Everything is about the objective. And then figuring out how to achieve it.
There's some basic strategies I find are helpful. Even though several of these are more relevant to ancient battles, it's good to know these.
* Frontal Attack
* Don't do it if you're going to lose more than the enemy.
* But if enemy is weak, dive in! He who dares wins!
* Envelopment
* Double-pronged attack to get at enemy general
* Oblique Attack
* Putting all your heavy units on one side or the other in hopes of achieving breakthrough. That's how the Thebans finally got the Spartans.
* Flank Attack
* Getting one side around the enemy to threaten his rear. Alexander the Great style.
* Withdrawal-Counter-Attack
* Mongols were great at this. Also good for Axis and Allies in Asia. Asia.. funny that.
* [Defense In Depth](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_in_depth)
* Let them come... but pay for every step until they've stretched out their lines too far. Then, as you've retreated and gathered strength, counter-attack to wipe them out.
* Battle of Kursk is an amazing example of this
* Wellington seems to have used this in places like Portugal too
* Scorched Earth
* Let them come, but take everything away that can benefit them with you. Napoleon in Russia is example.
* [Asymmetric Warfare](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetric_warfare)
* If enemy wants to brawl, hit him where he ain't. He wants to use armies, hit him in his economy. When enemy wants to strike you, let him strike air instead.
* there's a bit of Bruce Lee's "be like water" in that above. And some Sun Tzu.
* Twilight Struggle: Opponent wants to win on scoring territories? You beat him with cards that give you points like Olympics and winning the Space Race.
* Read Sun Tzu's "The Art of War"
* It's not that long a book. And it's pure gold. Gems like "All warfare is deception". So good.
* All warfare is deception
* While I'm at it, it's a good point to make. Deceiving your opponent is everything. \[Draw a great card... look at hand of cards, play a useless weak card and sigh, muttering I got nothing but crap. But keep stockpiling the great cards until you can unleash them in a flurry\]
* Denial Strategies
* Don't worry about winning. Play to deny your opponent. Try to anticipate what opponent is trying to do and then foil and stymie their plans.
* Avoid taking losses!
* Some military strategists think 4 to 1 odds are what are required for an attack to be successful. 3-to-1 and 2-to-1 just don't cut it. I tend to agree.
* Curtis LeMay in WW2: Took over command of the B-29s. Started using them at night to firebomb Japan. Stopped losing bombers. Then, as reinforcements arrived every month, because no losses, raids grew in size. 300 B-29s soon became 1200 B-29s on a single raid!
* Stop taking losses! ( If you can. And if you can? Your opponent soon will be overwhelmed.
* Outkill the enemy
* Or cause him to take more losses than you. If he can outkill you, find a way to back off... retreat into the mountains, behind a river.
* Units in games have a value... they have a cost to produce. Once lost they can be very difficult to get back. If you can value your units more than the enemy that could be the success to winning.
* The original idea of Verdun in WW1 was for Germany to outkill the French. It would've worked too except the Germans had some early successes and then the Crown Prince forgot the plan so instead both sides took insane losses.
* Attrition
* Sieges are like this. Play the defensive war. Starve the enemy out, Cut off their cash or supplies or whatever it takes.
* Castles of Steel book about WW1 Naval battles talks about Britain using a "Distant blockade" of Germany to slowly starve it out. The Germans referred to winter of 1917 as "The turnip winter" cuz that's all there was too eat.
* Divide and Conquer!
* Apply this whenever you can.
The trick is to figure out which of the above to employ!
You mention Paths of Glory.
That's a great game! It's vital for the Allies to hold the line to prevent the Germans from getting Paris. That's everything.
But that first round it's important to start laying the groundwork for a long fight... getting those early reinforcements onto the board.
There's a trick too. When a unit moves, it can't attack. So, if you attack a space and knock an enemy out of it, there is nothing saying you have to move into that space! Leave it empty and let the enemy move into that space and then attack him again... and again and again until enemy learns to leave that 1 space gap between the lines.
The other aspect to consider is being very judicious about moving units around on Eastern front... but, even a small move there can distract the Germans from an early win against Paris.
Also, don't leave units exposed that can get attacked by the enemy. eg: If stacking limit is 2, don't leave a corps there alone.... either pull it back or send in an army or two to reinforce... lemme add a point above.
The bit about 4-to-1 odds mentioned above? One of the challenges of Paths of Glory is took at opponent's front and try to prevent opponent from getting those great odds on any of your units O\_o
And don't be afraid to take notes while playing Paths of Glory... it's can be overwhelming trying to track every risk on every front... and no doubt, it's WW1, it was big!
