 |
|
|
|
Related Topics:
| Strategic command II - Hi, So what do you expect from it? a middle of the road between World at War and Hearts of Iron II. I would say it can be an game, for whose who regrets the grand scale of WaW, but (as me) are bored of the mammoth game of..
Strategic Command 2..First Impressions - Played the D-Day scenario. Noticed that the Germans had ranged artillery units. If that's the case, why are BB and CA units to firing from a coastal square and no farther inland? The AI was brian dead. I dropped the US paras directly east of..
The Tactical 3D future is here - Hi, The original games were all tabletop games and it took until the fifties for AH to start the boardgame which provided a cheaper (in money, space and time) As the computer era dawned hardware made..
Tactical wargames for ancient/medieval battles? - Hi I have tended to play FPS. I have no PC wargames. I am in playing PC games which recreate battles using geography and weaponry. 3d would be nice. Time period - ancient to 1700. I basically want to be able..
TBC Fast Package(1-70) - Any Class Free 2000G - Wow per level per level. Dear Sir or Madam Hot Sale!For all of our news and are some Special Package! We now provide measured by..
|
|
|
Next: Historical War Games: Napoleon in Italy - review
|
| Author |
Message |
External
Since: Oct 26, 2007
Posts: 72
|
(Msg. 1) Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:32 pm
Post subject: Tactical vs. Strategic - Where is the line?
Archived from groups: comp>sys>ibm>pc>games>war-historical (more info?)
|
|
|
I've been wondering about the line here for awhile, but today I saw a
post in the strategic group requesting a "squad-based, strategic" game
and that seemed to me a contradiction...
What would y'all say are the dividing lines between tactical games and
strategic games? Is it just scale and unit size, or is there something
more?
And then how about operational, just to muddy things up a bit more?
BP |
|
| Back to top |
|
 | |
External
Since: Sep 24, 2005
Posts: 15
|
(Msg. 2) Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:32 pm
Post subject: Re: Tactical vs. Strategic - Where is the line? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Feb 2, 12:32 pm, BP <re... DeleteThis @newsgroup.please> wrote:
> I've been wondering about the line here for awhile, but today I saw a
> post in the strategic group requesting a "squad-based, strategic" game
> and that seemed to me a contradiction...
>
> What would y'all say are the dividing lines between tactical games and
> strategic games? Is it just scale and unit size, or is there something
> more?
>
> And then how about operational, just to muddy things up a bit more?
>
> BP
In US military doctrine, there are three levels of war: tactical,
operational, and strategic.
Here is what the JP 3-0, Joint Operations says on this question:
"The strategic level is that level of war at which a nation, often as
a member of a group of nations, determines national or multinational
(alliance or coalition) strategic objectives and guidance and develops
and uses national resources to achieve these objectives. The
operational level links the tactical employment of forces to national
and military strategic objectives through the design and conduct of
operations using operational art. The tactical level focuses on
planning and executing battles, engagements, and activities to achieve
military objectives assigned to tactical units or task forces."
Many people equate the tactical level with the Division or below, the
Operational level with Corps and Joint Task Force (JTF), and the
Strategic with the Global Combatant Command (like CENTCOM), the Joint
Chiefs of Staff (JCS), and the executive branch of government
(primarily State and Defense department).
Others (most notably Shimon Naveh in his book "In Pursuit of Military
Excellence") say that the Operational level is not a level at all, but
a logic that connects tactical actions to strategic aims. Thus, a
battalion commander could, technically, be the operational level of
war if he is operating independently of a higher military headquarters
and working to connec the tactical actions of his subordinate units.
How's THAT for muddying things up? 
PAT PROCTOR
President, ProSIM Company
http://www.prosimco.com/writing |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Nov 08, 2007
Posts: 83
|
(Msg. 3) Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:32 pm
Post subject: Re: Tactical vs. Strategic - Where is the line? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
> I've been wondering about the line here for awhile, but today I saw a
> post in the strategic group requesting a "squad-based, strategic" game
> and that seemed to me a contradiction...
