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 writing this with the hopes of merging this into an article.

Due to the nature of recent developments and a renewed effort to increase the quality of information found here on dakkadakka, I have decided to create this topic on the use of Strategy and Tactics and how these relate to Warhammer 40k.

To begin I must credit where much of this information has come from. There are two primary sources, the first of which is the Marine Doctrine written by the Department of the Navy circa 1997. The second is a series of articles written by Rick Baillergeon and John Sutherland. Both of these men are retired U.S. Infantry Officers. The original articles can be found here. These are incredible articles and I highly suggest them to anyone remotely interested in wargaming.

Tactics, a beginning

To begin it is necessary to make a distinction between strategy and tactics. Many people believe these two concepts to be one in the same when in reality, they are quite different. Strategy is a plan. Strategy begins early, very early, before the models hit the table and before you ever walk up to the table. Strategy begins with your list design and is the overall plan as to how to achieve your goals, whatever they may be. Tactics are different. Tactics are a means to an end. Tactics are what you do on the table to complete your strategy. How you deploy, move, and fire or assault are all based on tactics. Tactics, not strategy, will be the main focus of this topic.

The first step in tactics is mission analysis. This is actually a very simple concept, as almost anyone who plays any game does this. It starts as simple as: What is my mission? If it is to kill the most, then I need to kill the most. If it is to hold this green flag thing, then I better hold this green flag. Taking mission analysis to the next level is what begins to separate the top players from everyone else.

To understand the mission objectives is one thing, but to understand how to fulfill those objectives while keeping your opponent from fulfilling his/her's is something completely different. To understand this you must first understand two other important factors: Yourself, and your enemy.

I'm sure everyone has had the scenario where you look at an opponent's list and go, "Okay.. I don't know what this unit is or does... great." Only to find out two turns later that you have lost a key unit to the unknown enemy unit. Errors of this kind come from a lack of understanding your enemy (thanks to skipmcne). Do what you can to learn about each and every codex and the units within them. There are several things to consider when understanding your enemy:

-What are his strengths?
-What are his vulnerabilities?
-Does he have any shortfalls to exploit? (low troops, lack of anti-armor or anti-infantry, etc.)
-Is he predictable
-What is critical to his success?

Likewise, we also have to examine ourselves. We must ask ourselves the same questions, as we can be sure the oppent ask themselves about us:

-What are my unit's capable of?
-What are my strengths/weaknesses?
-What risks am I willing to take?
-How can I minimize my weaknesses, maximize my strengths, and do the opposite to my opponent?

These seem like common sense questions. But truly analyzing a mission, scenario, or battle in this manner is simply the first step to applying better tactics.

More to follow tomorrow as the next post is Achieving a Decision.

Very cool thread man
Very informative
Cant wait for the next installment

Tactics 101: Achieving a Decision

The objective of tactics is to achieve success through a decision in battle. Using tactical action to achieve a decision is central to success. When to achieve this decision is what is known as the Decisive Point. This is the central concept to victory and defeat. The decisive point is where the battle won, or lost. Now we need to know, "What is the Decisive point?"

Take a moment to think back to some of your recent games. Most of the time, there is a single moment in that game that you could say, "I knew I had won when...." or "I knew I had lost when..." That moment where you knew if you had won or lost is the Decisive point. A good exercise to find this point is to review Battle reports and find the decisive point.

It is this point, not the end of the game, where the outcome is produced. It is often overlooked that the decisive point is usually around turn 3 or 4. Sometimes it is turn 5 or 6, and rarely I have seen it on turn 1 or 2. A decisive point can be any number of things:

-Destroying a key enemy unit
-Holding a certain objective
-Positioning around an enemy flank
-Anytime you could say "I know I've got 'em if..." That "if" is the decisive point

Here are some examples of decisive points:

-Your playing against necrons and you know you should phase them out...
-Playing against Mechdar and you cripple the Wave Serpents...
-Against Marines you deny assault termies a target...
-Tyranids attempt to outflank, but you deny the entry turn charge...

As you can see, some points are tied to destroying key units (necrons and eldar). Some points are positioning (tyranids and marines). There are also decisive points tied to terrain. If you can prevent the enemy from reaching you effectively, that could be a decisive point.

Lets take a look at a Battle report and find the decisive point.

