"How do you teach Strategy?" Topic

We had an interesting game last week. I set oup an encounter at 1/72 scale based on a part of our bigger 1/144 game for another player not party to the original game.

This 1/172 game was actually lost on bound 0mne. The player had failed to read the gropund and formulate a decent plan. He knows the rules back to front and this was simply an error of judgement. He has been playing for years so I felt it would be insulting to start suggesting actions and perhaps "burnt hand teaches best". In the end he realied his error but too late, the defenders renforcements would arrive too soon to make the late capture of the critical ground usefull as it was a raid and time is of the essence.

How do you teach players strategy,? Not rules, teaching rules was a long time finnished.

Everyone makes mistakes. That is why there is a winner and a loser….

That and bad dice rolls…..

Dave

Some of the worst at tactics I've played against have been officers of platoon leader/company commander rank equivalent.

Not all of them mind. Don't know what it is but being a Rupert did not appear to enhance strategic or tactical ability in any way for a couple of them…..they were sh*te.

A couple of thoughts:

1) You can't remove the human factor from war or wargaming.

2) Even full time professionals make mistakes (misread, under or over estimate, etc.). The idea is that they make less mistakes than an amateur.

Are you asking this as a general question or, as in this particular scenario, are you trying to set up a rubric with predetermined outcomes?

I think there may be a tendency to want to get playing before giving much thought to the situation. Taking some time to formulate a plan(s) before you make your first move is certainly worthwhile. Advising players to think before they act might be a place to start.

Personally, I've never ceased to be amazed at the number of players I've enjoyed many hours with at the table top never use Reserves.

I didn't really begin to be a nearly regular "winner" until I adopted the practice.

Frankly, it felt good to win a game by simply having a reserve to throw in at the right moment (though knowing when that is, is not always easy).

There are, of course, games with so few distinct units that reserves are not possible, particularly in skirmish level actions, but in larger actions--in all periods--it's just basic… Strategy.

TVAG

And it's also true that no plan survives first contact with the enemy. But it's usually good to have one.

At least, in a wargame, the enemy is your mate sitting opposite. The dice as the enemy is a given.

I would have made a suggestion, in the nicest of ways possible. If he didn't want to act on your suggestion, or seemed offended that you would even offer, that would have been my last. But you offered.

When I first started playing ASL, I was given no help, advice, or suggestions. I gave up playing. Playing against a superior player, you will get slaughtered. Played again with lots of suggestions and nudges in the right direction and I learned a lot.

I wonder what we'd be hearing if the opposite had happened and the other player had stomped UshCha's force while using a poor strategy…

I don't think knowledge of rules leads to good strategy. It's knowledge of your forces and the enemy's capabilities.

Take this example…a friend and I played the same rule set together for years. Knew it equally well. He knew what he wanted to do in a force that fit his personality and abilities and stomped me regularly where I was just experimenting. Then I found a force structure that fit what I like to do. The next game we played I annihilated him in two turns. He didn't see it coming because I had never played that style and strategy against him before.

It's trial and error. Also personality is a huge part of strategy. There isn't universal truth in how to win an engagement. Rommel and Monty were very different. Pursued very different styles of fighting. Both worked at times.

Do not regard miniatures as strategic level play. Board games can teach strategy depending on the complexity of the system. A comprehensive resource management and manpower distribution.

The point is you need top read the terrain, understanding its strengths and weaknesses vs you plan. In some dreadful games they use points systems that only work on sterile terrain, try uing a ponts system in a swamp. The tiger does not do well. Such games do not require such skills but are to me, too limited to offer much interest.

There are lots of games that are fun but require teaching, Golf, Tennis even some of the better card games do Major Dundee you are again somewhat at odds with run of the mill games. Even Dominoes takes some considerable thought and effort top defines starategies to win and that is definitely good fun with friends I play every week with friends I met in my early youth.

smithsco – you are correct knowing the rules does not make you a good player. Chess rules are very simple but knowing them has almost no bearing on being able to play well.

Strategy – "a detailed plan for achieving success in situations such as war, politics, business, industry, or sport, or the skill of planning for such situations" so does apply to minature play.

At the extreeme level we play games representing extended periods where, logistics come into play as units are withdrawn to re-fuel. re-arm or even replaced if too badly attritted and indeed specialist units are deployed and withdrawn like Engineering support. so no diffrent to board games especially those like ASL.

