OK, this derives from the "Wargaming Pet Hates" thread where I posted this:
http://www.pendrakenforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,11131.msg147486.html#msg147486
which includes among my pet hates:
"Anything pre-Napoleon - essentially it's linear warfare, relatively limited tactical options, relatively few interesting decisions to make."
(I was also careful to include this caveat: "I don't mean to belittle anyone else's fun - it's all about personal preference, and if others love the games I hate, that's fine, I don't have to play them.")
But having made such a contentious statement, I had better try to justify it. Let me give a grossly generalized characterization of pre-Napoleonic warfare (PNW). With few exceptions, realistically the interesting decisions a PNW general has to make are limited to pre-battle ones:
- How do I deploy my line? (For it is almost invariably a line.)
- Should I have a second line and/or a reserve?
- Do I attack the enemy or wait for them?
- If I attack, do I go left-flanking, right-flanking, or general advance?
The decisions a PNW general can make during the battle are more limited:
- When/where to commit the second line / reserve?
- Er, that's it?
This is because the capabilities of the troops and the armies are so limited, in particular their mobility and firepower.
The mobility of most infantry formations is incredibly limited, even into the mid-18th century, because weapon technologies mostly oblige infantry to fight in unwieldy masses, which can't cope with difficult terrain, and because drill movements for quick formation changes haven't been invented. Artillery is virtually immobile.
Firepower is either very feeble or very short-ranged. The longer-ranged weapons are too few and not destructive enough to matter much.
Because both mobility and firepower are so limited, the distance to which units and armies can project their force is much less than the width of the armies. Thus, although linear deployments are not exactly one-dimensional - there are second and third lines and reserves - they are not truly two-dimensional either.
Whereas around Napoleon's time, several different developments come into play. Artillery becomes lighter and more mobile, while at the same time becoming more accurate and effective, and also more numerous. Sophisticated drill means formation changes become rapid enough to be performed closer to the enemy than before, and enable obstacles to be bypassed more easily. Transitions between line-column-square are all easily performed, giving commanders more options. Command and control becomes more sophisticated and professional, and the corps system is developed, in which fractions of the army become combined-arms mini-armies, each capable of performing independent yet coordinated missions.
All these factors contribute to give the battlefield much more depth and make it truly two-dimensional. The fact that armies can now project force across greater distances - either longer-ranged artillery, or more rapidly-moving forces of all arms - and that they can cope better with moving across or around difficult terrain makes for much more complex interactions across much larger areas than in linear PNW.
The consequence as far as I'm concerned is that the more complex interactions of the C19 and C20 mean there are far more decisions to be made in the course of a C19 or C20 wargame than in PNW, and that C19 onwards is therefore for me personally, relatively - and note I did say relatively - much more interesting and fun to wargame.
That's the gist of my argument in a fairly large nutshell. I mean no offence to anyone who disagrees, and I will be happy to be disabused of my ignorant and prejudiced notions. Actually, I hope that some PNW experts will open my eyes by pointing out numerous historical instances that undermine my argument. Please educate me!
Chris
Bloody Big BATTLES!
https://uk.groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/BBB_wargames/info
Two words - Lake Trasimene.
I sort of agree then really don't. The history of PNW is a mix of the bland and the boggling. Agreed that, for example an Imperial Roman legion basically just ground down it's enemies in attrition.
However, a Persian Archaemeniad army is full of interesting troops with varied capability and ways of fighting. To get the best out of them is an art.
Mongols though, are dead boring.
I would argue that elements of the ACW and the trench warfare of WWI are equally limited. "How long do I use the artillery?" "Do the infantry walk or run?" Even many of the blessed Napoleonic battles are just two lines of infantry shooting %&!£ out of each other.
I suppose the French Indian wars had other tactics and more interesting troop types....not that I know that much about the period....In saying this I realise that the forces did at times line up to shoot each other :D
Well said FSN :o ;)
Chris, if I generalise enough the statements you make above can apply to any period
As an outsider to the period it does look like lines of stuff shooting other lines of stuff. The colours are nice though ;)
Battle of Gaugamela.
;)
Yeah, bit if a silly stance really. :-\ Smells a of tunnel vision.
There are many periods where you have armies of relatively consistent forces facing off in two lines. You might highlight Classical Greece for example. Two lines of hoplites right?
Well, yes, if you have, say Argives, Athenians and allies against Spartans and their allies as at 1st Mantineia then it is. But what about the Theban innovations at Leuktra? What about warefare in Macedonia in the same period where you have heavy cavalry, swarming hillmen and a few hopiltes, brawling with Thracian tribesmen or hoplites from Chalkidike or the south. As soon as you move towards the periphery, the troops available, and therefore the strategies and tactics used, vary widely.
