into one sotospeak.

(in reply to shunwick)
Post #: 8
RE: Strategy vs. Tactics - 9/22/2007 12:41:10 AM   
Brigz


Posts: 1162
Joined: 1/20/2002
Status: offline 		Seems to me that everybody is correct to some extent. Basically, strategy is formulating objectives and battle plans. Tactics is carrying out those plans in detail. An analogy would be a Commanding officer issuing commands (strategic) and then having various executive officers (tactical) seeing that those commands are carried out or implemented. As has been stated earlier, strategic plans are usually those at corps or higher level and tactical plans are usually those at sub-corps, divisional and lower. In a wargame for example, if you were playing a strategic level game then your units might be division, corps and army level. If playing a tactical game then you would be using regiment, brigade, battalion and lower units. These are of course fluid definitions, especially at divisional level. It's totally possible for a battalion level action to be of strategic importance. It really depends on the specific situation. A good example would be the UK/Argentina war over the Faulklands. In my opionion that was a strategic and tactical situation where tactical operations were implemented on a strategic scale.

_____________________________

“You're only young once but you can be immature for as long as you want”

(in reply to Alan_Bernardo)
Post #: 9
RE: Strategy vs. Tactics - 9/22/2007 12:48:31 AM   
cdbeck


Posts: 1374
Joined: 8/16/2005
From: Indiana
Status: offline 		Compare Webster's Definitions:

Strategy:
1 a (1): the science and art of employing the political, economic, psychological, and military forces of a nation or group of nations to afford the maximum support to adopted policies in peace or war (2): the science and art of military command exercised to meet the enemy in combat under advantageous conditions b: a variety of or instance of the use of strategy2 a: a careful plan or method : a clever stratagem b: the art of devising or employing plans or stratagems toward a goal

Tactics:
1 a: the science and art of disposing and maneuvering forces in combat b: the art or skill of employing available means to accomplish an end2: a system or mode of procedure3: the study of the grammatical relations within a language including morphology and syntax

Lots of overlap there. It is a relatively academic distinction, one that is often, as I said earlier, interchangable. I love the comments above, so true, so very true.

SoM



_____________________________

"Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoscet!"
(Kill them all. God will know his own.)

-- Arnaud-Armaury, the Albigensian Crusade

(in reply to Brigz)
Post #: 10
RE: Strategy vs. Tactics - 9/22/2007 4:52:09 AM   
ravinhood


Posts: 3891
Joined: 10/23/2003
Status: offline 		A good strategic/tactical game I'm playing now out of the past "Lords of Magic Special Edition" a ten year old+ game I'd completely forgot how much fun it was and is to play. Kinda like the Total War games in fact in a fantasy setting. I really like these kinds that have a strategic building and resource gathering phase that is turn based as well as tactical combat that is real time but you can set it to 3 so it's pretty slow and it has a pause button/feature you can use in a pinch that is onscreen and you don't have to mess with using the keyboard.

(in reply to cdbeck)
Post #: 11
RE: Strategy vs. Tactics - 9/22/2007 8:45:47 PM   
Jeffrey H.


Posts: 3154
Joined: 4/13/2007
From: San Diego, Ca.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

...as well as tactical combat that is real time but you can set it to 3 so it's pretty slow and it has a pause button/feature you can use in a pinch that is onscreen and you don't have to mess with using the keyboard.


Ooohhhh Ravinhood plays RTS games now ? Betther watchout, it's a slippery slope, next you'll be playing C&C.....

(in reply to ravinhood)
Post #: 12
RE: Strategy vs. Tactics - 9/23/2007 3:49:56 AM   
ravinhood


Posts: 3891
Joined: 10/23/2003
Status: offline 		These are NOT RTS games, these are STRATEGY turn based games with real time tactical combat. RTS are constantly in motion in case you didn't know. :) Nice try Jeffrey, but, you lose. haha

< Message edited by ravinhood -- 9/23/2007 3:51:45 AM >

(in reply to Jeffrey H.)
Post #: 13
RE: Strategy vs. Tactics - 9/23/2007 5:58:14 AM   
cdbeck


Posts: 1374
Joined: 8/16/2005
From: Indiana
Status: offline 		It may not be Real-Time Strategy, but Lords of Magic was Real-Time Sh**.

Yeah, I said it. It needed to be said. That game had such an excellent story, premise, gameplay mechanics and innovative style, but failed in each of these things. I was so excited about it too, even recieved the game one Christmas with great anticipation. Blah...

And I disagree. It IS RTS. At least the part you lead your troops in battle. It isn't like Spartan, where you set up and run. You actually control the units. It is EXACTLY like Star Wars: Empire at War.

SoM


_____________________________

"Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoscet!"
(Kill them all. God will know his own.)

-- Arnaud-Armaury, the Albigensian Crusade

(in reply to ravinhood)
Post #: 14
RE: Strategy vs. Tactics - 9/23/2007 9:20:36 AM   
Twotribes


Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline 		The combat portion may be real time, but it is not RTS if the whole game is not real time. Total War is NOT RTS, it is turned based with real time battles if you want. That sounds like the magic game he is describing. A Hybrid.

