BBB Aleksinac 1876 Revisited

[KTravlos]

Me and the others here in Istanbul met up for another try at the BBB scenario for the Battle of Alekisnac, from the Serbo-Ottoman War of 1876-1877. You can find a battle report and video battler report at

https://phdleadhead.blogspot.com.tr/2017/07/revisiting-aleksinac-via-bloody-big.html

Pictures to follow.

With Respect
KTravlos

[ronan]

 
( And interesting thoughts about scenario designing.)

[Chris Pringle]

Very nice report, thanks, Konstantinos. A shame your excellent plan was beyond the competence of your troops to execute it!   

Chris

Bloody Big BATTLES!
https://uk.groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/BBB_wargames/info
http://bloodybigbattles.blogspot.co.uk/

[Steve J]

Nice report and love the look of the table. Your comments regarding scenario design are very interesting. I think there is a fine balance between historical accuracy and having a good game. I've played the former that were, frankly, pretty damned dull and no fun for either player. Others we have, with experience, tweaked a few things to make for a better game. Possibly some historical actions, wilth the best will in the World, never make for an interesting game.

If on the other hand, you are trying to understand what happened and why, then that in itself can be rewarding. I remember a BBB ACW game where the terrain was heavily wooded, making movement damned difficult, thus taking ages to get troops into position. It was frustrating for both commanders, but it helped us really understand the historical action, which was reward enough.

[Chris Pringle]

I think there is a fine balance between historical accuracy and having a good game. I've played the former that were, frankly, pretty damned dull and no fun for either player. Possibly some historical actions, wilth the best will in the World, never make for an interesting game.

Too true. I fondly remember helping to playtest a 1960s Vietnam air battle. This was a period in which the USAF had believed the missile manufacturers' brochures and dispensed with guns on their aircraft, but the missiles turned out to be carp, so they couldn't shoot down the Vietnamese; and the Vietnamese pilots weren't good enough to hit the USAF; so we 'fought' a whole scenario in which not one plane got hurt. Our host (an excellent guy btw, who usually runs excellent games) said "well, that's kinda historical", to which another of the players said, "maybe some conflicts just aren't meant to be gamed".

Chris

[FierceKitty]

Too true. I fondly remember helping to playtest a 1960s Vietnam air battle. This was a period in which the USAF had believed the missile manufacturers' brochures and dispensed with guns on their aircraft, but the missiles turned out to be carp, so they couldn't shoot down the Vietnamese; and the Vietnamese pilots weren't good enough to hit the USAF; so we 'fought' a whole scenario in which not one plane got hurt. Our host (an excellent guy btw, who usually runs excellent games) said "well, that's kinda historical", to which another of the players said, "maybe some conflicts just aren't meant to be gamed".

Chris

MORE fish jokes?

[KTravlos]

" Possibly some historical actions, wilth the best will in the World, never make for an interesting game."

I think in BBB those are the battles were you focus on making a Draw an even chance for both sides. The "issue" with Aleksinac was that while a draw was indeed an even chance for both sides, I, and to a point Onur, felt that the historical winner had a low probability of winning compared to the historical loser. Or so it felt. So it is not question of the battle being unbalanced. But the point of balance.