Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I'm just curious as to what military commanders/strategic theorists you guys read and how you implement their strategies into your game? I've been reading lots of Sun Tzu and have looked at a lot of Napoleonic military strategies but am struggling to effectively implement those wisdoms into my game.

40k is a game, not a simulation of war. War isn't based on you-go-i-go 6 turns and who has the most objectives, mathhammered army lists, run by generals who can rely on X moving to Y and shooting Z with out fail.

Also the stuff you are reading is to a large extent about pre-battle strategy and psychology, how to bring superior force to beat the crap out of the other guy in an uneven fight as possible (i.e. how to obtain a 2000pt vs 1000 pt fight and get the first turn).

That being said some of the abstract things still holds true in an abstract game like 40k.

Some of it holds true, some doesn't. Selecting your deployment to get an advantage from terrain is a tactic. Using all your force against a portion of their force works too.

Sun Tzu says be a cheap bastard and kick the other guy before he even gets to the table, that is the true path to a win!

The quote sun tzu

The general who wins the battle makes many calculations in his temple before the battle is fought. The general who loses makes but few calculations beforehand.

Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.

It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle.

And that is probably the most applicable thing to 40k. So, bring out the excel worksheets and codecies and start crunching!

The other parts of this theories applies to non-perfect information fights which you can actually hide your units and multiple layers of tactics and strategy which 40k do not simulate.....

I should always remind people that reads history, strategy is not a insight that comes to you after reading it on paper. Strategy is a reality grinded into the skull after thousands of hours of simulation, experimentation, analysis and application. What strategy books teach is how to avoid bad lines of thinking in the path of developing a strategy, but is no substitute to the hard mental work itself.

Refused flank (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oblique_order) and pincer attacks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pincer_attack) both have direct (and effective) application in 40k.

Danny Internets wrote:Refused flank (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oblique_order) and pincer attacks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pincer_attack) both have direct (and effective) application in 40k.

I've used pincer multiple times with some success. It's a bit silly to say that no military strategies work in 40k. I agree with the other poster who said that strategy is far more than just reading books.

The single most important fundamental knowledge base to build on in 40k for beginning players is a basic understanding of statistical probability. 40k is essentially a complicated game of chance, which is why I think that gambling shares more similarities than warfare/strategy manuals.

Sun Tzu tells us to land our forces and destroy the boats so that there can be no thought of retreat. I have no idea whether or not that works. I do know that if two lascannons are fired at a rhino at BS4, there is less than a 50% chance of it being immobilized. Understanding simple ratios and doing 'the mathammer' during the game can keep you from making a stupid mistake based on emotion (Lascannons! Scary!) when the reality is different (Vehicles are durable!).

I would focus on knowing things like 'how many autocannon shots kill a Chimera' or 'how many bolter shots is needed to kill a Daemon Prince' before trying to apply military theory to tabletop gaming.

The only strategy that ive found that seems to work is to take your list, make as few changes as possible and play it against everything that you can. In this 40k environment, experience is the best strategy.

I think Sourclams nails it. Most military strategy takes place at a level FAR above the small scale, tactical level of 40k. At this level, things like knowing your probabilities and rules are key. Tactics such as refused flank and such are also important.

Also bear in mind that most of the famous books on strategy were written in the Napoleonic era or much earlier, meaning that they are much more applicable to games where line formation and battlefield disposition are important (like WHFB or historic wargames pre WW1).

Come to think of it, I can't think of any military tactical books at the multiple squad level, as opposed to the platoon level.

Tactics are entirely dependent on what you have available, manpower, weaponry, resources, ect. With the theoretical technology being far superior, in essence there would be entirely different tactics. I think if someone were to strap an assault pack to their back and fly across the field, they would find themselves riddled with holes before they even hit the ground (and if that wasn't enough they probably broke all their bones when they did).

There are a few very primitive strategies that carry over, even pack animals can manage pinning, flanking, and encircling.

As sourclams says, the real key to understanding 40K is understanding probabilities.

I think there's a temptation to believe that reading the work of military theorists will make one more of a warrior. Sun Tzu is very popular in this respect, because not only is he claiming to teach military tactics, but he's also mysteriously, sagely Asian.

In reality, this ain't the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe or Red Dawn, or whatever. If you read Sun Tzu it will make you zero percent better at being a warrior. Being a great warrior will make you MAYBE ten percent better at 40K. Zero percent times ten percent is zero percent.

If you want to be a warrior, join the military.

If you want to be a nerd (and even though I own over two dozen real firearms, and have read Sun Tzu, I'm still fully a nerd), play 40K.

40k lacks a few critical mechanics that would enable "realistic" military tactics to work. Namely: there's no benefit to flanking (since infantry units don't have facing and vehicles are super-easy to turn), which makes most classic tactics sort of pointless. And there's no suppression effect or "locking" with fire, which makes fire-and-manuever and other mainstays of modern tactics impractical.

Also worth keeping in mind is the tiny size of the 40k battlefield, not just in relation to the fluff but compared to the ranges of the units. The game effectively starts with everybody at point-blank range.

The key problem is that turn based mechanics prevent any kind of reality based tactics. A defensive line does not just fire once and then politely wait for you to chop them up with a sword.

Thats why massed assaults against a foe with automatic weapons is simply suicide.

Clams is very correct in his statement that 40k is much more akin to gambling than actual warfare. Even the few actual tactics that have some effect in 40k do so for reasons having to do with the game more than any correlation with actual tactics.