I'm guessing the person meant to say "squad-based strategy game" -
I've often seen people substiture "strategic game" for "strategy game"
for whatever reason.
Regards,
- Erik >> Stay informed about: Tactical vs. Strategic - Where is the line? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jan 19, 2005
Posts: 181
|
(Msg. 4) Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 2:29 pm
Post subject: Re: Tactical vs. Strategic - Where is the line? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
In article <cid9q3tsa3a517e98abdn66audo8udmdf6.DeleteThis@4ax.com>,
reply.DeleteThis@newsgroup.please says...
> I've been wondering about the line here for awhile, but today I saw a
> post in the strategic group requesting a "squad-based, strategic" game
> and that seemed to me a contradiction...
>
> What would y'all say are the dividing lines between tactical games and
> strategic games? Is it just scale and unit size, or is there something
> more?
>
> And then how about operational, just to muddy things up a bit more?
>
> BP
In this case, just in this case, I'd say he wanted a tactical level
strategy game. Not a shooter, for example.
--
Song of the moment: "Flightless Bird, American Mouth."
By Iron & Wine, from the album The Shepherd's Dog.
----
Slick:
http://www.aktuellekamera.de/archive.php/393/OEZ/2007_12_21_21:58:25
----
http://www.curlesneck.com
----
Epi >> Stay informed about: Tactical vs. Strategic - Where is the line? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Feb 14, 2005
Posts: 134
|
(Msg. 5) Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 3:56 pm
Post subject: Re: Tactical vs. Strategic - Where is the line? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
"BP" <reply RemoveThis @newsgroup.please> wrote in message
news:cid9q3tsa3a517e98abdn66audo8udmdf6@4ax.com...
> I've been wondering about the line here for awhile, but today I saw a
> post in the strategic group requesting a "squad-based, strategic" game
> and that seemed to me a contradiction...
>
> What would y'all say are the dividing lines between tactical games and
> strategic games? Is it just scale and unit size, or is there something
> more?
>
> And then how about operational, just to muddy things up a bit more?
>
> BP
>
Tactical = squads
Operational = bn/regts or div
Strategic = Corps or bigger
All of the above with the appropiate battle area size.
No if and buts.
Anything can be strategy..as opposed to strategic. >> Stay informed about: Tactical vs. Strategic - Where is the line? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Oct 19, 2007
Posts: 56
|
(Msg. 6) Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 6:20 pm
Post subject: Re: Tactical vs. Strategic - Where is the line? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
BP wrote:
> I've been wondering about the line here for awhile, but today I saw a
> post in the strategic group requesting a "squad-based, strategic" game
> and that seemed to me a contradiction...
>
> What would y'all say are the dividing lines between tactical games and
> strategic games? Is it just scale and unit size, or is there something
> more?
>
> And then how about operational, just to muddy things up a bit more?
>
Games often blur the distinctions, but I've always classified these
three areas in the following way:
Strategy - setting the overall goal(s) of the war or the most desirable
outcome;
Tactics - the shooting - i.e. the execution of strategic aims;
Operations - the immediate planning, preparation and support of tactics
--
"Any attempt to replace a personal conscience by a collective conscience
does
violence to the individual and is the first step toward
totalitarianism." - Herman Hesse >> Stay informed about: Tactical vs. Strategic - Where is the line? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Nov 12, 2007
Posts: 6
|
(Msg. 7) Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 9:08 pm
Post subject: Re: Tactical vs. Strategic - Where is the line? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
"HR" <HR RemoveThis @horizon.net> wrote in message
news:lqednTs9K-fwRTnanZ2dnUVZ_tWtnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "BP" <reply RemoveThis @newsgroup.please> wrote in message
> news:cid9q3tsa3a517e98abdn66audo8udmdf6@4ax.com...
>> I've been wondering about the line here for awhile, but today I saw a
>> post in the strategic group requesting a "squad-based, strategic" game
>> and that seemed to me a contradiction...
