7 ms·
A Pirate's Take on Strategy vs. Tactics
- tomc1985 8y agoAll these words to say a few simple things... Tactics are smaller-scale than strategy. Tactics is the implementation details and strategy is the big picture. Tactics are the movements of chess pieces and strategy is the intent of those movements.
- steve19 8y agoA tactic is slightly higher level concept than a mechanical movement, or firing a trigger. A tactic would be how you lay an ambush, or how a small engagement is fought.
- keerthiko 8y agoIndeed. In RTS games like StarCraft or Age of Empires, that lowest level is referred to as mechanics, control or "micro"* (depending on the context of the finer action). In order of scale: Strategy > Tactics > mechanics/micro/control *micro as in micromanagement, of individual units in your army, This is often contrasted with "macro", which refers to overall strategy + consistency of your "mechanics" for other actions besides micro-ing army units (training harvesters, building bases, having enough houses, sending out well-timed scouts, etc).
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- tomc1985 8y agoI've thought of it more as "one man's strategy is another man's tactics" but I like the strategy/tactics/micro distinction a bit more
- madeuptempacct 8y agoBasically this. A bit off topic, but this is a pretty important quote to me: "Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat." Amusingly enough, the video game example below is probably the easiest way to distinguish tactics from strategy. Are you going to rush or turtle and build up the economy/tech tree? Tactics is where exactly to hit, with what, and how.
- kchoudhu 8y agoCan you feel the thoughtleadership?
- lazzlazzlazz 8y agoI'm not sure there was much ambiguity in defining strategy versus tactics in the first place. This article's convoluted use of "end states" and "actions" was not very helpful in solving this non-issue.
- yaseer 8y agoThis is an unfortunately terrible article. It's overly long, convoluted, and the central pirate anecdote works only to obscure the core principles. There is an attempt here to 'ape' the style of similar, more enlightening pieces, but they've really gotten lost along the way.
- jtms 8y agoI found this article quite the opposite of terrible, but maybe I just don’t know enough yet. Could you share these similar, more enlightening pieces?
- yaseer 8y agoPerhaps this is a question of taste. The style of piece I mean is 'aped' by the article is "What X can teach us about Y". I've read some really good pieces by The Economist in this tradition, that examine historical case studies for modern insights. Some other examples from HN in that style. I don't think these are particularly brilliant, but I don't think they're fatally flawed. I found that their analogy explained rather than obfuscated. http://alexkudlick.com/blog/what-the-four-color-theorem-can-teach-us-about-writing-software/ http://alexkudlick.com/blog/what-the-four-color-theorem-can-... https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/telecom/security/what-the-count-of-monte-cristo-can-teach-us-about-cybersecurity https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/telecom/security/what-th...
- lordnacho 8y agoThis explanation doesn't separate the terms "tactic" and "strategy". In fact it mixes them together, he even says a tactic is basically a substrategy. If you're using recursion, that should be clear. Just call everything a strategy, or everything a tactic. Fact is this distinction between these terms has never been real in any sense. People vaguely use strategy to mean "big picture" and tactic to mean "particular action", but if you decompose it you'll see more little strategies inside. This is true in many game-like situations.
- Kinrany 8y agoThe following definitions make sense to me: it's a tactical game if the outcome merely determines how many resources the player will have in the next round, and it's a strategic game if failure means there won't be a next round. More generally, the problem with defining "tactic" and "strategy" smells like a case of false assumptions: they're orthogonal, not opposite.
- the_af 8y agoI tend to see it used like this: a tactical game is about the movement of the pieces/units and about winning this match without particular consideration for the next one, or considerations of logistics or use of resources. A strategic game is concerned with the overall campaign (did I win in such a way it favors the next match? Was it even a good idea to play this match? Did I use too many resources?) Indeed it's about high level vs zoomed-in detail.
- dhimes 8y agoIn other words, tactics are about how to win the fight. Strategy is about which fights to engage in to accomplish an overall goal.
