Author Topic: Tactical Withdrawal  (Read 2195 times)

Ryjak

  • Lieutenant
  • **
  • Posts: 143
  • Number of Times Thanked: 2
    • View Profile
    • Ops Center
Tactical Withdrawal
« on: May 15, 2016, 08:28:42 am »
Hello fellow naval wargammers!

While discussing Firestorm Armada, we ended up discussing how wargames don't incentify perserving your forces.  Most games don't have any incentive; Firestorm Armada has a pretty good incentive, and it's pretty easy to run away, yet this is rarely utilized.

I think this is mostly due to game design; a game should encourage you to engage with your opponent, not dis-engage.  Even a partial withdrawal isn't something built into games, even though force preservation is an important part of warfare.

This lead to discussions about actual military tactics, and we don't know anything when it comes to naval tactics for disengaging.  Specifically, the most extreme example I could devise was the convoy vs U-Boat Wolfpack.  First, unlike most wargames, each side has an asymmetric goal in this scenario:

1.  Convoy - preserve as many transport ships as possible; destroying the enemy is strategically irrelevant
2.  Wolfpack - destroy as many transport ships as possible; destroying specific ships is primary, perserving your forces is secondary.

Part of the discussion is this:  what was the convoy's tactic if a transport ship was damaged, but still able to move?  I suspect the official tactic was to keep going... unlike today, where the tactic is to hunker down and wait for help to arrive.  During the Battle of the Atlantic, the convoy was the only help you were getting.  But perhaps there was a middle ground, where the escort ships would split up and try to guard everything.  This could work if your opponent wasn't ever trying to destroy the escort ships, as splitting up makes them vulnerable too.  So far, online searching has yet to reveal the answer.

I think this would be a fun scenario to play, but it requires the right incentives to each side for it to work.  It also requires something so the attacker can't easily destroy the transports; sacrificing the entire Wolfpack to kill the transports has to equal a loss.  There needs to be a mechanism to preserve THIS U-Boat, and not sacrifice it as every wargame seems to encourage.

Ruckdog

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 3066
  • Number of Times Thanked: 189
  • Dive! Dive!
    • View Profile
    • Man Battlestations!
Re: Tactical Withdrawal
« Reply #1 on: May 16, 2016, 01:22:44 pm »
I would actually argue that while FSA has a reasonable incentive to run away (I assume you are referring to the BL shift from losing ships/squadrons) it is not all that easy to run away in the game. I think you would see a lot more of it if players didn't have to spend two full turns to get models off the table via FSD. Look at BFG; all you had to do to get a ship off the table was to pass a leadership check. If you did, you could take the model off the table immediately. BFG also gave you the option to disengage by driving off the table edge; this counts as a destroyed result in FSA. Now, disengaging like this isn't free (it is 10% VP to your opponent for ships with more than half HP, 25% for ships with half HP or lower), but it was much easier to accomplish and didn't require telegraphing your intentions to your opponents the way FSD shunt out does. I think that your best bet for injecting a healthier regard for force preservation is a campaign setting that penalizes the losses of a ship; when I'm playing a one-off game, it's tough to worry too much about losses. Scenarios can help with this, though not to the same extent as a campaign.

Convoy tactics and convoy practice could be two very different things. Speaking in terms of the WWII Battle of the Atlantic, at first the tactic was to have a ship towards the rear of the formation stop to assist a disabled ship. In practice, this was rarely done, as it made the ship that stopped to assist the damaged one a sitting duck, and stopping was left to the discretion of the skippers of the merchant vessels in the convoy. The convoy escort commander could also detach one of the escorts to aid a stricken ship, but this was uncommonly done due to the fact that for much of the war escort vessels were in very short supply. Some convoys only had a single escort vessel for the whole convoy of 20 or 30 merchants, and if that escort stopped to help one ship it left the rest of the convoy vulnerable. Eventually, specialized rescue ships began to be sent out with convoys. Their job was to rescue the crews off of ships that were sunk by U-boats, and were equipped with additional medical capabilities, small boats, etc. They had a shallow draft, to hopefully reduce their vulnerability to torpedo attack. As one might expect, the merchant sailors loved having one of these ships in their convoy, but just like escorts they were always in short supply. Only about 1 in 4 convoys ever sailed with a rescue ship in company.

I have seen various attempts to incorporate Convoy battles into miniature games, for example the BFG has a Convoy scenario included, which I think is half-way decent. This is a difficult aspect of naval warfare to capture well with a miniature game. In real life, the convoy could be attacked at any time. In a minis game, you know you are going to be attacked in the next 2-3 turns, because you are playing a game with an opponent!

Dakkar

  • Rear Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1175
  • Number of Times Thanked: 25
  • Mobilis in Mobili
    • View Profile
Re: Tactical Withdrawal
« Reply #2 on: May 16, 2016, 05:12:10 pm »
Firestorm Armada has a pretty good incentive, and it's pretty easy to run away, yet this is rarely utilized.

Like Andy, I disagree. In fact, playing FA since first ed, I've never seen an FSD escape work that I recall. Sitting still and not firing for two turns  = useless and dead in every spot I've seen it happen.

