Alright, this is my OT thread for the year.

Any of you guys on here a grognard? For the uninitiated, that's a wargamer. I collect the old Avalon Hill games (currently trying to amass ASL, thought it's new incarnation is just as good from Multiman Publishing). Also just picked up a neat grand tactical boardgame called Summer Storm about Gettysburg.

Anyway, this demographic is dorky enough where some of you may have dabbled and finding such hobbyists is becoming difficult, especially here in Florida.

By the way, and on a more on-topic slant, I see some very interesting similarities between wargame design and golf architecture. Especially in terms of shot values and concepts like "strategic" use of features. The idea that one can abstract a leadership or combat situation is analogous to utilizing and "simulating" a series of golf shots or strategies on a piece of land for golf course development. I'd argue it uses the same type of brain functioning to be able to see that sort of thing.

By the way, the "strategic" school is a HUGE misnomer as there is nothing strategic about it. It should really be called the "tactical" school.

Strategy is a predetermined set of plans on a macro level in terms of military use. The strategy of golf is to get the ball from the tee to the hole using the fewest amount of strokes by using preferential lines. VERY abstract and really any golf hole fits into a strategic perspective. The sophistication of that strategy or difficulty may be in question.

What we term the strategic school is really tactical level. Meaning how we get from point A to B and how we handle situations that may arise along the way. The methods and execution as such fall under tactics.

Using an example from history: The strategy of the Normandy invasion was to establish a beach head at Normandy and attempt to cause a breakthrough on the German line to open up a new front.

The nitty gritty of the invasion and beach landings were the tactics (think opening scene to Saving Private Ryan).

It's a strategy if you have prior knowledge of the course and the hole and think of it before the round or reaching the hole. It's still much too abstract.

Standing on the tee, the decisions made are tactical, not strategic.

Strategic considerations take into account things like weather, course conditions and ability that day. But the actual choice and execution is tactical.

What we all consider to be "strategic" golf courses are really just courses filled with different tactical approaches.

Apparently, there's two of you......unless you don't count Garland, then there is one.....

Joe

I haven't heard the words Avalon Hill in over 35 years. Jutland was quite cool, as I remember, with no board and pieces spread over about a 20 ft circle on the floor.

As to dorky demographic, this might make GCAers look like Ferrari aficionados

...
The decision making is tactics.

Although my dictionary does not use the words decision making in conjunction with either strategy or tactics, the words chosen would seem to me to put strategy closer to decision making than tactics.

Kyle,

Golf is not war. Therefore, the definitions of strategy and tactics that you see in most dictionaries do not fit golf cleanly. Therefore, you have to extrapolate and get the essence of the definition so that you have something you can apply to golf and other fields of endeavor. Therefore, you have to look beyond the first definition of each in the dictionary that usually refer to the military meanings. At least in my dictionary, I would boil the words given down to plan for strategy and method for tactic (it uses each of those words predominantly in its definitions).

[
Strategy is fixed though.

So are you saying that the strategy to invade Normandy was fixed. Are you saying that the "planners" had were not taking into consideration that the Germans might find out about the invasion? Are you saying that they would not have had a back up plan?

Quote from: Garland Bayley on February 14, 2007, 08:03:35 PM

Quote from: Kyle Harris on February 14, 2007, 07:38:54 PM

[
Strategy is fixed though.

So are you saying that the strategy to invade Normandy was fixed. Are you saying that the "planners" were not taking into consideration that the Germans might find out about the invasion? Are you saying that they would not have had a back up plan?

Alternate strategies, yes.

I understand you to be saying that the WWII strategists would have alternate strategies that were fixed and they made the decision to use the invade Normandy one.

Of course now there we brought up the decision word, so maybe those were all tactics and not strategies after all.  

Quote from: Garland Bayley on February 14, 2007, 08:15:33 PM

Quote from: Kyle Harris on February 14, 2007, 08:04:35 PM

Quote from: Garland Bayley on February 14, 2007, 08:03:35 PM

Quote from: Kyle Harris on February 14, 2007, 07:38:54 PM

[
Strategy is fixed though.

