Too famous battles ?

[ronan]

Hello

I was asking myself about playing the (too ? ) famous battles
( I don't have much time to game, so I think too much...  )

Is it interesting to play those famous battles ?
May be the outcome is already done by the setup.. Or a bad commander had another bad day, and it won't be interesting for the player to simulate this..
I was planning to play 1st Bull Run ( with Piquet Field of Battle ), but I also think of Austerlitz, Waterloo ( I'm confident with leManchou to have an interesting one, I only think about it), or Bagration 1944, or France 1940 etc.

If we play a small part of the battle, that's ok. But what with a large game, with historical setup ? 
( Yes, we can change the setup, but that's no more the real battle. I'm planning a large game with several players, and I don't want them to get bored )
( I once set up a two days game about the kerch invasion in 1943. The german players didn't like it.. ) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerch%E2%80%93Eltigen_Operation

Any thoughts ?

[Duke Speedy of Leighton]

Mars-La-Tours with a decent French commander gets interesting.
Waterloo, if you bring up the French guns, and the infantry as Wellington forms squares is catastrophic for the allies!

[Steve J]

I recently discussed this with a wargaming chum and the consensus was that if the rules were right for the period, you should end up with the historical result each time. Potentially boring for the loser but we thought ways to look at this included:

• Can you do better than the commader did historically with the same dispositions, OOB etc? You might lose, but can your army hold out long enough to say effect the campaign elsewhere?
• Have the same troops as say Waterloo, but each commander can deploy them as he sees fit. So can you do better than Napoleon did and change history?

[mollinary]

I recently discussed this with a wargaming chum and the consensus was that if the rules were right for the period, you should end up with the historical result each time.

I agree with most of what you wrote - but - every time?  All we know is that historically it happened once.  Does that mean it was inevitable?  Should the Charge of the Light Brigade succeed in getting to the Russian Guns every time?  Should the thin red line hold off the Russians every time?  The rules should certainly make the historical result possible, maybe even probable, but certain?  No, I am afraid I would have to disagree with that. 

Mollinary

[TONTON FLINGUEUR]

The history never repeats but it often stutters, 
I redid several times the battle of Waterloo and every time the arrival of the Prussian made me lose the battle
The next time I shall play the British....

[Ithoriel]

Personally, I prefer to set up fictional battles in a historical context rather than refight a battle we already know the result of.

For me the ideal, if it can be arranged, is to run a campaign and fight the resulting battles using a historical situation as a starting point.

[fsn]

I recently discussed this with a wargaming chum and the consensus was that if the rules were right for the period, you should end up with the historical result each time.

Totally disagree on that one. Wellington could have lost Waterloo; Harold could have won Hastings; Goering could have won the Battle of Britain.

If you use the same armies, trained to the same level, and with the same morale then generalship is the difference ... and we are the generals. If you don't believe me, advance from the ridge of Mont St Jean, descend from Senlac Hill, don't switch your attack to the cities.  

[GordonY]

Or get guns on the big hill at Gettysburg on day1 before those damn Yankees do.

[JeffNNN]

The other thing with really well known battles I'd that they'd have been discussed so much and all the mistakes of the losing commander have been analysed ad nauseam. Therefore you will not repeat those mistakes. The winning commander's possible errors may go unnoticed.

[Steve J]

The rules should certainly make the historical result possible, maybe even probable, but certain? 

True, which is why I used "should end up with", meaning it is not a foregone conclusion. Your phrase above puts it much better than mine!

[getagrip]

I recently discussed this with a wargaming chum and the consensus was that if the rules were right for the period, you should end up with the historical result each time.

Have to disagree too; tiny factors can have massive results.

What if Boney had "ignored" Hougoumont?  Rules can't account for that.

I think you could find a different answer to my question from every forum member

[ronan]

Personally, I prefer to set up fictional battles in a historical context rather than refight a battle we already know the result of.(...)

You're right, that's what we do, most of the time with my friends.. But I want a game for players I didn't see for ages, so a "what if" is not a good idea. " come and play 1st Bull Run" will be more appealing.

As some of you wrote, it may be interesting to use a free setup .. 

(...) all the mistakes of the losing commander have been analysed ad nauseam. Therefore you will not repeat those mistakes. (...)

yes, the allies won't go on their left at Austerlitz..

I think you could find a different answer to my question from every forum member

I think so, but I like to read your thoughts 

[Westmarcher]

(back to Waterloo)

I've played Wellington and Napoleon and won. With Boney, I used the Guard early in a surprise march using hidden ground to attack the Allied left flank - something that would have even been too risky for Boney(?). As Wellington, guessing there would be no danger to my right flank, I pulled units from my right flank to help 'sort out' d'Erlon's attack thus avoiding destroying half my cavalry in the process (which I used later in the battle). The point is - prior knowledge cuts both ways.

[getagrip]

I think so, but I like to read your thoughts 

Okay, I'll stick my head above the parapet:

If Boney had attacked earlier, refused the left flank and swung his cavalry to the right, I think he'd have won!

Let the party begin

[paulr]

I've organised refight a of Austerlitz and Borodino, both twice. We used Volley & Bayonet in 6mm and had multiple players each time. All four were good games enjoyed by all players. The key to all the games was getting the players into the right mindset before the game.

For the Austerlitz games the Allied players were told that some of the French forces had been delayed. The look on their faces when the fog lifted and the French were revealed was priceless I'm pretty sure the Allied players have forgiven me for the blatant lies about the French

The French won Austerlitz twice, but one in particular was a very near run thing. Borodino was one win each.