"Use historical tactics? Nah!" Topic

The majority of you said that you'll use any tactics you can to win! TMP link

It's up to the rules, not the player, to limit your tactics.
If the game organizers feels that the player's options should be limited, it's his responsibility. If I have no constraints, anything goes.

Agreed.

Some play the period, some play the rules.

My biggest problem with some limitations of certain tactics rules in a game is when a game designer uses dated or misunderstood conceptions about the tactics/abilities of units and hasn't chosen to change his rules. Con games are the culprit, because if I don't like the rules in my home games…I won't play them.

Biggest thing that bothers me is usually command and control (in that it is almost always too easy for a unit to get to do something) or the rules still present tactics in overly broad terms such as French Napoleonic infantry use only columns as the formation of attack, or that the line was weak on the attack (because columns are the formation of the attack), ignoring the nuances of when and why such formation choices were made historically.

At con games, so many limitations get left out for the convenience of the GM/newbies you don't have any choice if you are playing to win. I often don't play so bloody minded if I see that the rules are too simplistic in that regard…unless I run into a guy who is obvious in that he is taking advantage of lack of limitations in the rules and knows he is doing so. If I ran into Winston or Joe's Shop, I would probably quickly succumb to non-historical tactics if I have to. With a newbie who has no idea of the period, I probably won't.

With a 40k player…I will trash him without mercy using every loophole I can find!

It is always great if the rules somehow steer you toward using historical tactics.

…..you'll use any tactics you can to win.

I don't need to win that badly and feel sorry for those that do.

I'll play the game within the strictures of the ruleset and hope to have an enjoyable experience.

I'm not sure why I would want to track down, buy and paint minis and terrain for a historical game and then use Monoploy or Battleship (yes, hyperbole) as my guide to play it. Seems like it would be a waste of a lot of my time.

"It is always great if the rules somehow steer you toward using historical tactics."

Well put, Lonkka1Actual … my only caveat being that the steering exercise should avoid using a ham-fisted approach.

B

…..you'll use any tactics you can to win.

That's a given for gamers and real generals. Human nature. How about all the psychological tricks that chess tournament contestants use--outside the rules? Or poker? The rules, ANY rules, limit, direct and reward particular decisions/actions. That's the way they work.

Players are always free to use whatever tactics they can within the rules. If the rules allow an action, it will be done at some point. If the rules don't cover some loophole…is the player the problem or the rules?

Some play the period, some play the rules.

I've always had a problem with that statement for the following reasons:

1. The rules supposedly represent the period. The only way to not play the period is to have rules that don't or to ignore the rules you don't think are representative.

2. A gamer has to play the rules to play the game… So,

3. If the gamer is playing the period, and NOT playing the rules, what are they doing? What isn't the game doing?

4. The assumption is that a historical wargame is designed to reward and punish the tactics played similar to those used in the historical battlefield environment.

5. One of the most rule-bound/culturally conservative organizations in history is the military, army and navy. How could a set of rules be created to provide players with the same options and limitations of the actual commanders without including limitations on choices?

6. IF a functional historical wargame [or simulation] is played, those gamers will sooner or later adapt historical tactics because they want to succeed…It may be a learning process, but that isn't any different for any officer, at any time--they had to learn from experience as much as training.

When I watch players limit themselves to what they believe are historical tactics when the rules don't…and are beaten or frustrated by players who play the rules, I just think those players who 'play the period' need to find a better set of rules.

Two Fat Lardies uses that byline "Play the period, not the rules" for their promotions. I have found playing Chain of commandC at least, the needed mental gymnastics for that particular dichotomy has never come up.

"Some play the period, some play the rules"

Then get some new rules. Playing the period and playing the rules should be one and the same.