Weasel | 22 Sep 2014 9:46 a.m. PST |
Page after page discussing whether this specific variant of halftrack was in use in the late spring of 1942. Meticulous research in ensuring we know exactly what month the left-handed M3 can opener was issued to truck mounted infantry platoons. Charts and tables lovingly extrapolated from military tests to account for the exact armour differences between T54 and T55. Endless arguments about whether Germans are "very good" or just "pretty good" and exactly how the performance of British paratroop cooks compared to the performance of South African tank mechanics. All in the pursuit of realistic games. And yet on the table, more often than not, we have 2 armies, all perfectly illustrating every unit type available in exact quantity according to regulations, meeting each other on a perfectly even battlefield and after fighting a light recon engagement, the victors hold the field with only 57% casualties. Are the priorities wrong? Is rivet counting its own reward?
|
DontFearDareaper | 22 Sep 2014 9:54 a.m. PST |
The pursuit of "realistic" game mechanics is not the same as the pursuit of "realistic" game results. At the end of the day, most of us are still playing a game and the fun factor of a game is usually higher when both sides have a more or less equal chance to win. |
John the OFM | 22 Sep 2014 9:58 a.m. PST |
It is only wrong if you don't like it. If you do like that emphasis, then it is all good and proper. |
Weasel | 22 Sep 2014 9:59 a.m. PST |
You can have an even chance of winning by fiddling with victory conditions. That's not really what I was getting at though. |
Garand | 22 Sep 2014 10:02 a.m. PST |
Yes, rivet counting is its own reward for some people. It may not be for (hypothetically) you, but personally I greatly enjoy those sorts of conversations, and then taking what I have learned and implementing it in my armies. Enjoyment for me is increased because of the level of satisfaction I feel. Damon. |
M C MonkeyDew | 22 Sep 2014 10:05 a.m. PST |
If we all had the same tastes there would be just one set of rules. Horses for courses. I am too old to tell folks that their way of playing toy soldiers is wrong. EDIT: The flaw in this post is right in the title. "Gamers" are not single entity such as one might say of me "Does Bob focus on the wrong thing"…quite possible depending on who sets the criteria for "wrong thing". I suggest the only gamers who focus on the wrong thing are those not enjoying the games they play…although even then if their focus was not enjoyment then they would have it right anyway. |
DontFearDareaper | 22 Sep 2014 10:05 a.m. PST |
I think OFM answered your questions perfectly. "Are the priorities wrong"? – Only if you don't like it. "Is rivet counting its own reward" -If you like it, then all is good and proper. nuff said … |
Skarper | 22 Sep 2014 10:16 a.m. PST |
Pretty much agree. We all count rivets in our own way I'd say. Some of the detail in my games is no doubt excessive in some people's opinion and vice-versa. One thing is if the difference between 2 weapons systems is less than 10% then it will barely register when playing the game. Tactics and numerical superiority will swamp such factors. Real commanders don't know and don't much worry if the enemy have better tank guns or thicker armour – they focus on how to get 5 or 10 to one odds or better yet put their tanks somewhere they can attack soft targets and not worry about opposing tanks and ATGs. So yes but it's fun to know these details and you don't want it wrong in your games do you – surely? |
dsfrank | 22 Sep 2014 11:16 a.m. PST |
rivet counting & getting the color of uniform piping the correct shade of color are hobbies in their own right |
deephorse | 22 Sep 2014 11:18 a.m. PST |
They are my rivets Weasel and I want to count them. It's important to me that I'm using the correct half-track variant in the late spring of 1942. As with Garand, I get fulfilment from knowing that my forces are appropriate for the game being played. And I don't recognise your other point about using every troop type available on perfectly balanced battlefields. Not in our games. So methinks you are generalising too much. |
4th Cuirassier | 22 Sep 2014 11:18 a.m. PST |
The nature of some eras and the battles in them simply doesn't lend itself to an entertaining game. Eg the majority of infantry casualties were to mortars, but how often do WW2 games feature mortar bombardment? Stukas on wires look so much cooler. An accurate Alamein game would focus on bombardment and supply, not the infantry and tank encounters. |
Martian Root Canal | 22 Sep 2014 11:46 a.m. PST |
Gaming versus realism is as old as the hobby :) It's a continuum along which games, rules and arguments find their natural position. For me, I like games that allow for fog of war, objectives other than killing all the other guy's figures, and TO&Es that aren't 'paper strength'. I also want my games to give me the role of a commander of my force who gives orders at the appropriate level and lets the lesser officers handle the details (via the rules system I'm using). That being said, the aesthetics of the period appeal to me as well, so I try to field accurate troops for the period, and use the TO&Es and capabilities of the force I'm building as a starting point. That's why in my 1864 ACW games you don't see my Zouaves on the table. :) |
Weasel | 22 Sep 2014 11:59 a.m. PST |
Of course it's generalizing. Trying to spur a discussion here :) |
haywire | 22 Sep 2014 12:20 p.m. PST |
I do not see a venn diagram yet. |
M C MonkeyDew | 22 Sep 2014 12:30 p.m. PST |
TMP link There was this discussion on the 19th some of that might be relevant here. |
Lion in the Stars | 22 Sep 2014 12:41 p.m. PST |
A friend of mine, now a Captain in the US Army, mentioned that there is a much bigger difference between having Night Vision equipment and not having NVGs than there is between having Vietnam-vintage starlight scopes and having the top-line 4-tube rigs like SEAL Team 6 used in the Bin Laden raid. There really isn't a whole lot of difference in capabilities between a force carrying AK47s and the same troops carrying M16s. What is far more important is the morale and training of the troops. Yes, even if you're talking about the difference between a Brit .303 and the 6.5mm Carcano or Arisaka. Now, if you're talking about the difference between bolt-actions and semi-autos, or semi-autos and selective-fire, there's a significant difference. |
deephorse | 22 Sep 2014 12:59 p.m. PST |
I don't really care whether or not the Kar98k was more or less capable than the SMLE. I do care that my German infantry are not depicted carrying StG 44s in 1940. In the same vein, the German army was well known for fielding virtually any and every type of gun on virtually any and every chassis. In game terms this can make many self-propelled anti-tank guns indistinguishable from one another. Yet I want the right one for the date of the game and the theatre it's in. Is that wrong? |
15mm and 28mm Fanatik | 22 Sep 2014 1:40 p.m. PST |
The problem is that wargamers come in all varieties as far as how much detail they would like to reflect in their games for the sake of 'realism,' ranging from the casual gamer who couldn't care less to the military history buff and/or military hardware rivet-counting enthusiast who are passionate about such mundane details. The fact is for many people differentiating the minutiae of wargaming is 'fun' because of their intense interest in these subjects, even if they bore the rest of us to tears. |
Ambush Alley Games | 22 Sep 2014 2:54 p.m. PST |
Forget the Venn Diagram – I want to see a Venn Diesel Diagram! :D Shawn. |
volleyfirewargames | 22 Sep 2014 3:21 p.m. PST |
Lets see and the line infantry of the Austrians wore tricorns in the SYW, Baseball Caps in the French revolutionary war period, Raupenhelm style helmets from around 1800 to 1807/1809 and finally shifted to several different styles of the Austrian shako 1809 to 1815. And that's not even going into the buttons and cut of the pockets? Ones reality often displaces the point of gaming is to game? |
MrMagoo | 22 Sep 2014 4:09 p.m. PST |
My 2 cents on the topic is based on wargaming for well over 30 years and I've grown to favor the more simple rulesets, versus the realistic. There are two reasons for this evolution: 1. The more complex the rules the longer it takes to complete a turn and inevitably the game typically doesn't come to a clear conclusion. 2. The second reason relates to the first… the complex rules make it less fun as you spend too much time waiting for the referee looking up and cross-referencing tables and it really doesn't add much to my enjoyment of the game. That's where I've come to in the hobby. Nothing wrong with the "riveting counting", just not my cup of tea… |
Milites | 22 Sep 2014 6:13 p.m. PST |
As a gamer I got quite a shock talking to real soldiers and realising their perceptions of what was important, in real combat, was not what my rules emphasised. |
Mserafin | 22 Sep 2014 7:06 p.m. PST |
"Amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics" Many gamers don't even make it to the level of tactics. |
Mark 1 | 22 Sep 2014 7:09 p.m. PST |
I prefer to play games with un-balanced forces. I find them to be much more fun … provided the two sides don't know which force is larger, or by how much. I also prefer to play games with easy-to-manage hidden units, so that I (and they) don't have a "God's Eye View" of opposing forces, dispositions, and movements. Do that, add some interesting victory points (like protecting supply units, or evacuating the wounded), and the games seem to progress much more like the AARs I so like to read. Doing proper recon, maintaining a reserve, and morale (not a die role, but how confident to _I_ feel?) overshadows whether my armor is 7 or 8 and your penetration is 9 or 10. -Mark (aka: Mk 1) |
Martin Rapier | 23 Sep 2014 4:55 a.m. PST |
"Many gamers don't even make it to the level of tactics." No, heads down, charge then complain about the rules seems to be the standard procedure. As my general level of midweek exhaustion increases, I do have lots of sympathy with people who don't actually want to think about the game aspect in too much depth. Counting rivets and reading 'myth busting' books about relative troop quality can be done in a more relaxed fashion. Like Mark, my ideal game is a historical scenario with hidden movement etc, but frankly much of the time it is all I can do to break out Memoir 44 just so I can put my toys on some sort of table and push them around making 'vroom' and 'bang' noises. |
Badgers | 23 Sep 2014 5:00 a.m. PST |
Milites, could you expand on what the veterans were saying was important? |
Legion 4 | 23 Sep 2014 6:16 a.m. PST |
"Amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics"Many gamers don't even make it to the level of tactics. Very true … however most games don't cover log. Especially on a tactical level. Most actions wouldn't last long enough for it to be a factor. I ran Bn Log ops in the ROK and later was a Bn then Bde Maint Officer with a Mech Bde at Benning. A unit of the 18th ABN Corps … Then back to Log at that Bde. A lot of work, very important work. Mostly done my supply SGTs, clerks, truck drivers, wrench turners, cooks, etc. … As a modern army needs not only "beans & bullets", but spare parts, etc. to keep our Iron Monsters fully mission capable. But I don't think many gamers would want to play a game based on resupply, recovery, maint., ops … Of course it is more "fun" to "blow things up" … I was an Infantry Officer, but no one is more qualifed to run ops at those levels then guys who know what is takes to keep a combat unit resupplied, maintained vehicles, etc. then some one who has run combat ops and knows … All that being said, again for games, Log & Maint ops are not that "sexy" from a gamer standpoint. As far as, most gamers don't even make to the level of any real tactics in gaming. Part of that might be based on the game mechanicss. And the other, well many may talk about tactics but really don't know how to use them in regards to gaming … it just the nature of the gaming pardigm … |
mysteron | 23 Sep 2014 6:43 a.m. PST |
Whilst I am not an advocator of rivet counting , the fact is we have perhaps more choice and better quality vehicles and figures than we had yesteryear. For example in the 70s my old Airfix Panzer IV Fs had to stand in for much later models because they either weren't available or difficult to come by. Today , I dare say all the types are currently available . If that is true, which it probably is then there is a case for using the correct model. Likewise my Matchbox Comets stood in for Cromwells for the very same reason. Again Cromwell tanks are available from various suppliers nowadays. Personally I think using the correct model feels better and looks much better . If that is rivet counting then I am a river counter :) |
Garand | 23 Sep 2014 7:50 a.m. PST |
Speaking of the correct model, as an aside one thing I dislike is when someone posts a question, such as "Is it accurate to paint my Panthers in Dark Gray," which inevitably spawns a conversation about the history of German tank colors, only for someone to chime in "What does it matter? It all looks the same on the table!" Which of course doesn't really pertain to the question, or dismisses the conversation interested parties were already having… Some people are rivet counters, and enjoy that sort of thing. Some people are not. Damon. |
donlowry | 23 Sep 2014 9:04 a.m. PST |
Isn't it about time for someone to say, "It's all good."? or "It is what it is."? |
Mako11 | 23 Sep 2014 4:09 p.m. PST |
I tend to agree with the premise. Ideally, you need a boardgame, or computer game to track the movement of units for both sides, who advance blind, or perhaps with some intel/recon info, and then fight out those engagements on the tabletop. That would certainly be a bit better than the evenly-matched slug-fests on a ping-pong table, with green felt thrown on top of it. Making an effort to have some hills, valleys, etc. to maneuver over and around, if appropriate, is a good idea too. |
Mark 1 | 23 Sep 2014 6:28 p.m. PST |
Like Mark, my ideal game is a historical scenario with hidden movement etc… :o) I'm glad you appreciate my approach, Martin. Oh, and BTW that's the second time, to my recollection, that you have mentioned one of my posts with some measure of appreciation. The first time was in the 1990s on one of the usenet groups (perhaps soc.hist.war.wwii or sci.military?). I printed that one out and kept it as a souvenir for many years. It seems I've been reading your posts for a long time. One might suggest that I hold a pretty high opinion of your opinions, my good sir. -Mark (aka: Mk 1) |
Mark 1 | 23 Sep 2014 6:59 p.m. PST |
Ideally, you need a boardgame, or computer game to track the movement of units for both sides, who advance blind, or perhaps with some intel/recon info, and then fight out those engagements on the tabletop. I have often considered how to link two levels into a game … an operational level (telling us how these forces came to be on this battlefield at this moment in time) and a tactical level (the actual dual of two sides' miniatures on the game table). I have never come to a solution that I thought would play well. And so most of my games come with some pre-game description of the operational context of the battle, but the gamers are simply presented with the operational context as a fait accompli -- here's what's happened, and now you are here, deal with it! That said, even at the tactical level hidden units are critical to my style of gaming. I've come to a very simple and highly playable mechanism that gives me about 70 – 80% of what I have gotten out of fully double-blind umpired games (of which I've played a few). I use simple card-stock (or paper) markers … "chits" … to represent every unit on the board until that unit is spotted under the rules. Each chit has the unit it represents on the side that is kept face-down on the board. Once spotted, the chit is turned over, read out, and replaced with the model it represents. One key to the technique is that you don't tell the opponent what he is trying to spot until he spots it. This part is a bit tricky and runs a bit on the "honor" system (unless you have an umpire). Player A will announce the chit he is trying to spot. Player B will go to the rules, and together they will go over the known spotting conditions ("Let's see, that's a spot at 500yards in clear daylight, the spotter is stationary, and your guys are troop quality 9, right?") Player B then also silently reviews the conditions NOT known to the opposition ('hmmm, let's see, it's really an infantry squad under class 2 cover, stationary, with troop quality 11'). Player A then throws the dice as he normally would (if that's what the rules call for) and announces the role. Player B then determines if the unit was spotted. If so, he turns the chit and places the model on the board. If not, he announces what player A COULD have spotted, but didn't ("You threw a 5? You could have spotted a vehicle or heavy weapon in the open, or a vehicle up to class B in cover. You did not.") Now player A knows a bit about what the chit isn't. But still does not know what the chit is. It is quite remarkable how it affects YOUR morale, as a gamer, to stare at 20 or 30 chits deployed against you. You know what you have, but you don't know what you're facing. Most reasonably bright gamers need only charge out into the face of an AT gun battery once or twice before they become obsessed with recon, and providing a base of fire to cover any unit that advances into the open. I also provide each player with a supply of surplus blank chits, which the gamers are encouraged to move and fuss over as if they were real units. The blank chits are almost never revealed. Over time, and multiple attempts to spot, they just become less and less threatening. Let's see, I could have spotted a tank in cover, or a heavy weapon, and now I find it isn't an infantry squad, but hey, it might still be a sniper or observer in cover. Hmmm, should I keep trying to spot it, or just move on? I've tried a variety of ratios, and find that about 20 – 25% bonus of blanks is enough to get the effect I want. Fewer are not enough to hamper the opposition's reading of dispositions and scheme of maneuver, and more tend to slow the game without adding much. It is quite remarkable how 5 chits moving behind a woods will affect some players. We've all seen this in games, right? You move your Shermans around behind the woods, carefully out of sight, and yet the other guy starts maneuvering his StuGs to face the threat when he should have NO idea that the threat is there. Call him on it, and watch the arguments about what the rules do or don't say flare into a bright flame! But in that same case, move 5 blank chits one way, and 5 Sherman chits the other way, and watch the rules-lawyer go into command paralysis! Once a unit has pulled out of the enemy's sight for more than 2 turns, the owning player has the option of replacing the model with 2 (yes TWO) chits (one for the unit, and one blank). That way, while you have a pretty good idea of where someone pulled out of sight, you quickly loose track of where they might have gone. It sounds a bit complicated, but really it isn't. You just use chits until they're spotted. Adapt the basic approach to whatever the spotting rules are in your preferred ruleset. You're still at the table, measuring and moving stuff around in the terrain. But your mental picture of the game goes through a ringer that will impress you, I promise! That would certainly be a bit better than the evenly-matched slug-fests on a ping-pong table, with green felt thrown on top of it. Yep. Yep yep yep. I love playing with my toy soldiers. But a parking lot full of tanks and a bucket of dice just doesn't stir my imagination anymore. I need a tactical challenge that makes me feel (however misguided I may be) that I have SOME insight into how and why battles actually progressed as they did. -Mark (aka: Mk 1) |
Skarper | 23 Sep 2014 10:02 p.m. PST |
Interesting Mk 1. Such a system gives a good return for the effort. 70-80% of the Fog of War you get with a double blind game at only perhaps 20% or the effort. Players do moan about not getting to put their toys out – and I can sympathize. But I think the real resistance is from players who can't handle the realism. At first blind luck plays a huge role – as players stumble around and fall into ambushes that the other side never really set! But over a few playings they'd improve – making plans and keeping reserves – using recce…but most just don't want that kind of game – so an element of triage is needed. Another way to get Fog of War with minimal effort is to put the players all on one side and run the enemy hidden under the umpire's control. This was my preferred format – it appealed to my control freak personality and avoided the overly competitive style of play that I've always hated. A full double blind game sounds great but is just beyond the resources of most gaming groups. Factor in the 4-5 playings needed to learn the ropes and it's just too much hassle to set up. |
donlowry | 24 Sep 2014 9:57 a.m. PST |
I have often considered how to link two levels into a game … an operational level (telling us how these forces came to be on this battlefield at this moment in time) and a tactical level (the actual dual of two sides' miniatures on the game table). Our online group did it like this: operational (hex grid): link tactical (table-top): link and: operational (area movement): link tactical (table-top): link There were, of course, other battles in each campaign; these were just the firsts. We've had another Russian Front campaign, also with a hex-grid operational map, but run by yet another GM, for Army Group South, but it's being played in 3 stages, and only Stage 1 had been completed; so it hasn't been "published" yet. Actually the Dunkirk campaign was the first one; I was the French player in it. I ran the second (AG Center) campaign, and I'm the German commander in the third one (AG South). Almost forgot! There was a Winter War campaign that was never completed -- just one battle: link It was run by the same player who ran the Dunkirk campaign. I was the Russian kommisar. |
Gamesman6 | 24 Sep 2014 10:34 a.m. PST |
