I love gaming historical battle scenarios, for various reasons. This is my preferred game format.
However, most of my fellow wargamers seem happy to fight non-historical match-ups or generic or invented situations with their historical armies, or to go entirely non-historical and play fantasy, science fiction, alternate history etc. I can enjoy these games too.
I've penned some musings on the good reasons for preferring NON-historical games here:
http://bloodybigbattles.blogspot.com/2021/10/reasons-not-to-refight-historical.html
If such games are your preference, I'd be interested to know your reasons for this as well.
An excellent summary of arguments for the classic "Club night" battle Chris.
I'll throw in another:
Fighting smaller actions that never reached the history books.
Part of this is the trend toward skirmish style fantasy games feeding back into historicals.
Games that pay quick, engage the players with decisions each turn, and finish within the available time.
I'm using "Skirmish style" in the loosest possible sense here.
Not the old "1 figure represents 1 man and each operates independently".
More the sort of "Small war" of a platoon, company or scouting detachment fighting an enemy as part of a larger operation.
By the time you reach the World Wars of the 20th century it is nigh on impossible to represent whole battles without sacrificing what most gamers love about he period.
Take D-Day, doing the whole thing would be a massive stretch, you might play out one beach.
But it's far more likely that you'll play a sector of one beach, a raid on an artillery battery, or a coup de main against a strategic canal bridge.
You've missed out my main reason. We Know What Happened!
The moment Jerome takes Hougoumont at the first attempt or the first wave at Sword Beach are wiped out in their landing craft by accurate German artillery fire or the Nervii kill Caesar and his bodyguard and his blood flows into the river Selle or whatever we are into fantasy territory as firmly as any game with dragons, unicorns and elves.
If you refight a battle and it doesn't follow the historical path you, or your rules, have missed something.
If it does, why bother?
So, fictional battles, with plausible fictional forces are my usual fare. No batteries of Karl Morsers in action, though I have used one as an objective once and as off table artillery a couple of times (you get one shot per game, make it count!). My two Maus models have seen action in my "Last Stand At Kummersdorf" scenario a few times. They are usually bogged down, broken down or knocked out by turn three!
That said, I've had plenty of fun with New Kingdom Egyptians taking on Samurai and the like in my time :)
A lot of those apply to my group Chris!
It is certainly a lot of effort to relight a historical battle - in research of terrain and forces. Then trying to translate this into something on the table top - and hoping that it gives a good game.
We tried a Normandy based game with Rommel rules - which was set just to the West of Caen with the British attacking. I'd left Caen off table, but this meant that one flank was very open, and the British used the strategic move options to rush some tanks forward. Nearly made a mockery of the whole scenario, but they ended up rather isolated in the end. The rest of the scenario played out pretty well.
What I do find with my gaming group and historical scenarios, and particularly WWII ones, is that everyone (including me!) has a different view of how hte battle should play out, and what different units / vehicles should or shouldn't be able to do. Then you get even more conflict between the historical purists and the pure gamers - with the latter's view being if its in the rules I'm doing it, and the historical group going well that shouldn't happen, no one would ever do that. Which does rather drain the fun out of the game.
Ultimately I think we all love a good scenario - but have probably suffered too many half baked ones that don't quite work - which is why hte basic two sides line up and charge format is so often favoured
All my projects from Hastings to Crete 1941 are based on historical orders of battle but I'm not entirely sure what constitutes a non-historical scenario.
My first game for a new project is usually a refight of the historical battle in which precedent is adhered to. If the rules don't conform fairly well to the original outcome, taking into account the occasional aberration thrown up by 'luck' which skews results and, most importantly, my preconceived notions of what the 'flavour' of warfare was like at the time, there is something wrong with them and they need ditching or modifying until they do.
There is little point re-fighting a particular battle precisely as it was done historically time and time again but it is interesting to try and 're-write' history, where a free hand is allowed, rather than following precise historical precedent.
I do care about historical context, very much. Most of my games are set in the context of a historical campaign. Campaigns generate their own battle scenarios, which are dependent on what the players do. I don't consider this to be non-historical, on the contrary.
Mixing periods is though. It is entering the realm of fantasy, and I don't do fantasy, or science fiction, indeed, the popularity of these genres, often played by teenagers with personal hygiene issues, is one reason why I haven't belonged to a club for decades. The others are the need to set up the table, complete the game and take it down in an evening, and arguments over the interpretation of rules. I really can't be bothered.
I loathe points based rules, which I view as constraining and entirely unnecessary. So I don't do them either. I also dislike them because they seem to encourage people to build armies that bear little or no relation to anything that ever existed. These kinds of anomalies, such as you describe, are a prime example of this lunacy.
Wargaming for me has always been more than just the game. Historical context is fundamental. The research, painting the models and making the terrain are parts of the menu of activities that go to make the whole. They are the indispensable means to an end.
Excellent thread with some really thought provoking contributions.
I can certainly get behind the "We know what happened" problem.
In an early Little Wars TV interview Greg (of the Little Wars) and LLoyd (Lindybeige) discuss the "Zama test" for ancients rules.
Can you set the armies up as deployed and get something like the historic result.
They conclude that it is extremely rare.
I can see why; double envelopment with a 1000 fot general playing defence is going to be extremely challenging.
How many other big battles, can degenerate into an unsightly scrum with General Hindsight at the helm.
* Brandywine? Defend ALL the fords.
* Austerlitz? Ignore the Czar and hold your defence lines while Napoleon blunders uphill through fog.
* Waterloo? Occupy Placenoit in force, and don't get dragged into a skirmish of the Chateaux.
* Gettysburg? Either full on at the beginning, or marshal your cavalry and come round the back (Don't go running up that hill).
* D-day? Deploy the armoured reserve as early as possible (stick a couple of extra battalions on the Pegasus Bridge, and shoot Tom Hanks)
* Arnhem? Maybe find a different bridge that isn't crawling with Panzers.
This, of course, raises the question of players diverging from history.
Do you force them to start with historic deployment, or allow them to reorganise the lines?
Do you force marching forces to follow historic route and order of march - even when this takes them into an ambush like Lake Trasimene?
I do like the idea of taking historic orders of battle (or detachments from orders of battle), and having them fight on a different field.
Hi
Very interesting blog article and thread.
Personally I'm fairly ambivalent about refighting historical battles where players are forced to deploy as the armies did in real life and where quite often special rules are inserted to more or less force players to make the same choices and moves as their historical counterparts; in those cases I have never quite seen the point. That said who doesn't want to refight Waterloo, Gettysburg or Arnhem (insert your favourite battles here)? If I was planning to refight Waterloo for instance I would prefer to do some kind of pre battle movement with the forces starting off where they were at dawn on 18 June (rather than at 11.30) and let the players make their own choices from there, taking into account the mud and the difficulties of moving artillery. How you get around the fact that the French will know that Prussians will at some point be appearing on their right flank I'm not so sure about. Gettysburg, as an 'encounter' engagement is a battle that I think you can recreate, with the forces entering on the roads they entered in real life and at the real time (perhaps with a certain amount of variation) but then again allowing the respective commanders to make their own choices. And in my book just because things do not follow exactly as they did in the real battle does not take it into the realms of dragons, unicorns and elves!
Cheers Paul
I agree largely with Chris' comments. I rarely game historical battles unless I have sufficient information on a particular battle, the space and figures to recreate it and a suitable set of game rules. There is also the problem of whether or not players actually follow the orders given and executed in actuality or do you give them the freedom to do what they think should have been done. Arguably in the latter event does this not then become non-historical?
Neither do I want to spend a game night discussing the merits or otherwise of the progress of the re-creation of a particular battle on a table. I
simply want to enjoy a wargame, win or lose, with friends. Is that not what it is about?
reading this tread brought back a lot of memorys of games over the last 25 years.
I've payed alot of both competition and historical games, and I do enjoy both.
I do enjoy the research behind a large historical game. When our group refought the NZ division on Crete in May 1941 I spent about 3 months doing the background for it. Sorting the OOB's, reading everything I could find (including German sources which were not easy to find in 2003. Fortunately I was working at a University at the tiem and there were some very interesting tomes in the basement). I used the large corridors at work in the evenings and weekends to sort out the terrain (16' by 6'). To cap it off the owner of the local fish and chip shop couldn't work out why his customers were talking about the towns around where he grew up while waiting for their orders.
I think that for the most part players pre-knowledge of history can be beaten by the victory conditions for the game. forinstanec waterloo, the french have to beat the british before the Prussians turn up. The French don't win by organising defending against the Prussians.
Our group over the years rewrote a fair bit of history:
-The Yalu sea in 1894 where the ram and heavy armour defeated the quick firing gun, thus setting back naval progress 10-15 years. Our group playing the Chinese against the naval experts who played the Japanese. Not having much of a clue we got stuck in at close quarters which confused our opponents who had deployed historically but with the 2 squadrons a surprisingy long way apart.
-Crete 1941 where as the sun rose on the 21st of May German paratroops were being chased across Maleme airfield by 20 battalion with a couple of Mk VIb light tanks in support while German mountain troops watched on from hill 107. You can always tell a succesful game if at some point all the players hate the umpire (in this case, me).
