PDA

View Full Version : type of warfare????



bocaj
17-11-2008, 16:37
is 40k based on any time / type of warfare. e.g ww1, napolionic or something else.:confused::confused::confused:

boogle
17-11-2008, 16:41
It's a mish mash of all types of known warfare (siege/trench/open/tank/biological), plus the sci-fi setting gives it a lot of expansion (no atmosphere/death worlds/unpredictable types of world)

captain ceaser
17-11-2008, 16:53
Id say its close to nopoleanic warefare. At its most basic, both armies sort of advance shoot then charge with assaults breaking the other army. As boogle stated though it incorporates all manner of things in there.

Firaxin
17-11-2008, 17:01
I'd say its wrong to simply write off 40k as Napoleonic warfare. Just because people play that way on the table doesn't mean it's that way in the fluff. Take a look at the Taros Campaign or the Amphelion Project, the warfare depicted there is much more modern.

kultz
17-11-2008, 19:33
40k the game is pretty much Napoleonic warfare. Line up, advance, shoot, charge. Make the other side break or die before you do.

40k the universe, however, encompasses pretty much all known types of warfare. Exactly which type would be utilized depends on the forces present.

The Imperial Guard would often be well suited for trench warfare, limited Napoleonic warfare, and sometimes modern warfare.

Space marines would either engage in some form of unconventional warfare, elements of modern warfare, and if the situation demands it, essentially medieval style clashes of swords and bodies.

The Eldar would obviously be unable to wage any form of conventional war, and would be relied on some form of modern concepts of maneuver warfare.

Similarly, the Tau would be entirely relying on maneuverability and concentration of force.

Orks, on the other hand, would be too happy to practice Napoleonic warfare coupled with some elements of the early trench warfare.

No clue what the Necrons would do, though.

BrotherAtrox
17-11-2008, 20:15
40k the game is pretty much Napoleonic warfare. Line up, advance, shoot, charge. Make the other side break or die before you do.

I think you're selling both the 40K tabletop game and Napoleonic warfare pretty short.

On the tabletop, it may feel pretty straightforward because most people are extremely one-dimensional in their thinking. In reality, 40K is a game of infinite possibilities. You can conduct just about any style of combat.

As for Napoleonic combat? To say it is just advance, shoot, and charge would be far from the truth. There was a lot of emphasis on maneuverability in those times. Even if you back up to the Thirty Year's War in the early 1600s, generals like Gustav II Adolf often used maneuver tactics to win major victories.

Laser guided fanatic
17-11-2008, 20:23
Like someone said before, it's a huge mix and match of tactics and doctrines. Although the napoleonic ideals may be implied in the rules, the fluff tells different tales e.g.

Catachans - vietnam jungle warfare
Space wolves - viking hack n' slash
IG - Hard to make a generalisation for IG but theres definatly the sense of The War of Attrition and tank tactics
Black Templars - Holy war/ crusade
Space Marines - Roman/Greek

Anyone wanna expand the list go ahead,

Pokpoko
17-11-2008, 20:41
pre-historic, with tanks thrown in. basically it's cavemen's Ug and Og's warbands running at each other chucking spears and arrows as they go(obviously substituted here with lasers and rockets). some cavemen prefer arrows to clubs,but the point stands.

lanrak
17-11-2008, 20:43
Hi all.
The 40k rule set is based on/a version of the WH rules set.
Which was a Napoleonic derivitive.

Originaly RP set 40k at the skirmish level so a large amount of manouvering into contact was part of the game.(Similar to the current Necromundia rule set.)


But over the editions of the game the number of models has increased conciderably, and now the games table is to crowded to allow for much tactical manouvering.

And we tend to get a WWI simulation, Napoleonic methods/mindset used in conjuction with superior firepower.(And 40k rules make for exelent WWI games ,the latest WH historical set, is brill IMO.;))

And a war of attrition ensues.
So GW gave all armies special rules to stop units running away due to horrendous shooting casualties, before they hit close combat.(40K tries to make taking a knife to a gunfight a prefered option!)

