Not sure if this has been asked before but can I gauge peoples feelings on gaming events/scenarios where significant collateral damage to "non-military" targets may occur (e.g. gaming current conflicts around the world, WW2 area bombing, fighting in heavily populated areas etc)?
I don't game anything after 1989 and shy away from conflicts too "close to home".
or am I just being nieve/too PC? ;)
If you game only periods where there is little to no "collateral damage" you are going to be very short of periods to game!
I wouldn't want to game atrocities or even the incidental non-combatant casualties but, for example, I wouldn't shy away from a Stalingrad game because of the large number of civilian casualties.
Each to their own though.
Hardly avoidable, as Ithoriel says. But if the civilians became the targets in the game, I'd start worrying.
I'd say the effects of siege warfare were amongst the worst of collateral damage (you can't even run away...), so the further back in history you go the worse it gets...
The closest i get to civilians in games is hostage rescue/ evacuation, or when playing zombie games. Everything else is a no-no.
I agree with Peter (although I don't do zombies) I have some scenarios for 1914 Belgian refugees, but under military escort, so the game focuses on the military. The worst that can happen to the civilians is capture.
Interesting question, Pierre.
As has been said, it's hard to find a period with no collateral damage. Like you I tend to shy away from periods that people I know or have known fought in - pretty much 1939 and after. I rule out the ACW for several similar reasons.
I use civilians frequently in the early parts of the wars of the Irish Confederation, usually as moveable objectives. The goal is always to capture (and loot or hold for ransom) not to kill. I'll admit that many of the forces I use in 17th century Ireland and Scotland are often little better than civilian.
I am very interested in insurgencies and ad hoc forces but like the 400 year separation provided by my period of interest.
I forgot to mention partisan actions. I have a partisan force for ww II. I do consider these as military though, as they fought because they decided they wanted /needed to fight.
Collateral damage to property is not a problem in a wargame but casualties to civilians is another matter. I don't think I would be in favour of rules recording casualties on civilians unless it was, say, a hostage rescue scenario.
Civilians in a game can throw up some interesting and possibly game changing dilemmas. They can be incorporated to hinder movement or fields of fire or otherwise distracting the combatants from going about the business of killing each other. For example, how about special rules for fleeing refugees blocking roads vital for troop movements or causing one or both sides to stop shooting that turn (but not movement)? Rules for regulating the automatic movement of the refugee column could incorporate various possible outcomes on the throw of a die - e.g., column moves faster or slower, column disperses to avoid strafing requiring one full move to 'reform,' etc. This need not simply refer to modern warfare - civilians in other eras can equally block roads or get in the way of the fighting. The presence of civilian contractors for drawing artillery in black powder conflicts is also a factor to consider.
In WW2 Holland, was the British Army not under orders to avoid the wanton destruction of civilian property (seem to recall reading this somewhere - The Tank War by Mark Urban? - plus also featured in Band of Brothers)? This could cause a British tank not to fire on a civilian property until absolutely evident that the property is occupied by enemy forces (decided on a dice throw). Or how about irregular units not pursuing retreating enemies to pillage & capture slaves, etc.
There is also the case of buildings or other edifices of special architectural or historical significance, e.g., didn't Hitler order all bridges over the Arno to be demolished but "somehow" the German engineers did not manage to destroy the Ponte Vecchio? A scenario could therefore include a bridge or church of special significance that would limit an attacker's options - for example, explicit rules to allow only small arms or hand-to-hand combat or a random dice throw to decide if shelling orders are followed, etc.
I'd be even more unhappy blowing up a cathedral. And I'm an atheist!
Muskets & Tomahawks have a scenario where your objective is to make sure the opposite party has no civilians left alive on the board... they can either flee or get killed if their own party is not able to defend them. This may all sound very cruel but was a strategic type of warfare where you wanted to be sure the 'new' settlers would prefer to stay away from that part of the country. It may feel somewhat awkward but it is authentic and I personally do not see any reason not to play it. Warfare is not all clean and fun with only heroes and villains and I don't mind being reminded of that every now and then.
Cheers,
Rob
I know a group who recently gamed Operation Gomorrah - the RAF offensive against Hamburg.
Why? to learn from it - to see what could have been done better to maximise damage to industry, housing, civilians and reduce RAF casualties. Whilst we may baulk at "civilian" casualties it is a fact that a skilled machinist making munitions wont go to work if he's copped it.
And in all probability the enemy will remember this when he's in a position to return the favour.
In the rule sets I use, HOTT, DBN and DBA-HX if it isn't a combat element, it's not on the board. However, when I think it fits the army make up I will do a Horde element or two do civilians. But by doing that, then I have really made them combatants.
Terry
Thanks for sharing your thoughts everyone.
Quote from: Dr Dave on 21 November 2017, 12:54:14 PM
I know a group who recently gamed Operation Gomorrah - the RAF offensive against Hamburg. Why? to learn from it - to see what could have been done better to maximise damage to industry, housing, civilians and reduce RAF casualties. Whilst we may baulk at "civilian" casualties it is a fact that a skilled machinist making munitions wont go to work if he's copped it.
Well, I was actually prompted to start this thread by my interest in the impending re-release of a set of rules which covers the escapades of a number of individual RAF bombers during the course of a mission over Germany from take off to landing (in whatever form that may take) during the period from 1942 to 1945. Over the target each individual aircraft checks for deviation of its bombing run that may result in them hitting civilian targets rather than the "nominal" military aiming point. Personally I would not play out and out indiscriminate area bombing scenarios with them for obvious reasons, but am quite keen to try them.
Loss rates among Bomber Command aircrews in 1943-4 were almost staggering, with the loss of up to 50+ aircraft per mission.
Quote from: FierceKitty on 22 November 2017, 12:07:30 AM
And in all probability the enemy will remember this when he's in a position to return the favour.
100% correct Kitty, in retaliation for the RAF night bombing of Germany the Luftwaffe launched Operation Steinbock, aka "the Baby Blitz" from Jan - May 1944.
I'm sure that with a bit of adaption the rules could be used to cover Luftwaffe night bombers over the UK too.
PS Mods - I am not trying to get into semantics about the "politics" of this subject just gauge general feelings about using a particular set of rules.
Cheers
Peter
Quote from: FierceKitty on 22 November 2017, 12:07:30 AM
And in all probability the enemy will remember this when he's in a position to return the favour.
Eh? I thought it was the allies who were "returning the favour"? I think it was found to be a useful training exercise for the officers. Militaries are placing more and more emphasis on the importance of wargaming as a tool to teach tactics when it can be difficult to assemble a battalion or similar all in one place - plus it's a lot cheaper.
As an historical point: at the height of the battle of the Atlantic the allies worked out what German uboat tactics were not by interrogation or code breaking - but by wargaming convoy attacks and determining what was the best course of action for a wolf pack. The crews of the merchant ships were civilians - although in a reserved occupation - and suffered the highest losses as a % of any of the services.