MBS Podcast Episode 2

[Ruckdog]

Episode 2 is live!

http://www.manbattlestations.com/blog/2016/01/11/mbs-podcast-episode-2/

[Ryjak]

I thought this episode was just as good as the previous two; keep it up!

I have something of a rebuttal to your stance on how much strategy factors into a wargame.  Everyone employs strategy in games; war games in particular.  It's important to understand you can have a Tactical Stagegy and an Operational Strategy, as well as an over Grand Strategy... It's generally a matter of scale and perspective.

Strategy

Strategy is simply a plan. First and foremost, you need one goal. Defining your goal is the most important part of the strategy, as it shapes everything else, so it's really important to define the best goal. The goal is simply a desired end state you wish to achieve; an achievement. Once you have a goal, a focus, you can develop your plan with objectives.

Objectives tell you how to achieve your goal.  They are very specific, measurable, attainable, relevant (to the goal), and timely: SMART.  Goals are not Objectives, but people often conflate the two... Probably because an Objective for an overall strategy generally becomes a goal for the next echelon down. Also, Goals generally are not specific or timely; they may not even seem attainable.

For example, a video game may have two achievements:

- Beat level one on Hard difficulty without dying
- Kill 100 enemies with a certain weapon

The first achievement is a goal, as it does not inform you in anyway on what to do or how to do it. Each player will probably develop their own way to achieve this goal.

The second achievement is an objective. It is specific (use a certain weapon), it is measurable (kill 100 enemies), it is attainable (every player should think they can do it).  However, it isn't exactly timely, as there is no time limit; it is merely up to the player to determine when they wish to do it.  Also it isn't specifically relevant, because it is not supporting a given goal; again, it is up to the player to create this goal. If the player has the goal to to actively complete the achievements in the game, then it becomes a relevant Objective. If the player doesn't care about this achievement, then it does not align with their goal, and they will not pursue it.

Most players only have the goal to kill their opponent; this is pretty much the worst goal you could have, as it is a non-strategy... It does not help you with developing your game plan.

This is a better strategy, even when the scenario only calls for you to kill your opponent:

Goal: Maximize game points while minimizing losses to obtain a winning condition

Objectives

1. Destroy enemy units to gain points
2. Prevent opponent from gaining points by protecting units
3. Control game tempo by baiting/forcing enemy to make certain moves

Our objectives are in priority order is well. First priority is to kill units, because that is how you get points, which is what you need to win. The secondary objective is to buy your opponent opportunities to gain points; this is how you keep from losing.  It also gives you future opportunities to do damage and score points later.

Controlling the game tempo can be difficult, and it doesn't directly equate to achieving the end goal, but it makes it easier to accomplish.

Finally, think about how these Objectives would re-align if the goal changes from winning to not loosing.  Which is the most important Objective now?

Hopefully you found my first post here useful.

[Landlubber]

Ryjak, thanks for your thoughts! Interesting way to look at the issue. I like your argument about changing "kill your opponent" from a goal to a strategy. Once you make it a strategy, it's easier to break it down (as you did) into things you need to do to realize that strategy. Otherwise, you risk rushing head-long into the fray and losing the game in the process.

On a related note, one of our other forum members, Quickdraw, drew up a Dystopian Wars scenario that a few of us have played a couple of times now where victory points are assigned based on number of YOUR ships still afloat at the end of each turn and  possession of areas of the board. It reminded me of your objective #2, prevent your enemy from gaining points by protecting your own resources. This is a lesson I need to take to heart, as I don't always think about the consequences of sticking one squadron way out ahead to get that "first strike", then watching that squadron get hammered into oblivion over the course of turn 1!

Anyway. Glad you like the podcast, and again thank you for your feedback! I see you a bit new to Man Battlestations, so if you'd like, head over to the Roll Call thread and introduce yourself--what you play, where you play, etc. Welcome aboard!

[Ryjak]

I don't know where this custom Dystopian Wars Scenario is posted, but it sounds like you can win it without firing a shot.  I think these tend to be the best Scenarios, as offense becomes the least-important Objective... Which is very different in a war game.  However, this can also break the game's theme, so it can be hard to balance the two.

