Reasons NOT to refight historical battles

Started by Chris Pringle, 12 October 2021, 08:41:40 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

John Cook

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.

Heedless Horseman

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!
(40 Yrs ago. I should have been an Angry Young Man... but wasn't.
Now... I am an Old B******! )  ;)

Gwydion

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.

Westmarcher

15 December 2021, 10:18:57 AM #108 Last Edit: 15 December 2021, 10:22:46 AM by Westmarcher
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.  :)
I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be.

John Cook

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.

John Cook

Quote from: Gwydion on 15 December 2021, 10:15:25 AMA historical wargame is not a slavish reenactment ....................

I agree entirely

Heedless Horseman

15 December 2021, 12:27:59 PM #111 Last Edit: 15 December 2021, 12:35:26 PM by Heedless Horseman
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.  :)
(40 Yrs ago. I should have been an Angry Young Man... but wasn't.
Now... I am an Old B******! )  ;)