The battle report is here. It is Marines vs Tau, I was playing Tau.

I decided that the marine's had enough redundancy that victory would not come from a unit based decisive point. I also knew that my firewarriors could not hold objectives effectively. (This come from mission analysis.) I decided that using my mobility to capture objectives would allow me to take victory, but were is my decisive point? This is where many players go, "Oh.. It'll work itself out." Wrong... Failing to plan is planning to fail. I decided denying him mobility would allow me to maintain my advantage. My decisive point was causing his transports to be ineffective. This actually happened turn 1, but it did not mean that I won.

This is the next big problem with war, it is ever changing. Decisive points come and go multiple times in every battle. Flowing with the battle and changing decisive points is a must.

The battle continues and I decide that my next decisive point is a defensive one. I out range and out shoot the marines (mission analysis) but I cannot overextend myself. If I can maintain my area of control, I should be able to out maneuver my opponent.

After a long fought battle, this is exactly what happened. Upon review, my original decisive point was correct. "I knew I had 'em when... I destroyed his mobility."

In conclusion, finding the decisive point is why you win games. It is not killing the most, or holding the most objectives, these are how you win. Finding the point that allows you to achieve these goals and committing your forces to that point is why you win.

That's all for this weekend. Next installment will be later this week, Gaining Advantage.

Very nice, waiting for more

Providing editorial input.

Omega_Warlord wrote:
Do to the nature of recent developments and a renewed effort to increase the quality of information ...

you mean Due

Omega_Warlord wrote:
Tactics is different.

Tactics ARE different

Omega_Warlord wrote:
(yes, chicks play 40k)

This parenthetical does not add anything to the article, apart from inserting your gender bias, suggest you remove.

Omega_Warlord wrote:
Only to find out two turns later that you lost your key unit to something completely avoidable. This comes from understanding your enemy.

Suggest :
Only to find out two turns later that you have lost a key unit to the unknown enemy unit. Errors of this kind come from a lack of understanding your enemy.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
More input:

Omega_Warlord wrote:
Take a moment to think back to some of your recent games. Most of the time, there is a single moment in that game that you could say, "I knew I had won when...." or "I knew I had lost when..." That moment where you knew if you had won or lost is the Decisive point. A good exercise to find this point is to review Battle reports and find the decisive point.

Typically I'd think that the decision that LEAD TO that moment was the decisive point.

Omega_Warlord wrote:
It is this point, not the end of the game, where the outcome is produced. It is often overlooked that the decisive point is usually around turn 3 or 4. Sometimes it is turn 5 or 6, and rarely I have seen it on turn 1 or 2.

So... it can happen at any point in the game, even at the end...

Omega_Warlord wrote:
-Tyranids attempt to outflank, but you deny the entry turn charge...

This statement is unclear, what is an entry-turn charge?

Omega_Warlord wrote:
I decided that the marine's had enough redundancy that victory would not come from a unit based decisive point. I also knew that my firewarriors could not hold objectives effectively. (This come from mission analysis.)

parenthetical should be explained in more detail.

Omega_Warlord wrote:
I decided that using my mobility to capture objectives would allow me to take victory, but were is my decisive point? This is where many players go, "Oh.. It'll work itself out." Wrong... Failing to plan is planning to fail.

The anecdote is cute, but unnecessary

Omega_Warlord wrote:
I decided denying him mobility would allow me to maintain my advantage. My decisive point was causing his transports to be ineffective. This actually happened turn 1, but it did not mean that I won.

Then it wasn't a Decisive point, by your earlier definition.

Omega_Warlord wrote:

In conclusion, finding the decisive point is how you win games. It is not killing the most, or holding the most objectives, it is finding the point that allows you to do this and committing your forces to it.

Technically winning is determined by the parameters of the mission; which typically IS achieved by killing the most, or holding the most objectives.

Thanks for pointing out some of the grammatical typos, I'll fix those.

Also, to be more clear on what an entry turn charge is. If a unit is outflanking, the turn from which they arrive from reserve is what I consider the entry turn. They enter the game on that turn. Some people describe this as an arrival turn. Most units that outflank tend to do so with the hopes of assaulting that turn. Denying this to happen is what I meant by "entry turn charge."

The conclusion statement is not to be taken as a literal declaration of victory, but as an objective idea. It's not how you won, but why. Which I will rephrase to better represent this, thank you.

