Strategy and Tactics

[TWJian]

I'm curious about the difference between strategy and tactics.What do we mean when we say that someone is good tactican but a bad strategist? Vice versa too. can anyone help me? By the way, can anybody explain the above in chess too?

[sepultallica]

they can be used interchangably in some circumstances but they also have differences. i think strategy would imply an overall style or method that one would emplo, where as to tactics could be more specific to certain aspects of a strategy.

 

when i play chess, my overall strategy is to play agressively and skip defence. i usually end up losing when i do. but sometimes when the king is ressured enough, people forget about offense.

 

tactics i use for checkmate include having many pieces surround the king. one or two usually dont do it for me. i like to pressure the king in to moving. if he's moving, he's usually running for his life.

 

hope that helps.

[Rasori]

Sep got a pretty good comparison there. Basically, tactics are the micromanaging and strategy is the macromanaging- in war, soldiers employ tactics to keep themselves alive, and generals employ strategies in getting their side to win.

 

If someone were to be a good tactician but a bad strategist, it could mean a number of things, but in many cases it would mean something like: their tactics are good- managing of positions, priority targets, and the like- but their overall strategy is bad- they don't take into consideration ammo, supplies, outside play (reinforcements/air strikes), etc.

[sepultallica]

keep in mind that they can be interchangeable. its very easy to replace one with the other.

[Sayonara]

Well, just because some people use them interchangeably it doesn't mean that they are right - so as usual, bear in mind that most people are idiots

 

For any useful purposes, a strategy is the overall application of tactics to achieve a goal from start to finish. A tactic is a means of accomplishing any given task in the strategy.

 

I tend to think of strategies as classes, and tactics as functions belonging to a class.

[Martin]

I'm curious about the difference between strategy and tactics.What do we mean when we say that someone is good tactican but a bad strategist? ...

 

As Sayonara and other people have suggested, the basic difference is: strategy is more long-term and large-scale

tactics is more short-term and local scale

 

Now I want to give some examples.

 

the attack by Japanese navy on the US navy at Pearl Harbor was a tactical success but it was a strategic mistake

 

tactical skill involves surprise, maneuver, and knowing how to win battles and make short-term gains.

 

strategy must involve in-depth knowledge of the enemy and not just his immediate troops in the field. One must know his economic potential and his political life and his natural resources. Strategy involves long-term thinking.

 

For example, a tactical air strike aims at winning a battle by disabling the forces of the enemy in the immediate battle zone.

 

On the other hand, a strategic air strike may aim at destroying the industrial base of the enemy or his transportation system and weaken his psychological will to fight or his ability to supply his army. a strategic maneuver may aim at denying natural resources to the enemy's industry, for a long-term effect.

========

 

Here is another example:

the US invasion of iraq was done with tactical skill (using speed and surprise and blitzkrieg tactics based on superior mobility)

but it was a terrible strategic blunder because it had no understanding of the mind of the people-----it strengthens the enemies of the US and strengthens their will to fight---there is no well-thought plan for achieving the longterm goal.

 

It also destroys the US alliances. Maintaining alliance with friends is part of strategy too.

 

in a similar way, the japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was a strategic mistake because it was based on ignorance of the mind of the people. The people did not want war with japan but the attack gave the US a strong popular will to fight Japan and then it was seen

the US had more economic potential, more resources. The attack mobilized the US, which earlier was not preparing to fight japan.

So by doing NOTHING the japanese could have achieved the long term goal of dominating Asia without US interference. But by a strategic mistake they prevented themselves from getting the long-range goal.

 

On the other hand, although it was a strategic mistake, the japanese attack was tactically brilliant and admirably carried out.

 

============

also these words are vague and only defined relative to the scale that one is thinking.

=============

 

Jian I think you were studying pheromones in ants. Good luck with that.

It is interesting.

[Ophiolite]

Let me echo Sayonara's point. The two words do have distinct meanings and should be used correctly. I came very close to getting fired some years ago by pedantically condemning my boss (in a very self-righteous fashion) for incorrectly using the words. That was bad tactics on my part!

[Severian]

Has anyone played Rome:Total War? The campaign map is strategy, while the battle map is tactical.

[TWJian]

Thanks guys. So I presume that strategy is the overall plan for doing something(1st use is in war since strategy means general's plan in Greek) while tactics is the skill and

manoeuvres executed in acheiving that goal or plan,right?