"Battle Report Styles" Topic

What style of battle reports to you pefer?

I have seen…

In depth write ups from a character's point of view.

A pictorial report, with lots of pictures with footnotes.

I rarely see, but sometimes wish I could, detailed reports that described the movement, dice rolls, and conbat results. Seeing the die result and outcomes sometimes make you see things in the rules you didn;t realize were there.

Whats your preference?

Lots of pics with footnotes. Unless it's a ruleset I'm playing, which isn't many, my main reason for looking at AARs is to get ideas and see how other people's toys look. I'll check out periods I don't even play just to see some eye candy so any extra words generally get overlooked.

Interesting as this was just discussed on the Old School Wargaming forum and a lot of people gave their opinion about it. I wrote it up in my blog: link

After that I tried to encompass some of the ideas in my next Ancients (DBA) battle report: link It was also an experiment with Battle Chronicler.

Pics with lots of captions: enough to actually follow the action. I like a bit of fluff with the game report, but not so much I have to wade through a 28 mm life story before getting to the actual battle.

I like the pics with footnotes, perhaps interspersed with details on movement\die rolls\combat results at critical junctures.

I'm pretty open to all of them save the rotten attempts at fictionalization I've seen. Ugh.

I like the pics with footnotes, perhaps interspersed with details on movement\die rolls\combat results at critical junctures.

me too

I am a rules junkie, so I really like to see the ones that you mention are rare – detailed reports with dice rolls, modifiers, movement etc. Something that reads like an really long example of play that covers the whole game. With pictures. They are also the hardest and longest to write, so don't mind cut down versions that just describe the tactics, a few dice rolls and the flow of the game.

Like to see an overview of the table or a map of the table layout. Also generic orbats are appreciated, something that would include for example;

Brigade 1 (Commander Rating: Average)

2 x Infantry Regiments (Average quality)
1 x Cavalry Regiment (Veteran quality)
2 x Artillery

This would allow others to try out the game using their own set of rules if they differ from the report, or even to use the report as a basis to play the game in a different period.

Ezza

What Striker said, plus to get ideas for scenarios.

I also agree with Striker.

AARs with blow-by-blow accounts of die rolls, modifiers, etc, are probably the most boring things to read after British Railway Regulations. They always remind me of Red Dwarf's Arnold Rimmer regaling his shipmates with the story of his greatest victory at 'Risk'.

I think an AAR with some side notes on how some of the game mechanics work are fine. I don't think that a blow by blow of the game mechanics is required just when something new happens, it would be good to see how it works.

I always get bored reading lots of text unless its exceptionally cleverly written! – I vote for lots of pics with footnotes too!

I do like to see a lot of different styles of AAR though as we are all different and like different styles, exactly as it should be!

For those fans of very detailed AARs, I have a Convoy Deadly Waters AAR in the files section on the Yahoo Convoy site that covers my whole first game for each operational game event die roll, all the way through each tactical turn; move by move for each ship, submarine, and aircraft; detection attempt by detection attempt; torpedo firing by torpedo firing; die roll by die roll; modifier by modifier; plus commentary on the rules, assumptions, and tactics of the game. This AAR is in the nature of a lengthy example of play and includes every action, not just the significant ones, and goes on for 90 or so pages including a summary of victory conditions, and a commentary on setting up the tactical actions.

I had a whale of a time playing this game and then recording the action in the detailed AAR. I'm in the middle of a dual convoy, mega game at the moment, sometimes called my "summer game" even though we are well into the fall now, and I'll have an AAR for that one as well, although not so detailed.

This detailed AAR is in the Convoy site files section under the name: "AAR DW Game1 OG52 Trial By Fire 100203."

Unfortunately I'm graphically challenged, so it's all text with no pictures and not cleverly written either, but if you want to get into the Deadly Waters game and are looking for a play by play description, you could take a look at the files on the Yahoo Convoy site.

Now if I could just lay my hands on the British Railway Regulations for my design of a variant to the old Avalon Hill Dispatcher game, I would be in Hog Heaven as they say here in South Carolina!

I have a question for those that mention the picture heavy reports are the most appealing.

