|
11 months ago ::
Jul 02, 2012 - 3:45PM
#51
|
Date Joined:
Jul 30, 2003
|
Gotta chime in here: Taktikos. The matters of arrangement.
The arrangement of forces and disposition of troops is in effect, what the cooperative powers and abilities in 4e D&D are all about...hence, 4e is extremely tactical in that regard.
Strategia. Generalship.
As far as I know, most generals don't typically get involved in individual tactical engagements. Generals, and thus Generalship, is the concern over the Overarching battle plans. Individual units and commanders of said units are the ones that concern themselves with the tactics used to achieve the objectives set out by the Generalship.
This being the case, I think your little Greek Lesson actually disproves your point, it doesn't prove it.
Tactics: How you get the Job Done
Strategy: Determining what the Job is and assigning elements of your resources to manage that job tactically.
Ops: (short for Operations) Oversees the Agenda of War, maintaining contact with and oversight of the tactical units to insure that their missions continue to both receive support as needed, but also stay along the overall lines of the general strategic plan as set forth by Strategic Command (the Generals and their staff)
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 02, 2012 - 3:50PM
#52
|
|
|
There is strategy which is the broad planning around battles and then there is tactics which are the desicions made in the battles themselves. Operations is a useless redefionition of terms you are trying to introduce to stay right when your position is untenable.
There is strategy, which is a broad category including goals like "win the war" and "take the Sudetenland". Then there are tactics, again off the field of combat, to determine how to make the strategy succeed and how to implement those determinations. The moment people are actually moving and scrambling, (especially on the battlefield, since deployment to the battlefield is still a tactic), it is all operational.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 02, 2012 - 3:56PM
#53
|
Date Joined:
Feb 17, 2010
|
There is strategy which is the broad planning around battles and then there is tactics which are the desicions made in the battles themselves. Operations is a useless redefionition of terms you are trying to introduce to stay right when your position is untenable.
There is strategy, which is a broad category including goals like "win the war" and "take the Sudetenland". Then there are tactics, again off the field of combat, to determine how to make the strategy succeed and how to implement those determinations. The moment people are actually moving and scrambling, (especially on the battlefield, since deployment to the battlefield is still a tactic), it is all operational.
You are incorrect by both common understanding of the terms and military parlance. You have invented these definitions to make you right and I won't bite.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 02, 2012 - 3:56PM
#54
|
Date Joined:
Jul 30, 2003
|
You confuse Tactics with Theoretical Tactics, or Planning and as everyone knows, no plan lasts past the first engagement. S.W.A.T. stands for Special Weapons And Tactics, and their members are trained to make Tactical Decisions in the middle of an actual "Combat" situation. Tactics, actual tactics, are those maneuvers and strategies that are used in the thick of it.
Spot decisions, jockeying for position, taking advantage of cover, weather, disorientation, surprise, these are all tactical decisions. A good strategist puts tactically minded members on their strike teams in order to carry the battle/engagement, knowing that their broad strokes will have to be modified on the sly in the midst of the actual action.
4e is clearly tactical
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 02, 2012 - 3:56PM
#55
|
|
|
Gotta chime in here:
Taktikos. The matters of arrangement.
The arrangement of forces and disposition of troops is in effect, what the cooperative powers and abilities in 4e D&D are all about...hence, 4e is extremely tactical in that regard.
Strategia. Generalship.
As far as I know, most generals don't typically get involved in individual tactical engagements. Generals, and thus Generalship, is the concern over the Overarching battle plans. Individual units and commanders of said units are the ones that concern themselves with the tactics used to achieve the objectives set out by the Generalship.
This being the case, I think your little Greek Lesson actually disproves your point, it doesn't prove it.
Tactics: How you get the Job Done
Strategy: Determining what the Job is and assigning elements of your resources to manage that job tactically.
Ops: (short for Operations) Oversees the Agenda of War, maintaining contact with and oversight of the tactical units to insure that their missions continue to both receive support as needed, but also stay along the overall lines of the general strategic plan as set forth by Strategic Command (the Generals and their staff)
There is very little initial arrangement and disposition prior to the engagement of combat (initiative rolls) in D&D. One theme of Battlemind from 4E comes to mind as the exception.
Generals most definitely do get involved with the matters of arrangement. To move away from WWII Europe, I'll point to Alexander of Macedon and Leonidas. You know, Greeks (we'll give Alexander this one).
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 02, 2012 - 3:57PM
#56
|
|
|
There is strategy which is the broad planning around battles and then there is tactics which are the desicions made in the battles themselves. Operations is a useless redefionition of terms you are trying to introduce to stay right when your position is untenable.