I do NOT like real time games much. They are anything BUT Strategy. Click fest comes to mind. Most of them devolve into learning the cheapest quickest building powerful enough unit to swarm your opponent with. No strategy at all, just zerg.

I do like Hybrids. They allow for strategy to occur and then give you the opportunity to test your skills using what ever strategy you picked. They allow you to use proper combined arms and require you to consider the usefulness of each type of unit available.

(in reply to cdbeck)
Post #: 15
RE: Strategy vs. Tactics - 9/23/2007 10:34:06 AM   
ravinhood


Posts: 3891
Joined: 10/23/2003
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Son_of_Montfort

It may not be Real-Time Strategy, but Lords of Magic was Real-Time Sh**.

Yeah, I said it. It needed to be said. That game had such an excellent story, premise, gameplay mechanics and innovative style, but failed in each of these things. I was so excited about it too, even recieved the game one Christmas with great anticipation. Blah...

And I disagree. It IS RTS. At least the part you lead your troops in battle. It isn't like Spartan, where you set up and run. You actually control the units. It is EXACTLY like Star Wars: Empire at War.

SoM



Can you run Star Wars:Empire at War at 3 frames per second? No I didn't think so, so LoM is not an RTS game. It is a Strategy game with merely real time combat and not a kiddy clickfest like RTS games are. LoMSE is a lot better than the origional game as well. They fixed 99.9% of the bugs and The overall challenge is much harder than it was. I know I played the origional as well and wasn't that impressed

You must understand the difference in an RTS kiddy clickfest game and a Strategy game with real time combat. They are as different as apples and oranges. An RTS game is nothing more than building and creating a template of play and playing that way every game. Strategy games with real time combat have so many different alternatives I can't list them all. LoMSE falls into that catagory.

I mean comeon you all praise the sh*t out of HTTR/COTA, but, that's an RTS game ;) haha a PURE RTS game with pause, there's no TURNS in HTTR/COTA. ;) Oh, but, you'll come on and say how it's DIFFERENT from RTS games and it's not an RTS game, but, a pauseable continous time game. lol roflmao. So, I guess LoMSE is no more an RTS game than HTTR/COTA! ;) It's a PAUSEABLE real time game during combat only. ;) The rest of the game is organized turns just like all the rest of the turn based games out there. So, it's a bit of both, but, hardly an RTS KIDDY CLICKFEST game like 99.9% of all RTS games. ;) I'd call it a TBSRTTG. ;) (Turn Based Strategy - Real Time/Tactical Game)

Oh, it's also not a game of rock,paper, scissors like 99.9% of all RTS games too. Combat advantage is based on stats of the particular unit vs each other, not horsies best at killing archers and spearmen best at killing horsies and archers best at killing spearmen (though horsies do kill archers and archers kill spearmen and spearmen kill horsies, but, they don't have any inherent advantages to kill those particular types like 99.9% of RTS games). If I got a spearman with better stats than the archer that spearmen is going to make mincemeat of that archer providing he can get to him before the archer shoots 9000 holes into him. ;) I really like that about this game a game that works from stats and combat values and EXP over time. Everything levels like an RPG game. I had forgotten a lot of that.

Dwarven Riders are like the best horsies in the game, elven archers though weak in hit points have deadly long range bows if you can keep them alive long enough to level up. Order footmen have the speed for a melee unit and what's neat about this game as well is once you capture border villages between two factions or their captials you can make armies of units of all the races and not be tied to just one faction or one template of builds like 99.9% of all RTS games. ;)

Now I will agree that the COMBAT portion of the game is REAL TIME, but, it's not real time STRATEGY, it's real time TACTICAL. FLanking and higher ground has advantages in combat. Thieves can sneak and get that rear attack backstab and/or capture enemy leaders kinda like X-COM there only in real time. But, at 3 frames per second if you think that's RTS kiddy clickfest, well well I can't help you then. lol It's hardly a kiddy clickfest just like you all say HTTR/COTA isn't a kiddy clickfest. lol ;)

(in reply to cdbeck)
Post #: 16
RE: Strategy vs. Tactics - 9/23/2007 5:10:55 PM   
cdbeck


Posts: 1374
Joined: 8/16/2005
From: Indiana
Status: offline 		Well, I still disagree, I do think it is RTS. And yes, I believe you can pause Star Wars: E@W, and you can, like most "click-fests," turn down the combat speed.

Did the SE really improve the original system that much? I guess I should give it another go, surely it is so old that it is offered as a free DL somewhere (like Underdogs). I always preferred the Master of Magic or Age of Wonders style, as it is both Strategic and Tactical, and it is turned based.

SoM


_____________________________

"Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoscet!"
(Kill them all. God will know his own.)

