While at work I discovered a quarto (Large & heavy) book on Tank tactics, there are a lot of books on similar things, but would they hold any relevance in warhammer?

very little, I spent 9 years in intelligence studying tactics and doctrines, the game mechanics tend to break modern military tactic, things like "reaction to effective enemy fire" just dont translate

I've read a few books on combat theory and strategy and apart from a few basics i don't think it'll be much use in WH.

Both WHFB and 40k just aren't in depth enough too encompass complex tactics of whatever kind.

From what I understand, the only bit of "modern military" thinking that has any relevance to WH is the classic

"Know your enemy"

one ;)
but that's not really modern so......yeah....the answer is "No".

That's...really quick replies. Seems like an overwhelming no. That's alright, I was just wondering.

That's...really quick replies. Seems like an overwhelming no. That's alright, I was just wondering.

Hahaha, that's ok, i myself had the same idea, that's why i bought and lend some books, but it didn't really help me anything, it was a good read though! :)

Honestly, WHFB is the only situation where military tactics seem to take any kind of effect. In 40K, you need to play City Fight for any type of tactics to take effect. And even then, both games only offer a 'glaze' of tactical ability.

40K is a problem because there's a 360degree line of sight, and no benefits to flanking or any type of psychological warfare. When you play city-fight though, some of the basic Urban tactics like house-to-house, high-ground and fields of fire (since LOS is severely decreased). Apocalypse is kind of the same way, because here, the simplicity of the system is mitigated by the sheer size. Actions are very sweeping, and then break down into more detailed combat. Instead of fighting over a city block, your tactic would include taking that vital city block, then within that, you'd have another tactic on how to actually take it.

In WHFB, it benefits you to get a flank charge, it benefits you to pre-think your fields of fire, because you have a defined LOS all the time. Psychology helps here too. The unfortunate thing: middle-age tactics. Pretty simple really. At most, you have tactics similar to the Revolution or the Civil War or the French Rev. But for the most part it's just basic "flanking is good, killing stuff is better"

I think, more than any rehashed discussion about the various tactical extents or limits of either system or realism of the rules, real military thought is crippled in application to WarHammer (at least 40k) because of the simple idea of self preservation. Real soldiers tend to have an interest in their own ongoing pulse that far surpasses a warhammer player's concern for any given model. Few and far between are the soldiers who would take a stroll out the front of a fortified building into an open street with machine gun nests on both ends to get their melta gun in range because "That land raider is worth 10X as many VPs as I am."

Certain aspects of war tactics are still applicable, such as taking strategic lanes of fire and bottlenecking enemy units that have superior numbers but lesser durability/quality.

For example, place your Grey Nights at a narrow corridor and let Orks squeeze in and impede each other to get to them, all the while they are taking storm bolter fire and eventually being forced to fight them on a 1on1 or 1 on 2 terms, as opposed to facing them on open ground where the Grey Knights are subject to fire from many squads and feel the full force of a charge.

Many tactics are done subconciously by a lot of players, such as advancind behind armored spearheads or providing covering fire for advancing units.

Mobility is a big player in both game systems as well. An entire Dark Eldar army can mobilise, ignoring terrain and stage strikes on isolated parts of the enemies army. In this sense dominance (air or armored) can play a big part in gaining you victory. If you eliminate an opponents only anti tank answer to your Land Raider, you gain free reign to move its cargo where you see fit, and can force the opponent to play into your hands.

Also I think Sun Tzu's sayings of 'make yourself invincible, then find vulnerability in the enemy', being versatile and adaptable, and war being based on deception, can apply to all forms of conflict.

Its interesting what Inquisitor Affe said about self preservation, it holds true seeing as morale and pinning tests are at best a crude way of representing it. Real soldiers and commanders don't have the godlike knowledge of the entire battle that the wargamer controlling his army does, but remember that in the Warhammer and Warhammer 40k universes, these soldiers often face death (sometimes on the spot) if they disobey orders, no matter how little sense they make.

I think Ebon Hand has made several valid points there, and there's not really very much I can add, as he has explained it quite concisely.

Other than really, really obvious stuff that a 2 year old would be able to figure out, no.

Wargaming tactics apply.

WH and 40k are not real military simulators (nor do they need to be) so no complex real world tactics are used, however many many basic ones are. But as the guy above me said war gaming tactics do very much apply to a extremely intricate level. Sure two people can get together and play the same armies and make no sort of planning or tactics whatsoever and just win and loose according to dice, but two skilled players will have to 'out do' they're opponent in order achieve victory.

I would read them anyway because they still might give you some ideas about 40k tatics even thought they won't give you the "actual" tactics.

