#1 Posted by Eternal19 (2076 posts) - - Show Bio

i had ann arguement with my friend at school who is just as much a marvel fanboy as i am a DC fanboy. and we were debating about this topic which kinda ended in a stalemate since neither of us refused to give up. So who do you guys think is a better tactician/strategist.

#2 Posted by 7am_Waking_Up_In_The_Morning (3578 posts) - - Show Bio

Tactician is Caps, but Strategy goes to Bats.

Keep in mind that both of these words are different.

#3 Posted by minigunman123 (3116 posts) - - Show Bio

@7am_Waking_Up_In_The_Morning said:

Tactician is Caps, but Strategy goes to Bats.

Keep in mind that both of these words are different.

Pretty good post right thar. Bats would out-strategize and out-prep Cap twelve ways to Sunday, but in the heat of battle, I think Cap would probably do better in conventional warfare with tactics, because Batman relies on stealth and relatively similar tactics for most of his battles. When he needs to switch things up, he usually just switches his gear a bit (and that's usually enough, in his defense), and tries to ambush people in a more effective way. Or hit them. A lot.

Bats would be the guy determining the best way to take down Darkseid like in the Justice League series' novel, "Origins", from the New 52. Just like he did in the actual comic. He thought of the overall plan if I'm not mistaken. And again in the Infinite Crisis arc, he devised the best way for people to destroy Brother Eye, and then they all went off and did their separate things.

Cap would be the guy who, if placed in those situations respectively, would be barking orders to get them to hold their ground on Earth, or follow Cyborg to Apokolips to try and bring the fight to Darkseid, one step at a time, minimizing losses and overall being more like an army captain, rather than a general. In Infinite Crisis he'd be the guy who directs a large, direct battle in space to Brother Eye, rather than organize a stealthy, ingenius way of destroying him from the inside with a minimal amount of people; he'd lead the battle well, but he missed the point of the war, which is to outsmart the enemy, not outmaneuver.

In general... Strategy is to outsmart and outthink. Tactics are a bit of that, but more or less, they're to outmaneuver your opponent.

#4 Posted by YourNeighborhoodComicGeek (20320 posts) - - Show Bio

@minigunman123 said:

@7am_Waking_Up_In_The_Morning said:

Tactician is Caps, but Strategy goes to Bats.

Keep in mind that both of these words are different.

Pretty good post right thar. Bats would out-strategize and out-prep Cap twelve ways to Sunday, but in the heat of battle, I think Cap would probably do better in conventional warfare with tactics, because Batman relies on stealth and relatively similar tactics for most of his battles. When he needs to switch things up, he usually just switches his gear a bit (and that's usually enough, in his defense), and tries to ambush people in a more effective way. Or hit them. A lot.

Bats would be the guy determining the best way to take down Darkseid like in the Justice League series' novel, "Origins", from the New 52. Just like he did in the actual comic. He thought of the overall plan if I'm not mistaken. And again in the Infinite Crisis arc, he devised the best way for people to destroy Brother Eye, and then they all went off and did their separate things.

Cap would be the guy who, if placed in those situations respectively, would be barking orders to get them to hold their ground on Earth, or follow Cyborg to Apokolips to try and bring the fight to Darkseid, one step at a time, minimizing losses and overall being more like an army captain, rather than a general. In Infinite Crisis he'd be the guy who directs a large, direct battle in space to Brother Eye, rather than organize a stealthy, ingenius way of destroying him from the inside with a minimal amount of people; he'd lead the battle well, but he missed the point of the war, which is to outsmart the enemy, not outmaneuver.

In general... Strategy is to outsmart and outthink. Tactics are a bit of that, but more or less, they're to outmaneuver your opponent.

This.

"Be water my friend"

Online
#5 Posted by jonEsherfey (443 posts) - - Show Bio

@minigunman123 said:

@7am_Waking_Up_In_The_Morning said:

Tactician is Caps, but Strategy goes to Bats.

Keep in mind that both of these words are different.

Pretty good post right thar. Bats would out-strategize and out-prep Cap twelve ways to Sunday, but in the heat of battle, I think Cap would probably do better in conventional warfare with tactics, because Batman relies on stealth and relatively similar tactics for most of his battles. When he needs to switch things up, he usually just switches his gear a bit (and that's usually enough, in his defense), and tries to ambush people in a more effective way. Or hit them. A lot.

