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.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

Hierophant wrote:

He seemed to win battles and campaigns purely by having more and better supplies, troops, and technology than his opponents, and throwing the kitchen sink at them.

That's Horus exactly. He threw his armies into a wood-chipper because he always had the superior position and never had to do anything else. You want over-hyped startegist primarch, it's Horus.

There is a part of leadership that is organization and logistics. Building your army to be bigger, better trained, and all in the right place is a impressive feat.

Napoleon for instance. His greatest advantage was being able to move the 'grande army' all at once, sometimes forriging for food and supplies over 100 mile wide front, but able to arrive rested in once place for battle. Then the battle was east, his army was bigger, better supplied, better rested and won handily.

nareik wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 Coldstream wrote:
In a galaxy with orbital bombardment, aircraft of all kinds, projectile and energy weapons galore yet many seem to insist on combat taking place by foot soldiers using swords and axes, is anyone a particularly good tactician?

Sometimes you wanna actually TAKE the target. ortbital bombardm,ent is great if the planet is of no value to you.

Not best tactic if you want the gene seed intact. Plus orbital bombardment is not accurate. In storm of iron they beed beacons setting up for targeting the cannons.

Plus a real world example, we have numerous smart weapons, tanks, computermbobs and more.
One ambush the British Army won and broke enemy by engaging them with bayonets in close quarters when there APC was disabled.

Yea, but british APCs have the assault vehicle special rule, unlike chaos rhinos.

Have a exalt. Does bing Scottish and in there words being "propper angry" count as furious charge lol

I think it's important, judging by how interchangeably a lot of people are using the phrases, to differentiate between strategy and tactics.

Strategy is what's undertaken on the macro scale. It's the decision of what kind of men and munitions you're moving to what location for what sort of engagement with what sort of restrictions. It is, in short, about logistics with a dash of politics and decision making about the overall conflict.

Tactics is more about what's happening on the battlefield itself. How you're deploying the troops locally and where to fulfill the objectives of that small scale part of the conflict

tl;dr strategy is the grand scale map level decision making, tactics is what's going on locally.

There's a story where Perturabo gets out-maneuvered by some nobody in the Imperial Fists.

Of course, like all good things, Dorn fethed it up by recalling the fleet in the middle of the battle, because Dorn's purpose is to do incredibly stipid things to undermine the Loyalist cause, but still... Perturabo would probably have died there.

 EmpNortonII wrote:
There's a story where Perturabo gets out-maneuvered by some nobody in the Imperial Fists.

Thats the Battle of Phall.

The reason for this was because Perturabo had expected to be facing Sigismund, and had deployed his fleet in such a way that it would defeat Sigismund's methods.
Instead he face Alexis Polux, who took an entirely different strategy.
Perturabo got outplayed because his strategy didnt fit the situation.
Its like taking a sledgehammer to a walnut cracking contest, except when you arrive, you discover that the walnut has to be in one piece after you've broken the shell. You discover that the rules are set such that your tool is a liability to you, rather than an advantage.

DaemonJellybaby wrote:

 EmpNortonII wrote:
There's a story where Perturabo gets out-maneuvered by some nobody in the Imperial Fists.

Thats the Battle of Phall.

The reason for this was because Perturabo had expected to be facing Sigismund, and had deployed his fleet in such a way that it would defeat Sigismund's methods.
Instead he face Alexis Polux, who took an entirely different strategy.
Perturabo got outplayed because his strategy didnt fit the situation.
Its like taking a sledgehammer to a walnut cracking contest, except when you arrive, you discover that the walnut has to be in one piece after you've broken the shell. You discover that the rules are set such that your tool is a liability to you, rather than an advantage.

And here we see the Iron Warriors biggest weakness during the Heresy: flexibility.


The Iron Warriors calculate their wars to precision levels. They know before they engage that they need exactly 2, 333, 439, 512 bolt rounds, exactly 5001 artillery units, 27 Terminators, etc. They know exactly how much they need, and get that number and no more. They calculate if they deploy X units and munitions in Y fomation and position, that in Z time they will have victory with C casualties, where X and Y are the precise number required for victory within time limit Z and C is acceptable losses.

