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.

Having discussed with a MOD, this seems like the best place to put this. I have two questions for you;

1) Do you ever utilise "classic" military thinking in your gaming strategy vs meta gaming? (examples to follow)

2) Do you think games, particularly GW games, should be more tailored along these lines?

As an example when I played Orks back in 2nd Ed I started off with waves of Gretchin as screens, but as time went on and my collection built up I started to favour the single envelopment (think Schwarzkopf's "left hook" during Desert Storm, which is probably the thing that inspired me) using bikes, Dreadnought and boarboyz. Granted this was back in the days when most units had to deploy at the start and the spam of late arriving/deep striking units wasn't anywhere near as prevelant. I took the same approach into WHF, which was a little more forgiving of the tactic deployment wise (not having to dump your whole army down first and make your point of attack as obvious). Does anyone else try and apply military theory into tabletop practice.

Wargames in general seldom seem to be written in a manner which favours more conventional military tactics. Very few games involving firearms offer any kind of bonus for achieving enfilade, which is a crucial part of making flanking work in the firearms era (along with loss of cover and concentration at the point of attack). Would you like more games, GW or otherwise, to reward such actions or does figuring out new strategies within the current meta give an equivalent level of pride in success?

1) the general flanking, target priority, and various forms of baiting though those are really generic tactics in games let alone actual classic war.
2) no not really. the games that should are the ones that are actually based in reality like Fow team yankee boltaction.

1) the really generic ideas, usually yes, they are the bread and butter of wargaming after all.

2) No the games should be tailored to deliver the experience the background suggests they deliver.

There's an adage I hear now and then that "gameplay is sacrificed on the altar of simulationism." Personally I consider that statement true to a point (if your game approaches Campaign For North Africa levels of detail, you're probably doing something wrong) yet at the same time, as long as the game has a certain degree of "arcade realism" then it will make some degree of intuitive sense.

For me, while writing my game (an alternating-activation game that uses a Magic-like stack to resolve interrupts), I wanted a core gameplay feature distinct from the competition, yet capable of letting players semi-organically infer tactical abilities. My system enables bounding overwatch/center-peels, countersniper baiting, and generally letting both players outthink and outmaneuver over letting weight of dice do all the talking.

bouncingboredom wrote:
1) Do you ever utilise "classic" military thinking in your gaming strategy vs meta gaming?

Tactically speaking, I use -some-. I try to use heavy gunfire to cover footsloggers and draw out attention. Other times I'll bog down some units in melee, then bail out once I can get a Stormtalon or some nasty shooties lined up on them. While I think melee is 'cool', I mostly just end up using it to harass a big unit long enough to move something really nasty into position, then drop out of combat and shoot the piss out of the enemy.

We do sometimes play 'special missions' where we will use something to represent civilians in the area. Depending on who you are, you want to avoid shooting near or through them. Also, they tend to come begging and screaming for help... or screaming and running away, under the right circumstances. Either way, we try to make the civilians (and casualties) mean SOMETHING to either side of the conflict.

Fun fact, though- this is how we came up with the 40k 'Zombie Plague' game that we played in 7th.

bouncingboredom wrote:
2) Do you think games, particularly GW games, should be more tailored along these lines?

Not really. Military tactical realism isn't much fun. I mean, if we meant tactical on a small-scale level- like creating a version of Kill-Team with detailed rules (even more than Shadow War)? I can see a bit of realism being folded into that. But on the larger scale, it's probably less interesting.

When playing games, all the time; which is probably why I lose a lot. For my Orks I used the Zulu "Horns of the Dilemna" tactics. Rarely worked. I also used the basic refused flank and envelopment tactics you mention. I was also afan of Basil Liddell Hart's Indirect Approach when I should have been using Clausewitz's decisive point of attack. The less we talk about Sun Tzu the better. But enough blather....

Now, when it comes to game design, the only real thing I think about is how to create Clausewitzian Friction to generate decision points for the players. The players can choose to use whatever tactics they want to try to overcome that Friction, but I want Friction in the game to force them to decide what to do with it.