"very little, I spent 9 years in intelligence studying tactics and doctrines, the game mechanics tend to break modern military tactic, things like "reaction to effective enemy fire" just dont translate"

I agree with this comment only so far, as i'm a crew commander in a recce regt, it applies but only in a broad sense.
Think for yourself whilst reading it, as in: don't apply the detailed stuff and don't judge the book as "the gospel"!!
My mate has imp. gd. and has been using a combination of tactics from around the world for years and i've wiped him out and been wiped out in return!!!
All i'll say is the Russians had it right with the steam-roller tactics!!!
Peace dude!!

From personal experience of attempting to apply real world military tactics: In general, no. They do not apply. However, a few things can be translated over.

Formations (specifically vehicle formations) will on occasion be useful. There was one formation I used for a while (armored spear, armored ram, or something like that) that consisted of sending vehicles in a line at a fortified enemy position. The first vehicle generally dies to the concentrated fire but the targeting priority tests usually keeps a fair percentage away from the vehicles behind it. In addition, the first vehicle blocks line of sight to the ones behind it (assuming it wasn't a skimmer of course :) ). It worked rather well for quite a while but then I stopped fighting IG so much and it became mostly useless :3 In general though, it was very effective when assaulting a heavy weapons deployment by rushing towards them down a firing lane (which was clear terrain).

Sun Tzu is a good read since it applies to everything really XD. Some concepts apply directly (his points on terrain), some points apply with a little bit of translation (His writing on the Nine Situations is useful but only campaigns), and some points don't really apply at all (his writing on using fire).

Playing the player instead of playing the game type tactics. Confusing your opponent and laying traps is a fundamental part of warfare and many concepts relating to it apply in 40k. The main difference is in the specific tricks and traps. (I use these type of strategies alot :))

Sun Tzu is a good read since it applies to everything really XD. Some concepts apply directly (his points on terrain), some points apply with a little bit of translation (His writing on the Nine Situations is useful but only campaigns), and some points don't really apply at all (his writing on using fire).

Exactly what I was going to say. IIRC there was also a bit about arriving at a battle well rested. This could also be seen as a unit arriving at where it needs to be in time for it to be used.
It's only been about 3 years since I've read it. I may not be remembering properly.

EDIT: I just remembered his points on morale too. I should think those would be worth a read. But morale is what it is. High = good.

BTW, I'm in the USAF. Just about nothing I do translates to 40k. In real life air power is everything. In 40k it's arguably one of the weaker forces available.

I find Sun Tzu's doctrines to be all instinctual: ie striking the enemy in full strength when just half his force has crossed a river. Other times, they can be rather despicable.

Why is it that people like to refer to the most obvious tactical writings ever whenever this comes up. Sun Tzu is the Confucius of war, and that is not a compliment.

It's a game, folks. It follows the rules of a game. Only the broadest of tactics generally apply, and they also apply to most other games, like Football.

Why is it that people like to refer to the most obvious tactical writings ever whenever this comes up. Sun Tzu is the Confucius of war, and that is not a compliment.
I agree, Swn Tzu tends to throw up principles and vague ones at best, they are applicable, but then so is Voltaire:
"god is not for the largest battalions but the best shots"
too much interpretation is involved in the practical implementation

It's a game, folks. It follows the rules of a game. Only the broadest of tactics generally apply, and they also apply to most other games, like Football.
Hugely agree, someone with a sound grasp of logic and the ability to abstract it will do far better at warhammer than someone trained in small unit tactics

I agree, Swn Tzu tends to throw up principles and vague ones at best, they are applicable, but then so is Voltaire

Erm I think you mean Sun Zi not me of course. :P

Erm I think you mean Sun Zi not me of course. :P

ha ha, could have meant you mate :)

Well obvious if by "military tactics" you mean "military tactics utilised in the 20th century", then, no, no that doesn't really have any relevance in warhammer...

...just like 20th century tactics wouldn't have any relevance in the musket era...

...or musket tactics have any relevance when all you have is a pointy stick and a loincloth...

...or 21st century anti-guerilla tactics have any relevance against a genetically modified religious fanatic decked out in enough armor to make a battleship jealous. :p

Hi all.
Lots of wargames are simulations of a particular type of warfare.No matter how simple or complex , they reward the player for thinking about and adopting real world military strategies and tactics.

I have played 'scifi war games' that follow modern warfare ethos and tactics.(Stargrunt II, Xenocide ,etc.)

However 40k and WH are just 'games to use GW minis in.'(GWs definition.)

After all the effort of building converting and pianting an army .I prefer to play a proper wargame with the minatures.8Y
Rather than GWs lackluster 'Hobby Games.'


