Surface Area III...Defensive Options

First, I have added a poll question to the right bar which I'd like to collect everyone's response.  Please let me know what you think.

The Player's Positions

Yellow: On the Defensive

It may seem Yellow has no actions when on the defensive, but there are things Yellow can do to adjust the mental state of their opponents.  This allows Yellow to control their opponent's actions to a degree.  However, first Yellow must come to terms with a given fact:
Yellow Will Lose Territory.


Inevitable Loss of Territory
Unless Yellow has an unusually large number of units compared to their opponents, it is not possible for Yellow to defend every space.  The following chart lists each color, their number of units, and their 'Army Density': how many troops may be spread evenly along each location adjacent to an enemy.

Player	Spaces	Surface Area	Army Density
Blue	15	5	3
Green	12	7	1 (5 Leftover)
Red	9	4	2 (1 Leftover)
Yellow	14	10	1 (4 Leftover)

Hex War Games - Right Unit for the Job

Generally speaking, when attacking or defending, the smartest action involves using the best unit type against the enemy unit.  These are not always clear cut, but the following recommendations make good generalization.

vs. Infantry
Unlike most of the other units, the power of infantry lies on the terrain it occupies.  If in the enemy is in the open, hit infantry with armor, artillery or air units.  In any other terrain, it requires a combination of units to bring infantry down.  This is due to the fact nearly every other terrain allows infantry to sneak behind and get close to the attacking unit, except in Open terrain where there is no cover.  In jungle terrain, infantry are the best unit to use against other infantry units, although mobility becomes difficult.

vs. Armor

When combating armor in open terrain, use artillery, anti-tank guns, and other armor to bring them down.    In the case of anti-tank guns, attempt to provide them concealment to ambush the tanks.  If given notice of where the AT guns are located, armor can either engage the enemy AT guns from a distance or stay out of reach and bypass them.  Even Self-Propelled AT Guns are only good in ambush as they must rotate the entire vehicle to engage the tank.

If armor is in a city or any other terrain type, infantry are by far the best unit.  When in enclosed terrain, such as cities or forests, tanks suffer from many blind spots.  Additionally, infantry can rise up from beneath the belly of the tank (think sewers or mines), or they can fire down from the tops of tall buildings. 

vs. Artillery

Best use against artillery is to get in close and hit it with anything.  Even during the Civil War, when artillery was armed with canister rounds which would shred infantry to pieces, the long reload time of artillery meant if the infantry held together they could usually take the pieces, if the artillery was unsupported.

Otherwise, the best unit to hit Artillery is probably air units or other artillery units.  If there is insufficient Air Defense units, artillery are a sitting duck for aircraft.  Artillery should be at the top of the list of units to destroy.  Without artillery, attacks will eventually falter and defenses will eventually fall.

Artillery does have one very weak spot that, if the game allows for it, should be exploited: the baggage train.  Armor can carry jerrycans of fuel and attacks generally have enough fuel to attack in and, if it falters, flee back.  Infantry can carry days or weeks worth of supplies, plus small infantry units can always "live off the land" if there is sufficient livestock nearby.  And in close in fighting a person with a pitchfork can be as deadly as a man with a pistol.

Artillery, however, must have a constant supply of ammunition to be effective.  Furthermore, the munitions themselves are explosives.  Destroying this "baggage train" of explosives, or even disrupting the supply line for a turn or two, can remove artillery's effectiveness and leaves the artillery canon unscathed for capture.

vs. Air Units

The effectiveness of Air Units will differ depending on the era.  WWI aircraft were effective at spotting for Artillery, tracking enemy movements and possibly attacking ammunition depots.  The ability to track enemy movements was, by itself, enough of a threat to make taking down aircraft an important goal.  One important development in WWI aircraft was the creation of specialized "roles": Fighters, Bombers, Spotters, and Recon.

By WWII aircraft came into their own.  American aircraft were the primary means by which they defeated the Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN).  Strategic Bombing changed the face of warfare, bringing the concept of "total war" to fruition, making every person a subject to the pains of war.

There are two primary defenses against Aircraft: Air Defense Guns (AD, includes Surface to Air Missiles for purposes of this discussion) and other fighter aircraft.  Of the two, fighter aircraft are the most effective at shooting down other fighters in interception-based engagements.  However, AD can be extremely effective in defense of a given point.

This sounds confusing, but basically AD guns are static and can only defend a given area around the gun.  Aircraft have the ability of engaging the incoming enemy at any point in the enemy flight path, as long as the enemy can be identified.  Thus, if defending a given point or unit, such as a supply depot, large numbers of AA units surrounding the area will provide adequate defense.  If the need is to attack high flying bombers out of the range of AD units, other aircraft become a necessity.

vs. Ships

The best units against ships is a submarine.  But against a fleet of ships, I recommend aircraft.  Left to their own devices, the best way to attack a ship is to put a submarine just off the path of the ship.  The submarine simply waits, and then ambushes the ship, remaining silent and hidden the entire time.  The trick becomes predicting what the enemy ship's path will be, as the enemy will zig-zag the course.  Although capable of moving underwater, submarines are to slow to catch even the smallest of ships without surfacing, thereby losing their advantage.

The second best method is with Aircraft, if they are available.  Aircraft can fly high above the target, and attack ships with either bombs or torpedoes.  If in a fleet, aircraft will have to attack en masse, relying on numbers to sink or damage the target.  Once spotted, a single aircraft will have difficulty escaping a fleet of specially armed AA destroyers, and if a carrier is nearby, one can expect a swarm of fighters to flood the area.

