Centre of Gravity

[whitetail]

(This was intended for another topic but I didn't want to derail the thread!)

By identifying your opponents Centre of Gravity (the source of power that provides moral or physical strength, freedom of action or will to act). You will be able to work out what you need to do in order to destroy or prevent him from completing his mission, while completing yours.

HQ:
FHT: 2x TL Dev, Old Adversary, 2 x physic powers Biomancy 285p

Elite:

DoM: 90p

Troops:
Temagants x 16: Dev, AG and TS. 192p
Hormagaunts x 14: AG, TS. 140p
Tervigon: Cluster spines, 2x physic powers Biomancy 190p

FA:
Raveners x 3: Deathspitter, ST. 120p

HS:
Carnifex: 2x TL Dev. 190p
Biovore: 45p
Trygon Prime: ST, Bio-electric pulse. 240p Total: 1500p

My CoG revolves around the use of a specific weapon type, assault 3/6 Devourers, I have my FHT, Carn and a large brood of gaunts equipped with them. My raveners and Trygon are equipped with a similar weapon from their war gear selections.

I say this as I don’t have a large troop’s base to swarm the enemy. You could say that for 1500p I have a few MC’s but this was not the focus for writing this list. The ability to spam mass amounts of fire and then support it with hard hitting specialist units (Raveners, Horm’s) to take and hold objectives.

The next time you have a battle try to work out your opponents CoG. Is it an orc horde list or a eldar specialist list with a few troops choices and lots of elite units. Then figure out what / how you can destroy or prevent him from using his units how they are intended to be used.

If you can’t destroy a unit the next best thing is to prevent it from being able to perform at its best. So if your opponent has a HtH specialist unit in a transport and it spends 3 turns running across the board because its transport was destroyed, you have effectively prevented that unit operating at 100%. Or heavy weapon squads that can’t see anything, can’t effectively shoot because their line of sight is hindered or you are utilizing the maximum amount of cover available.

This is then attacking his CoG so that he can’t complete his mission and hopefully you complete yours!

[roxor08]

Um several things are wrong...Raveners aren't elites...and termagants should NOT be loaded for bear...they are next to the most fragile unit in the game...and you've dumped almost 200 points into a unit that shouldn't cost you more than 100.

Trygon prime is a waste of points... It's arguably better this edition to be without synapse on anything with IB: Feed, because you actually get rage...ie +1 attack on the charge.

A single biovore? Don't waste your points, again......

I think what I'm saying is start your list over again...I don't mean to be rude but your list has no synergy, and you've got way way way too many over costed fragile units

[whitetail]

While thank you for your reply,

1. This is a list that was used for an example for CoG.

2. I used this list for my first 6th ed game and smashed my Orc opponent with a major victory!

3. I really don't think the rudeness of your post was needed. As you said yourself your being rude!

If you are trying to help people maybe you should work on how you communicate and people might listen to what you have to say and not just think you are a (please do not swear)!

Yes I put raveners into Elite, my bad I was typing it on my phone! Not making excuses just letting you know that it wasn't edited.

I have recently purchased my Nids and have been writing up all types of lists. This was the first of many trials testing how things work and what I like and dislike.

The biovore was there because I had the model and wanted to add it.

This post was not titled the best list ever just used to show Centre of Gravity!!!

Please read the title before posting comments about how the list is poorly written.

Regards Drew

[labinnac]

Whitetail I understand the point. If you notice your opponent is focusing heavily on one unit and it say that unit were to die you would all but surly clinch the victory then make sure they are gone or at the very least made useless.

[yoritomo]

Your fundamental flaw is that you believe that there is always going to be some kind of shining gem in your opponent's army that you can snatch away from them and win. And while that may be the case against weaker players, good players will have built there army without relying on a single unit and will certainly be able to play around the loss of any unit.

Besides, most things you call the "center of gravity" are things that aren't exactly easy to deal with; such as a Drago with Paladin squad, tyranid deathstar, vendetta squadron, etc... Many of these center of gravities want to be engaged, meaning your efforts to destroy them will lose you the game.

It's also worth mentioning that just because you've identified your opponent's center of mass doesn't mean the best course of action is to deal with it. Your number one priority should be your objective. Everything you do should bring you closer to your objective, otherwise you're playing for a loss (and yes, that includes hindering your opponent).

