"Generals and their personal traits..." Topic

Hi all,

As you all know, many rules systems rate commanders for one mechanic or another, scale them on performance and give or take away factors for various aspects of whatever rules system they are designed for.

This is great and I also do this but one thing always bugs me about it, the lack of individuality and personal touch each commander really should give to a battle. Now I know this sounds vague but most rules systems do not account for realistic behavioral patterns evident on many commanders, they just give ratings and that is it.

What I am getting at is this, for example, Barclay de Tolly was a brilliant leader of men and was a brilliant innovator but one thing he despised was the over use of Skirmishers in battle, he felt that deploying too many would result in too many casualties thus when in command should the deployment of Skirmishers be restricted?

On the other side of that coin Kutasov was an advocate of the use of Skirmishers and even wrote papers on their deployment. Should the use and deployment of Skirmishers under his command be to the extreme or maximum?

Basically what I am saying is, should certain commanders be given certain traits that must be adhered to if they are on the field in command? I can think of many passages I have read over the years that give rise to indications of traits of individual commanders and I think they should be recorded on this thread as you find them and let everyone judge if this information could be used to give commanders certain individual traits for war gamers to adhere to.

Regards,
Shane

There's always Nappy himself, who liked "to watch little people hitting each other"….

"In the Age of Bismarck and Napoleon III" modeled just such characteristics in its commander ratings. I always thought it added both flavor and challenge to the game. When well researched and not overdone, it can be a a good thing.

The trick is finding concrete examples to justify game inclusion. If for example, it is well documented that units under BdT's command deployed fewer skirmishers as a matter of practice, then by all means include it. If it is poorly substantiated, or based on singular occurrences, leave it out.

Shane,

Obviously your comment is aimed at the "historical simulation" type of game, rather than the "mates coming round for a beer" variety (not that the former necessarily precludes the deployment of alcohol).

The problem is that it is difficult to force a wargamer to role-play an historical character, whose traits may:-
1) have been improperly or inaccurately recorded;
2) have been misinterpreted due to the effluxion of time, or because of politics (contemporary or subsequent);
3) have been misunderstood because of cultural and/or social differences (eg look at the bigoted nonsense written – and widely accepted – about WW1 British generals).

FWIW, my view is that the sheer lack of talent displayed by the typical wargamer, with no real experience of planning or commanding in ANY era, let alone one that may be foreign in mindset, as well as geography (pace any former staff officers etc who are also wargamers) precludes such role play. Your efforts would be best aimed, IMO, at limiting what the tabletop army can do in certain circumstances (that may include the limitations/predilections of a specific officer), rather than defining how the wargamer must command his army.

Ignoring the factual absurdities of our hobby, at the end of the day, your tabletop army is not being led by de Tolly or Kutusov, but by someone who is trying to simulate a battle at which that character was present. To reflect an historical character's command style would almost require a different ruleset for every senior commander. Fixing the limitations of the troops themselves is much easier, IMO.

In other words, "Stupid McClellan" rules.

rather than the "mates coming round for a beer"

The last time that happened we got so drunk we took turns throwing each other out the windows of my house. Luckily this was on the lower floor without a single broken bone. Needless to say the women all thought we were mad. We found one of the guys sleeping up in the tree in the back yard the next morning, god knows how he did not fall out during the night.

Anyway, what I am trying to say is not so much the Generals personality as such but more so his tendencies on the battlefield, his preferences in tactical deployment and decision making for example. How he thinks and what prejudices he might have in the way he commands which are recorded through observation by eyewitnesses and historians or his own memoirs or observations from his contemporaries.

Regards,
Shane

Many of the generals of the American Civil War knew each other pretty well and apparently took what they remmembered about the personality of their opponent into consideration. I have seen gamers who knew each other well do the same thing.

The best way to simulate this I've seen is to 'cast' friends with similar personalities into the roles of the historical commanders. Aggressive gamers for people like Blucher, etc. Cautious ones should play Bernadotte, McClellan, etc.

You can also make personality profiles for subordinate commanders that modify or dictate certain actions. "In the Age of Bismarck and Napoleon III" does this, so does "Triumph of the Wills" (20th Century game).

A roleplaying approach to miniature wargaming will usually give the players the role of a specific general and will give him hints (or instructions) how to play his role. Subordinate commanders may be played by the judge, who will play their individual behaviour. Usually to frustrate the players.