-We did replay Market Garden, but I'm still not sure what happened or who won. The only things that stick in my mind are Pierre the shy fighting WW2 Spearhead sector combats in Arnhem for 2 days and Keith muttering "I don't know whats happening" repeatedly. Perhaps if the boards had been linear instead or cramed in next to each other....
-The refight of Asterlitz in 6mm where the Russians achieved their victory conditions and then discovered that the unit that achieved the win had broken the previous turn and no-one had noticed.
Having said this I'm now finding that the time take for the research for historical battles is a bit much. I'm happy with scenario generators to organise afternoon games.
I play historical scenarios for periods outside of WW2.
The reason being that you have a benchmark to compare the players performance too plus as organiser i find it interesting to observe the players decision making processes, Perhaps wrongly, i think it gives you some insight into the thought pattern of the commanders at the time. To mitigate hindsight, scenarios and players are match based on the players knowledge of the period. players are also allocated a side/command based on there command style and knowledge.
We have fought Isandhlwana, Poltava, D'Erlons attach at Waterloo, Oudenarde, Guildford Courthouse, Fredricksberg and Long Tan getting historical results. Though generally I take a section of a battle to create a scenario. it always surprises me how many games can be made out of a limited number of battles e.g. 8 from Blenhiem and Ramilies.
One frustration i have is that if you look at periods from a historical bias there arn't really that many periods that are truely gameable which narrows down what 'toy's one can buy.
I'm not entirely sure that 'historical scenarios' mean the same thing to everybody. To me, a 'historical scenario' can be any one of the following:
1. A wargame re-enactment of a historical battle, or part of one, where deviation from the original is not permitted. This, in my experience, always has a specific motivation, typically, for example, to test rules.
2. A wargame re-fight of a historical battle, or part of one, where players are allowed complete freedom and are not constrained by historical precedent. This is fairly common in my experience.
3. A wargame of an imaginary battle, that may be a stand alone game or part of a campaign, using wargame armies that reflect historical ones, set in a particular historical period. This, in my experience, is by far and away the most common.
These are, in my view, all 'historical scenarios' because they all include historical context to one degree or another.
Science Fiction, dystopian and fantasy wargames are all ahistorical in nature.
For me, historical applies to history, to things that actually happened.
The games I play with my WW2 Germans may be based around historical TO&Es but the formations are fictional and the scenarios are fictional, so in my book they are no more historical than my 5 Parsecs campaign or my Warmaster games.
I still maintain that if you "replay" Blenheim and Marlborough loses that's not a historical game any more than the Siege of Helms Deep is.
As I've said elsewhere, I can imagine having had a fling with a 30 year old Claudia Schiffer. I'm real and she's real. That doesn't make my purported fling with her real .... more's the pity :D
"The names are the same but the facts have been changed to protect the innocent" doesn't make it real.
I'm with John on this one...
My preference is John's item 3.
Quote from: Ithoriel on 16 October 2021, 02:08:50 AM
For me, historical applies to history, to things that actually happened.
The games I play with my WW2 Germans may be based around historical TO&Es but the formations are fictional and the scenarios are fictional, so in my book they are no more historical than my 5 Parsecs campaign or my Warmaster games.
I would say that war games played with your WW2 Germans based on historical TO&Es are definitely historical, because they have historical context even if it is just the TO&E. There is, in other words, an element of historical simulation involved. On the other hand, even though they simulate warfare, Warmaster and Lord of the Rings games, have no historical basis. They are not historical simulations of anything that has ever existed, as far as I know. So, they are not historical in nature and fall into, in my view, one of the ahistorical categories.
Now, I do not subscribe to the BS argument that goes something like "historical wargames are the only 'proper' wargames" and, if you accept the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) as the single authority on the English language, as I do, then a game is, inter alia, "an activity engaged in for amusement" and a war game is "a simulated military conflict carried out as a game or exercise" then, it would seem, therefore, that all are wargames.
But, we can't call them all 'Fantasy' otherwise how do we know what we are talking about. So, historical, fantasy, science fiction et al are what they are, until better descriptions are found for them. They are all a product of our imagination, to one degree or another, and the word which keeps cropping up is 'simulation', which the OED defines this as "to imitate or reproduce the appearance, character or conditions of someone or something".
This brings me on to your Claudia Schiffer analogy. I do concede that it is certainly fantasy but there needs to be a degree of simulation in order for it to work at all. I'm sure you know where I'm going with this but, honestly, I think you've imparted enough information already.
At least I can agree that neither war games nor your Claudia Schiffer fantasy are 'real', or anything like it, but the questions I have are these. Why Claudia Schiffer and why limit yourself? As with wargaming infinite variety is the key, is it not?
I have to stop now as I seem to have something stuck in my cheek. ;)
Is it too late to mention:
Most* sets of rules focus their command/unit representation too low to do a whole historic battle.
Unless you're prepared to do the Glasgow University Waterloo thing: https://www.gla.ac.uk/news/archiveofnews/2019/june/headline_651692_en.html
* Most is in my opinion, and I'm perfectly aware that some rules address far larger scales.
Quote from: John Cook on 16 October 2021, 10:49:53 AM
I would say that war games played with your WW2 Germans based on historical TO&Es are definitely historical, because they have historical context even if it is just the TO&E.
"Warning! Historical Wargames ahead! MAY CONTAIN HISTORY! .... but probably not" :)
Perhaps we could use Military Fantasy, Sword & Sorcery Fantasy and Science Fantasy as game descriptors?
Anyway John, I'll take your advice and broaden my horizons .... to include Jewel Staite in my fantasy affair list. After all she sent me a birthday video message this year*.
Cheers
*Tru dat!
Quote from: steve_holmes_11 on 16 October 2021, 11:32:03 AM
Is it too late to mention:
Most* sets of rules focus their command/unit representation too low to do a whole historic battle.
Unless you're prepared to do the Glasgow University Waterloo thing: https://www.gla.ac.uk/news/archiveofnews/2019/june/headline_651692_en.html
* Most is in my opinion, and I'm perfectly aware that some rules address far larger scales.
There is a WWII version of DBA that would allow the whole of the Eastfront to be fought as a single battle: each panzer group is one tank element, each army an infantry element. Clearly top down ... but I have no idea if it would be any good! :D :o
Quote from: hammurabi70 on 16 October 2021, 04:13:15 PM
There is a WWII version of DBA that would allow the whole of the Eastfront to be fought as a single battle: each panzer group is one tank element, each army an infantry element. Clearly top down ... but I have no idea if it would be any good! :D :o
Hasn't DBA suffered enough?
I do both. I happen to like historical battles, and would disagree that they need to exactly replicate what originally happened.
The advantage of historical battles is being able to use things such as actual orders and combat objectives, where they are available, to see how one copes with unclear orders or ridiculous objectives. I also like seeing how making different choices changes the range of possible outcomes.
One example, I have played Froeschwiller (using BBB), and instead of the scenario objectives I provided the players with the original written orders. I have played this a dozen or so times with my students and got a broad range of results: all possible with the forces available to the two sides historically. The most common results are similar to the historical outcome, but I have seen everything from a successful French spoiling attack provide space for a relatively clean withdrawal of the main body, through to a stunningly successful annihilation of the entire body of French troops (a student who thought he was Napoleon but discovered he was not).
I have also done this with my books, wargaming the 1796 and 1799 campaigns (done with Chris Pringle) with my students. We ran the 1796 campaign in Italy nearly 100 times and most often the French win (if they are aggressive); we have also seen all three players succeed. Again, things did not follow exactly what happened historically, but we did find may of the locations that cropped up as key in the histories were fought over regularly. Some of the decision points were very close to those in the books too, which was interesting to me as a historian.
As for non-historical games, I am a fan of those too. They are often easier to set up, less research is required, and one can experiment with what ifs.
I think there is a lot to be said for both styles; although I more typically play historical games, I still run plenty of games that are historical albeit fictional.
Thanks for all the great replies! I've responded in an update to the original blog post:
http://bloodybigbattles.blogspot.com/search/label/Reflections%20on%20wargaming
Thanks for sparking an interesting discussion :)
Quote from: paulr on 17 October 2021, 11:29:32 PM
Thanks for sparking an interesting discussion :)
+1
(I don't have time to answer, but liked to read it !)
It has indeed been an interesting set of threads here and on TWW.
All conducted in gentlemanly fashion too, IMHO.
Even if no minds are changed, it is useful to have one's beliefs challenged, to remind one why one holds them.
And, as has been said, understanding why other people believe as they do helps us to negotiate a world full of shifting and divergent beliefs.
Alas, recent events in UK politics have shown why that is important.
As to a more light-hearted matter. I do not believe that there is any sequence of life choices that would have seen my putative affair with Claudia Schiffer become reality :)
Historical Battles can be divided into individual Actions, rather than the whole shebang. A battle being fought as a 'mini campaign'.
You can start with historical forces, intention and timings, maybe with some scope for tactical variation... but the commander actually there 'usually' knew what to do... so outcomes 'probably' similar.
BUT... as a mini campaign... when actions DO produce a result different to Historic... then, at some point, you could start a Big battle from the changed circumstances.
Eg. Waterloo. La Haye Sainte or Hougoumont fall early. Brit Unon Brigade reforms. Ney regonises cav charges futile.
