GCACW Tactics:
Low Odds Attacks
If you are anything like I am when starting to learn a new wargame system, one of the first priorities is understanding how combat works. More than just grasping the mechanics, you seek to understand what it takes to mount a successful attack or defense. In other words, you need to understand the tactics of combat not just the mechanics.
The mechanics of combat in the GCACW system are straightforward--combat is resolved by taking the modified difference of a die roll by each player. At first blush, tactics of combat in the GCACW system seem straightforward as well. However, there are several nuances that this article will discuss.
First Impressions of the CRT
My first analysis of tactics in the GCACW system started with the CRT. In an attack in which the modifiers are even (a +0 attack), the attacker has a 28% chance of causing at least a retreat and only an 8% chance at routing the defender. However, in a +2 attack (i.e., when the net modifiers on the attacker's roll is +2 [basically attacker's drm - defender's drm]), the attacker's chances improve to 58% chance of a retreat or better and 28% chance of a rout. Based on this analysis, one of my first tactical principals was to only make attacks at +2 or better unless the situation was extremely desperate (e.g., the last turn of the game).
The second tactical principal that I developed was to always look to make a flank attack. When you first learn this system, it becomes apparent that the easiest way to overcome poor leadership, odds or terrain is to get a fat +3 or +4 flank bonus. When I introduced the GCACW system to a friend, he was somewhat put-off by the seemingly unrealistic way that combat was reduced to each side trying to outflank the other. It was like two dogs chasing each other's tails.
While it is definitely important to look for flank attacks when the situation presents itself and to ensure that your own flanks are covered, I've come to the realization that tactics in GCACW is not just about winning the right combination of initiatives to get a flank attack at +2 or better. This realization is a pleasant one because it makes tactics much richer than my first analysis lead me to believe. In addition to tactics around flank attacks, it is often useful to make use of what I call Low Odds Attacks, which are attacks that have at least a 50% of raising the defenders to fatigue level 4 but a less than 50% chance of causing a retreat. In practice, these attacks are usually +0, +1 or -1 attacks.
Managing Your Battlefield Resources
In order to demonstrate the utility of low odds attacks, you first need understand the concept of Battlefield Resources. Experienced players in the GCACW system realize that success depends on your ability to get the most out of your forces while limiting your opponent’s ability to do the same. The heart of the system is the interaction between the initiative, fatigue expenditure and combat value availability. Each unit has a limited number of fatigue levels with which to carry out military activities. Fatigue levels are thus one tangible measure of each side's Battlefield Resources. (The other measure is the combat value available which is determined in part by units that have fatigues to move and the degree to which combat and extended marches reduce combat values.) Thus, fatigue levels measure the amount of activity that each player is given each turn. The player that utilizes his resources optimally will usually win (though luck will always play some role).
I’ve found that against experienced players, the match often takes on a chess-like feel as each player utilizes all his available resources. The player that “runs out of units” first is usually going to lose unless he is in a strong defensive position. Once a unit is at fatigue level 4 (F4), that unit is effectively out of the game for the current turn. Sure it can defend the hex it is in and even provide a flank bonus or cover a friendly flank. But it is a sitting duck against mobile opponents and vulnerable to being surrounded. When players start to realize this principle, you begin to look at attacks in terms of how many fatigues you are burning and how many you anticipate will be used up by your enemy. This principle is what makes low odds attacks useful. Though low odds attacks have a less than 50% chance of taking a hex, the chances are better than 50% that you will disorganize the defender which in most cases will leave the defending units at F4. In other words, you may not take the hex, but you will be "using" up your opponents battlefield resources (fatigues).
To understand this idea, an example is in order. Let’s say you have three divisions attacking a lone enemy division making a +2 attack. While this attack has a good chance of succeeding (taking the hex), it is also very likely that units from both sides will end up at F4 (assuming the defender is already at F1 or higher). Effectively, you have traded three of your units for one of you opponent’s. If you make enough of these attacks, most of your army will be “used up” and unable to react to enemy maneuvers. Alternatively, you could probably make a +0 attack with just one division. Again, the likely outcome would be that one division for each side would end up at F4 and the hex would be held by your opponent. However, you would still have two divisions available for use later in the turn and the defending unit would be disorganized and stuck. Thus, a +2 attack is not always as good as it looks at first. A side benefit of such a low odds attack is that you might get lucky and actually win the battle. So not only will you be making an even trade in terms of battlefield resources, you will occasionally gain the hex anyway. A related principle here is that sometimes two lesser attacks have a greater probability of at least one of the succeeding (causing a retreat) than one big attack. For example, two +1 attacks will get at least one +2 or better result about 66% of the time; a single +2 attack only succeeds 58% of the time.
