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.

Just wondering if any of you guys consciously attempt to replicate real-world tactics (i.e. from famous battles or strategists) in games, rather than just game-rule-specific tactics. I don't actually play 40K, but instead just Necromunda and Space Crusade (plus Relic and Conquest). But I'm fascinated by how you pros go about it.

I'm no pro but you quite often see a refused flank.

A hard centre plus two fast wings encircling can also be tried (horns of the bull?). With the same sort of troops you can line them up slow to fast and try and pull off a sort of staggered charge that rolls up an enemy from one side to the other.

One I consistently fall for is a bait unit used to draw you into an exposed position ("It's a trap! I know, but I want to charge it anyway!).

If you want to go modern then fire and manoeuvre is sort of the idea behind combat squads.

Of course the other player has their own ideas and how well these things work against deep striking first turn assaults also has to be considered, but it is better to have an idea of a plan than just to set up and see what happens! Plus it is fun to try these things out and that is the main thing.

Oh yes.

I like to occasionally take time out of charging all of my Khorne army across the board, for a bloody and glorious death, to replicate a WW1 trench warfare army: my purge detachment artillery constantly bombarding the enemy possision as my foot soldiers march across no mans land only to be gunned down by whatever remains of their army. Oh what a senseless waste of life (or rather death seeing as though they are zombies).

I used a mounted list, White Scar Grav / melta Bikers ally with Space Wolves Deathpack formation to replicate the combined arms cavalry army of the old, where light cavalry fight at range with bows, and Heavy cavalry charge in to fight close combat.

I used it in a Tournament. But didn't end well due to the sheer bad luck, i.e. failed LoS roll against a big six of the D in one game, then in another game just can't stop rolling sixes when try to let my Chapter Master hit and run out of a combat with Necron Wraiths.

I use firebases, spearhead formations, wing-mans, overwatch, and supporting/suppressing fire. Supporting fire in this concept is not the tau special rule, but the tactic of having a unit firing near by to support another unit.

I had a game over the weekend I used some of these tactics above. For example, I had a firebase of lootas set up in a building on my left flank. I also had a trukk boy squad with shootas get knocked out of their trukk. I could have charged forward and assaulted, but I right next to a building and I only had a 6+ save. So a decided to set-up a second fire base and dig in on my right flanking. This worked out great because I was able to add supporting fire to a unit of nobz and another trukk boy squad near by. Nobz got knocked out of their trukk and were getting ready to assault a unit of Raveners. So we pumped the nob shooting, the dug in boyz shooting and another trukk boy squad shooting into this unit. Killed some of the Raveners. We then launched an assault from the nobz into the Raveners and killed most of them and brought the last one to have a single wound left.

I won that game 4-1. I employed an Hammer and Anvil strategy. My anvil force was Nobz in trukk, 3x trukk shoota boyz, 3x 10 man units of Gretchen and lootas from the far left flank. My hammer force was 2x trukk shoota boyz and my main combat unit of ard' boyz with painboy, warboss in mega armour and big mek in mega armour. Also, had a squad of dakka jets for air support. Only got 1 round of shooting out of them until the flying Hive tyrant shoot them both down.

Sure, I have used the hammer and anvil, pincer movement, flanking maneuver, oblique assault, blitzkrieg, combined arms, charges, saturation attack, bounding overwatch, fields of fire, defilade and enfilade.

I'm sure many people use these tactics without knowing they are using them. The only reason I know what they are is because I was in the Army for 8 years, and I love reading about military history.

But the real key is knowing when to use them, and which units fit which tactic. All tactics obviously won't work for all armies.

And no matter how sound your tactics are, the fog of war and basic luck plays a role in the success of the attack, whether we are talking about real combat or on the table top.

Part of the problem with trying to use real world tactics and replicating famous maneuvers is that often they relied on surprise. Many flanking moves rely on the opponent not knowing your troops are there. A lot of what happens in 40k really isn't a surprise, sure some insane dice rolls may catch your opponent off guard, an unusual deployment of deep strikers may be something unexpected, but your opponent already knew you were bringing them in. Pincer moves, infiltration, and snipers all suffer from this same problem due to game mechanics.

