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.

Helps me. I always use Nazi-German Blitzkrieg Tactics where possible and works great.

If not I'll use a flanking and surrounding tactic with my Nids

Or a divide and conquer with my GK.



But for my Chaos, no. Just charge!

It helps a beginner to understand tactics for choke points, flanking and cover, but besides that, most things dont translate.

Chess is a war game, it simulates in a fairly abstract way battles between armies. It has weaker and stronger units and units with different capabilities. Playing chess gives you an appreciation on a very sound level of how different types of units can compete with other types of units. It even works on how different units interract differently based on positioning, e.g. knights can only hit in certain directions, bishops diagonally, etc.

The thing which probably most sets 40K aside from real warfare, at least historically is that usually in history commanders did not enter a battle with armies made up of massed identikit spammed units, they got whatever was available. The homogenous nature of some 40k builds makes tactics less applicable in terms of, say, manoeuvering to try and bring certain units to bear on certain other units.

I completely agree that massively complex tactics are wasted on 40K but simple ones like pivoting on one table corner are not hard and can be highly effective. I enjoy setting up an army so that it has the least mobile units on side working up to the most on the other and using the less mobile as a hinge. It can work. It works well with Eldar who can pivot on reapers and guardians on one end with jet bikes, vypers, etc on the other.

I don't believe for one minute that there are dead cert winning tactics in 40k any more than I subscribe to the idea that there are only certain 'velid' or 'winnable' builds. I honestly believe that an attempt at tactics can even up the odds a bit against 'more powerful' units. All tactics I try are really for fun and to try and liven up the game so it's not a mass pile in.

Of course as people point out in realworld warfare piling forward into open ground in the teeth of massed firepower is not a great plan (see the Somme). However, on some occasions this has worked remarkably well. Look up the exploits of the Ulster Division on the first day of the Somme. They took a slightly different approach, dropping most of their unecessary kit, running rather than walking and having a good swig of whiskey and they were able to penetrate deep into the German positions that other units attacking on very similar terrain were repulsed from with heavy losses.

I also think its unfair to say that historians focus on more compex battles. TV history programmes probably do, but genuine historians don't. Most focus on military systems, eras of conflict, etc. Like say examining conflict across the Renaissance or something. Most ancient battles are low on tactics. You get the odd commanders like Scipio and Hannibal who had real tactical flair but others with no better tactics than "there they are lads, get 'em!" Similarly most Medieval battles (on which there are many historical studies) were almost always mass brawls, if nothing else because the commanders had very limited ability to control their troops and no way to influence the fighting once it began short of basics like commiting reserves to certain areas.

It's probably worth bearing in mind that 40K is cinematic and hardly realistic. The fluff is only represented on the battlefield in the most general way. I like the silliness of it, the fact that cc is as valid as shooting in a high-tech universe is basically silly.

Play for fun and enjoy trying stuff out. 40K is a game that can reward tactics but it can also be disastrous, whilst conversely simply piling forward can be massively effective but can also end in disaster!

I don't think real world tactics are really applicable in a game of 40k.

I do think that ancient historical tactics are probably applicable in a game of Warhammer Fantasy, since Fantasy uses things like Hammer and Anvil, flanking movements, depth vs width, cavalry-foot-archer and so forth. It's actually a pretty close analog to ancient warfare - aside from magic, which is kind of silly.

Modern warfare is....kind of different. It doesn't work the same way on an operational level. It has a lot to do with logistics and placement of resources...

Individuals in modern warfare have a great degree of latitude in what they can do. Every soldier carries hundreds of rounds of self contained ammunition cartridges fired out of autoloading rifles. Basically, every rifleman can engage targets out to their maximum sight distance. They can maneuver where they like, they can engage whatever targets they feel are a priority, and they can suppress individually an entire squad or protect themselves individually from a rush of several soldiers.

So I think your biggest concerns are what strategically do you want to accomplish and how are you going to feed, clothe, and support your soldiers in the field - particularly with transportation and air support.

There's not really "assaults" in real life, you can't really move a transport vehicle directly into a firefight unless you want it blown up, artillery is usually kept off-field, and you cannot expect to walk directly into a firefight to fire a short range weapon unless you want to get turned into swiss cheese.

