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 know a couple of players who claim this is why they do so well in games.

They are both quite big into history and have studied battles from history but I don't know if this is something that really helps a player do well.

So what does dakka think? Is it better to know the rules of war or the rules of 40k? I skim read the art of war and can see how such things could be a usefull play aid but is it something that really helps to win games.

I can see how it would apply more in fantasy but I can't help but feel 40k is pretty different from the Romans for example.

Let's hear those thoughts!

I know somethings can be useful, but not in a real warfare sense. Like, some tactical maneuvers with units can be useful (to give you the most cover and most effective shots, while making the enemy make decisions on who to shoot. Like hitting them on two sides with 2 equally strong units so whoever they don't shoot will kill them next). Otherwise, I never found my training to be effective in a traditional sense.

EDIT: Note, I am not military trained (yet, I am joining soon) but I have done training with my local military base (I have buddies up there, and it's not too far from me, so they let me train with them) and studied a hell of a lot of strategy's and things

Yea.... no.

More power to him, if he thinks it helps, but I can guarantee you that reading TRW will not make you a better 40k player. Reading all the army codices and FAQs will.

As a new player it's probably marginally helpful

Those with training are less likely to go for the 'run everything forward into the middle of the board' strategy

but the by the time players are experienced there probably isn't much benefit left

Military 'training' at least at the entry level is basically, you learn how to run with a pack and aim a rifle, hardly helpful in 40K. They don't teach you fundamentals of strategy at boot camp.

No. It would if maneuvering and terrain had a bigger impact. And while terrain and cover are considerably more important in 6th than ever before, statlines and special rules still make the game.

DonerStoom wrote:
feel 40k is pretty different from the Romans for example.

The more you study military history, strategy, and tactics the more you see that the opposite is true. Knowledge of warfare certainly does help. Though this is limited by game systems, defensive fire is a huge part of tactics. Glad to see 40k finally got it. Though I think volume of fire pinning to lessen it, coupled with increasing the effectiveness of defensive fire if it isn't pinned, is still required. Assaulting across a 500 yard wide open field with no prep fire SHOULD be akin to suicide. There are ways to do things right, and ways to do them wrong... 40K by and large isn't the most tactical game out there, its more akin to a RPG than it is to true tactics. Forge the narrative and all...

I'm going to disagree with the general consensus here, and no doubt get shot down!

I think 40k is a game which attracts some very crude tactics. Ones I often see include:
- No thought given to deployment, no consideration of things such as choke points, killing grounds, formation, etc.
- Headlong charges without heed for terrain or the actions of the opposition.
- Crude matching, e.g. I must put my terminators against his/hers.

It is a war game and some thought for tactics using some knowledge of military history is definitely helpful. I'm no expert at all, but I am a long-term student of military history. I have a passing understanding of tactics used throughout the centuries. I like to experiment with using tactics that have been used across time. It's amazing how effective they can be, I find they even out supposed discrepancies in forces. I don't use spammed army lists, I seek to play with interesting combinations of units.

I like to try things like double envelopements, pinning the enemy in place while delivering blows on one or both flanks, pivots. I have a real fondness for trying to replicate Cannae, this is not easy with the ruleset but it can be done. It is possible to sag your centre and draw the enemy into a bag but the rules about getting stuck in CC make it hard.

In short, I think a knowledge of genuine tactics can be helpful. Using simple and obvious techniques such as identifying choke points between terrain features and killing zones where you can cross fields of fire are all straightforward and will catch out those who simply pile in, all to often the tactic in 40K. Players with no tactics at all open themselves up to be beaten.

It only helps in the broodest term of military strategy. As in on the actual strategic levels of thinking.

In the tactical level it is NEAR worthless. Even something as basic as a flanking attack which is what is probably the most hammered thing they drill into you in military tactics isnt all that effective in TT (to a degree)


Its like Chess, if you are good in military tactics that shows you have the thinking ability to perform well in TT, however military tactics themselves will not translate well into TT or chess

It might help me envision things going on down on the battlefield but, no, practical experience in modern combat is of no assistance in a tabletop wargame that, at a generous allowance, is best described as Napoleonic in style.

In fact, it might actually be a hindrance, because in no way in modern warfare is charging a line of guys with automatic weapons over an open field a viable tactic... and yet, assault armies are a viable thing.

I have used killing field strategy and positional dominance to great effect. I would say it is 40% battlefield strategy and 60% mind games. Also being able to identify strategies and their strategic weakness is a great strength as a player.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Quick clarification: I think OP was talking about using traditional war strategies, not modern strategies or actual combat experience.

On the whole, no. But there are a couple of specific things that do translate very well, disproportionately so in fact.

For instance - when facing an enemy of superior numbers, the best strategy is to fight them piecemeal by breaking them up or funnelling them. This can be seen in two ways that are quite common in 40k. One is deploying in a refused flank against an opponent that spreads out, which allow you to ignore a portion of the opposing army for a couple of turns while they have to maneouvre round. Meanwhile the funnelling effect works wonders if you have blast markers or templates available against horde armies.