This could be a useful way to try.... especially with several gamers drawing straws for sub commanders, rather than being Napoleon or Wellington! It also means that a Big battle can be fought in a reasonable amount of time, spread over meetings... or, tables! I have not club gamed... but an often heard fora gripe is the time a Big battle takes... setting up table, initial movement, etc. rather that 'Fighting'!
Solo... unless you have a 'games room'... it avoids Cats! lol.
Quote from: Ithoriel on 18 October 2021, 06:53:41 PM
As to a more light-hearted matter. I do not believe that there is any sequence of life choices that would have seen my putative affair with Claudia Schiffer become reality :)
Don't worry. I found her rather disappointing anyway.
Quote from: Ithoriel on 18 October 2021, 06:53:41 PM
As to a more light-hearted matter. I do not believe that there is any sequence of life choices that would have seen my putative affair with Claudia Schiffer become reality :)
Have you been watching Love Actually lately? ;)
Quote from: Heedless Horseman on 18 October 2021, 09:47:41 PM
Historical Battles can be divided into individual Actions, rather than the whole shebang. A battle being fought as a 'mini campaign'.
You can start with historical forces, intention and timings, maybe with some scope for tactical variation... but the commander actually there 'usually' knew what to do... so outcomes 'probably' similar.
BUT... as a mini campaign... when actions DO produce a result different to Historic... then, at some point, you could start a Big battle from the changed circumstances.
Eg. Waterloo. La Haye Sainte or Hougoumont fall early. Brit Unon Brigade reforms. Ney regonises cav charges futile.
This could be a useful way to try.... especially with several gamers drawing straws for sub commanders, rather than being Napoleon or Wellington! It also means that a Big battle can be fought in a reasonable amount of time, spread over meetings... or, tables! I have not club gamed... but an often heard fora gripe is the time a Big battle takes... setting up table, initial movement, etc. rather that 'Fighting'!
Solo... unless you have a 'games room'... it avoids Cats! lol.
Yes, a great idea HH.
Historical refights often don't end up turning out anything like the actual battle.....as we discovered last Saturday when refighting Inverkeithing......all but one cavalry units on the table became casualties and the last remaining unit of Parliamentary horse decided to pursue their foes off the board.
Quote from: Heedless Horseman on 18 October 2021, 09:47:41 PM
Historical Battles can be divided into individual Actions, rather than the whole shebang. [...] means that a Big battle can be fought in a reasonable amount of time, spread over meetings... or, tables!
A worthwhile exercise, no doubt, but you have the "wood for the trees" problem: fighting that division-sized action on the wing doesn't give you any feel for the big picture, and you are making decisions of a different scale and nature. That's why we wrote "Bloody Big BATTLES!" (BBB), so that you can indeed fight a whole battle on a 6'x4' table on a club night. We famously fought all three days of Gettysburg on a Monday evening club night, started setting up at 6pm, finished and packed away by 10 and in the pub for a celebratory pint.
Quote from: Ithoriel on 18 October 2021, 06:53:41 PM
I do not believe that there is any sequence of life choices that would have seen my putative affair with Claudia Schiffer become reality :)
She might have had to make some different life choices too. And you'd still need to roll lucky. ;)
Chris
Bloody Big BATTLES!
https://groups.io/g/bloodybigbattles
BBB on FB:
facebook.com/groups/1412549408869331
Chris... good stuff! But, I suppose it depends on the desired persrpective. Refighting a historical batle, unless you make it ahistorical by changing dispositions and objectives... you already know the 'Bigger Picture'...until actions begin to alter history. Then, you can step back... and take an overview.
In very many post medieval battles, Brigade/Corps/Divisional Command unlikely to know Bigger Picture... what with terrain, smoke and communication... and would be very focussed on their own action. Although Aides might inform of successes elsewhere, faiures less likely to be transmitted. Even in the radio age, Commanders would know very little of events elsewhere in a battle... and often have difficulty knowing what was happening in their own sector!
If we're going to recount our "didn't turn out as expected".
Let me describe an early attempt at DBA in 6mm.
Alexander Macedonians attempting to sweep Persian levy scrapings fomr Western Anatolia in the first match of a domino campaign.
We're new with the rules.
Macedonian front is quite narrow, so danger of gettting swamped on the flanks.
Solution, stick spears on one flank, mounted on the other and attack the enemy.
Great man launched his charge, rolls a 1 and gets quick-killed by the opposing light horse levies.
Loss of commander = loss of game.
And in this case end of campaign...
Domino campaign: Like a ladder campaign, but a strong invader begins at one end and attempts to topple the enemy defenders in sequence.
A good topic that has had us all thinking.
Chris and the respondents have more or less covered the reasons for NOT fighting historical battles and whilst not a derailment (as is our want), the topic has sometimes digressed to a discussion on how we define Historical, Fantasy and Sci-Fi gaming (in my view, simply put, one solely involves contemporary combatants and weapons that actually existed and the other two do not).
Of course, all of our games are fantasy but the hobby is such a broad church with enthusiasts attracted to it for different reasons that it helps most of us to focus on our own areas of interest by splitting the hobby into these sub-categories.
When re-fighting a historical battle, I start with the historic deployments and, if appropriate, factor in the later arrival of reinforcements (although not averse to exploring some random variance in that respect either).
And although what happens in the game is fiction thereafter, for me it is enough to classify the game as 'Historical' because it only features contemporary combatants and weapons technology that actually existed.
I would also like to add that a 'game' that follows the actual events of a historical battle is a re-enactment - a different hobby from wargaming as I know it.
Quote from: Westmarcher on 19 October 2021, 05:42:51 PM
...how we define Historical, Fantasy and Sci-Fi gaming (in my view, simply put, one solely involves contemporary combatants and weapons that actually existed and the other two do not)...
Quote from: Westmarcher on 19 October 2021, 05:42:51 PM
When re-fighting a historical battle, I start with the historic deployments and, if appropriate, factor in the later arrival of reinforcements (although not averse to exploring some random variance in that respect either).
And although what happens in the game is fiction thereafter, for me it is enough to classify the game as 'Historical' because it only features contemporary combatants and weapons technology that actually existed.
Quote from: Westmarcher on 19 October 2021, 05:42:51 PM
I would also like to add that a 'game' that follows the actual events of a historical battle is a re-enactment - a different hobby from wargaming as I know it.
Three points, that I agree with, very well made :)
Hi
I am honestly not trying to be awkward but I am really struggling with understanding the point of re-playing a historical battle where the players have to use the historic deployments? Grateful for some enlightenment. :-
Cheers Paul
Hi, I wrote half a page about why it's a great idea and then I thought: why do you struggle with the idea? - again not wanting to be awkward but I can't think of a down side to it (I play lots of other games but those starting from the set up positions of Austerlitz, Aspern, Wagram, Dresden, Quatre Bras etc have been the best).
Why do you find it odd? When you're fighting a historical battle? Where else would you start? :)
At the risk of starting this all up again. If you don't have to make all the same moves as your historical predecessors why should you have to form up as they did? Surely, here's the terrain, here are the troops, get to it makes more sense not less?
Hi Gwydion
Well I guess as I'm playing the 'General' (C-in-C or whatever), I want to do things my way (but with the same historical conditions applying, forces available, perhaps with some variables as to weather and time of arrival of off table reinforcements etc.) and not be constrained by having to deploy 'historically' with likely historical results (particularly if I'm playing the loser)! It is a game after all and my intention is not to just replicate on the table what actually happened in real life (sometimes it will of course). If I'm re-fighting Waterloo for instance I do want to fight the battle of Waterloo (with the historical forces available) but not the battle of Waterloo as it was fought historically. If I'm 'Napoleon' I want to win after all and as they say 'I wouldn't have started from there'. ;)
Hope that makes some kind of sense.
cheers Paul
Hi
Just seen Ithoriel's post above (while I was writing mine) and he puts my point over a lot better than I did!
Cheers Paul
Cheers Paul, I think so. I guess for me the fun is having to work with what happened up to the deployment on the battlefield.
As Alexander/Kutusov/Weyrother/whoever was in charge, I'd really like Liechstenstein not to have bivouacked in the wrong place overnight, but he did - why should my orders have been better interpreted the night before?
I don't necessarily think the initial deployment always dooms an army to defeat or guarantees success either.
But by all means experiment with what if deployments, and hypothetical situations.
Ithoriel: As for why start where they did? Well because the circumstances of the campaign up to that point led us there. If you want to fight the campaign, then fine, you may end up at Austerlitz or Aspern or Borodino but its very unlikely, and even more unlikely the available orbat will be the same - and you won't be fighting those battles, and perverse as it may seem to some, I want to, now and again at least! :)
One of the things I really enjoy about refighting historic battles, including initial deployments, is the better understanding I gain of the challenges faced by the commanders at the time.
As has been noted before this is a broad hobby and there are many different ways to enjoy it.
Personally I really enjoy:
- refighting historic battles
- fighting fictitious battles with historic forces
- refighting historic campaigns
- fighting fictitious campaigns with historic forces
If I had more time and storage space I would probably enjoy fighting science fiction and fantasy battles and campaigns. As it stands currently I don't have enough time to regularly get all my historic forces on the table
Quote from: T13A on 19 October 2021, 06:54:15 PM
Hi
I am honestly not trying to be awkward but I am really struggling with understanding the point of re-playing a historical battle where the players have to use the historic deployments? Grateful for some enlightenment. :-
Cheers Paul
The point is manifold.
