"From what period do tactics start being important? " Topic

I imagine some will see this as heresy, but bear with me. I recently downloaded Slitherine's Pike & Shot and have played half a dozen games.

First impressions were good: 'this looks exactly like a table top wargame!' I thought: the terrain, the units, the turn sequence etc.

Then, as I started playing it, I thought: 'Hmmm – this is just like 99% of pre-20th century table top wargames I have played' – and that, to me, is not a good thing.

Basically, all the battles seem to involve two armies facing each other, you can see pretty much all the enemy units, there is no delay in giving orders, no need for recce, no purpose in keeping a reserve and the 'tactical options' involve, essentially, moving forwards and fighting with the enemy units who are doing exactly the same.

All of which got me thinking: maybe the game is not 'wrong' at all – maybe tactical options before (roughly) the mid 19th / early 20th century were fairly limited, and the skill of a general prior to this was more in getting his men to the right place at the right time, and with full stomachs, sufficient rest and decent morale. Once battle was joined, it might be fair to say that his influence was rather limited, other than inspiring his men with his bravery – which we are unable to replicate on the table top.

Each to their own, of course, but I think this is why I have never really been drawn to Ancients, Medieval, Pike & Shot or even Napoleonic / ACW (though I think that 'interesting' tactical decisions probably start appearing about then). Other than the initial deployment, perhaps, there just do not seem to be enough 'tactics' involved for me.

Similarly, 'classic' colonial wars – Zulu War / Sudan Campaign – do little for me, with most battles being a case of rolling dice for firing, and moving the natives forwards 4" a turn. It is only really from the Boer War onwards that I feel (and this is just my opinion, of course) that there is enough of a tactical side to wargames to hold my interest: the 'empty battlefield' where recce, hidden positions, ambushes, etc enter play.

Maybe I am missing something? I am sure there are many wargamers who thoroughly enjoy playing earlier periods, but is that perhaps less to do with tactics, and more to do with the painting / modelling / history side of it?

When have tactics ever not been important?

"Maybe I am missing something?"

Yeah you are. Any close study of pretty much any war any where will reveal tactical decisions taken by the oppossing commanders.

Interesting point. I have seen some fairly convincing historical arguments that ancient and medieval generals most important battlefield job (other than holding the army together and getting it to the right place as you say) was the initial deployment of their battle line. After that the battle didn't 'run on rails' but their ability to influence the outcome was a lot more limited.

That said, I definitely disagree there's no point in keeping a reserve; many ancient and medieval commanders did exactly that, and deciding when and where to commit that reserve is the second most important battlefield job such a commander would have.

Of course, if tabletop players were held to similar standards and regulations as real officers, even most WWII and Modern Games would 'run on rails'; doctrine and adhering to HQ's plan plays a much larger role in the outcome of real battles then they do pretend ones.

All of this leads me to think that while tabletop gamers tend to focus on the tactical, most battles (ancient through today) have most of the important decisions made at the operational level.

-Will

If you read any book about napoleonic battled there is plenty of tactics.

Just as Bradley didn't walk around telling lieutenants to use that stone wall for cover or to flank that mg42.

Neither did napoleon tell a lieutenant of the 13th legere to flank and attack that prussian gun in the middle of the town square.

Also that pike and shot game plenty of tactics. Like you csn hide some units in woods. Or some armies don't have propper pike and shot formations so have to fight very differently.

Largely what wminsing said.

There are indeed significant differences between tactics and operations on the empty battlefields of the twentieth century, with the the more crowded houses of their forebears.

But our games tend not to focus on the sorts of things which mattered to contemporary generals, so in game terms it doesn't actually matter. We play the tactics the rules demand (roll sixes! get those combat bonuses! line everyone up from flank to flank!) which can still produce an entertaining game, whatever the period.

Definitely a good question to spark some debate. I think tactics come into play when you have different types of units because they require different tactics. Plenty of use of tactics in ancient times. I think Alexander who had phalanxes, whose basic tactic was to line up and move forward, had to arrange the rest of his varied forces to support that tactic. He showed a lot of flexibility given opposing forces and terrain.

I think your question is not necessarily a historical one as much as a gaming question of balance. Battles may have lasted all day but the actual fighting might have only lasted a few hours and this is what we generally try to represent on the table. You should hear the moans and see the eye rolling from fellow players when I spend my turns skirmishing, probing flanks, or firing artillery instead of sending troops forward.