'GW Hobby Games' invlove spending all your money at GW . ;)

I'm with Lanrak here. While tactics may seem a good idea in 40k or WHFB a sound knowledge of the rules and outcomes in given situations is better. For example when fighting Eldar I used to use chimera front armour as a wall (cant reduce the armour to 12 if thats what it is already!).

Other wargames out there (mainly the historical ones) have a much better sense of tactics for their given era. 40k has its own tactics which are generally seperate from their real world counterparts.

A

This is an interesting topic as I have gotten my hands on many documents (most are out of date but whatever) that pertain to military tactics. When reading those you have to take into account the concepts not the actually ides themselves.

Now as was mentioned before most people do this sort of thinking in their head subconciously, and this is developed by playing games. For example when playing my tau I dont have to make sure I remember to gauge distances and make sure my devilfishes are making their way back to my lines when my lines are getting approached. I just do it with out thinking. (if only i can do this with my school work lol)

As far as making the game more realistic the best way to do this i have found was kill team and combat patrol. Nobody wants to loose a heavily converted model in a game. And these size games allow heavily converted armies to be practicle. All you have to do is factor in A high degree of victory points for preserved units and you will achive a slightly more realistic feal. Neither general will want to loose units.

However certain armies really dont care about their casualties. For example it doesnt matter how many nids die in an invasion they are just reabsorbed and reborn. Orks dont care they live to fight and die. So if your looking for a fluffy battle this factor of realism isnt good, but for a skirmish between two guard players. That would be a sweet battle.

Other wargames out there (mainly the historical ones) have a much better sense of tactics for their given era. 40k has its own tactics which are generally seperate from their real world counterparts.

Yeah, but... which era is it that has dragons, or psyckers, or unliving robot dudes, or stone trolls?

For Warhammer, the best sense of "real world tactics" you could look at is either Beowulf or the bit about David and Goliath.

And as for Warhammer 40k, well, let's see... that's kind of taking place in the year 40000, we're in year 2000... us claiming that in the distant future war should be fought using 21st century tactics would be like ancient cavemen claiming that their primitive futuristic wargames should be based on bone club clubbing and mammoth tickling. (And let's not forget that a mere 100 years ago camouflage was still considered to be a silly idea. (Which it was at the time, given the lack of radio communication.))

As far as making the game more realistic...

...oh by the way, ever read that fluff bit that Chaos alters reality? That is, as mentioned a bit higher up, even if you assume that Warhammer 40k's reality would be the exact same as ours, it still would be altered by those warp storms...

(That, and I don't know if anyone else noticed this, but reality is pretty boring, with the "exciting" bits being pretty gruesome, and even then fairly boring as you probably would die a boring death from an accidental friendly fire incident while doing a logistics job.)

Well, I'm the first to admit I don't know much about military tactics - although I have read the Art of War (Who hasn't?), but this is how I look at it. Tactically, in this both WH and 40k are the tactical equivalents to RTS video games, like well, Dawn of War.

For one, we forget that our models aren't just standing there frozen in one position - in real life, soldiers run, duck behind cover, go into what was called "Over-Watch" in Space Hulk, respond immediately to enemy actions - lots of stuff.

I think, if we really wanted to make GW games more tactical, we could easily invent all kinds of house-rules to that end. No problem, as long as everybody in your group is for it. I would be up for it every now and then - but I actually think the simplicity of 40k is part of what appeals to me. There's a lot more to the hobby than tactics.

It also depends on the depth of tactical play you would like to see. For me, I'd be more interested in the big picture - overall strategy of a military campaign, rather than army vs. army or squad vs. squad tactics.

Any ways, maybe we - the Librarium Community - should put a project together to create a more complicated and tactically interesting system for both games.

...oh by the way, ever read that fluff bit that Chaos alters reality? That is, as mentioned a bit higher up, even if you assume that Warhammer 40k's reality would be the exact same as ours, it still would be altered by those warp storms...

(That, and I don't know if anyone else noticed this, but reality is pretty boring, with the "exciting" bits being pretty gruesome, and even then fairly boring as you probably would die a boring death from an accidental friendly fire incident while doing a logistics job.)

Well im going to have to contradic this statement. Some of the best selling video games are "realistic shooters" for example the new call of duty game. Granted im not in the military and dont have any research to back this up.

Now as far as
how far in the future it is. Its a pretty good guess, its obvious to see how with an empire as expansive as the imperium the powers that be would favor a "dark age" of technology where information is slowly being lost or just maintained. Simply to help perserve and prevent civil war.


Now about campaigns. These type of games (especially map campaigns) allow multiple levels of strategy. For example positioning of banners or armies, the composition and useage of said armies, and manipulation of your opponents and predicting thier movements.

