If you do historical refights, do you like to fight same battle more than once, perhaps multiple times? Why / why not?
I do. The latest in my series of "Reflections on Wargaming" discusses the pros and cons here:
https://bloodybigbattles.blogspot.com/2022/06/replaying-scenarios-pros-and-cons.html
I'd be very interested to know others' views on this too.
I don't trend to refight historical battles, 'cos mostly they're too big. For example, my Austrian Napoleonic force is modelled on elements of the Austrians at Leipzig. I can only capture a faction of the forces involved.
I do use "scenarios" in a way though. The Sainted Featherstone's book "War Games" has it it an ACW game which I have refought many times. Sometimes I use ACW, other times translated to other periods - for example swapping armoured cars for cavalry and tanks for artillery.
In the old Battle magazine (I think) were scenarios, and I still like the one around a supply convoy.
My own personal favourite is based around the German film "The Bridge". A bridge needs defending and traffic needs controlling. The fun thing is to randomise what comes down what road. Is that a Panther ... or an M10? Do I let the staff car get over the bridge before the ambulance?
As a solo gamer I find scenarios quick ways to get a battle started, but refight history? Nah. I have no real interest in doing so, nor do I have the resources - pre 1900 my forces tend to be no more than divisional strength, and for post 1900, company strength.
Interesting reading, as ever, Chris.
As you will doubtless remember, I am not a fan of historical refights and prefer fictional actions between fictional formations but set within their historical context. No Tigers crashing through the Ardennes in 1940, no deployment of mitrailleuse by Napoleon, no Sumerian cavalry wings.
That said, surely the arguments in favour of historical refights remain as valid as ever, for a certain value of valid :) , you just know the result of one or more extra versions of the battle!
I do think it helps if you can dress the battle up as something else to reduce the precognition effect of players who know the detail of the action being refought and that might be a little harder second time around. :)
I look forward to further thoughts on your piece from others, yourself included.
I agree with Comrade Ithoriel.
if I did refight a historical scenario, there would be that "what if?" question. Best known example would be "what if Grouchy had marched to support Napoleon at Waterloo?" I'm sure we all have our favourites.
Chris, I don't think your reports are really of historical refights insofar as, you say yourself, they did not follow historical precedent. A refight of a historical battle, in my view, involves making the same movements and taking the same decisions as the in the original battle and, in my view, the only purpose for that is to test a new set of rules. I have done exactly that a few times, always solo and in very slow-time to examine the workings of the rules in detail.
But, as I have used the same rules for several years and don't intend to change, I don't need to do historical refights these days.
What I do adhere to, though, is historical context and all my 'armies' are based on historical orders of battles, and the battles they fight are almost always part of a campaign set in the historical theatre. My western theatre ACW armies, for example, do not fight battles in Pennsylvania, Maryland or Virginia.
I don't go in for stand alone one-off games very much.
Interesting reflections Chris
As I've said before for me the interest in 'historic refights' is getting more understanding of the issues and challenges facing the commanders of the time. Refighting a refight allows you to explore more options and your games showed sometimes what seems a 'better' idea definitely isn't.
Interesting article Chris - every time I read one of your posts I want to play BBB!
Haven't got round to it yet, largely due to practicalities over figures, and the need to learn the rules...
Going to agree with previous posters on this one. Refighting a historical battle is a "what-if" situation unless you slavishly recreate every event that took place during the actual engagement.
The battle itself may be seen as a starting point - you have a map, (hopefully) know what troops were there and how they were deployed. Once the game begins then events will start to occur that did not happen in the actual battle.
If I for example have a game of the cruise of the Graf Spee in the South Atlantic in 1939 what are the odds that at dawn on the 13 December 1939 turn the Graf Spee will be off the River Plate and that HMS Exeter, Ajax and Achilles will also be there? As I'd be running the Graf Spee I would hope not! ;)
Interesting read. I think you hit the nail on the head with
QuoteIt gives you a chance to try solving the same grand tactical problem with a different plan
Is this not one of the main reasons historical wargaming became "a thing", to answer all those wonderful what-if scenarios in the historical battles we read about. Since then it has evolved into its own thing and people are drawn to it for a multitude of reasons, but playing out the what-if scenarios and seeing if you can do something different that would change the result is a lot of fun. I usually try and construct my forces around a particular battle or scenario to give it some historical relevance, though with ancient and medieval battles that involves a lot more guesswork than in the 19th C!