Similar to football, the team that has the most points wins, but is it just because they scored the most, or was it because of their defense, time management and special teams? If you can determine why you won, or why you will win, this is what finding the decisive point is all about.

Also, just for clarity, decisive points are tools, not answers. This will be explained more in the next installment concerning advantages. Many times it is a combination of decisive actions that result in the win.

tactics 101.
if you have a choice between rapid firing and charging, charging is the right thing to do 95% of the time.

don't divide your forces. if your opponent divides his, concentrate everything you have on an isolated element of his army and destroy it before moving on to the rest of his force.

build your army to be super shooty or super assaulty. If you try to make a generalist list you're going to super lose.

Thumbs up so I can subscribe

Love it, MOAR!

have a vague idea of what your units are capable of. I once had an opponent dual charge skarbrand and a blood thirster with a squad of 7 possessed. Needless to say that fight didnt last long. The dumb thing was he came to me.

I hope you are finding these helpful. As I am having a rather good time writing them

Tactics 101: Gaining an Advantage

One of the principles of martial arts is to use opponent's momentum against him, thereby gaining an advantage. The same concept applies to tactics; we gain advantage over our enemy by exploiting every aspect of a situation. There are many different ways generate leverage to gain the advantage.

Combined Arms

This is the idea of using multiple forms of attack to place the enemy in a no-win situation. In chess, this type of situation is called Zu Zwang, placing your opponent in a position so that no matter what they do, it hurts their position. This works well in real life, combining air support, artillery strikes, and infantry arms, but how do we use this in 40k?

One example comes from the Eldar. Lets say a squad of marines seeks cover in some ruins. The eldar have 3 units providing influence to that area, a Dark Reaper Exarch, a squad of Howling Banshees, and a Wave serpent with Fire Dragons. No matter what the marine player does, it is bad for the squad. If the squad stays within cover, the Reaper Exarch can use Crack Shot to cause casualties. If the squad charges out, they will be caught by the Banshees bearing down on them. If the squad retreats back out of cover, the Fire Dragons will catch and destroy them. This is an example of Zu Zwang, and it provides the Eldar player an advantage.

Maneuver

In a general sense, to maneuver is to move. A more militaristic view defines a maneuver as "moving in a way that gains positional advantage." Maneuvering is the most basic way to gain an advantage. It could be as simple as moving to the side arc of a vehicle for lower armor value. It could be placing a unit in some area terrain to gain a cover save. Any of these common since moves are maneuvers, they give you the player some sort of advantage.

Maneuvers can be much more effective, much more subtle, and much more devastating. Rushing forward with a Landraider to unload a group of TH/SS terminators into combat is a very devastating maneuver. Moving a speeder flat-out in front of said landraider to prevent this very scenario is a very effective maneuver. Moving your squad back so that they are just outside of charge range of the unloading terminators is subtle, effective, and potentially devastating.

Maneuvers can also be to present a presence to the enemy. If we place a squad of assault marines within 12" of a key piece of terrain, then the enemy will be much less likely to try and take that terrain if they cannot handle the coming assault. In this action, we created an advantage by influencing our opponent's actions, increasing our area of control, and dictating the flow of the battle, just by one simple maneuver.

Terrain

There will be an entire post on analyzing and understanding terrain later, but for now, know that terrain can provide major advantages, and major disadvantages.

In 40k, terrain's main uses are 1)provide cover saves, 2)block line-of-sight, and 3) look pretty. All of these are well and good, but there are more uses both directly and indirectly related to these.

Terrain can be a great weapon. If you are worried about that genestealer squad wiping you out in assault, move into some terrain. It provides many advantages: initiative equalizer, possible failed assault, and some cover to fall back through.

Using terrain to move safely is another advantage. If you need to get your troops somewhere, why move where you can be fired upon, if you can move out of line-of-sight. This gives you free movement without unneeded casualties.

Complementary Forces

This is the basic idea of the Hammer and the Anvil, also know as fix-and-flank. In this action, we want to fix the enemy into a position and use another force to crush him. The two actions have to work together to be effective.