So are you saying that the strategy to invade Normandy was fixed. Are you saying that the "planners" were not taking into consideration that the Germans might find out about the invasion? Are you saying that they would not have had a back up plan?

Alternate strategies, yes.

I understand you to be saying that the WWII strategists would have alternate strategies that were fixed and they made the decision to use the invade Normandy one.

Of course now there we brought up the decision word, so maybe those were all tactics and not strategies after all.  

Actually, that falls under "Grand Strategy"  

...I'm serious too...

Grand Strategy, that's fine, but you didn't clarify where the decision making is. Is it in the stragegy or the tactics?

This is the sort of analysis you can do with a course map and routing sitting at your computer.

Don't let Patrick Mucci hear you say that!
 

specific scale, shemific scale.

You just went from strategy to grand strategy. Why are you limiting things to a specific scale? Would you not agree that there is a whole continuum of strategic and tactical scales?

I don't think you have settled where the decision making is yet? You have repeated saying it is at the tactics, but you also say there is grand strategy and strategy without saying how you get from one to the other. Does not decision making apply to strategies?

Enough for now. Good night Kyle.

Actually Garland, scale is the foremost difference in tactics and strategy. You're not reading, just regurgitating a general and bad dictionary definition. I would not agree that there is a continuum of scale on tactics and strategy because there simply isn't.

From the wikipedia article on current US Military Doctrine: Within the scope of war, the US military generally defines three levels of war; 1. the strategic which includes both the National level and the Combatant Command (theater) level; 2. the operational level, which extends from the level of a joint task force including the combined forces of naval and air power with amphibious and ground operation to the maneuver brigade echelon; and 3. the tactical echelon that extends from the maneuver brigade to the lowest fighting elements including individual soldiers.

As you can see, scale is foremost in this regard.

Wikipedia goes on to cite the Army Field Manual: The United States Army Field Manual 3-0 offers the following definition of "tactics:" "Tactics – (Department Of Defense) 1. The employment of units in combat. 2. The ordered arrangement and maneuver of units in relation to each other and/or to the enemy in order to use their full potentialities. (Army) The employment of units in combat. It includes the ordered arrangement and maneuver of units in relation to each other, the terrain, and the enemy in order to translate potential combat power into victorious battles and engagements. (FM 3-0)."

More from the article: "Strategy and tactics are closely related. Both deal with distance, time and force but strategy is large scale while tactics are small scale."

Yes, decision making applies to strategies, but the decisions are made BEFORE anything actually happens. I am arguing that the critical point of decision making between strategy and tactics in golf is when the golfer steps to the tee (or more specifically when they first stand on the hole to play it). PRIOR to that, determining how to play a hole or course is strategy. Once the golfer begins to take in all factors that apply AT THAT MOMENT, the decisions are tactical.

Remember, this abstraction is from the military sense to the golf sense and no other definitions are germaine.

Strategic considerations in golf:
Analyzing a hole for play by determining carries over hazards and optimum lines of play for consideration on the golf course.

Tactical considerstaions: Determining line of play while standing on the tee and executing on that plan.  

Not to get in the middle of you two and your fine debate, but planning generally starts with a goal, followed by strategies to achieve the goal and tactics to implement the strategies.

As a golf example, consider Tiger at Hoylake:

Goal:          Win the Open Championship.

Strategies:  Keep it in the fairways at all costs

                 Rely on superior iron play for longer second shots

                 Avoid penalties

                 Be patient

Tactics:     Use a 3 iron stinger off the first tee

                Lay up in front of bunker on hole x

                Etc.

Tactics would change from day to day depending on weather, abilities on the day (maybe a 4 iron one day vs a 2 iron another, off the tee).  The tactics on second and subsequent shots on a hole can change on the fly depending on the results of the preceding shot.  But the tactical approach to the shots has to be consistent with the overall strategic approach.