[Psychichobo]

I generally found that having a central focus point is more of an army type than anything. Tyranid Deathstar Lists and Draigowing are examples. And as Yori said, sometimes they're nothing more than huge unkillable distractions that wander forth with a phenomenal threat range. The two I mentioned LOVE getting focused on.

There's too many factors in 40k to be able to simply state that going for said Centre is the best idea. Never go into a match with a rigid strategy beforehand, since ANYTHING could change. Saw a Daemon player lose Fateweaver turn one from an alarmingly lucky shot, and a Necron player in 4th lose his Monolith turn two in a 1250 match. You have to make sure you can work around the unexpected.

[whitetail]

Aug 25, 2012 18:53:18 GMT yoritomo said:

Your fundamental flaw is that you believe that there is always going to be some kind of shining gem in your opponent's army that you can snatch away from them and win. And while that may be the case against weaker players, good players will have built there army without relying on a single unit and will certainly be able to play around the loss of any unit.

This is not a be all and end all to victory, this is the basis for military theory and strategy, I am just applying it to my 40k games. All the fundamentals are the same and as you play 40k you adapt and use military strategies even if you are not a soldier or realise that you are doing so.

It's not about finding a "shining gem" but identifying your opponents strengths and weaknesses, then either targeting or exploiting them.

Things like mutual support, concentration of force, surprise, flexibility, morale and economy of effort are considerations for warfare that can be adapted into 40k quite easily.

Mutual Support:

The key to mutual support is that no element of your army is left on its own, everything is able to support AND be supported by at least one other element in your force.

Concentration of force:

Is amount of force to bear to ensure that you are able to achieve the desired battlefield effect.Concentration in 40K is easy to achieve but many people take it too far; to achieve concentration you don’t have to place all your forces in the smallest area possible. Instead if you look to use your weapon ranges and/or movement you can also achieve concentration while effectively using cover and concealment as well.

As long as you can concentrate at the point and time that you need too it is more effective to have your forces spread out, in order to disguise your intent.

Surprise or Envelopment: Is difficult with the opposition reading your list, but in theory it would include infiltrators, flanking or deep striking units. The ability to deploy and support units where needed is a valuable asset.

Flexibility:

Being flexible in your approach to a game of 40K is important, just like on the battlefield, even the best plans don’t last past the first shot. Arguably the fact that our game is run by dice means you have to be very flexible in your approach, always review your plans and look to see what situations you can exploit whether it is something that goes well for you or something that is undesirable.

Morale:

Maintenance of Morale, there is two factors to this in 40K, the morale of the army and the player. Morale is obviously represented by the LD value of your models and units. Also there are a number of special rules which will affect this as well, Synapse, Commanders, Fearless the list goes on. Ensure when you’re selecting your list that you have a good awareness of the morale issues you may have and how you plan to counter them

Economy of effort:

Economy of effort involves placing the right amount of forces to do the job you set for them to do. Economy of Effort is also reflected in the idea behind (Mutually Assured Destruction). In this regard you are looking at the amount of Victory Points you give up doing something versus the number you gain. If the ratio is one to one that is not economical, however; is the ratio is 2 or 3 to 1 in your favour you have achieved economy of effort.

[Jabberwocky]

While it's nice you're trying to enlighten fellow players, you might want to realise a lot of people already know and understand this.

I think applying the advice to specific questions and discussion will be better appreciated and received, rather than focusing a thread on such a broad 'strategy'.

[DarkGuard]

Aug 25, 2012 19:46:42 GMT Psychichobo said:

I generally found that having a central focus point is more of an army type than anything. Tyranid Deathstar Lists and Draigowing are examples. And as Yori said, sometimes they're nothing more than huge unkillable distractions that wander forth with a phenomenal threat range. The two I mentioned LOVE getting focused on.

This is very true. With my Marines I was once faced with a choice. Get a Land Raider for my Hammernators. Or two Vindicators. I went with the latter, and I don't regret it. I decided to not have a big unit anchoring my line, and have lots of little elements that weren't too big a loss when they get destroyed. Many of my opponents noted that was the best aspect of the list, that it didn't have an easily identifiable Centre of Gravity.

The thing is, I hate to say this, but your post, especially the most recent one, is stuff that pretty much everyone here knows.

[roxor08]

whitetail, maybe I misunderstood your post, but I think you concentrated on a part that wasn't supposed to be conveyed by my text.