An example from da' Orks! If there is a threat of Boss Snickrot coming in from behind your lines, you are much more likely to deploy closer to the center of the table. Anticipating this, Gazzy and nobs deploy to rush the center and destroy all your wonderful troops. The fixing action is the threat of Snickrot, the flanking action is actually Gazzy in this example. Keep in mind that the two forces could interchange in battle. If you deploy back away from Gazzy, then Snickrot becomes the flanking actions as Gazzy is now the fixing action.

Surprise

Surprise is very hard to achieve in the world of 40k. All lists are transparent and deployments are in full discloser. About the only way to actually generate a decent amount of surprise is using full or near full reserve/outflank/deepstriking armies. That leaves the ability to make tactical decisions without telegraphing them on the board. That is, unitll your reserves come in, then all tactics are telegraphed.

It is possible to achieve surprise through deploying second. That will allow you to do something unexpected to through your opponent off balance.

Asymmetry

Gaining an advantage through asymmetry is to use imbalance as your weapon. If an opponent is low on troops, then you can focus your attacks on them to gain an advantage on objective based mission.

Lets say a Chaos player deploys evenly across the board, covering many different fronts and using all the area available to him. Fighting asymmetrically, we could deploy all our forces on one half of the board, eliminating most of his army from the actual fight. This would be an advantage of our full force against only half of his force.


All of these various ideals are way to create an advantage. If you look closely, you will see that each advantage gained is done so by secondary and tertiary decisive actions. Each advantage gained has its own decisive point. Advantages, like decisive points, are again a tool to victory, not the guarantee of success. Once an advantage is gained, it should be used to exploit the enemy and to gain more advantages. The more advantages you gain, the better off you'll be in the long run.

Next topic (it may be awhile) Combat Multipliers

AbaddonFidelis wrote:tactics 101.
if you have a choice between rapid firing and charging, charging is the right thing to do 95% of the time.

don't divide your forces. if your opponent divides his, concentrate everything you have on an isolated element of his army and destroy it before moving on to the rest of his force.

I could not disagree more about the rapid firing statement, The majority of troops in the game that you will face have WS4 meaning a tactical would get a 2 attacks each needing a 4+ to hit.

If you rapid fire you get 2 attacks each needing only 3+ to hit with the same strength. Of course since the nearly every army in the game has some mechanic to make it ignore or atleast make it hard to fail moral checks its unlikely that a squad will ever be made to fall back by shooting alone so I agree about assaulting if you need to shift a unit of an objective.

As for the dont divide your army statement I totally agree and its prolly the best advice anyone could give a starting 40k player.

tactics 101.
if you have a choice between rapid firing and charging, charging is the right thing to do 95% of the time.

Not if the enemy can wipe out your charging unit.
If it doesn't charge, the enemy has to deal with it next turn.
Otherwise, after wiping out in the turn they charge, he is free to move his units,
and with the advance of D6'' he's even closer...

AbaddonFidelis wrote:tactics 101.
if you have a choice between rapid firing and charging, charging is the right thing to do 95% of the time.

don't divide your forces. if your opponent divides his, concentrate everything you have on an isolated element of his army and destroy it before moving on to the rest of his force.

build your army to be super shooty or super assaulty. If you try to make a generalist list you're going to super lose.

Im an Ork player, and this bit of advice is super correct. Everytime Ive tried the split shooty/assaulty it just does NOT work in my favor. Lists in 5th edition seem to rely big time on this tactic. If I go all shooty Orks, it does so much better, same with my super assault builds. But mixing them just makes it all wth am I doing.

Also knowing what your units are best suited for (kindda like the entire Eldar army lol) is incredibly important, that skarbrand story is a perfect example of this. Sure your unit might have a chance of popping a LR or taking down a MC, but when its like 20% or less, unless its a last ditch effort (IE meaning if this is all you have left, and IF you roll some 6s and IF your opponent rolls 5 out of 6 1s then the game is yours) then dont do it, its just throwing the game.


Cover cover cover! Simply put, if you dont use cover, your not winning, plain and simple.

Like you stated knowing your opponent and their army is a huge. I can tell ya if its a SM army there is most likely going to be some deep striking going on for sure, if theres a LR in the list it is definitely not empty, and definitely not carrying a random tactical squad. So either take them at range, or ignore them. All armies are like this, Tau = Railguns, Orks = Thraka/BW and so on and so on.

Sorry for the delay in the post. I just bought a house so I've been busy.