1. It is a useful tool to test a set of rules. If they are any good then the outcome should be something like the historical precedent.
2. If you want to refight, say, Waterloo, if you don't use the initial deployments it is another battle, not Waterloo.
3. It gives the individuals satisfaction and enjoyment to do so, which is the point of all wargames.
1. It is a useful tool to test a set of rules. If they are any good then the outcome should be something like the historical precedent.
2. If you want to refight, say, Waterloo, if you don't use the initial deployments it is another battle, not Waterloo.
3. It gives the individuals satisfaction and enjoyment to do so, which is the point of all wargames.
Not convinced by number one, I've made my views known on number two but absolutely and utterly agree with point three!
Quote from: Ithoriel on 19 October 2021, 11:49:56 PM
1. It is a useful tool to test a set of rules. If they are any good then the outcome should be something like the historical precedent.
2. If you want to refight, say, Waterloo, if you don't use the initial deployments it is another battle, not Waterloo.
3. It gives the individuals satisfaction and enjoyment to do so, which is the point of all wargames.
Not convinced by number one, I've made my views known on number two but absolutely and utterly agree with point three!
I always do it for a new project where the rules are new to me. I've done it several times, the last being Culloden.
Chipping in again. Historic and A-historic. I don't think anyone wants a strict re-enactment... that is a mobile Diorama! But for a Historical battle... orders WERE given for deployment and objective.... so to me... start from those... if you want to re-fight 'A BATTLE'... rather than just use a 'battlefield' and appropriate forces.
We KNOW the historcal outcome of various actions. A-histoiric... taken to the extreme... player who is historical loser, doesn't fight the battle in the first place! Celts no NOT offer open battle. Custer does NOT ride down the slope. Jacobites have more sense than to Charge formed musketry. Napoleon... now knowing that Prussians will turn up... swings left. Might as well forget about WW1 trench war attacks. Bulge... US 'knows' an attack is coming...
So... 'The Battle'... as a re-fight of History... would not have existed.... or be un-recognisable as 'Historic'.
YES fun to say "I would have done this, instead!" And, yes, of course you can!
But...Nobody would replicate Neys' repeated charges...(instead, send cav to slow Prussians). The Light Brigade would attack the forts. Rebs would move on un-occupied Round Top, and NO 'Picketts Charge'! Attempt to take Arnhem Bridge by 'Coup de Main'...
But now becoming A-Historical... if you get my meaning.
Plenty of room for both Historic dispositions and orders... initially, but with some scope for tactical variation... (and dice rolls!)... to gradualy change outcomes.
AND A-Historic... same forces , same place... but not the same Battle.
Have fun, EITHER way!
Quote from: T13A on 19 October 2021, 06:54:15 PM
I am honestly not trying to be awkward but I am really struggling with understanding the point of re-playing a historical battle where the players have to use the historic deployments? Grateful for some enlightenment. :-
I'll offer you two main reasons (largely already pointed at by others' replies above.
1. The game as a tactical challenge, an intellectual puzzle: being lumbered with the historical deployment (including any problems that creates) may be an intrinsic part of the challenge.
2. The game as a historical exploration: if you're looking for understanding of why a battle took the course it did, or of what might have happened if other plans were followed, again the historical deployment may be a necessary part of that.
That said, the 100s of historical scenarios I and others have created for BBB over the past decade-plus use a range of approaches to deployment. Sometimes a scenario will indeed require strictly historical starting set-ups. Others may allow entirely free deployment within a designated zone. Many are somewhere in between, with an army's component corps perhaps being required to be in their historical relation to each other (eg 1st Cps on the left, 2nd in the centre, 3rd on the right, 4th arriving later) but allowed a degree of latitude within that ("1st Cps anywhere within 12" of village X"). There are cases like the Crimean War battle of Kurudere, where the BBB scenario offers the Turkish players the choice of sticking with the original plan that proved the Turks' undoing historically (a night march pincer movement) or going for a more conservative ahistorical daytime frontal approach. There are cases like Gettysburg or Koniggratz where subordinate corps commanders' decisions actually dislocated the C-in-C's defensive plan - I think the BBB scenarios for those do a rather good job of incorporating that factor in the game without 'scripting'. It's a matter of scenario design and deciding what will make for both a good representation of the battle and an interesting game.
Has that enlightened at all? ;)
Oh, and Heedless:
Quote from: Heedless Horseman on 20 October 2021, 04:02:57 AM
We KNOW the historcal outcome of various actions. A-histoiric... taken to the extreme... player who is historical loser, doesn't fight the battle in the first place! Celts no NOT offer open battle. Custer does NOT ride down the slope. Jacobites have more sense than to Charge formed musketry. Napoleon... now knowing that Prussians will turn up... swings left. Might as well forget about WW1 trench war attacks. Bulge... US 'knows' an attack is coming...
So... 'The Battle'... as a re-fight of History... would not have existed.... or be un-recognisable as 'Historic'.
YES fun to say "I would have done this, instead!" And, yes, of course you can!
But...Nobody would replicate Neys' repeated charges...(instead, send cav to slow Prussians). The Light Brigade would attack the forts. Rebs would move on un-occupied Round Top, and NO 'Picketts Charge'! Attempt to take Arnhem Bridge by 'Coup de Main'...
Well, it depends on victory conditions. Napoleon is trying to drive the Allies and the Prussians apart, so swinging left may not achieve his aim. Britain and France not attacking on the western front in 1916 lets the Central Powers knock Russia out of the war a year earlier. Ney's charge: sometimes you just have to use what you've got. BBB refights of Balaclava generally see the Light Brigade wiped out one way or another regardless, since there isn't much else around to slow down the Russians. Refighting Gettysburg has showed me that Pickett's Charge was in some respects the 'least worst' option; though yes, I have also seen a right hook against the Round Tops (which doesn't necessarily work either). Again - scenario design choices to create the right tabletop tactical challenges.
Chris
I really enjoy the approach of Little wars TV (I'm a big fan) to the issue of hindsight.
Greg (Evil Overlord at LWTV - and general pot stirrer) generally presents a scenario with a secret twist.
For example a Punic Wars battle, disrupted by a Lake Trasimene style ambush fomr nowhere.
It's difficult to do that without an Umpire who also assumes some Game Master responsibility.
In other games, they have used multiple tables, with reserves marching between them, or clever fog of war mechanisms.
Zulus arriving form off-table for Isandwlana, and real (well cotton wool - yard of it) fog for Austerlitz.
What Chris said - the challenge with a historical scenario is not picking an "equal" one where either side can acheive a "wargames win" (there's bloody few of those about, tbh), but to pick and interesting battle, where you can look at the fight, and see where and what might have gone differently, and then assign victory conditions to each side to try and just do better than history.
Did they hold an extra hour? Did they extricate significantly more of the army when the trap's jaws closed and it changed from a glorious attack/hard fought defense into an encirclement? Was it still the glorious win, but quite so much a Pyrrhic Victory Etc. Etc.
Balaclava - the Light Brigade gets the chop every time - usually to better result/purpose to reality, but in the scope of the whole battle - what else can you do?!
To Paul/T13A and Mike/Ithoriel.
You appear to have this pessimistic view that if you set up using historic deployments you're going to lose. No. It doesn't stop you or your opponent adopting a different plan, giving different orders or experiencing different combat results. And, if your opponent is playing Wellington and knows anything about Waterloo, he will also know what you know has failed, so it's equally hard, if not harder, for him to win the battle as his real life counter-part did because he will not be expecting you to make the same mistakes.
I'm also not aware anyone else has said you "have to" use historic deployments (as both of you have stated). It's a choice and if that's what you want to do, go ahead.
Some of us remember the Henry Cooper vs. Cassius Clay boxing match. What would the result have been if our 'enery hadn't had a cut eyebrow or if the bell hadn't saved Clay after 'enery knocked him down? That's why I re-fight historical battles; to explore the "what ifs," to see if I can succeed as others have or where others have failed. I actually like starting off with historic deployments. As also said by others, it gives me some insight into the problems faced by the generals and adds to the challenge - to do otherwise, somehow dilutes the impression that I'm re-fighting that actual battle.
So if was to re-fight the Cooper vs, Clay match, I wouldn't have the fighters starting off the first round in adjacent corners .... although it might be fun to see the outcome. ;)
The moment Jerome takes Hougoumont at the first attempt or the first wave at Sword Beach are wiped out in their landing craft by accurate German artillery fire or the Nervii kill Caesar and his bodyguard and his blood flows into the river Selle or whatever we are into fantasy territory as firmly as any game with dragons, unicorns and elves.
If you refight a battle and it doesn't follow the historical path you, or your rules, have missed something.
NO NO NO
If you are fighting a battle and slavishly following the exact order of the day then the result should be similar. Some rules will allow variation in the outcome because nothing is guaranteed.
If you use the same set up but allow the players to write their own orders thats not a refight but a what if this happened.
The third option is to use the original OOB but let each side create their own deployment.
Drew
If it does, why bother?
Drew
Agree. A 'What If' replay of historical actions is to me, at least, the most interesting/enjoyable method of playing such a game. This allows greater freedom of players to exercise their 'skills' , offsets the possibility that the rules you use/prefer do not facilitate the tabletop recreation of the actual events that occurred and to some extent minimises the numerous and often opposing views of 'experts' that can and do create a true 'fog of war'.
