"Are you a "bloody" general ?" Topic

Heard a mention that Prince Eugene of Savoye was not affected by his losses at all, he viewed his men as expendable assets.

Lots of wargame scenarios are one-off affairs with no penalties for heavy casualties and some people will fight to the last camp follower, truck driver and HQ unit to achieve victory.

Do your victories come with 95% casualties on both sides ? Should your tables be painted red after a game ? Do you try to minimize losses or do you feel like McClellan whenever your troops are exposed to danger ?

Hmmm I tend to dislike sending my toys into nasty fights (for example in woods), but I also believe in storming positions which tends to incur losses.

I'm close to that when playing. I have never played a game in a campaign so I am not sure how the style of my play would change. I would love to find out some day.

Minimizer myself. I used to be horrific a few years ago, wasting my men to achieve victory.

But then as I started reading more into the experiences of soldiers and how wars are conducted long term I felt it more "realistic" to consider casualties and equipment losses during battle. I find it also creates a more reasonable outcome instead of the mountains of casualties every battle used to have.

In saying that, if it gets desperate I will push the troops further. Sometimes it must be done.

If sacrifice is part of the plan or proves necessary because I'm out-generalled (temporarily) I'll do it but prefer to keep units intact with some effectiveness left so I'll have them to use if needed.

I play to win, a scenario should have victory conditions based on keeping forces intact for the next battle if that is important (and most of the time it SHOULD be important).

I'll sacrifice everyone for victory otherwise.

The objective is well worth the expenditure of ALL of my lead and resin!

Since I read a book about the effects of Napoleonic musketry &c upon the human body, I find it increasingly difficult emotionally to play games that purport to be more than an abstract engagement between 'toy soldiers', albeit with period weapons and uniforms.

Hence my games are now Red versus Blue or Imaginations, even if the scenarios are derived from historical situations.

Well as I play Battlegroup the more units you lose the faster your army breaks morale down… Its a difficult balance to strike between gaining objectives and minimising losses.

Whatever the scenario victory conditions say.

If I can win by losing all my men, then I will. If I can't, I won't. They are only toys, and 'losses' may well only represent people hiding or running away in any case.

In the absence of specific scenario strictures then I will attempt to play in a culturally correct manner, which may lead to a degree of caution about losses, or a degree of bloodthirsty indifference which would make Atilla blanche. Depends really, however as Napoleon the Great observed, one cannot make an omlette without breaking eggs.

Most generals didn't have a clue how many casualties they'd suffered or inflicted until some time after the event, although they would have an idea if they had won or lost (generally if the other guy is drinking your brandy).

Hood didn't try hard enough. 'Nuf said.

The people I play with reckon me as a very, very stubborn general in defense – prepared to spend as many troops as I need to keep a position

Not as much in attack

I'm just the opposite, I can't abide to be on the defensive. I'll send the troops in to attack, attack, attack as soon as possible in most cases.

As far as losses go, we have noticed a difference in games that are campaign games. I've been running a small campaign modified from the Last Argument of kings book at a number of conventions recently and it really is interesting to see how people decide to retire from the field rather than make that last suicidal charge when there is a game that comes after with the troops you have left.

In one off games they can all 'die' so long as the objective is achieved, after all most of them have run away as Martin points out.

Heavans NO!

I fully believe in the phrase that seems to give rise to a passionate sense of moral indignation to most gamers "The Generals of the 18th century maneuvered more than they fought!" This was said of the Italian Condottieri as well. Even in one-off battles I will always look to the preservation of "the lads" first. In campaigns my armies can be seen coiling and uncoiling like a giant Anaconda, moving from one mountain top position to another.

Very tender about "the lads."

Daun was way too rash!

Oh yes, the reason I am this way is that it exasperates the enemy and he does something blitheringly stupid-- like attack.

It varies. If the rules allow cheap, asymmetrical guerilla warfare or any kind of shoot and scoot mechanisms, I prefer those. If not, then it is once more unto the breach.

"Hood didn't try hard enough. 'Nuf said."

LOL! Yes. Yes indeed. 'Nuf said.

General Sir Arthur Currie is my hero and model to emulate – figure out how to take and hold the objectives with the fewest friendly casualties one can, spending ammunition rather than lives wherever possible.

I figure that sort of economy of force is generally effective – I may not win a battle, but I'll make sure my opponent pays a lot for the victory; and when I do win, I'll have enough force left to follow up afterward.

in the rules I play for napoleonics, the "damage" to units is more representative of the loss of combat effectiveness then of actual men. so it's hard to see extrapolate what the actual unit losses are. I'd say, on average , no more then 1/3rd of my army as been broken or routed by the end of the battle.

I am however an aggressive player. i do what it takes to win a battle. If i can minimize my casualties in combat, i do so, as that equates to a greater chance to win the game.

that being said, i don't fight to the last man when i clearly can no longer win the battle. I have forfeited a game of chain of command when i had no longer had a chance of winning the game.

