I've been doing some thinking about attacking and how to create a local advantage in order to win the fight where you attack. I'll try to give a description and pros and cons of these ideas. I'm I don't believe that I'm a great player (averagish?) so I'm not writing this as a guide as such but rather after your thoughts and ideas to fill things I've missed or school me on what you think is incorrect.
Attack at a loose end or hole.
If your opponent has left a flank unsecured by either terrain or sufficent reserves, you can create an advantage by attacking there as some of your units will be able to overlap the end of the line and be able to attack without risk of reprisal, creating a 2-1 situation. This seems to be relatively effective but relies on your opponent deploying badly, and you having deployed such that you can attack there faster than they can address the issue. This idea isn't really affected by difference in numbers in the armies as its about taking advantage of the enemy's disposition.
Attacking a corner
If your opponent's line is curved outwards (if it was a circle they'd be facing outwards), it is possible to fit more units along the same front at the curved part of the line than the opponent. Attacking here gives you a numerical advantage. Artillery also seems to shine here as the longer range means it's easier to have them fire through gaps in your own line if you can't quite fit an extra unit. This works better with firing as there's more room the further back you are. I'm not sure it really works with cavalry as they'd still need to move into contact. It could perhaps still allow more/easier 2v1s.
Creating good matchups
This can be done in different ways. One is unit type, for example skirmishers having a medium range duel with artillery. This is becomes a struggle when your opponent has a counter to your unit in support. Another way is having better units than your opponent. The issue with this is that you'll generally have fewer units so you need to find a way to protect your own flank being overlapped.
Having a reserve/extra depth
This one's the reason I've created this post as I'm not sure it's actually feasible at all. The idea is that you have two lines attacking and once you've done some damage to the enemy, you send your second line through the first (before it's broken). I think it needs better troops at the rear so they can pass cohesion tests in the case of outcome moves from the front line. I haven't seen people doing this but it seems like something reasonable. It needs a bit of working out with the rules to make sure you have enough space, but as you'll be blocked by enemy, your front line can be shifted back to make room.
I'm sure there's stuff I've missed or not thought enough about. What do you guys think?
Tactical Musings: Creating a local advantage when attacking
Moderators: hammy, philqw78, terrys, Blathergut, Slitherine Core
-
viperofmilan
- Sergeant - Panzer IIC
- Posts: 192
- Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 12:26 am
Re: Tactical Musings: Creating a local advantage when attack
Good stuff. The only (to me) obvious omission is the (to me) obligatory flank march. Nothing can unhinge even a well deployed opponent more than the arrival of additional enemy on the flank near his baseline.
Kevin
Kevin
-
hazelbark
- General - Carrier
- Posts: 4957
- Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:53 pm
- Location: Capital of the World !!
Re: Tactical Musings: Creating a local advantage when attack
I think you are right. It is about creating a local advantage.
the other point is to pressure a single division of the enemy as they need to take multiple recovery attempts they will run out of generals to help and the division starts getting units stuck at disorder or waver. Then you can start pushing into relatively easy if you have two divisions on one.
the other point is to pressure a single division of the enemy as they need to take multiple recovery attempts they will run out of generals to help and the division starts getting units stuck at disorder or waver. Then you can start pushing into relatively easy if you have two divisions on one.
Re: Tactical Musings: Creating a local advantage when attack
I love tactical tips and discussion. In the FOG stickies you will find a large collection of tactical tips and advice that I put together from the forums some time back, mostly still quite relevant to FOG. It would be great if someone with a lot of FOGN skill would do something similar here, and attack techniques are a good place to start.
Match-ups
Match-upsCarriage wrote:Creating good matchups
This can be done in different ways. One is unit type, for example skirmishers having a medium range duel with artillery. This is becomes a struggle when your opponent has a counter to your unit in support. Another way is having better units than your opponent. The issue with this is that you'll generally have fewer units so you need to find a way to protect your own flank being overlapped.
With warfare being reduced to basically horse, foot and guns, troop type matchups are simpler and the weighting is more to quality than in earlier (or modern) periods of warfare. Ultimately it comes down to breaking enemy cohesion by pounding them directly or catching their units in a bad position.
Maybe on a broad conceptual and grand tactical level within the scope of this game (where we know in detail what faces us across the table), the matchups can be thought of under the principle of economy of force as being either PINNING (good enough to keep better/stronger/more numerous/critically placed enemy tied up in position or in pursuit by e.g. shooting, threats, feints, or deception) or WINNING (likely to defeat their local opponents and drive them back, creating a point of exploitation that in classic Napoleonic fashion could be breached by a conserved maneuver mass held ready for the breakthrough blow - which is one of the most fun achievements in a Napoleonic game.
