"Glossary Thought" Topic

I was looking at the Glossary here and noticed a glaring omission. Something so basic it appears to have been overlooked.

There are no definitions for the following terms:
Tactical level
Strategic level
Operational level
Grand strategic level

These are terms we're all familiar with, but is there a universally excepted definition of these terms?

There are certainly definitions of them, although they may well vary from one country to another. Some armies didn't even recognise the existance of 'operations' as a distinct level until relatively recently.

Wargaming definitions of these may be somewhat different to the military ones, but I believe conventionally we have:

skirmish
tactical
grand tactical
operational
strategic

as 'levels'.

We can't agree what a "regimental level" game is either, and that doesn't bother me at all.
With almost everything wargaming related, it means what I say it means.

BTW, when does miniature wargaming have anything to do with strategic or operational level?

BTW, when does miniature wargaming have anything to do with strategic or operational level?

Well, I have certainly played some operational level wargames with miniatures.

Wargaming is not a science so terms mean anything that one wants. Just look at scales and what is a historic….

We can't agree what a "regimental level" game is either, and that doesn't bother me at all.

That does bother me. Does it mean the player acts as a regimental commander, or does it mean the basic maneuver groups are regiments? If the former, then should sub-units be limited to just those of that specific regiment (can it really be regimental level if division/corps assets are crosslisted)? If the latter, wouldn't that make it a division level game, but then what of games where the division is the basic maneuver group? And how does one represent small attached subunits (since artillery usually doesn't act as a singular regiment)?

When gamers can settle what "skirmish" means, I'll be happy. Also dead, because that'll be after the heat-death of the universe.

That does bother me. Does it mean the player acts as a regimental commander, or does it mean the basic maneuver groups are regiments? If the former, then should sub-units be limited to just those of that specific regiment (can it really be regimental level if division/corps assets are crosslisted)? If the latter, wouldn't that make it a division level game, but then what of games where the division is the basic maneuver group?

There seems to be two schools of thought in relation to the term "level" and its use in wargaming:

1. Level refers to the smallest individual unit on the table. So a game where a brigade is the smallest unit in play would be referred to as a "brigade level" game.

2. Level refers to the "level of command", so a game where a player commands a division would be considered to be a "division level" game.

This may be one of those transatlantic things since as far as I can make out, the former appears to be more common in the US and the latter more common in the UK.

There are several conumdrums though. For example, many (most?) of us refer to "skirmish level" games as being those where 1 figure represents one man. But if you follow the 1st school of though then why are they not referred to as "individual level" games?

And so it goes …

When gamers can settle what "skirmish" means, I'll be happy.

According to the Oxford Dictionary,
Skirmish:
"An episode of irregular or unpremeditated fighting, especially between small or outlying parts of armies or fleets:"
link

What else could it mean?

Doesn't bother me at all. What's the worst that can happen of there is a misunderstanding? Someone buys a set of rules he didn't want? When's the last time that happened?

To me, regimental level means that the smallest maneuver element a player commands is a regiment.
If you want to call that a brigade or divisional level game, that's fine and dandy. Just don't argue while I am trying to move my regiments.
Or battalions.

And a skirmish level game is when the figures are individually mounted and move freely. Is the figure scale 1:1 or 5:1? Who cares? It's all representational and abstract anyway.

To me, regimental level means that the smallest maneuver element a player commands is a regiment.
If you want to call that a brigade or divisional level game, that's fine and dandy. Just don't argue while I am trying to move my regiments.

I thought you said it didn't bother you at all?

LOL Winston Smith!

Ah, I begin to see why there are no definitions for these terms in the Glossary.

"Let it be known that from this day forward and and ever after, that when I, Warhawkwind, say "Company Level Game" I do, in fact, mean to say that I am talking about running a Company of forces comprised of 3 or 4 Platoons, comprised of 3 to 4 squads each".

There. That should clear things up! Ok, everyone else now. Tell everyone here what you mean when you use any of these terms we've been discussing. That way, we can all be on the same "Miniatures Page".

I always play unit level games.

I thought you said it didn't bother you at all?

Note the part where I say "…to me ".
So that's what I say and if I disagree I will not challenge you to a duel in anger. I'm simply right and you are wrong. No big deal.

I'm simply right and you are wrong.

If it REALLY didn't bother you at all, then you wouldn't care who was right and who was wrong!

There's a difference between thinking you are right and being right.

There's a difference between thinking you are right and being right.

I don't think I am right. I know I am right.

There's a difference between thinking you are right and being right.

I don't think I am right. I know I am right.

Aha! So you DO care after all!

He's right, you know.

What I'd like to know is who was right?