Deeper Strategy – Battlefield Complexity
Slightly
more complicated than the 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 their enemies will continue
to 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 cast aside 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 combination 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 monumental tasks is a good way to set yourself up for failure. There
will obviously be a primary reason for taking certain units, but it is often
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 to react appropriately will make you a better
commander in the end.
Comments
Post a Comment