@TheCrowbar said:

@ReVamp said:

@TheCrowbar said:

@ReVamp said:

@TheCrowbar said:

Cap lost Civil War, Cap's the reason for Dark Reign. Cyclops might be a dick in his personal life but he hasn't screwed up on the field anywhere near as much as cap.

How is Cap mildly responsible for Dark Reign?

Dark Reign wouldn't have happened if he had won Civil War.

So its his fault that he lost Civil War? Because its not like he was endangering civilians?

His reasons are irrelevant, he still lost.

@WarMachineMarkV said:

@TheCrowbar

Civil War

1- Never should have happened based on the events that led up to it

2 - Cap lost so that the writers could tell their story, then kill and resurrect him to sell a lot of books

3 - Bendis loves Norman Osborn so much he will continue to have him dominate against characters way out of his league no matter what. If Marvel mandated Cap has to win Civil War the same thing would have happened.

Irrelevant, the story that was told, was told. The reasons for it don't matter.

Personally I question the concept of him losing. He didn't lose. Heck if anything, the end of the Civil war arc was just that, end of the arc. It didn't change anything so far as the battle was going and continued to go after Steve Roger's surrender. You say his reasons are irrelevant, but I say the surrender was irrelevant because all it managed was a political statement that didn't do anything to the course of the conflict.

Likewise the story was indeed told, and it could have been told in any fashion because it is a story. However I question how it is that Dark Reign wouldn't have happened if Cap had won. The skrulls could have happened at any time, period. They could have eaten away at the hero community at any time or had they really been thinking they could have caused Civil war in the first place simply by replacing key officials and using public opinion to exterminate any and all super powered individuals. Civil war's outcome gave them the opportunity as it appeared in the comics as written but again Norman killing the Skrull Queen was just plot happenstance.

Cap is more strategic although Cyclops good too, but what makes him a match for Cap is that he can be a wildcard when it comes to being a leader. That's the best.

Steve but it's not a large gap.

Cyclops seems to have had more recent experience at strategic defense...

- stopping the Dark Avengers destroying all of Utopia

- stopping hundreds of Nimrods destroying all of Utopia

- stopping Kurrth Juggernaut destroying all of Utopia

yeah, he's been dealing with lots of sh** lately, and he's been defending it the best he can. Captain America seems to be more out of action lately, I mean his strategy in Fear Itself was to grab a shotgun WTF

I would say Cyclops, I think him and the X-men have faced much much much much much much much harder adversity then the avengers.. and have been doing it virtually their entire lives, while most of the avengers got into hero stuff when they were adults.

It depends on what, specifically, they're doing.

• On the field, barking commands, Cap is better.
• As a leader of many (i.e. a whole nation/organization), Cyclops is better.
• As a leader of smaller, arguably more powerful groups, Cap is better.
• When dealing with tougher decisions (i.e. killing the enemy), Cyclops is way better.

All in all, there's no right answer. They're both excellent leaders in their own right. Cyclops is a strict leader who won't try to be a friend to his teammates. Steve is a leader who is tough, but fair to his teammates. Neither is the best at what they do (Cyke is close-minded to some of his teammates, and Cap bases a lot of decisions on emotion), but at the end of the day, they'll get the job done.

Cap. He fought in an actual world war.

@RUKM said:

Cap. He fought in an actual world war.

That says nothing of his strategic skill, thousands of people fought in a world war, that doesn't make them all automatically natural strategist. Plus I would argue that the majority of Marvel characters have been in what should be considered war even if the president doesn't sign papers declaring antagonism with a separate nation.

Cyclops gets the nod. I get that Cap leads the avengers, but I don't really see him planning much as of late. Didn't he get his hat handed to him against The Worthy until he was able to wield Thor's hammer? -Facepalms.- Scott is a little ridiculous with the whole 85 plans per mission, but it works.

Scott all the way,all cap does is saying''go on team,avengers assemble and that kinda stuff''.he most shouts and inspires his teamates ,not leads them,all he says is hit as a team soldiers.Cyke on the other hand is the best on field tactics,knowing his troop's abilities and weaknesses ,in fact,he has taken down the x-men 2-3 times based on in-the spot decisions and depending on their weaknesses,it's also been stasted that cyke's decisions tend to be best when his time is limited,which means he has a sharp tactical mind.Don't we all remember how he took down Dark Avengers;how he humiliated them;Cyke has tactics on defeating pretty much everyone,like Juggernaught ,has put up a thousand ways to get his helmet off,sorry gotta go ,got an english lesson

There a big difference between tactics and strategy. Captain America is tactical genius not a strategic genius he good at strategy but he not a top notch genius when it comes to it his true talent lays in tactical thinking. Being a tactician is all about adopting to the sequence of battle what attacks should be used and coming up with counter attacks on the fly it involve a lot of thought processes not actual intelligence ( despite the fact that Rogers has great intelligence. Captain America is able to respond to any type of attack due to his fast thinking remember that the super solider serum increase his thinking speed.

Most of the feat that Scott has displayed are strategy not tactics involve great deal of planning, foresight, risk assessment, deductive reasoning and back plan after back plan. That where Scott excel at he great field level but skills is not on the level of Steve Rogers when it comes to tactics he a better strategist.

Captain America has two things that Cyclops will never have. A military and field experience on the same level as Logan and a strong and unshakable reputation. When Stan Lee talked about Captain America, he stated that Captain America is always about inspiring hope and doing the right thing. For him, it has never been about the results. It is about their honor and chivalry. It is exactly why after AvX, everyone saw Scott a villain. He understands his teammates and considers their wishes, even takes their suggestions and advice.

Scott is never like that. He had lost his childhood the day he lost his mother. After his powers emerged, his life is surrounded by hate and fear. To combat them, he heeded Xavier's advice and join the X-Men. I personally believe that Scott never had a reputation nor a life of glory like the super-soldier who is considered the paragon of truth and justice.

All he lived with is nothing but a life of torment, pain, struggle, and hate. Because of the actions of people like Magneto, Shaw, and Mystique, Scott had to do everything in his power to instill hope and move on with life. He was pushed into a life of never-ending war and violence. As the fear and infamy towards mutants grew, Scott had to change his approaches from time to time.

As such, he managed to achieve some tactical feats on the same level as the veteran of WW2 himself. The difference is that while Captain lives up to his reputation and morals while Scott has to make decisions that can change the course of the war. All in all, Steve is the commander of a battalion while Cyclops is the overall general of the force who must make decisions that can change the course of the overall war.