"what do you mean by "a XXX-level game"" Topic

I am continually confused (about almost everything but in this case) about what people mean by a XXX-level game. Often I think the posters in a thread don't all share the same definitions either!

Does a "XXX-level" game mean that each side commands a XXX?

Does a "XXX-level" game mean that the smallest maneuver element on the table, a thing that cannot be broken up to smaller sub-units is a XXX?

Does a "XXX-level" game mean that a single stand on the table is an XXX?

Does a "XXX-level" game mean that one player commands a XXX?

============================
A strategic game means YYY is the total force on each side.

A tactical game means UUU is the total force on each side.

A grand-tactical game means ZZZ is the total force on each side.

or does it mean something about the style of the ruleset.

I take the level of the game to refer to the basic unit of manoeuvre. So a battalion-level game means individual battalions are represented and can move independently.

I'd also call this a tactical level game.

I would say Sharp Practice, where small units and individuals are represented, is a company level skirmish game.

Blucher, where a base represents a brigade, I would call a brigade level, grand tactical game.

I'm not sure strategic games really exist with miniatures. I would argue a strategic game would have to represent a campaign and the individual battles would be fought at the tactical or grand tactical level.

Tend to agree with Donovan as this is the option that won't change no matter how big the battle. As 'definitions' all the others can be imprecise and/or variable.

I'll bet any money that logic will have nothing to do with the answers that you get though.

As to YYY-ZZZ, will vary with period and theatre. Napoleonic 'strategic' will use many more troops than a modern 'strategic'.

Here's a risky reply – others may vary in views.

Too me the military formation term states the smallest sized unit a player will expect to actually pick up and move across the table. It is pretty much always expressed in terms of infantry.

However, where the terms Army, Corps or Divsion are used with the word "level" attached, this usually refers to the position of a player in relation to the highest level of command the rules represent and the overall size of the force placed on the table by each side in the game.

The "tactical" etc terms I personally never use as they can be widely interpreted.

Spin the bottle played in the nude?

Mick: that thought, connected with the people that I usually play wargames with, has made me gag and lose my breakfast.

We've had this discussion before and there is quite a range of opinions.

I use the military definitions, so a division level engagement is an engagement involving a division. So in rule terms I guess that means the first one (each side commands a division), although in some cases that might also mean each player commands a division. It is more helpful in rules terms to think of how much 'stuff' one player commands.

So, a division level set of rules might allow you to play army level engagements (with multiple players).

Definitions of strategic, tactical etc will vary hugely by period. One useful (modern) definition to differentiate tactics from operations is that tactics involve military activity in which the differing ranges of direct fire weapons are significant factors.

In WW2 terms I'd go with:

skirmish: section to platoon level engagement
tactical: platoon to company.
grand tactical: battalion to brigade
operational: division up to corps/army.
strategic: not really catered for by miniatures games.

With regard to Army level, Company level etc. I take that (and use that) to mean the formation the whole table top army represents (not as above, the basic manoeuvre unit in the game) – I may be wrong in that but I take an Army level game to be a game in which I get command (or a share in a multiplayer game) of the whole army (not several) … and in a Company level game (like RFCM's PBI) I get command of several platoons (i.e. my company).

I'd pretty much agree with Martin on the other terms – although pre-20th Century, I'd take grand tactical to include divisions and really anything that works on a specific battlefield … thus; 'the 100 days' is an operational game, 'Waterloo', on its own, is Grand Tactical…

But I appreciate there is not a lot of uniformity on this question

Phil

I agree with Martin and Phil.

It's the level of command.

The idea that level refers to the smallest unit falls apart when you talk about "Skirmish Level". If you follow the "smallest unit" school of thought then you'd have to call it "Individual Level" not "Skirmish Level".

This is why I refer to the stands that are pushed around the table. "This game is a 1 stand = a squad".

"I'd pretty much agree with Martin on the other terms – although pre-20th Century, I'd take grand tactical to include divisions and really anything that works on a specific battlefield … thus; 'the 100 days' is an operational game, 'Waterloo', on its own, is Grand Tactical…"

Yes, I'd missed that this is on the Napoleonics board!

Skirmish – Sharpe and his chosen men fighting alongside a cast of dozens over some insignificant pimple.

Tactical – probably divisions or lower scrapping over a farmhouse or three.

Grand tactical – the Battle of Waterloo/Borodino/Austerlitz/Lodi or whatever. Whole battles.