>>
>> What would y'all say are the dividing lines between tactical games and
>> strategic games? Is it just scale and unit size, or is there something
>> more?
>>
>> And then how about operational, just to muddy things up a bit more?
>>
>> BP
>>
> Tactical = squads
> Operational = bn/regts or div
> Strategic = Corps or bigger
>
> All of the above with the appropiate battle area size.
>
> No if and buts.
>
> Anything can be strategy..as opposed to strategic.
I seem to remember being taught that strategy is the art of manoeuvering
one's forces so as to encounter the enemy in the most favourable
circumstances and on the most favourable terms. Tactics is the art of
handling one's forces while in contact with the enemy.
Of course that formula says nothing about 'operational' level, which is, I
suppose and as suggested by an earlier poster, a sort of bridge between the
two levels. >> Stay informed about: Tactical vs. Strategic - Where is the line? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Feb 19, 2006
Posts: 39
|
(Msg. 8) Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 9:22 am
Post subject: Re: Tactical vs. Strategic - Where is the line? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Briarroot wrote:
> BP wrote:
>
>
> Games often blur the distinctions, but I've always classified these
> three areas in the following way:
>
> Strategy - setting the overall goal(s) of the war or the most desirable
> outcome;
> Tactics - the shooting - i.e. the execution of strategic aims;
> Operations - the immediate planning, preparation and support of tactics
>
>
>
Briarrot beat me too it.
I'll add that strategic equals war at the macro level and tacticl is war
at the micro level. >> Stay informed about: Tactical vs. Strategic - Where is the line? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Feb 19, 2006
Posts: 39
|
(Msg. 9) Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 9:33 am
Post subject: Re: Tactical vs. Strategic - Where is the line? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
BP wrote:
> I've been wondering about the line here for awhile, but today I saw a
> post in the strategic group requesting a "squad-based, strategic" game
> and that seemed to me a contradiction...
>
> What would y'all say are the dividing lines between tactical games and
> strategic games? Is it just scale and unit size, or is there something
> more?
>
> And then how about operational, just to muddy things up a bit more?
>
> BP
>
Using WWII as an example:
Strategy - roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin decide to concentrate men and
materiale in the European theatre and give the Pacific theatre what's
left over.
Operations - which armies, corps, divisions, fleets go where and then
getting them there - this crosses multiple layers and can be thought of
as preperations maded prior to engaging in battle
Tactical - what units do to win battles >> Stay informed about: Tactical vs. Strategic - Where is the line? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Feb 14, 2005
Posts: 134
|
(Msg. 10) Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 3:46 pm
Post subject: Re: Tactical vs. Strategic - Where is the line? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
"Andrew McGee" <amhome RemoveThis @btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:Nb6dnWyFAu9_RjnanZ2dnUVZ8s2mnZ2d@bt.com...
>
> "HR" <HR RemoveThis @horizon.net> wrote in message
> news:lqednTs9K-fwRTnanZ2dnUVZ_tWtnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>
>> "BP" <reply RemoveThis @newsgroup.please> wrote in message
>> news:cid9q3tsa3a517e98abdn66audo8udmdf6@4ax.com...
>>> I've been wondering about the line here for awhile, but today I saw a
>>> post in the strategic group requesting a "squad-based, strategic" game
>>> and that seemed to me a contradiction...
>>>
>>> What would y'all say are the dividing lines between tactical games and
>>> strategic games? Is it just scale and unit size, or is there something
>>> more?
>>>
>>> And then how about operational, just to muddy things up a bit more?
>>>
>>> BP
>>>
>> Tactical = squads
>> Operational = bn/regts or div
>> Strategic = Corps or bigger
>>
>> All of the above with the appropiate battle area size.
>>
>> No if and buts.
>>
>> Anything can be strategy..as opposed to strategic.
> I seem to remember being taught that strategy is the art of manoeuvering
> one's forces so as to encounter the enemy in the most favourable
> circumstances and on the most favourable terms. Tactics is the art of
> handling one's forces while in contact with the enemy.
