"Real Tactics" Topic

Whenever somebody is hawking a set of rules, this statement from both the publisher and players is bound to come up.

Give an example of how real tactics actually can be applied in a game of your choice.

Here's mine to start off: In Flames of War if your unit moves, your effective fire will be reduced AND you will be easier to see when it's your opponent's turn.

Fire and maneuver
Suppression
Effects of artillery

In NUTS you can use a machine gun to suppress the enemy while another squaddie moves up and drops a grenade on them.

Privateer,

I have a couple things:

1) I would comment that what you wrote about Flames of War sounds both reasonable and realistic, but I would say those are rules mechanisms, not tactics. 'Tactics' are techniques units used to be more effective on the battlefield. Tactics is something like:

"Use organic light mortars and MGs to suppress the objective, supporting fires to isolate the objective, and fire and maneuver to close with the objective," or "feint at the enemy then withdraw to lure the enemy armor into our stand-off anti-tank weapons."

2) Regarding all the talk about how 'realistic' this rule set is, or how 'simplistic' that rule set is, I personally have not run into a set of rules that didn't allow me to use realistic tactics. There are some rules where folks have pointed out that you can do 'gamey' stuff within the limits of the rules, but it never really occurred to me, that is, I didn't even see it because it didn't occur to me to try to do things that wouldn't make sense in real life.

I suppose if you looked hard enough you could find a way to 'break' any set of rules, if that was your goal. I just don't know why anyone would want to do that. I will say, from my perspective, that games/rules that encourage 'point' set-ups, rather than 'table of organization/order of battle' seem to encourage this sort of 'gamesmanship,' as you're sort of starting off on the wrong foot (from a realism standpoint) if you can build a rifle squad with a flamethrower, a mortar, and two medium machine guns. In real life that is, by definition, not a rifle squad.

As I said, I think 'real' tactics can be used with pretty much any rules (some have mechanisms which are more clever than others), so what I personally tend to look for are rules that 1) don't allow me to do everything I want to do, 2) don't allow me to know what's going to happen next/what order it will happen, 3) force me to constantly make decisions, and 4) don't go so far with numbers 1 and 2 that it takes away from number 3 (things are so random/chaotic I feel I am simply a spectator).

Just my two cents, I hope I'm not too far off base with what you're trying to talk about in this thread.

V/R,
Jack

Just Jack, thanks for the inputs. We're on the same page. Also agree with you that many/most games already simulate real world issues at one level or another and real tactics can be used to advantage.

I was giving a rules mechanism example to reflect tactics/concepts like fire discipline and advantages of fire and movement. Only made it to buck sergeant in the infantry before I shifted to Navy medical on through to retirement but had fun applying a dollop or two of this stuff at the squad level ;)

Privateer,

Good to go man, glad to hear it! And who's infantry were you? Please tell me you weren't a doggie ;) I did 10 years in the Corps.

So, I can throw out some rules mechanisms I think are clever:
1) BKC/CWC with their command blunders (you roll for activation, and any time you roll double sixes something unfortunate happens). Seems to me a good way to simulate the friction of war, without going overboard.

2) Crossfire's ultra-simple firing dice/firing affect. Rifle teams get two dice, MGs get three, hit on 5+, 1 hit pins, 2 hits suppress, 3 hits kills. Bada bing!

3) PBI's activation points system for movement in and out of cover; it costs more points to move if you're in cover than if you're in the open. That is, if your boys are in the open, they'll gladly move, but if they're in cover, it's harder to get them going again. I also like the way PBI makes it harder for armor to operate in close terrain without infantry support.

4) Some Corner of a Foreign Field's delayed fire effects. So you've got a guy sitting in the bushes, and three different bad guys shoot at him, but none hit. You wait until your guy activates to make a die-roll test to see if your guy hangs around, is pinned, or heads for the hills.

5) KR-16's anti-vehicle mechanisms, which are insanely simple but very effective and give a good level of granularity. A given weapon rolls 'x' amount of dice to hit, a given level of armor rolls 'x' amount of dice to save, unsaved hits are added to a D6 roll which gives you a KO, main gun KO, immobilized, or pinned result.

6) No End In Sight's leadership activation system, in which each leader rolls for activation points to activate individual troops. Nothing out of the ordinary there, but in NEIS you get to keep going (i.e., keep rolling), with stress building up until the leader becomes exhausted.