There is strategy, which is a broad category including goals like "win the war" and "take the Sudetenland". Then there are tactics, again off the field of combat, to determine how to make the strategy succeed and how to implement those determinations. The moment people are actually moving and scrambling, (especially on the battlefield, since deployment to the battlefield is still a tactic), it is all operational.
You are incorrect by both common understanding of the terms and military parlance. You have invented these definitions to make you right and I won't bite.
That's straight from the military. I'll admit that isn't from the dictionary definitions. Operations, Ops, and the operational level are three different things in the military. They get confusing.
I'm not asking you to bite anything.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 02, 2012 - 3:59PM
#57
|
Date Joined:
Jun 10, 2012
|
Now I am not a 4E fan, mostly due to the flavor and the suspention of disbelief the system generates. But I do agree 4E made combat lot more interesting (If a bit long) having unique abilities at your disposal is the way to go for any new roleplaying game being made today. Yes encounter and daily powers did not make alot of sense but it did stop characters from just spamming there favorite move. (Granted there was some hilarity in 3E and earlier editions of wizards that have done that with fireball)
5E needs to accomodate the 4E players and what they liked best about the edition. And that is interesting combat, the option to take powers that key of teamwork or just take a power that hits really hard, if you want to be that guy.
If 5E fails at this then D&D next will (to me) go the route of Final Fantasy a series I enjoyed as a kid but is just not worth my time anymore.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 02, 2012 - 4:00PM
#58
|
|
|
You confuse Tactics with Theoretical Tactics, or Planning and as everyone knows, no plan lasts past the first engagement. S.W.A.T. stands for Special Weapons And Tactics, and their members are trained to make Tactical Decisions in the middle of an actual "Combat" situation. Tactics, actual tactics, are those maneuvers and strategies that are used in the thick of it.
Spot decisions, jockeying for position, taking advantage of cover, weather, disorientation, surprise, these are all tactical decisions. A good strategist puts tactically minded members on their strike teams in order to carry the battle/engagement, knowing that their broad strokes will have to be modified on the sly in the midst of the actual action.
4e is clearly tactical
Exactly. No plan survives first contact with the enemy. That is when/why tactics and the operational level are separate. Physical things, you physically do on a battlefield are not tactics. They never have been, and no matter how many people dogpile on me, you can't go back in time and demand the Ancient Greeks change their words. Not that they would even if you threatened them with force.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 02, 2012 - 4:01PM
#59
|
|
|
Now I am not a 4E fan, mostly due to the flavor and the suspention of disbelief the system generates. But I do agree 4E made combat lot more interesting (If a bit long) having unique abilities at your disposal is the way to go for any new roleplaying game being made today. Yes encounter and daily powers did not make alot of sense but it did stop characters from just spamming there favorite move. (Granted there was some hilarity in 3E and earlier editions of wizards that have done that with fireball)
5E needs to accomodate the 4E players and what they liked best about the edition. And that is interesting combat, the option to take powers that key of teamwork or just take a power that hits really hard, if you want to be that guy.
If 5E fails at this then D&D next will (to me) go the route of Final Fantasy a series I enjoyed as a kid but is just not worth my time anymore.
I'll even admit 4E made combat more interesting. Interesting is not tactical.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 02, 2012 - 4:03PM
#60
|
Date Joined:
Jul 30, 2003
|
A group can be more or less tactically minded, that doesn't invalidate what they do during battle as tactical, or change the fact that they are using tactics.
Tactical units can be well organized and disciplined troops who take extreme micromanagement from the Strategic level, all the way down to a small group of free-agent specialists who use their own judgement in a tactical way on a case by case basis to get the job done.
Just because a group doesn't initially set out in a strategic manner to accomplish a goal, as you see it, with initial formations and battle plans drawn up in a true military fashion, doesn't mean they aren't going in with a strategy in mind. A dungeon delve's strategy can be as broad stroke simple as "kill anything that moves and gather the loot" There are military engagements that also have similar orders at times. "Everyone not part of your unit is an unfriendly, act with extreme prejudice" in a similar fashion.
To be tactical unit doesn't mean you are dependent on a separate strategic command to get the job done. Some strategic command structures also as I said, get involved at the individual level, that just means they are micromanaging. Sometimes that's a good thing, often its a bad thing.
Ops or Operations are really for the most part, they are the go-between, militaristically speaking, between Strategic Command, and the tactical units under their command. Ops breaks down the Strategy into individual assignments, gives those assignments to tactical teams, then monitor and relay needs back and forth between the two groups
|
|
|
