>>962641
because every once in a while, someone or something comes along and changes the game, and everyone must fallow suit or die. guns becoming powerful, some genius,

Very interesting question. Humans are innovative by nature, and I guess when you get a particularly innovative guy, or someone who has one good idea, and combine that with experience and leadership potential, new strategies are developed. Also, strategies are tested and honed in a back-and-forth contest between adversaries, and the strongest strategies are continued and further innovated on.

>>962676
This.

It's a general constant state of seeking weaknesses to exploit. If one tool comes around that changes the limit of what can be done, the rest eventually adapt.

As new technology takes it's place on the field of battle, new methods must be thought out to counter and best use it. This is usually after a lot of people die in order to get it right.

>>962641
as the military say: the best laid plains go to hell when engagement begins
They also say: amateurs study tactics, pros study logistics

>>962641
You start with the various feudal and professional soldiers of your day and look at their officers. Town militia, tribal raiders, border reavers, household troops, mercenaries, and so on. They all do what they do based on what they can afford, what their traditional methods of training are like, and what they can accomplish by combining both. Usually they fight a zero sum game where things just work as they should, but every so often one group acquires a new weapon, or experience how outsiders someplace else fight through returning mercenaries or an incursion by those outsiders, or better equipment, or a diplomatic advantage, or a new sense of civic unity. Now their officers are challenged to take advantage of these changes while their rivals must change their usual tactics to counter them.

Most times these are just temporary imbalances and little comes of them. And sometimes one side comes out on top and secures the region, forcing their rivals to move their business elsewhere. But rarely it so happens that an officer discovers how much more effective his alterations are on the battlefield, and though his opponents have been crushed, the survivors and his own men who no longer have steady work having suddenly become the dominant power take these lessons and move to other warzones to apply them again, creating a cycle that eventually leads to new military strategy.

>>962641
Since you're referring to "battles", you probably mean "tactics" rather than "strategies". Strategy is how to make use of battles in order to win wars, tactics is how to use troops in order to win battles.

>>962835
That simplifies things a bit too much, since it depends a lot on the scale. In large-scale conflicts such as WW1 or WW2, the whole strategic and operational element, logistics, etc. became a lot more important, but if you look at a Medieval context for example, the tactical element becomes more important since the armies simply weren't large enough.

Not to mention that the value of tactics shouldn't be underestimated.

WW1 Germany managed to keep the much superior British and French armies at bay with tactical ingenuity alone. In fact, it worked so well that they ended up believing a war could be won through optimisation of the tactical potential alone, leading to them trying it again only few years later in WW2. Obviously they were wrong. Tactics don't win you wars, but they can make winning wars a lot easier and much less costly.

Rarely strategic and tactical ingenuity comes together though. In most cases, people start to innovate tactically when they see no other way out, while those who are on the advantage in terms of numbers and resources all too often tend to brute-force their way to victory. If the two come together though, it usually has devastating results for the enemy, e.g. looking at the Mongols or Napoleon.

Bumping cuz good thread

>>962641
I wish I was born a king or something 500 years ago so I can go around conquering and trying new tactics and shit. I guess playing total war is the closest I'm gonna get....

>>965604
Do you really want to wait months to finish sieges? 30 ingame days is long enough for me.

It sort of is like thinking up random shit in bed.

You come up with scenarios, then you explore your own possible actions and the enemy's possible actions in response using reasonable expectations and predictions.
You pick out the best scenarios you've come up with and train your men to follow orders and tell your officers what you want accomplished and how you expect things to play out.

>>965609
Besieging a castle sounds comfy as fuck

>go out to a nice green countryside with pretty friendly people everywhere (maybe they won't speak your language)
>set up a camp around your enemy's castle and have a nice chat about how they should surrender
>sit around with your mates playing cards and chess and telling ghost stories around the camp fires
>occasionally mock your enemies and laugh while they're eating and drowning in their own shit because it's the only thing they have to eat
>eventually they surrender and give you all their women to have fun with before moving on and doing it again