"FoW and Tactics" Topic

So now that the learned WW2 historian AND the neophyte can both field units resembling their historical counterparts, they can start working on WW2 tactics, right?

They can indeed do that – I never said they couldn't.

But the problem is that most people playing FoW, particularly those using the points system, don't seem to do it – at least if the discussion in the FoW forum is anything to go by.

The majority of forces people field are really rather strange. Very short of basics like infantry platoons and very heavy on Divisional or higher level assets.

They don't have to do it that way, but the points system seems to reward it.

Whew, now that we've cleared all that up…

acarhj/John wrote:

So, for those that are playing FoG currently, what are your experiences with this? Do you find you are using more game related tactics or can you apply WWII tactics to the game and be successful?

Ya know, after all the parsing going on, I'm surprised nobody tore you a new one for asking about Field of Glory tactics in WW2 games! :)

I see this reflected in FoW games in two ways:

1. Using sound tactics often works well, even against gamey players.
2. Players using gamey tactics often fall prey to making basic mistakes.

Things that work well:

1. Defense-in-depth, with mutually-supporting positions with interlocking fields of fire, and supporting artillery. With some planning, you can position units such that assaulting one either draws other in, or requires the attacker to go to extreme measures to avoid doing so, reducing the effectiveness of the attack. The resulting formations look like something out of a manual of the period.
2. Maintaining reserve force that can react to a problem on either flank. A two-forward, one-back deployment of infantry just like in the Osprey infantry tactics book works well, as does having a mobile reserve. This applies to the attack and defense.
3. Keeping your eye on the objective. A lot of players get sucked into duels, and trying to kill every last enemy unit in pursuit of tourney points. You can sometimes bait them into pursuing a weakened, but insignificant unit, either drawing them into trouble, or away from the objective that the rest of your force can be focused on. Some players are so obsessed with their big tanks that they forget everything else. Seems there's at least one notable historical parallel right there!
4. Being prepared for the rush. Many of the rush tactics are effective only because the defending player leaves the door open. Much like some of the poorly defended bridges in WW2, they are able to capture the objective through decisive action and quick follow-up. A bit of thought on initial deployment will leave any units that double open to devastating fire, likely deterring that approach. Not all bridges fell so easily.
5. Combined arms and maneuver. Just because your tanks can move 24 or 32 inches doesn't mean it's a good idea. Ideally, you'll want them to have support when moving into defended territory. Tanks against infantry in close assault can get ugly. Top armor 1 is top armor 1, regardless of that big mean front armor, or the speed of the chassis.
6. Don't count on everything going exactly according to plan. Be flexible and respond to changes in the situation. On the other hand, don't go changing your mind every few minutes either. Be prepared to accept casualties in accomplishing the mission.

While I wouldn't call it an exact creation of any one historical event, the games can present many of the same tactical challenges that were faced on the battlefield. If you focus on not thinking of it just in gaming terms, there are a lot of subtleties that come into play.

I do draw the line at wearing moldy old uniforms and funny hats though! :)

- Bob

Derek H wrote:

Not equally, but still useful I imagine.

They're a nice "2nd opinon" if nothing else. I've found them useful, both for FoW and other games, for determining what sort of higher level support might show up in a battle.

Those OOBs are one level up from FoW and do not really contain any information about what's going on at a platoon level.

True, so a second reference is probably necessary. But they are nice in that they show a variety of units at higher levels. A very nice little resource that somebody on TMP pointed me to a while back (sorry, I've forgotten who) is "The Gamer's Guide to WWII Small Unit Organizations and TO&Es". It's hidden on the oldglory15s website with the unhelpful title of "The Gamer's Guide" or somesuch. They are a perfect addition to those sorts of higher-level TO&E diagrams, getting down into individual weapons at squad level. Definitely worth $11 USD or so.

The site at link is my overall favorite in terms of low-level unit detail, but sadly only covers German units. That level of detail is hard to come by! I've always wondered how many cooks I should include in my OOB.

Regarding the fluff: Skimming the Battleground PDFs, there are a couple of interesting anectodes. I noticed one about Polish forces declaring their Fireflies as captured equipment to avoid having to give them up, and Czech troops marching into Prague, surprising the Soviets,leading to an interesting what-if blue-on-blue scenario pitting Cromwells against T-34/85s. Sure, Battlefront would have used more exclamation points, but I find little tidbits like that interesting. I'll certainly look around for confirmation before quoting either source as gospel. (Hmm.. is there a Snopes for WW2 legends?)

There seem to be a few oddities in some of those PDFs. Any idea how thoroughly they've been vetted. One StuG organizations shows 1 HQ with 1 StuG platoon, while the neighboring TD organizations show 3 platoons. I'm thinking that was a type, unless I just mis-read it. Excellent information nonetheless.

- Bob