How to apply book learning...

[Sheesh Mode]

I just used supporting fire on a squad of Death Wing Terminators by first firing with my plasma chosen, then finishing the last model with 15 rapid firing autogun-cultists. I was actually a perfect L - shaped ambush.  The concept works, it is simply difficult to pull off. 

[Ulrik_Ironfist]

I realise that when you try to apply a model like entropy-based warfare to the tabletop, it gets a bit muddy, since there's no maintenance attrition to attend to, there's no really solid way to translate morale to the tabletop, and besides entropy based warfare is an operational-strategic level model, not a tactical level model. 

 

Battle drill 2 doesn't translate to the table at all, because you don't have to account for elevation and traverse on indirect fire. So, obviously, not everything I've learned is going to translate.

 

However some things work well for min squads, like the wedge/diamond patrol formation. It keeps the models spread out, and it minimizes the impact a blast template will have on the unit, since at max coherency, you can really only hit 2 maybe three models. So there's something to consider. The road march formation works well also, by keeping at max coherency you keep your models spread out so blasts don't hit the unit as hard.

 

I've also been working out ways to try an air assault list, where I use a lot of infantry, and mobile vehicles, like walkers, skimmers and fliers. I've also been toying with the formations out of CoF, to see how those work in a deep strike, air assault themed list.

 

So far, it's worked very well. But I've only had two or so games to really test it out. I still need more data.

[Kilofix]

Suppressive fire and Pinning may not work as well but Maneuvering and Flanking certainly does.

 

Too often, I've seen two dug in Squads duke it out with each other instead of Maneuvering to get around Cover.

[Ulrik_Ironfist]

Kilofix, You mentioned pinning, which would basically function the way suppressive fire works IRL. now, it's an often overlooked function, as is going to ground. If you can put out so many shots that your opponent has to go to ground, it may work to your favour, since you'll have a turn where his shooting will be less effective. Though, it relies of your opponent doing what you want him to do. 

 

That could be a good mechanic to implement as a campaign or house rule. 

 

"Any unit that comes under fire from more than one enemy unit must take a pinning test."

[Kaedes Nex]

I've seen people think LMG fire is less dangerous than other small arms fire, because of games like Battlefield 3 (I think it's that one, maybe BF4) where the machine gun class had an ability called suppressing fire that did less damage. The reason suppression weapons suppress is because they are just that dangerous. In a USMC fire team, the SAW gunner is the most important member, even when he's not the team leader, and all the little fire team formations and position changes you are taught revolve around the gunner as the fulcrum or axle.

 

People hit the deck when a gunner opens fire because his weapon is so powerful and lethal. So the way most games show pinning is a misconception, much like shotguns spreading wildly. A more similar comparison to real life pinning would be Grav Centurions. People will try to get out of the way, out of LoS, and stay out of range, because if you enter the Centurions' range of fire, you will die. Wave Serpents vs. vehicles with side armor lower than 13 is another example. REAL suppression isn't making the enemy roll for a pinning test, it's making him get the hell out of the way or risk getting one-shotted.

[Ulrik_Ironfist]

Kaedes Nex, You have a point about suppressive fire. It's to force your opponent to get in cover and stay there, while you advance on his position and kill him. IRL, all you can really do when you come under suppressing fire, is take quick, snap shots, in an attempt to get the enemy's head down and establish your own fire superiority. I was just trying to come up with a way to represent that in game. Going to ground is part of that, in essence, the unit is diving into whatever cover they can find, to get out of the line of fire. 

 

By trying to implement a rule that causes pinning tests, I was trying to simulate the effect of suppressive fire, i.e. pinning a unit down with fire superiority, thus making that enemy unit less effective, while you close on it and destroy it. 

 

You brought up BF3/BF4, which causes people to misconstrue the utility of the MG. I whole heartedly agree. I've seen it on the airsoft field, when I take my SAW out. I'm not out there to get kills with the SAW, I'm out there to keep the other team from moving. And people have learned to fear the SAW for what it can do.

[Emperors Immortals]

Some very interesting points gentlemen.

 

I'm not familiar with battle sim games like BF3/4 but being a slightly less gifted war gamer I've had to rely on the concepts of pressure, direction and openings.