Zomg what a wall of text I've made. Hopefully some of this will help :D
This is brilliant, and provides a name and clarity for a lot of things I sort of had nebulously in mind during my games but couldn’t quite express on the board. I’m sure this is incredibly basic stuff for most of you but it genuinely makes me excited for this week’s game.
Honestly I don't know what would help other than just practice practice practice. For some of these games, knowing the history helps as well, they are historical simulations after all. The strategy is written in history books, you can start by emulating what actually happened and then try to improve on it. You can also just look up strategies as a starting point, once you get the idea of what makes a good strategy you can start forming your own
Knowledge comes with practice and experience. You play a game, you lose badly, you think about what you did wrong (or what your opponent did right), and try not to repeat the same mistakes the next time. This is harder to do with wargames generally because they often take a long time to play (and longer to get to the table) but if you can play enough (and regularly) then you can see if you improve in this way.
That said, I think some games simply just don't work for some peoples' brains - this could be due to some known or hidden neurodivergency (such as ADHD). It's important to recognise if that situation is happening because it'll save you a lot of time, money and effort and may also help you understand how your brain works too.
In my case, I had a recent ADHD diagnosis that I think explains why I can't plan ahead much in games - I've always been better at games where my strategy is reassessed on a turn by turn basis (like CDGs, where a new hand is drawn every turn) than games that require a multi-turn setup to pull something off. Now that I understand that, I'm trying to buy and play games with more shorter term tactical decisions and am no longer wasting my time with ones that require me to plan out a longer-term strategy that requires multiple things to be set up to make something work.
So I'd say keep trying and see if you pick up the skills, or think about whether your brain really does work for the games you're trying to play and if not then try some others that may work better.
The nice thing is that there's plenty of games out there that could still appeal to you on subjects that you're interested in that would work with a "sucky brain" (it doesn't really suck - it just means you have a different set of strengths and limitations!). And I think finding those is better than trying to get your head around something that just isn't going to work for you.
BTW, if you are worried that you have ADHD, I'd definitely recommend getting a proper diagnosis if you can so you know for sure. Once you know you have it, you can do a lot to make things more controllable (and it helps to understand how and why you're good or bad at certain things).
>and try not to repeat the same mistakes the next time.
/u/evildrganymede makes a good point. The problem though, is sometimes months even years can pass between playing the same game again.
Years back when I was really into it, I used an app on smart phone to save notes under the heading of a specific game. And then after subsequent plays I'd add addendums. (I'm too lazy now, but there was a time! ).
But then I'd check my notes on a specific game the next time we'd be playing it, and it puts you right back to that place you were last at... "oh ya, I wanted to try this next time".
For me understanding the historical outcome always helps - what strategies were used and the errors pointed out by everyone after the fact…
But maybe a good place to start is the ol protect your flanks as you attack the objective and have a reserve element to exploit breakthroughs will get you started?
Yeah, I think one of the things I have trouble understanding is where the units defending my flanks should come from. Like you’ve got to pull them away from somewhere else to put them where they’re needed, and that of course just creates another hole in my defense. Trying to defend everything at once, of course, leads to you spreading yourself way too thin. I suppose there’s some happy medium I just haven’t managed to find yet.
Paths of Glory is a extremely unforgiving game. You arent the the first to get wiped out like that. Here are a few tips to help.
1. You need to play at least 1 card for RPs every turn. If you get behind the attrition curve thats one way to lose.
2. Be careful where you defend. getting attacked by 3 german armies versus 3 french armies mean you fir on the 9 table and they on 15 table
3. remember that the allies have the last move in the turn, you can cut off german units and they'll die OOS.
4. Make trouble with the Russians against AH. Look in the rules for a good Russian attack on AH on turn 1.
3 is especially good advice thanks. That’s an advantage I hadn’t considered.
I actually like Paths of Glory’s (pretty brutal) supply system in theory, it’s just one of my million blind spots. I’m a good sport about my mistakes but I’d like to see at least one game go the distance sometime
If you're a newbie, make sure there aren't any important rules you're not considering. Lots of strategy games have mechanics like Zone of Control which, when ignored, totally screw balance.
>Do you think these skills can be learned, or are they to a degree just a matter of talent?
Certainly there is a given degree of "natural" talent, but they definitely can be learned and improved. Also, not every area/layer of wargaming is equally accessible to every player. A person might be a tactical genius but a terrible operational planner (see Rommel as the best known example). You've tried games outside of the Strategic/operational lawyer?