What does apply are things like the psychology of warfare. Violence of action, deception, knowing what your enemy will do before he does and anticipating where he will be. In these aspects the writings of Sun Tsu, Claustwitz (sp?) and other can have some limited value.

In the end if you want to know how to win in 40k know your opponents codex as well as or better than he does, know the rules and how they effect the game, know the probabilities well enough to understand what will happen in any given action and know how to anticipate your opponent.

bigtmac68 wrote:
Clams is very correct in his statement that 40k is much more akin to gambling than actual warfare. Even the few actual tactics that have some effect in 40k do so for reasons having to do with the game more than any correlation with actual tactics.

This is precisely why 'refused flank' and 'pincer' work well in 40k. They are statistically favourable for the aggressor. I suppose that the only real tactic in 40k is to put your opponent in a position where you end up rolling more dice than he does in your respective turns, this is very generalised and there are a few army builds this doesn't apply to (Ninja tau, hordes) but, overall it is a sound, statistically efficient tactic. If your entire army is able to shoot half of their army first, chances are there isn't going to be much left to shoot back!

Today 40k 5e is all about bringing the most unfair advantage to the table. WAAC lists dominate tournament play. If you want to play a balanced list that is void of the WAAC sentiment you are hamstringing yourself.

That said I still see military style stratagies as very viable in 40k. We have a set of rules to play by that when can be agreed upon the player that can best play their list will win. Napoleon is still known by his adage Divide and Conquer. It's still perfectly viable in 40k... You bare the brunt of your forces against a portion of your opponent's list. You systematically remove blocks of their army and gain tactical superiority through numbers in the second half of the game.

G

puree wrote:40k is a game, not a simulation of war. War isn't based on you-go-i-go 6 turns and who has the most objectives, mathhammered army lists, run by generals who can rely on X moving to Y and shooting Z with out fail.

Also the stuff you are reading is to a large extent about pre-battle strategy and psychology, how to bring superior force to beat the crap out of the other guy in an uneven fight as possible (i.e. how to obtain a 2000pt vs 1000 pt fight and get the first turn).

That being said some of the abstract things still holds true in an abstract game like 40k.

Lanchester's laws are mathematical formulae for calculating the relative strengths of a predator/prey pair and are also applicable to military forces.

I have not seen many military stratagies brought to the table, simply beacause There are so many things not applicable to actual war in 40k. There are many small and special rules to take advantage of and use to your advantage in 40k. Not so much in actual combat. A good Example is walling. While a great, and very powerful tactic in 40k, saying "you cant move thought this giant gap between my tanks" does not work outside of the 40k game mechanic.

Try spell check. You'll be glad ya did.

G

Fire and maneuver still works, even better now with Marines and Combat Squads. Forced pinning is hard to achieve, but getting someone's attention with a Plasma Cannon is a great way to distract them from the Flamer sneaking up the back of the hill. Flanking doesn't give a specific bonus, but if you did it right, you've negated enemy cover, and that is a win by itself.

The best tactics will come from a sound knowledge of the statistical probability behind any given action. Choose the path of either a) most assured victory, or b) least exposed attempt at victory. Remember that in this game, whatever you do, your opponent will have a chance to react. You have to forsee his possible reactions, and plan out how to survive it before you extend for an attack, not after (this goes back to Mr. Tzu's lesson on calculations).

Strategy is what you plan to do. Strategy is what you have when you build an army list (hopefully). It is your expected path to victory. Usually, the simpler and more direct, the better. Tactics are what you use in the moment. Fire before the charge? Single charge or multiple? These are tactical decisions that can only be based on probability projections. Knowing those probabilities is your only edge with this.

Green Blow Fly wrote:
It's still perfectly viable in 40k... You bare the brunt of your forces against a portion of your opponent's list.

What is really funny is that you told someone to use spell check right after typing this. To quote a cooking teacher I had once "I can check for spelling, but not stupid."

The image of a bunch of space marines slamming down in their drop pods and pouring out around an isolated outpost of traitorous guardsmen, and then mooning the lot of them made me giggle

On topic, remember that stategies and tactics from the real world are tips and tricks for winning in the real world, ie. in terms of beating the enemy by the rules of reality.
40k, however, is not even a simulation of reality, and as such is pretty well divorced from it. What tactic uses the rules of reality to gain an advantage nearly never does in 40k, and vice versa.

Well at least you can appreciate the ironing.

G

I think if Sun Tzu played 40K he would purchase his opponent's army on EBay and not have to fight him to defeat him.

But sure, read all the tactical stuff because the fun of any wargame is imagining yourself a general -- arraying and directing your troops - even if it is a relatively short, turn-based & simplified battlefield. Since I play Orks I can just quote Nelson and say "never mind the tactics, just go straight at them".

Some armies are just that easy and hit like a lead pipe. Some people think 40k is all about the army list and totally devoid of any practical tactics but the thing is in a competitive environment such as a big event when two top players with lead pipe lists square off probably the player who uses better tactics will probably win because the rules are a lot better now.

G

This is a game that has an extensive meele system. Trying to implement RL tactics into that is not going to happen.

Consider when two mech lists face off and both have a good concentration of assault units. It will most likely come down to whoever disembarks the majority of their units first will lose. That is a very simple tactic and be equated to RL tactics.

G