Gaming Theory: Threat Analysis

This is going to be an article dedicated to discussing some gaming theory ideas between various wargaming systems. The main two topics are threat analysis and some talk about "dicing out" games. So threat analysis is going to simply refer to what kind of things I consider when I'm playing different wargames (what is a threat, how do I threaten them, what do I need to avoid, etc.). "Dicing out" is a term that I've heard used a lot in the warmachine community. Unlike warhammer, there usually aren't rolls made for saves during an opponents turn. Similarly, I think there's usually a focus on removing key models and carrying out a plan to scalpel out parts of the enemies army. "Dicing out" seems to encapsulate two key principles. The first is taking lots of tough troops, which are the one kind of save in warmachine. On a 5 or 6 the troop model isn't destroyed. These troops are usually taken in large numbers, which equates to a wave of bodies and many dice rolls. All these dice rolls mean, as the second portion of "dicing out", that your turns will usually run the time length in competitive play. This means that rather than rely on a decisive victory you can rely on the game being ended by time rather than scenario. So you're relying on rolling lots of dice and averages to expand your model's lifespan and then for said rolling to take up as much time as possible. 

To start with, I'm going to continue the trend of talking about warmachine. Below you'll find a diagram I'm going to be referring to. There's a key at the bottom to help you identity what the scribbles mean. I'm going to start discussing these diagrams from the left and move to the right. So positioning is a big part of warmachine, as is protecting your caster. That's why you'll notice the ranged units might try to get around the warbeast and shoot at the caster. The warbeast could move up and engage some of them to attempt to prevent it or the caster could retreat into the woods to block line of sight. You'll also notice the infantry on the right side could be blocking the advance the of the warbeasts as well as preventing each other from running past. While there's a range of possibility that exceeds what this drawing can express, it's basically here to show that each model has a purpose and the positioning of them can be used to tie up enemy models even if they aren't out to destroy them. There's also a lot of interaction between models and terrain. The end goal is to tie up enemy models, try to get to their caster, and prevent your models from ending up exposed or in unfavorable matchups. The best way to prevent a bad matchup is to compare either the accuracy of the enemy with your defense or their power with your armor. The larger the difference, the less likely you are to take damage. Terrain can be used to modify this, as can spells. However, there are no saves. This means if a model ends up in a bad position, there's nothing to keep the enemy from punishing you quite handily for it.

This diagram is for warhammer 40k. The first thing I think you'll notice is the much larger scale of the drawing. Eighteen inches is a rather long threat range in warmachine but a relatively short threat range in 40k. In this system the way I analyze a board has a lot more to do with the longer ranges of pieces. You can look for locations where you either can'e be seen (the black dot on the left) or recieve cover (dot 3, behind the hill). You also have to consider the range of your guns. In essence, I think 40k is all about balancing the number of models you can shoot, the saves you will get, and the number of models that can shoot back. Let's take a second to break that down mathematically. If I can put a model where it can see 100% of the enemies models, that's a pretty good position but that likely means it can be shot back. You'll notice how many of the black dots are moving towards an area where they are in the minimal number of ranges of the red dots. Let's say however, that dot 2 is a unit of terminators with storm shields. They now have either a 2+ or 3+ save against any shooting attacks. This means they have to be much less concerned about removing themselves from danger, especially since they need to be as close as possible to attack the enemy. Unlike warmachine, I think an abundance of saves can often replace the need for exact positioning. While there are "bad matchups" for units with 2+ or 3+ saves, these units can shrug off an immense amount of punishment before they die.