- the_af 8y agoI can agree with this definition, though I'd say there is some degree of overlap; they are not completely separate. The Russians (and then, the rest of the world) defined an intermediate level and called it "operational". I suspect one could refine it even further.
- 1337shadow 8y agoPretty cool pirate story ! But I prefer chess to comprehend strategy vs. tactics. Tactics: https://chesstempo.com/tactical-motifs.html https://chesstempo.com/tactical-motifs.html Strategies: https://chesstempo.com/positional-motifs.html https://chesstempo.com/positional-motifs.html
- madeuptempacct 8y agoI am decent at chess, as in, I will generally beat any casual player and lose to any professional player. I have no feeling of "strategy" in chess. The only "strategical" difference is that I brute-force pressure newer players by moving pawns up in a diagonal and forcing them into a corner. Whereas vs good players I just do the "right" thing all the time and try to force dilemmas. At that point its just tactics the whole game.
- 1337shadow 8y agoSo probably will loose against any club player.
- onorton 8y agoAnyone notice that the Strategic map has a spell check underline for "Yorks's"?
- tekkk 8y agoFrom the information gathered in the article and from other comments to me the distinction seems: tactic is a granular method for a problem that does not depend on previous tactic. Strategy is the conjuction of methods, tactics or substrategies however high-level your top-most strategy is, that depend on the previous outcome. Strategy is like markov chain where each state is a subpart of the problem, and each state transfer to other state a tactic with varying success probability. But since the exact definition is not mathematical it will always be a little ambiguous.
- potta_coffee 8y agoStrategy is what officers and generals do. Tactics are what NCOs do.
- Apocryphon 8y agoWho does the logistics?
- potta_coffee 8y agoThe Platoon Sergeant =)
- joshklein 8y agoMost of my career has been under the title of “strategist”. I’ve had to steer many client organizations away from jumping the gun on tactical thinking by convincing them strategy is qualitatively different and important. My experience is that strategic planning is about the “what”. What should we even be doing? As important, what should we NOT be doing? Given our limited time and resources, what is an efficient approach to winning the game we are playing (or do we even need to identify the game and define winning first)? Question everything. Challenge assumptions. Mostly ask “what” and “why”, sometimes “who” and “where”. Tactical planning is about “how”. How can we effectively implement the strategy? Without challenging the assumptions that got us here, and assuming we’re already stuck with the game and the rules our strategy selected, how do we win? No more resources are coming. Too late to ask hard questions (except to use as input for next time we do strategy). Execute to maximize effectiveness; worry about efficiency only secondarily. Mostly ask “how”, sometimes ask “where” and “who”.
- johngalt 8y ago> As important, what should we NOT be doing? Exactly this. The most common 'cause of death' for a good strategy is when too many bad ideas are tacked onto it. Most organizations have a good plan somewhere. The problem is that they also have bad plans and inadequate means to prune them off.
- invalidOrTaken 8y agoHi. I would love to hear more about your career. Your profile has no way to contact you. Would you mind sending me an email (in my profile)? Any conversation at all woukd be valuable to me. Thank you.
- onemoresoop 8y agoFrom Wiki: On 30 January 1698, Kidd raised French colours and took his greatest prize, the 400-ton Quedagh Merchant,[18][19] an Indian ship hired by Armenian merchants that was loaded with satins, muslins, gold, silver, an incredible variety of East Indian merchandise, as well as extremely valuable silks. The captain of Quedagh Merchant was an Englishman named Wright, who had purchased passes from the French East India Company promising him the protection of the French Crown. After realising the captain of the taken vessel was an Englishman, Kidd tried to persuade his crew to return the ship to its owners,[citation needed] but they refused, claiming that their prey was perfectly legal, as Kidd was commissioned to take French ships, and that an Armenian ship counted as French, if it had French passes. In an attempt to maintain his tenuous control over his crew, Kidd relented and kept the prize. When this news reached England, it confirmed Kidd's reputation as a pirate, and various naval commanders were ordered to "pursue and seize the said Kidd and his accomplices" for the "notorious piracies" they had committed.[20] Kidd kept the French sea passes of the Quedagh Merchant, as well as the vessel itself. While the passes were at best a dubious defence of his capture, British admiralty and vice-admiralty courts (especially in North America) heretofore had often winked at privateers' excesses into piracy, and Kidd may have been hoping that the passes would provide the legal fig leaf that would allow him to keep Quedagh Merchant and her cargo. Renaming the seized merchantman Adventure Prize, he set sail for Madagascar.
