Utility of a Master Tactician

[ericthered]

Originally Posted by evileeyore

I put that under Strategy.

My break down? Strategy is what happens leading up the fight on the ground and is happening at base camp while the battle rages.

Tactics is the arrangement immediately preceding the fight, maneuvers and strategies made while enmeshed within the fight, and actions taken immediately following the fight.

Its a weird line, because its obviously different, but the line isn't clear.



Looking at the rules, both can possibly be used to guess enemy plans, but tactics has that as a GM option and limits when it can be used. Tactics explictly says you start in an advantageous position if you win the quick contest, and its useful for spotting ambushes. Having read the description, I may start giving characters strategy more often than tactics (or rather, emphasizing strategy) because it seems more versatile.

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by ericthered

Its a weird line, because its obviously different, but the line isn't clear.

I just try to only allow one away from the battle site (Strategy) and one during the battle (Tactics)... so there is a reason to have Strategy and not just pump Tactics.

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by Black Leviathan

Fighting a platoon would arguably be a Strategy roll but the default from Tactics-25 is pretty generous.

The platoon commander is only one layer of subordinates away from their men, so it's still within the realm of Tactics. Strategy would appear to do a different thing, which would be why it doesn't specify a group size - it allows prediction of the enemy's actions and is the skill of planning actions.

Tactics is not the same but merely for smaller units. Tactics is about out-guessing and outmanoeuvring the enemy - it's about in-battle and immediately pre-battle activity by small units.

There is over-lap, and a company-level ambush would be Strategy while a Platoon-level one might be Tactics but could be Strategy if it was set up with considerable pre-planning. An 'immediate ambush' by a platoon or smaller unit would be Tactics though.

[Verjigorm]

I'm late to the party, but shouldn't the tactics roll be penalized for unfamiliarity with the technology, the organization and practices of the enemy, and, the terrain?

I mean, during the american civil war, the change in effective range and rate of fire for rifled muskets was something that took a bit of time for people to wrap their heads around. Sure, riflemen had been around, but previous rifles had had much slower rates of fire, allowing a concentrated assault by musket armed men. The effective range of engagement grew dramatically: you could fire volleys out to 200-300 yards, effectively, with a minie ball, while the muskets had been considered effective within 50 to 100 yards. Alongside the use of percusion caps, the reloading also changed, and the "modern" infantry of the time were capable of firing around fifty to one hundred percent faster than the musketmen.

I mean, hiding behind a wall or in a depression works great to protect you from grazing fire. But then the squad leader users his grenade launcher and drops a 'nade into your clustered 15th century men. That's gonna hurt a lot.

[Rupert]

From B222, on Strategy:

The specific units being commanded are less important; even the units of another nation or tech level would give -1 or -2 at most (GM’s judgment), as long as you had accurate information about their capabilities.

I see no reason why Tactics would be any more penalised. If you don't know about their capabilities, well then there will be a different and larger penalty for that, just as not knowing that the enemy has on-call artillery support will mess you up today, even if you're a modern commander.