Bats would be the guy determining the best way to take down Darkseid like in the Justice League series' novel, "Origins", from the New 52. Just like he did in the actual comic. He thought of the overall plan if I'm not mistaken. And again in the Infinite Crisis arc, he devised the best way for people to destroy Brother Eye, and then they all went off and did their separate things.

Cap would be the guy who, if placed in those situations respectively, would be barking orders to get them to hold their ground on Earth, or follow Cyborg to Apokolips to try and bring the fight to Darkseid, one step at a time, minimizing losses and overall being more like an army captain, rather than a general. In Infinite Crisis he'd be the guy who directs a large, direct battle in space to Brother Eye, rather than organize a stealthy, ingenius way of destroying him from the inside with a minimal amount of people; he'd lead the battle well, but he missed the point of the war, which is to outsmart the enemy, not outmaneuver.

In general... Strategy is to outsmart and outthink. Tactics are a bit of that, but more or less, they're to outmaneuver your opponent.

This

#6 Posted by 7am_Waking_Up_In_The_Morning (3578 posts) - - Show Bio
Just think about it for a moment. 
 

When you play chess. (for example).... You don't start off with strategy. You begin the game with tactics 1st... Then during mid game, Tactics transform into strategy..... During the end game, it's all about strategy! XD

#7 Posted by entropy_aegis (15341 posts) - - Show Bio

Batman for both,most comicbook writers could'nt tell the difference between the 2 terms anyway.

#8 Posted by korrotssoep (2 posts) - - Show Bio

Bats in both by far. Even Cyclops made Cap look like a jackass in AVX

#9 Posted by TheCrowbar (4286 posts) - - Show Bio

In terms of strategy... lets just say Batman wasn't the center of what 2 wars now?(Civil War, AvX, feel free to add a third)

In terms of tactics, hmmmm I'd say it's an even tie.

#10 Posted by korrotssoep (2 posts) - - Show Bio

@TheCrowbar said:

In terms of strategy... lets just say Batman wasn't the center of what 2 wars now?(Civil War, AvX, feel free to add a third)

In terms of tactics, hmmmm I'd say it's an even tie.

I agree, Cap is practically an idiot compared to Bats

#11 Posted by thespideyguy (2642 posts) - - Show Bio

Bats went up against aliens (twice), vampires, and zombies. Also he ruled all the gangs in gotham after an earthquake.

#12 Posted by PurpleCandy (773 posts) - - Show Bio

Batman defidently, of course I only say this because of his uncanny detective skills and after watching Young Justice.

#13 Posted by Mega_spidey01 (3078 posts) - - Show Bio

batman for strategy and tactics. cap is no nearly as good as batman.

#14 Posted by The Stegman (24662 posts) - - Show Bio

Batman for both.

#15 Posted by Crom-Cruach (8869 posts) - - Show Bio

batman in both

#16 Posted by batmanary (798 posts) - - Show Bio

I would say Batman in both. Now Cap would have experience during the War, but Batman catches that experience up quickly with his own dealing with Justice League threats matching up with Cap's Avengers experience. The advantage, here, however? Batman reads. Batman is an avid reader, and it's mentioned several times, including in Batman: Venom, for one. Batman likes to read, which means his overall strategy skill is much higher. Hell, even Damian could match Cap's strategy skills.

Tactics wise, Batman still guides the team from a further position. Just because he prefers to be in the shadows, however, doesn't mean he is unable to go right in the thick of things. He keeps his objectives and the capacity of his teammates in check in order to use that to his advantage.

#17 Posted by Erik (33041 posts) - - Show Bio

@batmanary:

Reading does not mean you have better strategy or tactics.

#18 Posted by NlGHTCRAWLER (2899 posts) - - Show Bio

Batman for both.

#19 Posted by batmanary (798 posts) - - Show Bio

@Erik: Tell me, what do you think Batman reads? Damian has read Clausewitz and Jomini when he was a toddler, so I'm betting Bruce has read up tons on battlefield tactics.

#20 Posted by .Ajax. (2486 posts) - - Show Bio

Batman for both as said many times above

#21 Posted by Erik (33041 posts) - - Show Bio

@batmanary said:

@Erik: Tell me, what do you think Batman reads? Damian has read Clausewitz and Jomini when he was a toddler, so I'm betting Bruce has read up tons on battlefield tactics.