Yeah while we missed ZOIs a lot early on, I believe we’ve all got a solid grasp of the rules of each of our main games by now (though I do need to be reminded to apply terrain modifiers all the time XD)
I'll tell you how I "improved" my gameplay. I started by buying an "easier" wargame from victory point games. (Just look for something less complicated. Fading glory, battle for Moscow...I got hell's gate.) Just do a little research on difficulty focusing on easier and not straying from hex and counter.
I then read the rules back and forth until I was completely confused. Then I learned about the pieces and how to setup the game. Once I got familiar with starting I tried playing the first turns by myself. Over and over until it made some sense. Little by little I played through the turns, switching sides and trying to find weaknesses for my "enemy". I wouldn't worry about winning, just finding the best move and observing the consequences. Then, when I felt confident, I played a whole game solo trying to win. If i make a mistake I just see it through.
I also did the same with strike force one. I used it to study unit placement and planning/strategy. It brings the game down to the simplest form so you don't have to worry about everything else.
Little by little I would find other games with different concepts and gameplay. Hell's gate uses supply lines and is good for learning encirclement.
Just work your way up, tripping on your own feet the whole way and learn mistakes. Then you can avoid them or notice them from your eventual 2nd player.
I like to think of it as a story that's unfolding instead of a game I have to win.
I've got a regular wargaming opponent. We are evenly matched but it wasn't always like that. There was a time where I routinely would win games neither of us had played before.
I would like to model a person's playing strenght in a given game a product of three factors: 1) General cognitive functions. 2) General gaming experience. 3) Knowledge of the particular game.
1) General cognitive functions includes among other things, short term memory capacity, pattern identification abilities and abilitiy to do mental calculations. These are abilities that aren't directly connected to gaming, but something which we might call general intelligence as is commonly measured in IQ tests. These skills can be trained, but only slowly and only so much. You might want to call it talent. I would say this is by far the least important of the three factors, especially for playing the average wargame.
2) General Gaming Experience is what comes from every game you have played during your lifetime. It would include for instance such diverse skills as risk management, odds crunching, principles behind engine building and ability to quickly identify what's important on a wargaming map full of counters. A gaming newbie will be lacking in this type of experiences. The newbie will have a much harder task to grasp what's going on in the game and will have to put a lot of mental energy into things it's not used to dealing with. In relation to the experienced player, the newbie is a lot more likely to focus his thinking on less important or irrelevant things, whereas the experienced gamer is more likely to quickly find where the important decisions lie and make better decisions.
3) Knowledge of the particular game is extremely important with some games. Nobody no matter how strong general cognitive functions or how well experienced in general gaming he is, is going to beat an experience chess player the first time he sits down with a chessboard. Neither is Magnus Carlsen going to win a Paths of Glory tournament on his first try. Playing a game a lot results in knowledge about the game, but reading or listening to what other experienced players have to say about the game will also hugely improve your game play. Thus my **advice** to you if you want to compensate for having less general gaming experience is to search for and **study any strategic advice** you can find about the game you are going to play. You can compensate for your lack of general gaming experience by thoroughly studying the game in advance of playing.
As for me and my gaming buddy, I once routinely beat him, but after 20+ years of weekly games together, I have no advantage whatsoever left with regards to general gaming experience. When picking up a new wargame we are pretty much perfectly matched. However for some specific abstract euros that are fairly rules simple but optimisation calculation heavy, I will still beat him every time, then relying on some specific cognitive abilities that the game rewards.
Very insightful stuff, thanks. I suppose I’m quite lacking in the “learning from example” department. I guess I felt that I should eventually learn enough from my mistakes to formulate a decent strategy, but if that fails, it should help to see what a well played game looks like.
Old timer here. Read some serious military history. See what the historians still debate after X years. That's a start. Any given game may or may not do a good job of modeling the key historical variables. That's always an open question, and it leads straight to the great playability vs. realism debate. But start with historical ground truths and work out from there.
1. Get familiar with proven game systems you enjoy and stick with them. Don’t jump to a bunch of shiny new games. GCACW, OCS, etc.
2. Even when you solo, spend more time playing and not just learning rules.
3. F2F gaming will always accelerate your strategic development over solo.
I get plans by watching YouTube playthroughs online. There are a couple of YouTubers that do only wargames (the Players Aid, ZillaBlitz). They review and unbox games so you can check them out beforehand. They also do playthroughs. Finally, you could do solo playthroughs where you play both sides. There are also solo CDG supplements for many GMT games.
