"Your army list doesn't allow for the battle of Florgnabel!!" Topic

Pretty much any set of wargame rules that gets sold to more than six people faces a demand for army lists: points-based, whatever-based… As long as there's some sort of guide for the players to collect "balanced" armies. Try to publish any game in serious numbers nowadays without it, and you'll face a million requests.

(Of course, if you DO release a game with it, you'll face a million complaints about the contents of the lists, but… that's another thread.)

This thread is about all those people who then argue that because the collectible army lists don't allow for you to have three regiments of Schlurptanian Nostril Fusiliers in your "Light Division" army, then the game can't recreate the battle of Florgnabel, where all three of those regiments were deployed. The game is therefore (choose one):

"Broken!"
"Fantasy! You might as well play Orcs and Trolls!"
"Ahistorical"
"Gamey"

You hear this all the time. Some genius complains about Flames of War allowing him to have a Tiger tank with his Fallschirmjägers… As if he is forced to take that option! Another guy complains that there are no ancients games "out there" (I love that expression – "out there") that aren't based on army lists, so he can't possibly use any of them to do the battle of Slogamela…. As if there is some magical force-field preventing him from doing his own freaking O.B. for a historical scenario.

I mean, obviously, one should think twice before listening too seriously to a person who can't grasp the difference between Optional and Necessary… especially when using a game with toy soldiers!

But do you think these people are really that dense? Or are they simply indulging that age-old "I'm a Wargamer and I haven't complained about something today!" urge? Or is it that mysterious obsessive rabies that strikes certain people when they encounter certain games and game companies? (Gaaahhk! GW! Foundry! Battlefront!)

The plethora of research-lite options available online have made it easier than ever before for gamers to create their own historical scenarios. Yet it seems that now more than ever they (A) want army lists for fictional battles, and (B) complain that the army lists are fictional.

Excellent rant. I agree 100%.

You hit the head on the nail!

I think some genera -- Ancients in particular -- that have fostered a points system mentality. This is one reason I have yet to find an Ancients Rules book I like -- you know, maybe it's the mentality associated with the rules I don't like . . . . have to think about that one for a while.

mjc

And if you do allow for the rare instance of the battle of Florgnabel, somebody invariably complains, "But that order of battle only ever happened once, and it was fluke caused by the fact that the Duke of Hoogufurgot's third mistress accidentally stepped on his pinky toe that morning, causing him to delay his arrival by six hours. But you allow the army to field these units for any battle! That's inexcusable! Don't you do any research?!?"

And along these same lines:

"There is no primary source material to support this position"

often followed by:

"Do you have any idea how old that source is? It cannot possibly be as accurate as [my favorite secondary or tertiary source]".

mjc

This is more of a problem for unit-based rules, which always seem to end up with 10-15 separate 'things' (regiments, whatever) per player.

When you have an element-based (DBx stlye) system your armies might be 50 to 100 'things'.

In the unit-based game the army-list writer has to make the call that the Nostril Fusileers are probably not worth the option of being present as a game unit ie. 7-10% of the table-top army.

In the element-based system you can allow one of the brave Nostril Fusileers and it will only be 1-2% of the 'things' in the army. So you could have a shopping list of these oddities in your published army lists and allow the player limited choice of a few.

If the player so chooses they will not be present in enough numbers to change the character of the prototype army.

regards

David B

I find that the real problem with this hobby isn't the rules or the figures but the folks in it. Oh sure there are some decent types out there. But the self proclaimed self important know it all wind bag seems to be in the process of taking the majority, or at least the vocal majority.

It's really all very sad.

BTW-I thought Napoleon could fly, or at the very least his nose hair could strangle 6-8 battalions/squadrons per hour?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Ahh, the the great struggle that was the battle of Florgnabel…when we played, my entire army consisted of Schlurptanian Nostril Fusiliers. I was viciously called a cheesy cheese ball player for that…

But what about the historical battles where one guy had 10 things and the other guy had 25 things… and when you put them in the points system (if there is a place for them in the points system) it comes out with a ratio of 25 pts to 150 pts…or conversely, 25 pts to 50 pts. Then no one wants to play the historical battle because the underdog (who won the real battle) doesn't stand a chance in the points based GAME!

"But what about the historical battles where one guy had 10 things and the other guy had 25 things… "

What indeed

Not to get too far off topic but I found Ugo/Igo rules are generally not capable of giving a good game for the underdog to win.

You need a rules set that is not so set piece and a little more radical/random like Piquet for that.