V/R,
Jack

Thanks for those rules bits. I have been looking at PBI (new edition coming?) and recently started paying attention to Crossfire. Battlegroup has also got my interest so I've been researching that, too. Like a kid

As to service, I was enlisted Army for 4 active/4 guard then went AD Navy to finish out my 20 as a medical service squid. Had a Quantico tour and a forward tour in Iraq with USMC.

In Ogabas, "Oh God! Anything But a Six!" It does not specifically reward tactics. However it creates an environment in which the use of realistic tactics is rewarded. The rules do not for example, even mention a second line or reserves (this is a set for the 18th century and nappy period.) but if you use them it hugely rewards you by the interplay of the play. (I know that's a cumbersome phrase, but it fits.) It also gives great benefits if you analyze the ground and give proper attention to flanks (even there is no rules for benefits for flanking) and they take into account the effect of leaders and "command and control"without even mention of that turn or one word of them in the rules.

In "The Shattered Century" which is 20th century conflict, but on an army or army-group level there are no rules for this, but the "play of the interplay" makes it far more important WHERE generals choose to fight than with the minutia of this tank that tank, and the primacy of keeping the strategic mission firmly in mind AND a careful use of resources and deciding when "enough is enough." This set actually is a campaign set of rules behind it which you can use even if you aren't doing a campaign. Generals here are faced with operational and strategic decisions as far as axis of advance, allocation of resources and which allows ample opportunity for either side to snatch defeat from the jaws of Victory.

I strongly feel that it's best to look at this question from both directions (not sides, but directions).

1. How does real world stuff work in a given game.

2. How does real world stuff NOT work in a given game.

There are games which certainly include elements of "correctly functioning real world stuff" but which can include enough "not correctly functioning real world stuff" that it ruins the experience for some players.

Let's use a popular video game as an example. In the Call of Duty series there are sniper rifle techniques such as quick scoping, no scoping, drag scoping, and black scoping that would not only NOT work in the real world, they'd probably cause serious injury to the shooter. But the game also gets some other things right such as heavier MGs handle differently from agile SMGs.

For some people the quick scoping and black scoping is so nonsensical, especially when combined with relative killing power between weapons, that they won't play COD games. With quick scoping and black scoping and "one hit kill" power, a sniper rifle quickly becomes a superior weapon in CQB situations.

It doesn't matter that the game correctly makes MGs less agile than SMGs. The fact that one can easily dominate CQB situations with a sniper rifle by exploiting the game's auto-aim software code is enough to make it non-starter for them. I'm in my late 40s and even I can use these "sniper" techniques in Call of Duty CQB which ruins the game for me. The game gets the relationships between weapons and their battlefield roles completely wrong. And thus, much to the chagrin of my sons, I recently traded in my copy of COD Advanced Warfare. :-)

Same thing happens in miniature gaming. In our rules, "Warfare in the Age of Madness", Alert troops can react to an enemy action AFTER the action is complete. Thus an Alert unit can shoot an enemy unit after it completes its move action, not during the move action. There is no real-time interrupt. Move distances are short enough relative to most terrain gaps that the result is troops trying to cross open ground such as the street between two buildings will get shot by Alert troops covering the ground. But if the gap is small enough relative to the speed of the troops then Alert troops might not get a shot.

We and our customers are happy with the result because, in the real world, sometimes you can't get off an effective shot in "gappy" situations and we feel you should also be able to cover areas of open ground like roads between buildings. However, I know some gamers HATE this approach and want real-time op-fire interrupt during movement and will never accept our solution as "realistic". By the same token there are some games with no op-fire-like mechanic which doesn't make sense to me personally.

As others have noted, everyone has their own level of tolerance for stuff that doesn't make sense in the real-world (eg COD quick scoping is extremely popular with the masses while I hate it). And each of us has his own expectation as to what needs to be included in a set of rules to be considered realistic enough to play.

I would add there might even be a third "direction" or position to consider. Some of us will enjoy a game regardless of how realistic or unrealistic it is. As long as it's enjoyable or played by friends then we'll play too. I try to take this approach as it expands the number of friends and gaming opportunities one has.

As I get older I find this "open minded stance" to be my position. Over the last few years my wife and I lost our fathers to age/illness, I lost a young nephew to suicide recently, and we've seen colleagues succumb to various illnesses such as cancer and even random accidental death. Games should be entertainment and bring people together and anything else is rubbish (to paraphrase the Red Baron). :-)

I strongly feel that it's best to look at this question from both directions (not sides, but directions).