40k has Napoleonic game mechanics and rules.
40K has modern type units and force organisations.
40k achives very simple game play, with very complicated/ convoluted rules.
EG
Basic rules .
This ALWAYS happens.

USR
It MIGHT NOT happen now.

Character Special rule.
It NEVER happens when he is on the table,( apart from when it does due to USR that might counter the special rule we didnt word that well to start with....:evilgrin:)

Which results in a counter-intuitive mess of a game.Where no-one knows exactly what 40k is supposed to be beyond a fun dice rolling game for ages 12 an up...:confused:

It is possible to get much more game play with far less rules than the current 40k rule set/marketing ploy.:eek:

I can post examples of much simpler rules -mechanics, that give more tactical depth and proportional results, if you want me too?


TTFN
Lanrak.

parus_ater
17-11-2008, 20:49
I'm a WWII re-enactor and I feel it goes like that in combat, if it was Napoleonic then we'd have our figs in strict ranks like WHFB. Empire playing in FB, that's Napoleonic!

Sekhmet
17-11-2008, 21:00
The Imperial Guard would often be well suited for trench warfare, limited Napoleonic warfare, and sometimes modern warfare.

Space marines would either engage in some form of unconventional warfare, elements of modern warfare, and if the situation demands it, essentially medieval style clashes of swords and bodies.

The way I see it, the Imperial Guard are a conventional modern military force while the Space Marines are something like special forces combined with a blitzkrieg. IG commanders want nothing more than a quick, decisive victory, but sometimes a siege is really the only way to go. If a Marine commander encountered similar defenses where a siege was necessary, they'd call up the Guard and go do something else.



The Eldar would obviously be unable to wage any form of conventional war, and would be relied on some form of modern concepts of maneuver warfare.

Similarly, the Tau would be entirely relying on maneuverability and concentration of force.

Maneuver warfare IS conventional warfare, according to most modern combat doctrines and groups like the Mongols back in the 1200s.



No clue what the Necrons would do, though.
They're one of the most unconventional forces out there, along with daemons, Dark Eldar, and certain Space Marine chapters. They can and do bypass traditional battle lines and simply attack targets from within the large majority of the time. According to Imperial Navy commanders, Necron ships seem to maneuver randomly and seem to basically have no command and control structure over their forces, but they theorize that it's just an appearance and that Necron tactics and strategies are so advanced that Imperial forces simply cannot fathom nor understand them.

Eryx_UK
17-11-2008, 21:27
I've always felt that games of 40K felt more like conflicts of the first world war more than napoleonic. Its a case of blast the enemy with big long range weapons followed up by troops moving and firing across no mans land, before trying to engage in close combat.

cailus
17-11-2008, 23:06
pre-historic, with tanks thrown in. basically it's cavemen's Ug and Og's warbands running at each other chucking spears and arrows as they go(obviously substituted here with lasers and rockets). some cavemen prefer arrows to clubs,but the point stands.

This one is probably the best description of 40K gameplay.

40K is not modern warfare - it lacks the emphasis on superior firepower, or any of the firepower and maneouvre tactics. In fact the emphasis is very much on close combat.

It's not Napoleonic because of the lack of ranks or emphasis on infantry + cavalry maneouvre tactics present since Egyptian times!

40K as a system is confused and needs a major reboot to give the game some grounding.

theHandofGork
18-11-2008, 00:18
I remember at one point Andy Chambers describing 40k as WW1 in space, or something similar. Take this for what you will.

devik
18-11-2008, 00:27
pre-historic, with tanks thrown in. basically it's cavemen's Ug and Og's warbands running at each other chucking spears and arrows as they go(obviously substituted here with lasers and rockets). some cavemen prefer arrows to clubs,but the point stands.

...seriously?

