|
On October 31 2008 15:04 gg_hertzz wrote:
some people like to make a distinction between strategy and tactics. i guess strategy has to do with what you're trying to achieve overall with regards to how you want to achieve victory while tactics are specific actions you take to achieve that goal. Or are there other explanations?
and what about mechanics versus conttrol? what's the difference? are there any?
Explain some of these terms:
Strategy
Tactics
Mechanics
Build Order
Control
strategy is overarching goals and plans
Tactics are the specific steps you take to accomplish the strategy. So like marine micro would fall under this.
Mechanics: Micro and macro. The stuff you do with keyboard and mouse that makes stuff happen.
Build Order. Can refer to a very specific build, or slightly more general. Basically an algorithm that describes a specific way of playing.
Control: micromanagement and unit control. Control is a subset of tactics, and tactics a subset of strategy. Mechanics is control + macro + whatever else you physically do. Build order is the specific algorithm tailored to your strategy, whereas tactics has more to do with execution, especially of micro (flanks etc)
|
Mechanics is executing the basic actions you need to acheive optimal use of the game's perameters.
ie:Cycling through your gates with either key or mouse clicks and pressing the correct hotkey of the unit you actually want to build in the fastest possible time.
|
strategy = fantasy
tactics = boxer
mechanics = flash
build order = bisu
control = jaedong
|
Strategy: broad game plan, e.g. "3 hatch muta to lurk to defiler" or "dt rush ftw" or "mass expand yay" or "i'll go dt drop, which fails but i kill 2 workers and then i type 'noob' and leave". Requires an IQ slightly above monkey level.
Tactics: when you start thinking advanced thoughts like "omg if I like storm a bit in front of where the workers are running it'll pwn so many more workers. That'll fucking rock" or "holy crap dude if I spread my M&M against lurkers they won't all die in 1 sec" or "OMFG flanking rocks, I should do this more often". Requires an IQ of at least a really goddamn stupid human (70?), so few SC players are able to do this stuff.
If you *can* do this stuff and are also *fast* (see next point), you should immediately go to Korea and start a progaming career. Or you don't, when your IQ is higher than 70.
Mechanics: what you suck at. Requires an IQ of 0, but lots of speed. It's what makes you sweat and your hands hurt. Players who are good at Tactics but bad at Mechanics say "it's not that important" and continue to suck. Players who are good at Mechanics but bad at Tactics say "OMG I JUST REACHED ICCUP A++++, BUT I STILL CAN'T BEAT KOREAN PROS, WHAT AM I DOING WRONG?!?!?!".
Build Order: how fast you start pumping mutas or DTs. Requires an IQ slightly above monkey level.
Control: how much BoxeR you are (and don't you dare say that other players can control units better. Unwritten SC law #1: nobody micros better than BoxeR)
|
Mechanics is a holistic term ...I'll try to define it by example. A Terran's "push-mechanics" measures his:
1. control of units
2. placement of units and keeping the right spacing between them
3. usage of mines
4. building turrets to avoid zeal bombs
5. using vults to intercept charging zealots or retreating goons
6. reinforcing
7. sniping HT whenever the opportunity presents itself
... etc
|
United States3824 Posts
Strategy: The overall plan to win. I believe that build order would fall into the strategy category, while anti lurker micro would fall into the tactics category. However I think that Strategy and Tactics are both relative to the conflict that they exist to solve. By that I mean the argument that SC is an example of a tactics game is incorrect because strategies exist to solve problems. In the scope of a video game, the problem is a game that needs to be completed. For instance, my problem in Mario Brothers is that Bowser can't keep it in his pants right? My strategy is to complete the levels and get the princess back. A more specific strategy would be in the second level of world one I am going to use the warp zone to skip to world four.
Tactics: using the same analogy before, when I get to the first goomba in level 1 of world one I am going to jump over him and grab the mushroom that pops out of the ? block right after him. Because this solution only addresses a single problem, that first goomba, it is not a strategy. However, if in dealing with all goombas my solution is to jump over them, that is a strategy. Strategies can be formulated to deal with reoccurring problems however their implementation to a unique situation is a tactic. I can always decide that when a lurker fires spins I'm going to move my marines and abuse the lurkers cooldown but when I play a specific game on Python and use my anti lurker micro outside my natural to deal with a particuler players skill that is a tactic.
Complicated?
Mechanics: Not going to touch this one.
Build Order: Your build order reflects what you are doing on the construction side of your game. However a build order does not react to unique situations like tactics do. Build orders are static ideas that move as units, that is the block of ideas that you have about a certain situation can count as a build order. For instance, assuming I'm not going to five pool (like a girl) the plan up until I get my scouting information is a build order. This would be presumably, in the case of tvP, (sorry for mixing ideas i don't actually play zerg) beginning with 9 supply. If I didn't scout then and planned on scouting at 13 the rax/refinery would still be part of that build order. If you guessed right and were playing agaisnt one or two gate range goon into a harass into an expo then how you react for a given period of time counts as a build order. However as soon as you play from your experience and not from a plan that you created (or copied) before the game you aren't following a build order anymore.
To reiterate, build orders are preconceived strategies. Multiple build orders can exist in a game IMHO but must all involve a preconceived plan for reacting to things.
Control: Control is anything that you do that you don't leave to the AI except in the case that you plan what you want the AI to do. If I know for sure that my marine is going to attack the unit that I want it to if I allow the AI to choose the target then that is still control.
As always IMHO
|
ABOUT the debate of mechanics vs strategy.
Mechanics enable strategy; the smartest person in the world loses if they lack mechanics to keep up macro/some micro. As you progress more and more mechanics become necessary. However, most people vastly over-estimate the amount of mechanics needed to remain competitive at each level
|
I like these definitions from WordNet:
strategy: the branch of military science dealing with military command and the planning and conduct of a war
tactics: the branch of military science dealing with detailed maneuvers to achieve objectives set by strategy
So strategy could be gaining an economic advantage by harassing opponents workers, and tactics could be a storm drop.
|
I think Mechanics is the hardest to explain. Unlike control, which you can plainly see in the form of mnm micro or muta harassment, mechanics is the stuff that aren't as visible.
|
United States3824 Posts
On November 02 2008 09:13 Medar wrote:
I like these definitions from WordNet:
strategy: the branch of military science dealing with military command and the planning and conduct of a war
tactics: the branch of military science dealing with detailed maneuvers to achieve objectives set by strategy
So strategy could be gaining an economic advantage by harassing opponents workers, and tactics could be a storm drop.
man nice use of wordnet. Ontologies for the win
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
