gw: hire someone who knows military strategy!

[theirkin]

i'm sure this has been covered before, but here's my rant of the day:

why does gw (and their sister companies: i'm looking at you forgeworld) not employ even one vet or military history buff with a decent grasp of games theory to help them write their campaign accounts? or their fluff that obliquely references campaigns? i'm paraphrasing here: you don't grasp why he broke out? because he loves the feel of his enemies being ground underneath his treads. what kind of militarily meaningless bull**** is that? that's taken from imperial armour volume 11, the box of flavor text on page 75 after the description of the cadian 6th's battle honors. and as i read more of the book, this blatant disregard for games theory (in the military sense, not as in rules mechanics). come on gw, you've almost got me, but being a vet i know that any instructor would at least have a better explanation than that.

what do you guys think?

joe

[eldargal]

I think you are overstating things dramatically.

For a start, would you ask a Roman military strategist to lecture at modern miltiary academies? Two millennia seperate us and look how much has changed. Thirty nine millennia seperate us from 40k times, so why should military experts today presume to dictate what would or would not work under those circumstances?

Secondly, the piece you cite mentions other factors in the decision to leave the Port, namely Eldar superiority in Firepower, they could just sit back and destroy the city without engaging. By leaving the safety of the walls the IG at least has a shot of engaging the Eldar where their own tanks have room to maneuver. The rest, about tank commanders digging there way through fortifications to get into their tanks was just patriotic, idelogical nonsense that most militaries still lvoe to fill their soldiers heads with to some extent, even more so under ideological governments. Ever watched the Chinese military news channel?

[theirkin]

eldargal: to your first point, i would argue that while specific tactics change, there is still a wealth of military knowledge that can and has survived millennia, hence the use of military texts from the roman era still being used as part of a course of instruction in military theory today. i'm not saying that the tactics haven't changed, but certain principles of generalship have endured changing battlescapes (in this specific example, one must look at cavalry forces from the time of alexander the great and their need for room to outmaneuver still being true in today's conception of armor tactics, and also supposedly being true in the 40k universe). moreover the warfare of armies in 40k generally fall somewhere in the spectrum from early modern warfare (turn of the 20th century) to present day tactics, and the interplay that those tactics and situations might have induced. so to a great extent, the warfare of the 41st millennium rarely deviates from warfare that a military historian would recognize and be able to comment on.

to your second point, yes, it does mention the superiority of ranged firepower of the eldar, but the reason given for the breakout was to take the fight to the enemy, rather than the sound military tenet of having room to maneuver alluded to but brushed aside. my complaint comes from the fact that a military instructor is shown to have no grasp of the intention himself, ascribing it to a simple instinctual bloodthirst that would be the hallmark of a terrible commander, rather than the methodical tactical genius described in other places.

i can't say i'm not being dramatic, but i would argue that i'm being dramatic for the sake of drawing out a flaw that i haven't seen addressed comprehensively (although i'll be the first to admit that this is a part of a forum i rarely visit, so it might be old news to most).

i hope i better explained my position.

joe

[Kataklysm]

As a combat veteran also having the uniquely specific experience of being a 13B (mobile artillery) I actually am with eldargal on this one. In a painfully simple and short explanation why:

"This is 38 thousand years from now. No contemporary tactica make sense, why, because its 38 thousand years from now."


regards,

kataklysm

[theirkin]

kataklysm: but that's not true at all. all warfare in the 40k universe can be understood by critically analyzing the information given. heck, eldargal said that the general was trying to escape being trapped and destroyed within the city. i don't disagree with that. it's the lack of explanation of the reason behind, or any kind of critical analysis apparent on the writer's end as to why a commander would do that that i take exception to. there were glimmers of hope, specifically in dan abnett's ghosts series, at least until blood pact (when the series as a whole fell off for me because it veered away from larger scale military engagements). and saying, "it's 38 thousand years from now, we can't understand it" is false. if we can do it with military campaigns that actually happened a thousand years ago fragmentary evidence, why wouldn't you expect it from fictitious campaigns? it's sloppy writing that, as i look deeper into the campaign analyses given throughout various gw sources, seems endemic. i would argue that we can in fact create reasons for the decisions of these fictional commanders and should expect a better, explicit line of reasoning. in a lot of ways 40k fluff has been and is continuing to be better written, but i'm saying that there is a lot of room for improvement and i want gw to do sooner rather than later.

maybe i should jump off of my soap box, but i would hope that other people seeing this might think the same, and maybe we can some day influence the writers of these bits of fluff.

