Tactical victory or Strategic victory?

[Leavee]

If you were a commander whose waging a war against another faction. What would be a better victory for your army? Tactical or Strategic?

Lets say your currently at war at someone that wants to take a chunk of your territory but you retaliate back but at the end he had a tactical victory while you had a strategic victory on the battle.

[Xautos]

引用自 Sir Illic：

引用自 Xautos：

Discretion is the better of valour in this case, i'm pulling out and if you and everyone else wants to kill each other, that is fine by me. when you're all weakened enough i'll come in with tactical strikes that will cripple your ability to resist and when the smoke all clears, i'm the only one of this thread to stand.

why would i need to waste resources when you can all do my fighting for me :P.
it's both strategic and tactical and so will the victory.

That's ideal, but what if you had to pick one?

wouldn't need to. :P

[76109108007942031]

引用自 Xautos：

引用自 Sir Illic：

That's ideal, but what if you had to pick one?

wouldn't need to. :P

That's kinda like saying "all of them" when someone asks you which superpower you would have, it ruins the spirit of the question.

[gugnihr]

引用自 Shane Walsh：

引用自 gugnihr：

I'll prefer to exterminate the enemy instead of engaging them at war.
Extermination is better than war because me and my army don't get harmed that way. With war both sides suffer.

You say that like your enemy would just roll over and die, they wanna live too.

iddqd

[Pilgrim_Bear]

引用自 Xautos：

引用自 Sir Illic：

That's ideal, but what if you had to pick one?

wouldn't need to. :P

You assume that you have the option to retreat or that no one would bother beelining for you.

Without knowing all that much detail about this supposed war, I'd say a war of attrition and sending squadrons of scouts to be my best option. That being said, burning farms and poisoning rivers just feels ethically wrong, but since when is war fair?

[Xautos]

引用自 ClericMatthew1517：

引用自 Xautos：

wouldn't need to. :P

You assume that you have the option to retreat or that no one would bother beelining for you.

Without knowing all that much detail about this supposed war, I'd say a war of attrition and sending squadrons of scouts to be my best option. That being said, burning farms and poisoning rivers just feels ethically wrong, but since when is war fair?

if all my enemies are fighting each other and none of them had noticed i left the field with my armies. so i can just sit on a hill and watch with all my forces and reserves, all fresh and waiting to get into the field. that is a tactical call to pull them out knowing what the situation is for what it is and strategically it keeps all my options open.

in a strategic sense, you win the most when no one is after you and everyone else is wasting their armies on killing each other.

you don't need to destroy farms and what not, just hijack the trucks full of supplies and quietly get them out and if that don't work, bomb the whole convoy, it avoids all that ethical stuff you are concerned with and slow down my enemies as they have little choice but to employ rationing.
as a strategic call it will lower morale to a dismal point and fighting will eventually become holding actions and raids with small pockets of resistance after the main battle is over.

all i'd have to do is come and tactically take out those hold outs. the rest is history.

[76109108007942031]

引用自 Xautos：

引用自 ClericMatthew1517：

You assume that you have the option to retreat or that no one would bother beelining for you.

Without knowing all that much detail about this supposed war, I'd say a war of attrition and sending squadrons of scouts to be my best option. That being said, burning farms and poisoning rivers just feels ethically wrong, but since when is war fair?

if all my enemies are fighting each other and none of them had noticed i left the field with my armies. so i can just sit on a hill and watch with all my forces and reserves, all fresh and waiting to get into the field. that is a tactical call to pull them out knowing what the situation is for what it is and strategically it keeps all my options open.

in a strategic sense, you win the most when no one is after you and everyone else is wasting their armies on killing each other.

you don't need to destroy farms and what not, just hijack the trucks full of supplies and quietly get them out and if that don't work, bomb the whole convoy, it avoids all that ethical stuff you are concerned with and slow down my enemies as they have little choice but to employ rationing.
as a strategic call it will lower morale to a dismal point and fighting will eventually become holding actions and raids with small pockets of resistance after the main battle is over.

all i'd have to do is come and tactically take out those hold outs. the rest is history.

What if it's just you and a single enemy? It's quite bold of you to assume this war has more than two sides, I would not rely on that.

[AmsterdamHeavy]

tactical actions do not win wars alone

[Pilgrim_Bear]

引用自 Sir Illic：

引用自 Xautos：

if all my enemies are fighting each other and none of them had noticed i left the field with my armies. so i can just sit on a hill and watch with all my forces and reserves, all fresh and waiting to get into the field. that is a tactical call to pull them out knowing what the situation is for what it is and strategically it keeps all my options open.

in a strategic sense, you win the most when no one is after you and everyone else is wasting their armies on killing each other.

you don't need to destroy farms and what not, just hijack the trucks full of supplies and quietly get them out and if that don't work, bomb the whole convoy, it avoids all that ethical stuff you are concerned with and slow down my enemies as they have little choice but to employ rationing.
as a strategic call it will lower morale to a dismal point and fighting will eventually become holding actions and raids with small pockets of resistance after the main battle is over.

all i'd have to do is come and tactically take out those hold outs. the rest is history.

What if it's just you and a single enemy? It's quite bold of you to assume this war has more than two sides, I would not rely on that.

Assuming it is a 1v1 army battle, Xautos' idea of just waiting out the enemy to do something dumb might not be as passive as you think, but you'd need to be a Julius-Caesar kind of ballsy to do so.

[Radene]

Tactical wins a battle, strategic wins the war.

[76109108007942031]

引用自 ClericMatthew1517：

引用自 Sir Illic：

What if it's just you and a single enemy? It's quite bold of you to assume this war has more than two sides, I would not rely on that.

Assuming it is a 1v1 army battle, Xautos' idea of just waiting out the enemy to do something dumb might not be as passive as you think, but you'd need to be a Julius-Caesar kind of ballsy to do so.

His idea isn't to wait them out though, his idea is to let someone else do the dirty work.

[AdahnGorion]

引用自 Sir Illic：

Strategic since it implies I've won something in the long run.

引用自 gugnihr：

I'll prefer to exterminate the enemy instead of engaging them at war.
Extermination is better than war because me and my army don't get harmed that way. With war both sides suffer.

Well this is about war, not genocide against an unarmed populace.

Or you could just do it the right way.. Integrate the conquered entity.

[Your_White_Knight]

In war there is no victory... only who lost less.

[RaccoonBiceps.♡]

Strategic, it feels more rewarding.

[aG| Wardog]

Strategic. The trick is, you can’t really have an effective strategic victory without smaller tactical victories.

If you suffer too many tactical defeats, that ends up being a strategic defeat, and vice versa.

[Radene]

引用自 ADF-11F "Raven"：

Strategic. The trick is, you can’t really have an effective strategic victory without smaller tactical victories.

If you suffer too many tactical defeats, that ends up being a strategic defeat, and vice versa.

Tell that to the Soviets. Got their butts kicked by the Finns and the Germans, and then still kicked both their butts back.

"Too many" tactical defeats is actually not as bad as "these few particularly important" tactical defeats.