The real question in this approach is: is it just additional fun or do you include it in the goals of the players. We had a 1812 scenario where Schwarzemberg had the secret mission to save his austrians and at the same time to look like he was helping the french. So in the battle he threw every french soldier in his command at the russians, was the loudest in talking how to win the battle, but at the same time kept all his austrian troops in reserve. The player had much fun and fulfilled his mission even his side lost the battle.

I haven't read all the posts here but.. I like to think we are the commanders so it's how we think that should determine things..

Then again I find the idea of exactly recreating battles a tad stale so that figures.

TW

As a player, I can understand being given a set of limitations to work within. But then I want to *play*.

If you're going to try to script the game as closely as possible to the historical outcome, then there's a point at which you no longer need me to come over and play.

These kinds of rules can rub me the wrong way – it depends how they are carried out.

One reason I play is to see if I can do better than, say, Soult. Perhaps I think he should have deployed more or fewer skirmishers. Or used his artillery more to the front. If the rules sort of force me to use *his* tactics and not mine, it takes away a lot of the enjoyment for me.

On the other hand if it is not too intrusive I *like* rules like this for subordinates. Especially if they are a tad variable. Knowing Hood is always extra aggressive is too vanilla – I prefer a kind of roll so he's generally more aggressive but you don't know how much til you activate him.

Incidentally – one of the things I don't like about Flames of War, 40k, Warhammer is all the silly unit-specific rules. Just remembering all the special abilities is a real pain. I usually play without (most of) them.

I've never gotten into 40k as a result…

Ouch,

There seems to be a real aversion with some people to playing anything that might be construed as "historical" here. Look, all I am trying to ask is for some of you to think about various "real" Generals of the period and any personal traits they might have had. I simply want to make a list of them for myself to see what others also think these generals were like on the battlefield I am not asking you to drop your own personality and turn up to my place to play a battle where your arms are tightly bound behind your back and your mouth gagged…

All I want to ask is if you guys know particular traits of certain generals that they clearly displayed on the battlefield lol.

To get one thing clear here, yes I aim for historical accuracy but in no way do my rules or the games I play disallow player freedom to make their own decisions. In actual fact my Command Control rules are more flexible than most I have seen. But if people want to construe my simple question like that then fine, you are pretty much missing the whole point of the question.

Shane

"I aim for historical accuracy but in no way do my rules or the games I play disallow player freedom to make their own decisions… But if people want to construe my simple question like that then fine, you are pretty much missing the whole point of the question."

Actually, I thought I understood your simple question. You wrote:

"Basically what I am saying is, should certain commanders be given certain traits that must be adhered to if they are on the field in command?"

I think that's what everybody's responding "No" to.

Open the Pod,

Not quite everybody! If we are going to go to the trouble of rating units differently, then we really should do the same for generals.

This does not mean that games will be "scripted", merely that commanders will have a particular set of characteristics and reactions available to them. For example, in a recent game based on Aspern-Essling, we created a set of characteristics for the Archduke Karl which were based on his actual objectives and behaviour in the battle. The individual playing him was free to command as he wished, but within those limitations and characteristics. This led to a game which did not follow history, but also one in which the conduct of the game was influenced by Karl's historical conduct. Everyone enjoyed it thoroughly and commented that the "personalities" imposed on all players made the game interesting.

There seems to be a real aversion with some people to playing anything that might be construed as "historical" here.

Oh, please. That's quite a leap you are making. "Unless you agree with me 100%, you do not play historically."

How badly do you want to set up the game and have the outcome pre-determined?
I always thought that we played to BETTER the dumb decisions that we with hindsight detected.

If you want ME to behave exactly as Marshall Du Plessix/MacMahon did, then go fly a kite. I won't. If you wish to inflict some really difficult subordinates on me, then I am willing to listen. And, probably enjoy myself.

This does not mean that games will be "scripted", merely that commanders will have a particular set of characteristics and reactions available to them. For example, in a recent game based on Aspern-Essling, we created a set of characteristics for the Archduke Karl which were based on his actual objectives and behaviour in the battle. The individual playing him was free to command as he wished, but within those limitations and characteristics. This led to a game which did not follow history, but also one in which the conduct of the game was influenced by Karl's historical conduct. Everyone enjoyed it thoroughly and commented that the "personalities" imposed on all players made the game interesting.

Thank you Colin, your group obviously did a great job in setting this up and play it out, well done. Could you explain further what those restrictions on the Archduke were ?