If playing prior to the introduction of aircraft or submarines, the best way to engage a ship is with a larger ship.  In the age of sail, positioning or "crossing the T" may make up the difference.  In this case, it is not the larger ship which makes the difference, but the number of canons which can be brought to bear on the enemy ship/fleet at one time.  This is much harder to calculate, and where one must use judgement.

vs. Submarines

Post-WWII, the best anti-submarine weapons is another submarine, preferably an attack submarine.  In a pinch: aircraft, destroyers, and even some cruisers have anti-submarine weaponry.  During diesel age of submarines, the best weapon was the aircraft.  A submarine was force to charge its batteries and much of its "strategic" movement was performed on the surface.  Aircraft were best at ambushing these machines while they were on the surface.  In all those cases, however, their effectiveness depends on number of units, quality of units, and luck.

Oddly, submarines are the best way to sink an enemy submarine, but a fleet of anti-submarine ships is the best way to suppress a submarines.  Place enough anti-submarine ships between the submarine and its desired target, and the submarine may give up.    Once detected, submarines must go defensive, their ability to attack diminishes greatly.    While a single ship attempts to engage the submarine, the fleet slips away.  Aircraft cannot maintain the constant contact and attack runs against submarines like specialized Anti-sub destroyers.

It is necessary to therefore determine the objective when dealing with submarines: is it to sink the submarine, or to protect the fleet.  If the former, it may require multiple ships, at the expense of leaving the fleet insufficiently guarded, and the submarine may still escape.  In the latter, it may take one or two fast destroyers and the fleet or convoy is perfectly safe.  Destroying a submarine may "feel good" to a player, but if it prevents the fleet from arriving on time to save the land troops, consider the victory a defeat.

vs. Cavalry

Cavalry represent a special case.  Cavalry combine elements of submarines and armor.  The best counter against cavalry in a straight up fight is infantry.  A solid infantry square of poorly led troops still  has good odds of defeating a cavalry charge.  This is because cavalry, once removed from their horses, are weak infantry.  Like armor, cavalry units need to engage units in the open, as the forest terrain breaks up the formation too much, while swamps, jungles and mountains will damage the mounts.  Unlike Armor, cavalry can rarely perform true 'breakthrough' attacks independently and wait for infantry reinforcements. Cavalry historically are used to either pin the enemy down until reinforcements arrive, harass the enemy baggage train, or finish off retreating units after they have already been routed.

However, Cavalry can provide fast support where needed.  This requires another quick unit to intercept and engage them before they can provide that support.  In this case, the best unit is another cavalry unit.  However, Cavalry on Cavalry exchanges will result in heavy losses from either other, and it is not always easy to determine which side will suffer.  Often times, simply engaging the cavalry to slow them down is enough to counteract their effects.  Thus, Cavalry can be a 'situation' unit, one which may be incredibly useful if in play, or completely ineffective.

Hex War Games - Strategy Part XV - Protecting Artillery

Alluded to in the earlier article was the necessity of protecting artillery, particularly through 'pairing'.  I received some emails asking for examples of what I mean, so this article will explore the concept further.

For this article we will make the following assumptions:

• It is desirable to protect Artillery from attacks on the front and frontal-flank positions.
• Artillery has a minimum range of 3 hexes and maximum of 4 hexes

Unpaired Artillery
In the diagram below, the artillery is unpaired. each artillery unit has its own guard of 3 tanks each to prevent the enemy from attacking the artillery units.

Unpaired Artillery

An advantage for this configuration is each artillery unit and its guarding units are autonomous.  They may move around the board as needed.  The major drawback is the number of units required to protect the artillery.  In limited unit games, it is nice to have as many units assaulting as possible.  This configuration requires 6 units be used to protect the 2 artillery.

Loosely Paired
Moving the artillery units just two spaces closer together, the artillery becomes 'paired'.  Paired artillery share the same guarding units.  In this case, the center tank is a shared defensive unit.

Loosely Paired Artillery

Although it seems like the center unit would be a weak point, for if it were to fall than both units are exposed.  However, it is actually a strong point.  Both artillery units can call down fire onto that hex directly in front of it, subjecting the enemy to a withering fire.  Lastly, this defense requires only 5 units rather than the initial 6, freeing up an additional unit.

Tightly Paired 
Moving the artillery units closer by a single hex reduces the number of guard units by one yet again.  The artillery units are now tightly paired, but now the number of guarding units is 4, freeing up yet another unit for other duties.  If the enemy were to assault the two frontal units, both artillery could be used to protect either unit.

Tightly Paired

Compact Paired 
A final configuration for protecting artillery units exists, the compact paired.  in this case, the artillery units use only three guardians.  The artillery units must be in adjacent hexes for this configuration to work, as shown in the diagram below.

Compact Paired

Although the guarding units are shown in a non-symmetrical configuration, they can be arranged with overlapping ZOCs if desired.  However, the shown configuration above does allow for 'leapfrogging' artillery (by one space) and still maintaining the defensive arrangement.  To perform the maneuver, the center tank would "shift" one hex to the upper right while the rearmost artillery and its flank covering tank move up one hex.

Compact Paired Artillery - Leapfrog Moving 

Hex War Games - Strategy Part XII - Know the Units

Offensive Advice -- Finally!
Given the feedback I've received, I should probably make the title larger and italicize it.  However, this article may not cover the 'tactics' everyone is interested in, but again, we must start with the basics.

Know the Units
Knowing the individual units is critical to any form of offense and defense.  In some games, there is little to no difference.  For example, in the game 'Here I Stand', all units are effectively the same based on type.  All Naval Units have the same value, all ground units have the same characteristics.  Only the Ottomans have any different 'types' of units with their Cavalry and Pirate ships.  This does reflect the organizational units of the time.

For most games, units exhibit significant differences.  Regardless of era, these can usually be categorized in the following way:

Infantry - Infantry form the basic unit of every army.  Infantry perform nearly every task equally well, except for naval actions.  Infantry can hold a position defensively, and are expected to assault enemy positions with equal vigor.  Normally, the basic infantry are better at defending a position than attacking a position and so in infantry 'Quantity beats quality' tends to exist.