I'm not sure there's much value in the "repeating every move and action" style of wargaming, to me that is more a simulation, something you wouldn't actually use rules for but would be more for education on what actually happened. The core of wargaming is the "what-if" and element of chance to be overcome that rules introduce. I do enjoy playing non-historical scenarios too, and with them I would sometimes replay them trying out different tactics to see what happens. So I would say there is a lot to be said for replaying the same scenarios and trying out different things to see what happens.
QuoteHaven't got round to it yet, largely due to practicalities over figures, and the need to learn the rules...
I have played a couple of games of BBB using homemade square counters and had a lot of fun. I am keen to get some done with proper figures (my 2mm Crimean War is about 70% there, though that's only one step up from counters!) but there's usually a lot required and the battles tend to be fairly big (I mean it's in the title). The scenarios Chris and the others have done are fantastic, well-researched and full of interesting tactical decisions. The rules are also pretty straightforward to grasp and play. I've attempted to get my dad involved in a few wargames in the past and the only one he really got into was the BBB Gettysburg game because the scenario was clear and the rules easy to get his head around.
Hi
As I have mentioned in other posts I am rather ambivalent about refighting historical scenarios and therefore by extension replaying them as well. I very much like the idea of refighting Zama, Waterloo or Gettysburg for example but I'm not sure about the practicalities.
Personally I think the overriding problem is how you recreate the situation where the players only have the same information that the real commanders had at the time. And if you cannot do that then I'm not really convinced the 'getting more understanding of the issues and challenges facing the commanders' and 'being able to explore more options' holds much water.
I think quite often the reality is that if a commander had the information available to them that we have as players (even if you include certain variables into the scenario e.g. varying the timing of reinforcement arriving) then the battle would not have taken place anyway.
Just my tuppence worth of course.
Cheers Paul
Quote from: mmcv on 29 June 2022, 08:01:33 AMIs this not one of the main reasons historical wargaming became "a thing", to answer all those wonderful what-if scenarios in the historical battles we read about.
When I first started out in the hobby, back in around 1960, it was with HG Well's Little Wars and 54mm Britains metal figures. I soon discovered Donald Featherstone's Wargames and I've been at it ever since. In those days, and for a very long time, it was just wargaming but, eventually, in the mid-1970s I suppose, it became Historical Wargaming. The imperative for this distinction was the appearance of White Dwarf and Games Workshop and the necessity to distinguish it from Fantasy Wargaming and Science Fiction Wargaming.
Since then Historical Wargaming has come to mean wargaming with model soldiers dressed in historical uniforms, with historical weapons, organised to represent military units and armies from a specific period of history, from the dawn of time to yesterday. This covers refighting a historical battle exactly as the original was (I agree there is limited value in doing that), to refighting a historical battle to answer your what-if scenarios - to see what happens if you do something different - which is what Chris and his mates have done, or something imaginative but set in a historical context.
I can think of two reasons why few of my wargames are based on historic battle setups.
1. Most battles are too large for the rules I enjoy.
2. Some eras offer relatively few battles to pick from.
Instead I set up engagements between probably opposed forces at a size I and my favoured rules can manage.
I think Pierre raises a very interesting consideration for those who play games based on historic settings.
At what point do you begin.
His example of the hunt for the Graf Spee is a good one.
It typifies the way that many WW2 naval engagements were pretty much decided by the time ships reached sighting range.
This is why some Naval systems include provision for a campaign map to play the days of hours before shooting begins.
Consider something similar with a well known battle: Waterloo.
You could play:
* A campaign pitting Napoleon's Armee du Nord against the Anglo-Allied and Prussian armies in the region. In which commanders control their marching armies with relative freedom.
* A mini-campaign featuring linked battles at Quatre Bras / Ligny and Waterloo / Wavre. In which commanders assign strength to predetermined actions.
* A wargame based on any of the above battles, with historic forces and terrain.
* A wargame based on any of the above battles, with historic forces, deployment and terrain.
A historic walk through - as described by John Cook above - is also possible.
I would not consider that a game, in the same way as the others.
I think that there can be occasions when a set of rules can work best with scenarios.
A while back we played a lot of Battles For Empire - a 15mm colonial set of rules.