Regards,
Shane

Shane –

I tend to agree with the OFM here. I, too, aim for historical fidelity in my games and I would have to answer your main question with a 'no' as well. How much fun would someone have playing Ney at Waterloo?

You may not have trouble identifying traits for some of the better known commanders, but what about those not so well-known. We are starting a Peninsula campaign here shortly and one of the French commanders is Sebastiani. Beyond his name and a brief bio, there isn't much on the guy with out digging pretty deep. If you want to do that for every scenario you play to develop personal characteristics then that's fine. Just don't expect everyone else to do the same.

If you want ME to behave exactly as Marshall Du Plessix/MacMahon did, then go fly a kite. I won't. If you wish to inflict some really difficult subordinates on me, then I am willing to listen. And, probably enjoy myself.

um, no one said you have to act "exactly" like Marshall Du Plessix/MacMahon or whom ever you are playing, I was merely wanting to set up certain restrictions or working parameters with certain commanders whom evidenced certain behavioural patterns on the field. But I guess that is beyond contemplating with some particular people here. No skin off my nose John, you might as well go fly your kite.

Shane

If you want to do that for every scenario you play to develop personal characteristics then that's fine. Just don't expect everyone else to do the same.

Bargration, this is not my purpose, it is to simply find out certain behavioural patterns of some of the Generals of the period for scenarios, it is not something that would be set in concrete and "thy must be obeyed". It is clearly evidenced above that Colin and his group did exactly this in their own scenario and it worked well and everyone enjoyed themselves, or does this not count for anything here?

P.S. Can we please get past all of this and answer the question from those interested ?

Shane

The best way to simulate this I've seen is to 'cast' friends with similar personalities into the roles of the historical commanders. Aggressive gamers for people like Blucher, etc. Cautious ones should play Bernadotte, McClellan, etc.

drummer, excellent point, this is probably the best way to think about it actually.

Shane

The way I approach this problem is to run scenario based games with objectives for each side (not necessarily the same) and have a team of player on each side to bring out the planning. This brings in the role-playing aspects.

Giving some players particular and specific instructions will solve the problems without drawing up charts of ratings.

Its also interesting to see how people work through problems and then to see them trying to apply the to the table.

Shane,

Without going into mind-numbing detail about the mechanics, the general criteria were:

1. Karl wished to gain a "symbolic" victory that would strengthen the negotiating position and/or hopefully bring in foreign support. He did not believe that "decisive" victory was possible.

2. He would not risk the destruction of the Austrian forces to achieve the above.

3. Despite being on the tactical offensive, Karl tended to be reactive to French actions on the battlefield, probably as a result of his experiences earlier in the campaign.

4. Karl had a bunch of corps/column commanders who lacked initiative; if he wanted to get people to do something, he had to go there himself.

5. Karl had a tendency to "get stuck in", essentially doing a large part of his subordinate commanders' jobs for them.

6. Oh, and just for "fun" we had a 1% chance per hour of Karl having a fit and being out of action for the rest of the day.

Among other "personalities" imposed on players were the following for Massena, who seems to have been a man inspired during this battle:

1. Massena and his command will not voluntarily retreat unless ordered to do so by the Emperor.

2. Massena will always attempt to recover any part of Aspern that is taken by the Kaiserliks.

3. Massena does not have a movement limit within the boundaries of his command.

The latter may seem a bit daft, but he does appear to have been hyperactive in the fighting around Aspern, especially on the second day of the battle.

I hope that this gives some idea of what we tried to do; it did rather complicate things occasionally, but the players really seemed to get into character, probably helped by the choice of players for the roles. One Austrian column commander rather brilliantly refused to obey an order to take Essling, which was almost wide open, because the order was not actually signed by the player who was acting as Karl. He had been informed that his character was hesitant, overly careful, worried about the fighting ability of the French, pedantic and would only act on orders directly from Karl. His interpretation was that he was not convinced that such a dangerous order was actually from Karl. This wasted a fair amount of time for the Austrians as Karl had to ride over to him (not literally; we drew the line at having players actually on horses!) and take over the column, leading it forward personally before handing it over to the player again.

I am not trying to become involved in an argument on this, just explaining what we did for this particular game.

138,

That was roughly our approach, albeit with a few additions. A lot of the fun of the weekend was the interaction between players.

Shane –

Huh? No need to get defensive. You asked a question, I answered it and you apparently did not like my answer. I'm not criticizing what you are trying to do, I simply said it's not for me.