joe

[Sindamar]

Hmm, I can see a bit of merit in both sides points of view. Specific aspects of modern tactics may not carry over into far future warfare, as can be seen from elements of past military tactics (ie Vegititus would not be a good source for discussing chemical warfare), but more general points, such as the aphorisms of Napoleon (except for the awful one about naval warfare), and the concepts of Sun Tzu, have relevance to modern warfare and will almost certainly have to warfare into the far future. To be fair to GW and the Black Library, sometimes they do use aspects of past military theory and writings... some of the quotes they use for their generals are reminiscent of those of historical figures :)

[TSINI]

I'm sure I remember reading an article or foreword by jervis Johnson about how he loved going to tank museums and learning about Mechanised tactics. I'm pretty sure these guys arent ignorant to historical warfare, but perhaps because their audience might be they keep it toned down

[DrLove42]

I;d love to know what the Art of War has to say about defeating an invasion from a swarm of high powered fighter aircraft that outmatch you in every way.

[theirkin]

Sindamar: i do know what you mean, and those quotes are nice and all, but they are ultimately shallow.

Tsini: now there's something i wasn't aware of. But then i have to ask why? By toning it down (assumingnthey do) they aren't making things more palatable for the less militarily inclined. In my opinion. All they're doing is alienating their audience that looks beneath the surface. Ifthey do have unseen military insight, i'd be curious to see the product of them letting themselves go buckwild.

Joe

[DarkLink]

I;d love to know what the Art of War has to say about defeating an invasion from a swarm of high powered fighter aircraft that outmatch you in every way.

Run.

[Wildeybeast]

Tsini: now there's something i wasn't aware of. But then i have to ask why? By toning it down (assumingnthey do) they aren't making things more palatable for the less militarily inclined. In my opinion. All they're doing is alienating their audience that looks beneath the surface. Ifthey do have unseen military insight, i'd be curious to see the product of them letting themselves go buckwild.

Joe

The militarily inclined? Who do you think the GW audience is? It's fan boy fluff, written mainly for teenage boys. It's supposed to be exciting and engaging to read, not technically accurate. As someone who enjoys history, if I want to know about military tactics and engagements, I'll read a history book. I read BL stuff because I want pulp fiction that exapnds on the background to my tabletop games. Do we see physicsts moaning about all the various impossibilites of the 40k universe? No, because they realise that such a discussion has no merit in a FICTIONAL universe. GW authors/rules writers/model designers have said on numerous occasions that whilst they draw inspiration for the real world, they are in no way bound by it. If something makes a good story/model/rule but isn't 'accurate' or 'phsycially possible', who cares? It's cool so they do it! I'm sorry dude, but you have come at this all wrong and are trying to apply real world standards to a place they really don't belong. If GW was making some claim about 'authentic battle descriptions' then you would have a case, but they aren't, quite the opposite.

[Thornblood]

If we begin to apply logic to 40k tactics, the fictional universe falls apart.

You see, my superhuman space marine could shoot at you with his bolt pistol, but unfortunately its range is shorter than an average throwing distance. So a grenade might be more useful. However grenades don't actually harm people, just slow them down in responding to you attacking them at close quarters. Unless used against a tank. In which case, for some reason, you cant throw them, but have to actually attach the greande to the tank. Don't worry, the blast wont ever hurt you, even if your a catachan wearing a string vest for armour. Which gives you a 6+ save for some reason. Back to the bolt pistol; if I do hit a human with a self-propelled mass-reactive round, there is only a 2 in 3 chance of disabling the human.

The tactics are so obscure, because the laws of science are so obscure.

Actually, Im guessing that most vets wouldn't work for the peanuts GW pays. Having said that, vets have probably applied for the design studio job, so either your wish may be granted or there may be stronger candidates out there.

[theirkin]

wildeybeast: i don't know about your area, but in the last decade i've been a part of 5 communities, some large, some small, but all but one of them (a mall store) had communities composed mostly of guys in their mid twenties or older. the teenagers were at most a quarter of the community. and again, while fictional, the warfare of the universe follows, for the most part, models that can be found somewhere in the last hundred years (160 if you really want to stretch it, but really warfare changed very little between 1860 and 1910, so it doesn't matter where you choose it). i love history, and am an avid military history buff, but 40k supplies a very different need in myself and those like me, in that it gives you an outlet for the what-if that is a big draw for some players. sloppy writing of fluff from a strategy perspective takes something away from that.

