"Manoeuvre, Psychology, and the War-game" Topic

"The gist of the article is that the pendulum in debates about infantry doctrine swings between Attrition and Manoeuvre. Attrition is relatively easy to model in simulations because it can be matched to the known lethality effects of weapons systems (eg blast radius) whereas manoeuvre is harder to model because it depends on psychological factors (surrendering when you know you are outflanked and beaten).

In other words, you can defeat the enemy at the tactical level through Attrition, as summarized in the saying "close with and destroy", or by "manoeuvre and cleverness". Attrition can seem more understandable because you can use numbers and models to analyze and predict the expected results of weapons systems, whereas Manoeuvre is a subtle art and hard to quantify. Also, Attrition may seem more attractive to planners and accountants because the cost of a weapons system can be justified by its predicted effectiveness, whereas Manoeuvre is an expensive proposition that requires extensive combined arms training in the field, and its expected results are hard to model, because at its core Manoeuvre is about psychology:…."
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

I think the Mad Padre--whom I do enjoy reading, by the way--missed the inherent bureaucratic advantage of attrition. Maneuver requires improvisation and benefits from genius. Attrition is sometimes all you can do, but is the preferred option of the mediocre--safe, predicable and looks good on the reports to higher. Attrition may wipe out a generation, but it also means never having to say "well, I figured it was worth a try" "they called my bluff" or "we got a unit badly chopped up to be sure they were serious."

But in some respects miniature warfare is anti-maneuver. The better a maneuvering general is, the less likely you are to get an interesting tactical situation on your table. Everyone's happy to fight Leipzig or Waterloo, but how do you set up a table for Ulm?

I think the psychology of surrender is a bit sideways of maneuver and attrition.

You have a point my friend.

Amicalement
Armand

It they were interesting articles [both Rooney's and Mad Padre's] I've read a book that addresses the questions directly, Leo Murrey's Brains & Bullets. In it he relates a Falkland Island battle where two companies of the same British elite forces attacked two hills defended by two companies of the same Argentinian infantry battalion. One attack saw both sides take high casualties in a long battle, the second both sides sustained light casualties…with the same weapons and defensive positions. The difference, in one the assault was head-on where the second was a flank attack where the Argentinian troops left once they were outflanked.

Now whether that can be done on the game table is entirely dependent on the scale and size of the table…and as noted, the number of units on the table.

Often players what to see every one of their units on the table and others just love the epic scene of edge to edge miniatures…However, that doesn't have much to do with the question raised by the articles.

First, the combat, whether maneuver or attrition is going to be about the area represented by the table…

Regardless of how big or small the table, it is possible to design scenarios with a number of rules which reward maneuver. However, there are some hobby conventions, such as mentioned above that effective represent actual combat situations… Rick Priestly comments in his book on wargame design on how gamers want to have their painted 155mm howitzers on the table in a platoon-scale game, so a lot of movement, scale relationships and weapon ranges are skewed, again hampering any maneuvering on the table.

And then there are design conventions. One is having units move at about 1/3 speed. For instance, Fire & Fury and Regt. Fire and Fury have units moving at about 300 yards per fifteen minutes. That is only 1 mile per hour… There are a lot of game problems that slow speed attempts to solve, but it isn't representative of history and really hinders any maneuver.

The game solution for those two games is to have scenarios where opposing units start very close, one or two moves apart so the slow movement isn't noticeable and games don't drag as the two forces crawl towards each other across the table.

However, that eliminates any maneuvering, creating head-on attrition battles.

So, for the hobby, it is more than just military considerations between maneuver and attrition.

It Perfectly possible to have wargames of maneouvre at scales between 1/72 and 1/300. Can't really say at larger than 1/72 as I have no recent experioence.

However as stated there are issues:-

1) it's not popular (I know I'm an author of a set).

2)As has be said if the player wants wall to wall models and non-linear ground scale so long range weapons (2500 yds ) are on a normal table, any pretence of sensible maneuovre is wiped out due to the impact of expontial weapon ranges.
3) The game improves with hidden elemsnts. This has two aspects. It takes toys off the table, this in itself is not considered a good thing by some players, they want all the toys on table regarless. In addition it makes the game more mentally demanding. Not ideal for some who wants more of a social game than a "Grudge Match" :-) where the game is all.

3) It is more fair (that in some cases may be an ideal situation). Because maneouvere is key element it requires skill and practice to achieve. An expert vs a begginner will result mostly in a win for the expert and really the beginner may be exited off the table rather quickly. A good reflection on the art of generalship, but not great if you were the begginer and just wanted to throw die and look at your models in a beautiful tableau for a couple of hours.
3) The game is much more of an interlectual challenge. If both side move slowly, actually getting inside the other players decision loop is not really an issue. It will take several moves to displace a unit usefully so the time to re deploy is more than sufficient. However add a means of moving none combat troops very quiclky (in our own game the VERY simple game we are currently working on changes by a factor of between (3 and 6), the basic game has a factor of 10 or more times. This requires much more planning of defence even for the attacker and a much more demanding plan. Reserves now work but that is an additional work load, you have to to understand how reseves work, identify where they can be places to allow rapid movement.
4) Such games really are for regular players, if you only play a couple of times a year you are never going to learn how to do it. Even professional Golfers prectise most days.

So Mc Laddie is correct its almost the same reasons as for the Milatary why you may choose between Attrition and Maneouvere.

4) Such games really are for regular players, if you only play a couple of times a year you are never going to learn how to do it. Even professional Golfers prectise most days.

I think that is possibly a difference between board games and the miniature table. I have played at least 50 games of the board game For the People face-to-face and on-line. My understanding of the game and the quality of play is far different from when I started.

I haven't played any set of miniature rules that many times…not even close, so my 'feel' for the rules are not as sophisticated or deep as with FTP.

That creates a different approach to miniature gaming for me. Setting up the table and playing through a game is more of a time commitment, so I want the experience to be different, special…and 'mastering' the game stops being a significant focus as much as 'exploring the rules'. Of course, being a rules junkie is another motivation for that 'exploring' several rules instead of one only over time.

I see that issue come up repeatedly, where 'the game' isn't the main or even a significant focus of the players who gather.

Part of the problem is that , having set up the table, we want a resolution. Unless the game is part of a campaign, no one is going to say, "hey, I'm outflanked, I'll withdraw to my second line of defence." This may be a realistic response in real life but we always seem to fight that battle set up on the table.

This may be a realistic response in real life but we always seem to fight that battle set up on the table.

Yep. Though some of it has to do with the definition of 'conclusion/win' and the need for total destruction…

That interesting we have been playing Maneuver Group for over 10 Years, its been published for about 9 years. I probably play about 40 to 45 games a year. The great advantage is that its now about understanding real world tactics. The game is close enough that to better understand tactics you need to understand the real world. What is interesting is that there are very few useful books on how to set up a proper defense, loads of waffle and some of the war-game type books are just plain wrong.
However I have no interest in board games, far to 2D for me to get a handle on a real 3D battlefield. Miniatures still have limitations but far less than board games.

So really it all hinges on why you play a game. Maneouvre is never going to be big if you are forever changing rules and not playing enough to learn the art of tactics. Never saw the gain of changing rules unless somebody did a really great job of improving the simulation. Barker was the last one I have seen that improved the situation, since then there have been lots of steps back, probably for the reasons noted by McLaddie.