The scenarios were based around the historical outcome of the battles - so you knew in advance that at Isandlwana (for example) the Brits were doomed to lose - but the victory conditions were based on how much damage they could do to the Zulus before they were inevitably over-run. For the Zulus, it was how to defeat the British with the least possible damage (not the infamous "assegai in the guts'). There were other similar battles - such as Khartoum, Spion Kop, Colenso, Majuba and Omdurman etc. etc. where the victory conditions were not based on changing the historical outcome 100% but more about about specific aspects of the game - how many of your guns could you out from under the Boer rifles at Colenso and at what cost (for example).
We had many a fun club night playing these. In fact I am inspired to think about replaying some of them in the future :)
Mark
Quote from: steve_holmes_11 on 29 June 2022, 06:45:41 PMI can think of two reasons why few of my wargames are based on historic battle setups.
I agree, the size of battles can be an insurmountable impediment even if you have all the models necessary. Even though my ACW collection reflects the entire order of battle of the principal Western armies in early 1862, I simply don't have a table large enough to use them all at the same time. So, when they clash in the course of a campaign - most of my battles are set in a campaign context - the only way to conduct the battle is in segments. Most of my other armies, I have to admit, are much smaller in nature, from Hastings, through Cropredy Bridge, Culloden to Maida, so the battles that ensue are possible to play on a single table.
QuoteAs I have mentioned in other posts I am rather ambivalent about refighting historical scenarios and therefore by extension replaying them as well. I very much like the idea of refighting Zama, Waterloo or Gettysburg for example but I'm not sure about the practicalities.
Personally I think the overriding problem is how you recreate the situation where the players only have the same information that the real commanders had at the time. And if you cannot do that then I'm not really convinced the 'getting more understanding of the issues and challenges facing the commanders' and 'being able to explore more options' holds much water.
I think quite often the reality is that if a commander had the information available to them that we have as players (even if you include certain variables into the scenario e.g. varying the timing of reinforcement arriving) then the battle would not have taken place anyway.
What does doing a refight really mean? It is it just an exercise in seeing who can roll better dice?
Quote from: hammurabi70 on 30 June 2022, 06:50:28 AMWhat does doing a refight really mean? It is it just an exercise in seeing who can roll better dice?
The geometry of dice, particularly the more faceted they are, the physics involved and environment in which they are thrown, can produce bizarre results. Don't use dice. As random number generators they are indifferent at best.
QuoteThe geometry of dice, particularly the more faceted they are, the physics involved and environment in which they are thrown, can produce bizarre interesting results. Use dice. As random number generators they are best.
FIFY :)
The tactile feel of them in your hand, the click and clatter as they roll, the banter as they stand on the pointy corner while balanced against the scenery. As integral to a good wargame as beer bottles, coffee cups and crisp packets on the table.
I like dice!
Gives me something to blame when I lose!
QuoteI like dice!
Gives me something to blame when I lose!
Indeed!
"I win because I am skillful, I lose because I am unlucky!" :)
Dice are kids' stuff best left for games like Ludo and Snakes and Ladders :-*
Pleased to see this post prompting such interesting discussion. Thanks for all the comments. It's had about 100 on various forums so I've updated the post with a summary of these for those who are interested:
http://bloodybigbattles.blogspot.com/2022/06/replaying-scenarios-pros-and-cons.html
Thanks also for the nice comments about BBB in general. Fred (in fact any of you) - just drop in at Oxford Wargames Society any Monday evening!
Chris
Quote from: Chris Pringle on 02 July 2022, 08:48:09 AMPleased to see this post prompting such interesting discussion. Thanks for all the comments.
Chris
Thank you for collating them all for us. Interesting reading which just goes to show what pre-conceptions we have about lot of things. On the subject of dice, since you mention my comment specifically (no problem with that at all in case you wonder), my problem is that they introduce a too large an element of chance for my taste, such that I actually gave up wargaming in the early 1980s. When I discovered computer moderated wargaming in about 1990 it solved that problem for me, though it was a little while before I found something that met my preconceptions! Anyway, that is the route I took and nothing I have seen in, what I will call 'traditional' wargaming, for want of a better term, tempts me to return to the old gods.
I don't know how much they have improved the computer generated random numbers but when I did some work with them back around 2000 or so they were crap and always biased toward runs of similar results. Personally, as one who worked with computers in one way or another in my job, the last thing I wanted to do was have them run my hobby too !
Dice work they way the rules design them to. It is quite possible to limit scope and variance while using dice based randomisation and to make more complex distributions than simple D6 throws to hit a target. The fact that many rule writers chose to ignore the possibilities isn't the fault of the tools.