thornblood: we're arguing two seperate points here. you're arguing rules mechanics as being abstractions, which i totally get. i understand that in a game, you must allow for a suspension of disbelief. the fictional universe, on the other hand, does indeed work within its own internal logic, and indeed a grendade can be thrown, a catachan can kill himself trying to disable a tank, and a bolt pistol from a space marine just about always kills a human. that being said, the human mind has not changed significantly, and in fact the societal pressures impressed upon imperial citizens tend to draw from either dramatized, stereotyped crusade era france (and to a lesser extent the surrounding evirons), imperial era england, and the first 30 years of soviet russia. so the human mind, for the most part, works in pretty much the same way. so it seems logical to me that, from the fiction side, gw could do better explaining the logic of their campaigns. and yeah, i hadn't thought of the fact that maybe no veterans who could get the job would want it.

joe

[Wildeybeast]

wildeybeast: i don't know about your area, but in the last decade i've been a part of 5 communities, some large, some small, but all but one of them (a mall store) had communities composed mostly of guys in their mid twenties or older. the teenagers were at most a quarter of the community. and again, while fictional, the warfare of the universe follows, for the most part, models that can be found somewhere in the last hundred years (160 if you really want to stretch it, but really warfare changed very little between 1860 and 1910, so it doesn't matter where you choose it). i love history, and am an avid military history buff, but 40k supplies a very different need in myself and those like me, in that it gives you an outlet for the what-if that is a big draw for some players. sloppy writing of fluff from a strategy perspective takes something away from that.

Sorry dude, but I think you are missing my point. Lets take your example in the OP (i haven't read it so I'm going on what you say) but the point of that piece of text is not to espouse military tactics. Where you read from your particular viewpoint and see sloppy militray standards, I don't even see that. What that small peice of throwaway text does is give me an insight into how the writer wants us to view the character of the commander and I think. I disagree that the game 'follows' real world military tactics. It draw inspiration from them and uses them as a frame of reference to give the reader some context, but it is no way bound by them no intending to be an accurate reflection of them. In the same way skeleton models look like real world ones, but aren't an accurate reflection as they are clearly missing bones and the scale is all wrong, nor are they intedned to be. We all bring our own bias to these things, but IMO I think you are being a tad unfair criticising authors for poor military writing when they really aren't trying to be accurate. If they are then fair enough, but I really don't think they are. That's not say there isn't room for 'accurate' GW fiction - maybe a treatise on tactics by Solar Macharius, written in a 'realistic' fashion. Now that could be really good.

[Frostclaw]

I think you're all missing the basic fundamental conceit that Eldargal set out:

This isn't modern warfare. It's not post-modern warfare. It's feudal warfare with tanks and guns.

The trouble with 40K is the feudal warfare mindset, the melee. In a contemporary battlespace, the close ranged firefight is the closest you should ever get. Yes, there are exceptions, where forces actually do dust up their knuckles, but at that point, someone's screwed up. In contemporary combat, it's almost always a firefight.

40K is about massively powerful weapons systems, but it's also about coming nose-to-nose with the enemy and getting your hands dirty. This does not translate to contemporary warfare. Baghdad does not have a basis for comparison to Armageddon, save in the fact that people die. Horribly, messily, and in some cases, needlessly.

40K is about the worst warfare has to offer. Trench fighting, getting pinned down by snipers, dying in your blown-out APC, getting ambushed by stealth commando troopers. In a contemporary warfare scenario, much of this is nonexistent. IR goggles on overwatch alone would prevent the last little tidbit of an example, and supposedly, Astartes have better equipment than that to call upon at a whim, not at the squad level, but at the individual level.

And yet we're fighting chainsword to chainsword.

40K's allure lies in the melding of old and new. The fact that war is hell, but that despite the grittiness of it all, there can be some nobility in it. There can be heroes who survive and become rallying points for their fellow compatriots and for propagandists to build into legends.

Armored maneuver tactics might transport. I mean, tanks are tanks. But, at least from a space marine perspective, the idea of getting stuck into melee is far more prevalent than anything you'll see in contemporary warfare, outside of some particularly Hollywood action films, where everyone dies to slit throats and the heroes walk away with half a magazine of ammo remaining.

Now, are there modern tactics incorporated? Sure. Abnett's done it a few times in the Ghost novels, bringing the environment to bear and showing Gaunt and his staff come up with ways to answer the unique circumstances of the battlescape. But the thing is, space marines don't really adjust to the landscape so much as they pound through it, including the walls of buildings as much as the enemies themselves.