I guess if you want to get really rudimentary, like moving strategic assets around a field, choosing priority targets, and taking cover, then sure, it's like warfare. I just think Fantasy is a better amalgam of a real tactical environ than 40k.

 Deadshot wrote:
Helps me. I always use Nazi-German Blitzkrieg Tactics where possible and works great.

Can I ask how you translate Blitzkrieg into 40k? If there's no rear logistical objectives or enemy 'depth' to push into.

I am genuinely curious

Yes, absolutely. Will it make you an unstoppable force? No of course not. However, the principles of warfare and small unit tactics as well as planning platoon+ operations are a boon when planning how things will go. You don't need to join the military or spend time overseas to learn, a lot of the basics can be studied online. But the idea of a decisive point, massing against the enemy, using cover, screening, suppressive fire and the such are surely a benefit to war gaming. FWIW, I'm an active combat arms officer with two tours.

 Jape wrote:

 Deadshot wrote:
Helps me. I always use Nazi-German Blitzkrieg Tactics where possible and works great.

Can I ask how you translate Blitzkrieg into 40k? If there's no rear logistical objectives or enemy 'depth' to push into.

I am genuinely curious

I suppose you could use mobility to ignore your enemies best units and divide their forces, but blitzkrieg is mostly just a refinement of a bunch of stuff we now take for granted in warfare, like indirect approach, "turn up first with the most", combined arm tactics etc, real revolutionary stuff in 1939, but not so much now.

In saying that, nearly every 40k player uses combined arms tactics in making their different units work together in sync to achieve their goals, so we do use some military theory, we just don't know it.

No, 40k is just simply too simple a game to truly apply any real tactical or truly strategic thought. List building, knowing the rules, understanding the strengths of weaknesses of your army and your opponents, and playing for the objectives count more than any military background.

Maybe if you were playing a battalion level 6mm WWII historical game on a 15x7-ish foot table with the objective of capturing a small coastal village, and the attacking force outnumbered the defending force, maybe I could see some actual military thinking being applied.

But not 40k.

Jesus, this topic was answered after the 5th post, why is this topic still going on?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Deadshot wrote:
Helps me. I always use Nazi-German Blitzkrieg Tactics where possible and works great.

If not I'll use a flanking and surrounding tactic with my Nids

Or a divide and conquer with my GK.



But for my Chaos, no. Just charge!

I wonder if you actually know what Blitzkrieg is.

 Galdos wrote:
Jesus, this topic was answered after the 5th post, why is this topic still going on?

Clearly not everyone agrees with you, and/or people are enjoying the discussion. Not sure why you're taking this personally.

 Galdos wrote:
Jesus, this topic was answered after the 5th post, why is this topic still going on?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Deadshot wrote:
Helps me. I always use Nazi-German Blitzkrieg Tactics where possible and works great.

If not I'll use a flanking and surrounding tactic with my Nids

Or a divide and conquer with my GK.



But for my Chaos, no. Just charge!

I wonder if you actually know what Blitzkrieg is.

Blitzkrieg is basically this: You send your tanks at an enemy force with air planes backing them up. You go around the hard points which are then dealt with by the infantry. It can be done in 40k but... you typically want to target the hard points with your tanks, not avoid them.

As for the OP, knowledge of how 40k units interact will help you far more than watching the military channel all day. Warhammer 40k games are individual firefights and skirmishes (Even Apoc. The forces involved in those games are paltry compared to actual battles). Blitzkrieg works well on a macro level because you have other forces to exploit besides the first line. In 40k games, you only have the first line and the first line only. In fact, combat strategy on a micro level is hardly applicable in 40k. Especially since every battle seems to take place in grasslands with incredibly sparse cover. Most commanders would want to avoid those areas as they are suicide to cross.

In reality, you'd want you soldiers to hug cover as much as possible. As others have said throwing troop transports into the line of fire is a waste. However, in 40k it's a legitimate strategy. 40k is a game about rolling dice, fielding awesome looking units and learning how the game system works. The sooner you learn how to play 40k instead of trying to shoehorn what you saw on the history channel in the better.