Finally, we have Warhammer Fantasy. In this system, combat is done by units in bock formations. Redirecting is also a much larger deal. Unlike in warmachine and 40k, you can choose to block the charges of units or flee from battles you would rather not fight. This can also mean forcing enemy units to take charges that put them in a compromising position . You'll notice how many of the charges either player might attempt in this one contradict the charges or movements of the other. The smaller units are probably either going to flee or get in the way rather than simply charge in. Also, the building on the right blocks movement, this means that while the two right most units might want to charge one another, they simply can't. In warmachine single models can be used to stop advances however, in this system units are more commonly used. The addition of re directors to force your enemy to expose a flank and fleeing units to entice them to purse means that you have the chance to actively lure your opponent out, rather than place models as scapegoats as you might in the other systems. You'll also notice that models for blocks and aren't spread out. This means they can't move between each other freely and instead form battlelines. If a unit is in a bad place, it  can be very difficult to extricate it because of the other large formations around it. 

In summary, it seems to me like there are few concepts that dictate how engagements are handled across these systems. Warmachine is about positioning my models where they need to be, preventing them from being exposed, and killing key models of my opponents. The goal is not to have to sacrifice my models in order to gain a tactical advantage. In 40k, the goal is to avoid the range of weapons that I don't feel like my saves can accommodate for, and bring my own weapons into range. Some units I can expose and some I need to simply avoid the range of my opponents guns with. In Fantasy it is all about getting my combat units into units I want to fight by fleeing with others or forcing my opponent to charge less optimal targets. In particular, this system has a very intricate, moving pieces kind of feel where units can flee at any time. I think one of the most interesting concepts of all this is the way units being threatened is conceived of. In warmachine it is very bad for a unit to be threatened. The goal is to avoid allowing your models to be put in a position where they can be threatened because once they are there your opponent can punish them with usually little retaliation. In 40k however, some units don't mind being put into the cross hairs depending on their saves. The extreme ranges also make it difficult to simply remove models from threatening situations. In fantasy, some models or units are intentionally put into harms way. This is because they are either expendable or they will be able to flee and escape danger. 

So what does this have to do with dice? Well in Warmachine, models that are put into danger don't get saves, all they can do is rely on your opponent to roll well below average to save them. The exception to this is when you put a model with high defense or armor in a position where only units with low accuracy or power can attack it. This means that on average they will be unable to harm it very much. In 40k however, you may choose to put units into harms way not because your opponents units are incapable of dealing with them, but because their rate of "saving" wounds done to them is high enough that they have little to fear. I think this concept is fundamentally different. You aren't relying on the ineptitude of your opponents models, but the power and averages of a dice roll to save yours. The likely hood and/or ability of your opponent to do something about it is slightly different. I think the second can be much harder to mitigate and much more frustrating. Here are two statements

"You need to roll a 7 or better on two dice to me and then a 10 or higher to damage me" (essentially a 1/2 change and a 1/3 chance, together that becomes a 1/6 chance of success)

Now compare this to the following:

"Ok, you've hit and damaged my model, if I roll a 2 or better it doesn't take any damage" (a 1/6 chance)

The second seems much more frustrating an unfair. It sounds as though I am negating your success. In the first example you can make your attempt and if you succeed that is the end of it. In the second you have almost succeeded at something but I am preventing it. This can be even more frustrating if there is not a system like Fantasy's flee/redirect where I can attempt to control where the engagement happens. In sort, I think there is a continuum of strategy and averages. In some gaming systems you want to take advantage, while in others you want to attempt to simply avoid engagement. I think the strategy aspect is a much harder art to master than "dicing out" an opponent. One last example to illustrate this. If I can avoid situations where saves are needed or I can be hit, the rate at which I do so is a sort of success rate. If you are simply unable to fight or shoot something due to certain restrictions though, it is safe and only a fault in my planning or execution will result in it being otherwise. If I am relying on being able to roll a 2 or better however, one sixth of the time that will fail. I think some game systems allow for more of one than the other and I don't think either is inherently better, just different. In any case I do think the method by which we perceive threats and avoid them is a vast, illusive, and divisive topic in wargaming. Before you judge a game as being unfair or having bad mechanics, take some time to compare it to other systems and see what they do that you like more or less. I think being able to conceptualize and articulate the differences between game mechanics is will make you a better player and will help you to dig deeper into why you love the game.