Armor - Armor units represent units with heavier armament and usually take more effort to bring down.  In modern usage, armored units consist of tanks, self propelled anti-tank guns, and armored personnel carriers.  However, I would argue armor has always existed.  In ancient times Chariots could be considered armor.  During medieval times, Heavy Knights would constitute as armored units.  When looking at ancient Greek city-states, the Greek Heavy Infantry (Phalanx)  could be considered armored units.

Armor units usually do well in offense and not so well on defense.  Usually armored units must travel in larger groups for safety, and so they don't do well where terrain would force the units to space out too much.  Forests, Mountains, and Broken Terrain are anti-thesis to armored units.

Cavalry - Cavalry units perform the role of recon, scout, and follow up after an attack.  Cavalry rarely engages in fights until the battle is over, or nearly over.  Cavalry units tend to move fast and perform 'hit and run' tactics.  Left on their own, cavalry forces will fall to any other unit quickly if it is a sustained operation.  This makes cavalry effective as an attacking force, but not in a 'head-to-head' way.  Cavalry should strike behind enemy lines, at the baggage train or supply lines of the enemy.  They move faster than other units and should strike quickly.  Cavalry can operate over most terrain types effectively.

A common misconception is 'units on horses = calvary unit'.  Heavy Knights often lack the long term speed and endurance necessary for cavalry.  They may execute a 'cavalry charge', but that does not make them cavalry.

Sappers/Engineers - Sappers, or Engineers, perform very specialized roles.  Their combat ability is often rudimentary, if not worse, than common units.  However, they make up for it by having better fortifications or being able to assault fortified positions.  In game terms, these units often have superior attack and defense values than other units in the game.  Sappers require extensive training and specialized equipment to perform their job.  Sappers/Engineers usually fortify a position, or prepare the assault on a position, and then other units perform the defense/assault.  In proper use, Sappers/Engineers will be committed to a battle only after all other units have failed and success hinges on sheer numbers.

Skirmisher Units - Skirmishers, at their most basic, are slower moving cavalry.  They move quicker than the main body of infantry, but are not as strong in either attack or defense as other units.  Skirmishers operate best in difficult terrain and over longer distances.  Skirmishers don't 'hold the line' but 'extend the line'.  A common use for Skirmishing units is to fill in the defensive gaps of the main units.  However, this is not how they are designed to be used.  Skirmishers should harass the enemy from the sides, provide flanking attack bonuses for other units, or exploit a newly created hole and attack unguarded artillery.

Archers/Snipers (Ranged) - Archer units are units with exceptional attack range which are not armored.  Archer units are often weak up front, but their power is to support the main units, bringing fire to bear from a distance.  In the case of modern warfare, where every unit carries guns, the Archer can be considered 'snipers'.  Snipers typically can shoot from much further away than their rifle armed comrades, and with great accuracy.  There is a fine line between Archers and Artillery units, usually depending on the era.  In Ancient times, bowman may be considered as Artillery, whereas in medieval times bowman would be Archers and canon fill the role of artillery

Artillery - Artillery units are another unit I would argue have always existed.  The primary duty of Artillery is to fire from a distance on enemy units.  Later uses for Artillery include the ability to assault, or soften, fortifications.

Traditionally, artillery units affect large areas of space over a long distances, and are weak, or useless, in a close fight.  In some ways, ancient bowman fit this bill as they were used to rain down arrows over an area from a distance.  English Longbowman could be considered an artillery unit of its time, although they also performed the Sniper role.

Siege - Siege units perform the roles necessary to assault enemy fortifications.  Many other types of units may perform the siege role, including artillery and sappers.  Regardless, siege units are required for the taking of fortified objectives.  Catapults, Trebuchets, explosive barrels, and towers are all forms of siege weapons.  Siege units need extra protection from attack.  Even Sappers, which may be a good fighting force normally, usually require extra protection when they constructing tunnels (sapping) under the enemy walls.

Naval - Naval units move on, or under, the water.  That seems pretty basic, but usually naval units are critical to a war plan either as fire support or to protect the supply lines.  Naval units come in many types, but often they perform the same role as an equivalent ground unit (ex: Battleships = artillery, destroyers = Cavalry, etc.)

Air - Air units move through the air.  Like naval units, they may perform other roles (helicopters = cavalry, bombers = artillery/siege, etc.).  There are two major distinctions with Air units, however.  First, Air units normally require a base to which they must return, whereas naval units can remain at sea for extended periods of time.  Secondly, Air units are very responsive and have an incredible reach.  Terrain does not affect movement of Air units, although weather might.  However, Weather affects ground, sea, and air units.

Submarines form an interesting blend of naval and sea units.  Submarines travel beneath the waves, much as aircraft travel above them.  Submarines can remain at sea for extended periods of time, unlike aircraft.  Submarines perform the duty of skirmishers and sniper.  Unlike other units, submarines rely on stealth and the ability to slink away unseen.  They are the only unit which may be completely bypassed without incident, moving unseen to strike without warning.

Hex War Games - Strategy Part XI - Why Study Defense?

I've received several emails asking to start talking about offense.  A few comments from emails received include (I will not reveal who emailed them, and spelling mistakes are included):

• 'Why study defense, offense is where it is at?'
• 'Come on!  Get to the Offense!'
• 'Enought with the Defense, get to the good stuff.'
• 'Defense is booooorrrrinnnnggg!'

First, thanks for all the feedback, emails and comments.  I enjoy hearing from everyone, so please keep it up.  Second, starting next week we will begin studying the basics of Offense, but I'm taking this time to describe why understanding Defense is so critical.