How can you say a combined arms Seleukid army (heavy cav, light cav, camels, nellies, chariots, phalanx and masses of national contingents) is all a bit same same. Or, as referenced by fsn and Fig.ht above, even Carthaginian and post-Philip's reforms Macedonian armies, strategies and tactices.
Or to move away from the Mediterranean and come forward somewhat in time, what about Glenmalure? or the Ford of the Biscuits? Or even Kinsale?
The Anabasis is a myriad of different fighting styles.
Is everyone here being ironic/sarcastic? When I read Chris' post I automatically assumed he was referring to the 18th century, was I wrong?
Mollinary :-\
I wasn't trying to be sarcastic, if Chris did mean PNW as 18th century then sorry for my misunderstanding.
Having said that I am getting into 16th / 17th / 18th century Eastern European battle history at the moment (I backed the Wargamer.pl kickstarter 'The Deluge') and it is fascinating reading, rarely did armies just line up against one another and slug it out, the reason being that often the army types were so different in composition.
One battle that springs to mind and in some ways is very reminiscent of Alexander's tactics at the Battle of Gaugamela was the tactics used by the king of Poland Jan Sobieski against Kara Mustafa at the Battle of Vienna in September 1683. Here against far superior numbers Sobieski launched his massed Hussaria diagonally across the field through the enemy straight towards the encampment of Kara Mustafa, and just like Alexander before him just missed actually capturing / killing Darius so to did Sobieski just miss capturing / killing Kara Mustafa. The result though was the same, a huge enemy army was defeated on the battlefield by well thought out and planned tactics by a much smaller force using anything but linear combat tactics.
Quote from: fsn on 12 February 2015, 06:39:31 PM
'...Mongols though, are dead boring...'
You said that just to provoke a reaction, didn't you...go on admit it. :D
The very last thing you can about Mongols is that they are boring. They have everything; speed of movement and thus concentration of mass at any given point and mobile artillery which they used to great effect, vis a vis the world's first creeping barrage used so successfully at the Battle of Mohi in 1241. Again, not only were Hungarians attacked frontally, Siban conducted a tactical outflanking manoeuvre on the left while Sube'etai went off for a strategic outflanking manoeuvre on the right.
They would focus their attention at a certain point on the enemy line -not necessarily on the front line either, and then subject the area to a barrage of arrows from as many different directions as they were able.
Don't forget the greatest outflanking manoeuvre in history was conducted by the Mongols. In 1219, Chinggis Qan sent three of his sons to occupy the Kharizmian Shah frontally while he and the main army crossed a supposedly impassable desert (the Kizil-Kum) and appeared 400 miles behind the Khwarizmian rear!
Normally, modern military thinking is that the attacker should outnumber the defender by 3 to 1, Chinggis Qan was outnumbered 1 to 4 when he took on the Khwarizmians.
Quote
Because both mobility and firepower are so limited, the distance to which units and armies can project their force is much less than the width of the armies. Thus, although linear deployments are not exactly one-dimensional - there are second and third lines and reserves - they are not truly two-dimensional either.
The Mongols projected their force up to 100 miles ahead of the main body in all directions and being an all cavalry arm they could concentrate extremely quickly.
The battlefield of the Battle of River Sit in March 1238 -fought in thick snow I hasten to add- was anything but linear and approximately seven miles long. In those days for anyone but the Mongols it would have been uncontrollable but because of their draconian discipline and incomparable command structure it was hard but far from impossible.
These are just a few I can think of off the top of my head.
Psst...Subedai fancies Genghis, pass it on :D
Quote from: getagrip on 12 February 2015, 10:42:19 PM
Psst...Subedai fancies Genghis, pass it on :D
Well, tomorrow is a traditional day for passing on the news to the object of one's desire. Send the Khan a new province as a Valentine.
Quote from: Chris Pringle on 12 February 2015, 05:13:46 PM
- How do I deploy my line? (For it is almost invariably a line.)
- Should I have a second line and/or a reserve?
- Do I attack the enemy or wait for them?
- If I attack, do I go left-flanking, right-flanking, or general advance?
The decisions a PNW general can make during the battle are more limited:
- When/where to commit the second line / reserve?
- Er, that's it?
Um.
Well...
When you boil it down, that applies to every period and every form of warfare since Megiddo surely?
Quote from: Chris Pringle on 12 February 2015, 05:13:46 PM
OK, this derives from the "Wargaming Pet Hates" thread where I posted this:
http://www.pendrakenforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,11131.msg147486.html#msg147486
which includes among my pet hates:
"Anything pre-Napoleon - essentially it's linear warfare, relatively limited tactical options, relatively few interesting decisions to make."
(I was also careful to include this caveat: "I don't mean to belittle anyone else's fun - it's all about personal preference, and if others love the games I hate, that's fine, I don't have to play them.")