For those few hours, when command and control was limited or even non existent, yes the die was cast. There might have been some option to release a reserve or rally for a counter attack. I think any era can be gamed using a variety of tactics it just depends on how detailed you want your rule set to be and how much time you have to invest in a game.

Just to clarify, I am not saying there was no point in keeping a reserve in reality in olden times, but in the game I mention (and most table top wargames where units can be moved by telekinesis at a moment's notice) there isn't really. Indeed – in most tabletop wargames, it is actually a silly thing to do, as it gives you less dice to throw.

I should also have stressed that I meant: tactics for the wargamer playing a battle in one of these periods. If a game is just two lines of troops facing each other and moving forwards (as many of these seem to be), then I still maintain there is little or no tactical interest / involvement – I could play against my cat and he would have a 50/50 chance of winning.

Martin Rapier – that's pretty much the point I was trying to make: some people would appear to be attracted to a nice looking, entertaining game with a large element of luck in it, rather than something which requires a rather different approach.

The point in the OP about keeping a reserve was that they had no purpose in the game.

Vital as they were in reality, as one of the few ways an ancient/medieval/early modern general could influence a battle once it was underway, they have little relevance to most games.

Indeed, in most rulesets it is plain stupid not to put all your forces in the front line from the beginning.

The impact of a fresh cohesive force at a point where they cause maximum psychological disruption to an enemy force is just not modeled in most rule sets. Not a problem for a game but it is a major reason why recreational wargames usually teach little or nothing about the real decisions commanders faced.

Of course there have been rule sets adopted different approaches – Dark Age Infantry Slog by Andy Callan had virtually no 'tactical' choices to make – you lined your men up and off they went. But it was an intriguing game and gave you more of a feel of watching a battle between shield walls (as written in sagas and chronicles) than anything else I've played.

Of course these alternatives don't let wargamers do what wargamers like doing – moving the pieces around like chess pieces in cunning 'tactical' manner. So anachronistic control, and no reserves, dominate a lot of pre-modern wargaming. Indeed, most wargaming.

I think you put it far better than I did, Gwydion.

To say tactics were not important before "modern times" is incomprehensible to me.
Pick any period.
Maybe in pre-history. When the "Ogs" fought the "Bogs" with clubs and stones.

day one "look a large meat eater is behind you" SMACK

Hi Green Leader,

Take a look at this thread on the Pendraken forum, where I posed a question similar to the one I think you're asking, and offered my own answer to it. A civilized and interesting debate ensued. The thread title was:
"Is everything pre-Napoleon really linear and limited?"
Here's the link:
link

Chris
Bloody Big BATTLES!
link

Oops – thanks Green Leader, sorry – posts overlapped – didn't realise you had replied.

ironicon – it's not that tactics weren't important necessarily but that they were uncontrollable by the General commanding the battle during the battle.

Wargamers want something to do, and they want to do things no real commander could, so the rules let them be anybody and everybody in the battle and once you have all that control there is no need of reserves.

Reserves give you one last batch of troops under your control as a general, until you commit them. When you can control everyone on the field anyway, they just become wasted assets sitting there doing nothing. Until wargamers play games where their control is severely restricted, reserves will have no purpose.

the observation is unfortunately valid with a large share of pre 20th century game rules. This is why there is so much discussion about different rule sets and why many players belittle certain popular sets.

The question the OP poses is about game rules, not about historical reality.

If a game doesn't show those tactics, then the game isn't tactically interesting even if the actual conflict would have been.

Tactics is always important. Sometimes tactics are not what you think, and in ancient battles the decisions of the auguries as to the reception of the prayers, the interpretation of the entrails of a sacrificial beast, or the address of the general to his troops before the battle were as good as what we think of as tactics.

At one naval battle, the Roman commander was approached by one of the auguries who, terrified, told him "the sacred chickens would not eat." One of the auguries of the Romans was how chickens responded when grains of corn were tossed before them. The more avidly they ate, the greater the Roman Victory. Claudius, about to enter battle was enraged and seid "If they will not eat, then let the drink" and tossed the cages with the sacred cickens overboard.

He was resoundingly defeated

Yes, that was my question: is the issue the events being portrayed or the rules portraying them. If the latter, then I heartily agree about very many miniatures rule sets.