Hey. I painted them. If they die, they'll be back next week.

Hate to lose a man. Despite that I lose a lot because I lose a lot!

I hate to see my little men fall. The tactic I most enjoy is pounding my opponent with artillery from across the table.

I know some "men" are going to die but try to keep the casualties down to a minimum.

As I said. I do almost exclusively Imagi-Nations. As such I develop a persona for myself when in the tame. The Prince of Zweibak the Elder.

I always look at the end of the war. Where is it going, how will we get there, and what are we going to get out of it if we win. This provides a very structured approach.

When my little fellas are killed in droves, I know I am doing something wrong. I don't mind to take risks, but within reason. If my poor figures are being taken off from the table too fast it is because I am being outgeneraled or that I have made some egregious blunder.

depends on the era, in colonial times I expect my British to fight to the last man.

I tend to try not to lose troops which means I tend to lose battles in campaign games. in warhammer CHARGE

It depends on what the scenarios call for. Most of the scenarios I write allow for a "better" loss if you "retreat" when you are "beaten". But sometimes, we have "high adventure" skirmish scenarios where you play to the last man.

Without a sense of continuity from game to game, you lose the motivation (or part of it) to conserve forces. In a gaming group, well … in ours, even when we are not running a "campaign" where outcomes in last month's battle affect this one, there's at least the sense of continuing "street cred". Yeah, well, you won the last two games, but only by a slight margin. Last February, I crushed you into obilvion!

The Prince of Zweibak the Elder.

…mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, zweibak…

Every so often during a game, I consider what the effects of my generalship would be in in real world terms of killed and wounded and I've come to the conclusion that I'd probably make a lousy real general. Not so much from poor strategies or tactics, but I'd feel responsible for the suffering and deaths of my soldiers. I don't know that I could get passed that. Throwing a battalion of soldiers into the face of a battery of artillery, if necessary, on the tabletop is one thing. Doing it for real is quite another. So I do things in a game that I'm not sure I could do for real.

But, in pure game terms, I don't like to "fight to the last man". I will gladly concede defeat if I feel I can't win or accept an opponent's concession if offered rather than drag things out. I don't find either one of those to be enjoyable.

They call me Custer…..what does that tell you?!!!

In the sense that I'll sacrifice a unit or formation in order to get another in position to win the game I guess that means yes I am.

DM

In colonial games the natives are generally naturally disposed/obliged to attack, and forced to accept heavy losses in the process in exchange for any chance of victory.

Only in skirmish games…. XD

I'm probably not a bloody general, I try to conserve my forces while achieving my objective. But the point of doing this is to still have them, so I can expend them later on.

dear Eth\othepie

Ummmm the name bothers you?

Otto

I have been known, in multi-player games, to tell my subordinate generals, "You will die, and I will lead you."

That said, the most effective way is still to make the other dumb bastige die for HIS country.

I tend to be an aggressive commander but attempt to take calculated risks in order to achieve victory. However, I always consider what the fall out will be if I sacrifice too much. Like Piers I enjoy games like Battlegroup that impose a break point. It makes you consider your choices. Another thing I like to do with convention games is to have each player pick a figure that represents them. Whether they go with the top officer or Private Snodgrass one of the things is to see if "you" survive the battle. I have found that this little bit of theater makes the games more interesting.

I have been known to quietly murmur: "Some of you are going to die, martyrs of course, for the freedom I shall provide".

Ummmm the name bothers you?

No, I'm a big fan of it.

but I'd feel responsible for the suffering and deaths of my soldiers.

Generally, in wartime you are working with people who are already committed to your cause. Yes, sometimes involuntarily, but even in those cases they didn't have much of a choice to participate nor did you to engage. What you're responsible for is the suffering and death of the least number of your people possible and weighing what "least possible" means against the suffering and death of the civilians your are protecting.

I tend to be both an aggressive general and very conservative with the Lads. My Adeptus Astartes might be bellowing" Forward for the Emperor!" But they shall not blindly or mindlessly charge to their( simulated) deaths. I like to field lots of basic troops with appropriate fire support, aggressively move to a favorable position and then disassemble my opponants Army in short order. Always minimizing loses to the best of my ability. The last conflict the Lads engaged in they managed to defeat and opposing army of three combined Chapters( BA, DA, and BT) using a vanilla Marine list without special rules or characters. Total loses on the enemy, 75% before they conceded. On the Lads, one lone Terminater, slain in HtH by an enemy character at which point his enraged Brothers made said character disappear in a hail of Bolter, Heavy Bolter and Multi Melta fire. They celebrated the heroic death of their Battle Brother, long into the night. :) of course it rarely turns out that spectacular both that is what I am always trying my best to achieve.

Yes, bloody awful!