Defense: The Universal Constant

Defense is the one aspect of combat all sides of a conflict are involved in, even the attacker.  The reason being not every unit can attack at all times.  A player who constantly attacks without repair and refit results in understrength units that cannot maintain the impetus for battle.  Even attackers must, at some point in time, stop to gather their forces together at a common location.  During this time, the attacking units are vulnerable unless they can effectively defend themselves.  So everyone, even the side which was the 'attacker' must go defensive at some point in time.

Defense Wins Wars, Offense Wins Battles

In long, drawn out affairs, it is possible to achieve a Pyrrhic Victory, a victory in the battlefield which eventually leads to the destruction of the war.  Indeed, the term "Pyrrhic Victory' comes from the King Pyrrhus of Epirus when fighting the Romans during the Pyrrhic Wars (c. 280 BC).  After two battles in which King Pyrrhus attacked and defeated the Romans, he had insufficient men to continue on, and this led to not only to the defeat of his nation, but to the conquering by Rome of all of Italy and Greece.¹


But what of more modern cases of Defense winning wars and Offense Winning Battles?  In WWI the Germans attacked brilliantly with the Ludendorf offensive in 1918.   Their offensive operations tore through the countryside and defeated the enemy.  Unfortunately for the Germans, their units overextended their supply lines and they had to come to a halt.  By the time they were ready to renew the offensive, the Americans had arrived with over 250,000 fresh troops and the French had time to prepare a trap for the Germans.  When the German assault began again, the Germans were disastrously defeated.  In the first phase, the Germans lost near 230,000 casualties, in the renewed offensive they lost 3 times that number.²

Understanding Defense Leads to Better Offense

If, in the process of gaming, you develop 'The Ultimate Defense', simply wait.  Eventually someone will come along and ask you to play 'the other side' in the game and use your own Ultimate Defense against you.  Knowing the Ultimate Defense and how it works, you should have a better idea how to defeat it.  Of course, once your opponent sees how to defeat it, she will use that against you in the next game.  And so 'The Ultimate Defense' will need to evolve.


The key here is understanding how the defense works leads to better ways to counter it.  Warfare, like game play, evolves.  Only by playing and understanding both (or all) sides in a conflict does game play improve.


I remember often playing as the Warsaw Pact forces in a game called FEBA (now Tac Air).  The game was horribly unbalanced in terms of units.  NATO Forces were virtually undefeatable even when outnumbered 3 to 1.  Placing two NATO armored units next to each other created an impregnable wall and so my opponent always chose that option.  The key, as I learned, was to pick a sacrificial unit of mine and use its ZOC to force the NATO units to either separate or engage that single unit.  If separated, I would then overwhelm first one unit then the other.  If they came after the sacrificial unit, the rest of my army would bypass them, leaving the unit to its doom, but continuing the advance to the objective.  Only by understanding the defense could I shape my strategy to overcome it. 

Conclusion

I hope this explains the importance associated with understanding defense.  If looking for 'better offensive tactics to win', I recommend reviewing the defensive blog entries again and indepth.  Understanding how the defense works, its limitations, and why the opponent moves units into a particular place will better assist in determining how to defeat it.


With that, I promise the next blog entry will begin covering Offensive Operations.


References
I recommend researching the above battles at the local library.  Given the propensity of the web, I suggest reading the sites if library research is not desired.
1: http://www.unrv.com/empire/pyrrhic-war.php
2: Ludendorf Offensive

Hex War Games - Strategy Part X - Oblique ZOC Defenses

The previous article discussed ZOC defenses from a Head-On assault.  This article reviews the same defenses, but from oblique assault and rear assault angles.

Assault Positioning
A Head-On assault occurs if the shortest distance between the attacking unit and the objective hex is parallel to the defending unit's retreat path.  An Oblique assault occurs when the attacking unit's shortest distance to the objective is not parallel to the defender's retreat path.  There are generally two oblique paths: Forward Oblique and Rear Oblique.  In this case the attacking unit attacks 'at an angle' to the defender's line of retreat.  Lastly, the attacking unit may come directly along the defending units line of retreat, this is called a Rear Assault.

Assault Positions

Superior and Inferior ZOC Defenses
In oblique assaults, the location of the defending unit has an additional element to consider: Positioning.  A position may be in either Superior or Inferior position.  A diagram of the Inferior and Superior position is provided in the diagram below:

ZOC Defenses on Forward Oblique Assaults

Superior defensive positions allow the defender to immediately counterattack if the defender must retreat.  Inferior positions means if the defending unit retreats, it must move before launching a counter attack.  Another way to view superior/inferior positioning is if the defending unit is forced to retreat, does the objective hex remain in the defender's ZOC?  If the answer is 'Yes', it is a Superior Position, and if it is 'No' it is an Inferior Position.

Rear Oblique Assault ZOC Defense Positions

Rear Assault Positions

Normally, assaults along the defender's line of retreat are considered ideal for the attacker and bad for the defender.  This is definitely a situation to be avoided if possible, but when viewed on a unit-on-unit basis, rear assaults leave the defender with all superior positions.  This is because if the attacking unit forces the defender to retreat, the defender moves to a location adjacent to the attacker and may counterattack next turn.

Rear Assault ZOC Positions

Rules Benefiting Superior ZOC Positioning

Two types of rules in games are greatly affected by Superior/Inferior positioning.  The first type of game is when the player has a limited number of units which may move each turn.  In this case, having a unit in a Superior position means the player does not have to spend vital points moving the defending unit into position, allowing the player to move other unit's, hopefully bringing them closer to the objective hex.

A second, and more common game rule, is when a unit may either Move or Fire on a turn, but not both.  Usually this impacts artillery units, but some games have infantry units which are 'green' or 'low grade' and may only perform one of the actions.  In this case, being in a superior position is critical to ensuring the unit may counter attack next turn.  If the unit retreats from an inferior position, it will not get to attack on the following turn, as it will spend it's turn moving into position.