Hi Chris, this is really a really interesting post as this is my favourite period - late 17th to early 18th, and funnily enough I like it for all the reasons you've stated below that you dislike it. I really don't take your view personally and it's one of the great things about this hobby, there's something for everybody...maybe this period appeals to my OCD tendencies ;)
The period produces a lot of challenges, linear tactics are just being developed and armies are still not professional making moving large bodies of troops difficult. If you make a mistake it is difficult to recover and you need to commit reserves early. It really is about closing infantry quickly, trying to concentrate firepower and then charging in with Muskets while the cavalry do battle on the flanks. Some find this type of warfare boring but I enjoy the challenges it presents.
Artillery is still largely ineffective and needs to be deployed carefully & be protected by infantry or you will lose it but used correctly it can win a battle for you.
Having said all that there was a lot going on during the period, I recently fought a battle using 9 Years war French against Polish/Lithuanian of the same period, this was 2 very different armies using vary different tactics...Whole units of Winged Hussars crashing into neat French Musket lines was a thing of beauty.
The uniforms & especially tricorns during the period look great en masse and I enjoy painting them.
Cheers, Jez.
Quote from: mollinary on 12 February 2015, 09:11:38 PM
Is everyone here being ironic/sarcastic? When I read Chris' post I automatically assumed he was referring to the 18th century, was I wrong?
Mollinary :-\
"Anything pre-Napoleon" I would assume to be just that.
Quote from: Chris Pringle on 12 February 2015, 05:13:46 PM
"Anything pre-Napoleon - essentially it's linear warfare, relatively limited tactical options, relatively few interesting decisions to make."
It's not the way I read how Frederick the Great viewed battle tactics.
I played a really enjoyable game a couple of weeks ago. Sunjester took the 'Advance either side of a impassable river' scenario from the classic Solo Wargame Scenarios, and did it as a 4 player WSS for Black Powder.
Now I think I can say we all enjoyed the game. Looking back at it it was just lines with no manoeuvre - it was played across the table, so only 4 foot wide. However there was always decisions to be made- as a defender at what point to I press forward? Do I leave the battered first line, with the reserves ready to take the brunt of the exhausted attackers when the front retires, or do I pass my second line through so I can try to rally.
Of course, the battle was made interesting by my Alleged Ally deciding the best way of defending against a WSS attack was to charge forward, then wonder why his infantry disintegrated. Luckily his cuirassiers pulled off some astounding charges, meaning the French Infantry, though unopposed, daren't break through as they had lots of cavalry on their flank
A while ago we played Fleurus (there are pictures floating around this forum somewhere) which was a very enjoyable battle with great outflanking cavalry charges, surprisingly fast troop movements (and some surprisingly slow as well) and a lot of maneuver. "despite" the fact that it was a 17th century battle.
I think the differences between Pre- en Peri-Napoleonic are a lot smaller than you think. Certainly on the gaming table where a lot of nuances are ironed away in the rulesets.
People have that notion about 18th century battles because of two words, taken out of context and generally interpreted through the warping glass of Featherstonian cliches: linear tactics.
In fact, you'd be hard-pressed to find any real battle in any period that didn't need to impose a line. Troops wouldn't be able to support each other without it.
A cursory examination of Frederick the Great's battles would cure anyone of the notion that "linear tactics", so called, consisted solely of two rows of infantry blazing away futilely at each other. Rossbach and Leuthen both involved daring and superbly executed flank marches that enabled him to attack a small part of the enemy's force with all of his own. Conversely, his defeat at Hochkirk was the result of a brilliantly effective concentric attack by the Austrians. At Leignitz and Torgau Old Fritz actually split his army, using one part to hold off one enemy while the other dealt with the rest. Napoleon, himself, was a great admirer of Frederick, a fact that speaks for itself.
The problem is not that linear tactics are uninteresting, but that wargamers exhibit a "convention" mentality, where all units must be posted end to end and parallel to the baseline. Try re-fighting some of Frederick's battles (or Marlborough's or Charles XII's) and you'll find that there is as much tactical flexibility as the so-called "impusle armies". After all, how many battles did Wellington lose?
Leuthen was dam' near the perfect battle. It didn't depend on a stupid enemy, or on one weak in technology or discipline.
Quote from: WeeWars on 13 February 2015, 12:18:48 AM
"Anything pre-Napoleon" I would assume to be just that.
Indeed. Otherwise the original post would have gone a long the lines of: "Hey guys, 18th century warefare is pretty boring innit?" But it didn't.
I'd say it depends on the scale of representation you use.
WWII can be played at skirmish level, company level, battalion, armies...
Each has a different appeal, and you can ignore the range of a rifle if you play at big scales and only consider Arty and Air as long range weapons.
It depends of your ruleset and mainly on the number of troops you deploy on a fixed table size :
Any period can be pretty boring if you fill your table with troops from one end to another.
In the end, I don't play history, I play my representation of history (mainly based on "bad" movies in my case) : I have a fantasy of what the WWII eastern front should be (lots of tanks) and put it on the table because I like the idea.