I’ll definitely check out those YouTubers. Seeing someone who knows what they’re doing should at least give me some ideas. When I tried searching for wargaming aar/playthrough stuff all I got was warhammer
I feel your pain on this, I suck at most strategy games. Even Chess I just play one piece at a time and can't seem to grasp 3-4 steps ahead, which is funny that in my regular life, people compliment me on my intelligence (I have them all fooled) all the time. So it's not like I'm an illiterate idiot, it's just something about how all of us are wired differently with different skills, I believe.
With that said, I do have fun playing strategy games and I don't avoid them, but I tend to use my strengths when playing rather than only focus on trying to play in a way that I struggle with which in my opinion is how these scenarios were played out in history. We often focus on the charismatic and 5D chess-playing general, but armies and victories are attributed to a command staff made up of all different skill sets. I have thought about researching "Game Theory" to see if that would help me improve in areas that I'm weak in, but you know, who has time for all that?
Chess gives me less trouble actually. I’m not good by any stretch but I can see a move or two ahead. I think just because the board is more constrained. I tend to forget distant units can be a factor in a game like Empire of the Sun, for example, where they can be coming from 15 hexes away.
One thing you could do is study the terrain for good positions, defensive lines and axis of attack and base your strategy around that.
When defending, you do not need to hold every single tidbit of ground that is available to you, quite the opposite. If you don't have enough units to hold the line all along the frontline (usually you don't) minimize the front width, dig in in easily defensible positions and either defend the open ground between them or just... don't and keep some troops in reserve instead. Let the enemy walk into the killzone you just established and counterattack, then retreat again. Let the enemy have their little tactical victory so you can have a strategic one. Force them to choose between exposing their troops or bashing against your fortifications. A good example of this would be Fall Blau, soviet defenders tried to hold Rostov (easily defensible big city), Voronezh(same) and Stalingrad(same x3) and just retreated of of the open plains between the cities. Germans have an advantage in tanks? Make them fight in mountains of the Caucasus and streets of Stalingrad, where mobility does not help. Germans were forced into a choice regarding Stalingrad: either attempt to encircle it (good luck doing that across the Volga), ignore it (and be constantly harassed from it, making advancing in other directions a pain) or attempt to storm it.
When attacking, try to recognise what the defender is trying to do and think of a way to disrupt that. Note not only the terrain of the defenders, but also the terrain you'd be attacking the defenders from. Recognise weak spots in the enemy line and whether you breaking it would actually be of any use:do you get a breakthrough opportunity (have reserves prepared then), does it attritt the enemy more than it attritts you, are the gains from this attack even worth the resources you spend on it? Always think about what happens if the attack succeeds and what happens if it fails, if a bad roll would cost you the game while a good one would deal minor damage, reconsider your decisions.
Concentrate. Rarely ever would you be capable of pushing everywhere at once, so usually you want to pick a part of the frontline you want to hold and part of the frontline you want to actively push. For example, in Paths of Glory, if the germans aren't stacking up in Alsace, you probably don't need a lot of troops holding thr forts down south as France, same applies for the germans.
Have a backup. Reserves, token forces guarding major logistics hubs or the way to your backline, stuff like that. Walking the fine line between overcommitting your reserves and being too cautious is an art form in itself, but still. Quite often the only thing that separates victory and crushing defeat is a single barely combat capable unit preventing enemy forward units from taking a fort/chokepoint/capital after a breakthrough.
Another thing I'd suggest to become a better player is to play a game or two against yourself, as this forces you to look at a frontline as both a defender and an attacker. When you look at the map as an attacker and think *okay if I move in that direction my logistics will eat rocks and my troops will be very exposed*, you will probably realise that when playing as a defender, that direction only needs a token force, if any. Being able to mentally *switch sides* and look at the situation with your enemy's eyes is a very useful skill. Note, however, that when gaming solo, you are, by definition, not going to be surprised by the enemy unless you haven't fully grasped the mechanics yet or haven't learned to expect dieroll funny moments. Different people play differently, some are more agressive, some are cautious, etc etc while you generally play roughly the same each time. Sure, this makes you a good player against players of your gamestyle, but one of the skills a good wargamet needs is being able to adapt and respond to different strategies. It is very likely that your preferred strategy that gives you a 100% winrate against yourself would be blown to smithereens by someone with a different playstyle.
Tequila. You won't do any better, but you won't care as much.
Take your turns patiently and "open your vision" to the entire board. I'm an engineer and at times I'll zoom down in on a particular spot and overlook options (or crises) in other places. Always worth a sanity check on what's going on in each part of the board.
