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!
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
Everything you have been told is a lie!
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"
but that's not really modern so......yeah....the answer is "No".
Mysterious Member of the ANZAC Clan
That's...really quick replies. Seems like an overwhelming no. That's alright, I was just wondering.
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.
"Courage is not the absence of fear, it is the conquest of it." -Anon
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.
Last edited by Chaosundivided; March 20th, 2008 at 01:33. Reason: Punctuation error