Thanks very much for all the interesting, well-informed and informative replies so far. I'll try to respond to them all, but it may take me more than one message. First, a reminder of perhaps my key point, which I made from the perspective of a tabletop wargamer, wanting the situation to change each turn and to present me with interesting choices each turn:
"realistically the interesting decisions a PNW general has to make are limited to pre-battle ones ... The decisions a PNW general can make during the battle are more limited: - When/where to commit the second line / reserve?"
@fsn: surely Lake Trasimene supports my case? The interesting bit happens in setting up the ambush. Then the ambusher's line falls upon the ambushee's (disjointed and disadvantaged) line. From that point it's just an exercise in rolling dice to see who escapes the massacre. Realistically, what are the significant in-game choices either player is going to get to make?
@fsn: absolutely agree, variety of troop types is fascinating, their asymmetric interactions can be interesting, setting up your line to get the best match-ups and win the rock-scissors-paper contests is an art. I just don't think the in-game decisions are that interesting.
@fsn: absolutely agree not all C19 or C20 conflicts make for interesting decisions either, WWI trench warfare being the prime example. BUT generally speaking, C19 / C20 produces much more interesting in-game decisions (for me).
@Maenoferren: I'm talking about proper battles, not skirmish, and I think FIW counts as skirmish. Nothing wrong with PNW skirmish if skirmish is your thing.
@paulr: really?
@getagrip: nice colours matter, aesthetics matter, I approve of pretty armies. Ideally I'd like a game to offer me good-looking armies AND interesting decisions. If it's a choice, I'll take the latter.
@Fig.ht: Gaugamela again supports my case, I think. Two armies line up facing each other on a billiard table. Some preliminary skirmishing by chariots and cavalry fighting on the wings. Alexander commits his reserve and goes right-flanking and wins. That's it. Where's the ebb and flow and the interesting in-game decisions for players?
@irregularwars: tunnel vision? Possibly. I'm probably jaundiced by years of watching our tournament gamers first with WRG, then with DBM and DBR, now with FOG and FOGR, playing what looks like exactly the same stereotyped formulaic linear game. I could be conflating PNW battles with tournament games and unfairly attributing the vices of one to the other. Perhaps if people at the club played some more imaginative PNW games I'd see out of my tunnel. On the other hand, could it be that the stereotyped formulaic linear nature of PNW lends itself to tournament games?
@irregularwars: Leuktra another that supports my case, surely? Theban innovation consists of pre-battle decision about how to line up the line-up, and to attack in echelon. Two decisions. Where's the in-game interest?
@irregularwars: Macedonian warfare I don't know about. Can you cite a battle? Or is it skirmish action?
@irregularwars: I'm not claiming the armies aren't varied and fascinating. I love chariots and elephants and camelry as much as the next man. It's just that the battles they fight in generate relatively limited in-game decisions for a player.
@irregularwars: Glenmalure and Ford of the Biscuits I would discount as skirmishes, but Kinsale looks as though it could be interesting to play - basically because it is a fluid battle with reinforcements arriving to change the situation, rather than the usual line-out. Thanks for pointing it out.
I'm going to stop (pause) there. I do intend to reply to later messages as well when I get a chance. Thanks again for all the responses, and please do keep them coming.
Chris
@Maenoferren: I'm talking about proper battles, not skirmish, and I think FIW counts as skirmish. Nothing wrong with PNW skirmish if skirmish is your thing.
Fair point however, I would argue that the people getting shot at wouldn't really see the difference :D
Know nothing about tactics but it's dead pretty.
Chris,
I'd say my main disagreement with what you say is that you seem to think Napoleonic warfare and onwards is any different.
All wars in all eras are basically lining up troops and hoping your men hit harder, fire faster or stand fast longer than the enemy.
The real decisions are, as you say, taken long before the day of battle. Things like training, equipment and supply happen (or don't!) well before the day of decision and are merely manifestations of the political, moral, religious, etc., etc. ethos of the society they represent.
In the 5000 years or so of historical warfare I'm not sure anything has changed except the hardware. I've seen nothing to suggest that the average conscript with an AK-47 runs faster, fights harder or obeys orders any better than a conscript spearmen turning out to fight for his Sumerian god. Armies may be bigger, death may come from further afar but the decision on where to apply air-power or when to loose the "donkey carts" don't seem to me to be intrinsically more interesting to game.
Besides, lining up the troops is only part of the story, the best match-up can still result in your overconfident elite getting roughly handled by some grubby peasants at which point you need to decide how to plug a gap in the line. I'm happy to make a game out of those sort of decisions.
Deciding whether loosing the reserves now is too early or if you are saving them for a future your army doesn't have seems to me a worthwhile thing to game.
Hmm, this has turned out to be a longer ramble than I intended!
