This is Tactics!

[Alistair deGrey]

A small band of troops out for a walk through the lovely countryside is intercepted by hostiles, this had best not interrupt afternoon tea.

Tactics! I'd say we use them in every day life but those are actually techniques. We use tactics whenever we plan or don't plan to confront an enemy with any sizable force (sizable being relative, but always more than 1-5 in my opinion). This area of study revolves around pre-battle stratagems, execution of said stratagems during the battle, analysis of battlefield conditions, and the subsequent ability to implement tactics while your troops are engaged. Logistics is also a very large portion of tactics, as if you cannot feed your troops, you're going to die. The ability to use terrain to one's advantage and make quick decisions comes with tactical training, as both are extremely important for planning and implementation. Weaponry and its analysis is critically important, as you must know what arms to outfit your troops with the best facilitate the slaughter. Naturally, the higher your tactics skill the more effectively you will be able to control your men, and you shall be able to efficiently utilize more. However, do keep in mind that there are societal and resource boundaries within Mizahar that will prevent almost any commander from amassing a sizable force.

Of course, this is just my opinion.

The reason this thread is here, is to gauge the Mizaharian's response to my proposed view of tactics. It was suggested by Management that I create this into a discussion before I begin writing up the article. But I sort of forgot to do that. So here it is! It is, tactics.

So tell me what you want out of tactics.

EDIT: New plan already!

I have considered splitting this write up into two parts, Strategy and Tactics. Someone in chat put it very well, "Tactics is about observing, Strategy is about thinking". Strategy shall encompass concepts like logistics, pre-battle planning, analysis of different aspects, and the generally more intellectual aspets of the previous field. Meanwhile, Tactics will deal more with the implementation of the strategy, the formations, the methods of fighting, the in general small scale stuff. As Charon put it, every soldier knows some tactics, but strategy is a more specialized area. What I'm trying to do here is essentially divvy up the skill, because the people who know strategy don't necessarily know tactics or vice versa. Despite that, the two skills are dependent upon each other for success in a military endeavor.

Also, since it seems to me like there are only three (maybe 4 or 5?)factions that really have the capability to field a large fighting force, I would appreciate if the following would contribute their thoughts on how their faction fights (or would fight) if they have any particular tactics or strategies they enjoy implementing.
Gillar - The Ebon hand
Gossamer - The Knights of Syliras & maybe The Drykas
Cayenne - Myrians
Colombina - Eypharians (Another unsure one)

[Pua]

tactics are the art or science of disposing military or naval forces for battle and maneuvering them in battle or the maneuvers themselves. As such it is usually applied to larger forces but can still be used in smaller numbers. Telling your partner to circle around an opponent while you distract them is still a tactical decision.

I think you are kind of combining Tactics with Strategy however. They are two very distinct things. Strategy is the overall plan of battle created before and between clashes, Tactics is the use of ones resources to fulfill the Strategy's goals. Strategy requires thought, tactics require observation. You cant really have one without the other, but they do exist independitly. In the words of Sun Tzu"

"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."

[Charon]

Good idea Ali. I'm going to keep my response short because I want to see what others have to say... and my viewpoint may be jaded anyhow.

My first reaction is yes, "military tactics" should be some sort of skill. But reading what you're proposing has me thinking that this viewpoint of tactics is way too broad. Let me explain what I mean first and then follow it up with the reason I'm keeping this response short:

Tactics, in my mind, involves formations and strategies as you mention. In fact the way you put it, "This area of study revolves around pre-battle stratagems, execution of said stratagems during the battle, analysis of battlefield conditions, and the subsequent ability to implement tactics while your troops are engaged." is exactly what I think of here. So cool I'm digging it. However, I disagree that logistics should be lumped into this definition. Logistics and supply chain/line management is such an incredibly in depth topic that involves it's own strategizing, planning, and careful examination and fluid manipulation that I have a difficult time throwing it in with just "tactics" in one big definition. Using the terrain is part of tactical movement and in the spirit of Mizahar I would be alright with putting it in here. My instincts tell me that it's part of land navigation and map reading, which is a skill set influencing tactics, but those do not really belong here.

The other portions mentioned here include weaponry analysis... Again, I'm drawn to want to call this intelligence. Knowing your enemy, the terrain, weapons used (both yours and your enemies), cultures, their tactics, and anything else are all subsets of intelligence and you need accurate intelligence to make sound tactical decisions. Once more, I'm not sure if all that belongs in Mizahar and, if it does, if it deserves it's own skill.

Lastly, I will state that knowing more about tactics has nothing to do with being able to control your men or being able to efficiently utilize more. Though you may know what you want to do with whatever troops you have and how you want to split them to carry out your strategy, it takes leadership/officership to be able to effectively and efficiently control them and use them to carry out those tactics. Without leadership they will be unorganized and unable to perform the tactics you desire, the wrong men will be in charge of each group if your tactics involve flanking movements or separate groups acting together, and their spirit may be weak enough that, if they do split off and suffer some losses, they may first react by retreating or giving in even though their friendly forces on the other flank need them in order to be successful as well.


Maybe all that was more than I intended to say, but I'm going to hold myself short right there because, as I mentioned, my perspective may be a little biased and it's late and I'm sort of sick and not in the right mindset to tackle this from a completely 100% Mizahar outlook. So those are my brief, truncated thoughts for now. Please feel free to point out where my angle is distorted on this...

[Jilitse]

Don't forget Drainira! I'm sure that golem will soon have her own followers.

[Miharu Mindi]

Most of what I'm going to say is going to be agreement, so I'm not sure why I'm saying it other than I'm stuck in an airport and bored.

The difference between Strategy and Tactics is the difference between Captain and Lieutenant.

The Captain encompasses Strategy: he looks at maps and reports, draws up battleplans, knows the best way to utilize troops (cavalry vs. foot vs. specialty vs. green troops, etc) for different parts of the plan, how to use terrain and weather.

The Lieutenant knows how to take those plans that his Captain gives him and make them effing happen. That includes translating orders, setting up the formations and implementing the battleplans, and everything mentioned above.

Now, the Captain would obviously know how to do what the Lieutenant does, as that is the nature of rising through the ranks. They would also both need to possess Leadership in order to command the troops (and probably in equal amounts - the Captain by virtue of the loyalty his position grants him and the Lieutenant because he is the one directly interacting with the troops and therefor leading them in day-to-day activities). Whether that Leadership comes from Intimidation/fear or not (Ebon Hand vs. Knights of Syliras) will depend entirely on the character itself.

Also, I agree with Pua: these two things are completely different from Logistics of Camp Management. Supplies, equipment, camp hygiene, setting up camp itself, all the things that go into these situations.

Crap, gotta board.