When to use low-odds attacks
While I think the use of low odds attacks is important, you probably aren’t going to win any games if the only attacks you make are low odds attacks. This is because often, a low odds attack will "spend" more units on the attacking side than the defending side. Thus, if you only make low odds attacks, your battlefield resources will be used up faster than your opponents. So, the key is knowing when to use the low odds attack and when not to. Your use of low odds attacks needs to be part of a larger battle plan in which you eventually are in position to make better higher odds attacks.
Here is a list of situations in which the use of low odds attacks is potentially beneficial.
- Spoiling Attack:This attack is best made against a large stack of enemy units that is preparing to assault your unit. It is best used near the end of the turn, when your opponent is setting up for one final assault and needs several units to join in the attack to get a decent modifier. As your opponent is moving his units into position, if you can attack and disorganize (or even cause an F result) a few of the divisions with a low odds attack, he might call off his pending assault or be forced to make his own low odds attack.
- Exchange Attack:The goal of this attack is to “use up” enemy divisions by inflicting a D or F result putting the enemy units at F4. Ideally, you want to use fewer of your divisions than the stack you are attacking. Alternatively, if you have more units that your opponent, an even exchange is useful. (This idea is similar to the tactic in chess in which you exchange like pieces once you are ahead on “points.”) An exchange attack can be used as a defensive mechanism to limit your opponent’s ability to attack you later in the turn or as an offensive tactic to limit your opponent’s ability to react to your assaults later in the turn.
- The One-Two Punch:Many times you will find yourself in a situation in which it will take several divisions to generate a +2 or better attack against a key hex held by fewer divisions (perhaps due to entrenchment or superior leadership). Rather than risk using all your divisions at once, consider attacking in “piece meal.” This seems counter-intuitive at first because Civil War generals are often criticized for making failed piece meal attacks. However, the one-two punch can be useful if deployed effectively. First, make a low odds attack using a small part of your force. This attack should be +0 or better and odds are you will disorganize the defender. Not only will this pin the defending unit in place, it will reduce his strength by at least 33% (due to the disorganization). Thus, the second attack will be against a weakened defender. For example, if you have a 2.5:1 ratio, rather than make one 2:1 attack, you could make a 1:1 followed by a 1.5:.67 or 2:1 attack. Beware that the one-two punch is not fool proof. One reason that piece meal attacks didn’t work in the Civil War is that they allowed the defender to reinforce the weakened part of the line. So if you lose the initiative after your first attack, it is possible that the hex will be reinforced. However, you are probably in better shape than if you had attacked with all your divisions and ended your action phase with several disorganized divisions.
- The Pin and Flank:A genuine Napoleonic tactic was to pin the defender with a smaller force and then attack the defender’s flank with a larger flanking force. Using a low-odds attack to pin a defender in place can open up opportunities to flank a stationary F4 enemy unit. While the defender can react with other units, you’ve at least removed the unit that usually has the easiest time of avoiding a flank attack (the defending unit). As the defender in this situation, don't forget to voluntarily retreat if your unit suddenly becomes a sitting duck.
Don't Over Do It
While low odds attacks definitely have their place in your tactical tool box, if you rely soley on these types of attacks, you'll fall behind in the combat loss tallies. And since combat losses are always a source of VPs, you will have difficulty winning. One way to minimize combat losses, is to "game" the CRT column breaks. Attacking with 11 factors usually will be the same as with 12 in terms of a ratio modifier but you'll take fewer losses in the 7-11 column. Granted, for +0 and +1 attacks, you are usually looking at a 1D result, keeping an eye on the CRT can be useful at times.
Conclusion
When both players begin to utilize low odds attacks, the game takes on a deeper tactical flavor with more choices available to each side. For example, if you set-up a one-two punch attack, the defender might voluntarily retreat after the first attack, forcing your reserve force to move into the hex in order to take it. The counter to this strategy is to only attempt one-two punch attacks against hexes the defender has to hold. The key to using low odds attacks is knowing how much. Too many can result in a piling up of your losses but too few can result in missed opportunities to set-up the advantageous attack that will pay big divedends. If you've shied away from low odds attacks in the past, look for opportunities to use them--you will probably surprise your usual opponent!