Wargamers and Tactics/strategy.

Discuss the society, wargaming, and other topics of interest
Post Reply
UshCha
Posts: 131
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2016 12:41 pm

Wargamers and Tactics/strategy.

Post by UshCha » Thu May 16, 2019 5:39 pm

It has occurred to me that war gamer's, particularly those not in competition never talk about tactics and their implementation in there chosen rule set. mainly the talk is about models not how they behave on the table top. Why is that?

The sort of topics that I would have expected would be considered but typical have little or no air time are illustrated below. Theer are many other examples, but the question remains is why are they not discussed to any extent?

The machine gun: it is one key weapon that needs to be implemented at least plausibly to allow real world tactics on table. Often sited to fire across the front on fixed lines, use of range bands with excessive accuracy drop off would invalidate real world tactics. It's surprising to me that such basics are not discussed when any new rule set is considered.

How does a new rule mechanism cover reconnaissance and placement of units hidden at the game start.

How credible is the artillery control compared to the real world? Is the yield comparable to available basic data.

More complex and erudite and applicable to larger scale games , would be the price to be paid in materiel for information about roughly where the enemy is and how many. A member of the WW2 Long Range Dessert Group said most of the time was hiding afraid, bored, hot or cold counting trucks passing so, the real world puts a significant price on that data as there were exceptional fighters who would otherwise stiffen an infantry formation significantly. Monty generally was anti elite formations for this reason. How does a chosen high level set account for this and how well does it seem to fit the available evidence even if somewhat anecdotal in nature.

CarlL
Posts: 670
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2013 8:53 pm

Re: Wargamers and Tactics/strategy.

Post by CarlL » Thu May 16, 2019 7:32 pm

Interesting topic UshCha.
Is there a lack of discussion, as you suggest, in answering your question?
Perhaps discussion gets stuck at different levels? Both online and at our clubs?
1. The gamer may discuss tactics but only within the rules they play?
2. The reader or historian, may only ask about tactics as seen through their reading material? A biography of a general may lead to different talk than that from reading the autobiography of a gunner.
3. The level of focus, or the point at which tactics means something, may depend on whether you command a squadron of tanks, or a regiment of tanks, or a division of tanks; or other formation variations of course.
Perhaps simulation and games play are at different planes of interest around tactics?
My most recent tabletop game, a 20mm models, Rapid Fire, representation of action around Rots, (11th June, 1944) led to a lot of after game discussion about the British & Canadians players tactics in trying to achieve their scenario objectives with game time scale allowed.
But this may not be the kind of tactics discussion to be found in likes of Stephen Bull's "Second World War Infantry Tactics: The European Theatre" book. I enjoy both.
I hope we could accommodate all these variations in discussion on the forum (and perhaps in the Journal if it lives to issue another edition or two)? Perhaps we need a new tab on the Forum? TACTICS? And within this, subfolders for games players and historical analysis and perhaps a what if tab for wars that didnt occur?!
CarlL

User avatar
hammurabi70
Posts: 90
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2014 9:05 pm

Re: Wargamers and Tactics/strategy.

Post by hammurabi70 » Thu May 16, 2019 11:07 pm

Perhaps because gamers like models and are limited in using them to hoping they roll better dice than the enemy; many veer towards the gaming fun in preference to the simulation aspects.

Real world tactics seem to get less airing than they should.
If you are such a great writer make me want to logon and respond! [Adapted]

Seret
Posts: 212
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2016 3:45 pm
Contact:

Re: Wargamers and Tactics/strategy.

Post by Seret » Fri May 17, 2019 9:36 am

UshCha wrote:
Thu May 16, 2019 5:39 pm
It has occurred to me that war gamer's, particularly those not in competition never talk about tactics and their implementation in there chosen rule set. mainly the talk is about models not how they behave on the table top. Why is that?
I'm not sure I agree with that. I'm on forums and FB groups where tactics comes up regularly. I think the most common topics on ruleset-specific forums are not the models but rules queries, and often those give rise to tactical discussions. You'll get questions like "How do I use X unit in the game" and that'll turn into a discussion of how they were employed in real life.

