Strategy

So, we're all playing this strategy-game. But what is strategy really, in your opinion.

I'm not just talking gaming here, but in general too. Who do you think has nailed the term best, that you know of. In my opinion, the term is used rather liberally, like "it's what's behind the tactics" etc.
- Gimme some philosophy and insight please!

Ramblings appreciated, good sources more so

Strategy and Tactics are clearly defined in chess, and I tend to bring those definitions over to COH.

In Chess:

Strategy is your overall game-knowledge; the principles and concepts of strong positions, piece mechanics, mating patterns, opening books and end-game tables.

Tactics is your ability to put together combinations, strike using advanced methods such as pins, skewers, forks, sacrifices and so forth. "Sharp tactical gameplay" in the middle game of chess is the most exciting aspect of this age-old game.

These principles can easily be transferred when talking about CoH:

A simple example of Strategy would be building a counter to your opponent's build.
A simple example of Tactics would be kiting a King Tiger with an M10.

Interesting topic. I for one remembering writing about the difference between strategy and tactics in a dissertation for my extended project a while back.


In a nutshell I wrote strategy was the overall way in which one utilizes their resources through planning and coordination. Whereas tactics are the way in which one goes about applying these resources in the best possible way during a battle.

So another set of examples similar to ami's would be

Strategy: The build order you have already got in mind and where abouts on the map you want to head for.

Tactics: Reacting to what you enemy is doing. E.g He decides to go for your cut off and you plant mines and set a position with your troops to stop him from doing so.

You guys are all right. I'd like to add that my opinion has always been that strategy plays a more important role in 2v2, and tactics plays a more important role in 1v1. That's how I am able to distinguish players who primarily play 1v1 vs 2v2.

Good stuff. I think it's an interesting insight that as "the game" becomes more chaotic, strategy becomes more important. I think that holds very true IRL as well.

Did you do any interesting reading on that project Hans?

Well i probably have a slight different approach from all of my historical reading

From there i generally see 3 levels mentioned. The Strategic, the Operation and the tactical levels.

The Strategy is the overall plan. What to do and how to do it. IE, beat player X through a large assault through the left side of the map with a highly mobile force.

The Tactical level is how you handle each battle, how you attack, how you use the forces the best, defence and so on. Say a smoke screen before charging in, or having an artillery strike ready for when your tanks roll in to neutralize AT positions.

The Operational level is how you connect the two. Getting the right resources, but also connecting all the battles to the overall strategy. So that you do your best to invest more resources in west battles and to hold the territory there gain and so on. And not say, go willy nilly all over the map Granted not really something you see much of in CoH or most RTS games. Although technically one could argue that most RTS games are in a sense more operational level games...

If you wanted Which i don't atm. A bit late here. But thought i might as well mention it.

Strategy: whatever needs to be done to accomplish a goal (in this case winning the game).

Tactics: is just how to realize some part of the strategy (the strategy would say hold that position, the tactics would say which units need to be used and more importantly how).

Basically what others said.

Definitions, failing since circa 450 BC.

Well, thank you everyone. I had hoped for a few good recommendation on books people had read, but picking brains is fine as well.

My own take is that, strategy is making something important. In CoH that would amount to making a strategy where saving MP was important but you could pretty much ignore fuel, or a strategy where overall mapcontrol was inconsequential, as long as you got a certain amount of fuel before your opponent.

This fits along the lines of WWII, where the Nazis were beaten in North Africa thus keeping them away from fuel, forcing them to either attack Russia or focus on training lightsaber cavalry
Looking at it this way, what the Allies did was making fuel important. They could have gone for ore for industry, food or airpower, but they chose fuel.

This allows the top to know which fights are important and which aren't - no reason to deploy forces in Norway fighting Nazis, Africa is all that counts. A pretty simple insight, but still valuable imho, as it points out that what is important is a creation of your own, not something you need to find out or realize *shrug*.