Captain America Vs Cyclops

Who is the better Strategist? Please post scans and back up your reasoning.

And for shits and giggles way in on this battle.

Cap
Iron Man
Wonder Man
Namor (black suit)
Black Panther

Vs.

Cyclops
Wolverine
Cable
Colosus
Storm

i'd say Cap is a better tactician, but Cyclops is a better strategist.

As for the fight, it depends solely, imo, on whether it's current or non-juggy colossus.

Given the other characters mentioned, I'd imagine this is regular Piotr.

If that's the case, team one should win. Largely because of Tony.

Originally posted by Harbinger
Given the other characters mentioned, I'd imagine this is regular Piotr.

If that's the case, team one should win. Largely because of Tony.

Quiet you. uhuh

Cyclops...how he lead Utopia through the assault by Xarus and by the Purifiers was incredible.

Also team one wins.

Cap in all category's.

Originally posted by BattleMage
Cap in all category's.

Cyclops has shown that he has contingency plans for everything, a whole bunch of successfully way to put down Wolverine and he even had a couple of plans that briefly worked on Worthy Juggernaut.

Originally posted by -Pr-
i'd say Cap is a better tactician, but Cyclops is a better strategist.

* what's the difference between a tactician and a strategist?

Tactics are short term strategy, more or less.

Basically. A strategy is like planning a war; tactics are what you do in the heat of battle.

Originally posted by peejayd
* what's the difference between a tactician and a strategist?

The size of the picture and whether you're talking individual moves or broad strokes.

They tend to blur into each other in the middle.

Lesse, a good example of tactics vs strategy is, imagine two forces of equal size. The first is lead by a better tactician, the second a better strategist. The two fight, and the tactician uses his units better, often setting up situations where he can bring more firepower against his opponent's forces than his take in return, knows how to get all his units the most advantageous matchups, etc., and wins battle after battle. But the strategist knew they weren't going to win battles, had set up her units so going after them would draw his opponent forward, then hunkers down in highly defensible positions that prevent the tactician from breaking through from getting more, doesn't fall for any baits so that the tactician isn't able to get them out despite tactical skill, runs out of food and bullets, and has to surrender anyway.

The tactician was using the strategy of 'destroy opponents forces,' while the strategist was using 'cut off from supply lines then take a defensive stance.' The strategist was just pushing units around, while the tactician does stuff like 'set up a pincher here, use this unit for jungle fighting and this one in the open,' etc. etc..

Can we use current versions? (Matt Fraction versions as a standard)

Dudeclops was poorly written, everyone kept telling him how great a leader and planner he is but he hardly ever demonstrated it.

Fractions Captain America ran towards the worthy with a rifle even thought most of the Worthy were bullet proof before the power up.

This is a difficult decision.

BTW Is Iron Man still a drunk here?

Originally posted by ExodusCloak
Can we use current versions? (Matt Fraction versions as a standard)

Dudeclops was poorly written, everyone kept telling him how great a leader and planner he is but he hardly ever demonstrated it.

Fractions Captain America ran towards the worthy with a rifle even thought most of the Worthy were bullet proof before the power up.

This is a difficult decision.

BTW Is Iron Man still a drunk here?

Drunk Tony works for this one.

Originally posted by -Pr-
Basically. A strategy is like planning a war; tactics are what you do in the heat of battle.

* seems like, before, it was Xavier was the strategist and Scott as the field leader is the battle tactician of the team...

* now, we all know that both Scott and Steve are the best in this field, both are exceptional tacticians and strategists...

Originally posted by -Pr-
i'd say Cap is a better tactician, but Cyclops is a better strategist.

* i think, otherwise... Steve is a better strategist, as in an overall plan... and Scott is a better tactician, where in the heat of battle, he can turn the tides against the enemy...

Cyclops has more feats as an strategist though.

Originally posted by Bentley
Cyclops has more feats as an strategist though.

Agreed. Cyc has proven this against the dark avengers and worthy juggs Cap might be better at inspiring, rallying the troops on the field and making on the fly adjustments though.

Cyc is the better general while cap is the ultimate field commander (he did lead both the avengers and jla)

Either way you look at it, imo, if Cyclops is a better strategist and Cap is a better tactician, neither man has much of an advantage over the other, so both are very skilled in both fields.

* yup, the soldiers they command is also a big factor, in this scenario, Cap already has 3 big guns in his arsenal: Iron Man, Namor and Wonder Man...

Basically, on strategy vs tactics:

The way I see it, strategy is long term goal planning. A General is all about strategy.. Tactics are used to realize a strategy.

I don't really see how you can use one without the other, and be effective.. A good strategist without good tactics can't realize his strategy, and a good tactician will lack direction and waste resources without any kind of strategy.

Or, in short, strategy tells what to do, tactics tell how to do it.

Originally posted by -Pr-
Either way you look at it, imo, if Cyclops is a better strategist and Cap is a better tactician, neither man has much of an advantage over the other, so both are very skilled in both fields.

When it comes to unit vs unit engagement, wouldn't tactics trump strategy?

If we're talking about planning a major meta offensive, than Cap wins, but when it comes to group A vs group B, I'll go with the tactician.