[no one wants to play the historical battle because the underdog (who won the real battle) doesn't stand a chance in the points based GAME!]

Huh? I'm not sure I follow this argument.

The guys who create points systems are trying to find ways to balance the recognized disparities in the units; thus a Tiger "costs" more than a Sherman.

But whether there's a points system in the game or not… a Tiger still kills a Sherman, most of the time.

I'm not aware of any games where the actual game mechanics are beholden to some points system. (Like… Tigers and Shermans only "work" as long as you buy them with points…?)

But if you're creating an especially lopsided historical scenario in which the underdog won… then why not create special scenario rules for the underdog? That's just part of good scenario design. Bearing in mind, though… that the lopsided victory was *exceptional*. In other words, it shouldn't have happened in history, and shouldn't happen in the game – most of the time. Through a series of long-shot odds, it happened in history, and thus it should remain a rare occurrence in your games, too.

Looking for a game system that will *always* allow the underdog the chance of winning a lopsided encounter is just as flawed thinking as looking for a game system where everything is always perfectly balanced.

But what about the historical battles where one guy had 10 things and the other guy had 25 things… and when you put them in the points system (if there is a place for them in the points system) it comes out with a ratio of 25 pts to 150 pts

See that's cause it shoulda been 60 things points to 150 things points or alternatively or 25 things points to 62.5 things points but it never should have been 25 things points to 150 things points cause thats just crazy!

Looking for a game system that will *always* allow the underdog the chance of winning a lopsided encounter is just as flawed thinking as looking for a game system where everything is always perfectly balanced.

Agreed but we live in a spoon fed world and having to create and test rules to make the gaming experience pleasant is real hard. So is altering the setting of the encounter to disguise the fact that it's the Battle Whosinflusin. People want it all for them. I recognize that I am generalizing now; however, they don't want to research (look at some of the questions that are asked here), you never make everyone happy (watch the H'con threads), and everyone has what they belive is the only valid point of view (read almost any thread on TMP).

Compromise is a lost skill as is working and testing and pre-gaming to ensure the game is enjoyable.

Almost every rule set uses the value set of "casualties" to adjucate combat/determine unit effectiveness with. This value set relies on bean counting numbers ("How many men have I lost?"….which equates to a PROPORTIONAL loss of abilities.) In reality, the miniatures we use are SUPPOSED to represent actual people….Of which, no two are identical in skills, abilities and knowledge! Since units are made up of men, who dreamed up making "all line rated the same, etc?"

It is within this falacy we demand out of our games! The commonly accepted theorm is that you can either play a "game" or try to finish a "simulation". In reality, you COULD do BOTH….but you first have to TRULY understand what you are dealing with!

I am suggesting that if you change your value sets from "casualty based" to more "human oriented", you can achieve BOTH goals in a reasonable amount of time!

To wit: "What makes a unit more "human like"? Answer: In pre-game preparation (or gamemaser determines ratings for), ratings for the men's experience and training; the unit's leadership's training and experience; and MOST importantly, "How long have THESE men been under THESE leaders?". This can be expressed as a value from 1-10.

When the added use of a random combat results chart (within "bands", 10 in this case), your game can truly be an exciting and more accurate game, and can be finished within 1-3 hours (depending on the number of units involved and the compentency of the players). I have done it!

Remember, in ALL periods of history, man is the common thread. Units will run with little/no casualties and others stand to nearly the last man! Therefore, casualties is a PXXX- Poor value set to use for the vital flow of the game!

One last (for this post) thing to consider: What is the reason for doing a "Morale Check"? ("To see if the men stick around" is usually the response.) If so, where are the modifiers for the checking unit's leadership for influencing their passing of the check? ….keeping the unit "on line"? Also, ever see a modifier listed to help increase your chance for passing a morale check if behind a stone wall or fence? Ever clsim that one when trying to get your men to leave the safety of that stone wall to charge? How accurate is THAT one? />)

Now if you just want to push toy soldiers around, fine. Don't claim the rules you are using are "realistic" or accurate. By all means, have fun! BUT, if you want reasonable and/or possible different outcomes based upon history, then rethink how you approach/understand rules sets. Question, "Do they allow for variation or are the units quite "linear", carbon copies within some artificial stratification? Was life really like that? ……

My only purpose in posting this is NOT to pump ANY rules set, but rather, to get you to start to question what YOU hold dear in the rules you use. Is there not a simpler/better way to speed things along and perhaps a different value set that is more appropriate for what you want to simulate in your games, that deals more closely to reality?

Best
Tom Dye
GFI

That's the most wonderfully incoherent thing I've ever read Tom. It beats Joyce.

