“Common sense is the sense least common” – Unknown

Many readers are correct to say that what is contained in this installment (#4) seems pretty common sense – everybody knows it, I’m just simply stating the obvious. True. But knowing and understanding should never be confused as being the same. The purpose of this whole series -- to raise awareness, being aware and to know the meaning of how certain things work -- can allow us to apply the same concepts to further endeavors. Let’s just say that the function of this series is to create building blocks that can be played with.

The second part of this installment will answer questions such as: Why do we “rush a bombsite”? Why do we set up “defaults”?

Let’s move on…

As mentioned in the first part of this installment, strategy can be identified as the ‘fuel’ that essentially drives the motor –- the motor being tactics, at which we’ll now take a thorough look.

Hitherto we’ve covered the psychological aspect of the game; however, being able to apply and implement from the given foundations is a completely different story.

Tactics – Overview

To reiterate the meaning of tactics: Tactics are organized and/or systematic responses towards the immediate change of circumstances that occurs within the game. These responses are moves that enable the subject engaging in these actions to win under the rules of the game. Tactics are founded upon “cause and effect”. A certain cause occurs, thus triggering an effect – tactic then is a response to that cause. Therefore, in a game of chess, when white begins its first move by doing a ‘King-pawn’ variation, a tactical response to the game could be a Sicilian Defense variation in order to ‘challenge’ the King-pawn. Similarly, in a game of Counter-Strike, when one team flashes Catwalk on de_dust2, a tactical response would be to flash back in order to ‘challenge’ that cause.

Tactics can be divided into two sub-categories: board and time. But, in a game of Counter-Strike, time is a fixed variable. How it’s used is part of the board game and not the time game. So, for the sake of not being overly extensive with this article, we’ll integrate the ideas of time-game into the board-game.

There are 4 styles of tactics to choose from when playing any type of ‘board game’; each one will be explained in detail.


Aggressive-Aggressive

To use an aggressive-aggressive tactic is to release as little information about your strategy to your opponent as possible. This involves long-winded detours, taking alternative routes to reach the final goal. In chess, we call this the “mid-game”. In Counter-Strike, I call it “camping”.

I favor this style of play the least; players wait longer until they engage in battle –- and when in battle, the duration of the fight is longer. As Chinese saying goes: “the longer the fight the blunter the weapon”.

This style of play is often seen when teams make a rush and then stop mid-way, whether because they are flashed and halted or because it was intended to be a fake. Other times this style is utilized are when teams set up a default, eliminate an enemy or two but continue to maintain that setup without intent of making a swift blow. The simple fact that you are releasing minimal information about your strategy means it allows a longer period of time for your enemy to think of a counter-attack, and conceal your mindset. However, this does not imply that Aggressive-Aggressive tactics never work –- when used as a form of deviation at the perfect timing, they can really throw the opponent off guard.