Your call entirely. For me, dice are best used for craps.
Quote from: Chris Pringle on 02 July 2022, 08:48:09 AMPleased to see this post prompting such interesting discussion. Thanks for all the comments. It's had about 100 on various forums so I've updated the post with a summary of these for those who are interested:
http://bloodybigbattles.blogspot.com/2022/06/replaying-scenarios-pros-and-cons.html
Thanks also for the nice comments about BBB in general. Fred (in fact any of you) - just drop in at Oxford Wargames Society any Monday evening!
Chris
Thanks for the interesting summary Chris :)
Roughly adjacent to the discussion here:
ToFatLardies latest podcast discusses zooming out from the battle in the context of Henry Hyde's Wargame Campaigns book.
TooFatLardies Oddcast 51 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfWnvdaypZ4)
Quote from: John Cook on 02 July 2022, 12:30:35 PMOn the subject of dice, since you mention my comment specifically (no problem with that at all in case you wonder), my problem is that they introduce a too large an element of chance for my taste, such that I actually gave up wargaming in the early 1980s.
No argument with your preferences, John. I was just surprised the subject was introduced at all, since my blog post hardly mentioned dice and its central topic is mechanism-agnostic.
QuoteNo argument with your preferences, John. I was just surprised the subject was introduced at all, since my blog post hardly mentioned dice and its central topic is mechanism-agnostic.
I introduced dice by posing the question:
What does doing a refight really mean? It is it just an exercise in seeing who can roll better dice?The question remains open in as much as determining what you are allowed to change and how you will assess the impact of the changes. I am unconvinced that Chris's Blog addressed this. This is not an exercise in cynicism but a real inquiry; what are we really seeking to do during a refight and at what level - tactically, operationally or strategically. Pickett's charge would have succeeded with a bit more artillery support
OR a stronger and earlier attack on Little Round Top would have won the battle
OR why are we fighting at Gettysburg?
QuoteYour call entirely. For me, dice are best used for craps.
So your computer moderated systems are purely deterministic or has a randomiser that you cannot see?
Quote...
The question remains open in as much as determining what you are allowed to change and how you will assess the impact of the changes. I am unconvinced that Chris's Blog addressed this. This is not an exercise in cynicism but a real inquiry; what are we really seeking to do during a refight and at what level - tactically, operationally or strategically. Pickett's charge would have succeeded with a bit more artillery support OR a stronger and earlier attack on Little Round Top would have won the battle OR why are we fighting at Gettysburg?
...
The answer is yes ;)
By playing different level refights we can explore all three questions in different ways
For example, we can better understand how much more artillery support Pickett would need and where that could be deployed. We would also gain some insight into the coordination required to use that extra artillery effectively and perhaps impacts on the timing of Pickett's charge...
For me refights are not about answers but understanding the interactions of the many disparate factors at play (pun intended)
I hope this helps address your real inquiry
Hi
QuoteFor example, we can better understand how much more artillery support Pickett would need and where that could be deployed. We would also gain some insight into the coordination required to use that extra artillery effectively and perhaps impacts on the timing of Pickett's charge...
Maybe....
And you would have to somehow relpicate the Confederate commander not really having a clue as to how effective (or otherwise) the artillery was and how effective the Union counter artillery fire was. Oh, and you would also need rules for ammunition expenditure. And Lee not knowing the actual strength of his own forces (i.e. how badly Pettigrew's (now commanding Heths' division) and Trimble's (commanding two brigades of Pender's division) brigades had suffered two days before).
Cheers Paul
Quote from: hammurabi70 on 09 July 2022, 07:59:05 PMSo your computer moderated systems are purely deterministic or has a randomiser that you cannot see?
The computer rules I use are stochastic, I suppose, insofar as although results are determined by a host of variables – ground, weather, wind, weapons, ammunition, morale, fatigue, chain of command, commander competence etc – if you repeated the same move over and over again you would never get exactly the same results. So they are able to take uncertainty into account and do include a degree of randomness but nothing like the extremes that you get with dice.
I know that in the ancient world dice were used for other things but they are essentially a gambling tool, and have been for a very long time indeed, where everything is stacked against the player and that is my objection to them.
On the other hand, although I also know that chance can play a part in war. An unlucky soldier steps on a mine, gets hit by a stray bullet, that sort of thing, but generally speaking, luck plays a minor part in warfare, in comparison to the casino, or the wargames table.