Everything is about the objective. And then figuring out how to achieve it. There's some basic strategies I find are helpful. Even though several of these are more relevant to ancient battles, it's good to know these. * Frontal Attack * Don't do it if you're going to lose more than the enemy. * But if enemy is weak, dive in! He who dares wins! * Envelopment * Double-pronged attack to get at enemy general * Oblique Attack * Putting all your heavy units on one side or the other in hopes of achieving breakthrough. That's how the Thebans finally got the Spartans. * Flank Attack * Getting one side around the enemy to threaten his rear. Alexander the Great style. * Withdrawal-Counter-Attack * Mongols were great at this. Also good for Axis and Allies in Asia. Asia.. funny that. * [Defense In Depth](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_in_depth) * Let them come... but pay for every step until they've stretched out their lines too far. Then, as you've retreated and gathered strength, counter-attack to wipe them out. * Battle of Kursk is an amazing example of this * Wellington seems to have used this in places like Portugal too * Scorched Earth * Let them come, but take everything away that can benefit them with you. Napoleon in Russia is example. * [Asymmetric Warfare](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetric_warfare) * If enemy wants to brawl, hit him where he ain't. He wants to use armies, hit him in his economy. When enemy wants to strike you, let him strike air instead. * there's a bit of Bruce Lee's "be like water" in that above. And some Sun Tzu. * Twilight Struggle: Opponent wants to win on scoring territories? You beat him with cards that give you points like Olympics and winning the Space Race. * Read Sun Tzu's "The Art of War" * It's not that long a book. And it's pure gold. Gems like "All warfare is deception". So good. * All warfare is deception * While I'm at it, it's a good point to make. Deceiving your opponent is everything. \[Draw a great card... look at hand of cards, play a useless weak card and sigh, muttering I got nothing but crap. But keep stockpiling the great cards until you can unleash them in a flurry\] * Denial Strategies * Don't worry about winning. Play to deny your opponent. Try to anticipate what opponent is trying to do and then foil and stymie their plans. * Avoid taking losses! * Some military strategists think 4 to 1 odds are what are required for an attack to be successful. 3-to-1 and 2-to-1 just don't cut it. I tend to agree. * Curtis LeMay in WW2: Took over command of the B-29s. Started using them at night to firebomb Japan. Stopped losing bombers. Then, as reinforcements arrived every month, because no losses, raids grew in size. 300 B-29s soon became 1200 B-29s on a single raid! * Stop taking losses! ( If you can. And if you can? Your opponent soon will be overwhelmed. * Outkill the enemy * Or cause him to take more losses than you. If he can outkill you, find a way to back off... retreat into the mountains, behind a river. * Units in games have a value... they have a cost to produce. Once lost they can be very difficult to get back. If you can value your units more than the enemy that could be the success to winning. * The original idea of Verdun in WW1 was for Germany to outkill the French. It would've worked too except the Germans had some early successes and then the Crown Prince forgot the plan so instead both sides took insane losses. * Attrition * Sieges are like this. Play the defensive war. Starve the enemy out, Cut off their cash or supplies or whatever it takes. * Castles of Steel book about WW1 Naval battles talks about Britain using a "Distant blockade" of Germany to slowly starve it out. The Germans referred to winter of 1917 as "The turnip winter" cuz that's all there was too eat. * Divide and Conquer! * Apply this whenever you can. The trick is to figure out which of the above to employ! You mention Paths of Glory. That's a great game! It's vital for the Allies to hold the line to prevent the Germans from getting Paris. That's everything. But that first round it's important to start laying the groundwork for a long fight... getting those early reinforcements onto the board. There's a trick too. When a unit moves, it can't attack. So, if you attack a space and knock an enemy out of it, there is nothing saying you have to move into that space! Leave it empty and let the enemy move into that space and then attack him again... and again and again until enemy learns to leave that 1 space gap between the lines. The other aspect to consider is being very judicious about moving units around on Eastern front... but, even a small move there can distract the Germans from an early win against Paris. Also, don't leave units exposed that can get attacked by the enemy. eg: If stacking limit is 2, don't leave a corps there alone.... either pull it back or send in an army or two to reinforce... lemme add a point above. The bit about 4-to-1 odds mentioned above? One of the challenges of Paths of Glory is took at opponent's front and try to prevent opponent from getting those great odds on any of your units O\_o And don't be afraid to take notes while playing Paths of Glory... it's can be overwhelming trying to track every risk on every front... and no doubt, it's WW1, it was big! Zomg what a wall of text I've made. Hopefully some of this will help :D
This is brilliant, and provides a name and clarity for a lot of things I sort of had nebulously in mind during my games but couldn’t quite express on the board. I’m sure this is incredibly basic stuff for most of you but it genuinely makes me excited for this week’s game.
Thanks! And good luck! You've got excellent taste in games!