BUT, because everything is so precise, if the rules change without a chance to adapt, they are caught floundering. As seen here, they calculated XYZC vs Sigismund, but against Polux, they instead need 2X munitions and Y left them exposed on the flank. They now don't have the ability to change it last minute.

 Deadshot wrote:

DaemonJellybaby wrote:

 EmpNortonII wrote:
There's a story where Perturabo gets out-maneuvered by some nobody in the Imperial Fists.

Thats the Battle of Phall.

The reason for this was because Perturabo had expected to be facing Sigismund, and had deployed his fleet in such a way that it would defeat Sigismund's methods.
Instead he face Alexis Polux, who took an entirely different strategy.
Perturabo got outplayed because his strategy didnt fit the situation.
Its like taking a sledgehammer to a walnut cracking contest, except when you arrive, you discover that the walnut has to be in one piece after you've broken the shell. You discover that the rules are set such that your tool is a liability to you, rather than an advantage.

And here we see the Iron Warriors biggest weakness during the Heresy: flexibility.


The Iron Warriors calculate their wars to precision levels. They know before they engage that they need exactly 2, 333, 439, 512 bolt rounds, exactly 5001 artillery units, 27 Terminators, etc. They know exactly how much they need, and get that number and no more. They calculate if they deploy X units and munitions in Y fomation and position, that in Z time they will have victory with C casualties, where X and Y are the precise number required for victory within time limit Z and C is acceptable losses.

BUT, because everything is so precise, if the rules change without a chance to adapt, they are caught floundering. As seen here, they calculated XYZC vs Sigismund, but against Polux, they instead need 2X munitions and Y left them exposed on the flank. They now don't have the ability to change it last minute.

There campaigns and being stuck as siege engineers did not help that. There nor flexible and they have weeks to plan when facing a fortress, its garrison cannot change and that stratagy when in their niche is perfect. There's a reason they broke the Imperial palace, hydra cortus and more. There thinking evolved from that, and stuck. Its officers and command staff where all expert seige comandors, but not all where experts in manoover warfare etc.

That's not good in above situation though.

 jhe90 wrote:
There's a reason they broke the Imperial palace

Pretty sure the traitor side having twice as many legions and troops, unlimited daemon hordes and more titan legions is why Perturabo *almost* broke the Imperial Palace (his objective was to break the defenders before the loyalist reinforcements arrived, which he was unable to do).

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:
There's a reason they broke the Imperial palace

Pretty sure the traitor side having twice as many legions and troops, unlimited daemon hordes and more titan legions is why Perturabo *almost* broke the Imperial Palace (his objective was to break the defenders before the loyalist reinforcements arrived, which he was unable to do).

He broke the Palace, the walls were down and the gates open. It went tits up when Horus panicked.

Numbers on each side mean little when they can do nothing. The Palace was the greatest fortress ever created by humanity. Greater than Rome, the Pentagon, Cadia, anything. The Imperial Palace is the closest thing to a literally impenetrable fortress that is possible. Billions of troops will do nothing, that's why it took months of siege to crack it open.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:
There's a reason they broke the Imperial palace

Pretty sure the traitor side having twice as many legions and troops, unlimited daemon hordes and more titan legions is why Perturabo *almost* broke the Imperial Palace (his objective was to break the defenders before the loyalist reinforcements arrived, which he was unable to do).

That's still really impressive considering that with modern tactics (and historical ones as well), the rule of thumb is to outnumber your opponent at least 3 to 1 when assaulting a defended position.

 King Pariah wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:
There's a reason they broke the Imperial palace

Pretty sure the traitor side having twice as many legions and troops, unlimited daemon hordes and more titan legions is why Perturabo *almost* broke the Imperial Palace (his objective was to break the defenders before the loyalist reinforcements arrived, which he was unable to do).

