Tactics
Wed Mar 13 2002 at 3:20:39
Tsarren is exactly right, but her ideas could use a little explication beyond the three sentences with which she concisely expresses them. Strategy isn't tactics, although the two have some overlap that I'll discuss in a minute. Tactics is a very distinct branch of military science that deals with the actual procedure of soldiers trying to kill one another and commanders telling them how to do so most effectively. Strategy, on the other hand, deals with getting your soldiers into or out of a position in which they can advantageously use tactics.
Tactics are largely dependant on the weapon systems of the combatants. Because some weapon systems are innately superior to others, certain kinds of tactics are always useful against other kinds. On rereading that sentence, I suppose explanation is in order. Take, for example, the four dominant weapon systems of the ancient and medieval periods: heavy infantry, heavy cavalry, light infantry, and light cavalry. Now, if you go to those nodes, you'll see a detailed explanation of the tactical strengths and weaknesses of each of those weapon systems against the others. Archer Jones came up with that, not me, but he's right so I posted it up here (although it's not c&p, so don't even think that). In his book, he summarizes the tactical strengths and weaknesses of each with a diagram that I may as well reproduce here too: