"Stopping Ahistorical tactics" Topic

There is a discussion on the Napoleonic boards about 'Reverse slope' deployment, and whether other armies than the British under Wellington used it. This is something vexing me.

Should a army be allowed to do things they didn't historically, and if not how do you stop it? I mean things that are possible historically, but generals either didn't think of, or refused to do

For instance let us imagine that Nation X NEVER used reverse slope – it was in the psyche that you didn't hide. How do you stop a player doing this, or do you agree with

How do you discourage your non British troops from hiding on the reverse

Why should I want to discourage a good tactic?

In my mind the player is taking the palce of the general in charge so things like deployment and whether to defend or attack should be up to him. However, crossing the line into other areas that would be affected by troop training, etc should be off limits. ie. letting French deploy in 2 deep line, or Britich deploy in attack column should be avoided.

Finding the balance between letting the players run the army and fundamentally changing the armies abilities is always a touchy area.

I guess you write a rule that states, "X army is prohibited from hiding on the reverse slope." You can give a short explanation then or put it in the designer's notes.

I have always been a bitter opponent of the "Stupid McClellan" rules that SPI and other boardgame companies tried to force down our throats.
The whole notion that if an army did not act in an intelligent manner, then we should force them to be stupid has always annoyed me. Why even bother to play a game, with decisions and all that nonsense? Why not just make it a moving diorama?

Just put plastic strips on the bases, and put the game on a vibrating electric football board and be done with it.

Lay out these "house rules" before the game so that players know they are having to command troops given their training and nationality.

In my own mind, I sometimes need this information if I am not playing an era that I have at least some knowledge on tactics. So informing me of the limits to historical tactics is appreciated.

Matthew

I agree with John. If there are rules forcing players to use historical tactics and forcing them to bluner into stupid things then you aren't really gaming in some ways.

However leidang is correct also if it is a matter of training. Units that were not trained to skirmish should not be able to do so even if it would be advantageous.

Infantry teams should not be able to run over and take over a tank if they were not trained to operate the tank.

It would be like playing a game of Balaclava where the British had to charge the wrong Russian guns.

John,

I agree with not forcing players to make the same poor command decisions in a game that historically happened. (I am quite able to blunder my command all on my own). But I do think that training and nationality background should come in to play with the rules/game. We play and era because we enjoy the tactics of the era, or so I have always thought.

Matthew

Would you let a platoon commander re-organise his men?

Matthew
Someone, somewhere in all armies had to be the first one to try to expand tactics. Why can't it be me?

Deploying on a reverse slope is a no-brainer. Deploying skirmishers could and should be a matter of training, and with those not used to the tactic, perhaps a time penalty, or they are not all that effective. But forbidding it?

I remember playing an AWI game that troops needed to get from end of the board to the other. No rules were put out that you needed to stay on the roads. I took my command off the road and paralleled the road coming around the enemy. It was successful but slow. I remember the comment being about how that isn't what actually happened. Difference was that I could see where the enemy was dug in. Simple rule would have been can't leave the road or make the terrain much more difficult so that the road traveled faster.

I played in a game very similar to that too. I marched up the road and got blasted by the hidden troops that wee not deployed. One volley and my troops broke and ran. The GM grinned like a Cheshire Cat and said "Just like the REAL battle!"
And this was a CONVENTION game! Whatever possessed him to hink this was suitable for a convention?????

I am building a Peninsular Spanish Army 1807-1810. Given the general low quality of the troops I am not going to confound things by trying to command like General Cuesta. I want to see if I can get victories despite the poor material I have to work with.

While "national" characteristics are logical in a historical wargame (they don't depend on particular generals in a particular moment but on drill and evolution), there's something we all should remember: good tactics should be open for all (somebody had to do it first, that's all) or for nobody (after all we are not Wellington). Modifiers based on comander's quality should be enough to discourage certain maneuvers, if present at all.

I agree with John and those who agree with John. To me it is much more fun to see how different tactics could have changed an outcome, rather than being shackled with the historic actions of any said army.

That said, I do like the electric football option…

Sure, drag the innocent plastic electric football players into this, sheesh.
I believe in letting the players run their forces as they see fit within the rules. If it is silly circumstances will soon point this out.

I imagine that this comes up more in pickup/tournament/generic-scenario kind of play than in more historical scenarios.

OFM: "I played in a game very similar to that too. I marched up the road and got blasted by the hidden troops that wee not deployed. One volley and my troops broke and ran. The GM grinned like a Cheshire Cat and said "Just like the REAL battle!"
And this was a CONVENTION game! Whatever possessed him to hink this was suitable for a convention?????"

John: So where were your light troops? Was this the scenario designer's fault or just bad tactics? (If it was just like a real battle then don't feel too bad as an actual commander made the same mistake!)

Dogged: "While "national" characteristics are logical in a historical wargame (they don't depend on particular generals in a particular moment but on drill and evolution), there's something we all should remember: good tactics should be open for all (somebody had to do it first, that's all) or for nobody (after all we are not Wellington). Modifiers based on comander's quality should be enough to discourage certain maneuvers, if present at all."

Don't mix National Characteristics with Doctrine. An example : If the French fought in 3 ranks as a national characteristic then Frenchmen would walk down a street in 3's. The fact that they fought in 3 (verses 2) ranks for most of the Wars is a matter of doctrine.

If you want to play a game, then let the gamers use whatever they want for tactics. If trying to recreate a historical battle, then restricting a player (be it in intel, OBs, terrain, capabilities, etc) to what his historical counterpart had to deal with is fair dinkum!

It all depends on what YOU and your fellow gamers feel is right for the game you are playing- how much openness or restriction imposed on the players.

Tom

I had no light troops, I only had what the GM gave me, and my objective and orders were to go up the road. I was given no leeway.

It was bad scenario design. BTW, I had never heard of the "actual battle".
My guess is that the designer read about it, and thought it would be a fun thing to spring on somebody.

BTW he was sitting alone at a table with no players when I glanced at and asked me if I waned to play.

I started mounting all my skirmish figures on round bases, after a guy I used to game with insisted on putting figures into ranks automatically, even if they were moderns!

How do you stop a-historical tactics? With a shotgun.

By the way, according to Muir, the Brits did charge in column every now and then. And the French charged in line at Maida.

I'm with John the OFM on this. Playtested a 'historical' scenario in which the Union commander I played was not allowed to assault Rebel fortifications. My command was deployed…right in front of the Confederate fortifications, with the rest of the division coming on right behind. So all I could do was change to march column and march, march, march, at 6" per turn, to re-deploy and reinforce my colleague to the right. After 4 hours, I never had the chance to engage in shooting or close combat. Dull, dull, dull!!!

The Cheshire Cat has always creeped me out.

One of the problems with trying to ban certain armies from tactics deemed ahistorical is that it promotes the perpetuation of shared myth, rather than actual research.

There is nothing ahistorical about French in less than triple line or British in attack column. Examples of both during the Napoleonic era can be found without that much effort. With an electronic edition – and many of the primary sources are available in electronic editions for free, or for a nominal cost – you don't actually have to read it. Just do an electronic search on the term. There are even past discussions on TMP that cite sources.

Appropriate tactics were used when they were effective to the situation. The actual commanders apparently did not feel constrained artificially.

Rick

Playing devil's advocate here:

Preventing a player from doing something ahistorical to their advantage is one side of the coin, how about the other side?

Do you try to force a player to do something historical to his advantage that they don't want to do? For example how do you get that Russian T34 Battalion commander to move his tanks at maximum possible speed through the breach in the German line, when he would rather move slow enough to shoot everything in sight? Is it even fair not to let him make that kind of mistake?

Hi John,

I've played those same SPI board games myself. You're talking about the Blue and the Grey quad games, right? Playing the Union in some of those battles was like trying to fight with one arm tied behind the back.

I agree that training and doctrine are factors in a game. But why play a game if the decision is a foregone conclusion?

If I'm not mistaken, the appeal of wargaming, boardgames included, goes something like, "Now YOU can change history!"

@ Dye4minis: While quoting me you can observe if you reread the quote that I put the word "national" into quotations, implying a non straight interpretation, and that a bit of explanation regarding it is put between brackets which includes doctrine in such a generic use of the term. Such generic uses have the benefit of not needing to separate doctrine from terrain, morale, training, etc. which could be appropiate to a given contestant based on its national procedence (and the site of the battle). "Particular" would mean the same in that sense. No need to be picky with that.

The thing is that some tactics were tied to some generals, and their decisions in battle were of their own. Refighting a historical battle is by definition a reinterpretation of history; it could be said that a deviation on the decisions then made equate to substituting that general's place. Obviously to reflect exactly the same tactics and movements ultimately takes the refight to a contest of dice to check the results, and staging such a refight is alike to making a step by step historic battle diorama. Ironically such a result would be the most ahistorical as it would be based on pure luck as the factor to change the results of events which would have developed exactly as they did in history.

So in the end, one can forbide the use of some tactics altogether on a "national" (see, use of quotations) basis*, to not forbide anything and make it a "fantasy" fight, or to give a certain amount of modifiers to generals* to reflect on their ability to read the battle, inspire and move their troops around. Certainly, for historical playing, a combination of the first and last possibilities is desirable, as it can reflect both on the "particular" characteristics of a given force (based on its "national" character) and its commander's abilities at a given place and moment.

*See that exceptional generals (or forces) could be given abilities beyond their "national" ranges to reflect on their own initiatives. Could Wellington and his reversed slope deployment fall into this category?

I think it really comes down to the intent of the game. One way is not better or worse than the other, it just comes down to an arbitrary selection of preference. I think an important point is to be clear in the general description of the game – I don't want to read 80 of 200 pages of rules to find out this isn't a game I want to play.

While preference is arbitrary, there seem to me to be a few natural classes of selection: only representative tactics used by A from B to C date; only tactics known to be trained by force X; tactics used by anyone from date Y to Z; anything you want to do.

As far as implementation goes, this should be specified in the section on issuing orders. One way to handle it as a "nudge" instead of a prohibition is to assign penalties to uncharacteristic (whatever that means in your specific instance) actions.

Ironically such a result would be the most ahistorical as it would be based on pure luck as the factor to change the results of events which would have developed exactly as they did in history

Even more, the result would be ahistorcal because you have a general facing a different outcome of his last decision but making the same next decision. Sure, its possible to happen, but there is no historical basis to demonstrate it happened.

Historically, side B lost this engagement. Therefore, side B cannot win, and should it look like they will be victorious, the game shall immediately be canceled.

That's historic. But who wants to play it?
The rules should drive certain tactics. Historically things were done a certain way for a reason, those reasons should be valid in the rules. In your example, you could make various deployments cost more to simulate the additional training.

Or, you just ignore it. Recognize that people want to play a game, not exactly recreate something that has already been done.

It's a game. Let players do what they want. the real problem with these things, also national modifiers, is that players want to make armies "killer armies" that will give them a victory without risk. I suspect that British using reverse slope tactics comes about because half the Napoleonic rules out there allow the French to walk on water without getting the soles of their shoes wet, and the other half insist that they do get wet, but only the soles.

I have to agree with John. If an army historically did not use a tactic, it should not be forbidden in the game, but there should be some mechanism in place whereby the army is penalized. Perhaps, slower deployment or less effective in conflict.

I think part of the reasoning also needs to do with the *reason* particular doctrines/tactics/strategies were used. WHY deploy on the reverse slope? To avoid being blasted by massed artillery (amongst other reasons I'm sure). If the scenario represents a 'typical' engagement (French massed artillery) the the British have reasons to hide on the reverse slope the French less reason. But if you inverse the situation then can you really tell the French player 'no you cannot do anything at all to avoid being hit by the artillery'? No, I think that's a problem for all of the reasons mentioned.

-Will

I'm opposed to a game rigged so that one side wins. But should 1914 French be allowed to use infiltration tactics?

Should Seven Years War armies be allowed to attack in column of divisions?

I think you should fight with the armies that were available, warts and all.

Hi – thanks for the response.

To clarify – NOT just H&M, and NOT just necessarily copying the opponent- Partly I am thinking about something completely ahistorical, or something just didn't happen

(in the following example if this actually happen occasionally please ignore my ignorance – assume it didn't)

Say a US platoon commander reorganises his platoon, strips all the BAR into one 'firebase', and the rifles into two wings – no scouts etc. And it steamrollers the Germans. Every time.

Or Cavalry don't charge- then work their way round and just stand across the line of retreat, allowing retreaterd to run into them.

Say a US platoon commander reorganises his platoon, strips all the BAR into one 'firebase', and the rifles into two wings – no scouts etc. And it steamrollers the Germans. Every time.

This seems like a damn good idea, surely after the initial surprise it is up to the German player to figure out how to combat this. As long as the US player doesn't gain extra BAR's then it seems a legitimate tactic.

Unhistorical – Big lines of tanks advancing forwards like Napoleonic Cavalry! Historic – The ease with which to switch from one very close tgt to another so the enemy in the case of Napoleonic tank formations get a +1 to hit!

TALLY hO!

Partly I am thinking about something completely ahistorical, or something just didn't happen

But remember, lots of things were ahistorical until they happened. Hell, we went into WWI thinking we were going to replay historical tactics even though the Crimean and American Civil wars should have told us different!

People do innovate on the battlefield. Sometimes by intent, sometimes by chance. Pearl Harbor, hunh? Whadda we got left? Carriers? OK, let's build a battlegroup around a carrier!

I think this is a never-terminating pursuit. What is historically plausible?

Big lines of tanks advancing forwards like Napoleonic Cavalry!

Well … DaVinci designed a tank. What's to say that couldn't have been a "what if"? I still think it comes down to deciding on an intent for the game.

There's nothing wrong with restricting people from making innovative decisions, too. Along with tons of examples of historical innovations in warfare, there are tons of examples where the situation was obviously begging for someone to do something other than what was expected (or what he though was expected … I'm looking at you, Cardigan).

is that players want to make armies "killer armies"

This is a great point, and there is probably a little more to it. Killer armies come from applying rules in ways they were not designed to work. If you don't decide what your intent for the game is, you are very unlikely to select a ruleset that supports it.

Do the British become an unstoppable killing machine by using a reverse slope tactic because it is the exact right thing to do in their specific situation or because of the way the rules act when doing something they weren't designed for?

I also think intent leads to the most player-satisfying explanation.

* "That never happened." Well … it could have. It happened later, so it was possible.

* "The rules don't say you can." Yeah, but they don't say I can't, either.

* "That's not the game we're playing right now." Instead of appealing to the authority or fallibility of history, plausibility, the rules, etc., the argument against really comes down to "I want", which is a very juvenile argument.

If you want to play ultimate frisbee, that's cool. But we all came here to play a FoW tourney, so just don't play it on the convention floor around us, OK? :)

> For instance let us imagine that Nation X NEVER used reverse slope – it was in the psyche that you didn't hide. How do you stop a player doing this, or do you agree with

For something that cut and dried you have two choices.

1 – Ban it. Easiest to write that way.
2 – Allow it but at some kind of morale penalty.

There is a lot of "reverse fantasy" in this thread. It was possible so I should be able to do it, with extreme bad examples of when X was not allowed to do Y. Armies fight how they train, or how they have learned in previous combat and rules should reflect that. (As always try to seperate the myth and slander from actual unit abilities at the time).

As for the oft cited stupid commander rules. The best representation of them I've seen is in Card Driven Games or the Great Battles of the American Civil War series. A commander can only act when a card of his ability level is played, players get a hand of cards from the deck each turn to play, a little friction combined with the ability to plan for it.

Unhistorical – Big lines of tanks advancing forwards like Napoleonic Cavalry!

link

Those Tommies are in for a world of hurt when they run into the first bit of resistance… And it was mighty kind of that German to snap a picture of them advancing like that…

Just having fun, advancing in a line is the preferred way of making contact, the alternative is to come on one at a time and that just limits the amount of firepower you can bring to bear when needed.

Let players try "ahistorical" tactics. If the opponent is on the ball, the innovator could just as well find himself facing disaster as success….

The problem is tactics which work in the game but which could never have worked in reality.
Tactics which could have worked historically are fine; of course, people may disagree about whether Blucher could have used reverse slope tactics, for instance.

John OFM, not exactly advancing into contact and far from the lines of tanks that swirl around the table like synchronized swimmers. These phots have been used to argue that tanks did move around in tight lines however 2 points – Air superiority and secondly there is a big difference between an admin move and advancing into contact, if you had ever done it for real, you might know!

"advancing in a line is the preferred way of making contact, the alternative is to come on one at a time and that just limits the amount of firepower you can bring to bear when needed"

Advancing in tactical bounds is actually the way,which is why it is taught otherwise I suspect that at Bovington and Fort Benning troops would be taught to advance in nice straight lines! By using bounds you ensure that you can keep one foot on the ground and give effective support in both the offencive move and if necessary the defence.

Tally Ho!

For game design, OFM has it. You have two types of participatory simulations:

1. Static: The simulation recreates events--the same ones over and over. A movie or a re-enactment. Not a game though. Participants follow a script rather than make decisions. Too often gamers see this as the definition of simulation and designers design events rather than game environments, so every game has such things as the French always winning etc. etc.

2. Dynamic: The simulation recreates the environment. The players create the events with their decisions. That is what a game is about. The player is dropped into the environment without a script. That means:

A. They bring all their biases to the environment.
B. The expectation is will and usually have a desire to do things differently from the original decisions.

What this means for 'ahistorical tactics' is this:

*The player can be expected to do this ahistorically at some point in trying out different decisions.
*The environment should react to the 'ahistorical decisions' just as it would if attempted in the real situation.
*It is reasonable to have non-player reactions be historical and confined to historical behaviors
*It will break the game and simulation aspects of the system to *make* players act [force certain decisions] while playing the game.

How that works is this:
Decide that only the British can use reverse slope tactics [which in this case is not true at all. All nations used it, just as they all used the defensive properties of forests] In any case, deny all other players the ability. What you see happen is 1. ahistorical player decisions because both sides know what the other can do, and 2. the players develop ahistorical tactics to compensate for what they can't do.