I'm not attacking you, and maybe by posting on a forum on the internet (especially this forum) I thought you would have known that you're going to get responses that aren't exactly what you want.

Now, I will be the first to say that I don't have a great way with words, but I am no way a (whatever you decided to put in your post that was filtered out). You posted a list and I critiqued it.

The other thing that maybe I didn't understand is that you said your "Center of Gravity" is the devourer....how is that exactly a "Center of Gravity"? Lots of shots? Are you pointing out that an opponent would have difficulty beating you because he/she can't stop your main unit?

I think my point still remains relevant, however. Your list, while its worked for you, isn't ideal, and you will run into issues against stronger codexes. You've beaten Orks, who are by no means a power codex. I also know of people who play Orks and never lose...So take that with a grain of salt.

Final thought: You have a Doom of Malatai walking up the board. I would be quite shocked to see that happen in more than in this thread.

Congrats on the win against your Ork opponent though. I hope to see the battle report!

[whitetail]

For those that don't know that they are applying military theory to games of 40k they do now.

@darkgard, for those that do need not bother with it. I was commenting on a post from the Orc tactics thread but didn't want to derail it with my post.

roxor08 At no stage was I saying that my list was perfect as I have recently come back to Nids, but used it as an example. The main focus of my list when writing it up was the use of multiple assault weapons, being able to produce as much fire power as possible as my opponent has a habit of taking large horde armies. So that I could cut the numbers down with shooting then finish them off with the assault units.

The centre of gravity is a focus or direction for the army, doesn't just have to be a specific unit it can be a type of roll that will be provided. A well balanced list will make identifying it harder then a one trick close combat list for example. But you will still be able to work out where their focus for the army is and devise a plan.

At no stage am I lecturing. I was only stating what I do and things that I have been taught from my work and I have adapted into my wargaming. This is the main reason why I wargame. Because I get to apply military theory to games, my friend sees me sending out a unit of gaunts and he assaults out of cover and destroys them. I then fire at this specialist unit with my gaunts in cover and my FHT that just jumped to the side of his unit on top of a hill.

I see it as I have drawn out his high priced unit into the open then using mutual supporting fire, as well as enfilade fire from a defilade position (FHT) to destroy the unit.

The difference of perception, this is why I posted about CoG. Not to lecture anyone about how they play. Just informing people that without them realizing they are applying military tactics and theory.

You can never say that because you apply these methods you will win, because every commander tries to apply this and there is always a looser. But the person that does this the best has a better chance then their opponent. But at the end of the day the final decision is made by the "Dice Gods"!

Drew

[fragile]

The difference of perception, this is why I posted about CoG. Not to lecture anyone about how they play. Just informing people that without them realizing they are applying military tactics and theory.

More Game Theory than any thing.

[labinnac]

I think is my biggest ripe with 40k no amount of amazing tactics will save you from rolling 1's and 2's the whole game. I know dice are needed though so before anyone says anything about that it was more of a joke. Jokes aside you would be surprised at the amount of people who fail to see this "game" as essentially war. He was assisting me in the orc thread have a friend who has one particularly strong squad thought the rest of his army is a bit lacking. So I know where I should focus.

You are 100% right yoritomo our number one goal is objective points yet a big part of getting those points is having an answer to the threats your enemy poses you. This means pointing out strengths and weaknesses and exploiting both. Of course most of us know this but some of us may not know what to do. I know where my ork friend is strong and I know where he is lacking that doesn't exactly mean I will know what to do about it

[yoritomo]

This is not the basis for military strategy.

To be honest I've always found knowing my own center of gravity much more important than knowing the enemy center of gravity. If I know my own center of gravity then I also know where my lines of effort and logistical support should go as well. But this is real world stuff that isn't represented well in 40K.


The sad fact of the matter is that real world concepts don't work well in 40K. 40K is not a tactical game as there is virtually no maneuvering past the initial set up. There is no way to set up a base of fire element, nor do you have the time to execute a flanking maneuver and set up a proper crossfire.

In the end things like target priority will help you much more that disguising your intent ever will.

[labinnac]

Don't forget the dice rolls. In real life many many MANY things factor a soldiers abilities, much more then a 6 sided dice could ever properly represent. Yet I know a lot of military buffs who love this game because it's about as close to the real thing your gonna get as far as a board game goes