PDA

View Full Version : What makes you a Good/Bad General?



tallyrand
10-29-2009, 09:33 PM
Time for a little bit of self analysis and introspection, I'll go first.

What makes me a Good General:

Know Your Enemy - I know, lots of people can't afford to get every new Codex as they get cranked out, and many people have little to no interest in poring over an army list that they will never ever play. But I try to keep current on all Codices as they come out, and actually read them, trying to think of every dirty and underhanded trick available before they get pulled on me. I must admit, I'm a bit behind at the moment, I dropped out of the game for a couple of years and just got back in, but I'm picking up a new one every week or two. This also helps keep sloppy or deceitful players from pulling the wool over your eyes, intentionally or not.

Post Game Analysis - At the FLGS I first started playing wargames at, it was not unusual to spend up to an hour analyzing the game afterward, What went right, what went wrong, what was the plan, and what was either spur of the moment, or sheer dumb luck. I think there I learned the most about how to win, and sometimes, more importantly, how not to loose.

Practice - it's not so much relevant post 3rd edition, but I used to practice guessing range and distance on the board, throwing a handful of dice across the table, and estimating the range between them all. As an aside, while reminiscing about the days of guessing range, my brother always wrote down all of his range guesses during the game, fore some reason this simple action shocked a lot of people.

What makes me a Bad General:

Troop Selection - I frequently choose troops not based on points, effectiveness, or strategy. Instead choosing units based on paint job, newness to my army, or hoping that this time, as opposed to every other time I ever fielded them, they will be as awesome as I hoped when I first bought them. This "Little Unit That Could" mentality has led to many misspent points in my army lists. Right now, I'm bound and determined to field Inquisitor based armies without Sisters or Grey Knights, so my little little foible is now carrying over to my entire army. I'm slowly coming over to the idea of running IG or Marines with Heavy Inquisitor Allies though. (But I'm not there yet)

Confuddled
10-30-2009, 12:37 AM
1) Foresight.

Kinda like chess, really.

Luck aside, each unit has a specific rate of movement and threat radius.

The further ahead you’re able to work out where and what any given unit will be doing, the better-off you are.



2) Flexibility.

Nice catch-all requirement, imho.

a) Considering the wide variety of possible opponents, armies and army lists, its usually not feasible to come up with a list that is going to perform equally well against all opponents.

So, you need to have an idea on how to get the most out of any given unit, irrespective of your opponent.

b) Seeing as how this is a game based on the rolling of dice, there will always be a measure of luck involved – there will be times when the dice just don’t work out.

The way I see it:

- A poor general ignores the averages.

- An average general plays the averages.

- A good general is able to minimise (or maximise) the damage when s**t happens.

c) On a related note, most players don’t really make all THAT many mistakes in a game – I’d really rather not rely on my opponent being a complete incompetent to win the game. ;)

The trick is to be able to magnify and exploit the other guy’s mistakes when he does make them. (I’ll concede that this is more a factor of list-building rather than actual gameplay, though)



3) Willingness to improve. (Couldn’t figure out a good word starting with “F”)

Any idiot can learn from his defeats.

The mark of good general, imho, is the player who can learn from his victories.

For instance, there’s a definite tendency for a player to downplay the effect of good luck on any given success, ascribing it to skill and/or tactical acumen.


Its usually fairly obvious if/when the dice are extreme (20 out of 30 hits when you need a 5+!).

Trick is when you roll just above average - you were taking a calculated risk, but are you able to acknowledge it afterwards?!)




Personally, I’d like to think that I’m ok with (1) and (2), but I really really need to work on (3). ;)

Lord Azaghul
11-02-2009, 08:07 AM
I think it boils down to three things, where you know the other codex' or not.

1: List building - try things, lots of things, find out what works best for you and is effecient, don't take 20 Stormtroops and try to use them to pin down the foe the first round of shooting, take 5 ratlings instead.

2: Target Priority: Shoot the fast stuff first, take out the antitank, target the large blast on the table...ect

3: Learn from your mistakes. If you don't so this, and blame your losses on other factors, you'll never be a good general

Nikephoros
11-02-2009, 06:08 PM
I think the strategic skill that separates the good from the bad the most is target priority. Not necessarily what Azaghul says though... I think your first thought should be "what units is my opponent going use to keep me from accomplishing the mission objectives, and what will he use himself to achieve his own objectives." Once those things are identified strategically, you can go about tactically addressing them.