[Can we please get past all of this and answer the question from those interested ?]

Shane – if you ask a question and only want the answer "Yes," then please say so at the outset. In that case, I won't bother answering. But I thought it was an honest question, so I answered honestly, "No."

hey, I have been playing Napoleonic battles and campaigns for almost 30 years myself now and we have never imposed limitations or restrictions based on certain commander habits, styles or idiosyncrasies. It is just a thought I have had about it lately and whether it can be done and how. If you have answered no, that is fine, it seems most people are dead against the idea anyway.

Colin and his group have successfully done it and he has explained how, that is good enough for me. So thank you Colin for your input I appreciate it.

Shane

Yeah I see where you're coming from Shane..

I guess some generic traits in the way I see things are nice.. e.g. Napoleon is Bold from Austerlitz to 1811 then Cautious during the 1812 campaign etc etc…

I like the way you go into this with such depth.. always worth reading your point of view… I learn alot.

TW

Thank you TW, it is with depth that I do delve into things. What I talk about or bring up is often controversial and not often liked but it is great to see some people such as yourself and Colin amongst others do see where I am coming from.

Shane

No – give the the historical limitations in tactics, equipment, number of soldiers – or give limits, like not to risk your army

I suppose there's 'playing a game' and 'recreating history'.

Speaking as a neophyte historian, you can put me in the 'playing a game' group. Nothing in my studies so far has indicated any need for depth of thought about what Bessiere's state of mind was at Fuentes de Onoro. Indeed, the entire battle is a minor footnote in the history of the First Empire.

Some of us are more successful at kidding ourselves than others. :)

Maybe a good idead would be that one stays up all night before a wargaming battle – or with heavily interrupted sleep and then see how one is coping.

von Winterfeldt,

It is funny that you should day that! Many years ago, I took part in a refight of Albuera, put on by Battlehonours. We arrived on the Friday evening, were assigned roles (I got Beresford), and made our plans. Once the Anglo-Portugese-Spanish had deployed on the table, the French were allowed to send in a scout who could look at the table from the doorway for 30 seconds and then report back. Unfortunately, said scout being tall and the doorway being low, he ended up hitting his head on the door beam and had to make his observations while trying to stem the blood flowing from his head. Very realistic! We were then allowed to make minor readjustments to our deployment.

A rather alcoholic dinner then followed and we retired to bed . At about 1:30am Beresford (me) was awoken by our host and umpire who handed me a report from some guerillas reporting potential enemy infantry on our left flank. I then had to wake our cavalry commander to order him to send some Portugese cavalry to check the report. We both made it back to bed at about 2am. Just after 4am, I was awoken by the cavalry commander who had just received a report from his cavalry patrol that the "French" infantry were in fact Portugese. I got back to sleep quite quickly, only to be woken again at 6am by our host playing a tape of bugle calls, drums and people shouting!

Apparently, Soult and his minions had suffered an equally disturbed night!

The effect was quite interesting with many groggy people around the table that day.

A great experience!

I suspect that the type of mechanic you are trying to reproduce in itself should determine if and how it should be included. You can not make players be the general they represent but if you wish to include this level of detail then the actions of the player should be influenced by the general.

Giving a general traits adds to the flavour and feel of the period as well as providing some friction to the command abilities. Rather then insist someone playing an aggressive general a better method would be to allow them to more easily issue "Attack" orders but at the same time make them harder to go on "Defend". Like wise a general know to prefer skirmishing should improve the skirmishing ability of his troops.

Of more importance would be the way subordinates interact with the general. Austrians should not be as flexible and as able to launch attacks as the French. I would go so far as to say this aspect is critical to a rule set, at least for me. If the rules don't create for me the tactical decisions of the day then I might as well play Risk.

[Austrians should not be as flexible and as able to launch attacks as the French. I would go so far as to say this aspect is critical to a rule set, at least for me. If the rules don't create for me the tactical decisions of the day then I might as well play Risk.]