Because I could have sworn that aerial transports, orbital bombardment, artillery support, static gun emplacements, and a wide variety of tactics would fall under something other than caveman tactics.

El Haroldo
18-11-2008, 00:46
Curiously, no one has pointed out that the nature of the game isn't detirmined by the army you play, but rather the mission style.

lining up across the board, shooting then closing to capture ground, isn't unique to any period of warfare. Or army. It's set out by the rather dull mission types.

olmsted
18-11-2008, 00:55
thats if you play by just the missions in the book. white dwarf has plenty of missions in them lately and im sure your brilliant mind and those of your local gaming group can think of a few.


remember warhammer isnt limited to the rule book its limited to whats in your mind and able to be detailed by that mind. no one ever said you had to play equal points or any of the missions in the rulebook. you could play any mission you could think of. for instance a break through mission.


you line up with an hq and 2 troops in a column and try to break through to the other side. the remaining troops come in reserve and can try to flank to by you time or come in on the column and try to break through as well. your opponent(s) could be the one who tries to stop you. for ever unit that gets through thats 1 point. for every unit that doesnt by turn 5+ he gets a point.

cailus
18-11-2008, 01:04
...seriously?

Because I could have sworn that aerial transports, orbital bombardment, artillery support, static gun emplacements, and a wide variety of tactics would fall under something other than caveman tactics.

Maybe in the background but they way the game actually plays is cavemen.

Let's look at a standard game: Orks versus Marines.

Marines are in a rough unregimented gunline. They shoot for a few turns.

The Orks move forwards firing randomly or nowadays running. Some of their transports roll more forward and disgorge troops equipped with short range pistols and axes.

The Orks charge - combat is portrayed as undisciplined melee. Marine units counter charge.

Everyone fights until someone is dead.

Rinse and repeat.


-----

How is this in any way portratying modern or even futuristic warfare? It's not even pre-gunpowder age warfare.

It's basically two rival gangs lining up and bashing the living snot out of each other.

Orkeosaurus
18-11-2008, 01:08
I think it's like World War 1, only machine guns don't work very well, nobody digs trenches, and everyone is pretty much fearless. And it's in spess!

cailus
18-11-2008, 01:13
only machine guns don't work very well

It's amazing because the machine gun is one of the most influential weapons in human history yet high rate of fire weapons are criminally underrated in 40k.

In fact the most common anti-infantry weapon in 40K seems to a lascannon or krak missile - which would be like using an 88 or a TOW to target single infantrymen.

Sekhmet
18-11-2008, 01:27
It's amazing because the machine gun is one of the most influential weapons in human history yet high rate of fire weapons are criminally underrated in 40k.

In fact the most common anti-infantry weapon in 40K seems to a lascannon or krak missile - which would be like using an 88 or a TOW to target single infantrymen.

Well considering the most common infantry in 40k table top is a gigantic genetically modified guy wearing inches of ceramic and adamantium... yeah, I can understand needing heavy firepower.

They're literally like mini-tanks, impervious to small arms fire. There has never been a real-life equivalent to a squad of space marines on the battle field - the closest you can get are light tanks, but even those are generally better armored, faster and carry more firepower than space marines.

Koryphaus
18-11-2008, 01:33
It's amazing because the machine gun is one of the most influential weapons in human history yet high rate of fire weapons are criminally underrated in 40k.

We had that with the 4th Ed Assault Cannon, but everybody cried "Cheese!"

cailus
18-11-2008, 01:34
Well considering the most common infantry in 40k table top is a gigantic genetically modified guy wearing inches of ceramic and adamantium... yeah, I can understand needing heavy firepower.

The problem is the game mechanics though. Believe it or not but a heavy bolter used to be an excellent investment against Marines (-2 save modifier). 3rd edition pushed it back to lascannons.

One cool thing about Epic is the whole AT/AP values where AT = Anti-tank and AP = Anti-personnel. Basically if it has an AT value only you cannot shoot at infantry. The opposite applies for AP.

Some weapons would have both values e.g. autocannons.