Local Advantage: Concentration at a Joint
Concentration at a Joint
This discussion takes me back to the discussion of BH Liddell Hart, Chandler and others on Napoleonic grand tactics and the important distinction made by Napoleon regarding concentration at a point and concentration at a joint (a special vulnerable kind of point).
The loose end/hole/corner vulnerabilities can all fit under the umbrella of finding or creating such a vulnerable joint, pinning to either side, and then concentrating to achievea rupture of the enemy position at that point - in classic Napoleonic style, it would be with a fresh mass of maneuver advancing at the decisive time - the Guard, if necessary.
The helpful term schwerpunkt comes to mind, but I think it is I think it's anachronistic.
Historically this joint often was the juncture between two opposing armies, or corps zones, or stretches of terrain - somewhere that discoordination could easily arise and allow the forces to be pushed back or aside and a gap forced for exploitation. In FoGN games, however, that command boundary is often a strong point of coordination since the command points of both commands can be devoted to its defense by a single mind, making it harder to use these tactics.
However, the same concepts and dynamics of economy of force and concentration still apply. Being presented with a gap or weak spot that the enemy can't effectively reinforce but that provides a good avenue of attack is a rare gift. A salient naturally catches the eye for evaluation as a vulnerability or a nice base of attack offering interior lines for the forces posted there.
Players are unlikely to present opportunities in set up, but the flow of battle (or tactical artistry I wish I had) can lead to the battle lines taking such advantageous positions. Sometimes the enemy can be tempted or forced to advance and create a vulnerable tactical salient.
Even better, a flank march or on-table turning of the enemy line (mentioned by viperofmilan) can literally unhinge the enemy's line while also pinning a refused or disordered wing and a creates a gap or joint that can be breached while the other adjoining enemy forces and enemy reserves are sucked into fighting and tied down to prevent lateral reinforcement.
Sometimes you face a straight enemy battle line and must batter the enemy out of position to disjoint the enemy lines. Hazelbark's useful advice to concentrate on battering a particular enemy division beyond its ability to get the needed recovery rolls is directly relevant to creating weaknesses in the enemy line.
A big advantage in speed, control and maneuver such as that routinely enjoyed by the French makes this all much easier.
I like FoGN's interpenetration rules that allow a mass of maneuver in depth to be effective in sustaining an attack by passage of fresh rear units to the front. This does favor the command that is fast, well-officered, has good CMTs, and is maneuvered with expertise through skill and drill, but can be effected more slowly even by more ponderous armies. Definitely worth practicing on the table.
THe possibility of being able to use historical grand tactics like this effectively is a major measure of a rules set.
This discussion takes me back to the discussion of BH Liddell Hart, Chandler and others on Napoleonic grand tactics and the important distinction made by Napoleon regarding concentration at a point and concentration at a joint (a special vulnerable kind of point).
The loose end/hole/corner vulnerabilities can all fit under the umbrella of finding or creating such a vulnerable joint, pinning to either side, and then concentrating to achievea rupture of the enemy position at that point - in classic Napoleonic style, it would be with a fresh mass of maneuver advancing at the decisive time - the Guard, if necessary.
The helpful term schwerpunkt comes to mind, but I think it is I think it's anachronistic.
Historically this joint often was the juncture between two opposing armies, or corps zones, or stretches of terrain - somewhere that discoordination could easily arise and allow the forces to be pushed back or aside and a gap forced for exploitation. In FoGN games, however, that command boundary is often a strong point of coordination since the command points of both commands can be devoted to its defense by a single mind, making it harder to use these tactics.
However, the same concepts and dynamics of economy of force and concentration still apply. Being presented with a gap or weak spot that the enemy can't effectively reinforce but that provides a good avenue of attack is a rare gift. A salient naturally catches the eye for evaluation as a vulnerability or a nice base of attack offering interior lines for the forces posted there.
Players are unlikely to present opportunities in set up, but the flow of battle (or tactical artistry I wish I had) can lead to the battle lines taking such advantageous positions. Sometimes the enemy can be tempted or forced to advance and create a vulnerable tactical salient.
Even better, a flank march or on-table turning of the enemy line (mentioned by viperofmilan) can literally unhinge the enemy's line while also pinning a refused or disordered wing and a creates a gap or joint that can be breached while the other adjoining enemy forces and enemy reserves are sucked into fighting and tied down to prevent lateral reinforcement.
