What is the difference between 'strategic' and 'tactic' ?

Ok I guess in an attempt to finalize my interest and input into this topic. What would be a good set of boardgame related terms and definitions to break down the concepts contained in this thread?

For starters,

Action/Move : A single granular decision or choice made by a player to help advance their current position in the game while maintaining the highest potential payout.

Tactic(s) : Sets of one or more Actions/Moves used by a player to best position themselves to achieve their overall game goals.

Strategy : A high level method of play chosen by the player for use as a plan of action so the player may achieve the highest potential payout in the game.

Ok I look forward to any bashing, fine tuning, or altering to the above three items. But I hope we can manage to define the concepts of strategy in a game from high level to a low level set of terms. For some reason I think it might be a minor but useful set of terms for a designer to think about when implementing a new game. Since we the designers need to think about these type of game elements when we develop a game. For instance, one thought would be to also include the idea of Counter-Tactics as another term. Since hopefully a game allows one tactic to be potentially countered in order to keep all players *in the game*. If not you might be causing a run away leader issue.

Thanks...

"Sadism," I think, more involves you enjoying inflicting pain. A good example of schadenfreude is supermarket tabloids, where people delight in celebrity X having a drug problem or weight problem or broken relationship or what have you. I wouldn't call that sadism, but it's definitely schadenfreude.

-- Matthew

Tactic(s) : Sets of one or more Actions/Moves used by a player to best position themselves to achieve their overall game goals.

Strategy : A high level method of play chosen by the player for use as a plan of action so the player may achieve the highest potential payout in the game.

I would add an even higher level concept:

Objective : The ultimate goal of the game. What you must achieve to win.

I know this sounds obvious, but without a clear understanding of your Objective, you cannot develop a sound Strategy.

As an example, take Memoir '44. The Objective in any particular game of Memoir is to get X medals before your opponent. Many scenarios include two paths to those medals - either by capturing and holding a hex on the map or by eliminating enemy units. Thus a player must choose a Strategy that will both gain medals for himself while denying them to his opponent based on the scenario.

As a result, your Objective helps determine both your Strategy and your Tactics. Strategy and Tactics, however, will often interact in both directions. Again, using Memoir, your initial Strategy, based on your Objective, may include capturing and holding a certain town on the board. However, as the game progresses you lack the cards to activate your units in that particular flank. Hence, your Tactical options are limited, forcing you to adjust your Strategy. After you revise your Strategy, that will dictate your Tactics (i.e. the sequence of cards you play, which units you order and the orders that you give them over the next several turns). Generally, the plan will flow from Strategy to Tactics. Sometimes, though, your Tactical assessments (i.e. I don't have enough command and control in that flank to do what I originally planned) will force you to revise your Strategies.

Thus, it could look something like this:

Objective ----->> Strategy <----->> Tactics ----->> Action/Move

Ultimately, your Objective is the highest level of your plan and cannot, I think, be ignored in any discussion of Strategy and Tactics.

Jeff K.

I think Objective or Victory Condition could be used, but they do have different emphasis.

I think you're right, Victory Condition is probably a better term for reasons I'll discuss below.

I agree that Objective is conceptually tied to Strategy. Thus, if part of your Strategy in Memoir is to assume control of a town to get it's medal, you may decide that a hill near the town is an Objective, since it make it easier for you to control the area. Your Tactics would then be designed to gain control of the Objective. Thus, Objective is probably not the best choice for the highest level of planning. It's somewhere between Strategy and Tactics, it seems to me.

I would say that an Objective would be chosen to aid your Strategy, but ultimately you are correct. Everything is chosen in furtherance of achieving the Victory Condition.

So, the new chart looks like:

Victory Condition--->>Strategy--->>Objectives--->>Tactics--->>Actions/Moves

Plus, of course, as your Tactical situation changes you may need to adjust your Strategy, which could lead to your choosing new Objectives and thus changing your Tactics. I'm just not sure how to represent the feedback between Tactics and Strategy in a text chart now that Objectives has been sandwiched between them. :)

- Dwight

Probably not. Does that mean they aren't seperate concepts? The above sequence helps me conceptualize the steps of making a plan in a game. Your own mileage may vary.

Jeff K.

...And then there is the Operational Level, which is an interim level between the Tactical and the Strategic.

Here are some definitions from MCRP 5-12A (Operational Terms and Graphics):

Tactical Level of War : The level of war at which battles and engagements are planned and executed to accomplish military objectives assigned to tactical units or task forces. Activities at this level focus on the ordered arrangement and maneuver of combat elements in relation to each other and to the enemy to achieve combat objectives.

Operational Level of War : The level of war at which campaigns and major operations are planned, conducted, and sustained to accomplish strategic objectives within theaters or operational areas. Activities at this level link tactics and strategy by establishing operational objectives needed to accomplish the strategic objectives, sequencing events to achieve the operational objectives, initiating actions, and applying resources to bring about and sustain these events. These activities imply a broader dimension of time and space than do tactics; they ensure the logistic and administrative support of tactical forces, and provide the means by which tactical successes are exploited to achieve strategic objectives.

Strategic Level of War : The level of war at which a nation, often as a member of a group of nations, determines national or multinational (alliance or coalition) strategic security objectives and guidance, and develops and uses national resources to accomplish these objectives. Activities at this level establish national and multinational military objectives; sequence initiatives; define limits and assess risks for the use of military and other instruments of national power; develop global plans or theater war plans to achieve these objectives; and provide military forces and other capabilities in accordance with strategic plans.

-----

So, in essence, the difference between Strategy and Tactics (and the Operational Art!) is one of scale.

Geoff