Had a brief look at this yesterday. Had a long think. Looked at it again today to offer my own thoughts and ... crikey ... the discussions have certainly moved on apace since! I agree with what a lot of the guys have said (FK, Last Hussar, Upgraydd and many more) so apologies for covering old ground.
Anything and everything you say, Chris? Well, I've given this Deep Thought and I think the answer is 17.*
Such an all encompassing question (you scamp). I have good fun playing SYW/WAS and ACW. These are eras which straddle the Napoleonic Wars yet, in your generalised characterisation for PNW, my decisions are essentially the same.
Arguably, most set piece battles are linear regardless of era; table-top games more so. Hastings; linear. El Alamein; linear. Even, Waterloo. We line up our forces on one edge and the other player does the same on the opposite edge. On a featureless table, two lines facing each other can look very boring. Throw in terrain that disrupts, impedes or splits opposing forces and it starts getting more interesting. Then throw in objectives, late arrivals, flank attacks, etc. and you have lots of options and decisions.
I confess I have my preconceptions of various eras no doubt influenced in part by Hollywood, line 'em up wargames, general histories, the preconceptions of other rules designers and poor research on my part. The more I read about 18th century warfare, the more I am amazed how tactically aware, how more mobile and less rigid they actually were and when I read what they actually got up to, I realise that some wargame rules don't allow this to happen (and, in so doing, perpetuating misconceptions).
Therefore, I would say less options do not necessarily mean less fun with good scenario design and greater knowledge of our chosen eras being the key to getting more fun out of our games.
:)
*based on the answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe and Everything (of course).
Quote from: Ithoriel on 13 February 2015, 02:17:54 PM
Hmm, this has turned out to be a longer ramble than I intended!
But an erudite one. Agree with all of this Ithoriel :)
I remember reading in a SCiFi novel which I think was a Renegade Legion one by FASA where one of the characters says something along the lines of
" No matter how much of a sweeping advance of classic pincer movement the generals do on their fancy maps, all it means to us on the ground is that we go head to head with the enemy"
Not sure how that helps but I hadnt written anything on this thread yet
No help at all really, and neither had I !!!
IanS
Chris, may I suggest you look at Gaugamela again as I think you have misinterpreted the battle almost entirely.
As it is others have commented that nearly all battles, irrespective of period, can be classed as a linear battle whereby troops are lined up against the enemy positions in either an offensive or defensive mode, or indeed both. The 'linear' effect held by army positions is just the jump off point of a battle.
Fenton and Ianrs ;D =D>
.... sorry ... trying to be serious again ....
Fig.ht - good point (seriously). :-bd
i think whether a game lacks decision nodes is a function of the rules, style of play and the granularity of the representation.
Leuthen for instance may indeed have grand manouvres and outflanking but they don't show up if you've got a wargame based on fielding 6 battalions.
This granularity has already been acknowledged in terms of FIW and skirmish games - different periods generate decisions at different points on that axis.
Additionally Chris's point about rules is, I think, telling - I can play DBx or FOG ancients and it's very much rock-paper-scissors with the majority of decisions made as Chris points out. When I play Impetus, however, the decisions are continuous throughout the game. Both are PNW, both have similar granularity in terms of numbers and representation but the rules give a very different game. I know which I prefer.
18th century is the prime candidate for PNW "line 'em up games" - so Maurice gives a card deck to replicate events and command decisions so that we have decisions to make about how to orchestrate the force under command. Other rules (not all of course) offer a bland decisionless arena of musketry and morale dice rolls.
Style of play is also a factor - how many Napoleonic games have you seen with tables groaning under hordes of units mushed shoulder-to-shoulder with no room to manouvre and no alternative to head-on collision stand-fight-die dice fests. If there's no room to manouvre and no option other than to step forward and roll dice then there are no decisions to be made.
So in short I don't think it's the period - it's the rules used, the style of play adopted and the granularity of the command level we're engaging with that produces a good (decisions) game or a dull (no decision) game
Quote from: Fig.ht on 13 February 2015, 03:07:43 PM
As it is others have commented that nearly all battles, irrespective of period, can be classed as a linear battle whereby troops are lined up against the enemy positions in either an offensive or defensive mode, or indeed both. The 'linear' effect held by army positions is just the jump off point of a battle.
Absolutely. My previous comment echoed this view. When you look past the period specific 'tools of the trade', there isn't much difference.