It really depends on the rule set though. Some lend themselves more to realistic tactics than others. I tend to gravitate to rule sets that do have some treatment of things like recce and fog of war that you mention. Rule sets that lack those seem to be missing the point a bit I feel.

UshCha
Posts: 131
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2016 12:41 pm

Re: Wargamers and Tactics/strategy.

Post by UshCha » Sat May 18, 2019 1:42 pm

So I guess the first question is : do your rules even allow your machine guns FPL fire as its called in moderns or as far as I can understand it in the past (and present) Graving", "Grazing Fire" or Fixed line fire.
Obviously our rules Have it and Phil Barkers 1925 to 1950 ruels has it. Despite some limitations overall Barker, was well ahead of its time and many new sets to me have been a step back from Barker, being more reminiscent of HG Well Little wars than serious simulation which was what it was all about in the days of the Wargmes Development crowd.

Without such fire any attempt at real world tactics will fall flat big time, as an example. Machine gun platoons would become just a farce. Now I freely admit our own rules are seriously imperfect in some ways. I discovered, well was pointed too, an excellence training film on Machine gun platoons. In defense the units were widely separated and established a cross fire and were in communication with each other so operated as a platoon but widely spaced, but covered a very specific area. To avoid reductions in fire during barrel changes in there combat area the standard rate of fire which was about 100 RPM was increased by the other two guns to compensate for the loss of one gum while it changed barrels. Now such complex interactions are not covered in our rules directly its just too much organization and most of the time the effect would be minimal as the weight of fire would be very similar in a similar position.

Is there anybody does more correctly than us and how. Interestingly the same film noted that such fire was impractical if the Jeep holding the ammunition was further than 500m fro the Gun position. I would hate to have to ferry MG ammunition 500m to a hungry gun.

bannockburn bhoy
Posts: 367
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 7:07 am
Location: Glasgow

Re: Wargamers and Tactics/strategy.

Post by bannockburn bhoy » Sat May 18, 2019 4:25 pm

I really like to get things as close to what actually happened ,and as realistic as possible/practicable ,but it usually comes down to the happy medium , as things can become over complex to reproduce , or become bogged down.
I do attempt to try things out to see if it can be accommodated . It obviously depends on the size and level of the game, at the right level HMG fixed fields of fire ,are for me a must have, as they were used extensively. I do think there should be a lot more discussion on rules , sharing of ideas etc. Perhaps an aspect at a time. cheers John

Seret
Posts: 212
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2016 3:45 pm
Contact:

Re: Wargamers and Tactics/strategy.

Post by Seret » Thu May 23, 2019 9:49 am

UshCha wrote:
Sat May 18, 2019 1:42 pm
So I guess the first question is : do your rules even allow your machine guns FPL fire as its called in moderns or as far as I can understand it in the past (and present) Graving", "Grazing Fire" or Fixed line fire.
Obviously our rules Have it and Phil Barkers 1925 to 1950 ruels has it. Despite some limitations overall Barker, was well ahead of its time and many new sets to me have been a step back from Barker, being more reminiscent of HG Well Little wars than serious simulation which was what it was all about in the days of the Wargmes Development crowd.
I think that's only a relevant detail for a specific type of wargame. Anything below about company or battalion level arguably doesn't need it and those above that level would be abstracting it into all the (supporting) fire of a unit. So you're looking for a company/battalion set with a high level of simulation? Personally I don't think there are any sets that I've found out there that manage to include that level of detail and also be fun to play. If you find one, let me know!

I actually think company/battalion is a bit of an awkward level to play at for simulating weapons effects. It's small enough that you want a single element to be a vehicle or a squad, but you've got so many toys on the table that you can't really model the specific weapons or characteristics of a single vehicle without getting bogged down. So you either end up micromanaging, or you have vehicles and weapons that seem quite generic. Finding that happy medium is tricky.

Personally I think once you've at that level it's more interesting to put your simulation effort into morale, command/control/OODA. Modelling weapons effects is starting to get beyond the sphere of interest of someone controlling a battle of that size.

Post Reply