Weasel

Thats an excellent point. Rules can only do so much: one of my biggest wargaming let-downs was Rorke's Drift: it can only have been unbearably tense / terrifying / exhausting to have been there in command of the small British force… but in terms of tactical options for wargmers? Not so much: line the men up and roll lots of dice.

jeffrey

I guess its a bit of both. I think it is perhaps harder for rules to represent what made a 'good' commander in older times – the story about drowning the chickens springs for example – a good deal of it seemed to come down to things which are hard for rules to represent: charisma, personal bravery, delivering a stirring speech etc, rather than tactical acumen as such. Those things remain important in later wars, of course, but perhaps not quite as prominently so.

I think at many levels the move ahead and shoot is actually realistic. For example, in a major battle in the Napoleonic Wars, what decisions would a battalion commander make that gamers really care about? You would mostly go straight or hold here. So rules that limit you to a few choices are "realistic" but boring.

Likewise many rules fudge levels all together. Brigades that act like battalions is a common one I see.

A lack of an orders system is another. Your division is told to take the hill and off you go. On turn 3 the far right flank folds and you pull back to help. Are you psychic? Did an order arrive via Tardis?

I've read several instances in a napoleonic battle of companies and whole battalions hiding in sunken terrain to jump out and flank the enemy.
Even more common with cavalry with hundreds of men abd horses hiding and seemingly attacking from no where

If you want to portray tactics in detail, don't take the role of the general or army commander, who would be far more concerned with getting the troops to the battlefield, their initial deployment, issuing a battleplan and then watching the battle develop to decide when to intervene, commit reserves &c.

In many 'traditional' tabletop wargames, the player commands forces which claim to be an army, but are really a brigade or division, and involves himself in giving tactical orders because the individual unit commanders are unplayed.

When a game is designed around individual combat effects, instead of "buckets o' dice", then a reserve comes into its own. Having all your troops engaged to maximize the number of dice doesn't exist. The size of the battle becomes irrelevant. Each man/figure/base with a "combat value" goes up against the enemy in contact range, period. Each contact has a result each turn, be it "continue" (no effect), pushed back, routed, or eliminated. The net effect each turn results in one side being worsted. Obviously, if you, the general, see where you are needing to apply an extra push to win, or more manpower to avoid defeat, you are going to want at least one "unit" to throw in. Better TO and generalship provide for a more granular reserve, i.e. one with more parts to be sent in where needed….

link

So we are talking command and control here?
Hmm.. that is another question.

There are plenty of tactics at every age in history. If there aren't any in your games, there is either a problem with the rules, or (much more commonly) both players are just laying out lots of figures and smashing them together.

What arthur1815 said.
If you are thinking 'tactics' you aren't commanding the army (or the corps, or even the division). But wargamers want to do it all (understandably).

On turn 3 the far right flank folds and you pull back to help. Are you psychic? Did an order arrive via Tardis?

wouldn't this would depend on the time scale?

if a turn is 1 hour
then messengers could possibly do the job

if a turn is 15 or 30 seconds
then I would agree a psychic is probably involved

Which game were you playing? I've only played Impetus and once a unit got into battle it was stuck there till it won or was beaten – so keeping a reserve was critical. Same thing for Blucher for the most part (for Napoleonics)

I think part of the problem is level. The gamer needs to choose to play the level at which interesting choices are available. The rules writer needs to focus on the real life options available, ensure that game consequences correspond roughly with real life ones, and provide a speedy resolution once the decisions are made.

So the "ancients" mass battle should be resolved very quickly since most of the decisions were made at set-on, and in non-skirmish games the gamer should probably command the entire army. For contrast, a colonial game might involve continuous decisions on a fairly low level for the civilized commander, while the native commander sometimes has little or no control once the fighting starts. (I fully agree with Green Leader, by the way: holding a perimeter is almost inherently a dull game--but finding or creating a good scenario is another problem on a different thread.

There's the part of a battle that most games don't touch, a commander keeping track of the morale of his own troops (and if he's really sharp, the enemy's).

GreenLeader, I post this a lot up here, because it demonstrates for me the difference between how it was done then vs. how it's done on the table top. Hopefully, this will add some data for you.

link

Tactics have always been & always will be important – that many wargame rules lack the ability to reflect this shouldn't surprise anyone

There is an argument that from the Thirty Years War through the WSS, 7YW, Napoleonic Wars and down to the ACW the tactical role of the commander was largely the same. He got the army to the field as large and in as good a shape as possible; With his staff he developed the plan of battle and ordered the initial placement of troops; and he deployed his reserves as necessary in order to take advantage of opportunities or to deal with any weaknesses. The actual part of carrying out the commander's plan fell to lower level corps, division and regimental commanders who were responsible for the actual fighting and the lower level tactical decisions that required. A commander in chief who chose to inject himself into the actual combat essentially stepped down and commander and became for a time at least just another colonel or low level general.

