Welcome to Librarium Online!
Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!
Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!
I am two things a lurker on this board and a US Army Infantry CPT. I am steeped in doctrine (whether I want it or not.) I was wondering how you guys apply the Characteristics of the Offence (Surprise, Concentration, Audacity, Tempo) when fights with your IG armies.
when i play with my IG i use my troops and fast attack and flank wile still leaving some infintry in the middle to defend. wilst the tanks stay in the middle and concentrate there fire on the units ahead. the basilisk is mostly in the corner of the mad shooting at ememy infintry on the flanks to help the forces moving there.
So you try the horns, head, loins of the bull technicque of attack. (Kinda like this http://www.fortunecity.co.uk/amusement/golf/200/battle.html#) Do you think a single envelopment would be more effective especially if you playing a lower points game. Also what if you used your armor or fast attack in a feint to one side.
I guess the problem with using that sort of deception operation is that your opponent has 100% situational awarness.
Hmm, it's interesting. The actual tactics of the real world might not translate into sucess in WH40K but I know the principals will work.
Have any of you ever thought about a short form game that would allow you to war game new tactics quickly, without all the set up and the even being in the dame place.
My solution for the guards is drop troops doctrine, a 55 men platoon deep striking has all the surprise, concentration and audacity possible for that scale of game. Problem is tempo, cause the deep striking depends by a random throw of dice.
Additionally you can drop some special weapons/sentinels and then you are moving along nicely. The main objective there is to hit them with enough stuff that you truely achieve surprise as well as unhinging him enough to mess with his plans. Some of the limitations of the DS is if you don't get enough to achieve your objective. We are lucky in that we can dump as you said 55 guys as one troop choice around the foe.
So you would probably want COD and DT doctrines go heavy weapon light on your dropping troops and if fighting guard or other weaker horde armies stick a sentinel in a HTH combat situation where it will act as a tar pit. That frees you up to continue your maneuver to roll up a flank. Just make sure that you kit yourself out the right way... maybe a commissar and or a priest to give you extra punch and staying power.
Now to control the tempo you will need some improved comms somewhere on the board for that extra shot of coming in when you need it. I would also think you will need a fully kitted out command HQ 1-2 heavy weapon squads and a sentinel to place on the board in cover to give you a good base of fire. Now if you want to do a deception operation as well show up with 30-40 conscripts to give you a huge meat shield and confuse the enemy on where you are putting everything.
Gotta love verticle envelopent...
They only way i see for us to take objectives, with one or two basilisks cleaning them before the drop.
I am a former US Army cavalry officer myself...nice to see somebody quoting stuff from professional military doctrine in the make-believe world of 40K.
My only comment is that real tactics and doctrine have little to do with this game. Unlike historical wargames which "simulate" past battles/campaigns...40K is most certainly a "game." A simulation is an attempt to accurately model real-world conditions (past, present, or future). A game has built in play balance for the enjoyment of both participants.
It is quite comical to me...in my past 4 months or so playing this game to find many die-hard 40K players discussing their "tactics" and "strategy." Of course, there are some forms of tactics associated with this game...and some strategy (mainly in army selection and initial deployment)...however, by and large, when people say "tactics" they really mean "GAMESMANSHIP."
That means, I put my squads precisely 6.5 inches apart so you cannot assault into successive squads and such. Exploiting the nuances of the rules to their advantage...divorced from the spirit of simulation. In my humble estimation, your army composition represents around 30% of your strategic thought with respect to the game...and over half of that is selected for you by the codex rules. Another 15% or so comes from your deployment. Another 20% comes from the "tactics" of choosing how to manuever your forces and direct fire on the enemy. The remaining 35% of the action will pend on how well you roll your dice...
Of course, many other wargames (Harpoon is a great example) attempt to be so hyper-realistic as to be nearly unplayable without investing huge amounts of time to learn the rules.
40K is fun...modeling is fun...but attempting to apply real-world, military doctrine to this game is like attempting to impose calculus on those used to arithmetic...painful at best...ridiculous at worst.
You sir, are correct. Looking to apply real world strategy and tactics in 40K is kinda like thinking you could run a real life football team as the coach or general manager just because you won your fantasy football league last year. While one game is derived from a real set of circumstances, the game is designed to be fun rather than truly representative. Basic maneuvers like flanking (which are painfully elementary) can be executed in the game, but the rules aren't really designed to reflect the advantage such moves or strategy create. Pinning is pretty much an afterthought, covering fire or crossfire nonexistent, and so on.
Kinda interesting to hear an actual officer talking about "strategy" and such in the game. I'd heard that a lot of current and former military gravitate towards games like 40K or Flames of War. If for no other reason than you tend to have quite a bit of disposable income while you're still serving.
"I would listen to Sokhar. The man's a genius. Listen."~Lord Yossanrion"Thanks, Sokhar. There was some legitimately good advice in between the low-grade profanity, blaspheming and veiled insults."~Quick"Well thought, intelligently put, with a hint of sarcastic bastard!"~Diggum's Hammer
Well...this probably belongs in rules development/house rules section...but seems relevant to the current thread...