Does not matter what he reads or how much. Reading does not make you a master strategist or tactician.

#22 Posted by BlackArmor (6141 posts) - - Show Bio

@jonEsherfey said:

@minigunman123 said:

@7am_Waking_Up_In_The_Morning said:

Tactician is Caps, but Strategy goes to Bats.

Keep in mind that both of these words are different.

Pretty good post right thar. Bats would out-strategize and out-prep Cap twelve ways to Sunday, but in the heat of battle, I think Cap would probably do better in conventional warfare with tactics, because Batman relies on stealth and relatively similar tactics for most of his battles. When he needs to switch things up, he usually just switches his gear a bit (and that's usually enough, in his defense), and tries to ambush people in a more effective way. Or hit them. A lot.

Bats would be the guy determining the best way to take down Darkseid like in the Justice League series' novel, "Origins", from the New 52. Just like he did in the actual comic. He thought of the overall plan if I'm not mistaken. And again in the Infinite Crisis arc, he devised the best way for people to destroy Brother Eye, and then they all went off and did their separate things.

Cap would be the guy who, if placed in those situations respectively, would be barking orders to get them to hold their ground on Earth, or follow Cyborg to Apokolips to try and bring the fight to Darkseid, one step at a time, minimizing losses and overall being more like an army captain, rather than a general. In Infinite Crisis he'd be the guy who directs a large, direct battle in space to Brother Eye, rather than organize a stealthy, ingenius way of destroying him from the inside with a minimal amount of people; he'd lead the battle well, but he missed the point of the war, which is to outsmart the enemy, not outmaneuver.

In general... Strategy is to outsmart and outthink. Tactics are a bit of that, but more or less, they're to outmaneuver your opponent.

This

#23 Posted by PowerHerc (84386 posts) - - Show Bio

@7am_Waking_Up_In_The_Morning said:

Tactician is Caps, but Strategy goes to Bats.

Keep in mind that both of these words are different.

This I agree with.

#24 Posted by batmanary (798 posts) - - Show Bio

@Erik said:

@batmanary said:

@Erik: Tell me, what do you think Batman reads? Damian has read Clausewitz and Jomini when he was a toddler, so I'm betting Bruce has read up tons on battlefield tactics.

Does not matter what he reads or how much. Reading does not make you a master strategist or tactician.

It kinda does. You need knowledge of prior strategists and tacticians to be able to adapt their ideas, and create the best plan. Send an idiot who's read nothing, and they'll fail. Simple as that.

#25 Posted by Erik (33041 posts) - - Show Bio

@batmanary said:

It kinda does. You need knowledge of prior strategists and tacticians to be able to adapt their ideas, and create the best plan. Send an idiot who's read nothing, and they'll fail. Simple as that.

Not true at all. I think the notion that someone is unable to come up with a strategy simply because they never read it in a book before is ludicrous. Send an idiot to do anything and they will fail. But then again, we do not measure intellect by how many books a person has read so your example is flawed.

#26 Posted by batmanary (798 posts) - - Show Bio

@Erik said:

@batmanary said:

It kinda does. You need knowledge of prior strategists and tacticians to be able to adapt their ideas, and create the best plan. Send an idiot who's read nothing, and they'll fail. Simple as that.

Not true at all. I think the notion that someone is unable to come up with a strategy simply because they never read it in a book before is ludicrous. Send an idiot to do anything and they will fail. But then again, we do not measure intellect by how many books a person has read so your example is flawed.

You're missing the point. Someone who hasn't yet learned of different forms of strategy already created is not going to be a successful strategist, let alone a tactician. We're not measuring Batman's intellect by the amount of books he reads, but rather the knowledge of previous strategists and tacticians he has learned from.

#27 Posted by Onemoreposter (4065 posts) - - Show Bio

Batarang to the head.

An unbeatable strategy.

#28 Posted by Erik (33041 posts) - - Show Bio

@batmanary said:

@Erik said:

@batmanary said:

It kinda does. You need knowledge of prior strategists and tacticians to be able to adapt their ideas, and create the best plan. Send an idiot who's read nothing, and they'll fail. Simple as that.