Lastly, games with 'line of sight' combat restrictions for artillery may suffer from a type of Superior/Inferior effect.  Normally, artillery units cannot fire 'blindly' at the target hex, it must be in line of sight by a friendly unit to come under fire.  If the defender is hoping to 'call in artillery' on the enemy unit, but the unit is forced to retreat from a position and, in doing so, loses line of sight to the attacker, then the position may be considered 'inferior'.

Choosing Not to Attack
In games where the Attacking unit has the choice of whether to attack a unit or not, the player may choose not to attack if the defending unit is in a Superior Position.  In these games there is usually a possibility of the attacking unit being damaged during the assault or retreating.  If the attacker attacks a superior position, it risks damaging the attacking unit twice, once during the attacker's turn and a second time during the defending unit's turn.  If the objective is to take the hex, why take a second risk?

For inferior ZOC defensive positions, it is usually recommend the attacker make the attack unless the odds are the attacking unit will be wiped out, or if the defender occupies strong defense bonus terrain.  In this case, the attacker may drive the defender away from the hex and force the defending player to spend valuable time or resources moving the unit before the attack.

The decision to attack or not, if permitted, will depend on many factors.  But Inferior/Superior positioning is an additional consideration.

Games with Definite Superior/Inferior Effects

Nearly any game with retreat rules has some form of Superior/Inferior effects.  One of the more basic version is Memoir '44.  In Memoir '44, Artillery units cannot move and attack.  Thus, if forced to retreat, they may not be able to counter attack on the enemy unit, at least, not at full strength.

There are several other games I've played, most of which I can't remember the name of, whose retreat rules caused Superior/Inferior effects.  One whose name I can't remember was a Napoleonic battles game.  In the game I remember there were limited number of unit's permitted to move, and artillery required line of sight by a friendly unit.  I vividly recall placing a unit in good natural defensive terrain, but in an inferior position.  Odds were the unit would survive the combat untouched.  As the dice would have it, the unit was forced to withdraw and I spent many precious actions trying to get the unit back into position and attack.  I would have been better of placing the unit in a superior position and letting the attacker drive the unit into a position where it could automatically counter attack.  Eventually I lost that game, but learned a valuable lesson.

I'm curious what other games exist which have superior/inferior type effects.  If you know of any, please leave a comment with the name of the game.

Hex War Games - Strategy Part IX - ZOC Defenses

Protecting a Target Hex

Since ZOC affects both movement and combat, it may be viewed as a type of ‘Terrain’.  Unlike most terrain, ZOC terrain moves around the map as the unit’s move.  The movement of a single unit with ZOC can greatly impact the mobility of the opposing army.  This article will discuss effects of various arrangements dealing with ZOCs.

For these examples, we will deal with the most common ZOC available:

• Entering an enemy ZOC ends movement.

Additionally, a few other ground rules are necessary to establish:

• Attacking and defending units are limited in number (no reinforcements),
• The attacking units are attempting to reach the position(s) marked with an X,
• All attacking and defending units may move a maximum of 4 hexes per turn,
• For retreating purposes, the defending unit must retreat closer to the bottom of the map.

Defending Positions of a Hex

A unit may protect a given target hex three basic ways:

A – Preemptive Defense,
B – Last Ditch Defense,
C – Counter Attack Defense

Defense Positions

Some hexes may hold more than one type of defensive position depending on the Natural Terrain.  The diagram below shows a single attacking unit, the target hex, and the defensive positions in the surrounding hexes.

Preemptive Defense

The position marked ‘A’ is a purely preemptive defense.  Preemptive defenses have several advantages over the other types of defense.  Preemptive defenses require the enemy engage the defending unit before moving on to the objective hex, or taking extra time to bypass the unit.  For games which are timed, this is an excellent method of stretching the game out.  Even if the rules allow for “advance after combat”, the enemy unit may not take the objective location on this turn.

Bypassing the Preemptive Defense

If the game has retreat rules the defending unit may retreat to the objective hex due to combat results.  On the next turn, the unit is already in position for a Last Ditch Defense.  This may result in the enemy not moving on a subsequent round, again, controlling the flow of the enemy unit.

Preemptive Defense Retreat

A common drawback to the Preemptive Defense is the location of the hex “A”.  Usually the hexes where one would plant a preemptive Defense has the weakest Natural Terrain.  This is not so much a quirk of fate, as the reason the enemy is approaching from that direction in the first place.  If the objective were more readily reached from another direction, then the enemy would attack from that direction.  This means the defending unit in a Preemptive Defense receives no Defensive Bonus.  If this is the case, the defending unit may become a sacrificial unit, expected to simply delay the enemy.

Although the terrain bonus may not be the best, the Preemptive defense can be crucial when friendly units need two turns to move and engage the enemy.  This results in a Delaying Tactic may provide the time necessary for those forces to arrive and save the objective.

Last Ditch Defense

The ‘B’ marked on the objective identifies the Last Ditch Defense.  In this case, the enemy may march right up to the objective, but must fight the defending unit to take the objective.  Often times the objective hex has greater natural defensive advantages, so it seems reasonable to place a unit in Last Ditch Defense.  If sufficiently fortified, the enemy unit may spend turns besieging the hex before finally taking it.  Some games do provide the attacker bonuses to the attack based on the attacking terrain.  For these games, a Last Ditch Defense gives the attacker three options to attack from, and therefore some control over how the ensuing battle may end.

Last Ditch Defense and Retreat Positions

A danger does exist to the Last Ditch Defense if the game rules allow for Advance After Combat. In this case, if the enemy drives the defending unit out, the enemy may immediately take the objective hex.  If retreat rules are in place, the defender should end up in one of the hexes marked ‘C’.  They then find themselves in the position to counterattack on the following turns.

