Compulsory Specializations for Tactics

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by 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.

Hit him where he's weak. Don't let him hit you where you're weak. Make sure your objective is worth it. Brains save blood, sweat, and gold. Those are Sun Tzu's generic ideas which is of course timeless but more difficult to implement then it sounds.

Sun Tzu is as much or more about strategy then tactics; he was from what I heard somewhere or other a private tutor to princes. Sort of a Chinese Gurney Halleck.

[Tinman]

Originally Posted by 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.

I think this is the right Idea. Fighter jets & PT boats both use wingmen. Infantry platoons & carrier task forces both use the principle of defence in deapth. Everyone understands hitting the enemy in the flank/rear. Ect...

The actual mechanics of clearing a village is the use of a whole mess of skills.
If you have a pc platoon cmdr make 1 roll to clear it, or a fighter pilot to roll tactics for the whole dog fight, then ofcourse, there will be confusion.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by 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.

Actually I think it's closer to the reverse. Tactics would be low lever(non-com to battalion) while strategy would be high level(corps to high command) and operations would be in-between. Therefore tactics would worry more about local conditions.

[Michele]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

Actually I think it's closer to the reverse. Tactics would be low lever(non-com to battalion) while strategy would be high level(corps to high command) and operations would be in-between. Therefore tactics would worry more about local conditions.

Agreed. And besides, "attack from an advantageous position" surely works well in any environment - but it's theory. A frigate commander of the age of sail, an infantry platoon leader in WWII, and a modern-day fighter pilot would all have very different definitions of what an "attack" and an "advantageous position" are, in practice, and if they know their Tactics, then they'll know those practical definitions - for their environment.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Michele

Agreed. And besides, "attack from an advantageous position" surely works well in any environment - but it's theory. A frigate commander of the age of sail, an infantry platoon leader in WWII, and a modern-day fighter pilot would all have very different definitions of what an "attack" and an "advantageous position" are, in practice, and if they know their Tactics, then they'll know those practical definitions - for their environment.

How so? They have at worst a -2 familiarity penalty for an unfamiliar environment.

[Tinman]

Originally Posted by Michele

Agreed. And besides, "attack from an advantageous position" surely works well in any environment - but it's theory. A frigate commander of the age of sail, an infantry platoon leader in WWII, and a modern-day fighter pilot would all have very different definitions of what an "attack" and an "advantageous position" are, in practice, and if they know their Tactics, then they'll know those practical definitions - for their environment.

Maybe Tactics should be /TL. I definatly see both sides of the argument. I'd (personaly) go by the book as I think it could go either way.

[rosignol]

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

Any thoughts?

In my games, tactics rolls come up so infrequently that I don't think limiting the opportunities to use the skill is a good idea, even if it would be realistic.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by rosignol

In my games, tactics rolls come up so infrequently that I don't think limiting the opportunities to use the skill is a good idea, even if it would be realistic.

Do you use the rules from Martial Arts?

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

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

I'd say Professional Skill.

[cosmicfish]

First of all, Sun Tzu and his brethren are responsible more for the philosophy behind strategy than anything else - strategy itself as a practice usually refers to conflict extending over a period of time, and gets incredibly detailed. I have no problem with the Strategy skill as presented in 4ed.

As for tactics, I agree wholeheartedly that tactics should be both TL and environment dependent. TL? There is no way that you can consider the tactics of Thermopylae to be be an equivalent skill to the tactics of Iwo Jima. Environment? Again, think about air-to-air combat as compared to urban house-to-house fighting. Some of the base principles are the same, but the applications are vastly different. I can't say I've ever been a soldier, but I work with former fighter pilots, and none of them ever showed a particular talent in paintball despite the years of aerial tactics practice.

In my campaigns I ALWAYS require both TL and environment dependence, and use average techniques to represent unusual specializations like urban combat or bunker assault. I use Tactics fairly regularly, since I have in the past run into problems with being on a different page than the players, and I use opposed Tactics roles to feed (or deny) them information about enemy disposition of resources and advantageous points of attack.