 

Most of my games revolve around applying pressure in a way to make an opening attractive and then exploiting the direction.

 

An example; moving forward with vindicators and making it seem attractive to move back into a castle, and then flanking with gravbikes. Its a simplistic idea but pretty useful.

 

I agree most book learning can't be directly applied, but many basic concepts ate universal. Ulrik and Kaedes youve just afded a few valuable ideas.

 

Maybe we can keep this going it has certainly added to my knowledge already.

[Sheesh Mode]

I get the feeling these concepts are more applicable in Xenos versus Xenos, Human vs Xenos, and Human vs Human battles. Not one with Daemons and Spacemarines. 

 

Armies where leadership is a genuine factor and infantry are not near invincible. 

[Ulrik_Ironfist]

I get the feeling these concepts are more applicable in Xenos versus Xenos, Human vs Xenos, and Human vs Human battles. Not one with Daemons and Spacemarines. 

 

Armies where leadership is a genuine factor and infantry are not near invincible. 

 

You do have a point about forcing leadership tests. Daemons and Space Marines will tend to pass more of them. But the concepts of concentrating fire, and forcing an opponent to move into cover still apply. 

 

[Kaedes Nex]

I get the feeling these concepts are more applicable in Xenos versus Xenos, Human vs Xenos, and Human vs Human battles. Not one with Daemons and Spacemarines. 

 

Armies where leadership is a genuine factor and infantry are not near invincible. 

 

If only space marine infantry WERE invincible. Keep in mind one space marine model must do the job that would normally be done by 3 or more non-marine models. And marine models aren't exactly sturdy. That's why everything goes in a Rhino (which also die quickly), Land Raiders, Terminators cower behind Storm Shields, Scouts hide under camo blankets in ruins, etc.

[Interrogator-Chaplain Ezra]

I'd like to throw in on the subject of sacrifice.

 

What seems an easy target or just an opportune target is hard to ignore. Throw something into the face of the enemy, and they (usually) go straight for it. Doesn't matter if it's a drop pod full of Sternguard, or a Land Raider going full pelt at their lines. They will shoot it, and shoot it some more, and then assault it.

 

And thus not shoot and assault something else. Something else that might quietly be sitting on an objective and doing its best to be ignored.

 

And don't forget concealment. I've won games because the enemy didn't notice the lone Tactical Marine sitting in a ruin, just within reach of an objective. Don't forget to look into a ruin, and not just at it.

[Sheesh Mode]

 

I get the feeling these concepts are more applicable in Xenos versus Xenos, Human vs Xenos, and Human vs Human battles. Not one with Daemons and Spacemarines. 

 

Armies where leadership is a genuine factor and infantry are not near invincible. 

 

If only space marine infantry WERE invincible. Keep in mind one space marine model must do the job that would normally be done by 3 or more non-marine models. And marine models aren't exactly sturdy. That's why everything goes in a Rhino (which also die quickly), Land Raiders, Terminators cower behind Storm Shields, Scouts hide under camo blankets in ruins, etc.

 

 

Marine equivalents are extremely sturdy. 

 

Imperial Guard rely on massed firepower to do their job. It takes huge numbers of humans and xenos to compare to spacemarines. Having 4's across the stat line is a major benefit. Marines can ignore guardsman armor, strike faster than most other infantry, are less likely to be hurt, do not worry about leadership, and more often than not survive when they are hurt. The strength of marines are their endurance as compared to other armies. Sure. Rhinos can be popped fairly easily: if you give your opponent the opportunity. But there are many ways to hide them from anything short of indirect fire, typically behind Vindicators, Predators, and landraiders. 

 

True marines are underwhelming when compared to more specialized forces, but that is a strength not a weakness. Marines have a viable choice not to play their opponents game. They can choose to assault guardsmen and conceivably win, or run away from Berserkers and shoot them down from a distance. It all depends on the scenario. 

 

 

And don't forget concealment. I've won games because the enemy didn't notice the lone Tactical Marine sitting in a ruin, just within reach of an objective. Don't forget to look into a ruin, and not just at it.

 

I do this all the time with my fearless cultists. Leadership is huge in the game which is why so many armies have special rules to mitigate it. If they didn't you would see lists run off the table from a few turns of shooting instead of requiring total annihilation.