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

Well said, Dexter.

B

At the Metaurus River, Nero would during the course of the battle, shift troops from his right flank, behind his army, all the way around to his left and attack Hasdrubal in the flank to defeat him.

At least some ancient commanders where capable of reacting to the changing situation during the course of a battle and make tactical decisions that would affect the outcome.

Kim

Hello GreenLeader!

Excellent post that actually seems to speak to what is wrong with traditional wargaming. Not really tactics.

The first is as has been stated is the scale of a game. The larger the scale the more problematic is the dimensions of your table. The most popular scale of 25/28 is generally at a great disadvantage as they can fill up a table from side to side very quickly. This generally restricts your tactics to "cram & slam". I recall playing in a 15mm game on a 40 foot table with 16 players that was full of figures from end to end. One of the worst games I ever played in.

Next is the "bucket of dice" rules, although some are very popular they are generally poorly designed as they clearly work against the use of proper tactics. They push the game more towards chance and luck. Any rule set that works against the use of a timely reserve is just bad.

The game master or scenario designer plays a major part in all of this. I can't count the number of games that I've seen, played in or heard about that were poorly designed. My 15mm/40 foot/16 player was a classic loser. More often than not I've found that the GM/SD just don't have a proper understanding of the actual dynamics of warfare. They are predominantly from the "cram & slam" school of thought.

Most of us know that tactics/grand tactics, etc. have always been a critical feature in warfare. If your games are not reflecting this than you should take a close look at the three wrongs, scale, rules, GM/SD. Sadly as far as I can tell these are prevalent to some degree in a lot of games, regardless of period.

So a lack of period tactics in your games is probably not your problem, it's the symptom, not the source.

Best regards,

Glenn

….. Some examples of the powerful effects that reserves and hidden units can have upon a wargame. The game scenario was generated within an ACW campaign based upon Chickamauga, with the battle actually occurring in the very heavily wooded valley just west of the Lookout Mountain massif. Hidden units and movement were employed.

The Confederate line faced south across the valley with the Tennessee River at its back. Its left flank was anchored by the cliffs of Lookout Mountain; its right flank essentially ended in the air near a large heavily wooded (but unoccupied) hill.

Case 1 – McCook's Union Corps had been advancing northward along the spine of Lookout Mountain. When the Confederate position was discovered, McCook decided to join the battle by descending the eastern slope of the mountain and attacking the left rear of the Confederates through the narrow gap between the northern tip of Lookout Mountain and the Tennessee River.a the right. Repeated warning were delivered to McCook by the referee regarding very heavy dust clouds visible to the east in the direction of the nearby Confederate railhead. McCook left a single brigade to defend the road to his rear and proceeded with his original plan. The heavy clouds of dust turned out to be Longstreet's (Hood's) entire corps, which ran over McCook's rearguard like a speed-bump and then attacked McCook from the rear. McCook was trapped between the river to the north, Lookout Mountain to the south and Confederates to his front and rear. End result: an entire Union corps trapped and decimated, ultimately surrendering about 5,000 survivors.

Case 2 – At the start of the battle, the commander of the Confederate right could not see the opposing Union force which was positioned out of sight deep in the woods to his front. All he knew was that a great deal of chopping and sawing had been heard during the preceding night. In an effort to satisfy his curiosity, he ordered an attack into the woods with his entire corps. He encountered Thomas's entire Union corps dug in behind works. After multiple futile attempts to break through Thomas's position, the spent Confederate remnants retreated back through the woods in complete disarray, so badly beaten as to be unable to take any further part in the battle. The entire Confederate right flank was literally gone before lunchtime. Yet Thomas, whose troops had suffered practically no casualties, did not move for the remainder of the game. Why? Because he was convinced that the afore-mentioned large wooded hill overlooking the right flank of the Confederate position was occupied by a strong Confederate force ready to fall upon the flank of any advance by his troops.

This was one of the best games I was ever involved in. Pretty terrain and ranks of nicely painted miniatures are great, but the most enjoyable part of any wargame, for me, is found between the ears of the players.

B

Tactics are always important in war.

Tactics in war games are completely irrelevant.

With due respect, Otto, my experience has materially differed.

B

I think that, if you read between the lines of the original question the answer is "When the breach loading rifle was adopted". Before that in order to develop the volume of fire required to affect the course of the battle the men had to be standing up (to reload rapidly) and in close order. After that ordinary troops could take advantage of cover and still deliver a large volume of fire. With the development of heavy weapons (like the machine gun) even fewer men were required and the battlefield thinned out even further.
So I think the question was more about taking advantage of terrain on an individual basis and less about army-level tactics.

Hi Murvihill – Even within the confines of modern era small unit wargames, I have found tactics valuable. I used to play a lot of Barkers 1925-1950 company level rules and both benefited from and suffered at the hands of well applied minor tactics.

> Pinning an enemy platoon with suppressive fire from multiple LMGs, then destroying it with mortars.

> Tying up the passage of an entire enemy infantry company through a chokepoint town with three sniper teams.

> Having an attack bloodily repulsed because my preparatory barrage from a 4.2in chemical mortar battalion fell upon the obvious hedge row cover, while my opponent had cleverly dug his men in 50 yards behind it.

If the rules are sound, there is always a place to be found for good tactics.

Strictly my opinion. of course.

B

Tactics is a response to the type of weapons being used and the type of units. As weapons become more deadly at longer ranges and there came about specialized units, tactics would adjust to this.

As we moved to the age of the universal soldier, the tactics were a response to weapons only.

1866 and all that…or maybe not.

What a provocative and stimulating discussion – thank you Green Leader for kicking this off. Plenty of insightful responses which got me thinking…

I'd like to turn the argument on its head and suggest that good tactics in pre-modern warfare are actually EASIER to represent on the table-top.

"Tactics" in the modern sense boils down to the skirmisher or the logistician because of the sophistication and range of weapon systems. In other words, actions are planned to immense detail beforehand and much of the rest is down in the weeds to the soldier who has to think for him/herself. Concealment and terrain are paramount.

This is hard to represent on a table where you have a godlike ability to hover above your troops. Take yourself back to an earlier age, and yes, we can see plenty of troops arrayed for battle in spectacular fashion, the food of table-top gaming. This is not to say concealment and subterfuge were unknown; indeed there are so many fine examples of great commanders wining battles throughout history by shifting forces around under the enemy's nose that I won't begin to list them here. But I'd argue that it's easier to lay on an impressive battle in pre-modern times on the dining room table and adhere more closely to the reality of warfare in that age.

Echoing what has been said in this post several times, you need the right rules set which emphasises command friction (i.e. you can't do everything you want at once) and avoid the temptation of trying to squeeze every miniature you own on the table at once. Then manoeuvre and timing become far more apparent than a slogging match with buckets of dice.

Ambush tactics and raiding tactics have been important since the initial development of organized warfare.

Some really great replies and I thank all who took the time to consider what I was saying.