Not true at all. I think the notion that someone is unable to come up with a strategy simply because they never read it in a book before is ludicrous. Send an idiot to do anything and they will fail. But then again, we do not measure intellect by how many books a person has read so your example is flawed.

You're missing the point. Someone who hasn't yet learned of different forms of strategy already created is not going to be a successful strategist, let alone a tactician. We're not measuring Batman's intellect by the amount of books he reads, but rather the knowledge of previous strategists and tacticians he has learned from.

How do you explain strategists that came up with the original content to be studied? No one is capable of independent thought? Batman would be screwed on the daily were that the case.

Yes you are. You came in here stating Batman was the better strategist simply because he reads all the time.

#29 Posted by batmanary (798 posts) - - Show Bio

@Erik said:

@batmanary said:

@Erik said:

@batmanary said:

It kinda does. You need knowledge of prior strategists and tacticians to be able to adapt their ideas, and create the best plan. Send an idiot who's read nothing, and they'll fail. Simple as that.

Not true at all. I think the notion that someone is unable to come up with a strategy simply because they never read it in a book before is ludicrous. Send an idiot to do anything and they will fail. But then again, we do not measure intellect by how many books a person has read so your example is flawed.

You're missing the point. Someone who hasn't yet learned of different forms of strategy already created is not going to be a successful strategist, let alone a tactician. We're not measuring Batman's intellect by the amount of books he reads, but rather the knowledge of previous strategists and tacticians he has learned from.

How do you explain strategists that came up with the original content to be studied? No one is capable of independent thought? Batman would be screwed on the daily were that the case.

Yes you are. You came in here stating Batman was the better strategist simply because he reads all the time.

All good tacticians and strategists read about those that came before them. I was simply stating that because Batman reads all the time, a lot of that content would be focused on strategy and tactics, knowing Batman. You have to be capable of independent thought, but you will not be the better tactician or strategist without possessing the knowledge of strategists and tacticians past.

#30 Edited by Erik (33041 posts) - - Show Bio

@batmanary said:

All good tacticians and strategists read about those that came before them. I was simply stating that because Batman reads all the time, a lot of that content would be focused on strategy and tactics, knowing Batman. You have to be capable of independent thought, but you will not be the better tactician or strategist without possessing the knowledge of strategists and tacticians past.

Oh good. You can prove that stuff. I assume you can considering you are making a statement as though it were fact. So if you would be so kind as to provide proof of your statement. All one needs to do in order to be a great strategist is to know how to weigh the variables. You do not need to know that someone performed a strategy in order to perform it yourself. Did Picard need to see someone perform the Picard maneuver in order to perform it? Hell no. He took a look at the variables and came up with a solution of his own. Did the Philadelphia Phillies need to read the Art of War in order to become World Series contenders? Hell no. All they did was looked at the variables and used critical thinking to come up with a plan. I could study chess strategy for a decade and never come close to beating someone that never read a single book in his life but has a brilliant mind for strategy and a complete understanding of the game.

#31 Posted by timelord786 (188 posts) - - Show Bio

Batman as he is the BATMAN

#32 Posted by minigunman123 (3116 posts) - - Show Bio

@batmanary said:

@Erik: Tell me, what do you think Batman reads? Damian has read Clausewitz and Jomini when he was a toddler, so I'm betting Bruce has read up tons on battlefield tactics.

Damian's a piece of crap character that shouldn't exist. PIS. He is walking talking PIS. I enjoy watching him and reading about him because he's funny sometimes and the situations he's in are somewhat humerous, in regards to his relations with the other bat-family members. Other than that he's a nuisance.

"OK guys. I need someone to be Robin and not kill people and be a symbol of good. DAMIAN! You're up!" *Damian kills people* "It's okay, father-son time will cure the evil out of you."

#33 Posted by Vance Astro (91262 posts) - - Show Bio

Cap.

Moderator Online
#34 Posted by minigunman123 (3116 posts) - - Show Bio

@Vance Astro: You're dead to me. >.>

#35 Posted by Vance Astro (91262 posts) - - Show Bio
@minigunman123 said:

@Vance Astro: You're dead to me. >.>

But i'm not ACTUALLY dead.... 
 