1. How does real world stuff work in a given game.

2. How does real world stuff NOT work in a given game.

There are games which certainly include elements of "correctly functioning real world stuff" but which can include enough "not correctly functioning real world stuff" that it ruins the experience for some players.

Games should be entertainment and bring people together and anything else is rubbish (to paraphrase the Red Baron). :-)

I agree that hobby wargames are entertainment and should bring folks together.

To look at your 'real stuff' in the context of bringing folks together… I would think that one obvious way to do that if everyone is on the same page about what 'real stuff' is being represented by the game mechanics…and what isn't.

Too often I see gamers left on their own to conclude how rules provide "correctly functioning real world stuff" though it is the designer who determines this.

Obviously those Call of Duty designers thought the "sniper rifle techniques such as quick scoping, no scoping, drag scoping, and black scoping" were things that would function in future battles. Where they got that idea and whether THEY thought they were providing that 'real world stuff' or just game gimmicks is unknown. It is implied that it is 'real future world stuff."

How about 'opportunity fire'? Even a number of 19th Century games have opportunity fire. Some 20th century games have 'overwatch', others allow defenders to fire at any moving target, and then some don't. Why the designers made those decisions and what 'real world stuff' they used as their design template is anyone's guess. Are they all using different rules to portray the same thing, or are they really trying to capture different 'real world stuff'?

Most gamers think they know but from what I have seen, can be way off. For instance, some have assumed that 'overwatch' is the same as opportunity fire, both the designers didn't.

When only some of the 'real stuff' can be portrayed in one game system, [All rules set will fail in some area…by design] it's important to know what 'stuff' has been included and what hasn't… and where the designers got their notions of what the 'real stuff' was in the first place. When designers are 'hawking their games', such information is usually not provided.

I'm all for having an open mind about folks enjoying games regardless of how 'realistic' or 'realistic' I think it is. More power to them. I just find it frustrating when there is a continuing dearth of information provided by designers to actually determine those qualities in most cases.

Privateer,

Good to go man, it's good to see see ya! Very interesting thread.

I agree with the problem of getting everyone to 'agree' on what 'real' is, and I don't think it's possible, which is why I think we have (and need) so many different sets of rules.

That stuff about Call of Duty perfectly illustrates the problem (in my opinion) of all this talk regarding 'those rules suck/aren't realistic.' I think you can break any set of rules and someone 'broke' CoD for Visceral. My point is, I would never in a thousand years figured out the 'use a sniper rifle in CQB' cheat. It just never would have occurred to me because it would never happen in real life. In real life, if a sniper rifle was my T/O weapon and I was entering a CQB situation, it's getting slung and I'm going to secondary as that's what happens in real life.

Our wargame rules are the same way (so far as I can tell). Someone brought up (in another thread) players in Bolt Action using officers and medics to man MGs to 'free-up' other men to act as riflemen. I still don't even understand what they're talking about (I'm guessing it has something to do with points, i.e., an officer or medic costs less than a rifleman, but that doesn't make sense either), as officers and medics don't man MGs unless the unit is being overrun and those guys are all that's left ;)

V/R,
Jack

In FoW…I like that on larger boards you have to give thought to displacing your mortars and artillery to keep up with your forces, and that you have to defend them. Too many WW2 games have the arty off board from where they can rain down arty with impunity.

(Yep, I realize this is because FoW ranges are artificially short, but I still like the idea that a commander has to think about displacing and protecting his mortars and arty.)

I agree with the problem of getting everyone to 'agree' on what 'real' is, and I don't think it's possible, which is why I think we have (and need) so many different sets of rules.

I don't think it is a problem of getting everyone to agree on what is real… It is knowing what the designer chose of the 'real stuff' to portray and how before deciding the rules do or don't actually incorporate what "I" as the gamer think they should… The real stuff could be portrayed by the rules and I don't know it, or they aren't there and I misinterpret it and think they do…

So I decide the rules suck or aren't realistic when my conclusions have no relation to what the designer did with the mechanics…

McLaddie,

I agree with what you're saying, but if you think all gamers agree on what is 'real' regarding any particular period, I've got a bridge to sell ya.

It comes up constantly, particularly here on TMP. Regarding 'modern' tactics (let's say, from 1939 to present, if we can even agree on that), we've debated whether fire and maneuver is 'real,' various aspects of fighting in an urban environment, rifle engagement ranges, the use of organic crew served weapons in fire planning, the mission of supporting fires, how many casualties did they actually cause, etc…

Some of those threads had over 100 posts, and while TMP members definitely settled into two or three separate camps, no agreement was ever arrived at. Thus, any given set of rules is bound to strike one camp as 'just right,' leaving the other two 'too hot' and 'too cold.'

