
A Pirate's Take on Strategy vs. Tactics - knoxa2511
https://diogomonica.com/2018/10/07/a-pirates-take-on-strategy-vs-tactics/
======
joshklein
Most of my career has been under the title of “strategist”. I’ve had to steer
many client organizations away from jumping the gun on tactical thinking by
convincing them strategy is qualitatively different and important.

My experience is that strategic planning is about the “what”. What should we
even be doing? As important, what should we NOT be doing? Given our limited
time and resources, what is an efficient approach to winning the game we are
playing (or do we even need to identify the game and define winning first)?
Question everything. Challenge assumptions.

Mostly ask “what” and “why”, sometimes “who” and “where”.

Tactical planning is about “how”. How can we effectively implement the
strategy? Without challenging the assumptions that got us here, and assuming
we’re already stuck with the game and the rules our strategy selected, how do
we win? No more resources are coming. Too late to ask hard questions (except
to use as input for next time we do strategy). Execute to maximize
effectiveness; worry about efficiency only secondarily.

Mostly ask “how”, sometimes ask “where” and “who”.

~~~
johngalt
> As important, what should we NOT be doing?

Exactly this. The most common 'cause of death' for a good strategy is when too
many bad ideas are tacked onto it. Most organizations have a good plan
somewhere. The problem is that they also have bad plans and inadequate means
to prune them off.

------
lordnacho
This explanation doesn't separate the terms "tactic" and "strategy". In fact
it mixes them together, he even says a tactic is basically a substrategy.

If you're using recursion, that should be clear. Just call everything a
strategy, or everything a tactic.

Fact is this distinction between these terms has never been real in any sense.
People vaguely use strategy to mean "big picture" and tactic to mean
"particular action", but if you decompose it you'll see more little strategies
inside.

This is true in many game-like situations.

~~~
Kinrany
The following definitions make sense to me: it's a tactical game if the
outcome merely determines how many resources the player will have in the next
round, and it's a strategic game if failure means there won't be a next round.

More generally, the problem with defining "tactic" and "strategy" smells like
a case of false assumptions: they're orthogonal, not opposite.

~~~
the_af
I tend to see it used like this: a tactical game is about the movement of the
pieces/units and about winning this match without particular consideration for
the next one, or considerations of logistics or use of resources. A strategic
game is concerned with the overall campaign (did I win in such a way it favors
the next match? Was it even a good idea to play this match? Did I use too many
resources?)

Indeed it's about high level vs zoomed-in detail.

~~~
dhimes
In other words, tactics are about how to win the fight. Strategy is about
which fights to engage in to accomplish an overall goal.

~~~
the_af
I can agree with this definition, though I'd say there is some degree of
overlap; they are not completely separate. The Russians (and then, the rest of
the world) defined an intermediate level and called it "operational". I
suspect one could refine it even further.

------
tomc1985
All these words to say a few simple things...

Tactics are smaller-scale than strategy. Tactics is the implementation details
and strategy is the big picture. Tactics are the movements of chess pieces and
strategy is the intent of those movements.