Tactics 101: Combat Multipliers

There are countless examples of games that have been won or lost due to the other army having one special rule or the other. Many players call these rules "overpowered" or "codex creep." Examples of such rules are ATSKNF, the ork's Furious Charge, WBB, SW counter-attack, and more. These types of situations are types of combat multipliers.

A combat multiplier is simply the "toys" each army has to play with. This is not the units each army has to pick from, but the abilities and tools each unit has. The doctiral definition is as follows: "...Supporting and subsidaiary means that significantly increase the relative combat strength (power) of a force while actual force ratios remain constant." So in everyday terms, it means the things that your army has that make it more deadly than your opponents army.

This idea is very closely related to the idea of synergy. Synergy means "the outcome as a whole is greater than the sum of all the parts." This means that the units working together are more powerful then the same units working seperately. combat multipliers are derived from this. The main difference is that while synergy is a unit to unit relationship, combat multipliers are unit to ability or unit to rule relationship.

So enough big talk, lets look as some examples. One of the most basic combat mulipliers in 40k is grenades. SM tactical squads now come standard with assault grenades (frag and krack grenades.) In previous editions, this was not the case. The inclusiong of these grenades now allows the tac squads to be much more effective in assaults into terrain. This is a textbook example of a combat mulitplier.

These can be used with unit combinations as well. Tyranids are now one of the most relient armies on combat multipliers. One unit's rules can greatly affect another unit's abilities. Best example: Tervigons. If a unit of 10 termagants assault a unit of 5 tac marines (no sarg), the result average as follows:

-swing at same time (tacs first) 5 attacks, 3 hits, 2 wounds, 2 dead gants. 20 gant attacks, 10 hit, 3 wounds, 1 dead tac. Gants lose by 1.

Take the same squads in combat, but at a tervigon with adrenal glands and toxin sacs and its combat multipliers. Lets assume that the Tervigon cast Catalyst on the gants.

-Gants swing first, 20 attacks, 10 hit, 5 wound plus rerolls equal 8 wounds, 3 dead tacs. Tacs swing back, 3 attacks, 2 hit, 2 wound, 1 dead gant after FnP. Tacs lose by 2.

As you can see, the use of the combat multipliers on the gants greatly increased their deadliness. Many people would call this synergy, two units working together to better the outcome. They would be right, but this is also a prime example of combat multipliers.

There are a great many types of combat multipliers such as indirect Fire, smoke, and mobility. All of these can be used to increase the overall abilities of your army, but you are the one who has to figure out how. The general who can better use his combat multipliers will be the one more likely to fulfill his goals, which is usually winning.

Next topic Understanding Terrain

Really useful cheers mate

Great stuff - keep it up.

Congrats on buying a house - thats awesome.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:tactics 101.
if you have a choice between rapid firing and charging, charging is the right thing to do 95% of the time.

don't divide your forces. if your opponent divides his, concentrate everything you have on an isolated element of his army and destroy it before moving on to the rest of his force.

build your army to be super shooty or super assaulty. If you try to make a generalist list you're going to super lose.

AF,

Wuestenfux already gave the analysis of why point #1 is wrong.

#2 is wrong based on list design and mission. If you can out maneuver an opponent, you benefit by dividing forces and then converging firepower on units that have become isolated as he tries to catch you.

#3 is a point of strategy, not a tactic. The OP already stated clearly that the article is about tactics. If you don't understand the difference after rereading the OP, PM me and I'll explain it at length. But your current post does not contribute anything except bad generalizations to the thread.

Take care.

Great stuff!

You should do one on basics of list building.

Sorry it's been so long since an update... been really busy.

Look for an update later tonight.... I hope

@Smarteye: I'm focusing more on tactics, and I believe that list building is more strategy centered. There is already a great list building article by Reecius here. Hope that helps!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tactics 101: Understanding Terrain

As stated earlier, terrain has three purposes in 40k 1)provide cover 2)block line-of-sight 3)look pretty. Within this system, terrain also creates many different tactical situations.

There are several different types of terrain to consider when applying and formulating tactics. Each type of board will have different variables inherent to the landscape, but these are generalizations to help you understand and formulate your tactics. Always remember that while you are analyzing the terrain for your benifit, you should deny those same benifits to you opponent.