This is typically created via resource pools that force you to choose how to spend them, command checks so things you want to happen do not automatically happen, scenario complications that make things harder/easier/different, and campaign systems so decisions in the now have to be weigheed against future risk. However, that is my Modis Operandi and I am sure others have their own M.O.

MagicJuggler wrote:I wanted a core gameplay feature distinct from the competition, yet capable of letting players semi-organically infer tactical abilities. My system enables bounding overwatch/center-peels, countersniper baiting, and generally letting both players outthink and outmaneuver over letting weight of dice do all the talking.

Sounds quite interesting. Is that executed by using sort of strategy cards?

Adeptus Doritos wrote:Fun fact, though- this is how we came up with the 40k 'Zombie Plague' game that we played in 7th.

See, now you've peaked my interest.

Military tactical realism isn't much fun. I mean, if we meant tactical on a small-scale level- like creating a version of Kill-Team with detailed rules (even more than Shadow War)? I can see a bit of realism being folded into that. But on the larger scale, it's probably less interesting.

I was thinking more in some of the broader terms, using simple mechanics, like getting bonuses for shooting at blobs or enfilade fire.

Easy E wrote: For my Orks I used the Zulu "Horns of the Dilemna" tactics. Rarely worked.

Haha, funny you should bring that up. After the second game I played I was advised to do the same thing with my orks. It was terrible and it was one of the things that drove me towards the single enevlopment approach.

Now, when it comes to game design, the only real thing I think about is how to create Clausewitzian Friction to generate decision points for the players. The players can choose to use whatever tactics they want to try to overcome that Friction, but I want Friction in the game to force them to decide what to do with it.

That's quite interesting. There was a set of rules in an edition of an old wargames illustrated that laid out how to play a small battle from the American Revolution. Players gave general orders and dice rolls decided outcomes, but in certain circumstances the GM would ask players to draw cards which added an extra layer to the results. So if a prominent officer avoided being hit by a cannonball you might draw a card where the fella next to him got obliterated by it and it had a disturbing effect on morale, or he might have his hat plucked off and give a witty remark to his troops that buoyed them. Added an extra bit of unexpected challenges to exploit/work around.

bouncingboredom wrote:

MagicJuggler wrote:I wanted a core gameplay feature distinct from the competition, yet capable of letting players semi-organically infer tactical abilities. My system enables bounding overwatch/center-peels, countersniper baiting, and generally letting both players outthink and outmaneuver over letting weight of dice do all the talking.

Sounds quite interesting. Is that executed by using sort of strategy cards?

I detail it a few threads down ("stack-based" Alternating Activation) but the tldr is:
-Units get 2 actions per turn. Can do 1 or 2 when activating.
-Attempting to attack your foe allows an interrupt. An interrupt is 1 action.
-Interrupts that attack can also be interrupted.
-Both players get a certain amount of Strategy points per turn which can be used for reserves, consecutive activations, interrupting interrupts, or splitting up a unit's turn into two separate one-action activations/interrupts.

I find the system has a certain purity to it. You can either safe SP to have one squad provide cover for another, to do multi-unit attacks, etc. You can attempt to countercharge your foe, shoot overwatch, duck behind cover, or even drive a tank in front of the enemy to block LOS, etc.

bouncingboredom wrote:
See, now you've peaked my interest.

It's not as balanced as we'd wanted it to be. It was more fun playing it as a Kill-Team alternate game.

I've thought about revisiting it, and using the Poxwalkers.

MagicJuggler wrote:
I detail it a few threads down ("stack-based" Alternating Activation) but the tldr is:
-Units get 2 actions per turn. Can do 1 or 2 when activating.
-Attempting to attack your foe allows an interrupt. An interrupt is 1 action.
-Interrupts that attack can also be interrupted.
-Both players get a certain amount of Strategy points per turn which can be used for reserves, consecutive activations, interrupting interrupts, or splitting up a unit's turn into two separate one-action activations/interrupts.

I find the system has a certain purity to it. You can either safe SP to have one squad provide cover for another, to do multi-unit attacks, etc. You can attempt to countercharge your foe, shoot overwatch, duck behind cover, or even drive a tank in front of the enemy to block LOS, etc.