Warfare is a matter of calculations made on the basis of all the available information, measured risk and application of skill. Dice require no skill and introduce a level of chance that I don't like.
Whether you use dice or not is entirely up to you and I'm not on a crusade to chance minds in this context. I really don't care, to be honest. I just don't like 'em
Quote from: hammurabi70 on 09 July 2022, 07:59:05 PMwhat are we really seeking to do during a refight and at what level - tactically, operationally or strategically.
We all get different things out of our games in different degrees. For me, first and foremost wargames are about making decisions. (Preferably, at least one interesting and challenging decision every turn.) The point of my refights is to present players with the situation a historical general confronted at or around the start of a historical battle, then let them make their own decisions and see how those pan out. Thus, as Paul rightly says,
Quote from: paulr on 10 July 2022, 10:12:12 AMBy playing different level refights we can explore all three questions in different ways
Of course it is impossible to reproduce the fog of war exactly - at least, impossible given the 'full disclosure' approach I use, where both sides know exactly what troops are in play and the victory conditions and time limits are clear. But it is still possible to introduce some of that fog by means of variable arrival times or locations, command and control handicaps of different kinds, etc. And indeed the vagaries of the dice.
Quote from: John Cook on 10 July 2022, 12:23:01 PMgenerally speaking, luck plays a minor part in warfare, in comparison to the casino, or the wargames table.
Warfare is a matter of calculations made on the basis of all the available information, measured risk and application of skill.
Luck plays enough of a part in war that Clausewitz made it one leg of his 'trinity':
https://www.clausewitz.com/readings/Bassford/Trinity/TrinityTeachingNote.htm
He evidently found the casino a rather useful comparison, as he routinely makes analogies with card games and gambling with incomplete information.
Quote from: Chris Pringle on 10 July 2022, 08:32:06 PMLuck plays enough of a part in war that Clausewitz made it one leg of his 'trinity':
https://www.clausewitz.com/readings/Bassford/Trinity/TrinityTeachingNote.htm
He evidently found the casino a rather useful comparison, as he routinely makes analogies with card games and gambling with incomplete information.
What was it Rothfels said about 'On War'? Something to the effect that Clausewitz was more quoted than read.
My copy is a 1968 Penguin edition but I can't honestly say that I read and comprehended everything he wrote, a lot of which is, as Montgomery said, "hard to understand" but when Clausewitz talked about chance, what he meant, clearly I think, was the dangers inherent in war represented by uncertainty.
He goes on to say that war is a matter of calculation of odds and probabilities based on what is known. This is, it seems to me, to be a matter of common sense and is merely facing reality.
It is very far from chucking a handful of dice and hoping for the best.
Sun Tzu wrote that "if you know others and know yourself, you will not be imperilled in a hundred battles."
Quote from: John Cook on 11 July 2022, 02:53:50 AMWhat was it Rothfels said about 'On War'? Something to the effect that Clausewitz was more quoted than read.
<snip> what he meant, clearly I think, was the dangers inherent in war represented by uncertainty.
He goes on to say that war is a matter of calculation of odds and probabilities based on what is known. This is, it seems to me, to be a matter of common sense and is merely facing reality.
It is very far from chucking a handful of dice and hoping for the best.
I can honestly claim to have read C more than I quote him:
https://bloodybigbattles.blogspot.com/2021/03/clausewitz-1799-vol2-is-published.html
Yes, he's talking about uncertainty. He also describes an army as a machine of 10,000 parts, any of which can malfunction unpredictably at any time.
In my view, dice in a wargame serve several functions. They represent that unpredictable friction. The uncertainty they introduce compensates for the player's perfect knowledge. And purely in game terms, they help to make the situation change (sometimes surprisingly) each turn and create new choices for the players every turn.
It is possible to design a game such that the role luck plays is in appropriate proportion and the best plan, well executed, will still generally win. I'd say my games too are "very far from chucking a handful of dice and hoping for the best".
I haven't read any of Clausewitz's campaign studies. I have only read his philosophical study 'On War', which was quite enough. Rules are only satisfactory if they meet the perceptions of the user, which yours do clearly. I have never found any dice-driven rules satisfactory as they seem to depend too much on blind luck which, in my view, overly counteracts skill (and incompetence for that matter). The use of dice, or not, is not mandatory. I just don't like them.