The "bubble" tactic with Imperial Guard, where a tank is protected from assault by infantry surrounding it, was used in Europe during World War II - where terrain was often tight enough that you couldn't guarantee your way forward was clear of enemy forces. Exactly how effective it was back then, though, I couldn't tell you.

What kind of knowledge do you speak of? We talkin west point or bmt? West point stuff might help you in the short term if your totally new to war games. bmt strats/tactics are a joke.

See war games are restricted to rule sets so you can never apply real world factors to them so while all the knowledge might be cool to know, I doubt it will really help you in the long run.

Google Eurisko, an ai this dude used to totally dominate a couple of war game tourneys in the 80's. Basically he made an ai that examined only the RULES of the game. It had no other data entries in its memory only the rules and it totally dominated every other fleet in the tourny. They had to ban the dude because all the west point strategist dudes he beat complained about it.

I guess what im saying is if you know the RULES of the game and how to apply them in the most efficient manner you will be successful barring terrible dice rolling/luck.

Cheers!

No. All that a knowledge of warfare does is give you a bunch of cool terms to use that describe what you did in a game: "See, I used maneuver warfare to gain asymmetry against his decisive point and flanked him like the armored corps drive by the US into the Republican Guard in Operation Desert Storm". The tactical and strategic understanding needed to play 40K successfully can be acquired from video games and movies, though more background can be fun for you as the player.

 Super Ready wrote:
On the whole, no. But there are a couple of specific things that do translate very well, disproportionately so in fact.

And the old tradition of bringing the best units from the newest most OP Codex, ofc. Which real army wouldn't bring their newest toys just because the other guys only have AKMs and RPGs?

I agree that being able to read the terrain is the biggest thing military training can translate to the TT.
But that isn't something that you learn at the entry levels. There is a quote that goes something like this.
"The terrain is a weapon that if you don't make it work for you, you will find it working for your enemy."

I feel like list building is the most likely thing to effect a battle between two adversaries of fairly equal skill. As such, this has nothing to do with most real combat since things are very different in the real world. Armies clash that sometimes have almost no troop element involved. I.E the tank clashes between israel and its foes in the beginning of the first arab israeli war.

However, some have mentioned knowing how to use terrain. this is similar to real tactical understanding.

Like many players have stated(or similarly stated) at a squad level its fairly useless. Many of the things we do in the infantry don't apply to the rule sets we are required to follow(bounding techniques, individual movement techniques, suppressing fire, various rates of fire and tons of other little things). On the larger scale(platoon and up) I think it helps to an extent. Understanding some of the principals when it comes to using larger elements can help you in many cases. At the same time, this doesn't REQUIRE military training, but it is often most easily understood and executed by those with an understand of how and why. Of course none of this will make you a champion wargamer, but it might help a bit.

I dunno, just my opinion. Sometimes all the best tactics in the world can't help if you, if you can't roll your way out of a wet paper bag. "No plan ever survives first enemy contact"

It also depends on the army you're playing as well. Not many armies realistically expect their units to charge through a field of enemy fire and take the objective in hand to hand combat, yet that is precisely what several of the armies in 40K do.

This is one of the things that attracted me to Tau, they play much more like a modern army does. They rely on fire and manouvre to carry the day. If you try to just charge forward, you get your little blue butts handed to you before the assaults even happen. Instead you have to watch your fields of fire, set up kill zones and use movement to control the board.

I don't think so, no. Real world tactics have little to do with the game.

A general ability to understand the game as a fluid thing, understanding how the movements and actions of each unit will affect the whole, that will help. And I think that books like The Art of War are designed more around putting you into that frame of mind than they are about teaching you specific tactics, and in that regard, I think those sorts of texts might be helpful, to a point.

Depending on the army. With Orks the tactic is get a lot of guys and charge the field. Other armies might need more advanced knowledge.

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
As a new player it's probably marginally helpful

Those with training are less likely to go for the 'run everything forward into the middle of the board' strategy

only in 5th ed that was a perfectly viable tactic for draigo wing armies . There is no fog of war ,almost no ammo , no fuel and no interaction between both your army and the other armies officers staff . FAQ and codex and rulebook help with being better at the game .

Understanding force concentration, and how to achieve strategic and tactical aims (the infamous mass, maneuver, objective) can help in winning games against skilled opponents. However 40k is simply more about orchestrating firepower or assault power.

I the broadest sense of being able to analyze an enemies strengths and weaknesses and counter them, knowledge of general concepts or "Philosophy" of warfare is probably somewhat beneficial.

However, on a tactical level, warhammer 40k bears almost no resemblence to any era of actual combat. It's especially unlike modern combat which focuses on things like suppressive fire (what's that? the 40k fan asks...) and has almost no "melee".