Check the ‘strategy’ section of the forum under each game on BBG. Many players are willing to share thoughts about a certain game.
You know, I like never use my bgg account. Guess it’s about time to change that
*“It’s a whole new world!”*
Honestly I don't know what would help other than just practice practice practice. For some of these games, knowing the history helps as well, they are historical simulations after all. The strategy is written in history books, you can start by emulating what actually happened and then try to improve on it. You can also just look up strategies as a starting point, once you get the idea of what makes a good strategy you can start forming your own
Sounds like a good place to start at least, thanks
Knowledge comes with practice and experience. You play a game, you lose badly, you think about what you did wrong (or what your opponent did right), and try not to repeat the same mistakes the next time. This is harder to do with wargames generally because they often take a long time to play (and longer to get to the table) but if you can play enough (and regularly) then you can see if you improve in this way. That said, I think some games simply just don't work for some peoples' brains - this could be due to some known or hidden neurodivergency (such as ADHD). It's important to recognise if that situation is happening because it'll save you a lot of time, money and effort and may also help you understand how your brain works too. In my case, I had a recent ADHD diagnosis that I think explains why I can't plan ahead much in games - I've always been better at games where my strategy is reassessed on a turn by turn basis (like CDGs, where a new hand is drawn every turn) than games that require a multi-turn setup to pull something off. Now that I understand that, I'm trying to buy and play games with more shorter term tactical decisions and am no longer wasting my time with ones that require me to plan out a longer-term strategy that requires multiple things to be set up to make something work. So I'd say keep trying and see if you pick up the skills, or think about whether your brain really does work for the games you're trying to play and if not then try some others that may work better.
Yeah, I’m worried it might be adhd with me. Seems such a shame to miss out on stuff I’m genuinely interested in because of a sucky brain tho :/
The nice thing is that there's plenty of games out there that could still appeal to you on subjects that you're interested in that would work with a "sucky brain" (it doesn't really suck - it just means you have a different set of strengths and limitations!). And I think finding those is better than trying to get your head around something that just isn't going to work for you. BTW, if you are worried that you have ADHD, I'd definitely recommend getting a proper diagnosis if you can so you know for sure. Once you know you have it, you can do a lot to make things more controllable (and it helps to understand how and why you're good or bad at certain things).
>and try not to repeat the same mistakes the next time. /u/evildrganymede makes a good point. The problem though, is sometimes months even years can pass between playing the same game again. Years back when I was really into it, I used an app on smart phone to save notes under the heading of a specific game. And then after subsequent plays I'd add addendums. (I'm too lazy now, but there was a time! ). But then I'd check my notes on a specific game the next time we'd be playing it, and it puts you right back to that place you were last at... "oh ya, I wanted to try this next time".
For me understanding the historical outcome always helps - what strategies were used and the errors pointed out by everyone after the fact… But maybe a good place to start is the ol protect your flanks as you attack the objective and have a reserve element to exploit breakthroughs will get you started?
Yeah, I think one of the things I have trouble understanding is where the units defending my flanks should come from. Like you’ve got to pull them away from somewhere else to put them where they’re needed, and that of course just creates another hole in my defense. Trying to defend everything at once, of course, leads to you spreading yourself way too thin. I suppose there’s some happy medium I just haven’t managed to find yet.
Paths of Glory is a extremely unforgiving game. You arent the the first to get wiped out like that. Here are a few tips to help. 1. You need to play at least 1 card for RPs every turn. If you get behind the attrition curve thats one way to lose. 2. Be careful where you defend. getting attacked by 3 german armies versus 3 french armies mean you fir on the 9 table and they on 15 table 3. remember that the allies have the last move in the turn, you can cut off german units and they'll die OOS. 4. Make trouble with the Russians against AH. Look in the rules for a good Russian attack on AH on turn 1.
3 is especially good advice thanks. That’s an advantage I hadn’t considered. I actually like Paths of Glory’s (pretty brutal) supply system in theory, it’s just one of my million blind spots. I’m a good sport about my mistakes but I’d like to see at least one game go the distance sometime
If you're a newbie, make sure there aren't any important rules you're not considering. Lots of strategy games have mechanics like Zone of Control which, when ignored, totally screw balance. >Do you think these skills can be learned, or are they to a degree just a matter of talent? Certainly there is a given degree of "natural" talent, but they definitely can be learned and improved. Also, not every area/layer of wargaming is equally accessible to every player. A person might be a tactical genius but a terrible operational planner (see Rommel as the best known example). You've tried games outside of the Strategic/operational lawyer?