Vance 1  You 0
Moderator Online
#36 Posted by nickzambuto (13805 posts) - - Show Bio

@batmanary said:

I would say Batman in both. Now Cap would have experience during the War, but Batman catches that experience up quickly with his own dealing with Justice League threats matching up with Cap's Avengers experience. The advantage, here, however? Batman reads. Batman is an avid reader, and it's mentioned several times, including in Batman: Venom, for one. Batman likes to read, which means his overall strategy skill is much higher. Hell, even Damian could match Cap's strategy skills.

Now THAT is a stretch.

#37 Posted by UrbanChill (228 posts) - - Show Bio

bats

#38 Posted by batmanary (798 posts) - - Show Bio

@Erik said:

@batmanary said:

All good tacticians and strategists read about those that came before them. I was simply stating that because Batman reads all the time, a lot of that content would be focused on strategy and tactics, knowing Batman. You have to be capable of independent thought, but you will not be the better tactician or strategist without possessing the knowledge of strategists and tacticians past.

Oh good. You can prove that stuff. I assume you can considering you are making a statement as though it were fact. So if you would be so kind as to provide proof of your statement. All one needs to do in order to be a great strategist is to know how to weigh the variables. You do not need to know that someone performed a strategy in order to perform it yourself. Did Picard need to see someone perform the Picard maneuver in order to perform it? Hell no. He took a look at the variables and came up with a solution of his own. Did the Philadelphia Phillies need to read the Art of War in order to become World Series contenders? Hell no. All they did was looked at the variables and used critical thinking to come up with a plan. I could study chess strategy for a decade and never come close to beating someone that never read a single book in his life but has a brilliant mind for strategy and a complete understanding of the game.

Can you? Your very last point betrays that. For someone to have a complete understanding of the game, it's unlikely that they simply just go ahead and play it. They've probably read about it, looked at previous strategies and then use those to form a basis for their own.

My point is not that you read and copy a strategy already developed by others. My point is, that it helps you to develop your own.

#39 Posted by MrShway88 (655 posts) - - Show Bio

@Vance Astro: A reason would be nice

#40 Posted by Erik (33041 posts) - - Show Bio

@batmanary said:

@Erik said:

@batmanary said:

All good tacticians and strategists read about those that came before them. I was simply stating that because Batman reads all the time, a lot of that content would be focused on strategy and tactics, knowing Batman. You have to be capable of independent thought, but you will not be the better tactician or strategist without possessing the knowledge of strategists and tacticians past.

Oh good. You can prove that stuff. I assume you can considering you are making a statement as though it were fact. So if you would be so kind as to provide proof of your statement. All one needs to do in order to be a great strategist is to know how to weigh the variables. You do not need to know that someone performed a strategy in order to perform it yourself. Did Picard need to see someone perform the Picard maneuver in order to perform it? Hell no. He took a look at the variables and came up with a solution of his own. Did the Philadelphia Phillies need to read the Art of War in order to become World Series contenders? Hell no. All they did was looked at the variables and used critical thinking to come up with a plan. I could study chess strategy for a decade and never come close to beating someone that never read a single book in his life but has a brilliant mind for strategy and a complete understanding of the game.

Can you? Your very last point betrays that. For someone to have a complete understanding of the game, it's unlikely that they simply just go ahead and play it. They've probably read about it, looked at previous strategies and then use those to form a basis for their own.

My point is not that you read and copy a strategy already developed by others. My point is, that it helps you to develop your own.

  • No but I am not making outrageous and baseless claims like you are so the burden of proof is not on me, but rather on you.
  • Wrong again. You can have a complete understanding of the game without memorizing documented strategy.
  • Well your point is wrong. You do not need to read the strategy of others in order to develop your own and you cannot prove otherwise. You just run your mouth with pseudo-intellectualism and statement after statement that you will never prove or even attempt to prove.
#41 Edited by FadeToBlackBolt (23334 posts) - - Show Bio

 It's always a good idea to go straight to the smartest people in the thread's opinion and just focus on that, which means;
 
@entropy_aegis said:

Batman for both,most comicbook writers could'nt tell the difference between the 2 terms anyway.

This.  
 
And;  
 
@lykopis said:

Ugh. Not this again.

This.
#42 Posted by TDK_1997 (14902 posts) - - Show Bio

Batman for both.