I re-fight historical battles, especially using BBB, to help gain a better understanding of why the actions tended to go the way they did. This has certainly been the case when playing the BBB ACW, APW & FPW scenarios, linked or otherwise. So I would read up on the battle, play the game and then we would chew over the fat at then end. Very often you really appreciate the effect of terrain in how much it helps or hinders your troops, dependent upon wheter they are attacking or defending.
Having played the scenario as per the 'historical deployments', there can be valid cases of some 'what if's?' in terms of deployments, slightly altered plans of attack etc to see what might have happened, given some of the plausible options that the commanders had at their disposal on the day or days preceding the battle.
I hope this makes sense as I'm still a little fuzzy with covid :( ?
Quote from: John Cook on 11 July 2022, 09:21:40 AMRules are only satisfactory if they meet the perceptions of the user, which yours do clearly. I have never found any dice-driven rules satisfactory as they seem to depend too much on blind luck which, in my view, overly counteracts skill (and incompetence for that matter). The use of dice, or not, is not mandatory. I just don't like them.
Entirely a matter of personal preference, and I entirely respect yours, John.
Quote from: Steve J on 11 July 2022, 10:47:59 AMI hope this makes sense as I'm still a little fuzzy with covid :( ?
Made sense to me, Steve!
Quote...
I hope this makes sense as I'm still a little fuzzy with covid :( ?
Definitely made sense to me Steve :)
QuoteI hope this helps address your real inquiry
In the use of the term 'real' I wanted to override any implication on Chris's blog that I was just making a cynical observation. Perhaps the extent to which this might apply depends on the rules in use.
QuoteThe computer rules I use are stochastic, I suppose, insofar as although results are determined by a host of variables – ground, weather, wind, weapons, ammunition, morale, fatigue, chain of command, commander competence etc – if you repeated the same move over and over again you would never get exactly the same results. So they are able to take uncertainty into account and do include a degree of randomness but nothing like the extremes that you get with dice.
So if I understand this correctly you have a list of variables, rather akin to the old WRG laundry lists, but instead of giving an exact +1, or -1, the software will allocate a random amount between, say, +0.5 to +1.5 according to the rules written into the software? You feel that this limits the impact of the variables to satisfactory limits in a way that dice rolling does not. As you say, it is a matter of personal taste.
I guess that the point of convergence for us all is defining what level of variability is satisfactory. I have a concern that too much of the time the results tend to be a product of who rolls better dice but then one might quote Barker in that the role of the general is to ensure the odds favour his own troops as much as is possible. What are the key decisions that the general can influence and how do we measure them and their impact?
Quote from: hammurabi70 on 13 July 2022, 01:32:37 PMIn the use of the term 'real' I wanted to override any implication on Chris's blog that I was just making a cynical observation.
Apologies for wrongly imputing cynicism. Not that I mind a bit of healthy cynicism, but I appreciate that you were offering a serious and sensible question.
Quote from: hammurabi70 on 13 July 2022, 01:32:37 PMI guess that the point of convergence for us all is defining what level of variability is satisfactory. I have a concern that too much of the time the results tend to be a product of who rolls better dice but then one might quote Barker in that the role of the general is to ensure the odds favour his own troops as much as is possible. What are the key decisions that the general can influence and how do we measure them and their impact?
Personally, I want there to be enough variability to throw occasional spanners into players' works. Then you find out whether their plan is robust enough to deal with said spanners. Players who anticipate the possibility of things going wrong and eg maintain reserves, cover flanks, etc etc, will do better than those who don't. These are real-world-type decisions that can be rewarded (or punished) on the tabletop.
Quote from: Chris Pringle on 13 July 2022, 10:12:14 PMPersonally, I want there to be enough variability to throw occasional spanners into players' works. Then you find out whether their plan is robust enough to deal with said spanners. Players who anticipate the possibility of things going wrong and eg maintain reserves, cover flanks, etc etc, will do better than those who don't. These are real-world-type decisions that can be rewarded (or punished) on the tabletop.
Totally agree with that comment Chris.....as I said further up the thread in my Graf Spee anology any refight the actual events will start to vary as soon as the game starts, so being able to put in "spanners" in the works will introduce real world type events to make the players think about what they are doing and the need to act accordingly.
For example with the Graf Spee you would only have a limited amount of ammuntion on-board, so if you use lots in fighting an action like River Plate you will need to either return to a port that can resupply you or have a resupply ship (like the Altmark) available to replenish from "somewhere in the South Atlantic".