Roman soldier
1. Advance to contact on the front line
2. Use available arms to drive off the enemy.
3. Back to camp for wine and medals.
Napoleonic soldier
1. Advance to contact on the front line
2. Use available arms to drive off the enemy.
3. Back to camp for grog and medals.
WWII soldier
1. Advance to contact on the front line
2. Use available arms to drive off the enemy.
3. Back to camp for tea and medals.
Space marine
1. Advance to contact on the front line
2. Use available arms to drive off the enemy.
3. Back to camp for prayers and medals.
The only real difference i can see is armoud no.2
The Roman uses a sword (with balista support)
The Napoleonic soldier uses a bayonet and musket (with smoothbore cannon support)
The WWII soldier uses bayonet and rifle (with a whole slew of support from MGs to Flying Fortresses)
The space marine uses chainsword and bolter (with all manner of support)
So bringing it to the substantive point - that in a wargame there are more tactical decisions that need to be ade 'post-linear', for me doesn't really stack up. I make very similar choices when playing DBM as i do when playing Bolt Action.
'How do i bolster the failing point in my line? How do a reinforce my successful attack? Where can i get a dice that doesn't roll '1'?'
You forgot:
1) Advance to contact on the front line.
2) Served a cease and desist order by GW.
3) Err....
:)
So where does my matchstick firing cannon fit in?
Quote from: Leman on 13 February 2015, 07:35:45 PM
So where does my matchstick firing cannon fit in?
The gentleman's club. In the billiards room. ;)
Quote from: Leman on 13 February 2015, 07:35:45 PM
So where does my matchstick firing cannon fit in?
I've got a few suggestions :D
Do you realize that you only need another 5* posts to get promoted to Major, Gareth ?
Cheers - Phil.
*....As I write. ;)
Quote from: Techno on 13 February 2015, 08:16:25 PM
Do you realize that you only need another 5* posts to get promoted to Major, Gareth ?
Cheers - Phil.
*....As I write. ;)
Wow, that was fast. But as Steve readily points out, I do go on a bit :-[
Quote from: Ithoriel on 13 February 2015, 02:17:54 PM
Chris,
I'd say my main disagreement with what you say is that you seem to think Napoleonic warfare and onwards is any different.
All wars in all eras are basically lining up troops and hoping your men hit harder, fire faster or stand fast longer than the enemy.
The real decisions are, as you say, taken long before the day of battle. Things like training, equipment and supply happen (or don't!) well before the day of decision and are merely manifestations of the political, moral, religious, etc., etc. ethos of the society they represent.
In the 5000 years or so of historical warfare I'm not sure anything has changed except the hardware. I've seen nothing to suggest that the average conscript with an AK-47 runs faster, fights harder or obeys orders any better than a conscript spearmen turning out to fight for his Sumerian god. Armies may be bigger, death may come from further afar but the decision on where to apply air-power or when to loose the "donkey carts" don't seem to me to be intrinsically more interesting to game.
Besides, lining up the troops is only part of the story, the best match-up can still result in your overconfident elite getting roughly handled by some grubby peasants at which point you need to decide how to plug a gap in the line. I'm happy to make a game out of those sort of decisions.
Deciding whether loosing the reserves now is too early or if you are saving them for a future your army doesn't have seems to me a worthwhile thing to game.
Hmm, this has turned out to be a longer ramble than I intended!
Well said Ithoriel =D>
You have said, much better, what I was trying to say
Oh and Chris
Quote from: Chris Pringle on 13 February 2015, 01:44:43 PM
@paulr: really?
Yes really!
Your generalisations about roughly 5,000 years of warfare apply similarly to the few centuries after 1789 or what ever arbitrary year you pick to mark the end of the PNW
Quote from: Chris Pringle on 13 February 2015, 01:44:43 PM
@Fig.ht: Gaugamela again supports my case, I think. Two armies line up facing each other on a billiard table. Some preliminary skirmishing by chariots and cavalry fighting on the wings. Alexander commits his reserve and goes right-flanking and wins. That's it. Where's the ebb and flow and the interesting in-game decisions for players?
It's difficult to assess the ebb and flow of an Ancient battle when the only accounts of the battle are by the victors. Victors who want you to believe they crushed their enemy under their mighty foot. Who says the losers who lack a voice in surviving accounts didn't add a bit more ebb than the victors would like you to believe?
Ever read Napoleon's accounts of his 'easily won' battles?
And just how many post-Gaugamela (PG) battles give you the chance to lead a commander-in-chief on a mission across the battlefield with his select companions to pick out and destroy the enemy's c-in-c to win the battle? And Gaugamela isn't wargames-friendly?
If we're talking pre-anything, we may as well start with "the earliest battle in recorded history for which details of tactics and formations are known": Kadesh. Even Egyptian propaganda couldn't disguise the tension and unpredictable outcome of the battle.
More excitement can be had from Caesar's battles who on more than one occasion thought his fight was lost before he was victorious. Ebb and flow?
Staying with Ancients, the great Battle of Cannae doesn't appear any more or less linear in plan than the wargames-worthy Battle of Leipzig. But being an Ancient battle, we know much less about the detail. The detail that gives a battle the excitement of its ebb and flow.