If i studied biology and virus, does that mean that I will be good with Tyranids????

 kronk wrote:

 Galdos wrote:
Jesus, this topic was answered after the 5th post, why is this topic still going on?

Clearly not everyone agrees with you, and/or people are enjoying the discussion. Not sure why you're taking this personally.

Because all the answers are the same lol. Beyond the most basic idea that you would learn in Sun Zhu, military tactics dont help you in a game like this.

You miss understood me take it personally with me just being confused. Understandable sense its text based speech


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Blitzkrieg is basically this: You send your tanks at an enemy force with air planes backing them up. You go around the hard points which are then dealt with by the infantry. It can be done in 40k but... you typically want to target the hard points with your tanks, not avoid them.

As for the OP, knowledge of how 40k units interact will help you far more than watching the military channel all day. Warhammer 40k games are individual firefights and skirmishes (Even Apoc. The forces involved in those games are paltry compared to actual battles). Blitzkrieg works well on a macro level because you have other forces to exploit besides the first line. In 40k games, you only have the first line and the first line only. In fact, combat strategy on a micro level is hardly applicable in 40k. Especially since every battle seems to take place in grasslands with incredibly sparse cover. Most commanders would want to avoid those areas as they are suicide to cross.

In reality, you'd want you soldiers to hug cover as much as possible. As others have said throwing troop transports into the line of fire is a waste. However, in 40k it's a legitimate strategy. 40k is a game about rolling dice, fielding awesome looking units and learning how the game system works. The sooner you learn how to play 40k instead of trying to shoehorn what you saw on the history channel in the better.

Ya thats incorrect

Blitzkrieg, (known as Lightning war) is based around the idea of focusing your entire air and armor forces at a single point in the enemy defense causing a break through. The armor force continues to push right on foward towards their key objective as the infantry come up from behind as a mopping up action.

Ill post the link to wikipeidia for gaks and giggles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blitzkrieg

It is physically impossible to perform blitizkrieg in 40k unless you are doing like a single objective apocalypse style match with the objective deep behind enemy lines

 Galdos wrote:

 kronk wrote:

 Galdos wrote:
Jesus, this topic was answered after the 5th post, why is this topic still going on?

Clearly not everyone agrees with you, and/or people are enjoying the discussion. Not sure why you're taking this personally.

Because all the answers are the same lol. Beyond the most basic idea that you would learn in Sun Zhu, military tactics dont help you in a game like this.

You miss understood me take it personally with me just being confused. Understandable sense its text based speech


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Blitzkrieg is basically this: You send your tanks at an enemy force with air planes backing them up. You go around the hard points which are then dealt with by the infantry. It can be done in 40k but... you typically want to target the hard points with your tanks, not avoid them.

As for the OP, knowledge of how 40k units interact will help you far more than watching the military channel all day. Warhammer 40k games are individual firefights and skirmishes (Even Apoc. The forces involved in those games are paltry compared to actual battles). Blitzkrieg works well on a macro level because you have other forces to exploit besides the first line. In 40k games, you only have the first line and the first line only. In fact, combat strategy on a micro level is hardly applicable in 40k. Especially since every battle seems to take place in grasslands with incredibly sparse cover. Most commanders would want to avoid those areas as they are suicide to cross.

In reality, you'd want you soldiers to hug cover as much as possible. As others have said throwing troop transports into the line of fire is a waste. However, in 40k it's a legitimate strategy. 40k is a game about rolling dice, fielding awesome looking units and learning how the game system works. The sooner you learn how to play 40k instead of trying to shoehorn what you saw on the history channel in the better.

Ya thats incorrect

Blitzkrieg, (known as Lightning war) is based around the idea of focusing your entire air and armor forces at a single point in the enemy defense causing a break through. The armor force continues to push right on foward towards their key objective as the infantry come up from behind as a mopping up action.

Ill post the link to wikipeidia for gaks and giggles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blitzkrieg

It is physically impossible to perform blitizkrieg in 40k unless you are doing like a single objective apocalypse style match with the objective deep behind enemy lines

Color me wrong, then. I guess I had it backwards... my point still stands.