Chad
Quote from: Westmarcher on 20 October 2021, 10:41:21 AM
To Paul/T13A and Mike/Ithoriel.
You appear to have this pessimistic view that if you set up using historic deployments you're going to lose.
Not only do I not believe it means inevitable defeat but even if it did, providing the victory conditions were fair (e.g. lose less badly than your historical alter ego) I'd have no problem with inevitable defeat.
But if you are going to play fast and loose with the rest of the battle why is deployment suddenly a sacred cow?
As to Clay and Cooper, how about deployment "au mouchoir". Make 'em hold an end each of a handkerchief and give 'em a dagger :)
OK, Mike. Sit down with your favourite 'elf drink and imagine you are Dr. Sam Beckett and you have just stepped into the Quantum Leap Accelerator. Suddenly you awake and find yourself dozing in a chair with your feet resting on a drum and a vast array of soldiers are marching past shouting your name. Yes, you are Napoleon .... and your piles are giving you gyp. You're in Belgium and it's the morning of the 18th June 1815 and you have already issued your orders.
There. Does that help?
:)
The armed forces wargame historical operations professionally in order to inform future warfighting. They do it to understand a potential enemy's doctrine and how to counter it. They also wargame previous operations in order to understand where mistakes had been made, why they were made, how to avoid them in future and what might have been a better solution.
Recreational wargamers are probably less interested in this kind of operational analysis, but refighting a historical battle, as it was fought, is as good a method as any to understanding the methods of the protagonists and in order to do this you need to adhere to historical precedent. So it is a learning process and, as I have said already, it is also method of testing rules, which if they are any good, within in the bounds of aberrational random results, should reflect historical precedent or something very like it.
But, this is neither mandatory nor does it reflect, in my experience, the majority of historical wargames, which tend to be 'freestyle' in nature, within a historical context.
It is also really not necessary for people who don't understand why others might want to refight a historical battle, as it was fought, to understand why they get satisfaction, entertainment, or learn from doing so, or any have any other motivation that I haven't thought of.
I, for example, don't understand the attraction of fantasy or science fiction in either wargames, literature or film. I just accept that some people are weird ;D
Having designed quite a few historical scenarios with various rulesets l agree with all the aforementioned points about using historical deployments.
The thing you have to accept as a designer is that you can almost guarantee that the plyers will NOT follow the same course as the actual battle. Any similarity tends to end once the actual game starts.....so when designing scenarios expect the unexpected!
And never mind trying to get subordinate players in multiplayer games to obey orders from the C-in-C...
Quote from: Westmarcher on 20 October 2021, 12:09:24 PM
OK, Mike. Sit down with your favourite 'elf drink and imagine you are Dr. Sam Beckett and you have just stepped into the Quantum Leap Accelerator. Suddenly you awake and find yourself dozing in a chair with your feet resting on a drum and a vast array of soldiers are marching past shouting your name. Yes, you are Napoleon .... and your piles are giving you gyp. You're in Belgium and it's the morning of the 18th June 1815 and you have already issued your orders.
There. Does that help?
:)
Ohh! Brilliant! Marengo! :P
PARTY ON DUDE!
The biggest problem with fighting a historical battle is you can't.
We don't have the accurate orbats for both sides.
We may know (minus the ones who were ill on the morning, etc) make up of the Market Garden forces, but German numbers and deployment are best guess. The Wehrmacht didn't know what they had, how can we?
How many Prussians actually arrived at Plaicenot?
And the further back you go, the less we know. An Orbat for Bosworth is impossible.
QuoteThe biggest problem with fighting a historical battle is you can't.
We don't have the accurate orbats for both sides.
We may know (minus the ones who were ill on the morning, etc) make up of the Market Garden forces, but German numbers and deployment are best guess. The Wehrmacht didn't know what they had, how can we?
How many Prussians actually arrived at Plaicenot?
And the further back you go, the less we know. An Orbat for Bosworth is impossible.
Ah, yes! The 3D effect ..... Disease, Desertion and Detachments. :)
In our armee, M'sieur, it is Drink, Dinner, and Damsels. Far superior.
Quote from: Last Hussar on 05 December 2021, 03:57:25 PMThe biggest problem with fighting a historical battle is you can't.
All I can say to that is that the military does it as a teaching tool and the people at Little Wars TV do it all the time.
QuoteAll I can say to that is that the military does it as a teaching tool .....
That would explain why so many armies spend the first part of each war learning just how wrong so many of their beliefs were.
QuoteThat would explain why so many armies spend the first part of each war learning just how wrong so many of their beliefs were.
Because they don't realise the rules have changed and they were still using the previous edition.
Oh! I say, Carruthers! Guderian is using BKCIV and we're still on BKCII. Dashed unsporting if you ask me!! :-D
Quote from: Ithoriel on 06 December 2021, 07:04:01 PMThat would explain why so many armies spend the first part of each war learning just how wrong so many of their beliefs were.
Recent examples being?
The Brits in the late 1930's, Midway, Vietnam, Afghanistan spring to mind. I'm sure there are others.
QuoteThe Brits in the late 1930's . . .
And the French. Very much the French.
Quote from: Ithoriel on 07 December 2021, 01:27:18 AMThe Brits in the late 1930's, Midway, Vietnam, Afghanistan spring to mind. I'm sure there are others.
I asked for
recent examples, say, ones in my life time. I'm not sure any military did much wargaming as a teaching tool prior to the 1960s, except of course the Germans with their Kriegspiel. The only fully motorised army in 1939 was the British but, as usual, there was not much of it. It was neither equipped nor trained to fight WW1 over again so that seems, to me, to be a poor example but I don't know how much tactical or operational wargaming was done in those days by the British. Midway is definitely a poor example and is one where wargaming various scenarios paid dividends. Nimitz himself said that the so-called 'Fleet Problems' played during the 1930s and as late as 1940, were instrumental in the successful US prosecution of war in the Pacific. Vietnam and Afghanistan were political defeats, resulting from lack of American political/civilian willpower, they were not military defeats, on the contrary. The VC/Vietnamese were only able to win when the Americans pulled out. Exactly the same can be said of Afghanistan. Recent examples where wargaming paid dividends are the Falklands and both Gulf Wars. Wargaming historical scenarios is still a tool used for teaching tactical and operational art in most sophisticated armed forces.
Agree with that John.
Also in WWII the Western Approaches Tactical Unit based in Liverpool, made a significant, possibly pivotal, contribution to changing and developing tactics in the Battle of the Atlantic. The way they did this was by wargaming the U Boat attacks and Allied countermeasures.
Commander (later Captain) Gilbert Roberts and his team of Wrens also trained around 5,000 officers in anti-submarine tactics at the unit through wargames and the information gathered from wargames.
QuoteAgree with that John.
Also in WWII the Western Approaches Tactical Unit based in Liverpool, made a significant, possibly pivotal, contribution to changing and developing tactics in the Battle of the Atlantic. The way they did this was by wargaming the U Boat attacks and Allied countermeasures.
Commander (later Captain) Gilbert Roberts and his team of Wrens also trained around 5,000 officers in anti-submarine tactics at the unit through wargames and the information gathered from wargames.
Covered well in this video if you haven't already seen it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVet82IUAqQ
QuoteI asked for recent examples, say, ones in my life time. I'm not sure any military did much wargaming as a teaching tool prior to the 1960s, except of course the Germans with their Kriegspiel. The only fully motorised army in 1939 was the British but, as usual, there was not much of it. It was neither equipped nor trained to fight WW1 over again so that seems, to me, to be a poor example but I don't know how much tactical or operational wargaming was done in those days by the British. Midway is definitely a poor example and is one where wargaming various scenarios paid dividends. Nimitz himself said that the so-called 'Fleet Problems' played during the 1930s and as late as 1940, were instrumental in the successful US prosecution of war in the Pacific. Vietnam and Afghanistan were political defeats, resulting from lack of American political/civilian willpower, they were not military defeats, on the contrary. The VC/Vietnamese were only able to win when the Americans pulled out. Exactly the same can be said of Afghanistan. Recent examples where wargaming paid dividends are the Falklands and both Gulf Wars. Wargaming historical scenarios is still a tool used for teaching tactical and operational art in most sophisticated armed forces.
Before we vanish entirely down the rabbit hole.
Recent? I'm currently back to reading everything I can find on all things Sumerian. Recent starts with the Hittites. :)
Midway. The US and Japan both gamed it. The Americans lucked out, the Japanese allowed senior officers to overrule the their juniors, who were right. The Japanese still only lost "All for want of a ....
horseshoe nail scout plane."
All wars lost are political defeats. The military is the combat arm of the political entity. You cannot win the military conflict and lose the political one, they are one and the same. "War is the continuation of politics by other means." - Carl von Clausewitz
It's like saying, of a soccer game, we won more possession, spent more time in the opponent's half and created more corners and only lost because the opposition scored more goals.
You can study a battle and learn valuable lessons but you can also study battles and make wrong inferences from them.
Finally, we are straying in to the wargaming of future events, which, surely, are, by definition, not historical. Indeed, since they are gaming a future event, it might even be considered science fiction. :)
We are clearly not going to persuade each other, so my best hope is that we are providing others with either food for thought or entertainment.