The thing is, though…

Scratch the surface of any of these historical generalities, and they start to look less and less opaque. The debunking of many of the myths about the 1806 Prussian army, for instance, in the past decade… the "column vs. square" debate… the de-sacralization of the French Young Guard… hell, even this recent topic about Russian skirmishers:

TMP link

We can make generalizations about commanders or whole armies, but we can't say "Always, 100% of the time," or even anything like that. So, for instance, let's say you're playing a scenario involving a particularly vigorous and aggressive Austrian commander. Does it make more sense to create special rules on top of special rules… (i.e., the Austrians are slow and schlumpfy, BUT under this guy, today, they're not)… Or does it make more sense to say that Napoleonic infantry was drilled pretty much the same in most armies, and potentially capable of pretty much the same movements and actions- and you the player can choose to be cautious and unimaginative (as we all are sometimes), or choose to be vigorous and aggressive (as, for instance, this general was on that day.)

I prefer the latter. Let the players play themselves. In fact, I think that's the more "historical" approach, since nobody handed out scripted "personality traits" to historical commanders. Nobody told Archduke Charles:

"Well, you're a cautious and conservative guy, so you can't do this or that, as you know… But today we're fighting Aspern-Essling, so you're allowed one HEROIC MOMENT. Please refer to the Special Rules chapter, page 47-b, to understand how that works."

<<Maybe a good idead would be that one stays up all night before a wargaming battle – or with heavily interrupted sleep and then see how one is coping.>>

Or enjoy the "Massena option"? Might attract more people to the hobby.

I prefer the latter. Let the players play themselves.

And so do I but no one is saying adding in something like this becomes part of the established rules system from this day forth and anyone playing "General Schlackov" must always command his troops as this man did in real life. I am talking about scenarios, not permanency here.

So "Longhaired Pink Nazi Turtles", you have never played a scenario where you have been given restrictions, parameters or any other guidelines in which you have had to work inside?

Setting parameters for Generals for scenarios can be fun if your purpose is to "re-create" a particular engagement contrary to what you might think. Yes fine, we all have our own personalities on the table-top and we can all do our own thing and try to change history in our own little ways but sometimes it is interesting to try to re-create (even abstractly) the same scenario these Generals fought under by giving the players limitations or parameters set out like what Colin above detailed in great length, surely you cannot say this would not be at least interesting to try?

That is being a little short-sighted isn't it ? Your argument is trying to say that any restrictive parameters set are going to stifle anyone trying to play that scenario but what if the player actually thinks along the same lines as the real commander anyway? you just have to plan the scenario to suit particular players taking on certain roles, is that so hard?

Shane

I think that determining charactersitics for your generals is, well, something interesting to do. It answers the question, how might this battle pan out differently if such and such a general was imposing his particular style? Then you can play it and see.

It can appear as a restriction: then many players won't like it: just as if you play Wellington and emphasise that his troops must remain unsighted if on the defensive or must use similtaneous flank attacks when moving forward. But if you present it as an opportunity: i.e. this general can give orders to any level of command, his commmanders are more likely to obay him – and then he gets points when he does those things, then these are benifits to excite the player.

At the end of the day it's another variation to add interest. But if you're going to do it, then it should be done with proper regard to a general's total concept of what his role is. There's no point saying that Jerome should re-inforce failure, but then allow him to attack in thin lines for example. The concept has to be kept simple, and I reckon that game cards which you can draw – one pack with different caracteristics of the general you're playing, is a neat compomise between opportunity and restriction.

There was a battle report in White Dwarf… bear with me a second here… in which several commanders on each side had their own personal objectives for the battle, aswell as the main army objective. Seemed to generate a very entertaining game.

Could be applied to any period I suppose.. in such a way as too tempt players to act in more selfish ways.

So one British Divisional commander may have the personal objective of being the first into the city, another may have the personal objective of making sure his units suffer only minimal casualties, another might have the personal objective of capturing an eagle/commander/cannons at any cost.

The French cavalry commander might have a personal objective of breaking at least one enemy square, another division commander may have the objective of trying to get wounded at the head of his troops another may hate skirmishers and must 1) avoid deploying them at all costs, 2) attempt to destroy any skirmishers near his command.

ect ect

I like the idea of the "Massena option":).

The effect was quite interesting with many groggy people around the table that day.

If some trainspotting prat had tried that stunt with me, feeling groggy the next day would have been the least of his worries.

M. Sage (I refuse to call you "connard")

Everyone who was there thoroughly enjoyed the experience; we all had a vague idea of what we were letting ourselves in for.

Being subjected to one part of the experience of being a Napoleonic commander, even to a very limited extent, was enlightening and thought provoking. It certainly reflected the experience that a couple of us already had of being engaged in active combat operations and how tiredness affects decision making and perception.