Bravo!

To the OP. People treat rules as, well, rules. They are reluctant to step outside the boundaries that the rules allow (although curiously this only applies to the composition of 'armies', most gamers are content to tinker with rule mechanics until they're totally FUBAR'd).

We're a strange breed

I have to further explain: I don't mean to come across the wrong way. I merely have been frustrated by playing games where results were down to a roll of one die roll. After spending years looking, researching, experimenting, I concluded that games that use casualties as a basis for everything (combat, morale checks and ability to remain functioning) were flawed for looking at just one part of the puzzle. In truth, it really boils down to the unit's leadership's ability to maintain control over the efforts of the men. (Unit Cohesion) This "value set" CAN be quantified! Most games never allow for unit's regaining capability (the equivilant of getting back casualties….which would have regained lost capability within the existing system) A SIMPLE search will show that it happened all the time UNLESS the Rate sustained was over a SHORT amount of time. Casualties for an action are reported at the end of the action, and usually assumes the unit did not bolt in the first 5 minutes….casualties taken over a period of time (attrittion). The time between the surges of combat, unit leadership did LOTS to regain lost control over the men…getting them refocused upon the tasks at hand.

I surely do NOT know it all (or else I'd be pumping my own rules set….), but believe I have discovered the fundmental flaw in most games. I throw it out here (as in the past) for your consideration. Yeah, I'm more of a "Simmer" than a "Gamer", but still like to be able to finish a "game" within the time I have been afforded to play! In that, I don't for one minute, think I am alone! 8>)

Best
Tom Dye
GFI

Of course if the points system is not based on the original, primary sources in old german/french/bongolesian then it cant possibly be accurate because everyone knows that primary sources in the original german/french/bongolesian are absolutely always guaranteed to be 100% accurate.

" but it never should have been 25 things points to 150 things points cause thats just crazy!"

But waht if the side with 150 points has a -125 Victory Point handicap?

Anyway, the OP is valid. We are wargamers, we like to moan and argue.

<<The guys who create points systems are trying to find ways to balance the recognized disparities in the units; thus a Tiger "costs" more than a Sherman.>>

Ah, but Tanks don't fight all by themselves….they have crews! Capability is truly in the hands of the guy(s) operating the weapons system! Studies of ammo expended show that none were really ALWAYS great shots, ALL the time. In fact, you can readily conclude that there were a heck of a lot misses!

Why rate a "tank" without regards to it's crew? (Again, MAN being the common thread, not the weapons system. If you can't hit the target, does it really matter how far the gun can shoot to get the enemy (targeted unit) to give ground?)

Best
Tom Dye
GFI

But Tom, you still have to make generalisations about the quality of the men in the same way that you would have to make generalisations about the machines.

More so in fact, as men differ more than machines. A tank gun (to use your example) is always a tank gun with the same operating parameters, its gunner may be affected, minute by minute, by dozens of variables.

I'm trying to trump you in the incoherence stakes here, but in my defence I've had a couple of glasses of wine.

We also seem to be straying off topic.

I don't have a clue what Tom's ranting about, or what it has to do with the topic, but I give him points for passion.

And I give Connard points for referencing the most obscure Monty Python episode ever.

Naw, Tom's rant is only 90 degrees off the topic.

He is right though. The man is at least as important as the box that he occupies.

mjc

Howdy Pink! Lets stay on topic:

Go back and re-read my original post. Pay attention to how unit's could be rated. Also the part about "random" CRT. What I mean by random: Rolling high is not always good….rolling low not always bad. The higher you are rated, the more chances (in 1-10) you have to inflict damage….ie: if you are now rated as 5, on line "5" of the chart you could inflict some kind of damage on a roll of say 3, 5 and 9. At a rating of 6= maybe you'd inflict damage (a slight bit more damage possible) on a 1, 5 and 6 (perhaps a 10, too!)

All you'd need is a combat chart. Your rating level changes because combat results are expressed in losses to starting values. YOU decide if a unit rated "5" is average or not. But if you have the only units that started as a "5" in the game, guess they are the equivillant of "Guards"? It adds another depth of uncertainty and stress to the game!

While agree that weapons systems must have maximum EFFECTIVE range, their chances of inflicting damage at any GIVEN range should never be the same for every shot! (ie: 10's are ALWAYS is a kill at any range). It adds suspence while keeping all in the game!

Best
Tom Dye
GFI

PS, Am still at work….have a snort for me, will'ya? )

Aw c'mon, Sam, It ain't a foreign language is it? Please read what I posted (vs just a skim over) Ask me a question of it does not compute with ya!