Realism doesn't mean complicated and just because one tores to model the many factors that affect combat doesn't mean that one will produce results that corresponds to actual events and certainly will not guarantee a playable or enjoyable game, what ever that is. KISS is for a me a guiding principle, I always like Jim Websters philosophy for rules, one is looking to get a result, it should be too important how one gets there, unless that adds to the enjoyment of the game. Or Buck Surdu, one needs to consider Resolution, how closely one tries to model the factors one perceives to vital to affecting an event you want to game and Fidelity, how well close the mechanisms produces results that correspond to what actually happens. A set of rules, IMO should be low resolution, ie simple, but produce High Fidelity results, i.e. realistic results. |
Dave Crowell | 24 Sep 2014 11:58 a.m. PST |
There are times I have to step back and remind myself it is only a game. Times like when I decide I need to repaint an entire army of figures because I got the uniform wrong for the campaign I am playing. Often a fairly trivial detail like coat lace. Most of my Sudan British wear red coats instead of the "proper" khaki I even have a unit of Post Office Rifles although it is extremely doubtful that uniform ever saw combat in the Sudan. Main-.historians expect to see British red coats in Colonial games, and the game plays just the same either way. Likewise I can't afford to paint up every unit that saw service in the AWI as a separate unit of figures. So sometimes a yellow faced unit will stand in for a green faced unit. It is fun for me to research the proper kit and uniforms for a particular conflict and do my best to model it accurately. In so,e ways "rivet counting" and research is indeed a hobby in its own right. I also enjoy writing scenarios based on carefully researching the "what if"s of history. Even if they go off the rails almost immediately on contact with the gaming table. I think gamers are only focused on the wrong things if their focus is causing them to lose enjoyment of the hobby. If have fun playing WW2 with all your Herman tanks spray painted pink and zooming across the table to Henry Mancini's clarinet who am I to tell you you are doing it wrong. I love the Pink Panzer as much as the next guy. |
Milites | 24 Sep 2014 12:29 p.m. PST |
Badger just a list, if I have time I will elaborate in a later post Morale : My rules treated it toward the end of the book, in theirs it covered the first two or three chapters! Acquisition : My rules dealt with fixed acquisition ranges, in theirs they were worried about not spotting the man literally in front of them Training: My rules gave well trained units a slight edge in hitting targets and a minor morale boost, their rules gave well trained soldiers a major edge in EVERYTHING. Effects of hits: My rules lovingly detailed effects of hits and allowed AFV's to ignore non-penetrating hits, their rules stressed movement discipline to avoid being hit and most vehicles were seriously affected being hit by anything over small arms. Firepower: My rules allowed a squad with SLR/AR's to have a good chance to cause casualties out to 400m, their rules relied on MG's at their distance and target positioning had serious affects on accuracy. Bottom line, my rules were all about certainty there's all about uncertainly, mine were about firepower, there's was about manoeuvre and maintenance. Mine were about moving and shooting, there's was about employing different tactics and combatting different doctrines. Mine were about dealing with numerous possibilities, there's were about dealing with numerous limitations. I could go on, but I guess you get the gist. I remember going down my first LARP dungeon and it was NOTHING like D&D with figures and floor plans, NOTHING, and I was not even at much risk. |
UshCha | 24 Sep 2014 11:48 p.m. PST |
Our rules (MG) reflect our tastes and our interests. It more about how you really do it, without the hinderances of lack of data and major communications failures. This does not make it easy. Even if you can see all tha board, be reasonably sure that all the information will get through, soon ish. At the start you don't know in detaile where the \Guy is and what size. You only have a limnited time ,no fighting with full ammo and fuel for 36 hrs and active insoimniac troops. Traffic jams happen even if they are not caused by accident, just a fact of life tying to get stuff where its needed whene it needed. This is not everybodys game. Yes it has quite reasonable bits of simulation but its demading by the time you get to Company level. You can get arty when you want it if you have not already used it