The obvious example is the McClellan rule, where the Union can only move certain corps at a time to 'simulate' McClellan's hesitation. Both sides develop tactics and strategies BASED on this restriction, throwing any simulation aspects out the window.

Forcing the player to behave in certain ways will always skew the simulation. Players will always want to act in 'ahistorical ways'. Get over it.

The difference, where the environment limits the options available to the player can seem a fine line. In system terms, it comes down to what options were actually available to contemporary generals and how the environmental consequences of those options are provided.

Limiting and directing the environmental possibilities is what a game system does, what a dynamic simulation does.

Limiting and directing the behaviors of the participants by scripting their decisions is what a Static simulation does. It produces games that always play the same.

What a designer needs to know is: What was possible [could [read did] other nations use the reverse slope tactic. What were the down sides and benefits--and portray them.

With the McClellan rule, you instead provide the Union player with the intelligence McClellan had and didn't have, including the strength of the Confederate Army [which means it could be a variety of strengths based on historical events. That will provide the player with McClellan's options.

However, most gamers don't like this option because it then won't be "The Battle of Antietam", with the same units and pace of the battle, but something different…

It all depends on what folks want to simulate, and whether they want a decision-making environment provided or just the events.

The problems occur when designers and gamers think they can mix the two and get a meaningful simulation.

Best regards,
Bill

It all depends on what folks want to simulate,

Completely agree.

provide the Union player with the intelligence McClellan had and didn't have

I think this highlights the fundamental challenge of historicity in wargames. As people from the future (never thought of youself like that, didya?), we know an awful lot more than the participants did or could. Even when we add ambiguity (represent the intel McClellan didn't have), wargame players still know scads more (God's eye view, and all) than actual participants would.

I actually won a game once using the losing side's tactics. Over beers after the game my opponent said he kept holding back and not committing because he kept expecting me to spring the "surprise" on him. By the time he realized there was no surprise, we were well past the tipping point. The worst thing about omnsicience is you know everything.

Even when we add ambiguity (represent the intel McClellan didn't have), wargame players still know scads more (God's eye view, and all) than actual participants would.

etotheipi:

It's true, but there is nothing you can do about it as a game designer unless you get into hypnotism or brainwashing. The player brings to the game what he brings, and that can include a boatload of hindsight. There are ways of 'blinding' that sight in specific ways, as I suggest with the McClellan problem, if you want to.

Besides, part of the fun is to see if you could do better than general X… and if you aren't the one making the decisions, then what are you doing?

The question of how to stop ahistorical tactics is the wrong one to ask as a designer. The right question is how to motivate players to use historical tactics.

Create a game environment that models the historical one at the points you want it to. If done well, the environment will reward historical tactics and not ahistorical ones. And if the gamer discovers tactics never seen on the actual battlefield, all they need to be is possible. And of course the next set of questions is: 1. How do you know what is possible, 2. How do you do model that?, and 3. how do you know you've succeeded? Basic questions for a simualtion designer.

After all, that experimentation, that 'what if I did this differently at Waterloo?' is one of the basic attractions of wargames and one of the basic benefits of simulations.

Best regards,
Bill

I think it really comes down to wether the rules afford appropriate historical advantage from a tactic. That being the case. I hope :) My answer is….

If the scenario is historically driven then initial deployments at least should be made appropriately. After that it is a matter of wether using uncommon national tactics is a problem for the players.

If it is a pick up game then certainly the tactic, any tactic should be appropriate.

I have always loved playing third day Gettysburg scenarios and instead of sending Stewart to the rear of the Union army having him follow Pickett's charge right behind the infantry and through the smoke. Works every time.

Not historical though because the generals of the time thought it was suicide to charge infantry with cavalry. However in that specific situation it would have worked amazingly. One of the few like it during the war.

two cents

But just because an army could (had the ability to) doesn't mean it ever would – officers are bound by doctrine. Why not ignore historic TOEs and rearrange your forces how you prefer?

But just because an army could (had the ability to) doesn't mean it ever would – officers are bound by doctrine. Why not ignore historic TOEs and rearrange your forces how you prefer?

If the army never would do X, how does one determine that it could? If officers were 'bound' by doctrine, then the army didn't have the ability to do something different, regardless of who was in command. Or perhaps history shows that they did. That would be the issue.

It might be fun to see what would happen if TOEs were rearranged, and gamers like to carry out 'what if's'. Why not? However, that doesn't mean the players believe that such rearrangements were historically possible.