With what you want players to learn, getting beat badly will teach more than anything else

as has been said of me in the past: 'He cheats, he has a PLAN'

There are many games, chess, DBA, that I know the rules inside out but cannot win to save my life.

I have learned the importance of reading the terrain, considering the enemy troops and their deployment, the scenario objectives, and taking the time to devise a solid plan *before* jumping in and making my first move. To jump in blindly is to invite disaster.

I still commit my share of blunders.

Failing to plan is planning to fail.

Of course you can teach Strategy.
The military has several Command course devoted to it Several command levels are addressed.

TimePortal the question is HOW not CAN you teach strategy.

Any instruction on military subjects often follow a rigid pattern. Having a BS degree Military Science, back in 1976, it was the seventh in the country or so I was told. Most people get it confused with military history which was only part of it. Seems like they were training us to be staff fifers. Lol. I ended up serving at Divisional staff and Corps staff as well as being an OE and EO expert. So I did a lot of trying here. Later I taught at university and as part of the local EMA. All great challenges.

So the rigid pattern established was so that new students and even different instructors could jump in and follow the training without confusion.
Staff trading elements included group and often individual discussions at various times during the process.
Organizational Efficacy experts became highly sought after starting during the 1980s. Their OE style included, large group talks, practical demonstrations and followed by small group discussions. I saw many an student learning instructor wash out and removed. The small groups, in trading were a constant and you were often given a branch different partner for support. I was surprised to see the Alabama State and county EMA during the chemical weapon disposal using a Washington DC based OE firm running their quarterly meetings.

Anyway the OE influence in the military is still strong today. I know of several folks doing it today.

On the staff military side, training in strategy varies with the department, G1, G2, G3, G4, TOC, TAC, command operations. The initial lecture may be the same but the praticum will vary. Strategy is not just pushing units on the table but involves a lot of logistics such as where to place propositioned supply points, scheduling resupply or movement, depots placement, designating and recon MSR. Coordinate with Allie's, integration of all systems.

For example I was a Cavalry platoon leader in front of my assigned brigade. I would often have in my zone of operations, ADA Redeye / Stinger elements, CEWI ground surveillances radar, electronic warfare tracks, chemical smoke laying trucks, combat engineer tracks. And others like a Air Force Captain coordinate air strikes. A lot busier than expected or that microarmor shows. All assets need a slot at the planning table.

Anyway you brief the situation then discuss it based on the participants. Then a tabletop will be done after initial planning. Revisions based on after action reports. More tabletop with revised factors, repeated until satisfied. Next an exercise of the plan. After after action reports and revisions. It does seem endless. During the DRS tests it seems I was in meetings every two weeks on one topic or another.

Fortunately for wargamers many of the factors can be associated with rule mechanics. The awareness that each era requires a different set of strategic parameters.
Key is a willingness of the student to listen, open their mind to new concepts. And be able to hold questions and comments to the pre-designated time. Lol, the hardest.

In rule writing these factors slow game play, so are often discarded by the wargamers wanting fast lay.

Fortunately for wargamers many of the factors can be associated with rule mechanics. The awareness that each era requires a different set of strategic parameters.
Key is a willingness of the student to listen, open their mind to new concepts. And be able to hold questions and comments to the pre-designated time. Lol, the hardest.

I can't help but think that the OP is conflating knowing "strategy" with knowing how to play HIS rules perfectly.
There are plenty of Real World examples of generals "not knowing the rules", and are in command of armies and divisions. The American Civil War is a good example. Every commander knew how to fight in a Napoleonic fashion. Well, at least they thought they did, but even that was often dubious.
Sometimes that worked. But the weapons had evolved.
Incompetent commanders got replaced, or killed. Supposedly, those who knew what they were doing got promoted. But they tended to get killed, or stagnated due to politics.
The Civil War is just one example.
The joke is that generals are always fighting the last war.

Currently, there is an Unpleasantness occurring in Ukraine. One whole side can be accused of not using proper "strategy", even they know the rules. The rules from 1945.
At least an incompetent strategist in a Wargame faces nothing more serious than laughter and derision. He's not about to get a bullet in the back of the neck, or sent off to Minnesota to fight the Sioux.