Now, I've heard of Destroyers and long-range Dinz ships start shifting out the moment they hit half HP, but no one around here has even played that way. If you're in a hard to reach spot, it could work I suppose - just never seen it work.

It also stick in my craw to see any potentially useful firepower sit idle...

As to the main point - yes, preservation of forces is a huge gap in most tabletop wargames. As you allude, it's because most games are at the Tactical Level, when the mission objective overrides losses. Strategic level games tend to go "up" a little more drastically though, to where unit removal is less likely versus "combat ineffective" or breaking.
Also, emphasis on force preservation means things have to die less on balance. Wargames where nothing dies or is otherwise removed from battle tend to strike people as dull - its human nature.

Campaign systems where rarely anything dies also do a disservice to force preservation, but its hard to make a system where forces can be taken out vs killed in any way that anyone has a choice.
"History is-a made at night. Character is what you are in the dark!"
-- Lord John Whorfin, Red Lectroid Leader

Ryjak

  • Lieutenant
  • **
  • Posts: 143
  • Number of Times Thanked: 2
    • View Profile
    • Ops Center
Re: Tactical Withdrawal
« Reply #3 on: May 18, 2016, 08:03:43 am »
Thanks for sharing BFGs withdrawal mechanics; I had never seen them used back when it was released.  That sounds like a much better system; how often do people fight to the end, verses leaving the battlefield?  Does BFG use an alternating activation system?

When I stated withdrawal was "easy" in FSA, what I really meant was you could actually do it.  Most games, if they even have a withdrawal mechanism (most don't) require you to leave via the table edge.  This is generally impractical in most games, such as in Planetfall or 40k, and if leaving is a good idea, everyone hugs the table edge so they can withdraw, which greatly reduces in-game interaction.

Ruckdog

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 3066
  • Number of Times Thanked: 189
  • Dive! Dive!
    • View Profile
    • Man Battlestations!
Re: Tactical Withdrawal
« Reply #4 on: May 18, 2016, 08:11:18 am »
Speaking for myself, I used disengagement several times during the Adepticon tournament to try and prevent my opponent from getting the max possible victory points from destroying one of my ships. BFG is a "UGOIGO" system like 40k, as opposed to an integrated turn system like FSA.

Doing a rapid withdrawal is something that I think only really makes sense in a space game I think, where you have the ability to "warp out" (actually, the BFG fluff behind disengaging is that your ships are cutting all emissions and running silent until they coast out of the engagement area, but the principle holds). There were a few times playing 40k where my Guardsmen ended up running off the table due to being broken, though  ;D.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2016, 08:13:58 am by Ruckdog »

Quickdraw

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 638
  • Number of Times Thanked: 9
    • View Profile
Re: Tactical Withdrawal
« Reply #5 on: May 18, 2016, 08:56:53 am »
I like the idea Ryjak.
And I agree that Firestorm has a built in system which is (like you said - rare). But I also agree with Dale. I have never personally seen a ship successfully fold space jump...ever.
I think the main consideration is that a scenario is necessary for this to work.
I wrote a decent Dystopian Wars scenario that provided additional victory points to surviving squadrons. That worked well as the goals of the engagement were not asymmetrical. Both sides are actively trying to save their own ships from damage while simultaneously inflicting damage on the enemy ships. A tactical withdrawal component could easily be introduced (and I may have written that into it but I cant remember). However it would only make sense for ships in that universe to escape off the board edge.
The Battlefleet Gothic system seems like an interesting mechanic of handling that.

Ryjak

  • Lieutenant
  • **
  • Posts: 143
  • Number of Times Thanked: 2
    • View Profile
    • Ops Center
Re: Tactical Withdrawal
« Reply #6 on: May 18, 2016, 01:15:12 pm »
There is no withdraw/retreat option in Dystopian Wars, right?

Dakkar

  • Rear Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1175
  • Number of Times Thanked: 25
  • Mobilis in Mobili
    • View Profile
Re: Tactical Withdrawal
« Reply #7 on: May 18, 2016, 01:36:03 pm »
There is no withdraw/retreat option in Dystopian Wars, right?

Not if my political officers do their job! ;-)
"History is-a made at night. Character is what you are in the dark!"
-- Lord John Whorfin, Red Lectroid Leader

Ruckdog

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 3066
  • Number of Times Thanked: 189
  • Dive! Dive!
    • View Profile
    • Man Battlestations!
Re: Tactical Withdrawal
« Reply #8 on: May 18, 2016, 01:42:35 pm »
There is no withdraw/retreat option in Dystopian Wars, right?

Not if my political officers do their job! ;-)

 ;D

But yeah, no withdrawing in DW. Even sailing off the board counts as a "destroyed" result, same as FSA.

Quickdraw

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 638
  • Number of Times Thanked: 9
    • View Profile
Re: Tactical Withdrawal
« Reply #9 on: May 18, 2016, 04:15:08 pm »
Correct, there is no written withdrawal.
Possibly because, like you said above, it can cause a game to be played on the periphery of the table.

Oh! That's an important component of the scenario I had forgotten! The main means of securing victory points was by control of table sectors. That ensures players are not "castling" and making the enemy come to them.