As the chroniclers of Leipzig could have written in the year 1813:
"We made a mighty circle, a solid unbroken line of our allied troops, around that guy Napoleon and crushed him under our (Wellington-less) boot and his army went running away back to their own land, thoroughly defeated. It was that simple. Cause we're brilliant. Don't mess with us." Get the pre-Naps on the tabletop. Embrace the ebb, the flow, and the fun.
I'll stick my neck out, indeed; the main reason why I don't have 1942 western desert forces is that as far as I can see, there's no longer any real scope for a commander to exercise tactical skill (as I understand a contemporary German general observed - I wish I'd made a note of his name).
Quote from: FierceKitty on 14 February 2015, 01:39:57 AM
I'll stick my neck out, indeed; the main reason why I don't have 1942 western desert forces is that as far as I can see, there's no longer any real scope for a commander to exercise tactical skill (as I understand a contemporary German general observed - I wish I'd made a note of his name).
Always good to have an excuse when you're losing :)
I won the only modern game I've played in the last twenty years. Partly because I was up against someone who played only moderns and knew cavalry were out of date and could be ignored, allowing my Cossacks to choose their time and place to charge. SS kebabs, anyone?
In case there's any doubt FK, I meant the Germans, not you!
Quote from: Ithoriel on 14 February 2015, 03:23:17 AM
In case there's any doubt FK, I meant the Germans, not you!
Ah, you're a gentleman, sir.
Quote from: getagrip on 13 February 2015, 08:26:43 PM
Wow, that was fast. But as Steve readily points out, I do go on a bit :-[
Congratulations, Gareth ! :-bd
Cheers - Phil
Wow, up to 50 replies now. I'm seriously tempted just to withdraw gracefully. But since so many have taken the trouble to respond, it would be a bit discourteous of me not to at least try to reply. First a couple of general points:
Quite a lot of replies seem to be arguing against things I never actually said. I didn't say PNW armies themselves aren't interesting, and I didn't say there isn't plenty of interest and fun to be had from them. This is in part my fault. I realize that listing PNW as a 'pet hate' raised hackles unnecessarily, and wasn't a good way to start a reasoned theoretical discussion, especially as it isn't really true - it's a preference on my part but not an intolerance, and in just the past couple of months I have enjoyed playing in three good PNW games myself: Bunker Hill and White Plains (AWI using Black Powder), and a Leuthen-esque Seven Years' War game. Also, although I did mention decisions for "generals", I should have made clearer that I was talking about large battles rather than skirmishes.
I have just had a look at a list of 30+ of the largest C19 battles. I didn't initially define what I meant by a linear battle, but even if we take a very loose definition - a battle where at least one side starts deployed in a continuous line and trying to hold that line - I reckon only half of them would count. If we disallow those where a significant proportion of one or both sides' forces arrives after the battle starts, i.e. it is a more fluid situation than a true linear line-out, you get down to a third or fewer.
For instance, Mars-la-Tour (Franco-Prussian War): one army is strung out in column of march, and its smaller opponent, cutting across its line of march, has just planted a small blocking force in the way. Both armies get multiple reinforcements arriving on the battlefield from all points of the compass. This "march divided, fight united" story is quite a common theme in C19 battles but I think rare in PNW, because (Mongols excepted?) very few armies had the mobility plus the command structure to manage it. I'd welcome more equivalent PNW examples.
Some individual answers in detail:
@Fig.ht: Vienna 1683? If the launch of the Hussars is the only significant decision - in effect, the "when to commit the reserve" decision - then that doesn't work as a counter-example. But if Sobieski is also having to marshal various forces arriving from various directions during the battle, then perhaps it does. Merits further examination. (By me, I mean.)
@Subedai: thanks for engaging directly with the serious military-geometrical-theoretical point I was trying to make, and for offering a good counter-example. The Mongols did manage to overrun half the world, so they must have had something special. Perhaps they are the exception that proves my rule?
@Luddite: in late C19 games there are a lot more in-game decisions to be made. Sometimes it's about responding to the arrival of your own or enemy reinforcements from whichever direction. Often a battle is in a series of phases as particular terrain strongpoints need to be seized before the attacker can progress to the next. There may be defence in depth on a series of positions; there may be fighting withdrawals.
@Upgraydd: Jez, thanks for a couple of nice points. I agree that asymmetrical armies help to make battles interesting, regardless of period. And I appreciate that the very limitations I talked about could present interesting challenges. In the SYW game I tried recently, one thing I did like about the rules was how they seemed to reflect battered lines falling back behind a fresh second line to rally.
@ Last Hussar: ditto.
@WeeWars: see my reply to Hertsblue below.
@Pijlie: was this your Fleurus game? http://pijlieblog.blogspot.nl/search/label/Fleurus ? If so, it looks and sounds like one big line-out to me, but if you say there was lots of maneuver and lots of fun then I have no argument.