In my defence I would point out what the military games is different to what we do.
To make my point, however, please give me a link to the accurate Orbat for the Germans for Market Garden.
Quote from: Last Hussar on 08 December 2021, 09:12:52 PMIn my defence I would point out what the military games is different to what we do.
To make my point, however, please give me a link to the accurate Orbat for the Germans for Market Garden.
Your point eludes me I'm afraid. How do you decide that the OB for Market Garden in front of you is inaccurate.
Coincidentally, HQ NORTHAG conducted a wargame of Market Garden in about 1989/90, one of their annual staff training events. It comprised a Staff Ride followed by a Tactical Exercise Without Troops (TEWT), which although it didn't use dice or miniatures was hardly different from civilian wargaming.
QuoteCoincidentally, HQ NORTHAG conducted a wargame of Market Garden in about 1989/90, one of their annual staff training events. It comprised a Staff Ride followed by a Tactical Exercise Without Troops (TEWT), which although it didn't use dice or miniatures was hardly different from civilian wargaming.
Clearly you and I play very different games if you think that was " hardly different from civilian wargaming."
It's as far removed from what I would consider wargaming as Subbuteo is. If not further. At least Subbuteo is a conflict played on a playing surface with miniatures.
"Whisht, Lads, Had yer Gobs... an I'll tell yer's all an ar'ful story!
Whisht, Lads.. Had yer Gobs... an' Ill tell ye 'boot The Worme!"
*1. Young Lord Lambton, he espied.. a Worme of Gruesome size. A'll curled aboot a Hill, he was... with Greet Big Goggly Eyes!
With Lance and Sword, the Brave Young Lord...
fell uopn... that Monstrous Beastie!
*2. Referencing Tactical training, Lambton instituted an assault combining diversionary tactical movement, covering fire from flanking positions and assisted mobility in the form of Horse transport.
The assault was successful with objective carried.
The Goggly Eyed Worme Ate him in process.
Horses for Courses. Avalon Hill paper map and cardboard counters... or painted Miniatures on scenic fields. Same battle.
(My Profound Apologies to Folklore!). :o ;D (And Can't Sing, either!).
QuoteClearly you and I play very different games if you think that was " hardly different from civilian wargaming."
It's as far removed from what I would consider wargaming as Subbuteo is. If not further. At least Subbuteo is a conflict played on a playing surface with miniatures.
TEWTs are excellent wargames-which law says a wargame has to have miniatures on a tabletop?
But if you prefer, and Last Hussar wants a wargame of Market Garden with a reasonably accurate Orbat, then the game played at Camberley around the same time as the Northag game should suffice. Large map on floor of lecture hall, loads of umpires (I was one) and those playing the commands of the Allies and Germans in rooms connected by phones and runners. The Orbat wasn't accurate to the last Kompanie perhaps but sufficient to give a reasonably historical set of proceedings and outcome.
PS - The Lambton Worm Orbat is wrong for the Knight's side - where is the intel section that told him how to defeat it, and the reserve of his father and sacrificial dog?
Quote from: Gwydion on 09 December 2021, 11:25:33 AM... which law says a wargame has to have miniatures on a tabletop?
Mine.
If it doesn't it's an RPG.
Which is an excellent form of entertainment and a closely related pastime but still a beast of a different colour.
QuoteClearly you and I play very different games if you think that was " hardly different from civilian wargaming."
It's as far removed from what I would consider wargaming as Subbuteo is. If not further. At least Subbuteo is a conflict played on a playing surface with miniatures.
I doubt that very much. In the almost 60 years I've been wargaming I have encountered all kinds of wargames, in a professional and hobby context. Nowhere is it 'written' that a wargame has to be "played on a playing surface with miniatures". Often they are not. The Market Garden TEWT I alluded to involved 1:50000 maps and counters. It would have been instantly recognisable to any board wargamer. Board wargames don't involve miniatures, but they are still wargames.
The concept that wargames have to involve miniatures, and dice, is a rather narrow outlook I'd say. The fact of the matter is that you simply don't need miniatures, which are actually no more than pretty counters, to play wargames effectively.
Be all that as it may, the fact of the matter is that historical wargaming is a valuable tool for teaching tactics and operational art. It was used by RMA Sandhurst until the late 80s to my certain knowledge, and you only have to look at the courses run today by staff colleges here in the UK, the US and elsewhere, to see that they are taken increasingly seriously for, among other things, teaching military history.
The difficulty, perhaps, with historical wargaming is that it isn't easy to do well. That doesn't mean it can't be done. In order to be intellectually challenging, as well as enjoyable, historical wargames require a lot more preparation and commitment than just a 'Friday night fight' with a bunch of miniatures, a handful of dice and no context, which is definitely comparable to Subbuteo, in my view, and about as satisfying.
Still, different strokes for different folks, as they say.
Do not necessarily disagree with you John but your Friday night point is often the crux of the issue.
Assuming you meet on a Friday night from say 7pm to 11pm. You have to allow say an hour to set up and then pack up, giving you abou 3 hours for a game. You are then very much reliant on having rules that are capable of running a refight of any historical battle in 3 hours to a satisfactory and meaningful conclusion. If such a refight is not possible then it seems to me that you are left with games that have a reasonably good reflection of the period you are playing and can be completed on a Friday night.
I say this even though, since I started wargaming 50 years ago, I have always been in a position where time was never a constraint.
Quote from: Last Hussar on 08 December 2021, 09:12:52 PMTo make my point, however, please give me a link to the accurate Orbat for the Germans for Market Garden.
Probably as good as you are gonna get to date:
https://www.wargamevault.com/browse/pub/3426/MicroMark-Army-Lists/subcategory/5776_5892/WW2-GERMANS?page=5
G544: German 712th Infantry Division, NW Europe, August-September 1944
G545: German 719th Infantry Division, NW Europe, August-September 1944
G546: SS Grenadier Regiment Landstorm Nederlands, Holland, May-October 1944
G547: German 176th Division, NW Europe, August-October 1944 (double list)
G548: German Kampfgruppe Chill, 85th Infantry Division, Holland, 5-8th September 1944
G549: German 6th Fallschirmjager Regiment von der Heydte, NW Europe, September 1944
G550: German 245th Infantry Division, NW Europe, September 1944 (double list)
G551: German 59th Infantry Division, NW Europe, September 1944
G552: German Hermann Goring Panzer Replacement and Training Regiment, NW Europe, September 1944 aka Fallschirm-Panzer-Ersatz und Ausbildungs Regiment Hermann Göring
G553: German Fallschirmjager Division Erdmann, NW Europe, September 1944
G554: German Kampfgruppe Walther, Neerpelt Bridgehead, 17th September 1944
G555: German Kampfgruppes (1) Helle, Weber, Krafft, Arnhem, 17th September 1944
G556: German SS Kampfgruppes (2) Spindler, Harder, von Allworden, Moller, Arnhem, Sep 1944
G557: German 9th SS Armoured Recce Battalion (KG Graebner), Arnhem, 17th-25thSept. 1944
G558: German Unterfuhrer Schule Arnheim, Arnhem, 17th-18th September 1944
G559: German Division von Tettau, Arnhem, 17th-18th September 1944
G560: German Kampfgruppe Knoche, Arnhem, 17th-18th September 1944 (double list)
G561: German Kampfgruppes (3) Koeppel, Walther, von Svobada, Holland, 18th Sept 1944
G562: German 10th SS Panzer Division Frundsberg, Holland, 5th September 1944 (double list)
G563: German Kampfgruppes (4) Brinkman, Knaust, Nickmann, Sonnenstuhl, Holland, 17th-21st September 1944
G564: German Kampfgruppe Krafft, Arnhem, 19th September 1944
G565: German Kampfgruppes (5) Reinhold, Euling, Baumgaertel, Holland, 19th Sept. 1944
G566: German Kampfgruppe Henke, Nijmegen, 17th-21st September 1944
G567: German Korps Feldt (1) zbv406 Division, Holland, 16-17th September 1944
G568: German Korps Feldt (2) Wehrkreis VI, Holland, 16th-17th September 1944
G569: German Kampfgruppes (6) Goebel, Greschick, von Furstenberg, Groesbeek Heights, 18th September 1944
G570: German Kampfgruppe Stargaard, Korps Feldt, Groesbeek Heights, 18th Sept 1944
G571: German Kampfgruppe Becker, 3rd Fallschirmjager Division, Holland, 20th Sept 1944
G572: German Kampfgruppe Hermann, 5th Fallschirmjager Division, Holland, 20th Sept 1944
G573: German Kampfgruppes Jungwirth & Ewald, Holland, 18th-26th September 1944
G574: German Kampfgruppe Zuber, Holland, 18th-26th September 1944
G575: German Kampfgruppe Rink, Holland, 18th-26th September 1944
G576: German Kampfgruppe Helle, Arnhem, 18th September 1944
G577: German Kampfgruppes (7) Bruhn, Shorken, Arnhem, 19th-20th September 1944
G578: German Kampfgruppe Spindler, Arnhem, 19th September 1944
(contains KG Bruhn, Krafft, Harder, von Allworden, Gropp, Moeller)
G579: German Sperrverband Harzer, Holland, 21st-22nd September 1944
G580: German Kampfgruppe Walther, Veghel, Holland, 22nd September 1944
G581: German Kampfgruppe Huber, Veghel, Holland, 22nd September 1944
G582: German Kampfgruppe Chill, Veghel, Holland, 24th-25th September 1944 (double list)
G583: German Kampfgruppe Walther, Holland, 23rd-24th September
Mark
Impressive Mark! I was going to reference It Never Snows, but I think you have gone rather beyond that!