Roger on the passion! Am tired of every rules author rehashing the same old stuff! You are talking about a points system….to make things fair. I suggest you recommend a system where scenario designers make the scenario balanced- not the forces. Did Rommel ever pass on giving battle because the Allies outnumbered him in "points". Where's the history in that one?

Best
Tom

It's another thread Tom. Start it and I'll chime in (try stopping me ), but Sam's raised an interesting point here and I don't want to derail him.

It's an unremarkable Pomerol, but it hits the spot. Cheers…

Funny, *No Names Mentioned to Protect the Guilty* was so caught up in his own rant that he didn't pick up on my tongue-in-cheek post – and then started defending points based systems…which he was ranting about in the first place…

So why have rules sets at all? Why not just a bunch of special scenario rules that will guarantee your favorite side the win? I mean, if you have to always include special rules to balance battles, it isn't much of a rules set, either. Usually, playing double blind gives the underdog a fair enough chance. In fact, we've never used special rules in our games and I've seen some pretty spectacular wins and some pretty severe whippings with a variety of rule sets.

And I don't expect any system to ALWAYS allow the underdog a chance of winning…that would be ludicrous. My point was that if a game isn't balanced artificially, most people won't want to play it. Hence, points based armies. Not that I necessarily subscribe to them for everything I play, but they are useful at times.

Sam. In answer to your proposed question, I vote "A". Gamers want it all handed to them on a silver platter (read this as not willing to do any research). It's easier when the author has done the work for them.

Why not do a system where the gamers are responsible for rolling up how well their Old Guard fights in todays battle? They had "off days" too. Same , but opposite , for lower rated units. Today they might do much better! This way, you could cite a published OB and let them do the rating part! Less work and that fellow who MUST have all three regiments of Schlurptanian Nostril Fusiliers in your "Light Division" army, then the game can recreate the battle of Florgnabel, where all three of those regiments were deployed. (Limit the number of maneuver elements--equal for meeting engagements/ 3-1 for attack-defence; vary victory points for objectives taken/accomplished, etc.)

Best
Tom Dye
GFI

Cheers, Pink. But I must now go and create more metal warriors. (The pot is back up to temp….)

Best
Tom Dye
GFI

I realize that the responses don't have to bear any resemblance to the initial topic. This – IS – TMP, after all.

For what it's worth, though, the initial rant had to do with gamers who complain that they "can't" do historical scenarios because those scenarios don't match up with the games' points-based army lists for tournament/competitive games.

That's all.

As for the morale of a guy inside a tank, or whether a scenario can be unbalanced, or "casualty-based vs. human-oriented rules"… errrm…

I have no idea.

For what it's worth, though, the initial rant had to do with gamers who complain that they "can't" do historical scenarios because those scenarios don't match up with the games' points-based army lists for tournament/competitive games.

Yeah, I got it (bangs own drum).

FWIW I'm currently assembling both sides for Culloden using the old WRG 1685-1845 rules.

The liberties that I'm taking with points values, troop definitions and even basing would probably have the purists swooning. The acid test will be whether or not it 'works'

This is for you, ex-Connard…

YouTube link

…and you've never been further than Berwick-on-Tweed

"After spending years looking, researching, experimenting, I concluded that games that use casualties as a basis for everything (combat, morale checks and ability to remain functioning) were flawed for looking at just one part of the puzzle"

Yes, I quite agree. Combat effectiveness does not have a linear relationship to numerical strength, and if anything casualties are the result of combat outcomes, not vice versa.

This is hardly news though, and is already incorporated into bazillions of operational research and combat models as well as commercial wargames. The usual counter argument is that figure removal represents the degradation of combat effectiveness, not actual losses, but wargame combat models which make losses a function of the combat outcome rather than the determinant are a bit more unusual. These are usually the province of opposed dice or CRT type combat systems, so e.g. in DBA the 'winner' is determined by comparision of the relative strengths plus mods and any losses are then determined by who won and the extent of the victory.

Relevance to Army Lists? search me.

A lot of the Army list isseues could be avoided if the rules writers included say 2 real battles and the oob's as well as the army lists, showing that either approach was valid.

[…] For what it's worth, though, the initial rant had to do with gamers who complain that they "can't" do historical scenarios because those scenarios don't match up with the games' points-based army lists for tournament/competitive games.

I'd like to put forth a motion to extend the rant to include those who do not actually play a game, but like to criticize it on this basis.