That's still really impressive considering that with modern tactics (and historical ones as well), the rule of thumb is to outnumber your opponent at least 3 to 1 when assaulting a defended position.

put it this way,, he had to contend with bat gak crazy brothers, curze was off being space bat man, Fulgrim was crazy and half his legion where plessure seeking and fething off because they seemed to get bored, Angron was only having one tactic and that was rrp and tear with a legion that was a bunch of beserkers, the Deathguard, sons and Iron warriors and maybe word bearers where some of few displined forces left.,

it was one hell of a achivement he got far as he did!

so he had his own side to argue with and a enemy force of 3 legions, whatr 1000 custdious, taking on a mega fortress with 3 brothers who where not utterly dysfunctional defending it.

Some ainciant books on seige warfare reccomend 5-1 for attacker, or in extreme a 10-1 ratio.

The idea that the Iron Warriors are a blunt attrition force is rather misplaced. They were used to fight battles where casualties would be high regardless of who was sent, so casualties were always high, but the Iron Warriors and Perturabo are always noted as being excellent tacticians, planners and battle commanders, exceedingly intelligent, cunning, and calculating, if paranoid and ruthless.

In fact, part of what streamed them so much was glory and laurels being handed out to other Legions after they'd done all the operational and logistical planning, all the brainpower parts, and then missed out on all the credit.

Imperial Guard seem okay with that.

Barabas Dantioch had a pretty solid grasp of strategy and tactics.

 Bromsy wrote:
Barabas Dantioch had a pretty solid grasp of strategy and tactics.

Storm of iron warsmith was a skilled commander.
There victory was only delayed and slowed by suprise attack , the early siege would of broken them in weeks. The delays where not stopped for long though.

I'm certainly no expert on stratagems and tactics (as proven by my Warhammering win/loss record), but after reading Angel Exterminatus, I think Perturabo would rather be hobbying than engaging the enemy; perhaps that's why he was more of a calculating programmer with his army, so he could have almost a hands off approach because of his resentful nature? But when the moment is right he enjoys striking hard and fast, as the enemy has interrupted his hobby time. Fulgrim promised to show him new models, and didn't let him down!

Now (in the 41st millennium) I think Daemon Prince Perturabo really just enjoys making mad-hatter fortifications and augmenting his war-tools with interesting technologies and/or daemon-infusion. No need for inferior chaff with that.....hence, Obliterators and Mutilators! I hope they get good legion specific rules again for 40k. And he could be the Primarch of Chaos Undivided, hopefully a huge Obliterator type dude with a mega-hammer.

 Vaktathi wrote:
The idea that the Iron Warriors are a blunt attrition force is rather misplaced. They were used to fight battles where casualties would be high regardless of who was sent, so casualties were always high, but the Iron Warriors and Perturabo are always noted as being excellent tacticians, planners and battle commanders, exceedingly intelligent, cunning, and calculating, if paranoid and ruthless.

In fact, part of what streamed them so much was glory and laurels being handed out to other Legions after they'd done all the operational and logistical planning, all the brainpower parts, and then missed out on all the credit.

This.

The IWs were supposedly better at siege warfare, which in the 40k universe, is pretty bad for casualties. The defender gets to pick his starting position, then fortify it, potentially for decades. That's not going to be easy.

 ChazSexington wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
The idea that the Iron Warriors are a blunt attrition force is rather misplaced. They were used to fight battles where casualties would be high regardless of who was sent, so casualties were always high, but the Iron Warriors and Perturabo are always noted as being excellent tacticians, planners and battle commanders, exceedingly intelligent, cunning, and calculating, if paranoid and ruthless.

In fact, part of what streamed them so much was glory and laurels being handed out to other Legions after they'd done all the operational and logistical planning, all the brainpower parts, and then missed out on all the credit.

This.

The IWs were supposedly better at siege warfare, which in the 40k universe, is pretty bad for casualties. The defender gets to pick his starting position, then fortify it, potentially for decades. That's not going to be easy.

Also any fortress commander has years to prepare there plans to defend them, conduct exercises, play war games against your own officers, red team testing, basically, you have years to work out your weakness, strategy and such.

A attacker has to arrive, and then work out how to attack you.
That's alot harder role.