Sometimes you face a straight enemy battle line and must batter the enemy out of position to disjoint the enemy lines. Hazelbark's useful advice to concentrate on battering a particular enemy division beyond its ability to get the needed recovery rolls is directly relevant to creating weaknesses in the enemy line.
A big advantage in speed, control and maneuver such as that routinely enjoyed by the French makes this all much easier.
I like FoGN's interpenetration rules that allow a mass of maneuver in depth to be effective in sustaining an attack by passage of fresh rear units to the front. This does favor the command that is fast, well-officered, has good CMTs, and is maneuvered with expertise through skill and drill, but can be effected more slowly even by more ponderous armies. Definitely worth practicing on the table.
THe possibility of being able to use historical grand tactics like this effectively is a major measure of a rules set.
-
Blathergut
- Field Marshal - Elefant
- Posts: 5882
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 1:44 am
- Location: Southern Ontario, Canada
Re: Tactical Musings: Creating a local advantage when attack
Combined arms is essential. Even a poor unit of light cavalry can make an enemy infantry advance slow down. Likewise, having a unit of infantry along with cavalry gives extra shooting that may turn the advantage. If you have that unit of light cavalry and your opponent doesn't, and his infantry starts to disorder/waver, he's probably gone.
Re: Tactical Musings: Creating a local advantage when attack
My brief additions FWIW . . . always bearing in mind this is a <game> !
Firstly, the main thing to take account of in any tactical consideration is that in FoGN, shooting comes before movement but after assaults - and is always done in the sequence of active player before their opponent. This is one of the best features of FoGN IMHO. That sequence means that you need to consider what shooting opportunities you can/will/should set up in your movement phase taking into account that your opponent will have a chance to assault first then shoot before you get to see the effects of your shooting. In my view, those game mechanisms suggest both a combined arms approach and also call for a rolling sequence of attacks spread over 2 or even 3 of your own moves. However you go about knocking a hole into your opponents army (whether by fiat main assault or by shooting a unit or two out of the line through 4 hit outcomes moves), the absolutely critical element is in how you then follow up into that hole to make it a bigger one. With armies potentially breaking at just 30%, it doesn't take much to convert a two unit hole (4 ACV) into a 4 unit hole (8 ACV) which should near-break most 800pt armies PROVIDED that you have the units ready to follow up the initial success. Constant pressure on a single point is the most sensible means of acheiving this which means approaching that point in depth and not in a linear attack.
Secondly, whether attacking or defending, the key engagement decision is about whether to use a 'full court press' or not (engaging your opponent across their entire line so as not to allow them the comfort to have a refused or weak flank - this single choice on the part of the attacker will largely set up the shape of the game that follows. On attack I tend to try and mass in depth centrally so as not to signal which point I will attack while still ensuring that the attack I do mount will be focused on a single point and will do so in depth. Of course, that does mean that you need to cover the flanks of that attack by whatever means. As a defender, how readily you can delay that attack to allow you to cave in its flanks is the crucial question. As a defender, your deployment cannot afford to be spread too wide otherwise a goodly part of your force may simply never reach the game - even being just 16MU from the contact point is two of your own moves away from being able to intervene. Nor, defending, can you afford to be too deep otherwise you will never clear the traffic jam in time to thwart the incoming attack.
Thirdly, one key question to consider is whether or not you fancy going for a cavalry-duel or not. These are generally very hit and miss affairs so you need to be certain of either having/gaining a total superiority in numbers or doing so at the specific point of attack. Plus, the FoGN cavalry vs cavalry mechanisms are potentially quite punishing to both parties so, even if winning the duel, you may find yousrself having taken too many losses to be able to effect a quick 30-10 win.
Overall, the shape of the game is pretty much set at deployment - your ability to significantly re-deploy under any of the FoG rule sets is extraordinarily difficult. So, having a plan in mind ahead of the game about how your particular army mix (in total) works together is probably the single most important thing. Sure, you can scramble anything on the day, or your dice can deliver you some wonderful results, but realistically that pales against having some idea of what and how you might go about ensuring your opponent spends much of the game reacting to you and not vice versa. Easy really
Lastly, (possibly most importantly of all) pick an army mix that suits your playing style. If you prefer to 'rush 'em' then don't use a British Infantry army. If you like to have a staunch defensive approach then don't pick shock heavy cavalry divisions. When reading the accounts of battles, it is interesting to see how much those personal style factors governed what happened tactically. Staunch measured defensive generals didn't do well rushing things. Vice versa.