I was going to suggest Sun Tzu, but everyone beat me to it. Another good book is Go Shin Ro ("The Book of Five Rings") by Musashi Minamoto. Both books are good "general purpose" books that can be adapted to modern warfare, but yeah, if you're looking for a book on present-day tactics that you can then translate into a tabletop wargame simulator, well, you're going to be out of luck.

Having said that, it never hurts to read as many books as you can get your hands on and look for common themes and threads. It's better to have one tactic that 10 experts agree is useful than 10 tactics endorsed by only one expert.

Ultimately, it depends on what you find useful and relevant. I know of nothing beyond Sun Tzu and Musashi which are relevant, and even then it's subject to interpretation. Above all, it's about what works for you, something no book can teach you. As has been said, YOU are the general, NOT the book.

Not really. I sometime go for a eldar blitzkrieg, but its hard to cut of enemy lines!

Well im going to have to contradic this statement. Some of the best selling video games are "realistic shooters" for example the new call of duty game. Granted im not in the military and dont have any research to back this up.
You know, I am not trying to have a go, but I have been in combat situations, and until they find a way to fool all the senses, for an extended period of time, there is not a shooter that I would describe as remotely realistic :)

Ahh in this respect i would have to agree.

Call of Duty 4 (and indeed the entire series) lets you you regenerate if you don't get shot for a certain period of time. The last time I checked, humans can't do this.

Call of Duty 2 let you do this in a tank!

Regenerating tanks! Come on!

Well the most interesting contrast between real life and 40k is the technology.
In terms of attack and defense, everything always boils down to sword vs shield. In eras where the weapon was unable to penetrate armor, it became common that everyone sported lots of armor. Whoever had the strongest plate, or the most sturdy castle wall is who would have the advantage.

But whenever sword became greater than shield, suddenly everyone found it was better to ditch heavy armor in favor of light or no armor at all. Iron armor is nothing more than a hindrance if it won't stop a bullet. Cannons, missiles, and explosives make stone castles obsolete.

In todays world, sword still has the edge over shield. Kevlar can only do so much, and in todays age even underground fortified bunker's aren't safe. This no doubt has a major effect on tactics, because some tactics just won't work.

In the grim future of Warhammer 40k, they possess to technology to make armor that can stop a bullet, a laser, possibly even the claws of a malicious deamonic entity! Marines are like the spartans of old, able to weather impossible numbers of attacks with their disciplined formations and thick armor. Forcefields exist to protect warships and naval combat is once again about battleships with big guns, not just about the carriers with fighters capable of laying waste to an entire warship. Materials like adamantium exist, able to produce nearly unpenatrable fortresses. History repeats itself, and once again it is the age of castles and sieges. Close quarters combat is a much more common thing in the 41st Millenium. This gothic mix of dark age and futuristic war is what makes 40k so thrilling as a wargame.

Whats really cool though is that things such as ceramic composite armor have already been under research so that shield may one day catch up to sword. Look how tough the M1 Abrams is! All we need is the super soldiers capable of actually wearing chobham or depleted uranium armor, and an Emperor to lead us and we'll be on the great crusade in no time. I wonder if real life tactics will match WH40k then? :D

In real life air power is everything. In 40k it's arguably one of the weaker forces available.
It's true that air power is everything, but that's because mobility is every thing. In 40k this translates just fine. Eldar and Dark Eldar are a force to be reckoned with because of their ability to mobilize an antire army and not be hindered by the terrain. Falcon's and raiders wouldnt be half as potent if they couldnt scale mountains and buildings to bring their men to your doorstep.

Any one fielding a Thunderhawk gains the ability to drop Marines and Landraiders wherever they are needed. Flyers in general can threaten any unit on the board. Landspeeders, Pirahnas, and other small skimmers are also great assets. Assualt Marines, Stealth Teams, and any other airborn troops are great selections because they provide speed. Speed leads to adaptability, and as Sun Tzu says, adaptability wins battles.

In fantasy I've found that the Hammer and Anvil manovre (sp?) is quite effective, so long as your opponent doesn't get wise to what you're doing.

Some Modern military tactics are relevant to Warhammer. Flank attacks, combined arms, artillery support, etc. can all be used in game. However, others, such as total war, nuclear/biological attacks, ambushes, subterfuge (sp?), amphibious assaults, and similar tactics can't be used in game often.

Yes, ebon hand has made some points, here my generalization of the above discussion.

To apply real military tactics to Warhammer...think overall military stratagies, not tactics. Also, think in terms of midieval/revolutionary/7 years war/napoleonic war times battle stratagies (big blocks of men, expendable men, etc). Like a game of chess, really.

To apply military ideas to 40k...only the most basic of ideas (pretty much all listed by ebon hand) apply.

-The God of all Machines