Post History

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/12262
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/12262
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

Let's call your characters Dave (the intuitive tactician) and Kate (the analytic) so we have some way to refer to them.

Kate can be _so_ analytical, _so_ dependent on data, that she feels like she can't ever commit to a decision. But what if there's one more supply train coming? Did we think of every single possible scenario and prepare for it? Do we _really_ know how much the enemy has in munitions? These two intelligence reports conflict; which one is right? And so on.

Dave totally gets how armies move. He couldn't call a pincer movement by name, he can't articulate why he'd want light cavalry over heavy, but if you put him in front of a battle mockup board he will totally plan out your strategy by moving counters around and saying "Okay, these guys _here_, and that troop _there,_ and when the enemy comes in we do _this,_ and Bob's your uncle."

This makes Kate insane, because Dave can't connect his intuitive understanding of mass movements to any data she has on hand. Sure, if you point out that foot troops can cope with marshland better than mounted troops he'll agree with you, but he couldn't come up with that sentence on his own. Kate makes Dave insane because she takes so much time wibbling over the data and refusing to _do_ anything that the enemy decides the battle for her. He's already figuring out how to take the highlands and she can't decide whether to attack at dawn or at noon.

While it's not typical to have an "intuitive tactician," you might be able to pull it off if you consistently show that he knows what he's doing. The "over-analytical analyst" is more common.

Original score: 2