----

This doesn't detract from the fact that high rate of fire weapons on the 40K battlefield play a secondary role to anti-tank weapons in an infantry role. :wtf:

Goose
18-11-2008, 01:54
I say WWI in Space. Well really, it is its own thing after all, its own universe.

People draw parallels to Napoleonic. What came after that? WWI. Which was essentially Napoleonic style things, only with more advanced technology.

Only this time the technology isn't that far ahead. So its a mix of both.

Cailus, that is exactly why I am loving 40k. It seems so mindless and bloody, almost Romantic in the sense its done. Its perfect for my subconscious mind, for connecting with the simpler and IMO more happy side of me. I talk big like its all big tactics, like I have some big battle plan. Yet in game its just a mindless thing of dice rolling and bloody combat. All under the banner of advanced tactics and sophisticated warfare.

Its set up to be something big and beautiful, but the reality is, is that it is bloody, stupid, and simple. Only we still make it out to be a wonderfully complex and amazing thing. I love it! Just get some Ride of the Valkyries playing and your all set.

shadowtemplar16
18-11-2008, 02:03
Id say it tries to re create ww2 and modern warfare.

cities are def modern warfare where tanks are def ww2 most all else is a mix of the two...

cailus
18-11-2008, 02:06
Cailus, that is exactly why I am loving 40k. It seems so mindless and bloody, almost Romantic in the sense its done. Its perfect for my subconscious mind, for connecting with the simpler and IMO more happy side of me. I talk big like its all big tactics, like I have some big battle plan. Yet in game its just a mindless thing of dice rolling and bloody combat. All under the banner of advanced tactics and sophisticated warfare.

Its set up to be something big and beautiful, but the reality is, is that it is bloody, stupid, and simple. Only we still make it out to be a wonderfully complex and amazing thing. I love it! Just get some Ride of the Valkyries playing and your all set.

Totally agree. Though I miss the cinematics of old ("eat vortex," "heavy bolter's jammed!," "is that our grenade at our feet," "they're making a run out of cover - FIRE!," "You actuallywant me to charge that Daemon Prince?!?").

40K is slowly losing the things I liked about it (cinematics, RPG on the table top) and is becoming too abstract, too big and too convoluted.

I am starting to find other systems more exciting - Fantasy because the cinematics are still there (wizard duels, single combat between champions, monsters that are scary etc), Blood Bowl cause it's tactically challenging and Flames of War because it's tactically challenging and really captures my imagination (everything from smoke barrages to machine guns pimnning infantry to epic tank battles).

I love 40K but the game play is starting to become a big problem for me and a lot of my friends.

Psyker Bearzerker
18-11-2008, 09:23
Mix of ww1 and ww2 in space.
history has shown that tactics are always an era behind tec.
But we have to take this for what it is; a game. If you cant scrounge up some imagination you are going to hurt yourself trying to figure out why people play.

GW says it them selves 'if you can think of a better way to play the game, you dont have to use our rules, just please buy our kits and paints plz'

Brush your teeth
18-11-2008, 09:54
I think alot of it depends on the gamers, what they choose to play and how they choose to play it. Build a list a certain way and you can shape it to fit a certain style of warfare, and they you can play it in a way that reflects that style.

Sure you can advance your space marines, shoot and charge (napoleonic). but you could also have two units working together advancing up a street laying down covering fire for one another (modernish).

As someone who's got 3 guard armies, the guard codex is a great way to get different styles of warfare. I've got my Valhallans who i tend to play in the napoleonic/WWI kind of style (advance and charge). My Mordians who are WW2 Panzergrenadiers (mechanised), and my Cadians who are more modern (purely as they're based on Black Hawk Down :D )

Sekhmet
18-11-2008, 09:57
my Cadians who are more modern (purely as they're based on Black Hawk Down :D )

How are they based on Black Hawk Down?

Brush your teeth
18-11-2008, 09:59
How are they based on Black Hawk Down?

