4 ms·
The 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
by Kinrany 8y ago
The 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.