Counter Attack Defense

The positions marked ‘C’ are not designed to stop a unit from occupying the objective.  Instead, the unit launches a counter attack after the location is occupied.  This type of ‘defense’ usefulness occurs when the unit occupying the objective hex suffers a terrain penalty, such as tanks occupying a city.  The danger of such a defense is if the counter attack fails, the objective hex is left under the attacker's control.

Dual Defense Hexes

Positions marked ‘A/C’ may be either A or C type defenses depending on the natural terrain.  The opposing unit may avoid the zone of control of the defending unit, if the natural terrain allows quick movement for the opposing unit.  The movement is as follows:

Bypassing the Dual Space Defense Positions (A/C)

This defense is great if the natural terrain the attacker must travel to reach the objective prevents it from reaching it in one turn and the Natural Terrain in position A/C has greater defense bonuses than the hex in just position A.  Forests and rivers make great Natural Terrain limiters to movement.

Even if the defending unit is bypassed, the defender is now in a position to initiate a counter attack from its current hex.  If the defender is forced to retreat, the defender still finds itself in one of the original Counterattack Defense position.

Hex War Games - Strategy Part VII - Bends In The Line

Bends in the line become inevitable as the battles develop.  Understanding how the bends affect combat can impact the defensive configuration chosen.  There are three basic configurations that permit bends in the line

• V-Bend
• A-Bend
• Wave-Bend

V-Bend

A V-Bend consists of a single bend with the attacking force entering the inside "V" of the formation.  A benefit of this formation is it reduces the attacking force to a 1:1 ratio.  The weak point of this formation is the flanks.  It is usually necessary to place two strong defensive units as the anchor units.

V-Bend Formation

A-Bend
The A-Bend is the reverse of the A-Bend.  At first glance it appears to provide the same type of benefit as the V-Bend.

A-Bend Formation

In reality, the A-Bend formation suffers from a distinct disadvantage.  The lead unit can come under attack from three different directions.  This can eventually lead to a break in the unit which destroys the formation.

A-Bend Formation-Concentrated Fire

Since the first unit becomes the weak point in the formation, the lead unit usually requires the strongest unit lead the attack.  Another option for the attack is to have the middle units be the strongest available and the front unit being a sacrificial unit.  If the front unit is not sufficiently threatening, however, the defender can revert to the unit-to-unit attack.  It is critical to realize, if in a head-to-head fight, assaulting a V-Bend formation requires an A-Bend formation.

Wave-Bend
The Wave-Bend consists of an alternating V and A bends so the units form a "wave".  The major disadvantage to this arrangement is it provides no great benefit in either attack or defense.  Similarly, the formation needs to be attacked in a wave formation.  Usually this formation requires units alternate in strength, with the weaker units behind the stronger units.

Wave Formation

Hex War Games - Strategy Part VI - Map Edge

Rarely in the world is the coastline hundreds of miles long and in a straight line.  There are even fewer places where forest, mountains or swamps transition right up to the sea.  In Hex Based war games, however, this seems to be the norm since every games has an edge, beyond which pieces cannot be attacked.  So, how can the map edge be used as an advantage, or disadvantage, to the pieces in the game.  We will discuss map edge effects in this article.

Map Edge Combat Effects
The edge of the board acts like a completely reinforced wall no unit may pass.  At most a unit may be attacked from four sides.  If forming a line along the grain, the board makes an excellent anchoring point.  Two configurations for anchoring on the edge exist:  On the Bulge or Off the Bulge.

Configurations for Anchoring on a Map Edge

When anchored Off The Bulge, some unit along the line may be attacked from two adjacent locations.  If anchoring the line On The Bulge, each unit may only be attacked a single time.  Thus, anchoring On The Bulge provides a better defense than Off The Bulge.

A final possible configuration is to have the line formed Off The bulge, but one unit jutting forward towards the enemy.  This creates a Bend in the line, but the addition of the unit allows the line to form On The Bulge and still reduce the attack to a 1-to-1 ratio.

Off The Bulge with an Advanced Unit

Hex War Games - Strategy Part V - Off the Grain Defenses

So far I've discussed defenses going with the grain.  On the grain defenses are generally better than "off the grain" defenses, and this article will discuss why Off the grain is worse, and compare the only truly effective "off the grain" defense.

Optimum Off Grain
Other than placing a unit on every hex, similar to the "ideal" defense, the next best defense is to place a unit with one hex gap between each unit.  This arrangement looks like the following:

Optimum Off Grain Defense

Although it looks similar to the Most Efficient On-Grain defense, there is an important difference in the hexes surrounding the unit.  In this configuration each defending unit may be adjacent to three enemy units.  In a best case scenario, the enemy attacks each unit 2:1, but one unit may be attacked 3:1, as shown in the diagram below:

3/2/2 Attack on Optimum Off Grain Defense

 I consider the above to be best case only in relation to the worst case scenario in which every other unit comes under fire at 3:1 odds and the remaining units come under 1:1 attack.  This configuration is shown below:

3/1/3 Attack on Optimum Off Grain Defense

When attacked with a 3/2/2 it will usually lead to a "roll up" of the flanking units.  In the 3/1/3, it will create multiple breaches at a time.
Breaching Optimum Off-Grain Defense
A breach anywhere along the Off-Grain Defensive line leads to a difficult to contain situation:

Off-Grain Breach

If two or more of these breaches occur along the line simultaneously, not uncommon given a 3/1/1 attack, it can lead to isolated units which can be quickly surrounded and destroyed.

Hex War Games - Strategy Part IV - Most Efficient Defense

This article will describe the most efficient arrangement of units for defense.  I have heard this referred to as the "optimum defense", but I consider it the most efficient as that is what it is: It provides the best maximum coverage with minimum exposure to fire.

