Skip to main content

Wargame: Red Dragon and Doctrine (Part two)

This was supposed to be the second part of my wargame and doctrine piece focusing on NATO’s airland battle concept and it’s utility in Wargame: Red Dragon. Airland battle is a different beast conceptually that does not lend itself well to direct translation into a significant shift away from the norm of play in the same way Deep Battle does.
Airland battle at its core is about speed (maneuver), precision and lethality. Identify the threat, move to contact with purpose built assets, deliver ordinance accurately and destroy them. This model is to be applied across the entire depth of the enemy force by striking enemy rear areas with artillery and airpower. This prescription is to be applied in the most aggressive possible manner. The initiative is prized in Airland Battle, by exploiting tactical success to achieve operational goals.  
This doctrine is much harder to apply directly to Wargame: Red Dragon. The spirit of Airland battle is already exercised by most players because its objectives are flexible. Deep Battle is a more linear doctrine in the sense that it has more conventional, strict procedures. Part of the problem is also mechanical, the recon assets available in the game are simply not up to the task of collecting enough data to execute Airland Battle effectively. In reality air recon, ground radar, electronic means, and other methods of detecting enemy force concentrations are critical to establish an understanding of the operational situation. This is really a symptom of the divide between simulation and reality. Wargame simply doesn’t have the resolution of simulation to implement these doctrines in any substantive sense.

While Wargame’s limitations may not allow these doctrines to be followed as prescribed exactly, they can be a useful lens for a particular situation or starting point for understanding Wargame better. An understanding of these doctrines, I think, can help players make sense of their units and their roles in combined arms operations simply because most units in the game are the way they are because of one doctrine or the other. Researching these topics definitely made me a better Wargame player. This gathering of context serves a purpose, one which wargamers should understand well; time on recce is seldom wasted.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Lasalle at Leipzig: Battle of Leipzig After Action Report

The Carleton Tabletop Gaming Club, in partnership with Sword and Board in downtown Toronto who graciously allowed us to use their space over 2 days put on our first Napoleonic event. The event was called Lasalle at Leipzig both because it involves a game event using the Lasalle rules for the Leipzig campaign, but also, importantly, because this scenario is ahistorical, including an alternate history where Lasalle himself survived and the British stalled and withdrew from Spain. This allowed us both to include British lists, Bavarians loyal to Napoleon, and write a more open range of possibilities for the results of the campaign. The scenario assumes that Napoleon's primary chance to win the battle was historically lost when Murat’s charge failed to fully rout the Coalition units, south of Leipzig on the first day. It seemed to us that the most suitable use of the Lasalle ruleset was to represent this action alone, rather than attempting to cover the wider events of the 3 day...
2 comments
Read more

Road to Nationals Part One: State of the Game

Canadian Nationals in September. My first time going to Nationals and only my second real  tournament. The ground is shifting under the feet of most flames of war players these days.  Version 4 and a return to midwar has rendered a lot of armies and lists unplayable, both literally  and in the moaning, hyperbolic sense. I was left relatively unscathed, late war Germans and  early war french weren’t hurt that bad but my opponents came out stronger than ever. There’s a  nasty trend in our club, a slow power creep in tanks. When we first started, my most common  match up was taking my StuGs and grenadiers up against British infantry and shermans. Now all  I fight is IS-2’s and churchills. Panzer 4’s and StuGs just don't cut it face to face with those monstrosities, now nebelwerfers and fausts made it work in the past but no more. I’ll admit the invincible 10 point panzerfausts were a little silly and nebs were arguably t...
2 comments
Read more