- dvtrn 8y agoThreadjack: if this sort of thing interest you, and want to hear other opines about strategy, tactics and their use through history, plus some modern anecdotes: I've been listening to and enjoying Strategy: A History by Lawrence Freedman on my commutes to work the last few weeks. https://www.amazon.com/Strategy-History-Lawrence-Freedman/dp/1501227726 https://www.amazon.com/Strategy-History-Lawrence-Freedman/dp...
- casper345 8y agoGhengis Khan victories and successful conquest was due to the fact his faith in his Generals. He would give them the overall strategy, "flank the opposing army", and expect his Generals to figure out the tactics to achieve the overall goal of winning the battle.
- mrgreenfur 8y agoMy old MBA boss would use them interchangeable, saying things like "tactics can be strategic" and "strategy can be tactical." In the dictionary it says Strategy is long term plans, and tactics are short term plans. Strategy is where you want go / do / be and tactics are how you get there.
- dwaltrip 8y agoI would have liked more discussion about how the available tactics shape the strategy. It seems there is generally some circularity that needs to be navigated when constructing a plan to meet a non-trivial goal. It is also important to acknowledge the higher-level concept above strategy -- e.g the vision, mission, or end-goal. Alternatively, this higher level can be framed as a specific, tangible problem that needs to be solved.
- stcredzero 8y agoFor me, the first of the two most interesting points in this account was largely missing: Why exactly did Lord Bellomont turn against Captain Kidd? The 2nd most interesting point: From Captain Kidd's point of view, and looked at objectively, Captain Kidd was an innocent man! He was carrying out a legitimate privateer commission! He had documents supporting this, but the facts and those documents were suppressed by rich and powerful people. In a way, Captain Kidd was killed by fake news, and his reputation to this day is still affected.
- tunesmith 8y agoHere are some rules of thumb that have helped me design strategies and tactics for my clients: 1) The already mentioned "what" and "how" distinction 2) Phrase the strategy as an already-completed state of being, that is false now but will be true when met 3) Each strategy can have only ONE supporting tactic (which can be a verby action statement) 4) Each tactic can have 2:n multiple sub-strategies. 5) A sub-strategy can support multiple tactics. You end up with a DAG. In engineering in particular, the biggest impediment is that technicians tend to describe tactics when trying to describe strategies. I'm often asking, "Yes, but what objective does that meet?" or some such in response. And sometimes their answer is circular - the objective that it meets is that it eliminates the absence of their favored solution. Some people honestly never understand past that point. You have to pick your battles.
- 40acres 8y agoI've learned the difference between strategy and tactics through agile development. During our pre-planning and sprint planning sessions, our PO usually lays out a plan of our priorities (strategy) occasionally he will suggest implementation plans (tactics) as one is want to do for an engineer turned product owner, but I always try to take a step back and ask him "what sort of system do you want". It's been a few years since he was a day to day developer, he's not as well versed in the new modules and functionality (tactics) that are now built into the system, often times he'll go into tactical discussion but it'll be off base because the resources we'd use to execute those tactics have changed. By trying to understand his intent and strategy I've been able to deliver what he wants but have the freedom to implement it in my own way.
- annadane 8y agoOh. ACTUAL pirate.
- nz 8y agoSavielly Tartakower's take on the distinction: "Tactics is knowing what to do, when there is something to do. Strategy is knowing what to do, when there is nothing to do."