I find that 40k sometimes helps me win at paintball, but I wouldn't bet my life on it saving me in a warzone.

I hate to be a jumper on bandwagons, but in this case I have to be. 40K is only slightly more tactically complex than backgammon or yahtzee. It's a dice game, not a serious strategy game. Not to say that player decisions are irrelevant, so much as that the ceiling is very low and relatively easily mastered.

Real war is complicated with lots of variables and unknowns. 40k isn't. Therefore advice given from real war in the context of 40k is largely useless. The only real use is the way that it trains your brain to approach problems.

A strong knowledge of chess tactics can help immensely

I have always looked at tactics and stratigy as a mind set. The saying all war fare is based on lies comes to mind. Learning yourself and your opponent is very important, like in war. Understanding limitations and the battlefield. The rules. Doing unexpected things. Identifying bad match ups. Protecting yourself and revealing your opponents weaknesses.

40k is simply different then war and other games. However the mind set is not far off. Learn to destroy your opponent is a skill with in the system your involved with. War, tennis , baseball, 40k , buisness, love, poker and a great many other things involve tactics and stratigy. Many tactics and stragitys resemble their counterparts in the above examples.

I see it as a mindset and not literal translations from real world history or teachings. A tactical and stragitically trained mind will over come most opponents in 40k I feel. Given equal understanding of the rules. I see it as a difference between a good player amd a master. With training in any given system that person will dominate given time, not because they know what a flank is but because they know the
Physical and psychological effect it will have on the situation at hand. They will also know how and when to implement it. Same with a greatly timed and effective bluff in poker. Art of war translates to may things as a mind set. Not purely as a gospel of what to do.

In short adaptation is stragity. Rules and games change but the mindset does not.

In short no BUT (there is always one lurking somewhere ) it makes you think of ideas that you can use within the restrictions of the ruleset...

There is a point that it all depends upon the player, i don't know why but with me i can always tell when i'm screwed and really from that point it becomes a game of dice rolling (boring may as well pack up and move on )... depsite the fact that in theory i have the firepower to deal with the situation. It doesn't help the fact that when you have regular opponents you know what they are going to do so you are in effect trying to stop them from doing it, and you've lost if they succeed.

There might be tactics and some strategy involved but its unique to 40k itself... hence why it gets boring on the odd occasion, but then fun when you watch deathwing defy the law of averages and die horribly to boltgun fire

On Blitzkrieg, there is always the argument that the ideas were sound (they were) however there is that little hole that if you opponents are incompentent at the Army/army group level coupled with naff tactics and equipment of course its going to work endlessly... until that is you make a mistake and it all goes tits up- invading Russia is always going to casue problems... Nice try but still a fail i'm afraid

oddly enough if the Germans had had an army like one that appears in 40k i.e entirely mechanised then their chances would have improved....

just my humble opinions

I think a solid understanding of chess will take you further than a solid understanding of small scale warfare.

Wow, this got way more attention than I expected. And all grand input indeed.
And actually confirming my suspicions. I always figured 40k was to abstract to have the real world applied to it through tactics, but that the strategies and ideas could still be thrown in to mix it all up a bit.

Guess I can sit back, relax, and play some chess till my next game comes up.
I was gonna do this anyway cause I like chess, I'm not gonna become "that guy".

But thanks again for all the thoughts. It's made quite the read.

well in a scense yes and no, Yes in the fact if you can predict your enemy's moves by trying to draw him in or having him force his hand. but tactics like this can be picked up if you are a chess player, the only thing that would be Militaryish would be if you could louer people into an ambush which with the nature of the game its impossible to do out side of deep strikes.

So in short, any kind of stratigic thinking will give you an advantage, but claiming that being a military buff or reading the art of war will help you is just silly

I that basic tactics (very basic) still function in 40k, but the more I studied warfare et al, the more I found that 40k is lacking in critical areas which would increase tactical depth. (ex Flanking attacks only really benefit against vehicles, etc).

