Tactics on the table

[martin goddard]

If you have thought of an innovative tactic for a game do you use it a second time if it does not work the first?
Does the first  outing give that tactic away too soon?


Examples?

martin

[Colonel Kilgore]

Er - tactics...? 

Simon

[Leman (Andy)]

As a solo player I tend to make my armies follow historical tactics, thus in the FPW, the Prussian guns attached to divisions will go forward with the lead infantry to knock out the French artillery, then support those infantry against the French infantry. This did lead to heavy casualties amongst Prussian gunners. Similarly, the average French infantry must open fire  as soon as the Prussian infantry come within extreme range, reflecting their poor fire discipline, possibly resulting in ammunition exhaustion and that unit pulling out of the firing line and back to the supply wagons to replenish. They may also never return to the firing line if hot coffee and baguettes are available. Similarly, French artillery did the same on running out of ammo, which could also result in detrimental morale loss to those infantry who witnessed this withdawal. Using these sorts of tactics gives a very realistic solo game, but I'm not sure that the average wargamer (who these days seems to be more interested in gaming rather than historical precedent) would be happy with such arrangements.

[JohnWyatt]

I find that simply charging forward with everything you have is a good way to secure victory. Not always for the right side though.

As far as historical tactics are concerned, I like rules that enforce them, but in a subtle way. That is to say, if my troops were known to favour (say) a quincunx type of arrangement I would want the rules to reflect that; but also to give me the option to devise some novel arrangement, albeit at the risk of utter disaster. Assuming of course that this kind of tactical decision is appropriate to the level of command which the player is supposed to be exerting in the game, which is another story again.