~~~
steve19
A tactic is slightly higher level concept than a mechanical movement, or
firing a trigger. A tactic would be how you lay an ambush, or how a small
engagement is fought.

~~~
keerthiko
Indeed. In RTS games like StarCraft or Age of Empires, that lowest level is
referred to as mechanics, control or "micro"* (depending on the context of the
finer action).

In order of scale: Strategy > Tactics > mechanics/micro/control

*micro as in micromanagement, of individual units in your army,

This is often contrasted with "macro", which refers to overall strategy +
consistency of your "mechanics" for other actions besides micro-ing army units
(training harvesters, building bases, having enough houses, sending out well-
timed scouts, etc).

------
onemoresoop
From Wiki: On 30 January 1698, Kidd raised French colours and took his
greatest prize, the 400-ton Quedagh Merchant,[18][19] an Indian ship hired by
Armenian merchants that was loaded with satins, muslins, gold, silver, an
incredible variety of East Indian merchandise, as well as extremely valuable
silks. The captain of Quedagh Merchant was an Englishman named Wright, who had
purchased passes from the French East India Company promising him the
protection of the French Crown. After realising the captain of the taken
vessel was an Englishman, Kidd tried to persuade his crew to return the ship
to its owners,[citation needed] but they refused, claiming that their prey was
perfectly legal, as Kidd was commissioned to take French ships, and that an
Armenian ship counted as French, if it had French passes. In an attempt to
maintain his tenuous control over his crew, Kidd relented and kept the prize.
When this news reached England, it confirmed Kidd's reputation as a pirate,
and various naval commanders were ordered to "pursue and seize the said Kidd
and his accomplices" for the "notorious piracies" they had committed.[20]

Kidd kept the French sea passes of the Quedagh Merchant, as well as the vessel
itself. While the passes were at best a dubious defence of his capture,
British admiralty and vice-admiralty courts (especially in North America)
heretofore had often winked at privateers' excesses into piracy, and Kidd may
have been hoping that the passes would provide the legal fig leaf that would
allow him to keep Quedagh Merchant and her cargo. Renaming the seized
merchantman Adventure Prize, he set sail for Madagascar.

------
yaseer
This is an unfortunately terrible article.

It's overly long, convoluted, and the central pirate anecdote works only to
obscure the core principles.

There is an attempt here to 'ape' the style of similar, more enlightening
pieces, but they've really gotten lost along the way.

~~~
jtms
I found this article quite the opposite of terrible, but maybe I just don’t
know enough yet. Could you share these similar, more enlightening pieces?

~~~
yaseer
Perhaps this is a question of taste.

The style of piece I mean is 'aped' by the article is "What X can teach us
about Y". I've read some really good pieces by The Economist in this
tradition, that examine historical case studies for modern insights.

Some other examples from HN in that style. I don't think these are
particularly brilliant, but I don't think they're fatally flawed. I found that
their analogy explained rather than obfuscated.

[http://alexkudlick.com/blog/what-the-four-color-theorem-
can-...](http://alexkudlick.com/blog/what-the-four-color-theorem-can-teach-us-
about-writing-software/)

[https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/telecom/security/what-
th...](https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/telecom/security/what-the-count-of-
monte-cristo-can-teach-us-about-cybersecurity)

------
40acres
I've learned the difference between strategy and tactics through agile
development.

During our pre-planning and sprint planning sessions, our PO usually lays out
a plan of our priorities (strategy) occasionally he will suggest
implementation plans (tactics) as one is want to do for an engineer turned
product owner, but I always try to take a step back and ask him "what sort of
system do you want".

It's been a few years since he was a day to day developer, he's not as well
versed in the new modules and functionality (tactics) that are now built into
the system, often times he'll go into tactical discussion but it'll be off
base because the resources we'd use to execute those tactics have changed. By
trying to understand his intent and strategy I've been able to deliver what he
wants but have the freedom to implement it in my own way.

------
stcredzero
For me, the first of the two most interesting points in this account was
largely missing: Why exactly did Lord Bellomont turn against Captain Kidd?

The 2nd most interesting point: From Captain Kidd's point of view, and looked
at objectively, Captain Kidd was an innocent man! He was carrying out a
legitimate privateer commission! He had documents supporting this, but the
facts and those documents were suppressed by rich and powerful people. In a
way, Captain Kidd was killed by fake news, and his reputation to this day is
still affected.

------
tunesmith
Here are some rules of thumb that have helped me design strategies and tactics
for my clients:

1) The already mentioned "what" and "how" distinction

2) Phrase the strategy as an already-completed state of being, that is false
now but will be true when met

3) Each strategy can have only ONE supporting tactic (which can be a verby
action statement)

4) Each tactic can have 2:n multiple sub-strategies.

5) A sub-strategy can support multiple tactics.

You end up with a DAG.

In engineering in particular, the biggest impediment is that technicians tend
to describe tactics when trying to describe strategies. I'm often asking,
"Yes, but what objective does that meet?" or some such in response. And
sometimes their answer is circular - the objective that it meets is that it
eliminates the absence of their favored solution. Some people honestly never
understand past that point. You have to pick your battles.

------
kchoudhu
Can you _feel_ the thoughtleadership?