Exactly so Chad, and the principal reason why I have never belonged to a club that had to set up and complete games on one evening. There is also the racket from half a dozen different games going on at the same time. Not for me. I am fortunate that I have my own permanent set-up and game with a handful of like minded people, so time is not a constraint for me either.
Mark, my interest stops in 1940 but the Niehorster German WWII Organizational Series might also be useful. They can be found here http://niehorster.org/
Quote from: Chad on 09 December 2021, 03:40:22 PMAssuming you meet on a Friday night from say 7pm to 11pm. You have to allow say an hour to set up and then pack up, giving you abou 3 hours for a game. You are then very much reliant on having rules that are capable of running a refight of any historical battle in 3 hours to a satisfactory and meaningful conclusion.
That is exactly the challenge that "Bloody Big BATTLES!" was designed to meet. (OK, not exactly - Oxford Wargames Society meets on Monday evenings, not Fridays.) Four of us fought all three days of Gettysburg to a conclusion in under four hours, including set-up and take-down time, and made it to the pub for a pint afterwards.
As for the matter of imperfect knowledge about orders of battle: we don't need perfect knowledge. A simulation can cope with some margin of error in the data and still provide useful output.
Anyway, glad that my post of two months ago is still generating interesting discussion!
Chris
My point is that was the "theoretical" German Orbat. However there was an armour a/t battalion that was 3 STuGsin NW Europe. Its fine to say "we think x bn was there" but if it turns out the bn is actually a couple of platoons the Orbat you use is wrong.
And that is the 20th century. Wars of the Roses sources have things like "5000 men under Stanley". Really 5000? How many were actually on the field? What proportion had bow? Were armoured?
Quote from: Last Hussar on 10 December 2021, 12:45:42 PMMy point is that was the "theoretical" German Orbat. However there was an armour a/t battalion that was 3 STuGsin NW Europe. Its fine to say "we think x bn was there" but if it turns out the bn is actually a couple of platoons the Orbat you use is wrong.
And that is the 20th century. Wars of the Roses sources have things like "5000 men under Stanley". Really 5000? How many were actually on the field? What proportion had bow? Were armoured?
Too many of both, the treacherous creep!
Life's too short!
Research is good and can 'entertain' for hours/months/years... but 'Accuracy' is impossible to achieve... even 'Down The Rabbit Hole' of 20th C records... never mind earlier.
L Hussar has it about right. Even if you could ask Stanley... He wouldn't know... or be bothered that much. I imagine that Richard's comments would be more 'colourful'! ;)
Make an 'educated' guess and enjoy yourselves!
The French Revoluion can be exactly the same at times.
Quote from: Last Hussar on 10 December 2021, 12:45:42 PMMy point is that was the "theoretical" German Orbat. However there was an armour a/t battalion that was 3 STuGsin NW Europe. Its fine to say "we think x bn was there" but if it turns out the bn is actually a couple of platoons the Orbat you use is wrong.
The lists I have done for Market Garden, and many more recent ones, above are actual strengths as much as possible- I try and combine TOE and OOB - there are now more and more records coming available detailing weapons strengths of many units in WW2, almost leading to information overload.
Quote from: Last Hussar on 10 December 2021, 12:45:42 PMMy point is that was the "theoretical" German Orbat. However there was an armour a/t battalion that was 3 STuGsin NW Europe. Its fine to say "we think x bn was there" but if it turns out the bn is actually a couple of platoons the Orbat you use is wrong.
Then use the 'correct' OB.
Quote from: John Cook on 11 December 2021, 02:26:57 AMThen use the 'correct' OB.
Then you aren't fighting Market Garden!
This is my point. It is impossible to actually know the historical forces involved. You may have found that the sources say a battalion, so put 15 bases down, but in reality you should have just 1 base, because that's what was actually deployed.
I'm not against 'historical battles', I've played them. I am just VERY wary of anyone whom says I only do historic scenarios',because they don't.
You seem to be letting perfection get in the way of good enough.
I think there is enough info out there to know if a given battalion was at full strength or at 5-10% strength at the start of a given battle. Yes, we might not know if they had 200 or 220 men in a depleted battalion - but I'm not sure that level of granularity really matters. And I'm not sure any commander on the day knew his unit strengths that accurately.
In some ways this seems to mirror the bottom up vs top down arguments when looking at tanks or other weapons. Taking a lot of technical details (that are often easy to know) vs looking at overall performance (often harder to gather and more subjective). Feels very similar to going if its not the paper ToE then how can you be sure what was there. But as long as within a degree of certainty you can say what units were there at what strength, and have an understanding of how they performed then I would say its an historical battle you are recreating.
There is a continuum of ways of playing wargames from pure fantasy to pure history - with I suspect very few people playing at either end of the spectrum. But lots playing towards the ends. But we seem in danger of wanting absolutism from the language - whereas I think most gamers know what they mean with an historical game, without feeling the need to get into too much detail about what the realistic limits are on that.
Fred, I agree completely. I'm afraid LH's point eludes me completely. If you discover that your initial OB is wrong, then use the subsequent correct one. History is not set in concrete and is subject to frequent revision and re-interpretation. That is part of its attraction.
My approach might be different though. I love history for its own sake and my wargames have to have historical context. Without it they are reduced to the level or just another competitive, but otherwise pointless, game with counters and dice.
I think that LH's point* is that even for modern wars we don't have a "correct one" and probably never will, except by sheer chance. Infinite monkeys with infinite typewriters given infinite time will eventually come up with a 100% accurate OOB, level of chance.
The further back in time you go the worse it gets.
And one platoon, one tank, one plane could make all the difference.
I contend that Japan did not lose Midway because the Americans had better code-breakers than the Japanese, though they did.
Nor because the Americans had a had a smart plan, though they did.
Nor because their high command dithered over re-arming and refueling, though they did.
They lost because the one scout plane that mattered was not where it was supposed to be, when it was supposed to be there.
"all for want of a horseshoe nail"
*I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm misrepresenting him.
My question remains is how do you decide when an OB is 'correct' or not? That has to be a subjective judgement, unless you've done all the research yourself, sat in the archives and looked at all the unit returns, collated the results and then done the analysis.
I agree that the farther you go back the more difficult is becomes as far as granularity is concerned but so what? You can certainly come to a valued judgement.
My Hattin OB, for example, is in large part extrapolation but it reflects overall numbers and types, as far as it is possible to know. I would certainly contend that when I refought the campaign it was a historical game. It might not have been perfect but it was not some imaginary scenario without context. Historical wargaming is not easy insofar as it needs significant planning and preparation and, perhaps, that is the real problem.
As for Midway, I'm not sure I understand you in the context of the accuracy, or otherwise, of historical OBs and the ability to refight historically based wargames.
My point, about Midway, is that very, very minor errors in OOB could lead to very, very unhistorical outcomes.
Which leads me back to if "near enough is good enough" in what way are your games not fantasy?
Fantasy/ SciFi games can have a background and a set variation on the laws of physics and "historical" battles in terms of their lore.
I've been involved in refights of Helms Deep and The Pelennor Fields that took every bit as much research as anything historical.
Several of the supposedly historical refights I've been involved in were basically "knock 'em down, drag 'em out" encounter battles on terrain that vaguely resembled the purported battlefield.
I remain bemused that you see such a division between the games we play.
Hi
As one who is quite keen on visiting the ground on which 'historical' battles were actually fought I must admit I was bemused by Ithoriel's comment above:
QuoteI've been involved in refights of Helms Deep and The Pelennor Fields that took every bit as much research as anything historical.
Exactly how many books and personal accounts were consulted in doing the 'research' for the refights of Helms Deep and Pelennor Fields? ;)
I thinks we have two very different meanings/understandings here of what constitutes historical and fantasy wargaming.
Cheers Paul
Quote from: T13A on 14 December 2021, 04:24:51 PMExactly how many books and personal accounts were consulted in doing the 'research' for the refights of Helms Deep and Pelennor Fields? ;)
Books? Half a dozen plus several websites.
Personal accounts? Exactly the same number as I'd read if I wanted to refight The Fields of the Gu'Edina. :)
Are we now extending Fantasy to cover the Early Bronze Age? Welcome to the Dark Side!! :D
At last! Converting history to fantasy one era at a time :D
QuoteThe biggest problem with fighting a historical battle is you can't.
We don't have the accurate orbats for both sides.
.......
How many Prussians actually arrived at Plaicenot?
I'm distraught. My crest has never fallen so far. Although Adkins only managed to find out the exact strengths of the great majority of units in his orbats, and not all of them, does that mean my Waterloo Companion is not historical?
[Plaicenot? ... sounds fishy ....] :P
QuoteI'm distraught. My crest has never fallen so far. Although Adkins only managed to find out the exact strengths of the great majority of units in his orbats, and not all of them, does that mean my Waterloo Companion is not historical?