But regarding your issue, I love when rules have designer's notes, it's really a great insight into what they believe to be 'real' and how they went about modelling it.

V/R,
Jack

I agree with what you're saying, but if you think all gamers agree on what is 'real' regarding any particular period, I've got a bridge to sell ya.

Just Jack:
Really? I've never known anyone who actually owned a bridge.

Designers DO decide what is 'real' and then build a system of play around using game mechanics.

That decision has already been made before the gamers ever touch the rules. Now gamers can agree with the designer or not, unless…. they don't know what reality was used as the template in the first place.

Too often the conversation over whether the rules involve the 'real stuff' involves gamers guessing what the rules do. Too often I see gamers dismiss the rules for the wrong reasons… or accept them as 'the real stuff' for the wrong reasons… because what 'stuff' is supposed to be in the rules isn't clear. And then the gamer starts changing the rules when they don't understand what the rules represented in the first place.

It comes up constantly, particularly here on TMP. Regarding 'modern' tactics (let's say, from 1939 to present, if we can even agree on that), we've debated whether fire and maneuver is 'real,' various aspects of fighting in an urban environment, rifle engagement ranges, the use of organic crew served weapons in fire planning, the mission of supporting fires, how many casualties did they actually cause, etc…

That's all fine and good, and makes for some interesting conversations. The issue is that each and every designer has come to particular conclusions on all those issues in creating his rules… For a set of rules, the debate is over. It is just a matter whether you agree or not… assuming you have enough information on the designer's conclusions to make an informed decision yourself. Too often you don't.

When different WWII rules all have 'opportunity fire', but use different mechanics--are they all portraying the same thing? Are 'overwatch' rules the same thing? If defending units get to fire at any and all moving enemy units, is that seen as 'opportunity fire'? Only the designers can answer those questions in any definitive way.

And of course, whether you enjoy the game or not may not have anything to do with actually knowing what is being represented. Imagination is a wonderful thing and central to entertainment--and can cover a multitude of historical and tactical sins.

Regarding tactics in rules, there's also the issue whether the rules have tactics already baked in, and leaving the player really no choice but to follow the in-game logic, rather than the real-battlefield logic.

E.g. many rulesets have something like "if there's a unit in support, you get a +1 in combat". This might be well based on the historical record, but it forces the player to place units in support. Perhaps some other tactic might yield similar results, but since the rules only give a +1 to support, everybody will make sure there is and will be support.

Secondly, why is the +1 there? Is the +1 there to gently force the player into this behaviour, because "that's what happened in history"? Or is the +1 there because placing a unit in support really provides an inherent advantage for units on the battlefield? And even then, perhaps that advantage might only be there because of secondary reasons that have nothing to do with the combat power of the troops involved?

This becomes even more difficult because some armies in wargames rules get negative modifiers to "simulate" tactical doctrines not covered by the rules themselves. E.g. some might give Russian infantry negative modifiers in fire combat in 1941. But why exactly? Because they all were bad shooters? Or because their tactical doctrine for handling infantry platoons was inferior to the Germans? The latter is much more difficult to model in a game, because it would assume the player has to play suboptimal. Hence, the negative modifier. But that negative modifier might then in turn result in a-historical tactics on the gaming table, e.g. the Russian player might now feel reluctant to engage the enemy at all, and take on a more defensive tactic than what would be the case in reality.

Regarding tactics in rules, there's also the issue whether the rules have tactics already baked in, and leaving the player really no choice but to follow the in-game logic, rather than the real-battlefield logic.

E.g. many rulesets have something like "if there's a unit in support, you get a +1 in combat". This might be well based on the historical record, but it forces the player to place units in support.

Phil;
Yes, I've seen that. The +1 is to reward the player to 'act like' historical military men, but it has no relation to why commanders put units in support. It all depends on what that +1 represents and how the player relates to it in play.

Obviously those Call of Duty designers thought the "sniper rifle techniques such as quick scoping, no scoping, drag scoping, and black scoping" were things that would function in future battles.

Unfortunately quick scoping works in all of the COD games, from their WWII games to their 60s-era Black Ops to today. : -(

It's really about giving video gamers what they want. There's an element of the gaming public that enjoys publishing YouTube videos of themselves jumping, spinning, and hitting a target while quick scoping/black scoping in mid-air. Doesn't matter if they're in WWII France or Iraq in 2006, they want to jump off a building an no-scope an opponent while spinning in the air. I wish it had something to do with simulating high tech gear but it doesn't. Not even the latest "advanced warfare" game makes an attempt to represent that.

