|
Post by Soul Samurai on Sept 19, 2018 6:58:29 GMT
I had an idle thought today: I wonder if any WM/H players study real world military tactics (as I believe some historical wargaming players do), and if so whether they find those tactics hold any applicability to the game? On a related note, does anyone have any recommendations for books to read about real world tactics that would be easy to understand for someone who doesn't really know anything about this sort of thing?
|
|
germanicus
Junior Strategist
No jokes round ear...
Posts: 358
|
Post by germanicus on Sept 19, 2018 8:17:02 GMT
I study (albeit informally) military history, slightly different, but relevant, lack of expertise notwithstanding. Though I've never played DBA or DBM and their ilk.
The answer is yes, but only to a certain extent. Owing to the relatively static nature of attacks, actual battlefield tactics is has limited applicability. The removal of morale kinda buggers up the idea that an attritional loss can still lead to victory by assassination or scenario victory. Since it is purely set-piece as opposed to modern mission-type tactics/auftragstaktik or whatever label you want to put on it, the idea of an encounter battle is chucked out. Basic tactics (refused flank/en echelon being the obvious one) can be applied, but only for attrition. I think this is part of the reason why Circle is always so salty about being unable to leverage the hit-n-run tactics that their faction was conceptually based on. The table is no longer large enough for a genuinely high-speed army to go trolling shield-walls a la Carrhae.
In terms of casualties, we as gamers by and large don't care about battlefield losses on a tactical level because the result of the game is your be all and end all. However, unless generals know for sure that the battle they're fighting will be decisive in determining a war's result, they will genuinely care about the losses they sustain. I'm playing Napoleon Total War atm, and sure, my losses per victory will be on the order of 5%, but inflict 75%+ casualties on my enemy. 75% casualties rarely happens for morale, continuity and practicality purposes (and typical game losses in WMH are variable based on mode of victory, but it can be as bad as nigh 100%... for the victor!). Soldiers that see three out of four of their colleagues die won't stick around, nor will they willingly follow a commander that allows such a result. Now, I say continuity because if you play an attrition based campaign for tabletop, under most rules systems now, the campaign is over by the second battle unless you have very flexible reinforcements rules/abilities. You win the first game on scenario but your army's wrecked. Your opponent wins the attrition and steamrollers you next round. If we as tabletop gamers acted as generals and appreciate that losses are permanent from game to game (or at the very least that replacements are either very slow in coming, or slow in coming and crap), our willingness to grind out a game to 6 turns would not be so great. However, that said, it would make games very boring... whoever gets the first discernable attritional advantage wins.
And on the whole, tabletop gaming suffers from the same problems as RTT/RTS games for having no accurate fog of war (whether literal or Clausewitzian) equivalent applied. Terrain in WMH is not really reflective of what they do on the battlefield, like hills. If you have infantry on a reverse slope, chances are, they'll hunker down and remove LoS (and other situations, this is just the first one that came to mind). WMH tends to employ more stratagems rather than tactics, since only general tactics can be used owing to the low priority of attrition (whether general or as a result of localised superiority/supremacy and consequent effects on morale) when compared to actual warfare.
|
|
|
Post by ForEver_Blight on Sept 19, 2018 12:10:24 GMT
When it's more effective to screen my melee army/infantry with long range guns. It's pretty clearly going against sound military tactics.
Also; armies don't just walk away because you stood next to a flag for a while. Or if 1 dude dies, the tanks don't suddenly become inoperable and the infantry pack up and go home.
|
|
|
Post by droopingpuppy on Sept 19, 2018 12:37:19 GMT
The most easy real world tactics to apply is overwhelm the enemy with sheer number of forces, at least regionally each times when you fight. Such as dispatching many ranged weapons and concentrate fire on the enemy and pick the important target first. Ranged weapons are easy to set the target and concentrate the fire than melee weapons, means you can pick the fight and the participant in the small combat.
