Why in War Games/RTS, certain units are "use(-)less"

Have you thought about combined attacks.

In NES conflict I had this situation where I used let say a SAM to attack a fighter but he survives with 2 out of 15 HP. So then I attack that fighter again with a supply truck that has a simple machine gun in hope finishing off the unit.

I also exxperiences this in Dai Senryaku where units have 10 HP, I could use 2 units with strong matching weapon to attempt destroying it. But if it survives, the weak useless unit could come in and try finishing it.

In board games, you would need to implement a kind of support system, where adjacent units can help other units to attack. Hill 218 or Ogre 218 card game use that mechanism.

Zone of control can also make those units annoying by preventing ennemy units to pass through. They act like pawns.

In the war game idea I talked in the recent months, I decided to abstract transportation, by making moving out of cities give you access to transportation to certain units for a turn.

If you are or move to a city, you get a free helicopter,truck or plane transportations. Which can make infantry very mobile in the presence of cities, but mostly used for defensive purpose. Or capture purpose.

For example, an infantry unit has a movement of 2 and helicopter movement has a movement of 5. You can move 2 space into a city, then move up to 5 space by air.

But now that each player would start with 40% of their cities under their control, like explained in the other thread, it will reduce the number of capture required in a game.

IN Historical Wargaming there are unbalanced units as that the way it was. The fun was in finding an opponents weakness and using your strength to exploit it. In world war two games, Germans had big bad Tigers and lots of players whined endlessly about them. But a good Wargame had the balance in realism. The Tigers could be out numbered or their lack of maneuverability be exploited. Allies also had Air Power that Germans could not match. BUT the Krauts were bristling with Mobile Anti Aircraft. It was a thrust and parry type of thing. When wargames got watered down for "simplicity" it was really about newcomers that did not have knowledge of tactics and did not want to gain that knowledge. So Wargames became cartoonish or checkers with tanks. Not fun at all IMO.

Another Example was Minis games of Star Wars, well before Fantasy Flight. I played minis with Star Wars models. Rebels always seemed outmatched. But the fun to accomplish a heroic victory in the face of seemingly overwhelming might. Big bad Star Destroyer could pound little rebel Corvettes to dust. But a skilled X-wing attack might get through its defenses and knock out the Shiled Generator. If it was an At-At "that armor is to strong for blasters" go for the legs.

Yes,infantry spot for tanks as its very hard to see out of tanks. Even with modern Battle sights observation can be difficult especially when enemy infantry are well concealed and near you. Your vision blocks are to see out towards potential targets, seeing downward around the position of the tank is impossible unless you open the hatch expose yourself to fire. Infantry will work with tanks to compensate for this. Tanks of course have more firepower and greater range the can engage can neutralize heavy weapons that can shred infantry at a distance. This is the nutshell concept of Combined Arms. But to answer more directly, no, this is not achieved by Infantry by absorbing fire or being cannon fodder.

The challenge of older wargames was to employ better tactics then the opponent. I think allot of the demand for "simpler" comes from exaggerated claims of play length and the fact that the only way to gain experience in the game was to get beaten and learn from the defeat. Both were turn offs to newcomers. As old guys like me left, demand for other types of games came along leading to things like Memoir 44.

Yeah this is the part of board gaming that perplexes me. Its evident that most market to a group that clearly would be more satisfied with a Video game. Why dont people just buy one of those???

Role Playing has a Judge/GM how do those games survive?

First Rule in Fow of war. Dont worry about cheaters. If you suspect or confirm you are beating cheated don't play with that opponent anymore.

Now with that out of the way. There are different levels of this. The least satisfying is just require a shooter to spot the target before attack. The pieces are all on the board and you know where and what they are but you use spotting to pretend a shooter cant see them on the field of battle. The simplest but not really anything other then an added step IMO.

Next are dummy counters or pieces placed in all conceivable hiding spots. This adds some caution has it you dont know of its real or not. But in reality this is just hunt and peck as scouts move around just to turn over the dummys and get them out of the way.

Then There is the Generic counter that turns into a real one through spotting. IN other words you know its there but not what it is. Pretty much the same as above.

Next is secret ambushes where units in hiding potions are recorded and not reveled until the ambush is launched or some spotting finds them. This is kind of interesting

There is the more "complex" version of recording the positions of all units until spotted in which they are placed on the board. All Phones have a notepad and you all you gotta do is talk or type.

Next is the Gizmo approach. Lots of people like this and ironically they are super old and yet very effective. Divide your playing surface into "sectors" or number all terrain that is potential for hiding. Then use Matchboxes or other container with corresponding numbers. Any units hiding in terrain are placed in the container with that number. When the are is successfully spotted, the player revels whats in the box.

I played miniatures and did FoW Easy without a judge. I would make copies of a map of the table for each turn per player. Each player got these, a plastic overlay, and dry erase marker. Unit potions were noted each turn and the maps placed in envelopes. If there were discrepancies the appropriate map for the turn was pulled out and checked.

Leopard II a Japanese Wargame from the mid 80's used a version of this. BGG has many examples of Fog of War implications in games that worked to various degrees.

It makes a much more interesting and tense game. Its not as hard as many make it out to be and is well worth the added effort to players that truly desire it.