What makes a TTRPG tactical?

[SableWyvern]

I've seen the term positional maneuver for company—brigade level movements where it's not about engagement, but instead access to resources at some position, hence the name, but it's not a commonly used term. And it's almost always a strategic element, not a tactical one, unless said position is a fortification or cover of some kind.

Interesting, thanks. By that definition, it still wouldn't apply in my "20 people in the face of the enemy" scenario (or, if it did, it would fall into the narrow band of tactical scenarios).

 

[FrogReaver]

I've seen the term positional maneuver for company—brigade level movements where it's not about engagement, but instead access to resources at some position, hence the name, but it's not a commonly used term. And it's almost always a strategic element, not a tactical one, unless said position is a fortification or cover of some kind.

IMO fortifications are resources. Taking control of those fortified positions or depriving enemies of them is a strategic concern. Tactics would be the things the squad does to take control of that area. That may involve taking cover, breaching, calling for artillery or air support, surrounding the enemy, etc.

 

[FrogReaver]

Interesting, thanks. By that definition, it still wouldn't apply in my "20 people in the face of the enemy" scenario (or, if it did, it would fall into the narrow band of tactical scenarios).

A positional maneuver doesn’t mean you will be opposition free. And while you will deploy tactics against enemies resisting your movements, those tactical movements are distinct from the positional movement aims.

 

[SableWyvern]

A positional maneuver doesn’t mean you will be opposition free. And while you will deploy tactics against enemies resisting your movements, those tactical movements are distinct from the positional movement aims.

OK, lets assume that's more-or-less correct. What point are you actually trying to make?

This conversation started when I stated that: If you have eight to twenty combatants manoeuvring in the face of the enemy, that's tactics by any real world definition.

And you replied directly to that sentence, saying: I think there’s a difference between tactical maneuvers and positional maneuvers.

I stand by my position that if you are twenty combatants or less manoeuvring in the face of the enemy, you are engaged in tactics. That you may have aims that are separate to the tactics used to achieve the aims is indeed correct. If that's all you are trying to say, I don't disagree, but you've chosen a very roundabout way of saying it.

 

[aramis erak]

In gaming, at least, I've seen "microtactical" used a long time ago for any game that focused on individual figures (and this paralleled but was separate from RPGs).

Yeah, it's been used that way.
Actual maneuver doctrines currently set the fire team as the fundamental tactical maneuver unit, be it 3 or 4 man, in the US. Prior versions used fireteams ranging from 3 to 5 man. Last I checked, USMC was 3 man, and US Army 4 man; USN and USAF infantry and infantry equivalent forces usually match USMC and USArmy, respectively.

Up through WW II, the Navy maintained infantry training as a standard part of the BM, GM, and MA rates, and the deck department seamen non-rates (SR, SA, SN). Signalmen often also got infantry training. See the LPM from those areas. There are still provisions in the LPM for naval infantry, but I don't know if they're trained outside the crews of the littoral combat ships.

Interesting, thanks. By that definition, it still wouldn't apply in my "20 people in the face of the enemy" scenario.

It would if there is a fortification or cover source, or some other resource linked to the position, such as a boat to board, that is the reason you are moving to it.

Also note: Fortification, in a modern infantry sense, includes everthing from a foxhole to a bunker, and lots between. The Russians and Ukrainians are using trenches currently, for example.

Cover is a tactical positional goal, not a strategic one.

For example, a move from open field into a stand of shrubbery or a garden wall, provided it isn't changing the targets available, a positional tactical movement. Its movement to take advantage of specific locations resources, whether in a tactical or strategic consideration.

As is movement to get off the command detonated minefield. Positional vs engagement movement are a different axis from tactical/strategic. Much tactical movement is for positional benefit. Much also is for access to targets. The move is not positional if it's about changing the available targets for your fire.

 

[FrogReaver]

OK, lets assume that's more-or-less correct. What point are you actually trying to make?

I'm explaining why I disagree with your position below.

This conversation started when I stated that: If you have eight to twenty combatants manoeuvring in the face of the enemy, that's tactics by any real world definition.

And you replied directly to that sentence, saying: I think there’s a difference between tactical maneuvers and positional maneuvers.