|
|
|
Post by Charistoph on Sept 19, 2018 15:15:05 GMT
The most easy real world tactics to apply is overwhelm the enemy with sheer number of forces, at least regionally each times when you fight. Such as dispatching many ranged weapons and concentrate fire on the enemy and pick the important target first. Ranged weapons are easy to set the target and concentrate the fire than melee weapons, means you can pick the fight and the participant in the small combat. Indeed. You really cannot commit real world tactics properly. If we did, attackers would always outnumber and out point the defender by at least half before committing, especially at this level of play. Yeah, that's strategy, but your strategy will put the boundaries on your tactics.
|
|
|
Post by Rork on Sept 19, 2018 16:58:09 GMT
As with any simulation, only up to a point. Flanking has value, as does overlapping fields of fire or some degree of hit and run (e.g. stepping into a forest to fire then repositioning back out). I still don't take the blockhouse with Trenchers because I prefer a mobile army, and stuff that is mobile (and by extension, fast things too) can dictate the flow of battle a bit more.
|
|
|
Post by Charistoph on Sept 19, 2018 17:06:28 GMT
Flanking is an interesting point. Cover is really only intervening, and modern flanking usually is about denying them access to cover. In melee, flanking is usually about generating a feeling of hopelessness by being surrounded.
|
|
|
Post by 36cygnar24guy36 on Sept 19, 2018 20:53:45 GMT
I think Warmachine is similar to WW1, clueless generals running their troops into certain death to try and take arbitrary pieces of land
|
|
shoe
Junior Strategist
Posts: 706
|
Post by shoe on Sept 19, 2018 21:01:08 GMT
teh game is about piece trading effectively wid equal size forces. teh military is about winning one sided battals with no losses
|
|
|
Post by sand20go on Sept 20, 2018 3:12:29 GMT
Nope. If you want military tactics pick up a myriad of great hex games.
What Warmachine _IS_ about is chess. If you are good at that game you are good at warmachine - especially in Mark3 with premeasuring.
|
|
germanicus
Junior Strategist
No jokes round ear...
Posts: 358
|
Post by germanicus on Sept 20, 2018 4:08:31 GMT
What Warmachine _IS_ about is chess. If you are good at that game you are good at warmachine - especially in Mark3 with premeasuring. Now there's a thought... reckon the Elo rating system could/would ever be applied? It's easy enough to implement something akin to the algorithm of 400, I think... Everyone starts at 1000, then watch Pat Dunford race to 3000!
|
|
Deller
Junior Strategist
I’m on a Boat
Posts: 605
|
Post by Deller on Sept 20, 2018 7:24:06 GMT
What Warmachine _IS_ about is chess. If you are good at that game you are good at warmachine - especially in Mark3 with premeasuring. Now there's a thought... reckon the Elo rating system could/would ever be applied? It's easy enough to implement something akin to the algorithm of 400, I think... Everyone starts at 1000, then watch Pat Dunford race to 3000! How would buying an ELO boost work in Warmachine? Asking for a friend.
|
|
germanicus
Junior Strategist
No jokes round ear...
Posts: 358
|
Post by germanicus on Sept 20, 2018 10:19:13 GMT
How would buying an ELO boost work in Warmachine? Asking for a friend. Erm... it wouldn't? I wasn't aware chess players could buy Elo boosts, and I'm fairly certain buying Elo boosts would break the system and render every rank of Master irrelevant. Can't say FIDE would stoop that low, for all the (albeit rather banal) shit they pull.
|
|
|
Post by sand20go on Sept 20, 2018 13:32:38 GMT
I have LONG thought that WM could benefit from an ELO system because it would allow for handicapping. I also get that it further pushes the game toward one side of the competitive/casual spectrum.
|
|
skormedlover87
Junior Strategist
Desperately searching for days off to game...
Posts: 517
|
Post by skormedlover87 on Sept 20, 2018 22:13:32 GMT
I wonder if you could apply the general principles of generalship though. Think the Art of War type of advice. And while psychology may have left the game rules, it still exists in your opponents. Break him and you'll win.
|
|