Most Efficient Defense
The most efficient defense consists of units with one hex distance between them.  It is rare a player has enough units to perform the "ideal defense".  Usually the player has a limited number of units to cover a given area.  The objective then becomes, how best to make use of these units.  The Most Efficient Defense (MED) does just that.  A sample of the MED is shown below:

Most Efficient Defense

Normally, games have a zone of control (ZOC) which prevents units from moving from directly between two units on the first turn.  Thus, on the first turn, each unit may only be attacked by the units directly in front of it.  If a unit does manage to penetrate in the space between two units, it now finds its self being attacked from the front and the rear, an unenviable situation.   In most cases, a good player will have a "reserve" unit hopping between the gaps and bringing withering fire down on any unit attempting to move between two units.

In a purely mathematical exercise, a line of X units can "take up space" equal to 2X+1 hexes wide, but can only come under attack from 2X opponents on the first turn. Thus, 3 units would form a line capable of defending line 7 hexes wide, but they would hold off 6 units on the first turn.

Breaching MED
The MED is a great static defense for holding space with limited units.  However, being outnumbered 2:1 every turn will eventually lead to a breach, as depicted below:

MED-Breached

 If left without maneuvering, the defense falls apart.  Each of the remaining units can come under attack from 5 sides, and a 'corridor" exists which leads to the hard of the units.  Units are rarely immovable.

The best counter to the situation where a breach occurs is for each unit to move one hex to "close the gap". If performed, this effectively restores the line to its initial condition, albeit it the 'ends' of the lines are shortened by one space.  In the example diagram, the two units would move one hex closer and the situation is restored.

Proactive Movements
Many defenses are not static, but allow the units to "move".  The MED forces the opponent to choose an area of attack, and the defender may quickly react to "close the line" into an ideal or hybrid ideal at the point of greatest threat.  The following diagrams shows how the lines can quickly collapse to protect from a threat from any direction.

Collapsing lines to the Left (Collapsing to the Right is a mirror image)

Collapse to the Center

 This brings the maximum amount of firepower and depth to quickly come to aid of units under attack.  If necessary, units may also "collapse backwards" to achieve the same results with a loss of one hex of territory.

Hex War Games - Strategy Part III - Nuclear Defense

Back in college (and before) I played lots of hex grid war gaming against various opponents.  Against one opponent in particular the armies would "advance" in a very wide formation with lots of space between units. I finally couldn't understand why he advanced his units in that way (and only in certain game), so I finally asked him what the heck was going on.

The answer was one I never suspected, "Because we have nukes."  I stared at him dumbfounded until he explained, in great detail, how the nuclear/chemical rules greatly affected his thinking.  We debated (argued more likely) passionately about the benefits/cost of the units until we agreed on few neutral points:

1. It provided a minimal benefit in a static situation
2. If maneuvering is not performed, it is easily overcome.
3. It usefulness in any game which does not include Nuclear/chemical weapons is questionable
4. It does count as a 'defense' in the strictest sense of the word.
5. It became known as the 'Nuclear Defense', although I tend to call it the 'Nuclear Advance'.

For completeness of the discussion on Hex defense, this article will discuss the benefits and drawbacks of the 'Nuclear Defense'.

Nuclear Defense
The idea of the Nuclear Defense is to prevent large numbers of units from being wiped out by nuclear or chemical weapons.  Other than a single unit by itself, this is probably the worst for of defense along the grain possible.  A Nuclear Defense consists of units separated by two hexes of distance, as shown below:

Nuclear Defense/Worst Line Defense

This defense permits each unit to be surrounded and attacked on five sides at a time.  If the distance were any greater, the attacking units could move to completely surround each unit and attack on all six sides.  It is from this slight reduction in number of attacking units that we determined it was a form of 'defense'.  This configuration does provide some defense, albeit not much better than none at all.

Nuclear Defense Uses
In war games occurring in the modern era, there is one advantage to the Nuclear Defense.  Usually the game permits the release of 'tactical nukes' or 'chemical weapons'.  These nuclear/chemical weapons have an incredible impact on groupings of enemy units, usually wiping out or severely damaging all areas in the central hex and adjacent hexes.  In situations where nuclear/chemical weapons are potentials, it is advisable to not group units.  In this case, the 'Nuclear Defense' usually prevents the destruction of more than a single unit with nuclear/chemical weapons.

The question becomes, are nuclear/chemical weapons that much of a threat.  Testing this invovled my friend and I setting up several conditions for releasing nuclear weapons and seeing what effect it had on the battlefield.  Normally, we employed the following rules:

1. We ignored terrain effects for movement prior to nuclear launch.
2. We permitted firing of nuclear/chemical weapons without penalty.
3. Friendly units could not be within 2 hexes of an affected hex.  

Under these conditions, the Nuclear Defense worked reasonably well at preventing a tactical nuclear warhead from devastating an army.  I would typically lose 2 or 3 units in Nuclear exchanges, while my opponent would lose only a single unit.

The problem became one of maneuver, when a breach occurred.

Breaching the Nuclear Defense
While space protects from unconventional weapons, it doesn't protect well from conventional attacks.  When breached, a huge gap in the line five hexes wide is formed.  This is usually large enough to drive whole divisions.  After this, the breaching units can quickly wrap around and destroy the remaining units, rolling them up from the inside out.

In test with my buddy, we found this to be a major danger to the Nuclear Defense.  If he managed to time my advance correctly, he could close the gaps and get units into a tight formation which (per our rules of engagement), prevented a nuclear launch.  However, on more than one occasion the Nuclear Defense could not close the gaps fast enough.  One memorable occasion involved the very center unit falling.  Next turn his remaining 5 units in the division were wiped out as my swarmed them.  Now, rather than having six division to protect a front, there were only 5, and the others were too busy trying to get into fighting formation to be of much use.

