Strategy Versus Tactics

The discussion here about Black Fleet got me curious enough to look at the entry over at BGG and look at a couple of reviews. One review criticized the game for being too tactical, and I feel like I have seen that complaint in other places at BGG. Apparently games that focus on strategy are better than games that focus on tactics. Do you agree with that position? Or is this another dumb idea emerging from the BGG groupthink of the site regulars?

I consider tactics to be short-term and strategy to be long-term. I don't think one is better than another in board games. It depends on how good the game is. Historically I think tactical games that don't also have long-term strategy due to randomness haven't been popular on BGG.

I love tactical games that have some strategy driving the tactics. I've got a short attention span.

In generally like games with both but probably favour strategy over tactics. To use magic, strategy would be how you build your deck and intend to use it, tactics would be the smart ways you use individual cards. In war games i tend to prefer operational level games because of the more strategic decisions. Really though it depends on the game. The longer and more complex the most strategic level decisions i want. In a shorter game a tactical emphasis is fine.

I don't know that people are using the same definitions for the terms, so it's hard to argue. I enjoy games where you have a strategy going in, but have to adapt to the evolving situation tactically.

I think DukeofChutney has it here. Complaining a game is too tactical is fine. If you wanted BLACK FLEET to be about... you know, fleets, I would expect some disappointment about managing proper poop decks and positioning and shit. This game looks more like MULTISHIP PIRATE MANAGEMENT. Eh.

I prefer my wargames to be strategic--as tactics makes me ill (cf. FIELDS OF FIRE). I prefer my dice rollers to be tactical (cf. NEXUS OPS, RISK LEGACY). I ideally prefer both (cf. TITAN).

Games that lack interesting strategic choices often feel like the players have no real agency and simply react to the current state. Without interesting tactical decisions the game is not engaging. So ideally I want both in a game, but can live without strategic choices if the game is short, say 45 minutes or less. There are few games that lack tactical choices that I like. Mostly bluffing games like Mascarade or adventure games like Eldritch Horror. Although, after a few plays, the latter seems to have too few decision points compared to its length.

To me it seems like many users on BGG treat strategy as a synonym for multiple paths to victory. While the decision where to focus your resources is certainly part of a strategy there are other aspects to it. The more interesting ones are those that do not directly correspond with any victory conditions, but still have huge impact on the development of the game. For example, whether to forgo some goods in Catan in order to monopolize one or to take a more balanced approach.

The emphasis on multiple, clearly defined, paths to victory in many recent board games is probably due to a perceived need to signal interesting strategic decisions to customers that will likely play any given game only a handful of times and thus won't be able to discover more subtle strategies of a game.

I think the reason 'tactics' get poo pooed on over at TOS is because to them "being tactical" REALLY means your long term strategy/plan just got royally fucked up. The majority of vocal members on TOS don't like anything fucking up their engines or best laid plans or whatever.

Tactics requires quickly assessing the situation and being able to deal with a sudden and possible stressful change to the game. If you were planning on something...banking on a certain card/die roll and it falls through, what are you going to do to get back on track? Some people do not like this sudden change as it creates too much pressure for them. It usually causes a frumpy brow and/or neck-beard sweat. This is usually followed by confounding statements such as, "he fucking dick then bullshit".

Personally, I don't give a flying shit about tactics or strategy as long as I'm having a good time and things are moving at a reasonable pace. Then again, I'm not someone who plays to win and keeps a little journal of every fucking game I play. My goal for playing games is to PARTAKE IN A GAME...something that is meant to be fun and enjoyable diversion. If i'm playing a FAMILY STYLE game like Blackfleet and someone bitches about tactics/strategy while playing...I make a note in the tiny evil journal I keep tucked away in my brain-vault to never play with that person again. You're playing as cartoon pirates...what the hell did you really expect when you played the game?

This is a hard one.

Strategy in the context of games seems to mean "grand scheme" where tactics seems to mean "maneuvering". Tactics are generally a subset of strategy, at least, again, in this context. An example is this: Axis and Allies is a "Strategic" game, where Space Hulk is a "Tactical" game.

That's it in a nutshell, in my experience.

Kailes, you need to post here more. Great, insightful remarks.

One thing that ultimately turned me away from CCGs was the fact that the major strategic decisions had to be made during deck design, and I don't usually enjoy deck design. I was a very competitive tactical player in CCGs, but usually that wasn't enough to hold my own against superior deck designs, because tool box decks tend to lack power and efficiency. One notable exception was Shadowfist, and I tended to excel in the chaotic and highly tactical Shadowfist environment.

I do like games that offer strategic challenges, as along as there is the flexibility to shift strategy within a game without giving up a shot at victory.

I am not good at the long game. I really don't do well in games where I have to figure out a direction in turn one and push forward with it from turn to turn. I just can't see that far ahead and tease out the threads I'll need to follow. In those instances I'm always behind where I need to be because I always react too late. So for me, personally, I prefer tactics. But I can't see one being inherently better than the other.

I think Egg Shen is right in that a lot of BGG gamers just hate the thought that something might happen in a game that makes them have to reconsider their plan.

A lot of gamers would rather engage in parallel play than with other players.

Yeah, like 7 WONDERS. Such an exercise in multiplayer solitaire. I like drafting MAGIC THE GATHERING, but the intent is, you know, to play a game after doing it. 7 WONDERS to me felt like a draft and then we got out the latest issue of Wizard and looked up the prices for our draft picks. Highest total won.

One reason, why I think I've come full circle back to minis games is because of the way that strategy and tactics is mixed together.

When I sit down for a game of Attack Wing we pick out a mission and that mission details certain objectives that I need to complete. It then takes strategic planning to determine the overall arcing plan with how I want to accomplish those objectives and then put together a fleet that is able to complete that narrative.

Then when my opponent and I finally sit down at the table, he looks and my fleet and I his, that's when I try to identify what his strategy is and develop tactics to adapt my strategy to counter his.

If I were to chose though I prefer tactics over strategy.

I'm hearing "Tactics" being associated with the dreaded "downtime" crisis in games. Always surprises the heck out of me coming from the land of Stefan Feld.

S.