#43 Posted by batmanary (798 posts) - - Show Bio

@Erik said:

@batmanary said:

@Erik said:

@batmanary said:

All good tacticians and strategists read about those that came before them. I was simply stating that because Batman reads all the time, a lot of that content would be focused on strategy and tactics, knowing Batman. You have to be capable of independent thought, but you will not be the better tactician or strategist without possessing the knowledge of strategists and tacticians past.

Oh good. You can prove that stuff. I assume you can considering you are making a statement as though it were fact. So if you would be so kind as to provide proof of your statement. All one needs to do in order to be a great strategist is to know how to weigh the variables. You do not need to know that someone performed a strategy in order to perform it yourself. Did Picard need to see someone perform the Picard maneuver in order to perform it? Hell no. He took a look at the variables and came up with a solution of his own. Did the Philadelphia Phillies need to read the Art of War in order to become World Series contenders? Hell no. All they did was looked at the variables and used critical thinking to come up with a plan. I could study chess strategy for a decade and never come close to beating someone that never read a single book in his life but has a brilliant mind for strategy and a complete understanding of the game.

Can you? Your very last point betrays that. For someone to have a complete understanding of the game, it's unlikely that they simply just go ahead and play it. They've probably read about it, looked at previous strategies and then use those to form a basis for their own.

My point is not that you read and copy a strategy already developed by others. My point is, that it helps you to develop your own.

  • No but I am not making outrageous and baseless claims like you are so the burden of proof is not on me, but rather on you.
  • Wrong again. You can have a complete understanding of the game without memorizing documented strategy.
  • Well your point is wrong. You do not need to read the strategy of others in order to develop your own and you cannot prove otherwise. You just run your mouth with pseudo-intellectualism and statement after statement that you will never prove or even attempt to prove.

My POINT isn't that you HAVE to read about strategy to come up with one of your own. My POINT is that it is an ADVANTAGE. I'm not stating anything other than that.

#44 Posted by Erik (33041 posts) - - Show Bio

@batmanary said:

My POINT isn't that you HAVE to read about strategy to come up with one of your own. My POINT is that it is an ADVANTAGE. I'm not stating anything other than that.

Okay then. Prove your statement.

#45 Posted by PsychoPJ (39 posts) - - Show Bio

Genghis Khan could neither read nor write, and there were no Mongolian military leader before him that came close to what he accomplished. And we all know how successful he was.

#46 Posted by batmanary (798 posts) - - Show Bio

@PsychoPJ said:

Genghis Khan could neither read nor write, and there were no Mongolian military leader before him that came close to what he accomplished. And we all know how successful he was.

Chingis Khan adopted tactics already present in Mongolian and Tatar tribes. He adapted those ideas to pursue his goals. At the same time, modern human beings learn the same type of information from books and the internet rather than learning it directly.

#47 Posted by Joygirl (20045 posts) - - Show Bio

Batman.

#48 Posted by entropy_aegis (15341 posts) - - Show Bio

@batmanary said:

@PsychoPJ said:

Genghis Khan could neither read nor write, and there were no Mongolian military leader before him that came close to what he accomplished. And we all know how successful he was.

Chingis Khan adopted tactics already present in Mongolian and Tatar tribes. He adapted those ideas to pursue his goals. At the same time, modern human beings learn the same type of information from books and the internet rather than learning it directly.

I dont think Tamerlane could read or write either.

#49 Posted by batmanary (798 posts) - - Show Bio

@entropy_aegis said:

@batmanary said:

@PsychoPJ said:

Genghis Khan could neither read nor write, and there were no Mongolian military leader before him that came close to what he accomplished. And we all know how successful he was.

Chingis Khan adopted tactics already present in Mongolian and Tatar tribes. He adapted those ideas to pursue his goals. At the same time, modern human beings learn the same type of information from books and the internet rather than learning it directly.

I dont think Tamerlane could read or write either.

Neither could Akbar. The point, is however, that they all used strategies and tactics developed before them, and appropriated them to their own uses. In this case they did it through experience. In the modern world, we don't really get to learn that straight from practice, hence my point of books giving an advantage.

#50 Posted by PsychoPJ (39 posts) - - Show Bio

But you're basically saying that Batman, who while he has access to many military knowledge but for the most part is a loner, is way better at strategizing than the guy with photographic memory who was actually in the military and have experience commanding groups of people as well as access to the tactical and strategic knowledge that both the US military and SHIELD have developed.