- Bob

Well, thirty-odd posts in and nobody has bothered to point out that it's actually spelled Flörgnabel. Perhaps lack of primary source research, perhaps sheer laziness. Regardless, if you can't get your orthography right, you may as well stick to messing about with elves and steam-powered monkeys.

That's a steam powered Mönkey to you.

Why rate a "tank" without regards to it's crew?

We do in NUTS and it makes a big difference in how tanks perform. We break the crew down into what role they perform and how that's expressed in game term.

Here's more detail..
PDF link

But the positive thing, in my view, is that THW rules are not points based and they have a large following. I wonder how many gamers really use points?

I don't think it's as many as people believe.

"Why rate a "tank" without regards to it's crew"

Does anybody still not take crew quality into account? Maybe they do??

[I'd like to put forth a motion to extend the rant to include those who do not actually play a game, but like to criticize it…]

I thought that was the whole purpose of TMP?

Let's not be too quick to judge. TMP also exists to condemn games solely on the basis of using D6 mechanisms or including color photographs in the book. It's a big tent. Plenty of room for everybody… except those guys, of course.

Martin Rapier wrote:

Does anybody still not take crew quality into account? Maybe they do??

Crew quality is applied to the tank as a whole in the rules I'm most familiar with. Assigning a single quality to an entire unit is also common, which probably makes sense from a game-play perspective. Ed's THW games and the boardgame Patton's Best are the only ones that take the specific situation for each individual crewman into account each turn that I am familiar with. It's a great feature for games at that level.

But I think we've wandered well away from the OP's topic now. :)

- Bob

Martin Rapier wrote:

"Does anybody still not take crew quality into account? Maybe they do??"

ALL of the rules, same one, that are played in my area do not consider crew quality at all.

Further, there are rules I no longer play -- ALL of these also do not consider crew quality.

Rules of Engagement are the only set I have played that do consider crew quality.

mjc

Flames of War uses crew quality in a number of ways.

There's a difference in rating the whole crew's overall quality and actually representing the crew themselves.

Many games have the "Elite/Regular/Green" sort of rating for the tank.

What Ed's rules do is actually represent the crew members inside the tank, each with their own experience level. I've not seen a similar mechanism in any other miniatures game, though at least one board game (as mentioned above) does it.

It's entirely possible for you to get a damage result that kills your driver, and then you have to move some other crew member over to drive the tank. (Though to be honest, the most likely result is that your tank is either fine, your crew tries to bail out, or the whole thing goes "boom". Riding unbuttoned is pretty dangerous of course, but you can't see much buttoned up….)

In a campaign, you will find yourself being very protective of your veteran tankers, taking care to get them to safety if they have to bail out.

Sounds like torture. Some of us do this for fun you know.

Each to their own.

Here's a novel idea.

Since it is virtually impossible to tell how well a particular soldier/element being simulated in the game *actually* performed at the historic battle, I propose a mechanism to randomly assign this during the game. This way you can accurately represent the myriad of effects that may affect any given situation. Was this a case of peasant milita getting lucky, or elite soldiers who were plagued by sudden unexpected circumstances? All of these are easily and accurately modeled.

First you start with a base-line expectation for a model's performance. Say a unit that *should* (or is *expected*) to perform well is successful in it's action on a 3+, and a unit that is expected to perform poorly only succeeds on a 5+.

Now, here's the brilliant part. During the game, right before performing an action, you roll the dice to see what happens! Hereby we can see the effects of the myriad situations that go un-modeled on the table… units that should perform poorly may occasionaly, inexplicably, against all odds perform miracles. Also, units that by all rights should be unbreakable, suffer catastrophic failure. The vagaries of this mid-game dice roll allow for the modeling of all the random situations that may be too small to be called out specifically in the rules. Were the men exceptionally motivated by the previous nights round of patriotic songs? Was there an unexpected mechanical flaw? Did the whole expertly planned ambush fail because Private Jenkins dropped his canteen? etc.

Brilliant in it's simplicity. I'm surprised no one has taken this route before.

Zematus wrote:

[…] Brilliant in it's simplicity. I'm surprised no one has taken this route before.

A number of games introduce some chance of figures not doing what you expect/want them to. Ed's games are particularly noted for this. Even more brilliant (and equally thought of before) is to have figures react to things happening to them in unexpected ways. It's possible to have a lowly figure stand fast and perform well, while an elite will cower and run unexpectedly. RPGs commonly have an "exceptional success" or "exceptional failure" that magnify the results. A number of random event mechanisms introduce heroic actions.

Is that what you meant?

- Bob