If you want your rules to reflect the players solely taking on the role of the commander in chief, it would be understandable that those rules tactically would not be that different whether you are doing a 30YW battle, a WSS battle, a Napoleonic battle or an ACW battle. They won't be identical. The rules would need to reflect differing command structures, different movement speeds and different weapon capabilities. In the end though you are still telling the commander of the first brigade to take the village and them be prepared to turn and hit the enemy center in the flank without being concerned with the lower level tactics the first brigade commander uses to take the village.

This is why I prefer not to play games which limit me to the role of commander, but which instead force me to also make the decisions of the brigade commander and even the regimental commanders. How that flanking charge is going to be made is going to differ depending on the composition of my force and the tactics used in that era. Now suddenly I have to worry how I can best use my pikes, whether to deploy my troops in line or in squares or what reserves to maintain.

Gamers collect and paint troops because they want to play with them and see them on the table, this often results in games, in any period, with troops ranked 10 deep from one table edge to the other, and yes the only option is to march forward and roll dice. Leave half the figures off the table and have the space to maneuver, refuse a flank, attack in echelon, and by all means hold a reserve to reinforce success or prevent disaster. As an aside I have seen many games in the OP's "tactical period" that are wall to wall tank parking lots that also have no tactical options. Its really not the period or the rules but the way the game is played.

I'm not trying to be unkind here, but anyone who believes that there were any periods of human warfare that did not involve the use of tactics has not done the necessary amount of homework. Whether it is sending Ogg by way of the forested streambed to attack the enemy warband from behind, or attacking the rear of Villeneuve's line of battle because the light wind conditions would prevent the Franco-Spanish van from coming to its assistance, or luring an enemy tank squadron into a prepared AT killing zone, it's all tactics.

Like many who post here, I have been involved in the wargaming hobby for a long time. One conclusion I have reached is that a wargame rule set or scenario that fails to allow for use of tactics appropriate to the historical period is a sterile experience. If the rules don't enable the use of historical tactics and appropriately reflect good and bad consequences, they are bad rules. If the scenario (for example: a groaning table-load of opposing armies deployed from one table edge to the other, i.e. – "cram and slam") then the scenario is badly designed.

Strictly my opinion, of course.

B

"Cram and slam" sounds extremely unpleasant. Of course, that's about how I feel about such scenarios… I am totally going to steal that term.

- Ix

Some very interesting responses and a good debate. I think some are still slightly misunderstanding what I meant, so I shall reiterate: I did not mean that tactics were not important in reality in earlier periods, but rather playing such periods do not (in my humble opinion) seem to provide the same tactical challenges in a table top wargame. I am not 'bashing' anyone's preferred period, so no reason for anyone to get defensive.

As one poster mentioned, this can also happen in a WW2 battle if the table is just wall-to-wall tanks, so perhaps that is indeed a big part of the problem – the sheer weight of units on the table (and the lack of hidden units / any meaningful fog of war) rather than the period itself? I would suggest however that any WW2 game in which the player can see all the enemy forces laid out in front of him is not really a WW2 game at all: it is pretty much just an ancient battle in which chariots and elephants have just been replaced by tanks.

Maybe its just that (in my experience) pre-20th century games tend to be the ones which have two opposing lines of units, stretching from table-edge to table-edge and really the only thing a player can do is move his men forwards, or else just sit there and wait as the other fellow moves his forwards. Each to their own, of course, but not my cup of tea.

The notion of 'Cram and Slam' brings tears to the eyes.

ChrisBBB2

Yup – I think we asked pretty much the same question. Some interesting responses on the thread you linked to.

I also suspect that the perceived lack of scope for tactics in many games has causes apart from those mentioned above.

If you game with largish 25/28mm armies on a normal sized table, then that is likely to limit the scope for tactics because there simply isn't going to be room for flank attacks and the like. Smaller scales can offer a lot more scope for tactics, but not if you use the same sized "footprints" for units as you would with 25/28mm figures or you still choose to cram every available space with units.