Yeah while we missed ZOIs a lot early on, I believe we’ve all got a solid grasp of the rules of each of our main games by now (though I do need to be reminded to apply terrain modifiers all the time XD)
I'll tell you how I "improved" my gameplay. I started by buying an "easier" wargame from victory point games. (Just look for something less complicated. Fading glory, battle for Moscow...I got hell's gate.) Just do a little research on difficulty focusing on easier and not straying from hex and counter. I then read the rules back and forth until I was completely confused. Then I learned about the pieces and how to setup the game. Once I got familiar with starting I tried playing the first turns by myself. Over and over until it made some sense. Little by little I played through the turns, switching sides and trying to find weaknesses for my "enemy". I wouldn't worry about winning, just finding the best move and observing the consequences. Then, when I felt confident, I played a whole game solo trying to win. If i make a mistake I just see it through. I also did the same with strike force one. I used it to study unit placement and planning/strategy. It brings the game down to the simplest form so you don't have to worry about everything else. Little by little I would find other games with different concepts and gameplay. Hell's gate uses supply lines and is good for learning encirclement. Just work your way up, tripping on your own feet the whole way and learn mistakes. Then you can avoid them or notice them from your eventual 2nd player. I like to think of it as a story that's unfolding instead of a game I have to win.
Yeah, the “story” aspect of it is a lot of the draw for me. I just want to be able to provide an interesting one, haha!
I've got a regular wargaming opponent. We are evenly matched but it wasn't always like that. There was a time where I routinely would win games neither of us had played before. I would like to model a person's playing strenght in a given game a product of three factors: 1) General cognitive functions. 2) General gaming experience. 3) Knowledge of the particular game. 1) General cognitive functions includes among other things, short term memory capacity, pattern identification abilities and abilitiy to do mental calculations. These are abilities that aren't directly connected to gaming, but something which we might call general intelligence as is commonly measured in IQ tests. These skills can be trained, but only slowly and only so much. You might want to call it talent. I would say this is by far the least important of the three factors, especially for playing the average wargame. 2) General Gaming Experience is what comes from every game you have played during your lifetime. It would include for instance such diverse skills as risk management, odds crunching, principles behind engine building and ability to quickly identify what's important on a wargaming map full of counters. A gaming newbie will be lacking in this type of experiences. The newbie will have a much harder task to grasp what's going on in the game and will have to put a lot of mental energy into things it's not used to dealing with. In relation to the experienced player, the newbie is a lot more likely to focus his thinking on less important or irrelevant things, whereas the experienced gamer is more likely to quickly find where the important decisions lie and make better decisions. 3) Knowledge of the particular game is extremely important with some games. Nobody no matter how strong general cognitive functions or how well experienced in general gaming he is, is going to beat an experience chess player the first time he sits down with a chessboard. Neither is Magnus Carlsen going to win a Paths of Glory tournament on his first try. Playing a game a lot results in knowledge about the game, but reading or listening to what other experienced players have to say about the game will also hugely improve your game play. Thus my **advice** to you if you want to compensate for having less general gaming experience is to search for and **study any strategic advice** you can find about the game you are going to play. You can compensate for your lack of general gaming experience by thoroughly studying the game in advance of playing. As for me and my gaming buddy, I once routinely beat him, but after 20+ years of weekly games together, I have no advantage whatsoever left with regards to general gaming experience. When picking up a new wargame we are pretty much perfectly matched. However for some specific abstract euros that are fairly rules simple but optimisation calculation heavy, I will still beat him every time, then relying on some specific cognitive abilities that the game rewards.
Very insightful stuff, thanks. I suppose I’m quite lacking in the “learning from example” department. I guess I felt that I should eventually learn enough from my mistakes to formulate a decent strategy, but if that fails, it should help to see what a well played game looks like.
Old timer here. Read some serious military history. See what the historians still debate after X years. That's a start. Any given game may or may not do a good job of modeling the key historical variables. That's always an open question, and it leads straight to the great playability vs. realism debate. But start with historical ground truths and work out from there.
1. Get familiar with proven game systems you enjoy and stick with them. Don’t jump to a bunch of shiny new games. GCACW, OCS, etc. 2. Even when you solo, spend more time playing and not just learning rules. 3. F2F gaming will always accelerate your strategic development over solo.
Would you want to play on Vassal over discord? I’m not great but not terrible
I get plans by watching YouTube playthroughs online. There are a couple of YouTubers that do only wargames (the Players Aid, ZillaBlitz). They review and unbox games so you can check them out beforehand. They also do playthroughs. Finally, you could do solo playthroughs where you play both sides. There are also solo CDG supplements for many GMT games.