-- Arnaud-Armaury, the Albigensian Crusade

(in reply to ravinhood)
Post #: 17
RE: Strategy vs. Tactics - 9/23/2007 9:45:51 PM   
ravinhood


Posts: 3891
Joined: 10/23/2003
Status: offline 		Well gamer reviewers at Gamespot avg it around 80 and many of the issues with the origional are ironed out in the SE. It adds some quests (5 different ones I think) and customization of your hero from the start and things to streamline play like teleport artifacts. It added a Legendary Hero to each Temple for a one time summons. It added the ability to give the Temple to its rightful owner at a political advantage of making your political status with another faction better. It makes playing with computer allies much more possible and it's advantageous to trade and/or give things to factions you have good standings with.

The game I'm playing now the Death Lord has wiped out everyone, except, myself and my two other holdings Earth and Chaos and the Fire Lord is still in the game though pretty much dead as the Death Lord is all over him and now the game is getting down to the nitty gritty and hordes of Death Lord units are pouring in all over the place. I find the challenge much improved over the origional if nothing else.

Another thing I like about it is even when you take a capital and/or kill the Lord of that faction every unit left on the map of that faction comes storming after you in nice stacks if they have built sufficient amount of units. When I killed the Air Lord (by accident hehe) his armies made a beeline for me and it wasn't pretty, nearly wiped out one of my better stacks and it took me like 3 turns to get my main stack to the war zone (good thing I had the ring of HEALING ;)  ) I had to fight 3 full stacks one after the other.

In this game the AI of the other factions hasn't been exceptional, but, reasonably challenging. They have some nice stacks, but, they don't level up very well and one good strong stack can usually take them out, but, still at a cost. I'm not exactly just rolling over them without losing or nearly losing some of my best units. Thus, in battle you have to know when to pull units out or flee them if you don't want to lose good quality units. Of course this game is about defeating the Death Lord vs the neutral factions and I've only come upon one fair stack of his units and they wiped out my initial defense, but, these were weak new units, I eventually took him out with one of my main stacks.

The dungeons, caves, etc. are what put up the best challenge. Some of these are exceptionally hard (I suggest saving often before going into battle against dungeons, caves and anything over level 5) Because of these things I'd say I've LOST several games already. lol I always consider saving and reloading a LOSS unless you are just continuing where you left off from a previous play. :) It's not that the AI is great in them or anything it's just that they are jam packed with lots of tough leveled units.

I also just checked and underdogs does have it, not sure what version it is, mine is 3.0. It's over a 100mb download as well. Give it a try again. I'm enjoying it and once Fire falls the real nail biting begins. lol

(in reply to cdbeck)
Post #: 18
RE: Strategy vs. Tactics - 9/28/2007 6:47:50 PM   
fatehunter

 

Posts: 23
Joined: 11/22/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: shunwick

Tactics - banging a nail into a wall.

Operational Art: Knowing where the nail has to go, that there are no hidden electricity cables or water pipes at the chosen location, and rummaging around in your toolbox for a hammer and a nail.

Strategy: Sitting in your armchair and thinking to yourself "I'll hang that damn painting this afternooon."

Grand Strategy: Buying the hammer and the nails in the first place.

Politics: When you are sitting at the breakfast table, nursing that first cup of coffee of the day, and a strident female voice says, "Are you ever going to get off your fat butt and hang Aunt Maud's painting?"

Best wishes,


Shunwick,

I am crying this is so beautiful

(in reply to shunwick)
Post #: 19
RE: Strategy vs. Tactics - 9/29/2007 5:16:00 AM   
ravinhood


Posts: 3891
Joined: 10/23/2003
Status: offline 		In a world of equality and all that for females....why can't SHE hang the dam picture? ;)

(in reply to fatehunter)
Post #: 20
RE: Strategy vs. Tactics - 9/29/2007 6:31:28 AM   
Jeffrey H.


Posts: 3154
Joined: 4/13/2007
From: San Diego, Ca.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

In a world of equality and all that for females....why can't SHE hang the dam picture? ;)



Because it's a mans job ! and don't even dare to look at her when she blurts that out.

(in reply to ravinhood)
Post #: 21
RE: Strategy vs. Tactics - 9/29/2007 9:23:34 AM   
ravinhood


Posts: 3891
Joined: 10/23/2003
Status: offline 		Remind her of the last 3 letters in her gender then.....wo-(man). :) I'd say something like "Oh I forgot you're the "weaker" sex"....sure, I'll get right on it. :)

(in reply to Jeffrey H.)
Post #: 22
RE: Strategy vs. Tactics - 9/29/2007 12:53:16 PM   
Greyshaft


Posts: 2252
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

Remind her of the last 3 letters in her gender then.....wo-(man). :) I'd say something like "Oh I forgot you're the "weaker" sex"....sure, I'll get right on it. :)

uh... if you're going to say that then make sure that you ALREADY have the hammer.

_____________________________

/Greyshaft

(in reply to ravinhood)
Post #: 23
RE: Strategy vs. Tactics - 9/29/2007 7:45:00 PM   
shunwick


Posts: 2426
Joined: 10/15/2006
Status: offline 		All of which perfectly illustrates my point about politics.

Best wishes,


_____________________________

I love the smell of TOAW in the morning...

(in reply to Greyshaft)
Post #: 24
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> Strategy vs. Tactics Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.875