Deeper Strategy – Battlefield Complexity

A little more complex than a 3x3...

As a result, war is not governed by the actions or decisions of a single individual in any one place but emerges from the collective behavior of all the independent parts in the system interacting locally in response to local conditions and incomplete information.

-Marine Corps Doctrine Manual on Warfighting, p.12-13

Human beings tend toward simplicity where possible. In many ways it is necessary to our survival and furtherance as societies and countries. Basic assumptions that hold true in the majority of scenarios allow us to go through life without pausing for significant thought with each action we take.

In many ways these actions are good, but there are also negatives that come along with them. Stereotypes against certain groups of people spring up from this mindset toward simplicity, as an attempt is made to reduce entire groups of people to the lowest common denominator. Societies can sometimes stagnate as a result, because people do not seek new ways to innovate and move forward. In warfare, generals become complacent as they assume the enemy will behave as they have in the past.

It is easy to allow this tendency toward simplicity to affect your gaming aptitude as well. During the times I’ve played against a single opponent with no variation, I’ve sometimes noticed that I’ll simply play the last army roster I constructed, with no thought as to what went right or wrong in the previous game. This is a constant struggle that we have in the pursuit of effective competitive play. (It’s probably worth noting that “competitive play” as used here can be defined as playing a game system with the intention of having reasonable prospects of victory.)

This spills out into the Internet discussions of units as well, when army lists and unit selection are based on a simple checklist of “good” and “bad” selections in a given army. While it is true that certain units and even armies have inherent advantages that make them more difficult to overcome, it is not fair to always relegate a unit based on its performance in a theoretical vacuum. Army coherency, synergy, and purpose all play a part in determining the effectiveness of a unit. This is further complicated by the introduction of Battlefield Complexity.

The quote at the beginning of this article goes a long way to defining the term Battlefield Complexity. It is the condition created by the combining of all forces, friendly and hostile, and their given positions and strengths on the battlefield. Terrain, morale, and a host of other battlefield conditions factor into the equation as well, so many in fact that to pretend to quantify them all is madness. These conditions change with every decision on the battlefield, creating a unique situation and set of opportunities that will most likely never occur the same way again.

Think of all the stories you remember from your favorite moments in wargaming. In the most memorable of moments, you can picture in your mind’s eye the condition and location of different models across the table, combining to bring about that one moment you remember so vividly. These conditions are unlikely to be repeated exactly at any point during your wargaming career. There are simply too many variables for it to ever happen quite the same way again.

To become the most efficient force manager possible, a general must step outside his assumptions and allow actual battlefield situations to take precedent. In an example that takes this thought process to the extreme, a squad of Gretchin is almost unnoticeable in a vacuum in terms of threat. However, when they are hidden from Line of Sight and holding the winning objective on the final turn of a game, their threat potential changes completely. While their capacity to physically damage your forces is perhaps less than if they were being used to attack, their capacity to threaten your goals and the outcomes of the battle are greater than ever.

This is obviously a simple example, as any player can see when they are nearing a loss in this way. However, battlefield conditions are rarely such a stark contrast between threat/non-threat. Often, there will be no right or wrong in pursuing the course for victory; there will simply be a choice that is perceivably better than another.

I would also argue that building a battle plan that relies on individual units to achieve tasks is a way to set yourself up for failure. There will obviously be a primary reason for taking certain units, but it is far better to have several slightly less efficient options, rather than relying on a single strike to finish the job. As in real warfare, dice interfere with the best-laid plans, and sometimes even a Titan fails to kill its target.

My process for building lists in both Warhammer 40,000 and Dropzone Commander is to specialize my units to fulfill a certain task, building in more redundancies as the points limits increase. My army is never built around a certain unit; I don’t plan to use my other forces to protect/defend/support another specific unit in my army. Rather, I build to accomplish the variety of tasks that may come up in a given game. The units are included to support and defend other units attached for the completion of an objective, rather than supporting or defending a given unit by default. The distinction is small, but it is an important distinction nonetheless. This varied approach means that your force has an added layer of flexibility to carry it through casualties and sudden shifts in the battlefield’s state.

An example comes in the form of my Tyranid army. The pool of Psykers I carry among my Synapse Creatures is carefully selected to give me a good chance of getting off the powers I really need in the Psychic Phase. They are all fairly mobile and fairly resilient, which means they are interchangeable in terms of which units they support. Depending on what they roll, this allows me to switch their positioning and role within the army with each game. Whichever creatures get Paroxysm follow the Hormagaunts up the field to buff their chances in combat. Those with Catalyst position near my Flying Monsters to ensure they last as long as possible.

These are some minor examples in army selection, but the fact is that you cannot know all possible situations ahead of time. Battlefield Complexity being what it is, you absolutely must go into the game knowing that you cannot control all conditions. Flexibility and fluidity will go a long way to providing optimal chances at success. Each unit must be chosen for its cohesion with the remainder of the force, and every turn on the battlefield must be carefully analyzed to see how it fits in with the rest of the plan. If a plan becomes untenable, the only option to optimize success is to quickly reevaluate and change your method of pressure. Learning to recognize these conditions sooner and react appropriately will make you a better commander in the end.