Fundamentally, in about 80% of the games I have seen...the most important roll of the game is to see who moves/shoots first. Many other gaming systems get around this gross disadvantage by using a series of "activations" in which only some subordinate unit of your entire force can move at a time...then taking turns with the opposing commander. Of course, that draws out the length of the game...and requires a bit more thought on the part of the players. In many games, a roll to move/fire first can have catastrophic effects...way too powerful to leave that tremendous advantage to a single die roll...
I only recently started playing 40K, although I understand there were overwatch rules in previous editions. To the best of my understanding, the rules were removed because people found them cumbersome...to me, that simple change would add tremendous realism.
You could get similar statistics represented by wounding vs hitting vs saving by consolidating some of those rolls...that would speed up game play tremendously and allow more detail on big picture rules which woud add tremendous room for tactical thought beyond having "hot dice" at the right time.
The rules for ratling snipers are ridiculous. Why have snipers in the game if they cannot target specific models? Too powerful? Make them worth more points, restrict their movement, make it a single model or a heavy weapons team (scout-sniper with observer), etc.
The rules for mortars are also ridiculous. Sure, they are pinning. Relative to other weapons, they should have tremendously more power...even in the 40K universe. Their strength is ridiculous with respect to the weapons system they represent...relative to other ones in the game.
Heavy support units like basilisks should not even be on the board in most scenarios. The idea of having indirect fire on the board...colocated with infantry on the front lines seems a little ridiculous. Rules could be adjusted to increase total point values for indirect fire support...and set up rules for counterbattery fire to "kill" the enemy's fire support off board. You could decrease the frequency of being able to "call for fire" with the basilisk and similar units...perhaps only firing every other turn...etc...the "preliminary bombardment" rule is a simple version of this...expansion of that concept would make for a better game, I think.
The previous post mentioned using flanking/envelopment as an advantage...this would be difficult giving the small scale of the game...and lead to many arguments...I have seen plenty of disputes based on simple line-of-sight and vehicle aspect (is that a side shot or a frontal?). Of course, it is also interesting to think that a unit getting shot at by every weapon on the table does not have to make a pinning test...but one which suffers a lucky hit to 25% if its troops must make a check. Kind of dumb when three ordnance weapons, two troops choices, and a fast attack choice mass their fire on one unit and don't scratch it or even affect its manuever on the next turn...which is why people who talk about "tactics" in 40K are talking "gamesmanship."
Unfortunately, in general...games like 40K are dying a painfully slow death. With the advent of on-line gaming, kids who used to play wargames on tabletops, over hexes, and in boardgames are a fraction of even 10 years ago...in another 10 years...fewer still. One only needs to take a look at the corporate filings of GW to see that the company's financial health is flagging at best...doesn't take a financial analyst with a Harvard MBA to figure out why.
Just some random thoughts...
Applying the characteristics of the offence
Lautlos: Surprise, Concentration, Audacity, Tempo
In a typical one-off wargame, there are major stumbling blocks in the way of many real-world tactics.
Firstly the need to win in 6 rounds means you have to get stuck in, and therefore have less capability to mass troops and to manoeuvre in to a great striking position. Games are naturally as brutal as possible, as quickly as possible. Against some opponents, with little long range weaponry, you can get a round or two of manoeuvre, to attempt to generate all four of your tactical characteristics.
Thankfully GWs creation of the Mission based game at least gives some thought to the process. Too many other wargames just see two rows of troops smashing each other, which can get very boring.
Second, as you pointed out, your opponent has great situational awareness, and may well know your Codex as well as you do. He is therefore able to predict what kind of Deep Strike capability you may have, including its likely strength. Surprise is not easy to achieve. Some armies are of course, less predictable. Chaos SMs in particular can have wide ranging powers and load-out.
Die Staffel, I agree it is nice to see some real military guys posting. However I fundamentally disagree with your take on many peopleâ€™s â€˜tacticsâ€™.
Throughout history armies have used forms of ranging equipment to help deploying their troops, and used strict mathematical formulas to space troops, and to define artillery barrage times etc.
Consider a modern artillery battery from a 1st world army. The battery is surveyed into position and uses GPS to position itself. The observers use laser rangefinders, and GPS to position and mark themselves and their targets. Then their computers do the number crushing, taking climatic conditions, barrel wear etc into account, and off you go. So if players space at 6.5â€?, good for them for thinking about the game.
As to your thoughts on rules mods, personally I agree with the lot, and have already included all these concepts into a set of â€˜modernâ€™ wargames rules I have been developing for some time (apologies for going out of topic). As we all know, for many, GW is also about playing with oneâ€™s nice looking toys, and lots of players love their vehicles, cozâ€™ they look cool. You canâ€™t sell a model for off-table artillery. Their rules are targeted at 12+ yr old players, and are â€˜streamlinedâ€™ to suit them, not players whoâ€™d prefer more complex and â€˜realisticâ€™ systems.
I must admit, it would be a damn good idea to develop a set of rules mods, with this in mind. There are some out on the Net that Iâ€™ve bumped into in the past. Iâ€™d certainly be good for communicating with other players over this.
As a final thought, map based campaigns are really the way to go, to include more strategy and tactical thought. I love these games!
Keep posting military guys.