The Significance
of Tactical Competence
By Gary Behnan
From
Diplomacy World #13
Throughout the hobby it is a common
concept that the prominent emphasis should be bestowed upon your diplomatic
endeavors. Admittedly, this is
correct. However, competent
tactical execution is irrefutably expedient to a “winner’s”
strategies.
Numerous articles on play have
frequently exemplified the eminence of diplomacy over tactics in singular
significance. Inadvertently, these articles have exaggerated the premise that
participants in Diplomacy condone the deterioration of competent tactical
performance.
Logically, once a player secures
his colleagues' trust and cooperation, he desires to transpose their
strategy into a tangible tactical form. Obviously, they fancy the most
accelerated means to their ends.
The maximum utilization of the
minimum force is the dogma of every efficient tactician. This theory is easily
applicable to Diplomacy. Invariably, players commandeer their forces
inconsequentially, thereby eradicating even the most brilliant diplomatic
exhibition. When these tactics are
employed by an indigent tactician, the justification is repeatedly cautious
play.
The foremost folly of cautious play
must be the "hold" order. For the infinitesimal quantity of competent use, it is
vastly exercised. There are numerous applications that are all markedly
superior.
Should a unit be holding for lack
of application, it may be employed to cut a support. For
example, the Germans have armies in Holland and Munich, the French an army in
Ruhr, and the English a fleet in Belgium. If the Germans attack Ruhr and use
Holland as support, it may be cut by ordering F Bel-Hol, thereby permitting French Army Ruhr to retain its
position. My examples will be gross
simplifications as they adequately convey my intent.
You may decide to attempt a
stupendous tactical ploy, the intentional stand-off. I refer to the preceding example;
however, Army Holland is now positioned in Kiel. Should you order F Bel to HoI in conjunction with A
Kie-Hol. the result amounts to retaining
all economic centers as the army in Ruhr cannot slip in behind you nor can he
conquer Holland for lack of force. Additionally, it permits you to maintain your
present position instead of forcing you into a less advantageous location.
Even if you are beset with
isolation, you can still interfere with your opposition's appropriation. By
striking out into a province, you may suppress an attempt to attain this
province and consequently detain your aggressor.
If indeed your unit must retain its
present province, then instead of sitting idly, you can use it for supporting
actions. For example, if we had a French army in Belgium and a fleet in the
North Sea opposing a Germany army in Kiel, you may support F Nth-Hol, thereby allowing you to conquer Holland where otherwise
you would have been stood-off.
Another application would be to
promote goodwill through support. Again, I allude to the Belgian sector;
however, the nationality of the fleet is altered to that of the English. By
ordering A Bel S GA Kia-HoI
you would not only obtain German appreciation, but you may lay a foundation for
diplomatic negotiations that were previously refused or neglected.
Finally, you can employ your unit
to disrupt or interfere with a stand-off. I again allude to the
Belgian sector, example two. Should the enemy order F Nth-HoI in unison with A Kie-HoI
by supporting one or the other, you will open one of the provinces and/or alter
economic center ownership, thereby forcing a
disbandment.
Another aspect of cautious play is
its totally inefficient manipulation of forces, best exemplified by the
massive support of one assault, where an efficiently executed thrust would
have obtained strategical instead of tactical
success.
Usually cautious play is associated
with the idea that diplomatic prowess overcomes tactical incompetence. This
ideology frequently results in a stab and the player becomes angered.
Actually, the fallible play rests on the stabbed party however, armed with his
warped ideology so that he is blind to his own fault.
There are those who advocate that
cautious play and its associated ideology can surmount all tactical obstacles.
If anyone is contemplating this self-deception, you should realize that it
repeatedly results in stab and/or stalemate positions.
In this article, I aspired to enlighten players to the significance of competent tactical execution. Habitually, the emphasis is so disproportionately allocated that the necessity of diplomatic and tactical coordination are either neglected or ignored.
Send Feedback On This Site or Any Diplomacy World Issues