[Landlubber]

http://www.manbattlestations.com/forum/index.php?topic=1071.0

[Ryjak]

Interesting.  So, the goal is to end the game (three turns) with more VP than your opponent.  Destroying your enemy is only important in how it helps you achieve this.  In addition, the most important objective is to control more sectors than your opponent during these three turns.  My reasoning is this:

If both fleets stayed in their corner, and never fired a shot, it would end in a tie.  But if one player sent one squadron to another sector, and it managed to survive for one turn before dying, it could potentially gain enough points (25) to offset the loss.

So, there are a few different ways to approach this scenario, and which plan you choose should depend on your fleet.  Some fleets would probably want to concentrate on taking more neutral sectors than their opponent, leaving only a small force in their starting area.  Others would want to concentrate their forces in their home sector, and concentrate on killing enemy units in the neutral sectors.  Another strategy is to just try to take your opponent's sector from them, which would be very disruptive to their plan if successful, but it's very risky.

Does that help?

[Ruckdog]

Ryjak,

I appreciate your feedback! I like the structured approach you are talking about when it comes to developing a tactical plan for a game, especially the distinction you are drawing between objectives and goals. I would still argue that much of what you are talking about are really tactical decisions and planning, which I think you are trying to roll up in the somewhat contradictory term "Tactical Strategy." I understand and agree with your point that scale and perspective are involved; indeed, I would go so far as to say that larger scale and wider perspective are what differentiates strategy and tactics. To me, it seems that our central disagreement centers on the application of the word "strategy" to a single game of a given miniatures gaming system. What you would call "Tactical Strategy" I call a Battle Plan or even Tactical Plan. I believe my central point remains: a single match of a miniature wargame is, by definition, a tactical exercise (or, in your naming convention, a Tactical Strategic exercise). It is through campaign systems that we can add operational and higher-level strategic thinking to our gaming.

[Ryjak]

That view is understandable, as the US military itself struggles with the terms 'strategy', 'operations', and 'tactics'.  Ultimately, the verbiage we use doesn't matter, if we can both agree that within any tabletop wargame, the technique I described to develop useful goals and objectives works and is worth following.  Or at the very least, players should follow some technique to develop a plan.

Going to real life, the Army has several Immediate Action Drills, which are things everyone needs to learn to do without thinking.  Tactics require thinking, and are used to accomplish Objectives.

My question to you... Are there tactics you apply at the operational or strategic level to accomplish Objectives?

[Ruckdog]

I can't think of any off the top of my head, but I wouldn't rule it out! I hinted about this in my segment on the podcast, but "in real life" we often find situations or examples where the lines between strategy, tactics, and operations get blurred or even crossed all together! Sometimes a change in tactical doctrine can produce big changes in the operational and strategic picture. Thinking back to the WWII bomber offensive against Japan, for example, shifting to incendiary attacks in the dark had huge implications for Japan's industry and population. In general though, most of the planning and execution at the operational and strategic level is going to not be so much tactical, but rather logistical...that's the scale and perspective kicking in again, I think. Goals and Objectives, though, can certainly exist at the Operational and Strategic levels, I would say. I can see how your construct with those two can apply across the board.

Your "Immediate Action Drills" remind me of some of the casualty actions I had to memorize as part of the Navy's Nuclear Propulsion program! I think that they still qualify as tactics in the strictest definition of the word. In other words, I think that just because an action is meant to be an ingrained "if this happens, then do that" type of thing, doesn't necessarily preclude it from being a tactical action.

[Ryjak]

They are really Immediate Action Tactics, typically with one Objective: keeping you alive.  In the Army, the biggest one is React to Ambush.  On a Submarine, it's putting out fires and fixing leaks. But staying alive is never an explicit Objective; in fact, a big part of military training is to make you capabile and willing to sacrifice yourself for the good of the group.  But generally, staying alive in a combat scenario is an implicit Objective, and part of human nature.

It's also easier to play a game because you aren't being asked to weigh the cost of lives and material.  But I think the Tournament Point System we developed for NOVA puts this concern into the game... to an extent.