Operational – specific campaigns, 100 days, Ulm, Retreat to Corunna etc

Strategic – the entire Napoleonic Wars (or major fronts or particular geographic areas for extended periods of time). See e.g. AHGCs 'War & Peace'.

As above, there are other ways to refer to what the individual toys/bases and manouvre elements are e.g Spearhead is a division level game with battalion sized manouvre units and platoon sized elements.

Apologies if my related thread created confusion here. I used the terms as SJDonovan, Gildas and Trajanus would, to denote the smallest units players are handling – in other words, the "building blocks".

Though aware that this does not follow military practice, I find that it more adequately conveys gaming information: After all, my "battalion-level" game could be a brigade-, division- or even corps-level engagement, depending on time available, table size and number and patience of players.

Similarly, and looking at the other terminology range referred to, Blücher as an army-level game in the military sense could cover tactical situations (d'Erlon's attack), grand-tactical (Waterloo) or operational scenarios (the whole 18th of June, including Wavre and the Prussian approach march).

XXX to me means something with a Donkey or large Russian woman in it…

When I play AWI games where the units are regiments, I call it a "regiment level game".
Others have attacked me for this. They have even ….. disagreed !
But it's what I have called it for years, and if I am wrong , I ain't changing.

For me as well level of game is based on the basic unit of manouver.

When I play AWI games where the units are regiments, I call it a "regiment level game".

If someone who takes this view could explain WHY they do not follow standard military practice in describing level, I would be very interested to hear what they have to say.

Triple -X level game is one of the following:

Corps level.
High-proof liquor level.
Hardcore porn level.
Vin Diesel level.

-Kle.

There are difference between "basic unit" and "basic stand" too.
Basic unit may consist with multible stands and markers for presenting different formations.

If basic unit is brigade and basic stand is battalion.. and players act as corps and army commanders.. what is the level of game?

For me Basic Unit > Basic Stand. Thus for me a game were your basic unit is the Battalion made up of stands is still a battalion level game. If the stands though are completely able to move and act independently of each other, than the game is at that level (platoon, division, company etc).

If basic unit is brigade and basic stand is battalion.. and players act as corps and army commanders.. what is the level of game?

Corps level.

Each game designer is going to define that 'his way'--and do, so I am not sure attempting to identify some common understanding is all that promising.

It doesn't help that an army level Ancients game will see different sized armies than an Medieval game, or a SYW game or Napoleonic, ACW or 20th Century… to the point that an 'army level' game for Napoleonics like Borodino or Dresden might be possible on the table, but not a WWII with the Fifth Army in Italy.

The lowest command level or stand representation *might* help, but even then you have a dedicated army-level game like Volley & Bayonet or Big Bloody Battles where the brigade/stand is the lowest level unit. Calling it a 'brigade-level' game isn't informative. Or with the lowest level command being the division, calling it a division-level game can still be misleading considering the intended army scope of the rules.

As I said, we have done this many times before and always come to the same result that we have lots of different definitions.

There does seem to be a certain degree of transatlantic divide in this, not sure why.

I think the the main thing is in that in your rules/scenarios or whatever you:

a) understand that different people means different things by 'battalion level'
b) explain what YOU mean in that particular context: "this is a game where players typically command a battalion and the individual stands represent platoons"

and in fairness, most rules are pretty good about this

Dispose of 'level', call it a "divisional sized" or "corp sized" etc. Indicating the size of the force a player controls.

For me Grand Tactical means a game where reserves are on the table and there is room for all combat to take place with a small amount of space to the flanks and rear. Engaging a corps and moving the reserve into action are Grand Tactical activities.

Operational means you can fit the full combat on the table but there is also space for other Corps or columns/wings of the army to approach the battlefield and join the combat.

Waterloo where the field is bounded by Placenoit, Waterloo, Hougoumont and La Belle Alliance would be Grand Tactical, Waterloo extending to Hal and Wavre would be Operational in my books.

This usually means small scale figures for operational games or even map/board games.

I try to keep to the "2-down" approach so Army command may operate with the division as the basic unit so this would be an Army level game. For me a Corps level game would operate with the Brigade as the basic unit. Now this brigade may be represented by figures in regiments or battalions but these battalions need to operate as groups in single or double lines of battle or columnn of battalions. What I dislike is Army level command with micromanaged battalions zipping about all over the place.

I strongly suspect, that most of us liked "army level games with micromanaged battalions".

"Army level command with micromanaged battalions zipping about all over the place" sums up what a lot of the games I've either played or witnessed have degenerated into.

It takes a lot of discipline (or a strong umpire) to get players to resist the temptation to re-align or detach units to deal with a threat their original orders do not allow for.