Interesting. Seems a touch complicated, but in exchange for offering a lot of flexibility in choice.

Adeptus Doritos wrote:It's not as balanced as we'd wanted it to be. It was more fun playing it as a Kill-Team alternate game.

I've thought about revisiting it, and using the Poxwalkers.

Trying to think what that survival type mission was called from 40K, where dead enemy units were simply regenerated endlessly from their own deployment zone and you had to hang in there. Could be an interesting starting point for a full scale zombie hoarde type mission.

bouncingboredom wrote:
Trying to think what that survival type mission was called from 40K, where dead enemy units were simply regenerated endlessly from their own deployment zone and you had to hang in there. Could be an interesting starting point for a full scale zombie hoarde type mission.

No idea, but in this... the zombies were after both teams. Some key elements I remember:

- We'd find a piece of terrain or an objective marker and roll a scatter die and a D6- that was the distance from the terrain and location.
- Then we rolled 2D6. That was the number of Zombies. Rolling doubles meant you rolled another D6.
- Zombies went after the nearest unit within their zone of perception that they could see.
- If they couldn't see it, they went after the loudest thing in their zone of perception (loud vehicles, the last unit that fired, etc.)
- The Zombies' 'zone of perception' was based on the number of zombies in the pack- the more there were, the more this zone extended exponentially
- Zombies were obviously fearless, and had a 6+ FNP. Some could run and charge in the same turn.

We got the 'civilians' idea from this game, we wanted to have entire groups of regular citizens that were panicked. Interacting with the civilians had a little chart we made, and the chart was different depending on the faction. Obviously Space Marines or Guard would probably have things like:

1- the citizens mob you, screaming for salvation. The noise overrides any sounds or line of sight targets and the zombies move toward you.
2- You manage to inspire the citizens to remain steadfast and defend themselves
3- You scare or coach the citizens to run 8" in a direction of your choosing

And I don't remember how we did it, but once a 'squad' of citizens was attacked the infection spread and they became another zombie mob.

Hope this helps, feel free to take it and make something with it.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

bouncingboredom wrote:
Trying to think what that survival type mission was called from 40K, where dead enemy units were simply regenerated endlessly from their own deployment zone and you had to hang in there. Could be an interesting starting point for a full scale zombie hoarde type mission.

No idea, but in this... the zombies were after both teams. Some key elements I remember:

- We'd find a piece of terrain or an objective marker and roll a scatter die and a D6- that was the distance from the terrain and location.
- Then we rolled 2D6. That was the number of Zombies. Rolling doubles meant you rolled another D6.
- Zombies went after the nearest unit within their zone of perception that they could see.
- If they couldn't see it, they went after the loudest thing in their zone of perception (loud vehicles, the last unit that fired, etc.)
- The Zombies' 'zone of perception' was based on the number of zombies in the pack- the more there were, the more this zone extended exponentially
- Zombies were obviously fearless, and had a 6+ FNP. Some could run and charge in the same turn.

We got the 'civilians' idea from this game, we wanted to have entire groups of regular citizens that were panicked. Interacting with the civilians had a little chart we made, and the chart was different depending on the faction. Obviously Space Marines or Guard would probably have things like:

1- the citizens mob you, screaming for salvation. The noise overrides any sounds or line of sight targets and the zombies move toward you.
2- You manage to inspire the citizens to remain steadfast and defend themselves
3- You scare or coach the citizens to run 8" in a direction of your choosing

And I don't remember how we did it, but once a 'squad' of citizens was attacked the infection spread and they became another zombie mob.

Hope this helps, feel free to take it and make something with it.

quite a fun little twist for an occasional game.

bouncingboredom wrote:

quite a fun little twist for an occasional game.

Knock yourself out with it. Work on it and expand it. I'm not trying to get any special credit or anything, but if you think of a way to improve it (or even want to start a thread about it), by all means. I'll try to work with you on it as I can.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

bouncingboredom wrote:

quite a fun little twist for an occasional game.