Tyranids used to have a cool 'hidden set-up' for the Lictors, and that was a lot of fun to deal with, but other than that, there's few real 'surprise moments in the game.

Ravingbantha wrote:
Part of the problem with trying to use real world tactics and replicating famous maneuvers is that often they relied on surprise. Many flanking moves rely on the opponent not knowing your troops are there. A lot of what happens in 40k really isn't a surprise, sure some insane dice rolls may catch your opponent off guard, an unusual deployment of deep strikers may be something unexpected, but your opponent already knew you were bringing them in. Pincer moves, infiltration, and snipers all suffer from this same problem due to game mechanics.

Tyranids used to have a cool 'hidden set-up' for the Lictors, and that was a lot of fun to deal with, but other than that, there's few real 'surprise moments in the game.

I disagree.

Sure classic sniper tactics definitely rely on the element of surprise and total concealment in real life, which is not supported in 40K without special rules. But I think infiltration is pretty realistic. It's a risky move. Sometimes it works out, and the infiltrators are able to reach their objective and wreak havoc behind enemy lines, and sometimes they are caught before they can cause harm. Same with ambushes. In the real world, not every ambush is successful. Sometimes the people laying in wait are ambushed themselves. But once the infiltrating or ambushing units make contact with the enemy (whether on their terms or not), the subterfuge is up. Their position is known, and air power, artillery and reinforcements can be called in.

Also, many maneuver tactics like the pincer, hammer and anvil, oblique assault, saturation attacks don't really rely upon surprise as much as the mobility of the flanking units, and the lack of mobility of the defending units.

Consider it this way: Let's say that a unit of space marines is holding an objective, and I move up a blob of cultists directly engaging the marines from the front with fire, and then I swoop a big raptor squad or bike squad around one flank to assault the marines in the rear. That is a classic hammer and anvil, and it works even though the marines can see it play out. The marines are unable to really react without abandoning the objective, which would be a successful outcome for the tactic, just as much if the marines were killed. Either way, the objective is taken without the element of surprise playing a factor.

And think about saturation attacks. During the Korean War, the Chinese and N. Koreans used it to great effect (often in conjunction with oblique assault, where an overwhelming force attacks a single flank or position), sending wave after wave of soldiers in, taking massive casualties, but eventually overwhelming the defenses. In the game, this is a tactic that the tyranids use quite a bit, and it doesn't rely upon surprise.

I would also say that in the game, deepstrike is analogous to a real world airborne assault. It takes advantage of the element of surprise and deployment behind enemy lines, but is risky because of inaccuracy and the vulnerability paratroopers face during the jump, and when they first land. That's very realistic. Think about the airborne drops during the Normandy invasion. Many units were killed in the air, or landed in the wrong place.

I think real world tactics are represented pretty well in 40K.

If you're primarily a shooting army, Outflank/DS let you run L-ambushes by forcing your opponent to come to you.

Battle Focus or other abilities that let you move and fire in the Shooting Phase let you run your army in successive rank, mimicking center-peel maneuvers, or adjust to have that better chance of removing just the right models from an enemy squad.

Rhino convoys are always a thing too. Advance with cover and all that jazz.

 LemanRuse wrote:
Sure, I have used the hammer and anvil, pincer movement, flanking maneuver, oblique assault, blitzkrieg, combined arms, charges, saturation attack, bounding overwatch, fields of fire, defilade and enfilade.

I'm sure many people use these tactics without knowing they are using them. The only reason I know what they are is because I was in the Army for 8 years, and I love reading about military history.

But the real key is knowing when to use them, and which units fit which tactic. All tactics obviously won't work for all armies.

And no matter how sound your tactics are, the fog of war and basic luck plays a role in the success of the attack, whether we are talking about real combat or on the table top.

Thanks so much for all of the great answers. Yeah, the reason I ask is that I'm really into military history too. I'm a struggling writer (and so research it for that), but also have a day job teaching English to cadets at Japan's National Defense Academy. And I've learned a lot, over the years, from their presentations about famous battles. Also, I do one English class which is a strategy game with elements of chance to represent the kind of luck that LemanRuse was talking about. I've never served, so I'm fascinated by your experience, LemanRuse. Also, I recently put together all I've learned into a version of the Codex Astartes here on this site. If anyone could take a look and comment with advice, etc., it would be much appreciated. The article's called "The Apocrypha of Skaros".