Could the board game version of "Axis and Allies" be considered a strategic level miniatures game? I know, most people consider board and miniatures games to be mutually exclusive. But A&A does use miniatures, although they are plastic, in differing scales, and usually unpainted and unbased. I have always been sort of intrigued with the idea of using individually-based painted miniatures, of say 15mm, 20mm or 25mm scale, to play out an entire war. Each would probably represent either a division or corps, depending on the war. But, so far, I haven't pursued this because I'm much too busy painting, mounting and playing with miniatures at the lower levels.

In a hobby where we can't agree on how to measure the height of a figure consistently, you expect agreement on something as squishy as a game concept?

I strongly suspect, that most of us liked "army level games with micromanaged battalions".

Not me. It always struck me as rather silly.

Could the board game version of "Axis and Allies" be considered a strategic level miniatures game?

Let's see, it's a strategic level game. And it uses miniatures … so yup, it's a strategic level miniatures game. Now that wasn't too hard, was it?

I know, most people consider board and miniatures games to be mutually exclusive.

Most if not all of the gamers I know would not consider board and miniatures games to be mutually exclusive.

When I play AWI games where the units are regiments, I call it a "regiment level game".

If someone who takes this view could explain WHY they do not follow standard military practice in describing level, I would be very interested to hear what they have to say.

It could be because I don't give a hoot what "standard military practice" is. And where are you getting what this so-called "standard military practice" is? Is it in a standard Pentagon manual on recreational wargames?
Since you did not bother to quote the parts where it is obviously a quirk of mine I feel no need to answer you seriously. I call it that because I have always called it that.
And if you disagree that's your problem, not mine.

I always thought in a company level game you command a company, etc. I won't demand pistols at dawn from those who disagree.

It could be because I don't give a hoot what "standard military practice" is.

Well, that's up to you, but if it's good enough for the guys who do this stuff for real …

And where are you getting what this so-called "standard military practice" is?

As Martin Rapier said:

I use the military definitions, so a division level engagement is an engagement involving a division.

Since you did not bother to quote the parts where it is obviously a quirk of mine

I just quoted you as ONE example of the "smallest unit" view. I am still interested in understanding the logic behind it, given that it does not follow the military definitions as described my Mr. Rapier and it falls apart at the low end as I described above.

Okay, I'm new to discussion forums. Sorry if I asked a dumb question.

An idea: instead of saying platoon-level game, say the player commands a platoon. Turn the thing back into a molehill.

There are no dumb questions.
Only dumb answers.

I always use "_____ level" to mean "player in charge of [unit type]." For example, LaSalle is a Division-level game, where the basic unit is a battalion. But if you got ~8 players per side, you could play Waterloo as a team effort with LaSalle.

This is why I refer to the stands that are pushed around the table. "This game is a 1 stand = a squad".

Yes, I also use the 1 stand = whatever verbiage for that reason (where applicable).

It's one of the many variables of the hobby.

I'd say divisional level/battalion level can mean the same thing. The player commands a division and the smallest units or "battalions" but it could be one where the smallest units are brigades or divisions. I'd most likely, in every conversation have to ask for more details.

Well that really cleared it all up.

If someone who takes this view could explain WHY they do not follow standard military practice in describing level, I would be very interested to hear what they have to say.

Well Major, the short answer to that is "because we're not in the military", but since you asked nicely, let me elaborate on what I wrote further up.

Although a lifelong student of military matters past and present, I am not an officer planning a staff exercise, but merely a civilian who enjoys gaming with toy soldiers. As such, the information I need to convey is about a game first, and military vocabulary, even though I'm reasonably aware of it, may not be the most appropriate for that task.

Players need to know what to expect on game day: Will they be manoeuvering battalions, deciding about line, column or square formation, detaching of skirmishers etc., or sending out entire brigades, where such matters are abstracted? As the thread which sparked all this has made abundantly clear, there are people who prefer one and will not touch the other. Calling a ruleset, say, "division-level" according to your frame of reference is not going to provide them with the information they need to decide whether or not this game is for them.

Once the game context is clear, the specific scenario description will revert to a more military language, and here "division-level engagement" comes into its own, telling the players what command size and composition to expect.

So, far from wilfully ignoring military practice, let alone seeking to revolutionise the language, this is merely a handy shortcut for this gamer and, it seems, a few others.

My thought is that we usually have the smallest "independent" "unit" made up of several stands of figures.