On the Sunday, we were presented with a Napoleonic naval game using the Battlehonours computer rules (anyone remember them?). Once again, this followed an evening of great merriment, with one or two participants giving a very good impression of seasickness on the Sunday morning. As a then serving officer in the Royal Navy, I was appointed to the post of Spanish Admiral (I have still to work out the logic of that!). Needless to say, the British took us to pieces!

I do not remember our host having an unhealthy level of interest in trains; he certainly had a healthy interest in beer, though!

Colin

It certainly reflected the experience that a couple of us already had of being engaged in active combat operations and how tiredness affects decision making and perception.

Yes, been there, done that, got the T-shirt.

Which is one of the reasons I wouldn't appreciate an anorak waking me up at stupid o'clock in the name of 'fun'.

Why does everything have to be total immersion? This, as I keep repeating ad nauseam, is a bloody hobby, not a job.

It is indeed a hobby; as such, I would only indulge in these "immersion experiences" on a very infrequent basis. However, I do have to admit to finding them stimulating and somewhat insightful, as well as being fun.

I guess we all have different definitions of "fun".

Well actually most players bring their own set of quirkly traits to the tabletop.

I remember one individual when playing 7YW back 20+years ago who would spend most of the time just getting his forces align just right even if if meant that they never actually saw battle at all. He earned the nickname Eric the Yellow.

Lord Wellington

A great deal of sources say of Wellington that he was Defensive, Cautious etc but a good deal of people and sources also say he was equally good on the Attack. Way too many to list here to be honest, but we all know them.

I feel he was equally adept in either role, his ability to switch from Defence to Attack was a trait that would be hard to match in many Generals. He was a perfect judge of Speed, Timing and Coordination thus in a blink of an eye (so it seems) he could change his tactics from one stance to another.

For this I feel his traits would be an uncanny ability to switch from Defense to Attack with lightening speed. Knowing the perfect timing in order to do so. This is not something you can really relate in game terms as it is really up to the player to judge timing but the chance to switch should be almost automatic.

Shane

Book: Napoleon's Marshals
Author: David Chandler

Napoleon on his own Marshals :

On Davout…"He will have his place in history because of Auerstadt. He also performed well at Eylau, but, although urged on at Wagram,…(his slowness) was the cause of the failure to conclude the battle on the first day….He also made mistakes at the Moskova (Borodino)."

On St.-Cyr…"My mistake was to have employed St, Cyr, he never exposed himself to fire, made no visits, left his comrades to be beaten, and should have been able so save Vandamme at Kulm."

On Lannes…"In the case of Lannes, his courage in the first place carried him further than his spirit; but each day his spirit rose to the occasion, and restored the balance. He had truly become a superior being by the time he perished."

On Lefebvre…"A truly brave man…whose only thought was to fight better…He had no fear of death…He possessed the sacred fire."

On Macdonald…"He was a reliable man, good to command between 15,000 and 20,000 men. Brave, but slow and Lazy. Macdonald and others like him were good when they knew where they were and under my orders; further away, it was a different matter. He was good and brave but unlucky."

Yes these observations are from Napoleon and we know he can be unreliable at times but I do think they capture a little of what some of these men where like. Grudges aside I do think they honestly portray these men and many more to follow accurately. People can take what he said on face value and take or leave his words as they feel fit.

Shane

It is very hard to accept the viewpoint of Bonaparte as "honest". He never, as far as I know, wrote anything officially that wasn't to further his own agenda. Consequently, although there may be a grain of truth in what he is writing, there is also a massive sackful of his own self-glorifying propaganda. David Chandler is hardly the most balanced source on Bonaparte either!

Which is the root problem. All of the 'characteristics' are subjective.

A psychologist might be able to make something of it, but a psychologist would probably be far more interested in the average wargamer's need to quantify, compartmentalise and classify every last detail

All of the 'characteristics' are subjective.

But so is every rules mechanic and guideline of every war games rule system we use in our hobby. Is giving the British a +1 to all Fire combats really relating historically or realistically to how it should be? no, not really, it is subjective…

Giving certain commanders who stand out for one reason or another is also subjective I agree, but the whole hobby is subjective.

As for the mental state of a war gamer wanting to quantify this information ask yourself why you play with little toy soldiers at your age and pretend they are actually battling it out….ask anyone outside of the hobby why we do this and most will tell you they do not know why and we are all a little weird for wanting to waste our time doing so.

Accept why you play the hobby and embrace why you like it and your preferred depth of immersion.
Shane