The Loose Association of Wargamers

This week's staff meeting was particularly dull & irrelevant - apart from the rather surreal item that the entire staff would soon receive a termination letter but then be immediately re-instated for some arcane book-keeping wheeze whose purpose I didn't quite grasp. So, naturally, I put an attentive expression on my face & spent the next 45 minutes thinking about wargaming.....

I mused on the importance of the tactics specific to the period to a wargame. You know, Frederick's oblique order or the Napoleonic French attacking column etc.

I may have mentioned before that despite my addiction to reading about military history, I am more often than not the bunny who loses to his pals in wargames' battles; particularly the troika of ex-officers. These fine gentlemen often have little or no knowledge of some of the esoteric periods we game - the Bronze Age, for instance. Yet, they regularly win.

Now I could be ignoring such factors as "they're particularly smart or I'm particularly thick" (or both) but I don't think so.
They certainly have an excellent grasp of universal tactics (concentrating force, maintaining a reserve etc) but period-specific tactics seem of much, much less importance.

This then asks the question: are all wargames more or less the same, single thing except the uniforms of the figures are different?

I could wait till next week's meeting to decide this momentous question but I throw it open to you.

donald

Ummm terminated then rehired. Check this does not screw your pension.

I do think sometimes rules writers concentrate on the minutae of how a thing was done. rather than just the result of them doing it. It is part of making the player the private, the sgt, the lt, the major, the colonel, the general etc.

the general did not care how the men got into line (or whatever) not his problem, his problem was what they did once they were there.

So your chaps have a better grasp of the overview rather than the minutae of the battle. And trust their juniors to do their jobs.

FreddBloggs wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 2:52 pm Ummm terminated then rehired. Check this does not screw your pension.

Fire and rehire is a very dodgy business practice that companies use when they want to cut costs by rehiring the staff with less perks or even lower wages.
If there's more than twenty staff being affected it can't be done without going through the "Collective Consultation" process and anyone who is not happy with the new terms offered can go to a tribunal claiming unfair dismissal.

He is in Oz, so different rules might apply.

FreddBloggs wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 5:23 pm He is in Oz, so different rules might apply.

Ah true......if it was done to me though i'd be reading the new contract very carefully and, if there was no legal redress in Oz to worse terms, i'd be looking for work elsewhere.
Leaving aside the disrespect for workers this tactic is often something companies in trouble try.

Paul wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 3:04 pm less perks

Fewer perks??? Do you mean my employers are going to source even cheaper & nastier free tea & coffee for the staff room?
Impossible! (and wages & pensions & the all-important superannuation are all set by an independent tribunal & can't be monkeyed with).

One of the things about period-specific tactics is their efficaciousness was governed by the novelty/surprise factor.
Epaminondas' stacking of the phalanx at Leuctra would have probably not worked if the Spartans had worked out what he was doing & took steps. Etc.

I have been looking at a Hun tactic for my current obsession - Late Antiquity gaming. This was, of course, the feigned retreat.
I really can't see how you could pull it off in a game. Even if my pals don't know about this tactic, they're not going to believe I'm serious about retreating in the midst of a wargame.

donald

ochoin wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 8:51 pm

I have been looking at a Hun tactic for my current obsession - Late Antiquity gaming. This was, of course, the feigned retreat.
I really can't see how you could pull it off in a game. Even if my pals don't know about this tactic, they're not going to believe I'm serious about retreating in the midst of a wargame.

donald

That's a good example of one tactic that has to be abstracted, maybe via a reaction test or something similar in your rules.
Whilst the other sides players know what's going on it doesn't mean that the troops they're commanding do!

I like Paul's idea. A "special rule" may do the trick? Have the player announce he's doing a feigned retreat, which forces the opponent to do a specific reaction test for that particular situation. If the enemy fail then they fall for it and chase. If they pass then they have a nice big gap in your line presented to them- as happened historically.

The danger is adding too many such special/optional rules and going down the WRG Ancients path.

WRT new tactics, eventually the enemy will work out a counter. Even Fred found out that his refused wing had been countered- particularly at Kölin, Zorndorf and Kunersdorf. As for your opponents' tactical prowess- have you checked their dice?

Rules writers always have to deal with hindsight.

Lake Trasimere is another one that has an issue on the table.

Spanner wrote: ↑Tue Oct 19, 2021 6:08 am I like Paul's idea. A "special rule" may do the trick? Have the player announce he's doing a feigned retreat, which forces the opponent to do a specific reaction test for that particular situation. If the enemy fail then they fall for it and chase. If they pass then they have a nice big gap in your line presented to them- as happened historically.

That's maybe a specific scenario-only special rule. I'll put it to my pals.

donald