@FierceKitty: "you'd be hard-pressed to find any real battle in any period that didn't need to impose a line. Troops wouldn't be able to support each other without it." Au contraire. Once you have weapons with decent range and firepower, you no longer need to form a PNW-style shoulder-to-shoulder line, since units can support each other with fire from a distance. Which is the geometrical point I was trying to make.
@Hertsblue: Rossbach, Leuthen, Leignitz are all very different battles, indeed. Here perhaps it depends where you start your game: are the interesting decisions all made pre-battle? If you start the game at the point where Frederick's line envelops his enemies at Rossbach, or already outflanks them at Leuthen, it's still a bit limited (though more fun than a straight line-out). If you make those pre-battle maneuvers part of the game, count me in. (Leignitz sort of just a double line-out?)
@barbarian. Agreed. The scale I am interested in is where generals are commanding 10s or 100s of 1000s of troops. Corps-plus, if you like.
@Maenoferren: it might not make much difference to the people in the front line getting shot, but it does to the generals, and that's the scale I'm interested in. My fault for not making that clearer to begin with.
And that's all I have time for today!
Chris
Big distance is relative. The line just gets longer, and it becomes increasingly difficult to show a battlefield on a tabletop as you need a helicopter, then a spy satellite, to see it.
This just seems to be a "my period is better than yours" point of view
What do I think?
I like it all. Linear, non-linear, skirmish, air, land, sea, multi-corps, modern, ancients, wwii, early and late WWI, fantasy, sci-Fi, even occasionally non-Euclidean!
Just not keen on 28mm zombie-vampire-gunslingers.
I'm with Lemmey; I'll give anything a go. Not really found a wargame I didn't like. Same goes for military boardgames too :)
I have - BKC
Quote from: mad lemmey on 16 February 2015, 07:37:34 PM
What do I think?
I like it all. Linear, non-linear, skirmish, air, land, sea, multi-corps, modern, ancients, wwii, early and late WWI, fantasy, sci-Fi, even occasionally non-Euclidean!
Just not keen on 28mm zombie-vampire-gunslingers.
You're such a fascist, Will. Such discrimination ;) :D
I resemble that remark!
Outside, now!
If I'm not their in five minutes, start without me!
Quote from: mad lemmey on 25 February 2015, 12:11:19 PM
Outside, now!
If I'm not their in five minutes, start without me!
Careful, Nik, cos Lemmey could surprise you and attack from any point of the compass. Don't expect a boring old linear encounter.
Quote from: mad lemmey on 25 February 2015, 12:11:19 PM
I resemble that remark!
Outside, now!
If I'm not their in five minutes, start without me!
Sorry - got caught with a couple of phone calls. Did you beat me up?
Quote from: WeeWars on 25 February 2015, 12:47:07 PM
Careful, Nik, cos Lemmey could surprise you and attack from any point of the compass. Don't expect a boring old linear encounter.
Nicely done, sir, nicely done ;D :D ;D
The obvious point of the compass to attack from is surely the sharp end.... ;)
I dropped from above!
(Having left a decent interval) thank you all for a civil and well-informed discussion, and I hope I didn't antagonize anyone. My period is not better than anyone else's, except in the narrowly subjective sense that in my trivial opinion it happens to be better for doing what I like. I'd be happy to try PNW games with any of the good people on this forum and I expect I'd enjoy them, linear or otherwise, whether it be Mongols, Polish Hussars, French & Indian Wars skirmish or whatever. The first rule is to have fun, and there are lots of ways of doing that. Happy gaming!
Chris
Well said that man.
Hear, hear. I'll drink to that statement.
You Mongols ull drink to bloody anythin.
IanS :D
Quote from: ianrs54 on 03 March 2015, 04:42:30 PM
You Mongols ull drink to bloody anythin.
IanS :D
Fermented horse milk...yum yum... :-&
Quote from: ianrs54 on 03 March 2015, 04:42:30 PM
You Mongols ull drink to bloody anythin.
IanS :D
Well, they had a lot of conquering to celebrate.
Fortunately I am more of a wine man than koumis or arag (fermented mares milk). I like my milk cold and straight from the bottle in the fridge -only ever hot on porridge.
There is an apocryphal story about Ogedai Qagan who was exceeding fond of his wine. So much so that he was a bit of an alky. His younger brother told him off about his consumption and made him promise to only drink a single glass of wine a day. Ogedei stuck to his promise...he just got a much bigger glass!
Quote from: Subedai on 03 March 2015, 06:32:20 PM
Well, they had a lot of conquering to celebrate.
Fortunately I am more of a wine man than koumis or arag (fermented mares milk). I like my milk cold and straight from the bottle in the fridge -only ever hot on porridge.
There is an apocryphal story about Ogedai Qagan who was exceeding fond of his wine. So much so that he was a bit of an alky. His younger brother told him off about his consumption and made him promise to only drink a single glass of wine a day. Ogedei stuck to his promise...he just got a much bigger glass!
You ever tried koumis?