or allocated it somewhere else. That a lot more realistic than a throw a dice and hope. It does require more thought. What to concentrate on is what you want. If you want a more "relistic game" try us but its demanding (simple rules but not simple strategy) like chess. You may get a headache trying just to work out where and when you want to be. The rules are simple the game is not. Try a few ditches that happen in the real world. have you put the engineers there to fill/bridge them. If not, wait 2 hrs. That real but not everybody sees that as fun I do ;-). Many folk really don't see that as fun. They want to move models on great looking terrain without too much though and not be pressures for time and complex decisions, which is fine if that is what you want. |
4th Cuirassier | 25 Sep 2014 6:50 a.m. PST |
The wrongest wrong thing I have observed – and I don't object to it really – is that when wargame troops and their commanders behave unrealistically, it's because what we want here is a game, and if we behaved "right" we'd abandon the game within 15 minutes. Two examples of what I mean. 1/ The gung ho meeting engagement. These happen when you can't be bothered to think up a scenario to justify the forces you want to deploy. So you set up a crossroads and some greenery, and send the two sides off in each other's general direction. When one sights the other, an encounter battle ensues. In reality, what would more often happen is that both sides would back off because neither was expecting the other and hence this may be an ambush. But then it would be game over. 2/ Gratuitous Deathmatch. Here, you make no effort to preserve any forces for the next battle in the campaign but simply expend the whole lot. I have seen WW2 naval battles where the winner was the guy who ended with the only unsink ship. If we made this stuff realistic we'd need only tables and scenery, no minis, so although it's fun I don't kid myself it's realistic… |
number4 | 28 Sep 2014 11:05 a.m. PST |
The current trend for "balanced" games with units selected a la carte from a points menu. Real armies don't work like that, and if you are facing a force that evenly matches your own the last thing you need to do is attack it. Give me historical scenarios and force levels every time! |
Wolfhag | 28 Sep 2014 3:17 p.m. PST |
One of the things I don't think players focus enough on for scenarios generation is the big picture. This will determine other things like unit type reinforcement (really isn't random), upper level echelon assets available and mission/objective. You could use points to generate attackers, exploitation, support, artillery, etc. by assigning a % of total points to each one. I think what I'm talking about is shaping operations. My idea of a realistic scenario is to generate the overall big picture of what is going on around you. Start with the posture your division, regiment and battalion are in will generally define your mission and objectives and what upper level assets will be available to you. Squad Leader does this pretty well for a small unit engagement. For example, a Russian Rifle Division in a prepared assault. You'll probably have corps level artillery and maybe even very heavy artillery or rockets from an artillery division. You could have SU-76's attached to take care of strong points but maybe even some heavy assault guns if you are the main point of attack. There would most likely be a medium tank regiment designated to be the exploitation element after the breakthrough. You could have the artillery attempt to suppress the defenders artillery too decreasing FPF effectiveness. The defenders could be in a prepared defense with overhead cover, multiple fall back positions, anti-tank zone and reserves positioned for a counterattack and artillery with pre-planned FPF. A hasty defense would probably not have overhead cover and a coordinated anti-tank defense zone. A hasty defense would also have limited availability to regiment and division artillery. I like the idea of somewhat random events and reinforcements but they have to be linked realistically to the type of unit, upper echelon profile and mission / objective. I've seen many games and players concentrating too much on random actions and FOW that are not related to the scenario or force composition. They are too random and unrelated. For pre-game abstractions I'd like to give the defenders a chance to pound the attackers assembly area with artillery and air strikes targeting their vehicles and artillery. That could help even the odds. You could have a dawn attack only for the defenders to find the enemy infiltrated infantry into their rear areas during the night. Surprise! If the enemy is doing a prepared assault that would take at least a few days to prepare the defenders could use a mobile or mech recon unit to conduct an "abstracted" spoiling attack that could throw off the assault. In low level skirmish games these things may not matter but the larger the unit forces the more it would come into play. I have seen some point generation games that do much of the above and do give a good overall feel. Wolfhag |
