A Look at Strategy & Tactics for the Germans in Combat Commander by GMT Games

Great, in-depth coverage of this aspect of the game. Keep up the good work as I love reading your guys’ reviews and perspective on games. I have learned a lot about how to better play Combat Commander thanks to this series. The last time I played I was the Americans in the “Rush to Contact” scenario. I kept in mind some of the tips from your strategy and tactics for the Americans article and I put theory into practice. It worked out well for me 🙂

I think that as a game, Combat Commander does a good job of keeping individual scenarios pretty balanced. This is easier to do in tactical level games where general disparities in experience, doctrine, fighting quality, equipment, etc., can be adjusted and tweaked to where a contact between two opposing forces is closer to equal.

This is the benefit of a tactical level situation where the conflict is viewed in more detail and closer up, rather than through the grand strategic lens where differences in quality between armies becomes glaringly apparent. For instance, no one would argue that at the beginning of the war the Russian Army was equal in quality and fighting ability with the German Army. The benefit of a game system like Combat Commander however, allows situations to arise where individual, squad-level confrontations fought in a small section of the front, could be more competitive given the circumstances even if the overall strategic situation for one side or the other was looking bleak.

One complaint that I have heard about a card driven tactical system like Combat Commander is that sometimes, when you get a bad hand, or two, or three, your opponent is able to move, attack, and fire while you have to sit there and just trade cards. To the uninitiated this might be a problem. However, looking at the design intent and real combat situations which entail the fog of war, communication breakdowns and leadership mistakes, the system simply translates a real phenomenon in an unconventional way.

By this I mean that, “time” for the play of a turn in Combat Commander could be seconds or a few minutes depending (this is how I look at it instead of saying, “well, okay, each card represents 25 seconds of action,” etc.). In reality (a taboo word to some when using it to speak about a board game, or as a I refer to such games, “conflict simulations”) a force can freeze and give up the initiative while the opposing force moves and attacks. This is well documented in combat situations.

Combat Commander, far from being a completely abstract, unrealistic simulation, just simulates such a situation through a deck of cards rather than through some other mechanic. The fact that a “fate deck”is used to simulate the breakdown in a force’s ability to move, communicate and fight, albeit temporarily, adds to the genius behind this game’s design. Using the deck of cards adds to the randomness of getting a bad hand, command confusion cards, etc. So basically, getting a “bad hand” and losing a turn by having to discard cards, simply simulates a battlefield situation where your side is not acting with total efficiency; something that has affected all armies of every war at all times (although, admittedly, some more than others).

Before I continue to ramble on I thank you again or the time you put into these articles and the great insight you share!

LikeLike