On Tactics and Turns

[Stejones82]

First, I say out of the gate that I am new to the system. I only have Eagles Strike and Vietnam, and am far from mastering either - though Jeff, Dmitriy and Ed are giving me quite a learning curve!

That said - in terms of tactics, IMHO this engine is certainly not strategic in focus. Nor is it truly tactical. I see it as sort of a sub-tactical scale wherein all the BIG frontal assault or flanking decisions have already been made by the guys wearing oak leaves or screaming chickens. And these guys are merely implementing the decisions of the guys wearing Stars!

In fact, one of the things that greatly appeals to me is that the mechanics actually do match the scale in this system. One of my great rants regarding wargaming is the micromanagement of scale.

For example, most of my PBEM experience is in JT's EAW era (C1776, FIW, MAW). Even that system stretches the scale. To illustrate: Brandywine: the player commands a major field army (for the time and theater) and gives orders to two or more far flung wing commanders. Then the player makes and implements the decisions of brigade commanders - then he takes the role of the battalion commanders, then the company commanders.

*** How could a corps commander in 1779 control when each individual company changes from column to line formation??? ***

Sorry, back to topic - if a player wishes to play a strategic, grand strategic, or true tactical game, those systems exist, but we should be careful about pushing a given system out of its designed environment.

So, truly back to topic - I see SqB as the guys at the company level making the pin-pushers' dreams come true! Frontal assault or flanking manuever? This has already been decided and the enemy has already reacted. With the 5 minute turns and whole engagements that last one to two hours - in the real field, even with today's magical forces, the company commander would have a tough time making tactical decisions much more elaborate than:

"First platoon, covering fire from those village buildings, When you hear hell break loose over in those woods. No, dammit, THOSE woods, yes, with the flippin birch trees. When you hear the BARs cut loose, then advance and take those MG42 positions. Yes, I AM serious. Now where the hell did Frankie go - 2nd Platoon, on me, now!"

So my vote - the designers, Scenario designers and playtest team have done well to keep the game at the intended tactical scale.

Remember these are often, or at least should be, microcosms of much larger engagements. I see that reflected in the small map sizes and limited time endurance. The player is forced to the limited objectives because if he went to the left in order to hit the yummy looking flank - he would stray into the area of influence of the SS Panzer Regiment that is over there, not to mention, the pre-planned coordinated FB strikes plastering that "off limits" approach.

Now the additional beauty of the system is that the design-your-own is a viable option. Seems I read something about a DYO scenario of the entire landing of Tarawa recreated in SqB. And this might work, given the limited geography of an island. But I think that it was designed as a Multi-player game, and probably a good thing, too.

Good thread!

Steve