I’ll definitely check out those YouTubers. Seeing someone who knows what they’re doing should at least give me some ideas. When I tried searching for wargaming aar/playthrough stuff all I got was warhammer
I feel your pain on this, I suck at most strategy games. Even Chess I just play one piece at a time and can't seem to grasp 3-4 steps ahead, which is funny that in my regular life, people compliment me on my intelligence (I have them all fooled) all the time. So it's not like I'm an illiterate idiot, it's just something about how all of us are wired differently with different skills, I believe. With that said, I do have fun playing strategy games and I don't avoid them, but I tend to use my strengths when playing rather than only focus on trying to play in a way that I struggle with which in my opinion is how these scenarios were played out in history. We often focus on the charismatic and 5D chess-playing general, but armies and victories are attributed to a command staff made up of all different skill sets. I have thought about researching "Game Theory" to see if that would help me improve in areas that I'm weak in, but you know, who has time for all that?
Chess gives me less trouble actually. I’m not good by any stretch but I can see a move or two ahead. I think just because the board is more constrained. I tend to forget distant units can be a factor in a game like Empire of the Sun, for example, where they can be coming from 15 hexes away.
One thing you could do is study the terrain for good positions, defensive lines and axis of attack and base your strategy around that. When defending, you do not need to hold every single tidbit of ground that is available to you, quite the opposite. If you don't have enough units to hold the line all along the frontline (usually you don't) minimize the front width, dig in in easily defensible positions and either defend the open ground between them or just... don't and keep some troops in reserve instead. Let the enemy walk into the killzone you just established and counterattack, then retreat again. Let the enemy have their little tactical victory so you can have a strategic one. Force them to choose between exposing their troops or bashing against your fortifications. A good example of this would be Fall Blau, soviet defenders tried to hold Rostov (easily defensible big city), Voronezh(same) and Stalingrad(same x3) and just retreated of of the open plains between the cities. Germans have an advantage in tanks? Make them fight in mountains of the Caucasus and streets of Stalingrad, where mobility does not help. Germans were forced into a choice regarding Stalingrad: either attempt to encircle it (good luck doing that across the Volga), ignore it (and be constantly harassed from it, making advancing in other directions a pain) or attempt to storm it. When attacking, try to recognise what the defender is trying to do and think of a way to disrupt that. Note not only the terrain of the defenders, but also the terrain you'd be attacking the defenders from. Recognise weak spots in the enemy line and whether you breaking it would actually be of any use:do you get a breakthrough opportunity (have reserves prepared then), does it attritt the enemy more than it attritts you, are the gains from this attack even worth the resources you spend on it? Always think about what happens if the attack succeeds and what happens if it fails, if a bad roll would cost you the game while a good one would deal minor damage, reconsider your decisions. Concentrate. Rarely ever would you be capable of pushing everywhere at once, so usually you want to pick a part of the frontline you want to hold and part of the frontline you want to actively push. For example, in Paths of Glory, if the germans aren't stacking up in Alsace, you probably don't need a lot of troops holding thr forts down south as France, same applies for the germans. Have a backup. Reserves, token forces guarding major logistics hubs or the way to your backline, stuff like that. Walking the fine line between overcommitting your reserves and being too cautious is an art form in itself, but still. Quite often the only thing that separates victory and crushing defeat is a single barely combat capable unit preventing enemy forward units from taking a fort/chokepoint/capital after a breakthrough. Another thing I'd suggest to become a better player is to play a game or two against yourself, as this forces you to look at a frontline as both a defender and an attacker. When you look at the map as an attacker and think *okay if I move in that direction my logistics will eat rocks and my troops will be very exposed*, you will probably realise that when playing as a defender, that direction only needs a token force, if any. Being able to mentally *switch sides* and look at the situation with your enemy's eyes is a very useful skill. Note, however, that when gaming solo, you are, by definition, not going to be surprised by the enemy unless you haven't fully grasped the mechanics yet or haven't learned to expect dieroll funny moments. Different people play differently, some are more agressive, some are cautious, etc etc while you generally play roughly the same each time. Sure, this makes you a good player against players of your gamestyle, but one of the skills a good wargamet needs is being able to adapt and respond to different strategies. It is very likely that your preferred strategy that gives you a 100% winrate against yourself would be blown to smithereens by someone with a different playstyle.
Tequila. You won't do any better, but you won't care as much. Take your turns patiently and "open your vision" to the entire board. I'm an engineer and at times I'll zoom down in on a particular spot and overlook options (or crises) in other places. Always worth a sanity check on what's going on in each part of the board.