But not all Nuclear Defenses were unsuccessful.  I have one solid memory when I really would have preferred to use a tactical nuclear weapon, but never found the cost worth the return.  By game end he had launched all his nukes, and I still hadn't fired mine.  The loss of my units were painful, but they managed to slow the assault, not stop it altogether.

Best Use of Nuclear Defense
Overall I'd have to rate the Nuclear Defense as effective for what it is trying to achieve.  It does present greatly diminished returns in using a nuclear/chemical weapon. However, as a static form of defense, without Natural Terrain, it is not successful.

Perhaps the best use for the 'Nuclear Defense' is prior to combat engagements on the way to battles.  This is similar to "column marching" in non-modern war games, where units marched in line formation at higher speed.  If ambushed, those units in "marching order" usually suffered higher casualties than those in "fighting stance".

While moving forward, the Nuclear Defense allows units to advance forward with minimal impact from nuclear weapons.  As the units approach the combat zone, the units need to compress the space between them, reducing the gap as the front is reached.  Natural Terrain may complement or render inviable the a Nuclear Defense.

If Nuclear/Chemical Weapons are not present in the game system, this form of defense should be avoided if at all possible.  If on the Front Lines, this defense should also be avoided.

Hex War Games - Strategy Part II - Hex Combat - Ideal Defense

In the previous entry, we defined Terrain, discussed how the Hexes which partition the boards into spaces may be viewed as terrain, and discussed the three primary ways hexes are used to affect movement.   'Terrain' we defined as "something which affects movement or combat".  "Natural Terrain" has a real life counterpart, whereas Hexes do not.  We then discussed the ways in which various game systems have implemented Hex Style Movement.

In this article we will discuss the impacts of hexes on combat in.  A few grounds rules will be made for this discussion:

1. No Natural Terrain is considered,
2. Ranged units (such as artillery) are not considered, combat is only from one hex to an adjacent hex,
3. Units must end movement if they are adjacent to an enemy unit and, lastly,
4. Units starting adjacent to an enemy unit may only move 1 hex at a time

This allows us to review the impacts of Hexes on combat.  It also provides a baseline to review the impacts of various Natural Terrains in later articles.

Hexes and Grain

For many of the discussions, it is necessary to discuss "Grains".  A hex normally has six (6) grains.  A Grain consists of a straight, continuous line of hexes crossing only hex sides.  When arranged "along the grain", a series of units are aligned in such a way the units could move from one to the other without having to execute any "turns".

Grain Lines

Combat Limitations

Hexes reduce the impact of combat by limiting the number of units that may impact it at once.  In the case of single unit by itself, a unit may only be attacked on a maximum of six sides.  Normally, such a situation will result in the destruction of the unit.

The objective in combat is normally to breach the enemy's lines to reach some objective.  As such, it is first useful to describe the different forms of defensive arrangements and what happens when the loss of a unit creates a breach.

Ideal Defense

The ideal defense consists of a situation where all units are lined up along a grain line.  The ideal defense means only two units can attack any given unit at a time.  A major drawback to this type of defense is it does not provide any greater means of the defender to counter attack.

Ideal Defense

The best a player can hope for is to wear down the enemy units through attrition or by extending the line faster than the opponent.  In the first case, the battle will usually go to the player with the greatest production capability or the fastest healing rate.  In the second situation, the players will rush to add units to the end of the line until it can "wrap around" the other player's units.

Essentially, this is what occurred in The Great War (or World War I as it is known today).  The weapons of the time (machine guns, artillery and barbed wire) outpaced tactics (large infantry groups).  These led to strongly defensible positions.  These positions were practically impregnable if infantry were entrenched.  The best the generals could hope for was to extend the lines beyond that of their enemies.

When a breach occurs, it usually is a single unit, often with severe damage.  The breaching unit, if lucky, can now bring greater firepower on the enemy line and widen the breach. More than likely the breaching unit will be destroyed, probably by any units held in reserve and the line will be restored.

Ideal Defense Breached

Breaking the Stalemate
The ideal defense ends in a stalemate.  Normally, the only way to break the stalemate is to introduce an element which changes the conditions.  In games, the change in elements could be a technological change, a change in tactics, or a sudden surge in strong units.  Otherwise, it will end with a production battle.

The Great War experienced many of these changes, to greater or lesser extents.

Technological Advance
First, the introduction of Armored Tanks allowed allied units to breach the enemy lines.  However, the armored vehicles of the time were not reliable and the tanks available were never deployed in great enough numbers to make a difference.  When the breaches did occur, they were never adequately followed up, and so the results was essentially the situation described in this article: a minor gap was created, quickly driven back, and the gap filled.  Theoretically, the introduction of the tank in sufficient numbers could have swayed the balance of power, but in The Great War they were ineffective.

New Units
When the Americans entered the war in April 1917 , three years after the war had been going on.  These fresh units allowed the Allies to gain some ground.  Potentially the greatest benefit these units presented to the war effort was a reduction in Germany's soldier's will to fight.

New Tactics
All country's in The Great War fought using antiquated tactics for the advanced weapons of the time.  Germany developed the Ludendorf Offensive, a change in tactics and strategy which made fantastic gains after several years of no advances.  It is arguable at least a portion of these gains were caused by low morale on the allies soldiers, but the gains would not have been possible without the development of infiltration and stormtrooper tactics.  These changes in tactics came too late to save Germany, as the American's arrived on the scene.  However, the change in tactics did manage to disrupt the "Ideal Defense".

Production War
Germany lost The Great War when it gave up its will to fight.  The collapse occurred mainly due to an inability to produce more soldiers, food, and material for the war.  In short, it had lost a production battle.  With starving civilians, ammunition shortages, and the introduction of new weapons of war (Tanks), the end for Germany became obvious.