>
> Of course that formula says nothing about 'operational' level, which is, I
> suppose and as suggested by an earlier poster, a sort of bridge between
> the two levels.
Which is why I said strategy is different that strategic.
strategic is long term planning. hence a game with corps/armies having turns
of 1 month or more. Tactical is small scale units in a small area. ie: squad
leader.cc.
operational is at the bn/regt scale level such as TOAW.
These are the traditional descriptions for wargames since the beginning of
board games. Again it's a description only for the scale of the game.
Of course you can use the words to describe other things such as *tactics*
when playing a strategic level game. >> Stay informed about: Tactical vs. Strategic - Where is the line? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Feb 13, 2005
Posts: 406
|
(Msg. 11) Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 9:44 pm
Post subject: Re: Tactical vs. Strategic - Where is the line? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
> Briarrot beat me too it.
>
> I'll add that strategic equals war at the macro level and tacticl is war
> at the micro level.
Well it's not just that.
When I read Alan Clark or Albert Seaton they say for example that German
victory at Kiev in 1942. was just TACTICAL victory or at first battle of
Kharkov in May 1942.
They don't mention operational aspect here and not nececarily I will call
them wrong.
So in fact STRATEGICAL aspect would be whole Eastern Front and TACTICAL in
that sense they were talking would be battle at Kiev. Now this don't bode
well in terms and make some contadictions but that's the way they wrote it.
Maybe in relation that German victory at Kiev did put a 600000 in a bag (or
close to million if we include other losses of Soviets there) but it did not
bring strategic outcome just tactical in this sense.
But I would not confuse this tactical term with tactical term you were
mentining and that is those unit's up to battalion strength.
Confusing
Mario >> Stay informed about: Tactical vs. Strategic - Where is the line? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: May 13, 2005
Posts: 1292
|
(Msg. 12) Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 2:49 am
Post subject: Re: Tactical vs. Strategic - Where is the line? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On 4 feb, 11:39, mcv <mcv... DeleteThis @xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
> I've noticed that quite a lot of people (often not wargame afficionados)
> use "strategy" to mean "a game where you need to think". Exactly what
> you need to think about doesn't matter, as long as the game isn't decided
> most by luck, dexterity, clicking really fast or knowing useless trivia.
Don't know about that last one. There's plenty of strategy games (in
your sense of the word) that rely on gamers knowing a lot of arcane,
game related stuff. Dominions 3 for example.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx >> Stay informed about: Tactical vs. Strategic - Where is the line? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Aug 03, 2005
Posts: 486
|
(Msg. 13) Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 10:39 am
Post subject: Re: Tactical vs. Strategic - Where is the line? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Werewolf <nunya DeleteThis @biteme.net> wrote:
> BP wrote:
>
>> I've been wondering about the line here for awhile, but today I saw a
>> post in the strategic group requesting a "squad-based, strategic" game
>> and that seemed to me a contradiction...
>>
>> What would y'all say are the dividing lines between tactical games and
>> strategic games? Is it just scale and unit size, or is there something
>> more?
I've noticed that quite a lot of people (often not wargame afficionados)
use "strategy" to mean "a game where you need to think". Exactly what
you need to think about doesn't matter, as long as the game isn't decided
most by luck, dexterity, clicking really fast or knowing useless trivia.
According to those people, chess is a strategy game, whereas to me, it's
mostly tactical.
>> And then how about operational, just to muddy things up a bit more?
>
> Using WWII as an example:
>
> Strategy - roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin decide to concentrate men and
> materiale in the European theatre and give the Pacific theatre what's
> left over.
This is what I call "Grand Strategy". It's about when to wage war and
whom to wage war on.
> Operations - which armies, corps, divisions, fleets go where and then
> getting them there - this crosses multiple layers and can be thought of
> as preperations maded prior to engaging in battle
I call this "operational strategy", and it's not necessarily about armies
and corps, but can go all the way down to platoons on occasion. It's about
what units you commit and how, and deals with anything from blitzkrieg to
outflanking to deception and stuff like that.