Short answer to your question, understanding the philosophy of war may be beneificial, but dont' bother trying to import actual tactics.

Absolutely not. Sounds like something that a highschooler who has absolutely no real grasp of anything might say. The only reason the most basic fundamentals of warfare (MOSSMOUSE, etc.) MIGHT apply is because its basic common sense, but even that... the game is just so abstract and not at all dictated by real-world warfare or physical laws, and so limited in scope, that it just doesn't make a difference.

 Jimsolo wrote:
I don't think so, no. Real world tactics have little to do with the game.

A general ability to understand the game as a fluid thing, understanding how the movements and actions of each unit will affect the whole, that will help. And I think that books like The Art of War are designed more around putting you into that frame of mind than they are about teaching you specific tactics, and in that regard, I think those sorts of texts might be helpful, to a point.

I agree whole heartedly with this statement. In the art of war it tells you to understand yourself and your enemy. If you know the rules of the game and what every army is capable of you will probably win more games than someone who doesn't know these things. With that said this is a game of chance and dice. So that only goes so far.

DonerStoom wrote:
I know a couple of players who claim this is why they do so well in games.

They are both quite big into history and have studied battles from history but I don't know if this is something that really helps a player do well.

So what does dakka think? Is it better to know the rules of war or the rules of 40k? I skim read the art of war and can see how such things could be a usefull play aid but is it something that really helps to win games.

I can see how it would apply more in fantasy but I can't help but feel 40k is pretty different from the Romans for example.

Let's hear those thoughts!

Dice play a big random part in battle success, but so does understanding tactics and playing smartly. Battle tactics are battle tactics whatever game or period you are playing. If you read Sun Tzu's art of war it is not exactly period specific with respect to whether the suggestions/adivce works or not. You don't necessarily need to study old battles to learn tactics, though. Playing chess quite effectively teaches you to be mindful from threats from all directions and how to use your own strengths to succeed while limiting the opponent's ability to take advantage of their own strengths. I find that often the battles historians most foucs on can be linked to an insanely crazy plan or expectations from the commander paying off in the end, but could have just as easily been a completely and total failure, or they did end in total failure. Thermopolye, Operation Market Garden, etc.. Historians don't get excited about battles if they are your run of the mill "basic scenario" type battle. So those battles that are most documented often are those with the least to teach us about sound battle tactics as players. It is still the simple basics of tactics that lead to consistent wins, because for every time that big gamble pays off on the table top it will probably fail another 4 times.

You can win sometimes by just steamrollering your opponent and just charging everything forward in a big rush with no other plans than "get 'em!!" Generally, though, using some kind of tactics will increase your chances of a win, especially in more defensive scenarios. The dice can be fickle, but when they are not your units still need to be in the right place to be effective.

Skriker


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 greyknight12 wrote:
No. All that a knowledge of warfare does is give you a bunch of cool terms to use that describe what you did in a game: "See, I used maneuver warfare to gain asymmetry against his decisive point and flanked him like the armored corps drive by the US into the Republican Guard in Operation Desert Storm". The tactical and strategic understanding needed to play 40K successfully can be acquired from video games and movies, though more background can be fun for you as the player.

Yes the tactics can be acquired from many sources, that doesn't invalidate historical study as yet another source though. Whether you learned to use cover and not just charge at massed guns in the open playing Black Ops, reading accounts of zulu charges against British squares in the 19th century, or just from realizing in the rules shooting can be nasty, you've still learned it and smartly put it into practice. No military knowledge isn't necessary, but it doesn't hurt either.

Skriker

I like the responses in this thread that assume if you aren't using historical military strategic knowledge then you will just rush forward through the middle of the table..

But probably the best things you can study to become a better player besides actual 40k material would be statistics and various strategy board games like chess. Being able to discern how much damage a given unit is likely to inflict in your head and being able to think several turns ahead and visualize your opponents possible moves are going to be far more valuable skills then knowing how the allies took sicily in ww2.

Being trained and able to ID choke points and/or primary/secondary threats would be a skill that military dudes could be bringing to the table. It's certainly not something I have any degree of mastery with.

This is a simple answer.

If you had a general idea of warfare, and knew of some historical tactics, it would give you a great starting point to play this game. You would then learn, after many games, how those tactics pan out on this setting.

If you had never learned anything about warfare ever, but played 40k for years, you would end up figuring out what tactics work.

So if you are an experienced 40k player, could you benefit from studying military history? probably not so much.

If you have a lot of history and tactics in mind, will it give you some neat ideas to try and some confusing maneuvers to pull off? you bet. But they may not always translate to the board.

So in short. someone who has played this game with this unique set of rules for years is going to be far better than someone who has a great understanding of warfare tactics.

It's like saying that you will be good at guitar hero because you can play guitar. Its a completely different system designed to look and feel like the real thing. But if you can play guitar, you have a good understanding of musical theory, timing and rhythm and could probably pick up the nuances quickly.