4th Cuirassier | 01 Oct 2014 6:16 a.m. PST |
Most WW2 battles I have ever fought completely ignored artillery preparation and pre-battle air strikes. Many if not most WW2 battles I have read, in contrast, were largely decided by one or other of these. In-game artillery has usually consisted of rules like "throw a D6 to see how many rounds (on another D6) of off-board artillery support you get in (another D6) turns' time." This would be fine if the games had had the stop-go stop-go cadence of real WW2 encounters, but usually, mine have been just "plough forwards and find something to shoot at". Waiting around for 6 turns for the artillery to land in the wrong place wasn't a lot of use. Another common canard in scenarios is the arrival of reinforcements. How often were battles in this era decided by – or fought in anticipation of – the arrival of reinforcements in mid-battle? Very few that I can recall. Airborne landings are an exception, and of course there is the strategic reinforcement of a whole theatre. But most land battles seem to have been won or lost tactically with the forces either side had on hand at the start. Another one is stable scenery. One side probably knows the terrain better than the other, so for some types of battle, it might make sense to have one player move the scenery, rather than both move their miniatures, at least until contact is made. Even at Waterloo, the existence of Hougoumont inside a wood came as a tactical surprise to the French, who seem not to have known it was there. |
GreenLeader | 01 Oct 2014 8:56 a.m. PST |
4th Cuirassier I like your idea of movable scenary. How many times did an attack fail because a river which was thought to be fordable proved not to be, or a hill which was thought to be on the south bank of said river was actually on the north bank etc? Of course, it doesn't appeal to a certain type of player to have his millimetre perfect approach foiled when he finds out the bridge he is marching towards is not actually where it is 'meant to be' – but there is a lot of fun in seeing the look on his face too. |
mashrewba | 01 Oct 2014 10:28 a.m. PST |
I know I focus on the wrong things -toy soldiers -I should be out there getting a life :) |
Mserafin | 01 Oct 2014 10:57 a.m. PST |
I know I focus on the wrong things -toy soldiers -I should be out there getting a … life :) I'm not so sure about that – the more I see of the "Real World" (tm), the more I like my toy soldiers. |
mashrewba | 01 Oct 2014 12:08 p.m. PST |
|
Lion in the Stars | 01 Oct 2014 1:39 p.m. PST |
Point to MSerafin. Another one is stable scenery. One side probably knows the terrain better than the other, so for some types of battle, it might make sense to have one player move the scenery, rather than both move their miniatures, at least until contact is made. Even at Waterloo, the existence of Hougoumont inside a wood came as a tactical surprise to the French, who seem not to have known it was there. That's what I really like in Peter Pig's "Patrols in the Sudan." The Dervish player gets to monkey with the scenery until a British/Egyptian scout physically enters the terrain piece! |
specforc12 | 01 Oct 2014 2:35 p.m. PST |
Many interesting observations and viewpoints, as well as alternative gaming approaches. |
Fred Cartwright | 01 Oct 2014 3:11 p.m. PST |
Another common canard in scenarios is the arrival of reinforcements. How often were battles in this era decided by – or fought in anticipation of – the arrival of reinforcements in mid-battle? Very few that I can recall. Airborne landings are an exception, and of course there is the strategic reinforcement of a whole theatre. But most land battles seem to have been won or lost tactically with the forces either side had on hand at the start. Can't say I agree with that. A lot of the actions in the Bulge were decided by the timely arrival of reinforcements for one side or the other or lost because no support arrived. |