Replaying scenarios: pros and cons?

Started by Chris Pringle, 28 June 2022, 01:51:53 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Chris Pringle

28 June 2022, 01:51:53 PM Last Edit: 28 June 2022, 01:57:43 PM by Chris Pringle
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.

fsn

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.     
Lord Oik of Runcorn (You may refer to me as Milord Oik)

Oik of the Year 2013, 2014; Prize for originality and 'having a go, bless him', 2015
3 votes in the 2016 Painting Competition!; 2017-2019 The Wilderness years
Oik of the Year 2020; 7 votes in the 2021 Painting Competition
11 votes in the 2022 Painting Competition (Double figures!)
2023 - the year of Gerald:
2024 Painting Competition - Runner-Up!

Ithoriel

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.
There are 100 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who can work from incomplete data

fsn

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.

Lord Oik of Runcorn (You may refer to me as Milord Oik)

Oik of the Year 2013, 2014; Prize for originality and 'having a go, bless him', 2015
3 votes in the 2016 Painting Competition!; 2017-2019 The Wilderness years
Oik of the Year 2020; 7 votes in the 2021 Painting Competition
11 votes in the 2022 Painting Competition (Double figures!)
2023 - the year of Gerald:
2024 Painting Competition - Runner-Up!

John Cook

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. 

 

paulr

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.
Lord Lensman of Wellington
2018 Painting Competition - Runner-Up!
2022 Painting Competition - Runner-Up!
2023 Painting Competition - Runner-Up!

fred.

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...
2011 Painting Competition - Winner!
2012 Painting Competition - 2 x Runner-Up
2016 Painting Competition - Runner-Up!
2017 Paint-Off - 3 x Winner!

My wife's creations: Jewellery and decorations with sparkle and shine at http://www.Etsy.com/uk/shop/ISCHIOCrafts

pierre the shy

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!  ;)         
Though much is taken, much abides; and though
we are not now that strength which in old days
moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are.

mmcv

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.

T13A

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


T13A Out!

John Cook

Quote from: mmcv on 29 June 2022, 09:01:33 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.   


steve_holmes_11

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.

Big Insect

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
'He could have lived a risk-free, moneyed life, but he preferred to whittle away his fortune on warfare.' Xenophon, The Anabasis

This communication has been written by a dyslexic person. If you have any trouble with the meaning of any of the sentences or words, please do not be afraid to ask for clarification. Remember that dyslexics are often high-level conceptualisers who provide "out of the box" thinking.

John Cook

Quote from: steve_holmes_11 on 29 June 2022, 07:45:41 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.

hammurabi70

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?