[Plaicenot? ... sounds fishy ....] :P
Alas, as fictional as the Wheel of Time series .... the TV adaptation of which I am also enjoying. :P :)
Quote from: Ithoriel on 14 December 2021, 04:06:51 PMMy point, about Midway, is that very, very minor errors in OOB could lead to very, very unhistorical outcomes.
Which leads me back to if "near enough is good enough" in what way are your games not fantasy?
What error in the Midway OB do you allude to? I thought you were talking about the well known delay by the Japanese in sending out a scout plane, which if it had it been sent 30 minutes earlier it might have found the US carriers. This is in the realms of if your auntie had balls she'd be your uncle and nothing, that I can see, to do with the OB.
I'm not aware that I said "near enough is good enough" anywhere. My aim, with all my projects, is to get the relevant OB, and all other aspects, as historically accurate as it is possible to do. I thought that was clear enough. I also reiterate that all history, military or otherwise, is not something that is set in concrete. It is subject to continual research and revision, and that includes OBs.
I simply can't accept the contention that fantasy and science fiction scenarios require anything like approaching the kind of research that historical ones do, if they are done well.
In the case of Lord of Rings there is one source and one alone - Tolkien himself. Anything beyond what is in Tolkien's trilogy is the invention of third parties. The same can be said for any work of fantasy or science fiction.
Your disappointing experience with historical games suggests that they were not done well and the fault, it seems to me, is the preparation rather than the genre.
Quote from: Westmarcher on 14 December 2021, 05:54:23 PMI'm distraught. My crest has never fallen so far. Although Adkins only managed to find out the exact strengths of the great majority of units in his orbats, and not all of them, does that mean my Waterloo Companion is not historical?
Of course Adkin's Waterloo Companion is a historical work but if you must do Waterloo (about as interesting as Gettysburg as battles go in my view) then a lot of water has flowed under the bridge since he wrote it. All history is a constantly evolving subject and there are more recent and better sources on Waterloo today.
Certain arguments here are on the lines of "Perfect sterility is unattainable, so surgeons needn't wash their hands."
QuoteWhat error in the Midway OB do you allude to? I thought you were talking about the well known delay by the Japanese in sending out a scout plane, which if it had it been sent 30 minutes earlier it might have found the US carriers. This is in the realms of if your auntie had balls she'd be your uncle and nothing, that I can see, to do with the OB.
If a single plane/ gun/ tank/ squad can be crucial then if it is missed out in the OOB doesn't that skew the result to something unhistorical?
And since we rarely have something as obvious as the Japanese scout plane what else are we missing with "this is the best OOB we can manage?"
QuoteYour disappointing experience with historical games suggests that they were not done well and the fault, it seems to me, is the preparation rather than the genre.
The problem wasn't the preparation it was that despite carefully researched OOBs and the best that could be done to replicate the terrain and objectives designed to push players to follow the general historical outlines of the battle everyone just ignored it all and got stuck in. Self included, to be fair. Because none of us wanted to do the stupid stuff we all believed our historical counterparts had done.
QuoteCertain arguments here are on the lines of "Perfect sterility is unattainable, so surgeons needn't wash their hands."
More along the lines of surgeons can't wash their hands perfectly sterile and shouldn't pretend they can.
Quote from: Ithoriel on 15 December 2021, 03:46:18 AMIf a single plane/ gun/ tank/ squad can be crucial then if it is missed out in the OOB doesn't that skew the result to something unhistorical?
And since we rarely have something as obvious as the Japanese scout plane what else are we missing with "this is the best OOB we can manage?"
I'm really sorry but your point still eludes me. If you know that something is part of an OB, why would you leave it out? Furthermore, I don't understand why you assume something unidentifiable is missing from the OB when you don't know that to be true. An assumption is something that by definition has no proof to support it so this argument makes no sense to me, I'm afraid, and I'm now bemused.
I still think, from what you say, that there was something fundamental missing from the preparation, or perhaps the management, of the wargame you described, which seems to have been a free-for-all without any regard to orders or chain of command. It certainly wouldn't suit me and I'm not surprised it didn't suit you either, but I also don't understand why you would want to "do the stupid stuff" anyway. The only point in following historical precedent slavishly is to test a set of rules.
I don't think I can add much more to this argument.
You 'can' recreate a Historical battle. Deeply research whatever orbats may exist. Weather conditions and possible effect on combat. Weapons capabilities and where known, issue. Tactics. Political / Religious motivations. Obtain detailed maps and obtain pictorial sources to recreate the battlefield in miniature (If they have the correct site, that is!). read up on first hand accounts to get the feel of things. Examine extant orders and objectives.
Then put troops on table.
BUT!
As soon as dispositions / objectives / orders differ from history... or introduce dice, etc. The Battle becomes A-historical.
One could recreate History by accurately following the actual course of events in a 'mobile diorama'... possibly a rewarding experience... although I doubt that many would wish to do so.
Of course, to do things 'Accurately' (as much as possible) you would need 1:1 representation with tens of thousands of figures on a 'table' the size if a Rugby pitch. Anything less is a 'Trade Off'
Absolute 'Accuracy' and 'Perfection' is unobtainable... so trade off ... and enjoy a fight.
I would prefer to ignore 'gamers' who seize upon aspects of Rulesets to force an a-historical outcome... BUT, as soon as you change even the smallest factor from what is 'known'... the battle becomes your own 'take' upon it... Waterloo version 50157 *1, *2, *3...
Napoleon 'could' have concentrated his Grand Battery to obliterate Hougoumont or La Haye Sainte in 30 minutes... freeing up forces... but he didn't. Custer 'could' have scouted. Brits 'could' have pre-opened ammunition boxes at Isandlhwana, Jap Scout Plane... But 'change' things... and a Historical Battle... Isn't.
It is all a 'Trade Off'... so just have Fun!
A historical wargame is not a slavish reenactment - no game element in reenactment.
The game element of a wargame by definition may result in departure from actual outcomes.
That does not in any way make it unhistorical, ahistorical or fantasy, so long as real world physics, battlefield psychology and organisational hierarchies govern how our toy soldiers act on the tabletop. Departure from historical outcomes are expected because of different command choices and the interplay of chaotic forces reflected, however roughly, by whatever probability generator we use: dice, card draw or machine pseudo random number generation.
To argue a game which produces a different result from the historical outcome is ahistorical is to argue that there was only ever one outcome possible. I thought we had moved on from this 'poverty of historicism' half a century ago. (Popper may have been talking about an approach to social sciences, but it applies equally to the idea that where we are now was the inevitable outcome of history).
The joy of historical wargames is to explore what might have happened had Grouchy marched to the sound of the guns rather than attacking at Wavre, or to make sense of all those confused tactical histories we read by playing out hypothetical, yet representative small unit actions on the tabletop.
Exploration of these options does not make the game ahistorical or fantastical. Our attempts at representing actual or possible history may produce more or less likely results, but if we have got the rules right they will not be fantastical.
And yes – that is fun.
What he said.
Quote from: John Cook on 15 December 2021, 12:42:30 AMOf course Adkin's Waterloo Companion is a historical work ....
Agreed. :)
Quote from: Heedless Horseman on 15 December 2021, 06:45:11 AMAs soon as dispositions / objectives / orders differ from history... or introduce dice, etc. The Battle becomes A-historical.
I'm afraid I disagree. To be ahistorical a wargame would need to lack any historical context. A wargame does not need to conform to a particular precedent exactly in order to be historical any more than a historical novel or film does. Like historical novels and films a historical wargame needs only to be representative of something that existed in the past.
Quote from: Gwydion on 15 December 2021, 10:15:25 AMA historical wargame is not a slavish reenactment ....................
I agree entirely
It is all a matter of 'Terminology','Degree'and'Trade Off'.
The movies 'Waterloo', 'Zulu' and 'Battle Of The Bulge' are all 'historical' ...with a grounding on historical fact... but altered to entertain and accommodate available resources.
Would anyone argue that they were 'Historical' accounts of the actions? No!
As are most 'Historical' wargames... however well researched and executed.
As a game... things are changed... therefore becoming A-historical to what actually occurred. That is their point. They are an attempt to change History.
They are Historical but the Degree of Accuracy is open for interpretation... with Trade Offs for Rules, Table size, figure availability and research time.
The result of changes brings forth an A-Historical outcome. It did not happen.
I am not putting this very well... abstract concepts!
(And, Wow! I vaguely remember Popper from College days... and did not comprehend then!) lol.
Probably, I am using a different 'terminology' for 'A-Historical'. Semantics?
DEFINITELY A-Historical' gaming would be Romans vs Zulus, Tomcats vs Zero's... but all could be researched to historical 'Accuracy' of forces... and with some form of orbats!
But... changing deployment and orders for a Historical Battle... is only different 'to a degree'. A wargame is an attempt to change a Historical Battle to... let's call it a Non-Historical outcome?
We Know that 'mistakes' were made in battles... and so, avoid them... but, in so doing, 'History' becomes 'Non-History'. And a Historic battle becomes...What?
B*****s, anyway! I 'have no 'beef' with any wargaming... just attempting to say that the pursuit of perfection in 'absolute accuracy' is not absolutely necessary, though desirable, in many ways. You can fight A Historical Battle... but it will not be THE Historical Battle... just enjoy. :)