I suspect that playing games as part of an ongoing campaign, rather than one-off battles, is likely to increase the scope for tactics, as players are likely to be less reckless and see greater merit in retaining a reserve.

I also don't like rule systems that allow the commander to do anything that he wants provided that he rolls high enough and I suspect that such systems contribute to a lack of tactical subtlety in many games. In our games, we require units to comply with orders, with only limited scope for them to deviate from those orders. If the commander suddenly decides that he wants to launch a mass attack on the enemy's flank, then he is going to have to send orders to the sub-commanders involved and those sub-commanders have to activate the orders. There should always be some scope for initiative by sub-commanders, but it should be the exception rather than the rule. Think about how often in historical battles one side could see what the other side was trying to do, but couldn't counter it adequately because (a) the commander wasn't around to issue orders; (b) when he did issue orders, it took time for them to be delivered; and (c) the sub-commanders then had to understand the orders, be willing to act on the orders and issue orders to their own people. So, the guys on the spot might be able to see that the enemy has weakened its centre in order to be able to launch a flank attack, but there is likely to be a significant delay before (a) anything substantial is done to counter the flank attack; or (b) an attack of their own is launched against the enemy centre. That is my long-winded way of saying that I suspect that the sorts of rules that make the commander omniscient are likely to discourage tactics. Why take a risk to march around the enemy's flank, when he can immediately counter the move and put your troops at risk.

In any event, we are all just playing with toy soldiers. If whatever you are doing works for you, that is all that matters.

Aussie Andy

Excellent points all.

I wonder if there is an optimum % of the tabletop which should be covered by miniatures? This will, of course, vary from period to period, but one often sees photos of games where it looks like about a quarter of the tabletop is covered by massed armies (and another quarter by enormously out of scale terrain pieces) – surely that is far, far too high a density to allow for a decent game?

Another point which we have not touched on yet is the number of turns a game lasts – if it is (eg) only eight turns or something, there is little chance for a player to probe forwards / find a weak point / switch his axis of advance / react / gather forces for a counter attack etc. Instead, it is pretty much a case of: 'everyone forward!' before the wife throws everyone out or the booze runs out.

I don't have a particular problem with the table being lined with units flank-flank – it is exactly what historical commanders did (within the limits of terrain features and their ability to see). The absolutely most critical thing to being to match the enemy frontage.

In terms of running the battle, as a General, my main interest is in:

1. the initial deployment
2. managing the rate of attrition in different sectors of the front ie who attacks, who defends and at what intensity.
3. where do my reserves go (see 2. above). There was a reason armies deployed in multiple lines.

So even if there only manouvre option is 'stand still' or 'go forward', there are plenty of resource management options for Generals to do, which might be termed 'tactics'.

Lost Battles does a very good job of simulating all three elements (deployment, attrition, reserves) for Ancients, in an enjoyable manner.

All too often Napoleonic sets get hung up on micro-tactical management, whereas all I want to do is commit Lobaus Corps to the tactical juncture I've created through extending the enemy flank. Like it says in Chandlers 'Campaigns of Napoleon'.

Clausewitz has a few observations about how to fight and win Napoleonic Battles, but along with injunctions to always deploy in infantry in two lines and having a well oganised force for the pursuit/rearguard, the most important is simply to be stronger than the enemy. "You can never be too strong". And at odds of 2:1 or more he reckons you are guaranteed to win, pretty much whatever you do.

Which is back ot the primacy of operations over tactics in massed warfare.

Von Moltke had won Koeniggratz and Napoleon had lost Waterloo before a shot was even fired, but both are entertaining battles to play as the doomed side MIGHT win before the enemy flanking forces arrive to rout them.

A lot of these issues also seem to come down to the often-debated (at least here) question of just who the player is supposed to represent anyway, and what the forces on the tabletop represent. Many games have the player making macro (army) and micro (regiment or whatever the basic maneuver unit is) decisions at the same time, which leads to folks conflating different levels of tactics together. Even in a WWII and later game, for example, a lot of rules systems I've seen have the player commanding a company of tanks or more but still maneuvering each individual tank into optimum position each turn; something a real armored company really can't or would care to do.

-Will

Which is back ot the primacy of operations over tactics in massed warfare.

Yes, I think this is something that does get of missed by miniature games, which often almost exclusively focus on the tactical aspect of the battle. A lot of the 'great tacticians' we talk about actually were great operational commanders, and the battles they won and lost on the operational level. The tactical portion we game was only epilogue.