Grabbing a PDF of the Ranger Handbook (one of the best small unit tactic manuals available in my humble opinion: http://www.benning.army.mil/infantry/rtb/content/pdf/2011%20rhb%20final%20revised%2002-11-2011.pdf ) or FM 7-8 Infantry Platoon and Squad: http://www.marines.mil/Portals/59/Publications/FM%207-8%20W%20CH%201.pdf can help figure out some 'real world' tactics.

I think the trick is learning to apply 'real world tactics' to the game environment. Understanding the limitations imposed by the rules and variables (dice rolling, etc.) and how 'real world tactics' can be represented with in the game environment AND specifically applied to the game/scenario you are playing is the trick.

I don't play too many GW games, but I do tend to apply 'real world tactics' filtered by my experiences to the games I do play, and frankly, the principles of war and 'real world tactics' tend to work when adjusted for the specific situation. Just as they worked in real battles when applied correctly to that specific set of variables (terrain/forces structures involved/weapons and assets available and so forth).

It's always fun to do a Russian style "orchestra of fire" with Imperial Guard, with a variety of assets staging a massive simultaneous assault.

 mrhappyface wrote:
Oh yes.

I like to occasionally take time out of charging all of my Khorne army across the board, for a bloody and glorious death, to replicate a WW1 trench warfare army: my purge detachment artillery constantly bombarding the enemy possision as my foot soldiers march across no mans land only to be gunned down by whatever remains of their army. Oh what a senseless waste of life (or rather death seeing as though they are zombies).

This happens to my Renegades and Heretics. And a guy I know literally made custom trench terrain to put his Death Korps in so they could for a trench line (which my advancing idiots would get gunned down from )

While I am prior service in the US Army, I actually use navel tactics when I play 40k, treating my big models as big ships and my infrantry models as small craft/aircraft. Comes from learning how to plot courses and coordinate firing that I learn in highschool NJROTC (Go Hornets!) Tanks are landships, after all. The big advantage I find over the small unit tactics I practiced in the Army is efficient screening (aka, bubble wrap).

What I do use from my Army experience is an in depth understanding of enfilade and defilade fire (firing into the length of an opponent rather than their depth, and using terrain to midgate my opponent from using the same tactics on me), which in 40k lends itself to better planning for scatter drift.

SJ

I'm not an expert on proper military strategy/tactics but I try to use a few tactics that are loosely based on real stuff.

My Orks run a Blitz Brigade with air support in the style of the lightning warfare of WWII. Lots of heavy armor and transports comes in quick to breach the enemy lines while air support comes in to soften targets for the ground forces. Granted the strength of that strategy was a focused attack in a concentrated area which isn't well reflected on a 4x6 table but the theme is there and heavy armor is the key to getting to the enemy line and thus breaking through.

My Tau use a basic Hammer and Anvil strategy where my infantry set up a strong line to shoot and protect each other from enemy assaults and then my mobile crisis suits come in to hit the flanks/rear to pick apart critical targets which forces the enemy to contend with threats in multiple directions.

My Inq army is set up in a sort of Shock and Awe type strategy with suppressing fire where they primarily deep strike in (Skyhammer) to pin targets i want to lock down/charge, and bring the heavy firepower against targets i want to outright destroy. Meanwhile my Dreadknights shunt up the field to burn out dug in targets and create an overwhelming number of threats for a charge next turn. Meanwhile there are Scions deep striking in to conduct surgical strikes on key targets and to secure locations. What works well is this strategy can be done at turn 1 or turn 2 which gives control for when it all hits. Hit hard and hit in a concentrated manner which locks the enemy down and breaks down their ability to retaliate effectively.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
The big advantage I find over the small unit tactics I practiced in the Army is efficient screening (aka, bubble wrap).

Interestingly enough, having done some time as a cav guy, I'll suggest the Army also knows a bit about effective screening (one of the security missions given to cav units).

 CptJake wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
The big advantage I find over the small unit tactics I practiced in the Army is efficient screening (aka, bubble wrap).