Crotch Lictor
11-05-2009, 04:22 PM
I'll kick in what makes me a Bad General since that side is lacking:

Beer. Lots of it. Last time I stumbled halfway around the garage trying to avoid the table (which I pretty much did to the detriment of my arms, although I actually won that one).

I always have fun though.

Master Bryss
11-08-2009, 11:11 AM
Good points:

1) Know Thy Enemy- I don't just have near-all codexes, I also play near-all armies, allowing me to work out what strategies my opponent will use partially on what I've discovered that works.

2) Memory- I pretty much know every single Codex summary. This helps me stay well out of the way of stuff I recognise as very, very bad while assaulting units I'm confident I can beat.

3) Flexibility- My lists always tend to be able to deal with anything thrown at me.

Bad points:

1) Practice- A lot of the time I am so bored that I practise against myself. This can sometimes work against me as all of my actual opponents don't have my same thought process and I have to use different tactics.

2) Scale- For some bizarre reason I do better in smaller games (Combat Patrol- 1200pts) then I do in bigger ones. Maybe my mind can only cope with a certain number of units to do tactics with, all I know is that I've never lost a Combat Patrol and most 2000 pointers I play result in a loss.

Grabnutz
11-08-2009, 01:11 PM
Why do I usually lose 40K battles:
1) I love the theme more than the practicality of my armies.
2) I trust my opponents to be gentlemen.
3) I refuse to memorize more than twelve pages of rules. I believe it speaks volumes of a rules designer if he is unable to create a game that requires more than a dozen pages. It is just downright sloppy writing. But hey, all my mates play 40K, so I do too.

DarkLink
11-08-2009, 01:20 PM
Knowledge: Know how your army plays, what it can and cannot do. The same applies to your opponent, but to a slightly lesser degree. You should have an idea of what his units are capable of, but if you don't know every detail, don't worry. There is no substitute for experience.

Objectivism (not philosophical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand))): Look over the table and figure out what you really need to do to win. I often deploy on only one flank, away from my objective, or some similar odd deployment, just to mess with my opponent. It often works. My opponent won't look at the table objectively and will split his forces, or deploy in a poor position, giving me a greater chance of beating him, just because he didn't know how to handle my odd deployment.

Flexibility: You have to be able to deal with changing situations. You might start the game thinking "ok, I have to charge over and clear him off his objective", but halfway through the game you might realize that you need to go back and secure your own objective. If you're too focused on trying to accomplish your original objective, you'll probably loose.

Ming
11-08-2009, 08:11 PM
My fault is trying to always play with the units I have, not the units I should have. After all, 40K is an arms race. I have more ways to maximize the use of the tools I have, but sometimes I push thm to be more than they can resnably really accomplish.

What makes me good? Great attitude, organized, on time, always learning the opponent, and enjoys the hobby in all its forms. Read my blog at Bolter and Chainsword, for a weekly dish of tactical analysis and fun.

Shas'O D'Narb
11-10-2009, 08:43 AM
I think it's worth stressing that knowing armies, threat ranges, planning movements, etc, are only relevant if the commander remembers the mission at hand. It's very telling when a good commander handily beats a poor commander and the defeated thinks they almost won the match.

bonedale
11-10-2009, 09:51 AM
Knowing your enemy codex is #1 for me. Knowing the dirty tricks from your enemy codex, the popular builds, and uses of signature units, weaknesses. It's all in the codex and internet. For instance, I don't play SMs. But I know what is lists are winning these days and the abilities of every special character/HQ.

Using your Units is #2 for me. I see it all the time in my group, in online battle reports, and I find myself doing it. We build killer units all the time and don't toss them into the fray. We hold them back, sneak them around, carefully move them up, etc. Get them in so they can do their job and die!

Matchups is #3. Get the matchups you want, and stop the opponent from getting the ones they want. This is the hardest thing to do, but really want actual game play comes down to for me.

Make it fun #4. We talk smack, drink beer and have fun getting together. We dig deep into codexes to find all the little combos etc. But we don't propose idiotic rule interpretations, cheat in anyway, etc. We want to crush eachother's armies, but we do it fair and clever and never serious.