As it were, I found that all of my Army training really just gave me cool new acronyms to describe thought processes which I had already developed.

The make or break tactic of 40k is really deployment.

Although a little house rule which can make the game more "tactical" is to treat all walls of ruins as impassable unless there is a hole/window/door in them. Or you can only move half your move roll trhough them as you try and breach. This allows terrain to form true funnels/cannals.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Honsetly...as with any closed system...knowledge of subjects related help a little, knowledge of the exact elements of the system help immensely.
Without any military background/study/inclination a thorough reading/understanding of the rules and the roles of units should form self evident tactics.

That depends on what style of warfare you are talking about.

I've run Eldar since 2010 and I don't think of them as an army. I think of them as a Navy. And I think of the enemy as tiny gunboats going after my ships. So i've been using the fleet tactics I learned in my Operations Specialist school to win games. With aircraft added to this game I have the air support my navy needs to do its job, and my Swooping Hawks have turned into my submarine.

I use the fast maneuverability of the Eldar to do fleet tactics that seem to confuse my enemy and make him wonder what I'm doing until it is too late. It's been working fairly well so I think I'll stick to it.

From mine own humble opinion being a lover of military history, which reads about Flak 88 shell production in my spare time, I feel that it will get you into the hobby but not bring a whole lot more to the table, so to speak. You might have a small edge over a new opponent if you both just played your first game together since you might have a little more understanding of overlapping fields of fire and setting up choke points with terrain but after a few games most people will be on the same level with or without any military knowledge.

I do think that it might mold your own style of play though. I enjoyed studying the Civil War and enjoy deploying my IG men in regimental lines as I take to the board and march across to meet the enemy, and just like then my outdated style of warfare have men taking heavy losses, but I digress.

40k has a fairly abstract ruleset that in some cases can be rather counter intuitive, but if you are familiar with the rules, you can use tactics or strategies that you have read in books, or seen on TV and transfer them to the tabletop. The thing about military tactics and how battles are won and lost is the same as it is with anything else in life. you just need a little common sense. it doesn't take a genius to work out that standing in the open, bunched up, when facing an imperial guard basilisk battery probably isn't a good idea!

It does take a while for a player to be conversant with the rules, and what works, and what doesn't, but the same general principles applied in modern warfare (1939 onwards) can generally be applied to the tabletop:

Work out how much firepower you need, and then double it.

Attack the weakest point.

Commit your reserves at the point of most success

and so forth

the key is though, since military tactics are just common sense, both in 40k and the real world, you really just need half a brain, and common sense

 Backspacehacker wrote:
well in a scense yes and no, Yes in the fact if you can predict your enemy's moves by trying to draw him in or having him force his hand. but tactics like this can be picked up if you are a chess player, the only thing that would be Militaryish would be if you could louer people into an ambush which with the nature of the game its impossible to do out side of deep strikes.

So in short, any kind of stratigic thinking will give you an advantage, but claiming that being a military buff or reading the art of war will help you is just silly

Chess concepts like the fork, skewer, trade, Zugzwang, rank control and the like are more important than forcing moves. Forcing moves are powerfull in chess because you can make only one action per turn, warhammer is the opposite. A forcing move will more often than no be something that benefits the other player.

I do not believe a background in modern or historical warfare will help in Warhammer 40k. People who claim they do are often confused with the concepts learned through warfare knowledge. These knewlege are as follows

1. Know the game rules, really know them in depth! Whether in modern warfare or 40K, you can't win if you don't know the rules.

2. Know the abilities of your units (and your oppoinent's)! whether they are terminator or scouts, each has their use. People well versed in warfare understands this, they will try to make use of even weak units to get the most out of them.

3. Know math! This is a game of dice rolls. you have to understand the concept of nothing is guarenteed.Be cautious even if you think you can win an easy combact. and know that in dire situation its good tactics to pull a hail mary.

Being able to read terrain is something that I did gather from military training. Besides that pretty much nothing, the biggest thing that helped my mind was playing chess. I have played chess competitively for about 12 years.

No.

I'm in the Israeli Reserves. Drill in modern infantry corps exercises several times every year. I've yet to apply any of it to 40k.