It's taters and tangerines.

[sonsoftaurus]

I;d love to know what the Art of War has to say about defeating an invasion from a swarm of high powered fighter aircraft that outmatch you in every way.

Probably something like (loosely translated): use subterfuge to conceal your forces from the air and overrun their airfields. :p

[inquisitorsog]

The game has power armored gene-enhanced super soldiers riding into battle on wolves.

It can only go downhill from there, right?

Besides, the view of 40k tends to be a mix of 12th century castle fights and WWI trench warfare. When the regular imperial general has even less care for the lives of his troops than a typical WWI British general demonstrated, stupid tactics will follow.

[Denzark]

Warfare changed a shedload between 1860 and 1910. The Gatling gun was patented in 1861.

What is more annoying for the military pedant is the ergonomics. Look at Leman Russ main guns, where is the breach, where will it recoil to, where is the loader etc etc?

Tactics in 40K? The IG has lance using cavalry and tactical nucelar weapons.

PS don't quote the art of war it is ancient inscrutable balls. The only good bit is where he kills a load of the King's queens and concubines.

[cobra6]

Theirkin, you seem to be confusing "game theory" with "strategy" with "operational art" with "tactics." If you really want GW fiction to address the Ends-Ways-Means formulation of strategy, with accompanying risk assessment, I think that would make for pretty poor reading.

It sounds like you're asking for in-depth, tactically proficient writing from a bunch of writers who, quite frankly, have as much knowledge of actual tactics and operational procedure as I have of performing surgery; that is, I've seen it done incorrectly by actors on TV. The reason the tactics are hokey is because suspension of disbelief is their refuge. If they tried to take the reader through an Imperial Guard staff's MDMP process or capture the incredibly complicated interplay of communication, fire, and maneuver on a modern battlefield they would actually put their lack of true expertise on clearer display and go right over the heads of most of the readers to boot. And if you instead hired a bunch of military guys to do the writing, it would read like a field manual. (I will give credit to Dan Abnett- he comes the closest, I've actually remarked a few times "how did he know that?")

Suspension of disbelief - embrace it!

[theirkin]

After taking a few days to let it sit, I do admit that you guys are right to an extent. Suspension of disbelief is a refuge that the writers use liberally and rightfully so. That being said, Wildeybeast, I like your take on the fact that there could be an audience for more technically complete (or correct or coherent or choose your adjective) fiction, at least for a small minority market.

Denzark: I would disagree that warfare tactics didn't change significantly in those 40+ years, and that's why WWI was such a mess. The technology evovled too fast and the tactics didn't evolve to match.

Cobra6: I am defining (albeit in a loose sense) game's theory as the theory of strategy (and possibly tactics), whereas strategy is the implementation of that theory. Tactics is different from strategy in its scale, but still relevant to my point. Operational art is a term that I can't say ever crossed my path, in or out of the military, how are you using it? I did lose my suspension of disbelief but that pointed me to a desire I can't say I knew I had previously.

Joe

[Denzark]

Theirkin - you said warfare, not warfare tactics, in your post above.

[awats124]

I;d love to know what the Art of War has to say about defeating an invasion from a swarm of high powered fighter aircraft that outmatch you in every way.

agreed

[cobra6]

I was referring to the strategic, operational, and tactical levels of conflict. Strategy is how the military forces directly accomplish the nation's (or the Imperium's, or the Chaos Gods', etc.) political goals. The operational level is the campaign of battles and engagements to win the war. Tactics are how those battles are fought.

Formulation of a strategy consists of the goals you want to achieve ("ends"), the methods by which you will bring about those ends ("ways") and the resources you have available ("means"). Risk is accrued where there are disconnects between these three, and must be identified and managed.

An example of an Imperial strategy for the Badab War might be:

Ends: Recapture and pacify rebel worlds, open space lanes, publicly destroy renegade Astartes (as opposed to the doctrinal task "defeat") Reward/appease Loyalist chapters.

Ways: Naval warfare, planetary assault, assassination, war of attrition, religious pogroms

Means: Naval battlefleets, Space Marines, more Space Marines, Inquisitorial forces, Imperial Guard, Titans, Officio Assassinorum, large population, forgeworlds, etc.

Risks include the fact that there are not enough forces to concurrently enact all the strategic ways (this is where you game theory comes into play), Imperial forces might not be able to "destroy" the renegades, and other Imperial forces might join the renegades.

As you can tell, this is not the stuff good pulp Sci-Fi is made of!