Hardcore milsim fans hate it and stick to other games such as ARMA and, to a lesser extent, the Battlefield series.

It's really about giving video gamers what they want…Not even the latest "advanced warfare" game makes an attempt to represent that.

That's too bad. I have no problem with giving gamers what they want unless those designers then claim it is actually 'the real stuff' when they know better.

That's too bad. I have no problem with giving gamers what they want unless those designers then claim it is actually 'the real stuff' when they know better.

That's a very interesting insight relative to the COD series specifically and even miniature wargaming in general.

When they advertise COD, their ads always show troops moving cautiously and shooting realistically. It's intended to look like a movie and fairly realistic (at least the in-game footage…they also do live-action ads that are deliberately over the top).

But the actual game includes features such as insane movement speeds, high jumps, and the ability to quick scope with sniper rifles since many, many video gamers enjoy that stuff.

So in the ads there is no quick scoping and no drag scoping.

We miniatures gamers can sometimes be similar. Designers, publishers, and players talk about their gaming activities in terms indicating a high degree of "realism" but too often we're unwilling to readily admit when designs deliberately or inadvertently result in something far less than historical accuracy. What's worse is when we designers and players deliberately put our hands over our ears when someone points this out about our favorite game instead of listening.

At VIS we have a "no fan boys" policy. We actually welcome and encourage all kinds of feedback since that's what it takes to give players what they enjoy most when possible. When we can adjust the rules we'll do it. And sometimes we simply can't because it might break something we feel is more important about our games. It's a balancing act.

A good example is real-time interrupts for op-fire. We've tested it, we understand why some feel it's the most realistic approach to op-fire and/or overwatch tactics, but for certain design and entertainment reasons we simply won't implement it in the official rules. We readily accept that some will find the result not up to their realism standards and that's ok. We won't insult them by declaring their position invalid because it does have merit! But our design objectives are simply incompatible with that particular approach to representing op-fire (instead we use smaller move segments and allow Alert troops to react at the end of an enemy move action).

I must also thank you for pointing out a hole we have in our rules: no designer notes! We were so focused on keeping costs down to make the game affordable to players (low cost gaming wrt troops, terrain, and space is important to us) that I figured players wouldn't be interested. But I now see why people might actually find designer notes important to understanding the game and not merely enjoy reading them for fun. We'll correct that omission in future projects and try to put something on the website for Age of Madness.

A good example is real-time interrupts for op-fire. We've tested it, we understand why some feel it's the most realistic approach to op-fire and/or overwatch tactics, but for certain design and entertainment reasons we simply won't implement it in the official rules.

I appreciate your comments. No wargame can possibly simulate all of reality…actually very little of it. So I think it is important for designers to state what is and what isn't 'the real stuff' as you did above.

A great deal of the 'realism' in a game involves the players making mental connections between what they are doing in the game and the 'real stuff'. If they don't know where in the game that is, they assume or get 'bumped out of the pretending' by something that 'doesn't make sense.'

For instance, if players go into a game knowing how a designer has treated 'op fire' as you explain above, this keeps players entering the game in expectation of 'the real stuff' that was never intended to be there in the first place. They can also more accurately appreciate what has been included.

I find a lot of the fuss over realism is about gamers criticizing game mechanics for doing or not doing things when it has never been established what the rules were supposed to do… everyone is basically interpreting what the rules do in an information vacuum.

The classic example is the Fire & Fury command radius
rule. Troops within the radius get a positive modifier for movement. Those outside don't, but suffer no negative modifiers.

Gamers criticized this as an 'unrealistic' representation of the basic command structure. Any number have changed it over the years. Come to find out [ten years later] that the designer had meant that modifier to represent any help a commander gave outside the established established structure--extra information the commander might see that the brigadier didn't. Many players were relating to that rule in the wrong way, changing it for the wrong reasons… and in doing so, basically negating 'realism' or 'historical accuracy' the designer intended for the player to experience. All from a lack of information.

That desire to know what they are doing visa vie 'the real stuff' is one reason I think players often want detailed rules: there is more process information in a dozen rules than one.

In any case, like the rest of game design, it is a question of what role designer's notes have in allowing gamers to enjoy and appreciate the wargame to its fullest.