Indeed. Which you followed up by saying
"If you are twenty or less people manoeuvring in the face of the enemy, you are absolutely employing tactical manoeuvres."

**Quote is at bottom.

I stand by my position that if you are twenty combatants or less manoeuvring in the face of the enemy, you are engaged in tactics. That you may have aims that are separate to the tactics used to achieve the aims is indeed correct. If that's all you are trying to say, I don't disagree, but you've chosen a very roundabout way of saying it.

Do you believe engaging in tactics is engaging in tactical maneuvers? Because I think if you are facing opposition you will be deploying tactics in that situation. But I also think one can face opposition due to a manuever without it being a tactical maneuver.

If you are twenty or less people manoeuvring in the face of the enemy, you are absolutely employing tactical manoeuvres.

 

[SableWyvern]

Positional vs engagement movement are a different axis from tactical/strategic.

Yes, that's kind of what I was trying to get at with the brackets after the bit you quoted, but the way you've stated it here is much clearer.

 

[SableWyvern]

Do you believe engaging in tactics is engaging in tactical maneuvers?

No, tactical manoeuvres are a subset of tactics, and not the other way around.

However, basically anything a small group of soldiers is doing within the engagement range of the enemy is definitionally tactical (and, as @aramis erak has pointed out, this would include positional manoeuvre in that situation).

 

[FrogReaver]

Yeah, it's been used that way.
Actual maneuver doctrines currently set the fire team as the fundamental tactical maneuver unit, be it 3 or 4 man, in the US. Prior versions used fireteams ranging from 3 to 5 man. Last I checked, USMC was 3 man, and US Army 4 man; USN and USAF infantry and infantry equivalent forces usually match USMC and USArmy, respectively.

Up through WW II, the Navy maintained infantry training as a standard part of the BM, GM, and MA rates, and the deck department seamen non-rates (SR, SA, SN). Signalmen often also got infantry training. See the LPM from those areas. There are still provisions in the LPM for naval infantry, but I don't know if they're trained outside the crews of the littoral combat ships.


It would if there is a fortification or cover source, or some other resource linked to the position, such as a boat to board, that is the reason you are moving to it.

I tend to trust that you are using the terms as military appropriate.

Also note: Fortification, in a modern infantry sense, includes everthing from a foxhole to a bunker, and lots between. The Russians and Ukrainians are using trenches currently, for example.

Cover is a tactical positional goal, not a strategic one.

This part confuses me a bit compared to what you said in previous posts. You gave a general definition before that positional maneuvers were basically about securing resources. And it seems like you've excepted fortification and cover type resources from this. I assume you are correct as to how the military uses the term, but that doesn't make much sense to me as cover and fortifications are certainly resources as you admit here. Is it perhaps that they are abundant enough and only really useful in the immediate context that their value is viewed as extremely short term? Maybe I just answered my own question.

For example, a move from open field into a stand of shrubbery or a garden wall, provided it isn't changing the targets available, a positional tactical movement. Its movement to take advantage of specific locations resources, whether in a tactical or strategic consideration.

If it was to take into account strategic resources wouldn't it be better called a positional strategic movement?

As is movement to get off the command detonated minefield. Positional vs engagement movement are a different axis from tactical/strategic. Much tactical movement is for positional benefit. Much also is for access to targets. The move is not positional if it's about changing the available targets for your fire.

I think you are relying a bit too much on the overloaded meaning of the terms here.

All movement is about positioning. If you want to call that positional then positional/manuever/positioning is all the same thing. But that's not what the notion of positional manuevers are about, it would be a totally redundant term if it was. Positional manuevers really are manuevers that enhance your sides position. That's why you previously related them to securing strategic resources.

 

[FrogReaver]

No, tactical manoeuvres are a subset of tactics, and not the other way around.

I think I agree here.

However, basically anything a small group of soldiers is doing within the engagement range of the enemy is definitionally tactical

I don't agree here. Say they are advancing in the range of enemies to secure a strategic resource. I don't think advancing to secure a strategic resource is definitionally tactical, even with enemies in range, it's still definitionally strategic. But I do agree that most of the things they are doing to advance in this situation would be tactical.