What does Micro and Macro means?

General Discussion
What do they mean?
Micro has to do with controlling your units.

Macro has to do with building placements, unit production, etc.

That's what micro and macro mean in a nutshell.
Micro = Micromanagement, individual or small group tactics, it's how you win the battle.

Macro = Macromanagement, economy and production, it's how you win the war.
From my understanding it's roughly the game equivalent of the difference between strategy and tactics.

Micro is essentially your manipulation of units within the line of fire (put simply), and macro is simply your manipulation of your mass of units out of the line of fire (also put simply).
simply put macro is making stuff and micro is using stuff.
Micro = Micromanagement, individual or small group tactics, it's how you win the battle.

Macro = Macromanagement, economy and production, it's how you win the war.


Very well put.
In other news, does anyone know off hand which general it was that defined tactics as maneuvering your army within the range of artillery and strategy is maneuvering it outside the range of artillery? I can't seem to find it on google.
TL;DR
Macro makes units
Micro uses units
Micro means microwave
macro means ...
05/18/2012 09:03 PMPosted by Meownaise
macro means ...


"Macro"ni and Cheese
Micro: latin stem meaning small.
examples: microscope, microeconomics, microphone.
Macro: latin stem meaning large.
Examples: macroeconomics, macrocosm, macron

Think small or big.
Micro is aplying precise and constant controll to units to get the most out of them. Kiting, zergling slip knot, ability use, precise position adjustmants, or focus fire. Things like that. In a military perspective, micro would be the job of the squad leader.

Macro is large scale work, generaly builing up a lot of stuff and other grand scheme things. Technicly flanking and any "a-move" tactics would fall into macro style, though in SCII its often refered to purely on the production side. In a military perspective macro would be the job of the general, large over all troop movements and supply lines.
08/10/2010 08:37 AMPosted by Vromrig
In other news, does anyone know off hand which general it was that defined tactics as maneuvering your army within the range of artillery and strategy is maneuvering it outside the range of artillery? I can't seem to find it on google.


Not exactly, the line between tactics and strategy itself is very blurry. Tactics is the maneuvers and moves in one single battle or skirmish, while strategy is a coordinated combination of large scale moves of the forces in a military campaign in hopes of making the campaign a victory.

An example of tactics is the formation of an army in a battle. In the renaissance age the infantry line formation and fire volley are tactics. A change in battle formations could also be identified as a tactic. Other examples are but not exclusive to cavalry charges, sallies and salients, etc.

An example of strategy used in medieval and renaissance age warfare is the Fort strategy used by General de Kock in the Java War(otherwise known as the Diponegoro War) where every key conquered position there is a fort built, this was useful but expensive in long term against the Javanese who committed to guerilla warfare.

Another example for a difference between strategy and tactic on both sides could be a uneven war scenario. Country A has twice the army size of Country B. Country B knowing this decides to build a fort in a key position between these 2 countries, and this is where Country B's army is stationed. Country A's leader demanded the male general of Country A's army to start a military campaign to capture the key position at all costs. The general knows it will be difficult even with the number advantage but devises a 'strategy' made up of many different 'tactics' and movements. He first deploys scouting squads to map out a good view of the enemy country and army's layout(this is a tactic.) He then organized many raiding parties and skirmish bands to attack outlying enemy villages, weakening the enemy's supply line(yet another tactic.) Both are part of his first opening strategy, knowing of your enemy and weakening them before the battle comes. He then executes the second strategy, attempting to stack more advantages for the upcoming battle. He splits his army into two large battalions with the addition of yet another skirmish band made up of cavalry/horse mounted soldiers. He first deploys the cavalry skirmishers to raid a major farm and lightly guarded supply posts, this disrupts the enemy line of communications and cuts off the enemy army holed up in the fort at the same time lowers the morale of the enemy army. The enemy army finally realizing it quickly organizes into battle formations and is on intense awareness, pumped up for battle. The general now moves in with both of his armies, but they took a longer path through the forests and swamps to mask the armies' movement rather than taking the open grassland as a head-on assault spells disaster for any attacking army and may cause them to lose all the advantages they had garnered up.
It was time for his third strategy, the pincer attack in the last battle. Finally, the general attacks with his armies at midnight, the time where the enemy's awareness is at lowest. Nonetheless there were some of Country B's soldiers awake as night guards and they started trying to alarm their fellow comrades in deep slumber. The fort's gates were broke through before they organized properly. An ensuing battle where the enemy is literally surrounded by a larger army inside a fort, giving them little space for attempting any counter maneuvers. It became a massacre of sorts, as 70% of the enemy army fought to the death while the rest surrendered.
An example of a tactic is attacking the mineral line.

An example of a strategy is going 2 1 1 to have 2 med 16 marines with stim to attack the mineral line and getting your 3rd while you are attacking.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum