How to apply book learning...

[Ulrik_Ironfist]

I've been a student of warfare for a long time, reading almost anything I can get my hands on regarding the subject.

 

I've read:

 

Sun Tzu's The Art of War

Miyamoto Musashi's Book of Five Rings

Von Clauswitz's On War

Guilio Douhet The Commant of the Air

Dr. Mark Herman Modelling the Revolution in Military Affairs

 

Having read it, and understanding how it applies in modern war, in the real world, and how to apply this knowledge on an individual, or small team basis is great, but does it apply to the wargaming tabletop?

 

If so, how do I apply this knowledge, and how do I make it work for me to win games? Has anyone else read these works? Or am I just way too far down the rabbit hole?

 

Keep in mind, I have these as reference works, since understanding the execution of war and the shape of the battlespace, and how I fit in as a part of it, was vital to my previous line of employment. So these were not just things I read as homework for playing the game.

 

So I'm curious to know how you would apply this knowledge if you have it, and if you don't maybe I've turned you on to some things that can make you a better player. 

 

 

[Emperors Immortals]

Track down a thread called "way of the water warrior". Its a bit older but still solid.

 

And don't worry there will be plenty of scholarly fans along soon, 40k seems to have really attracted an educated player base in recent years.

 

Have you read " The Prince" (Machiavelli) or "master of demon valley" (Chen tzu)? They've been helpful for me.

[WarriorFish]

The short answer is: you don't. Let's not pretend that real war has any bearing on the game. Anything you learn from these books that is applicable to wargaming is something that can be easily surmised from reading the rules.

 

The main issue is the omniscience of you, and your opponent, as the players who see and know all. You know where your opponent has all his models, you know what they do and you know how you can deal with them accordingly. You won't be sending pea shooters to deal with a tank and you don't need Sun Tzu to tell you that.

 

So yes reading these books is great and may help you be a better player but I am a good player because I know the rules and stats, not because I understand real life strategies and tactics and have read lots of books. If you want to be a 40k master I suggest you pick up the rulebook and start reading the codices as the rules of real life are secondary to the word of GW.

[Iron Father Ferrum]

Omniscience is one part of it, yes, but the scale is another.  Many of the works you're talking about look at conflict at the macro scale, where grand strategy and moving armies come into play.  Our wargames are tactical, zooming in rather than out.  For instance, one of my favorite maxims from The Art of War is "For the perfect defense, defend where there is no attack; for the perfect attack, attack where there is no defense."

 

Obviously I can't attack where there is no defense seeing as how the enemy is already present on the field.  They can help a little bit -- Master Sun's comment on knowing the enemy as you know yourself is a great equalizer -- but that's more an exception than a rule.  In all honesty, I've found that the single best way to win a game is to do something unexpected.  If you can psychologically throw an enemy off his game, it'll hiccup his thinking process for the rest of the match.  For example, in a 5th Edition tourney game, I had my Iron Hands set up on a fairly terrain-heavy urban-style board using the table quarters deployment set up.  There wasn't a lot of room for all my armored vehicles, so I kept my Land Raider and its cargo of Terminators in reserve.

 

First item unexpected: a full quarter of my army, kept in reserve, with no reserve manipulation.  Automatically, my opponent went on his back foot.

 

He presses the attack, sprinting cross-wise across the table hoping to wipe me out while I was a points disadvantage.  Because of the nature of the table set up, he's literally pushing his troops pell-mell diagonally across the table.  They're getting strung out, the fastest echelons running into a blitzing wall of bolter shells, plasma bursts, and Demolisher cannon rounds.  He's only considering what's on the table, not what's not.

 

Second item unexpected: turn three, the Land Raider and its contents arrive.  One of the quirks of the 5th Edition table quarters deployment was that once the game started, the entire long section of the table board was considered your home table edge, not just the half of it where you originally deployed.  He was aghast when 500+ points of heavy armor, lascannons, and power fists entered the table so far from the rest of my force, slamming right into his exposed flanks.  They cleaned up his backfield objective holders and the tail end of his assault force.  He was so psychologically akimbo from that shock that instead of concentrating his forces to try to deal with some part of my army, he split it up and tried to deal with both halves with the end result that I walked away from that table with a Massacre result with over thirty minutes left on the clock.

 

The kicker?  I'd never beaten this guy before in my life.  So yeah.  Do the unexpected.

[Kilofix]

Art of War (and the other books) deals as much with the interactions between two parties as it does actual warfare.

 

Amongst other things, you can apply it to business as you can to table top gaming.

 

One (wrong) way of trying to apply AoW is to read the whole book and try to figure out how to apply each and every principle to your current endeavor all at once.

 

The right way of doing it is to take a single principle and over the course of a few weeks, try to apply only that one principle. Then add another principle after, and repeat. This takes time but would be the right way to foster application and retention.

[Kilofix]

Here are some more specific principles that you can try practice applying:

 

+ From AoW and 36 Strategems :Pit your strongest against your opponents second strongest, your second strongest against your opponents third strongest and your third strongest against his strongest. That way, you win 2 out of 3 while tarpitting the third.

 

+ From AoW and 5 Rings: Create the illusion of invincibility from the onset - I.e. act like you have a plan and you know you will win right from the start. This will force your opponent into a defensive mindset.

 

+ From AoW : Impose your will on your opponent - I. e. force your opponent to move to react to you and prevent the reverse. Like attack objective 1 and when he reacts to that, attack objective 2, then when he reacts to that, attack Objective 3, etc. If your opponent is smart, he'll anticipate your next move and jump ahead, but if he isn't then you'll string him along.

 

+ From AoW and 36 Strategems : Feint, then concentrate your strengths and attack his weakest. E.g. Mass some Tropps on one side to draw your opponent to that side. Then Drop Pod or Deep Strike all your forces on the other side and attack his edge, that way you'll have a good chance of killing off all his units in range before he has a chance to retaliate. People hate the risk of Deep Striking but they underestimate the firepower and positional superiority it can enable.

 

+ From AoW and 5 Rings: Know your enemy. Know the strengths and weaknesses of your opponents Codex.

 

+ From 36 Strategems : Create something from nothing. Have a cheap unit do something unexpected like move out of cover and advance on something. Act like you have a plan in doing so. That will confuse your opponent and may cause him to react while you position your other forces.

 

+ From 5 Rings : Use your position and environment to maximum utility. Move ranged units away from CC units and force him to cover difficult terrain. Bait and lure your opponent's line into impassible terrain to break it up.

 

Etc.

[ThatOneMarshal]

I think you guys just convinced to read the art of war. I have a copy on my bookshelf that a friend lent me from his service in the military. I'll try reading a little tonight.

[Paulochromis]

There was also a thread/series of articles by CitadelArmyGuy, covering OODA as well.

[Emperors Immortals]

Yes, I forgot that thread but its well worth reading. It was over in the BA forums, a lot of theory but very easy to apply.

[Sheesh Mode]

Real war strategies and tactics still have application in Warhammer 40,000. As lacklust as individual aircraft are in game terms a large force of flyers can seize the day through simple mobility and 'endurance' alone. Where endurance in this case is the inability of the majority of the enemy forces to engage and destroy said aircraft. Ironically The Air Campaign by John A. Warden III while describing the primary importance of air superiority in winning the wider war also makes a solid case for the primary importance of troops on the ground as compared to superior air power. 

 

Take the Viet Cong for example. The United States was equipped with the most advanced and deadly arsenal known to man up to that point, and they unleashed hell on the guerrilla fighters inside Vietnam with casualties speculated at the thousands. Yet still the Viet Cong succeeded and defeated the Americans, eventually pushing them off of South Vietnam. In this case Air Power could not be utilized to it's full extent because of the lack of control on the ground.This is easily applied to warhammer 40k. I have yet to encounter a genuine flyer spam list, where someone utilizes flyers in a vast mass of air power, instead of a bare two or so models that are easily ignored. 

 

It is also because of the dominance of having troops on the ground that I focus my army's attention on those same troops. I have confidence my army is capable of defeating any fly spam by simply locating and neutralizing enemy infantry as they land. Sure, they can stay in their planes and avoid my axes, but that simply means I am controlling objectives. 

 

Likewise, if we look back at The Air Campaign, we also notice a tried and true aspect of 40k: who ever has more flyers controls the skies. I have heard it said many, many times "You don't want your flyer to come in first because it will be shot down when their flyer comes in." Considering this. multiple flyers become all the more valuable as a support for your ground troops and your other assets. Even planes need friends. 

[SyNidus]

As a point of reminder for myself and for others on this thread. These books should be taken more for general principles and ideas rather than a slightly more literal sense. This is not a reply to anyone in particular, more of a general statement.

 

I've found that principles such as the concentration of force, pitting your strengths with enemy weaknesses and so on are good principles learnt from the books but applied in a 40k context.

The main thing I've found to be necessary is to ensure that your army is either mobile or has mobile elements to allow you to adapt quickly to the changing field.

 

Another way to see it is not merely a matter of deployment and movement, but also in regards to the general strategy of the army. For example, in the art of war, Sun Tzu recommends attacking when the enemy does not want you to attack. This, i've often seen not just as a matter of timing, but as a matter of strategic approach.

i.e. Assaulting against a shooty opponent, and vice versa.

[Ming]

I agree more or less with the discussion above. There are many classical resources out there which are great to read, but are largely written from a strategic standpoint. 40K is a tactical level game, not a strategic game. What may be more useful are older US army squad leader manuals, which keeps modern warfare at a tactical scale, presenting themes like overwatch during advances (easily applied in 40K), attacking flanks, flank security, etc. At a slightly larger level (pardon, have not gone there for a while) the magazine "armchair general" had a tactical series that was pretty much a war college course on modern tactics, starting with planning, and included "exercises" from which you could determine a course of action and then read what the experts would have done, for simple concepts like taking a crossroads.

 

Overall, the most important aspect of 40K is (as stated in an earlier post) the basic knowledge of the opponents units vs yours, and knowing what your units could successfully do to his. In most of my own battle reports and blog posts, I'm always showing a shortcoming in that basic and most important principle (example - sternguard attacking a knight), showcasing what not to do, and its overall impact (game loss). In those cases, its almost a purely mathematical exercise of attrition. In 40K fluff, there is always that back story that there are adepts with data slates that are always doing the math of war, being able to estimate losses based on parameters and knowing the outcome to be, and sending reinforcements where needed to swing the math. At the game level, in the basest sense, that math applies. Some call it target priority.

[CrystalSeer]

Carl Von Clausewitz - Von Krieg (On War) - You win wars by destroying your enemy's will to make war or his ability to.

 

I've found that most armies have a shiny unit that the player puts a lot of his/her hopes in. If you identify it and destroy it utterly, the other player tends to concede. I do not advocate this in game though, its more something I found by accident. Its kind of akin to kicking over someone's sand castle.

[Kilofix]

Carl Von Clausewitz - Von Krieg (On War) - You win wars by destroying your enemy's will to make war or his ability to.

 

I've found that most armies have a shiny unit that the player puts a lot of his/her hopes in. If you identify it and destroy it utterly, the other player tends to concede. I do not advocate this in game though, its more something I found by accident. Its kind of akin to kicking over someone's sand castle.

 

Some big Units can soak up a lot of fire and are more of a distraction like Riptides or Knights, etc.

 

On the other hand, yes, causing your opponent to lose these units can utterly demoralize them.

 

I played a game against a friend whom I knew was going to field a Knight. So I brought 2 Vanquishers as my own distraction, while my (ignored) Melta-Bomb-Vets ran up killed the Knight in a single Turn on Turn 2 (just spread them out to avoid Stomp). My friend went defensive from that point on and didn't end up securing enough Objectives. That's 2 principles in play - deception and destroy their will. So, while not that spectacular nor out of the ordinary, these books do have some applicable principles.

[Sheesh Mode]

I am enjoying this conversation. 

[Kaedes Nex]

Carl Von Clausewitz - Von Krieg (On War) - You win wars by destroying your enemy's will to make war or his ability to.

 

I've found that most armies have a shiny unit that the player puts a lot of his/her hopes in. If you identify it and destroy it utterly, the other player tends to concede. I do not advocate this in game though, its more something I found by accident. Its kind of akin to kicking over someone's sand castle.

 

This only works against people who don't play out their games and against deathstar/themed lists. If it's something like a TAC list or true deathstar list, it will be hard to find any high value target to take out, or it will be too difficult/inefficient to take out, or the opponent may simply be tenacious and play out the game in hopes of lucky dice rolls or you slipping up, or even more devious, trying to stall out the clock or bore you into quitting.

 

A lot of tricks like these rely on your opponent's actions. I never assume these will work and always assume my opponent will never give up, never make mistakes, and is a better player than I am, because depending on my opponent to do something or be weak is not a good strategy. A solid strategy that relies only on your actions is more reliable than a strategy that revolves solely around your opponent's actions. What if he doesn't do what he's supposed to? Then the strategy falls apart. This is why I don't place a lot of value on things like deception or bluffing. I always assume my opponent will see through it. Because while these strategies do work, and can be valuable, they aren't guaranteed or foolproof. They also won't help you against superior enemies. I don't need to practice my bluffing so I can stomp weaker, or gullible players. I need strategies that will help me beat people stronger than me. So I'll keep the bluffs and demoralization and things like that in the toolbox, but they aren't going to be my primary tools of trade. Solid list building, tactics, reducing possibilities of dice screwing you over, taking low risk units, etc are much more consistent and reliable, IMO.

 

TL;DR - Don't rely on strategies that put you at your opponent's mercy or rely on the opponent to mess up for you to win.

[WarriorFish]

I wouldn't even call them strategies, otherwise you could just as well recommend dancing half naked doing gibbon impressions while singing "happy birthday" as a valid strategy as it might confuse your opponent and lead to him making mistakes... Though I'd recommend someone tries at least once, just so I can say I made someone do it

Building good lists with reliable units and weapons is the best way to yield results. The reason is because the list is good and the units reliable within the contexts of 40k. That is - the game and rules of 40k. If you want to be a good 40k player all you need to do is read the rulebook and employ basic reasoning and you will be a good player. It is that simple, the rest is up to the dice gods.

I really can't understand why some feel the need to talk up the hobby with reference of real war, unless tourney winners are frequently recruited to Sandhurst... This is a game, a game of pretend war yes but a game all the same - we push bits of plastic around and throw luck cubes to have a good time, nothing more and nothing less.

[Sheesh Mode]

Information, and subsequently the ruthless seizure of opportunity from said information, is one of the keys to victory in conflict. While it is true they are not as reliable as the basics the strategy of deception still has it's place. Ignoring the possibility of an advantage is simply another method of giving your opponent the game. 

 

 

 

I really can't understand why some feel the need to talk up the hobby with reference of real war, unless tourney winners are frequently recruited to Sandhurst... This is a game, a game of pretend war yes but a game all the same - we push bits of plastic around and throw luck cubes to have a good time, nothing more and nothing less.

 

The concepts are translatable. 

[Ming]

I would add on that a majority of 40K players have just one strategy: use a list they think can crush their opponents; and just one strategy: rush forward to shoot and or overwhelm the opponent. I'd say assessment might show this can work 45% of the time.

 

When I was in the Standish Standoff 4 event this fall, I'd gauge roughly the following overall occurred (my own characterization):

 

Game 1: Opponent's strategy: provide a strong firebase to shoot opponents with early game, and use minor units to achieve mission objectives late game. Tactic: Castled up early game in the center (using rhinos and knight as walls), moving out later game for scoring. My strategy: Direct assault on the castle to keep the opponent bottled up, with overwatching fire support from all other units. My tactics: drop pod assault on the castle front. Result: Opponent won. Primary reason for result: Assaulting units (pods) had scattered and were counterattacked and eliminated in detail (by Knight, centurions sallying forth from the castle), while terrain hampered my supporting fire.

 

Game 2: Opponent's strategy: use unique units and relatively immobile deathstars to control the table center and achieve mission objectives; Tactics: slow advance towards the center and mission objectives. My tactics: attack on one flank and use terrain as a shield - distract opponent from the mission; Tactics: Use podded units as bait to distract the opponent, and get his deathstars to dismount into the open where supporting fires could eliminate them. Result: Overall it was a draw due to opponent shenanigans, but he was down to just 4 models on the table when time was officially called. Abnormal result. Considered a moral victory.

 

Game 3: Opponent strategy: Overwhelm the enemy by direct assault to control the board using unique units; Tactics: Combination of frontal attack by dreadnoughts and landraider with follow-on support / distraction by podded dreadnoughts and flyer. My strategy: Use overwatching fire to support units podded into the center and eliminate closest threats as they arrived into optimal range. Result: major victory. Reason for result: Even with delays in reserve units, was able to eliminate all dreadnought units quickly to allow for attainment of mission objectives through application of firepower from long range and short range weapons.

[Kaedes Nex]

I wouldn't even call them strategies, otherwise you could just as well recommend dancing half naked doing gibbon impressions while singing "happy birthday" as a valid strategy as it might confuse your opponent and lead to him making mistakes...

 

You dare mock the sacred teachings of the Codex Astartes?

[Sheesh Mode]

I would add on that a majority of 40K players have just one strategy: use a list they think can crush their opponents; and just one strategy: rush forward to shoot and or overwhelm the opponent. I'd say assessment might show this can work 45% of the time.

 

When I was in the Standish Standoff 4 event this fall, I'd gauge roughly the following overall occurred (my own characterization):

 

Game 1: Opponent's strategy: provide a strong firebase to shoot opponents with early game, and use minor units to achieve mission objectives late game. Tactic: Castled up early game in the center (using rhinos and knight as walls), moving out later game for scoring. My strategy: Direct assault on the castle to keep the opponent bottled up, with overwatching fire support from all other units. My tactics: drop pod assault on the castle front. Result: Opponent won. Primary reason for result: Assaulting units (pods) had scattered and were counterattacked and eliminated in detail (by Knight, centurions sallying forth from the castle), while terrain hampered my supporting fire.

 

Game 2: Opponent's strategy: use unique units and relatively immobile deathstars to control the table center and achieve mission objectives; Tactics: slow advance towards the center and mission objectives. My tactics: attack on one flank and use terrain as a shield - distract opponent from the mission; Tactics: Use podded units as bait to distract the opponent, and get his deathstars to dismount into the open where supporting fires could eliminate them. Result: Overall it was a draw due to opponent shenanigans, but he was down to just 4 models on the table when time was officially called. Abnormal result. Considered a moral victory.

 

Game 3: Opponent strategy: Overwhelm the enemy by direct assault to control the board using unique units; Tactics: Combination of frontal attack by dreadnoughts and landraider with follow-on support / distraction by podded dreadnoughts and flyer. My strategy: Use overwatching fire to support units podded into the center and eliminate closest threats as they arrived into optimal range. Result: major victory. Reason for result: Even with delays in reserve units, was able to eliminate all dreadnought units quickly to allow for attainment of mission objectives through application of firepower from long range and short range weapons.

 

I use a mechanized list that fields vindicators, massed fearless cultists and a deathstar. It does not fit your assessment, or those examples particularly as I would either move to control mid-field with my demolishers, plasma, and landraider, or perhaps hold back and maintain steady fire on the oncoming horde of models, flank with my landraider while my vindicators engage enemy armor, or even drive away from enemy deepstrikers to better position myself. 

 

The strategy? Denial and elimination: my opponent has no easy target when facing a wall of Av13/14 and 35 fearless models. What is more they are rightly concerned of the two s10 ap2 ordnance weapons, not to mention Khârn and his bodyguard. By forcing my opponent into a corner and eliminating his anti-armor weapons early on I control and inevitably win the game. 

[Ulrik_Ironfist]

 

I really can't understand why some feel the need to talk up the hobby with reference of real war, unless tourney winners are frequently recruited to Sandhurst... This is a game, a game of pretend war yes but a game all the same - we push bits of plastic around and throw luck cubes to have a good time, nothing more and nothing less.

 

First of all, The whole point of this is academic discussion. Second, I know it's not real war, and the strategies and tactics are very rudimentary. Third, it is supposed to be fun, but Uncle Sam spent a lot of money teaching me how to conduct warfare, and encouraged me to develop as a warrior. Just as I'm trying to translate my training into academics and useful work skills, and my warrior skills into ownage on the airsoft field, I'd like to get something out of the military education I received and keep those skills sharp. 

 

This is more than just a fun game and hobby for me. It's an outlet, it helps me keep my mind sharp, recognize patterns, think critically, interact with people, and aid my spatial reasoning. It's exercise for my mind. After 2 severe concussions (received in training, I never deployed), my brain doesn't quite function like it used to (even if the neurologists say I'm fine). So doing the basic math, and figuring out the relationships between the models, and the spatial reasoning, it's helping keep my mind working right.

 

Now that that little rant is over, I'm going to throw out some small unit tactics that I thought would work, but have not yet been able to pull off.

 

Let's pull out out copies of the US ARMY Ranger Handbook, and flip to the back.

 

Battle Drill 1A-React to contact. Basically the lead element comes on line, and fires into the enemy. Trailing element moves up into flanking position and opens fire. Lead element then shifts fire, providing suppression, before signalling the flanking element to begin the assault. Lead element ceases fire, and flank assaults through. After that the lead assaults through.

 

The way I see this working is: 

 

Movement: TAC 1 moves on line, TAC 2 gets in flanking position, setting up overlapping fields of fire (L ambush).

Shooting: TAC 1 & TAC 2 fire into the enemy unit

Assault: TAC 1 & TAC 2 declare charges, one squad eats the overwatch. Ideally both squads make it into close combat. TAC 1 & TAC 2 both consolidate after combat.

 

Would this work? I can't see any reason why it wouldn't, aside from a lack of coordination by the controlling player. This is where combat squadding comes into play. The unit separates into the two elements at the beginning of movement. Now I can see this being done by two maxed squads operating as a single 20 man unit, but that's pretty high points levels if you're fielding 4 10 man squads. 

 

Thoughts?

[CrystalSeer]

 

Battle Drill 1A-React to contact. Basically the lead element comes on line, and fires into the enemy. Trailing element moves up into flanking position and opens fire. Lead element then shifts fire, providing suppression, before signalling the flanking element to begin the assault. Lead element ceases fire, and flank assaults through. After that the lead assaults through.

 

The way I see this working is: 

 

Movement: TAC 1 moves on line, TAC 2 gets in flanking position, setting up overlapping fields of fire (L ambush).

Shooting: TAC 1 & TAC 2 fire into the enemy unit

Assault: TAC 1 & TAC 2 declare charges, one squad eats the overwatch. Ideally both squads make it into close combat. TAC 1 & TAC 2 both consolidate after combat.

 

Would this work? I can't see any reason why it wouldn't, aside from a lack of coordination by the controlling player. This is where combat squadding comes into play. The unit separates into the two elements at the beginning of movement. Now I can see this being done by two maxed squads operating as a single 20 man unit, but that's pretty high points levels if you're fielding 4 10 man squads. 

 

Thoughts?

 

 

It will work but not well. The problem with this is that the purpose of an L ambush is to move in from flank while the enemy is pinned by suppressive fire. 40k doesn't do suppressive fire very well. You will be getting shot while you move in, as pinning very seldom comes up.

[Teetengee]

Supporting fire only really works in 40k in the potential sense. Create a clear firing line and it will discourage the opponent from entering it. Just make sure that the models doing the firing are less necessary than the ones being controlled.

[SyNidus]

Teetengee is spot on really. There are a number of concepts which can't translate to 40k, particularly the actual psychology/morale of soldiers. Suppression isn't really represented well. Likewise, other facets of warfare such as supplies and logistics don't show up. Furthermore, in this game both players have perfect information of the battlefield, even more so with things like pre-measurement.

That being said, I can see the L ambush translated one step higher (i.e. being an army list's strategy rather than a squad level manoeuvre). I could be wrong, but that's similar to Hammer & Anvil style strategies.

My opinion - Keep it simple. This game is more like chess. You're not going to be able to put into practice the things you learn, except a limited amount.