[Denzark]

I was referring to the strategic, operational, and tactical levels of conflict. Strategy is how the military forces directly accomplish the nation's (or the Imperium's, or the Chaos Gods', etc.) political goals. The operational level is the campaign of battles and engagements to win the war. Tactics are how those battles are fought.

Formulation of a strategy consists of the goals you want to achieve ("ends"), the methods by which you will bring about those ends ("ways") and the resources you have available ("means"). Risk is accrued where there are disconnects between these three, and must be identified and managed.

An example of an Imperial strategy for the Badab War might be:

Ends: Recapture and pacify rebel worlds, open space lanes, publicly destroy renegade Astartes (as opposed to the doctrinal task "defeat") Reward/appease Loyalist chapters.

Ways: Naval warfare, planetary assault, assassination, war of attrition, religious pogroms

Means: Naval battlefleets, Space Marines, more Space Marines, Inquisitorial forces, Imperial Guard, Titans, Officio Assassinorum, large population, forgeworlds, etc.

Risks include the fact that there are not enough forces to concurrently enact all the strategic ways (this is where you game theory comes into play), Imperial forces might not be able to "destroy" the renegades, and other Imperial forces might join the renegades.

As you can tell, this is not the stuff good pulp Sci-Fi is made of!

You are forgetting Grand Strategic.

Grand Strategic in terms of Intergalactic Empire, would probably be planning regarding a sector or a crusade.

Strategic may be a whole system or planet depending on if the objectives interlink.

Operational would probably be a whole continent. Gaunts Ghosts doing some of their thang probably hovers at the lower end of the operational level, but normally it would be several units working to one goal.

Tactical would be an individual unit battling away.

[Slurpeemourne]

I'd like to know which novels the OP was referring to. I've got to say, there has been a lot of muddled strategery and inscrutable battlefield tactics in what I've read, but I think that that is largely intentional. I see this play out primarily in the infantry novels, but part of establishing the setting for a 40k infantry novel is a disconnect between the generals and the grunts -- the feeling that the brass is working against the trooper, and the best they can do is keep their head down and live until tomorrow. Nonsensical or inscrutable orders establish that.

Perhaps another issue is that these fellas are military lifers in a regime that makes the distribution of military intelligence a very low priority if not a capitol offense. They don't give their planning and reasons, because the assembled personnel don't deserve to know. Or perhaps it isn't given because it's instinctively understood, as in the case of the Space Marines (although insight into Space Marines tactics via internal dialogue would both make sense stylistically, and establish them as somewhat more dry and one-track-minded).

[Slurpeemourne]

Plus, sound military strategizing is just bad plot design. It becomes: "This is what we want, what we're going to do, and what we're going to do it with. This is how they are likely to respond. Here is how we will mitigate their response." Then, they march from the command tent, and proceed to do exactly that. The enemy might unveil some new grand strategy, but the story's already half told. And the opening chapters of the fighting is largely redundant and boring. The whole, "tell them what you're going to do, do it, then tell them what you did" formula may be a great way to communicate, but is awful at building tension.

[theirkin]

cobra6: thanks for the definitions. it's always been explained to me (and this is probably the result of instructors and myself improperly reasoning it out for ourselves) that strategic and operational were synonymous (i was an enlistee and did 5 years, so strategy wasn't something emphasized at our level in an official capacity, so strategic and operation were the same. as to your last bit, about the fact that this wouldn't make good pulp sci-fi, i totally agree. but in the campaign books and other, non-narrative driven settings it shouldn't become that pulpy sci-fi like the black library is. i feel that this create an artificial barrier in getting into the minds of the commanders.

denzark: i like your different levels and assigning them their own terms. by defining them we are better able to hold this conversation.

slurpeemourne: i was mostly referring to the ghosts books. to a lesser extent you can also talk about the heresy series, the cain books, and most of the non-inquisition imperium novels. i'm not as familiar with novels from other perspectives, so i can't speak to them with any kind of authority. i agree with you on all counts about the limiting of information sharing and dissemination of purpose. again, i'd nuance my argument to refer it to campaign books (which are light on the ground) and codexes. i called out black library books because they sometimes give a more plausable overarching view of strategy, but it's that very perspective that i want from my codexes and campaign books.

again, i agree that it makes for good narrative to withhold or distort that information as it gets passed down, but we as the reader should be privy to this information, and i find it un-credible that, for example, in the example of that bit of flavor text the instructor wouldn't have the benefit of hindsight and be able to better explain it when reprimanding his failed students.

joe