Obstacles

Obstacles in 40k are very common. These are any types of terrain that are either difficult or impassible. This type of terrain is a primary factor on manuevering. There are some things to keep in mind when anylizing this terrain

-Whare are the obstacles? This may seem like no-brainer, but sometimes it helps to think on a very basic concept. Be sure to always identifiy the terrain that poses some sort of obstacle to you and your opponent.
-How will they influence the manuever and the flow of forces? It is important to understand just how much terrain plays a part in the battle. I see some players simply marching through difficult terrain simply because it is the most direct route to the enemy. For your own forces, keep in mind that difficult terrain WILL slow you down. You should also keep in mind there certain units have the Move Through Cover special rule and some simply ignore difficult terrain altogether.

Avenues of Approach

When playing tau, I always tried to find some piece of impassible terrain to park my broadsides near. This allowed me to control the enemy's avenue of approach. An avenues of approach basicly where you and the enemy move within and through the obstacles. Be sure to differentiate between mechanized avenues (mounted) and infantry avenues (un-mounted). Keep in mind that 1/6 of the time, that landraider is going to be a trackless can if it goes through difficult terrain.

Key Terrain

These are the piece of terrain that provide the best advantages. Often times, using the advantages provided by the terrain will mean the difference in victory or defeat. Key terrain can turn a stalemate battle into a victorious slaughter. To find the key terrain, you simple have to determine what areas along the avenues of approach provide an advantage for you or the enemy. If that 4 story tall ruin gives you an unobstructed view of the battlefield, then parking your long range death-dealing shooty unit inside it sounds like a good idea. That would be a key piece of terrain.

observation and Field of Fire

Where can you engage the enemy? There areas are you fields of fire. There are also commonly kill sacks or kill zones on most battlefields. There are typically areas of open terrain without cover or LOS blocking structures. These can also be key terrain. Usually if an area of the board is hottly contested, there will be alot of death happening there.

Cover and Concealment

This kind of terrain is probably the most used in 40k. Every ork player wants that piece of area terrain that they can park their loota squad in so that they have the 4+ cover save. Use this terrain to provide yourself with compat multipliers and safe avenues of approach. That LOS blocking building or hill is great for safe advancement of assault units.


Be especially careful to also consider the enemy's point of view when it comes to terrain. If the enemy has a very good safe avenue of approach that they plan to use, try to creat a field of fire either within or at the end of that avenue to disrupt their plans.


Next topic will be... Reserves

looking forward to the reserves topic. Plan to at least TRY to get in some games where I can attempt to be tactical. I am very guilty of the "it will work itself out" reasoning. This is quite a bit to take in, but very informative none the less.

Good read *subscribe*

straight out of FM 5.0 mdmp

Great ideas!

Nice job. You should also suggest getting into military strategy books and reading the art of war.

Thanks so much for the encouragement, I wasn't sure that the articles would be accepted so graciously.

@ kaiservonhugal: that's (F)ield (M)anual 5.0 ??? huh... sorry, but I'm not a serviceman and will never pretend to be one... just a band director.

@ Asherian Command: I though Sun Tzu was a given... if not, "I highly suggest reading Sun Tzu's Art of War."

Reserves should be tomorrow, depends on my schedule...

Omega_Warlord wrote:Thanks so much for the encouragement, I wasn't sure that the articles would be accepted so graciously.

@ kaiservonhugal: that's (F)ield (M)anual 5.0 ??? huh... sorry, but I'm not a serviceman and will never pretend to be one... just a band director.

@ Asherian Command: I though Sun Tzu was a given... if not, "I highly suggest reading Sun Tzu's Art of War."

Reserves should be tomorrow, depends on my schedule...

I need to buy that book. It is on my list of things to do, along with paint my army, get a girl, fix basement, play a game, and study for tests..

There is a copy in print that is also a compilation of Fredrick the Great's Letters to the Generals and something else.... crap, I can't remember. Anyway, I highly suggest that copy, as the Letters to the Generals section is also quite informative.

How did you come up with OAKOC? Is this something you came up with on your own? Just wondering is all - the military uses it during mission analysis.

It's from the articles written by Rick Baillergeon and John Sutherland mentioned in my first post, both of which are retired army infantry officers. They use the acronym in their articles, so I didn't come up with it myself.