Interestingly enough, having done some time as a cav guy, I'll suggest the Army also knows a bit about effective screening (one of the security missions given to cav units).

Ships do it differently, kind of. You have to be mindful of the Van, Stern, and Flanks just like in any efficient escort, but you also have a Van, Stern, and Flank for each of your Van, Stern and Flanks as well as the core. /wink

SJ

Bonestomper wrote:

 LemanRuse wrote:
Sure, I have used the hammer and anvil, pincer movement, flanking maneuver, oblique assault, blitzkrieg, combined arms, charges, saturation attack, bounding overwatch, fields of fire, defilade and enfilade.

I'm sure many people use these tactics without knowing they are using them. The only reason I know what they are is because I was in the Army for 8 years, and I love reading about military history.

But the real key is knowing when to use them, and which units fit which tactic. All tactics obviously won't work for all armies.

And no matter how sound your tactics are, the fog of war and basic luck plays a role in the success of the attack, whether we are talking about real combat or on the table top.

Thanks so much for all of the great answers. Yeah, the reason I ask is that I'm really into military history too. I'm a struggling writer (and so research it for that), but also have a day job teaching English to cadets at Japan's National Defense Academy. And I've learned a lot, over the years, from their presentations about famous battles. Also, I do one English class which is a strategy game with elements of chance to represent the kind of luck that LemanRuse was talking about. I've never served, so I'm fascinated by your experience, LemanRuse. Also, I recently put together all I've learned into a version of the Codex Astartes here on this site. If anyone could take a look and comment with advice, etc., it would be much appreciated. The article's called "The Apocrypha of Skaros".

It sounds like you have a very interesting career! You should write a book about your experiences teaching young Japanese soldiers. I suspect that it would be an interesting read!

I am a frustrated fiction writer who went back to school to become a computer programmer. I still write fiction, but it turns out that the code I write is far better and makes me more money than the fiction I write. LOL.

I'll check your article out.

I really love the community we have here. It is really cool how many interesting people have gravitated to this hobby!




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
While I am prior service in the US Army, I actually use navel tactics when I play 40k, treating my big models as big ships and my infrantry models as small craft/aircraft. Comes from learning how to plot courses and coordinate firing that I learn in highschool NJROTC (Go Hornets!) Tanks are landships, after all. The big advantage I find over the small unit tactics I practiced in the Army is efficient screening (aka, bubble wrap).

What I do use from my Army experience is an in depth understanding of enfilade and defilade fire (firing into the length of an opponent rather than their depth, and using terrain to midgate my opponent from using the same tactics on me), which in 40k lends itself to better planning for scatter drift.

SJ

It's great to hear from other prior service players!

I agree that enfilade and defilade are major tactics used (perhaps unknowingly) in the game.

I think naval, land, and air tactics are ultimately very similar, despite being applied in different environments. Screening is used in all of them.

But I definitely see your point about the difference between small unit tactics and brigade or higher level tactics. A single squad in 40K, no matter how elite, doesn't have the same flexibility as a delta team or seal team, a platoon of rangers, or just a basic infantry platoon or squad. It's not like we can break unit cohesion like a real world combat unit could.

But I think we both agree that there is a place for real world tactics in 40K.

Oh, absolutely. In Kill Team, for example, its all infantry tactics from my Army days. It's just that in bigger games its easier to plan out movements and firelanes for me if I think of my models as ships, much easier to coordinate.

SJ

Neophyte2012 wrote:
I used a mounted list, White Scar Grav / melta Bikers ally with Space Wolves Deathpack formation to replicate the combined arms cavalry army of the old, where light cavalry fight at range with bows, and Heavy cavalry charge in to fight close combat.

I used it in a Tournament. But didn't end well due to the sheer bad luck, i.e. failed LoS roll against a big six of the D in one game, then in another game just can't stop rolling sixes when try to let my Chapter Master hit and run out of a combat with Necron Wraiths.

But than I also remember you have some pretty good luck against me so it evened out huh!

I do try to set up Fire lanes and in 30k have used my tac squads as supporting "salients", can't go for one without getting creamed by the support.

I'm ok I find my mech armies play mostly same as I imagine real-world mech to perform, but drop pod marines/suit based tau/tyranids, I don't really have much chance for real world tactics..