Drop Troops, Valkiyre/Vulture support, fairly mobile and of course colour scheme.

parus_ater
18-11-2008, 10:02
Can the term "Modern Combat" not apply? Why pigeon hole it? 40K like real warfare has sort of evolved into what it is, which is similar to modern combat.

Sekhmet
18-11-2008, 10:25
Drop Troops, Valkiyre/Vulture support, fairly mobile and of course colour scheme.

so basically desert-colored special forces.

Brush your teeth
18-11-2008, 12:02
so basically desert-colored special forces.

More or less - just like the film ;)

and again, its another type of warfare to my other guard forces.

Eryx_UK
18-11-2008, 12:08
How is this in any way portratying modern or even futuristic warfare? It's not even pre-gunpowder age warfare.

It's basically two rival gangs lining up and bashing the living snot out of each other.

Thats my view exactly where the rules and playstyle are concerned. When you have devestating long range firepower why would you seek close combat? Yet thats exactly how every game of 40K pans out.

Pokpoko
18-11-2008, 12:40
...seriously?

Because I could have sworn that aerial transports, orbital bombardment, artillery support, static gun emplacements, and a wide variety of tactics would fall under something other than caveman tactics.
and yet the best tactical option is to run at the enemy with a pointy stick and stab him in the jugular. remeber kids,in modern combat a fistful of toffe in close combat is deadlier than orbital bombardment!:D

Griefbringer
18-11-2008, 12:45
People draw parallels to Napoleonic. What came after that? WWI. Which was essentially Napoleonic style things, only with more advanced technology.

In between you also get a century of colonial warfare, featuring modern European armies of the period facing against hordes of variously armed natives around the world.

march10k
18-11-2008, 12:51
WFB was napoleonic set in a fantasy world. 40k is WFB in the far future. Therefore, 40k has its roots in napoleonic, but it has certainly evolved into something different.

Sojourner
18-11-2008, 13:39
It's a kind of warfare we don't really have an analogy for. We've never had a planetary assault and have never fought a truly global war. Space battles take months if the invading fleet comes from the edges of system as they tend to do, and once they start to land forces they use vessels larger than anything ever constructed on this planet in their hundreds, to land tens or hundreds of millions of troops and the supplies and hardware to fight a war that can last decades.

In fairness though, that really only defines the bounds of the strategic layer. Once you get to the detail, troops fight in the manner to which they're accustomed and adapt as appropriate. Many Imperial Guard divisions will have never seen an Ork before when they first join battle and don't really know what to expect, so will fight the way they've been trained until it (quickly) becomes obvious it doesn't work, and will have to adapt or die. Doubly so with Tyranids, when Behemoth first contacted the Imperium nobody knew how to fight them and you had massive army groups with little idea how to fight the coming war and depending on the Ultramarines for tactical guidance.

Giganthrax
18-11-2008, 14:33
IMHO, 40k warfare is a lot more modern then napoleonic stuff. First, napoleonic warfare had very little in the terms of weapon - it was pistols, them slow-reloading guns and cannons, maybe mortars (not sure about mortars tho). There were variations, but nothing like differences between rocket launchers, grenade-launchers, high-end snipers and plasma/sonic/laser guns.

40k also has tanks, airplanes, space ships, and various other warfare machinery/monstrous creatures. That, fluff-wise, opens up a lot of warfare options completely unavailable to napoleonic times. Take for example drop pod deep strike available to space marines, or orbital bombardment - none of that was imaginable in napoleonic times.

I'd say 40k is a weird high-tech version of World War II and middle ages warfare. Then again, there are armies like the tyranids that don't really fall into any category.

Laser guided fanatic
18-11-2008, 17:46
Or maybe it's just made up warfare like you know arrgh whats the word ahh fiction. Don't belive everything you see on TV

kultz
18-11-2008, 18:00
Oh we certainly have the firepower and some rules that can facilitate some semblance of the modern "Move, cover, shoot, move again" stuff with all the Three-Letter-Abbrieviations and everything.