Is there a difference between a picture heavy battle report with footnotes vs. a gallery of new pictures. The "Hey guys here are my latest miniatures and terrian" type posting?

Did the game have to be played at all to acheive the same spectator enjoyment or is the fact that a game provided context to the pictures make them better than a simple gallery.

Thanks

I must be a photo junky, as I love to see an AAR with photos. More AARs with photos please!

Yep, I'm a fan of photo-driven AARs. Unless I'm very familiar with the game, reading about the crunchiness of the competing army lists doesn't do a whole lot for me. Put it in narrative terms: "A squad of veteran heavy tanks faced off against a horde of light hoverbikes backed up by off-board artillery; poor tactics, terrible leadership and bad dice rolls helped the tankers emerge victorious." That sort of thing.

@Louie: There's a difference…call it the "thrill of the battle" that you get when you glance through a bunch of pics that were generated by cunning commanders trying desperately to outmaneuver each other on a miniature battlefield, rather than simply a very pretty gallery of staged pics.

Eye candy trumps long rambling text any day. If we live in a perfect world, all batreps would look like indierockclimber's.

I enjoy pictures of figs and scenery, particularly if they mention the source of the figures or scenery. I also enjoy a third-person omnipresent narrative with enough reference to the rules so I can get an idea of the rules as well (and learn something about tactics). I like to know why an "officer" chose a course of action, i.e., what he or she was trying to do.

I don't much enjoy "novelizations." When you get right down to it, you can do those without figures or rules and so they don't add much to anything. -- All this with the exception of General Pettygree's adventures, which I eagerly follow.

Fighting wings has a large pbem following which means you can see the move plots turn by turn with end of turn summaries by the referee. If you are looking for an in depth breakdown of how the game is played, this would be a good place to look. There are always several games in play, at all skill levels. The easiest level is the Buffalo Wings ruleset published in Against the Odds magazine #29. Then there is teh "Quick Start" ruleset which can be downloaded from several sites. The most detailed and realistic rules are the Whistling Death rules (Fighting Wings 2nd edition) available as a boxed boardgame from Clash of Arms Games.
Here is a link to the main discussion board.

Fighting_Wings_Games@yahoogroups.com

From there you just need to ask about ongoing games and you will find plenty of games to choose from.

Greg Boeser

1. Good pics. Don't bother if they are out of focus (I'm guilty of this too…).
2. Clever, entertaining writing.
3. A summary that reflects the successes and failures of the rules for that particular scenario, and the writer's overall impressions.

- Rod

As a general rule the more pictures the better and minimal text, just enough to make it clear what was going on. I always need at least one picture to get a decent sense of what was going on.

I used to really enjoy narrative, character-based reports, but have gone off them a bit in recent years, probably because they're only rarely done well.

Too much dense text is never much fun.

Louie N
I would say there is a difference, though its hard to pin down exactly what. Maybe its because it isn't quite possible to convincingly fake good battle pictures. In game pictures have a quality quite different from straight gallery shots of miniatures. I think Patrick WR sums it up quite well.

Illustrated text, including maps. Photos tell nothing.

I used a mix of styles for my naval AAR:

TMP link

A two page narrative followed by a turn by turn description with both an annotated diagram and a photo of each turn. A shorthand description of activation, firing and damage is included with each turn. It took longer to record the info/take pictures for each turn than to play out a turn so the game took close to two hours to complete.

-Binhan

Pics with footnotes!
Thanos

Depending on how involved I am in the game, if its hectic and I don't have time to write I just tend to write a summary of the major events and attach all pictures that are deemed worthy. If I prepare myself to write a more detailed AAR then I usually bring pen and paper and make notes – writing a coherent text as soon as I get home before I forget all the details.

Pictures are a must however, as you can have a long or short report and people won't bother unless they see some action stills. If a person is interested enough by the specific game and what he sees on the pictures he might invest some of his/hers time to read all you've written. Though pictures and footnotes may be more "newbie friendly" for outsiders. That's what I've come to realize over the past few years.

Binhan Lin,

Are your Naval 44 rules available anywhere?