Knock yourself out with it. Work on it and expand it. I'm not trying to get any special credit or anything, but if you think of a way to improve it (or even want to start a thread about it), by all means. I'll try to work with you on it as I can.

Think I'll have to give it a whirl at some point, probably start without the citizens though. Lots of potential there for different types of "Zombies".

Nah. There really isn't a lot of actual military strategy going on in wargames.

Because the real elements of strategic warfare are not the battle. It's the leadup to the battle.

Ensuring supply lines
Collecting intellgence
Choosing battlefields
Choosing when to attack
Efficiency of movement

These aren't things we actually play at. These things are all things that happen before the battle but in war they are the things that actually matter. For the most part the actual battle is decided before it actually takes place because of these factors. Not to say that no feild general has ever made a difference on the battlefield but it's just not as important as the logistics and lead up to the actual battle. It would be pretty hard to actually simulate these things in a game setting though because we just don't have the time...real generals have weeks/months/years to execute their battle plans. We only have a few hours.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Nah. There really isn't a lot of actual military strategy going on in wargames.

Because the real elements of strategic warfare are not the battle. It's the leadup to the battle.

Ensuring supply lines
Collecting intellgence
Choosing battlefields
Choosing when to attack
Efficiency of movement

These aren't things we actually play at. These things are all things that happen before the battle but in war they are the things that actually matter. For the most part the actual battle is decided before it actually takes place because of these factors. Not to say that no feild general has ever made a difference on the battlefield but it's just not as important as the logistics and lead up to the actual battle. It would be pretty hard to actually simulate these things in a game setting though because we just don't have the time...real generals have weeks/months/years to execute their battle plans. We only have a few hours.

Its the kinda thing that works far better in a map based campaign.

Yeah, that gets at the whole scale of the game. Are you shooting for the actions of individuals? Fire teams? Platoons? Battalions? Nations? And of course in real life, nothing occurs in a vacuum, but your scale could also suggest how much you worry about the non-combat side. At the individual combatant level, you probably won't worry too much about broader supply lines or where you are fighting, because you won't get any say. OTOH, it would be silly to have generals not worrying about broader concerns- if anything, many games probably understate how much influence non-combat issues have at that level.

Most of the wargames we play and design are tactical level wargames, strategy is, at best, represented on army list selection and some deployment tricks.

bouncingboredom wrote:

MagicJuggler wrote:
I detail it a few threads down ("stack-based" Alternating Activation) but the tldr is:
-Units get 2 actions per turn. Can do 1 or 2 when activating.
-Attempting to attack your foe allows an interrupt. An interrupt is 1 action.
-Interrupts that attack can also be interrupted.
-Both players get a certain amount of Strategy points per turn which can be used for reserves, consecutive activations, interrupting interrupts, or splitting up a unit's turn into two separate one-action activations/interrupts.

I find the system has a certain purity to it. You can either safe SP to have one squad provide cover for another, to do multi-unit attacks, etc. You can attempt to countercharge your foe, shoot overwatch, duck behind cover, or even drive a tank in front of the enemy to block LOS, etc.

Interesting. Seems a touch complicated, but in exchange for offering a lot of flexibility in choice.

It's surprisingly simple, especially since actions are atomic. For instance, instead of Advance, you can Move twice. Instead of Overwatch/Interceptor/etc, you can Shoot with an Interrupt. Since each unit gets 2 actions per turn, period, you can use two-color poker chips to represent how many actions a unit has taken (yellow=one action, red=two actions), and use some numeric counters (distinct dice or flat counters) to represent which units interrupt what.

There is a general sense that military tactics should prevail, but in practice, this can be hard to achieve due to imprecision in the "chunking" of various elements in order to achieve a satisfactory result in a reasonable amount of time. OTOH, if you can automate things with an impartial referee, and timeslice very narrowly (i.e. any RTS computer game), then it approaches reality pretty well. Same if you look at actual military wargames, which also occur in real time.

But wargames where you have block movement within a limited number of turns, over a highly compressed distance scale, well, things become problematic. The modern reactions / interrupts add detail, but they also drag things out, or require an extreme reduction in scale.

OTOH, if you want something more fluid and timely, then that's a challenge, too,