~~~
Torwald
Oh I feel it. But, you know, lately I've gotten much more positive about these
types. They are at least trying to be great, in a time were I feel many people
don't even try anymore.

~~~
steve1977
Are they trying to be great or are they trying to be perceived as great?

~~~
Torwald
I think in the head of moste of them this distinction is yet to be discovered.
This will hopefully happen with increasing maturity.

------
tekkk
From the information gathered in the article and from other comments to me the
distinction seems: tactic is a granular method for a problem that does not
depend on previous tactic. Strategy is the conjuction of methods, tactics or
substrategies however high-level your top-most strategy is, that depend on the
previous outcome.

Strategy is like markov chain where each state is a subpart of the problem,
and each state transfer to other state a tactic with varying success
probability. But since the exact definition is not mathematical it will always
be a little ambiguous.

------
dvtrn
Threadjack: if this sort of thing interest you, and want to hear other opines
about strategy, tactics and their use through history, plus some modern
anecdotes: I've been listening to and enjoying _Strategy: A History_ by
Lawrence Freedman on my commutes to work the last few weeks.

[https://www.amazon.com/Strategy-History-Lawrence-
Freedman/dp...](https://www.amazon.com/Strategy-History-Lawrence-
Freedman/dp/1501227726)

------
dwaltrip
I would have liked more discussion about how the available tactics shape the
strategy. It seems there is generally some circularity that needs to be
navigated when constructing a plan to meet a non-trivial goal.

It is also important to acknowledge the higher-level concept above strategy --
e.g the vision, mission, or end-goal. Alternatively, this higher level can be
framed as a specific, tangible problem that needs to be solved.

------
1337shadow
Pretty cool pirate story ! But I prefer chess to comprehend strategy vs.
tactics.

Tactics:

[https://chesstempo.com/tactical-motifs.html](https://chesstempo.com/tactical-
motifs.html)

Strategies: [https://chesstempo.com/positional-
motifs.html](https://chesstempo.com/positional-motifs.html)

~~~
madeuptempacct
I am decent at chess, as in, I will generally beat any casual player and lose
to any professional player. I have no feeling of "strategy" in chess. The only
"strategical" difference is that I brute-force pressure newer players by
moving pawns up in a diagonal and forcing them into a corner. Whereas vs good
players I just do the "right" thing all the time and try to force dilemmas. At
that point its just tactics the whole game.

~~~
1337shadow
So probably will loose against any club player.

------
mrgreenfur
My old MBA boss would use them interchangeable, saying things like "tactics
can be strategic" and "strategy can be tactical." In the dictionary it says
Strategy is long term plans, and tactics are short term plans.

Strategy is where you want go / do / be and tactics are how you get there.

------
casper345
Ghengis Khan victories and successful conquest was due to the fact his faith
in his Generals. He would give them the overall strategy, "flank the opposing
army", and expect his Generals to figure out the tactics to achieve the
overall goal of winning the battle.

------
lazzlazzlazz
I'm not sure there was much ambiguity in defining strategy versus tactics in
the first place. This article's convoluted use of "end states" and "actions"
was not very helpful in solving this non-issue.

------
nz
Savielly Tartakower's take on the distinction:

"Tactics is knowing what to do, when there is something to do. Strategy is
knowing what to do, when there is nothing to do."

------
onorton
Anyone notice that the Strategic map has a spell check underline for
"Yorks's"?

------
potta_coffee
Strategy is what officers and generals do. Tactics are what NCOs do.

~~~
Apocryphon
Who does the logistics?

~~~
potta_coffee
The Platoon Sergeant =)

------
annadane
Oh. ACTUAL pirate.

