"How to create a good battle report?" Topic

A friend and I have recently started playing WFB 3rd ed, and I would like to start presenting battle reports from our games on our website ( wfb3ed.bofthebb.com ).

What advice do folks have on create a good wargame battle report?
What elements does a battle report need? (photos, diagrams, etc…)

Any links to what you consider good battle reports would be appreciated.

a good battle report should tell the story of what happend. You can provide a few details as to game mechanics and other minutie for edification sakes, but try to work it into either a prologue or epilogue. the main thrust of the report should be a narrative.

If you have pictures, that is always a help. the text can be shorter, to highlight key events or provide some continuity in the flow of events, but really, the picture is worth a thousand words--just let the caption add direction and or clarification.

Just some thoughts.

Also, take a look in the message boards under Battle Report for Warmaster conflicts done by Pictors Studio. It would be my recommendation that you consider his style or possible ways of presenting the reports. I literally got into another period because his reports were so good and got me excited.

Hope this helps.

ERik

I've occasionally had some nice compliments on my battle reports over the years ( ucs.mun.ca/~tmarshal – there are a couple of fantasy – GW LOTR – reports there), so here's some things from my experience to consider. Note that I'm not an expert, this is just my opinion.

I very rarely include large swathes of the table in pictures in the report and prefer to take shots close up of small areas of action. In other words, I am often tempted to take a picture of tanks about to come around a hill to take the enemy in the flank from above the table and including large sections of the table so that a viewer can see the whole action – the pending flanking and the rest of the battle in relation to it. But I try to avoid this and here is why.

The thing is, when you're playing the game you and your friends have a feel for what is going on, where the vital areas of concern are located. This puts everything on the table from the wargamer's view into perspective.

But a viewer of your battle report does not have this game experience and the resulting perspective. Thus, the panoramic shots, dramatic as they are for you, remembering the game, don't have the same effect. Your eye is drawn to the significant action right away because of your memories but the report viewer's eye is not. This is why, in some battle reports I read, the pictures of the whole table with breathlessly exciting captions of "the left flank about to collapse!" do not have the same drama for readers of the report as it does for the participants who played.

I find close up pictures of actiony style stuff much better.

That said, I always try to include a single shot of the whole table at the beginning of the report – though sometimes I forget to get the shot and don't include it.

Another thing – unless you have someone who is dedicated to photography only and not a player, you may disrupt the momentum of a game by stopping to take pictures. Much of this depends on the rules, of course and how they flow. but I've found that reconstructing scenes after the game is over (best done with the help of the players who participated) and taking shots of that makes for good pictures – you can now take the time to move dice out of the way, make sure fallen trees and possibly other scenics are set up right. The latter also contributes towards deflating the momentum of your game if you delay to take time to upright such stuff so that it looks right.

PS the web site I tried to paste was ucs.mun.ca/~tmarshal

A good battle report should clearly tell the story of the game (as another poster wrote above) but additionally I'd say it should as far as possible illustrate the game, rather than attempt to tell some kind of pseudo-short story. Personal preference, but if it becomes an attempt at short fiction I stop reading. Partly this is because I'm reading it to try and learn something about the game; if I want Warhammer fiction there's plenty out there.

I'd suggest a clear structure starting with the respective army lists, describing deployment and then explaining what happened in each turn. Finally, possibly, conclusions on the game – what were the turning points, what worked, what didn't, how much came down to luck and how much came down to tactics. WFB, with its 6 turn structure, is great from this point of view. Don't depend too much on maps and pictures (this is one of several failings of the current WD style). Diagrams are useful, but as far as possible I'd describe things in words, because then you think about (for example), why you set up deployment in that way.

The other big failing is that they've completely lost sight of why anyone would read their battle reports, and just try to hustle through them as quickly as possible; they also seem to contain suspicious emphasis on the role of the newest miniatures, at the expense of narrative.

The best style to my mind was the older WD style (pre-issue 300) where each of the players recounted their own turn – that way you didn't just get what happened, but what the tactical thinking on each side was. That does mean your game may get somewhat bogged down in note-taking, so if a third party is available to "scribe" the game it may help.

