Compulsory Specializations for Tactics

[Figleaf23]

I have encountered situations in-game where it seems certain situations are not covered by skills, but which it seems some people are, in real life, skilled in. Some of these situations would be solved by a house rule that changes the Tactics skill to involve specializations like:

1) Tactics (Small Unit Conflict) -- the original

2) Tactics (Infiltration and Evasion)

3) Tactics (Spycraft)

4) Tactics (Naval)

5) Tactics (Aerial)

Etc.

Any thoughts?

Perhaps this is covered in a supplement already -- if so, please advise.

Thanks.

[sir_pudding]

This is something that I did not like about the change to 4e (along with the elimination of Operations/TL, and FDC/TL). A fighter pilot's Tactics really shouldn't let him establish a platoon in the defense and an infantry squad leaders Tactics shouldn't let him optimally deploy AKVs. To some extent familiarity covers this, I suppose.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

I have encountered situations in-game where it seems certain situations are not covered by skills, but which it seems some people are, in real life, skilled in. Some of these situations would be solved by a house rule that changes the Tactics skill to involve specializations like:

1) Tactics (Small Unit Conflict) -- the original

2) Tactics (Infiltration and Evasion)

3) Tactics (Spycraft)

Tactics wouldn't do anything for spycraft. And infiltration and evasion would be done using the original skill. But mandatory specialisations for water and air make sense.

[Corlock Striker]

I actually think this sort of gets into the difference between the Strategy and Tactics skills. Given that per the rules Strategy does have mandatory specializations based on the environment you're fighting in. I have a sneaking suspicion that the idea is that tactics are more universal theories of combat which can be applied regardless of environment. Such as, attack from your enemies blindspot, set ambushes when possible, and things of that nature. Whereas Strategy is the effective application of tactics within a particular environment, ie laying out an effective ambush in a forested area or the like.

[fredtheobviouspseudonym]

I would think that Tactics is extremely specialized by time, place, technology, and environment.

Let's stick to, say, late TL 7 - (as I'm most familiar with this.) Let's say you have an O-3 -- air force, navy, army. O-3 in the Air Force would be a pilot -- flying (say, in Vietnam) a fighter or attack jet. Tactics included spotting the foe at a distance, when to use an inside yo-yo, how to coordinate with the EC-121 (proto-AWACS), how to spot and dodge SAMS, the Kuban (and others -- been a while since I read Shaw's "Modern Air Combat").

An Army O-3 would then be, say, an infantry company commander, doing airmobile landings, sweeping a plantation or village for VC, spotting snipers and booby traps (technically, of course, the point men but the CO has to allocate men & equipment to the duty), calling in artillery, coordinating with air-strikes (OK, a bit of carry over).

A navy O-3 would be a senior lieutenant -- possibly in command, say, of an FPB or section of riverine boats. Plotting raids and landings in the Delta, maneuvering to avoid mines and ambushes. . .

Short version -- same war, same nationality, same grade level . . . and very different tactics. Challenges, threats, and missions very different.

the 3rd edition WWII had a discussion of it -- Tactics could include Tactics (Infantry), Tactics (Armor), Tactics (Guerilla), and others -- just for ground forces. Tactics for naval forces would differ for carrier groups, destroyer/cruiser task forces, battle line, MTBs, etc.

So I'd say that while someone trained in one specialization of Tactics would not be at a default (or the 4th edition equivalent) in a very different specialization, but would be far from as skilled as a specialist in that field.

[fredtheobviouspseudonym]

I would think that Tactics is extremely specialized by time, place, technology, and environment.

Let's stick to, say, late TL 7 - (as I'm most familiar with this.) Let's say you have an O-3 -- air force, navy, army. O-3 in the Air Force would be a pilot -- flying (say, in Vietnam) a fighter or attack jet. Tactics included spotting the foe at a distance, when to use an inside yo-yo, how to coordinate with the EC-121 (proto-AWACS), how to spot and dodge SAMS, the Kuban (and others -- been a while since I read Shaw's "Modern Air Combat").

An Army O-3 would then be, say, an infantry company commander, doing airmobile landings, sweeping a plantation or village for VC, spotting snipers and booby traps (technically, of course, the point men but the CO has to allocate men & equipment to the duty), calling in artillery, coordinating with air-strikes (OK, a bit of carry over).

A navy O-3 would be a senior lieutenant -- possibly in command, say, of an FPB or section of riverine boats. Plotting raids and landings in the Delta, maneuvering to avoid mines and ambushes. . .

Short version -- same war, same nationality, same grade level . . . and very different tactics. Challenges, threats, and missions very different.

the 3rd edition WWII had a discussion of it -- Tactics could include Tactics (Infantry), Tactics (Armor), Tactics (Guerrilla), and others -- just for ground forces. Tactics for naval forces would differ for carrier groups, destroyer/cruiser task forces, battle line, MTBs, etc.

So I'd say that while someone trained in one specialization of Tactics would not be at a default (or the 4th edition equivalent) in a very different specialization, but would be far from as skilled as a specialist in that field.

[Sunrunners_Fire]

Originally Posted by fredtheobviouspseudonym

So I'd say that while someone trained in one specialization of Tactics would not be at a default (or the 4th edition equivalent) in a very different specialization, but would be far from as skilled as a specialist in that field.

Sounds like a textbook example of Familiarity to me. :)

[warmachine]

I've always thought Tactics should be specialised by Land, Sea, Air, Space and Hyperspace but I'd be interested to know what soldiers think.

[Figleaf23]

Originally Posted by warmachine

I've always thought Tactics should be specialised by Land, Sea, Air, Space and Hyperspace but I'd be interested to know what soldiers think.

I don't allow combat in my version of Hyperspace, but otherwise I agree with those (though I'm not a soldier). But what about others -- how about social tactics, like working a room, or getting your daughters noticed by the prince at the ball?

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

Tactics wouldn't do anything for spycraft. ...

Is there a better skill for covering double-blind operations, safe-drops, etc etc?

[vicky_molokh]

Programming wasn't split, so Tactics shouldn't be either (or, alternately, they both should). In GURPS Strategy and Tactics are mostly split by the directness of the chain of command. If Sun Tzu's generic ideas are applicable to the various strategies, to the point that he is considered a good master of strategy even now, then some sort of generic ideas should apply to tactics.