-Will

Will, good point about level of command. I like to play games where a player is commanding a corps or an army. I think it is appropriate to think two levels down and to represent that on the table top. An army commander moves corps and perhaps divisions. A corps commander cares not only where his divisions are but where their component brigades are. If you're playing a division-sized battle, you want to know about your brigades and their constituent regiments. Trouble is, pre-modern, I just don't think the sub-commanders have enough options and enough choices to make. (Though maybe I just need to take Martin's tip and try "Lost Battles" for ancients.)

I think a point that hasn't been made yet on this thread is how the geometry of the battlefield changes with the arrival of longer-ranged, more dangerous, more mobile artillery in the late eighteenth century. I suggest that ranged weapons add depth and change battles from being essentially one-dimensional – linear – to being two-dimensional and offering a far greater menu of tactical options.

If you want to hear me grind that axe at a bit more length, or indeed if you'd like to put some dents in it, see here:
link

Chris
Bloody Big BATTLES!
link

My wargames are generally fought out on the basement floor, which tends to minimize the scenery visual but also avoids the problem of the overstuffed wargames table.

If you are doing your job correctly as an army commander, then at the start of the battle your opponent is going to be in front of you. That means that if you are going to turn your opponent's flank, you are either going to have to rely on later arriving reinforcements or you are going to have to figure out how to screen or distract your opponent so he isn't aware that a flank attack is developing. To some extent rules that provide for hidden movements can help with this, especially if you have a referee.

Quite often though in actual battles the geography of the battlefield is such that the armies have to figure out how to go through their opponents rather than around them. As a result I don't find it unrealistic to have wargames where you have to do just that. If done right it can still involve tactical skills.

@Martin and Will. I understand where you are coming from. I do not buy into the idea though of a battle that is won before the first shot was fired. There are enough instances of commanders who had made mistakes leading up to the battle only to come away victorious due to hard fighting and on the fly initiative, quite often from lower level commanders. This is also why I prefer games which involve "micro-managing". It forces me to not only figure out that taking that hill is the key to winning, but also to figure out what the units attacking that hill need to do in order to succeed. I realize that without a large number of subordinate commander players it would be hard to do Waterloo this way in a reasonable amount of time. However there are a number of smaller actions where this can be done. To each his own.

There are different levels of tactics.

Case I – Minor tactics (running a horse battery up to fire upon the flank of an opposing cavalry regiment before charging it, for example) play out on the table-top.

Case II – Grand Tactics (sending a force on an off-table march to flank the opposing force's table-top position) can be a function of scenario design or the result of a well timed campaign movement.

Case III – Operational tactics (descending upon an opponent's army from a completely unexpected direction, for example) are almost always the result of a campaign movement.

A dramatic example of Case III occurred some years ago in the course of an ACW 1864 Wilderness campaign. It started with a Confederate attack driving the Union army back from Spottsylvania Courthouse (a separate interesting story) to their previously established entrenched reserve line along the Plank Road. The Confederate commander sent a pursuit force consisting of a cavalry division with a small reinforcement of infantry and foot artillery straight up the Union line of retreat with orders to conduct a vigorous demonstration in front of the Union position. This demonstration proved to be a veritable magnet, as the Union commander recalled his entire cavalry screen to oppose the "pursuing" Confederate force. Meanwhile, the main Confederate army was moved that night toward the Union right flank. With no Union cavalry screen in front of them, the Confederate main body was able to locate the Union flank and march north beyond it along a minor dirt track to a position that totally enfiladed the entire Union line. The campaign referee refused to even put the game on the table-top.

What's the moral to the story? The greatest enjoyment in wargaming (from my POV at least) is derived when the opportunity to exercise tactics on every level is given the greatest rein.

B

From the period at the end of the sentence, "I think I'm kind of interested in military history."

Tactics have always been important.
However, it is also true that the ability of a commander to influence the course of a battle after it had started gets less as you go back in time.
But that doesn't mean commanders didn't use all sorts of tactics – think of Hannibal's ambushes at Trebbia and Trasimene, his envelopment at Cannae, Scipio's oblique attack at Ilerda, Alexander's schwerpunkt at Issos and Guagamela.
If the rules you are playing don't reward tactics, then the problem is likely to be with the rules.

The period just after you get your ass handed to you by your opponent.