> Tactical - what units do to win battles
I think I've got the smallest grasp on this one, but I think it's what
the soldiers themselves need to know. Drills, covering fire, how to
enter an unknown building, setting up cross fire, that sort of stuff.
There may be some overlap between tactical and operational aspects.
According to these definitions, a squad-based X-COM/Jagged Alliance
kind of game is clearly tactical. But to someone who's definition
of strategy is "requires thought instead of quick reflexes", it's
clearly strategic.
mcv.
--
Science is not the be-all and end-all of human existence. It's a tool.
A very powerful tool, but not the only tool. And if only that which
could be verified scientifically was considered real, then nearly all
of human experience would be not-real. -- Zachriel >> Stay informed about: Tactical vs. Strategic - Where is the line? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Aug 03, 2005
Posts: 486
|
(Msg. 14) Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 11:01 am
Post subject: Re: Tactical vs. Strategic - Where is the line? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Andrew McGee <amhome RemoveThis @btopenworld.com> wrote:
> "HR" <HR RemoveThis @horizon.net> wrote in message
> news:lqednTs9K-fwRTnanZ2dnUVZ_tWtnZ2d@comcast.com...
>> "BP" <reply RemoveThis @newsgroup.please> wrote in message
>> news:cid9q3tsa3a517e98abdn66audo8udmdf6@4ax.com...
>>> I've been wondering about the line here for awhile, but today I saw a
>>> post in the strategic group requesting a "squad-based, strategic" game
>>> and that seemed to me a contradiction...
>>>
>>> What would y'all say are the dividing lines between tactical games and
>>> strategic games? Is it just scale and unit size, or is there something
>>> more?
>>>
>>> And then how about operational, just to muddy things up a bit more?
>>>
>> Tactical = squads
>> Operational = bn/regts or div
>> Strategic = Corps or bigger
>>
>> All of the above with the appropiate battle area size.
>>
>> No if and buts.
>>
>> Anything can be strategy..as opposed to strategic.
> I seem to remember being taught that strategy is the art of manoeuvering
> one's forces so as to encounter the enemy in the most favourable
> circumstances and on the most favourable terms. Tactics is the art of
> handling one's forces while in contact with the enemy.
>
> Of course that formula says nothing about 'operational' level, which is, I
> suppose and as suggested by an earlier poster, a sort of bridge between the
> two levels.
I think what you call "strategy" above is operational strategy, as
opposed to grand strategy, which is about whether you want to encounter
that enemy at all, or whether perhaps you should try to work together
against yet someone else.
mcv.
--
Science is not the be-all and end-all of human existence. It's a tool.
A very powerful tool, but not the only tool. And if only that which
could be verified scientifically was considered real, then nearly all
of human experience would be not-real. -- Zachriel >> Stay informed about: Tactical vs. Strategic - Where is the line? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Sep 24, 2005
Posts: 15
|
(Msg. 15) Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 6:24 pm
Post subject: Re: Tactical vs. Strategic - Where is the line? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
> Another nice distinction. Not quite congruent with the US Army
> definitions that Pat posted... but I would expect Napoleon to agree
> with the terms as you used them.
That's an interesting observation...
The operational level of war was not really even a concept until World
War II, and then only with the Russians (as someone pointed out
earlier). Operational art and the operational level of war really
only came of age in the US military in the 1980s.
When you read all of the commentary on the Napoleonic Wars written
immediately after the wars (especially Jomini's "The Art of War" and
Clausewitz' "On War") they only describe the tactical and strategic
levels of war. Tactical was everything that happened in a single
battle, on a single battlefield, between two opposing forces.
Strategic was everything that happened outside of this realm. A lot
of what was called "strategic" in these days is now thought of as
"operational."
PAT PROCTOR
President, ProSIM Company
http://www.prosimco.com/writing >> Stay informed about: Tactical vs. Strategic - Where is the line? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
|
You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Profile
Private Messages
Log in/Register/Password