The problem is that in our world, a bullet, when hit, will most likely disable a combatant.

In our world, there is nothing that says you have to drop your guns and pull out your fists (?) when the enemy is within an arms reach.

In 40k. Bullets, for the most part, bounce off either the superior toughened bodies or armour. Akin to shooting our soldiers with BB guns.

Couple that with the fact that when you get into an arm's reach, your enemy drops their weapons and tries to punch you instead of shooting with something a little more effective.

Of course we'd be tempted to run up and stab 'em.

MrP
18-11-2008, 18:23
I've a friend who compared 40k to the ACW: close to point blank range, have a bit of a firefight, and if there's any close combat, one side or the other collapses. But that was his plan for Guard back under 4th, so it's possibly a little behind the times.

wilycoyote
18-11-2008, 20:40
I feel to see the connection to napoleonic warfare (indeed I would be surprised to learn that WFB was based on this). OK I can see anologies with great columns of troops and relatively short range firefights but....

I feelthat WFB and many games of 40k play out like late medieval/rennaissance battles. Blocks of infantry manouver before crashing together while cavalry look for the decisive charge, artillery like many heavy 40k weapons is enschewed for the joys of belting someone over the head.

Whenever Oreks are in play you can see elements of the old colonial days, savages swarming around the plucky red square etc (the Battle of Big Tooth River anyone)

Having said that the points reductions now mean its often wall to wall troops walking into a curtain of fire - WW1 anyone

One thing it isn't is high tech futuristic warfare ala Starship Troopers (the original book).

Wilyc

BrotherAtrox
18-11-2008, 21:55
Thats my view exactly where the rules and playstyle are concerned. When you have devestating long range firepower why would you seek close combat? Yet thats exactly how every game of 40K pans out.

The methods of war have always been dictated by armor vs. armor penetration. In our modern times the penetrative abilities of most rounds are so high that we don't ever see HtH. In the 40K universe, things have gone the opposite way. Armor is so advanced the standard weaponry has trouble being efficient. However if we possess close combat weapons that can harness the technology to punch through that armor better than our guns then I don't see why its so offensive to you that combatants would seek melee.

Modern warfare: most ballistic weaponry had made body armor all but obsolete.
40K warfare: body armor has made most ballistic weaponry all but obsolete.

That being said, I don't see much propensity for close combat in my gaming area. Around here our shooting phases are always the longest and most productive. Close combat is used as a sort of mop-up method.

Orkeosaurus
18-11-2008, 22:43
and yet the best tactical option is to run at the enemy with a pointy chainstick and stab him in the jugular.
Fixed your spelling error.
Remember, it's in spess!

cailus
19-11-2008, 00:55
It;'s amazing that people don't seem to understand the difference between the background and the game play.

The background: mixture of modern, primitive, napoleonic and anything else.

The gameplay: pre-historic/gang warfare with tanks.

Someone mentioned that they play modern because they have Valkyries. This doesn't indicate modern tactics - those Guardsmen disgorged out the Valkyrie are not played in a modern fashion (i.e. fire teams with high amounts of high ROF weaponry with the usage of firesuppression etc). They still play as a bunch of guys carrying rifles and maybe the odd anti-tank weapon and shooting randomly.

The background behind the army is modern (i.e. airborne force) but the game play is not.





Modern warfare: most ballistic weaponry had made body armor all but obsolete.
40K warfare: body armor has made most ballistic weaponry all but obsolete.

Yet many weapons in the 40k universe are lasers, plasma and other more exotic types of weaponry capable of mulching through heavy armour with ease.

The other issue is that the guys with the power armour are meant to be as rare as hens teeth.

Your average human soldier has flak armour, the same applies to Eldar militia, most Tyranids, Orks etc. Ballistic weapons do chew through them.

The game play favours close combat due to the game mechanics (movement, assault phases etc).