You can focus on the characters, in game or real. You only need a gist of the overall battle but focus on key events and the players/characters responses, whys and hows.

You can focus on the plot, i.e. a narrative of how the battle progressed. You want the reader to end with a clear picture of how the battle developed and why one side won/lost. Written as if it were a real battle with little reference to rule mechanics.

You focus on the rules. Your narrative tries to bring out key characteristic of the ruleset. You may focus on specific events and how the players/rules dealt with them. Or perhaps how the rules influenced how the entire battle developed.

I think the best reports focus on one and throws in a little of the other two aspects as appropriate. Trying to do all three well is risking confusion and excessive length.

Thanks for all the discussion. It has given me a lot of things to think about.

Concur with Mr Shady & BoonC

I like to see pictures; lots of pictures. As far as disruption goes, I have a SHORT picture taking phase between turns, during the Obtain Beer & Pretzels phase (or soda for some). I particularly agree with the need to report on some of the most important game mechanics or rules. This explains why the players took the actions they did, and its even more important for those who are not experts at your rules. I also like the style of making the battle sound like a narrative or story, as long as its not too long a report and it still contains at least enough information on the rules, strategies, key decision points, and random outcomes to let the reader know what it was like for the players.

In the end, a discussion on potential rules or scenario variants, and how fair the players thought the game was, is also fun to read IMO.

Good clear photos and plenty of them.
Fast paced minimal writing to take players through the visual elements and explain the battle from deployment through to the ending.
Keep it simple.

Graphs etc. are fine for a didactic tutorial but they lose me quickly in a batrep.

GW used to put out some very good battle reports but that was over 12 years ago.

The ones they put out now are only to sell there latest miniatures.

So if you have old copies of White Dwarf from the 1990-1994 time period you can look at those.

I like to start my battle reports with some background story or other fiction as an after action review or events leading up to that particular battle. Then I try to report the battle from a military perspective as the commander of my army. I also try to post pics if available.

Here is a battle report I posted on my 18th century blog.

"News has spread throught the duchy of Colonel Romulus Paul von Vorbeck's victory over the pagan army of the Union of Bittburg in the battle for the northern Bittburg county of Edsenburg. From the small village of Pree to the great city of Huack, people are celebrating and offering thanks to God that injuries to our army were slight. Indeed more people are beginning to see this latest outbreak of hostilities as a genuine Holy War with God on our side.

Colonel Vorbeck setup his headquarters in the great town hall of Edsenburg and dined there that night with his officers, church clergy and local worthies whom had remained loyal to the Holy Church. The next morning the former priest of the town of Edsenburg reopened the doors to his church and held mass. Some church property was relocated but the most valuable and greater portion of it all had been ensconced to the city of Bittburg.

Colonel Vorbeck appointed a new mayor from amongst the local church congregation and detached a platoon of infantry to remain behind in the town to provide security. The rest of the army marched off on their quest to free the Bishop of Bittburg.

The picture above shows the two forces arrayed for battle from the side of the Bittburg Army which today was commanded by my son James. Normally I solo-wargame. Four elements of the 12 that made up the conscript/militia of the Revolutionary Union of Bittburg's Army were held in reserve. I had 15 elements including 1 field artillery element (Joy of an army with royal patronage). I deployed 6 line elements in the center with 3 line elements on my left with the 1 element of artillery. Also at the center were Colonel Vorbecks retinue element and 1 element of the Grenadier Guards. On my right were the 3 remaining elements of the Grenadier Guards.
The Bittburg militia moved their forces forward with their right wing occupying the trees, tavern and church seen on the right. The enemy commander moved his group forward and took cover on the side of the great hall while the left wing marched to intercept the Grenadier Guards behind the great hall.

I moved my forces up while firing rounds from my artillery at the center line of the enemy. My left wing exchanged fire with the enemy that occupied the tavern area for most of the battle. The results of the musket fire on this part of the field kept both forces from engaging in melee combat. Meanwhile my center advanced on the great hall and the Guards moved steadily forward and destroyed the left wing of the enemy and approached the flank of the enemy commander. However the battle ended (Bittburg lost 6 elements) before we could capture the enemy general as he fled the field in disgrace with his remaining forces."

BTW your website is a good one. Thanks.