Firstly, the main thing to take account of in any tactical consideration is that in FoGN, shooting comes before movement but after assaults - and is always done in the sequence of active player before their opponent. This is one of the best features of FoGN IMHO. That sequence means that you need to consider what shooting opportunities you can/will/should set up in your movement phase taking into account that your opponent will have a chance to assault first then shoot before you get to see the effects of your shooting. In my view, those game mechanisms suggest both a combined arms approach and also call for a rolling sequence of attacks spread over 2 or even 3 of your own moves. However you go about knocking a hole into your opponents army (whether by fiat main assault or by shooting a unit or two out of the line through 4 hit outcomes moves), the absolutely critical element is in how you then follow up into that hole to make it a bigger one. With armies potentially breaking at just 30%, it doesn't take much to convert a two unit hole (4 ACV) into a 4 unit hole (8 ACV) which should near-break most 800pt armies PROVIDED that you have the units ready to follow up the initial success. Constant pressure on a single point is the most sensible means of acheiving this which means approaching that point in depth and not in a linear attack.
Secondly, whether attacking or defending, the key engagement decision is about whether to use a 'full court press' or not (engaging your opponent across their entire line so as not to allow them the comfort to have a refused or weak flank - this single choice on the part of the attacker will largely set up the shape of the game that follows. On attack I tend to try and mass in depth centrally so as not to signal which point I will attack while still ensuring that the attack I do mount will be focused on a single point and will do so in depth. Of course, that does mean that you need to cover the flanks of that attack by whatever means. As a defender, how readily you can delay that attack to allow you to cave in its flanks is the crucial question. As a defender, your deployment cannot afford to be spread too wide otherwise a goodly part of your force may simply never reach the game - even being just 16MU from the contact point is two of your own moves away from being able to intervene. Nor, defending, can you afford to be too deep otherwise you will never clear the traffic jam in time to thwart the incoming attack.
Thirdly, one key question to consider is whether or not you fancy going for a cavalry-duel or not. These are generally very hit and miss affairs so you need to be certain of either having/gaining a total superiority in numbers or doing so at the specific point of attack. Plus, the FoGN cavalry vs cavalry mechanisms are potentially quite punishing to both parties so, even if winning the duel, you may find yousrself having taken too many losses to be able to effect a quick 30-10 win.
Overall, the shape of the game is pretty much set at deployment - your ability to significantly re-deploy under any of the FoG rule sets is extraordinarily difficult. So, having a plan in mind ahead of the game about how your particular army mix (in total) works together is probably the single most important thing. Sure, you can scramble anything on the day, or your dice can deliver you some wonderful results, but realistically that pales against having some idea of what and how you might go about ensuring your opponent spends much of the game reacting to you and not vice versa. Easy really
Lastly, (possibly most importantly of all) pick an army mix that suits your playing style. If you prefer to 'rush 'em' then don't use a British Infantry army. If you like to have a staunch defensive approach then don't pick shock heavy cavalry divisions. When reading the accounts of battles, it is interesting to see how much those personal style factors governed what happened tactically. Staunch measured defensive generals didn't do well rushing things. Vice versa.
Re: Tactical Musings: Creating a local advantage when attack
Like your points.
I am a fan of the sequence of play as well. Since WRG Horse and Musket rules days, I thought Shoot/Move a good dynamic for the horse and musket periods, and putting assault ahead of both adds a number of nice dynamics. There are lots of other nice mechanisms - like the "waterfall" outcome move chart.
I am a fan of the sequence of play as well. Since WRG Horse and Musket rules days, I thought Shoot/Move a good dynamic for the horse and musket periods, and putting assault ahead of both adds a number of nice dynamics. There are lots of other nice mechanisms - like the "waterfall" outcome move chart.
-
pugsville
- Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
- Posts: 223
- Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2013 5:42 am
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: Tactical Musings: Creating a local advantage when attack
Evaluating the terrain can be an important factor in generating a local advantage, if the enemy position is divided by some terrain that makes movement difficult between different areas of the Enemies line. In points game the placing of difficult/rough terrain so as to create possible divisions in the coherence of the enemies position is one way of weakening the enemy. While the enemy may deploy in a smaller area to prevent such a division the resulting congestion can also provide difficulties.
Attacking can be hard in FOGN, the use of combined arms is generally import, making your army function better as a sum of the parts than the opponent.
Attacking can be hard in FOGN, the use of combined arms is generally import, making your army function better as a sum of the parts than the opponent.