So a Napoleonic battalion might be made up of several stands (each of which might be a company, or division or maybe not any historical organization commanded by some sort of officer). I would call that a battalion level game rules. If a brigade is represented by several stands (each of which is a battalion or some combination of battalions), then I would call that a brigade level game rules.

How big everything out on the table is depends upon how many people and space you have playing. If the rules and playing pieces are (one battalion is made up of a number of stands= battalion level game), and just two people are playing with 6 battalions and a gun on each side, then they are playing at the BRIGADE LEVEL. If there are 3 guys(gals) on each side, with three brigades of infantry, one of cavalry and a artillery brigade on each side of the table,,,,, well then they are playing with battalion level rules at the DIVISION LEVEL. And the like for bigger games played at the corp or even army level.

Anyway, I would just like to be able to read somebody saying that "this is a brigade whatever" and know instantly what they mean. I guess I just always question the poster and ask them to define their terms.

I use it to mean what level of granularity I have. If I am moving individual battalions, then it is a battalion game regardless of if it is Waterloo or a tiny Peninsular War engagement with a few battalions per side. The above example of saying Lasalle is a "division game" falls short for me because my units of control could be brigades or battalions. I want to know which you are talking about, hence my preference for defining it by the level of the smallest unit used. Calling a Waterloo game a grand tactical game or army level game is ambiguous. Am I moving corps? divisions? brigades? battalions? Most rules are differentiated by this level of control, hence that is why I feel this is the more appropriate way to describe your game play.

"I call it that because I have always called it that.
And if you disagree that's your problem, not mine."

And that is a perfectly valid point of view. This is, after all, a hobby not a job.

I do seriously wonder if it is some subtle linguistic distinction between British-English and US-English as to the meaning or inference of the word 'level' though. Not quite as blatant as say, pants, fanny or the curious use of the word 'protest' as a verb, but there nonetheless.

I blame this confusion on people who refuse to play wargames the way I think they should be played.

Seriously though…
Part of the problem, if there is one, is the "need" to define things, and to get everybody to agree with your definition.

As such, the information I need to convey is about a game first, and military vocabulary, even though I'm reasonably aware of it, may not be the most appropriate for that task.

And therefore surely, since we are dealing with a game where the subject is miltary manoeuvres, then military vocabulary is not only appropriate, but succinct and to the point?

Players need to know what to expect on game day: Will they be manoeuvering battalions, deciding about line, column or square formation, detaching of skirmishers etc., or sending out entire brigades, where such matters are abstracted?

Absolutely! And that information is perfectly encapsulated in the term (for example) "Division Level". Those two words tell me that:
1. Each player commands a division.
2. That the smallest unit of interest is a battalion (on the principle of two down).
Simple isn't it?

Where did the "two down principle" come from? I never heard of it.

May I suggest a solution?

Rules should have a dual ids.

one of the basic unit (not basic stand) and one of the Command level

Thus for example

Altar of Freedom : Brigade Level/Army Command

Big Bloody Battles : Brigade or Division Level/ Army Command

1859 Grand Tactical Scale: Regimental Level/ Army Command

1859 Quarter Scale: Battalion Level/ Division or Corps Command

etc

Where did the "two down principle" come from? I never heard of it.

link

Hmmmm, good read Major B thanks. He says that he doesn't issue orders down two levels though. He just sees it. If someone is gaming as a division general, then he would not be putting battalions in line, column, square. I think here, the players are stating that they DO want to do that. So I would maintain to be clear about how low you are manipulating(commanding/directing), then…you're missing the clarity needed to be understood with your method.

IMHO it should always be the smallest unit of maneuver.

24 figures in Johnny Reb is a regiment. The unit scale is regimental.

24 figures in Fire & Fury is a brigade. The unit scale is brigade.

Where the trouble begins is when someone wants to describe a game by an arbitrary command scale. It's a division command scale game. Each player commands a division.

Which tells me absolutely nothing. Is it a division with one 20 figure unit called a division or three brigades each with 20 figures and do those brigades have regiments…?

I do not like an author telling me how many units I can manage at one time. That is exactly what is being done by saying these rules has a command scale of a division. Why?

I have played Johnny Reb, a regimental scale game, where I commanded a Corps. Would you now call JR a Corps level game? No of course not, it is still a regimental scale game in which I can command as many units as I feel I can handle.

This is why the unit scale should always be the smallest unit of maneuver with no limits on how big a command one could have. (sorry for the ACW rules examples on the NAP board)

It is one of many reasons why rules written by our good friends across the pond baffles me to no end.