OSchmidt | 18 Mar 2015 10:53 a.m. PST |
OK, let me try and approach this another way. What is the tipping point? Describe a rule, factor, mini, procedure or specific thing, object, or measure that moves a plausibly historic game over the edge into "non-historical." |
TMPWargamerabbit | 18 Mar 2015 11:09 a.m. PST |
Magic….. Scalped by Indians in Europe maybe. |
OSchmidt | 18 Mar 2015 11:15 a.m. PST |
Dear TMPwargamerabbit That's a good one. I guess for me I would call it the "egregious contravention of the laws of physics and sciene." Being a nominalist I could get over being scalped by the Indians in Europe, but then again, I can chalk that up to being kind of like being impaled by the Turks. If the Indians had "boomerang tomahawks" that could scalp you from a distance and return with the scalp in its notch, then…yes, way over the edge. |
Dynaman8789 | 18 Mar 2015 11:16 a.m. PST |
I'll put up my favorite, Cold War Commander and the anti tank system used. If one attacker can penetrate up to 10mm of armor reliably than 10 of said attacker can not penetrate 100mm of armor reliably – but that is how it works in CWC. |
Steve | 18 Mar 2015 11:26 a.m. PST |
I used to be strictly historical, then I took an interest in VSF. We play in the ACW era and I have some particular things I think are historically accurate for that period. Like giant steam-powered walking spider machines are OK. Steam powered jump jets are OK. Anything with tracks is not OK. Laser guns are not OK. Anything with magic or monsters is definitely out. So I guess I don't really have a good answer. Steve |
duncanh | 18 Mar 2015 11:28 a.m. PST |
One apophrycal story. WW2 Normandy, points based competition tournament. Alledgely one player spent his points on 15 Forward Naval Observers, HMS King George V, HMS Rodney and HMS Suffolk. Won by a country mile. |
OSchmidt | 18 Mar 2015 12:18 p.m. PST |
Dear Duncan H I can see that. I once was asked a long time ago in college, how could Germany have won WWI. I had an advantage over my college classmates because I was a gamer. I simply drew up a plan where Germany in 1912 scrapped all the pre-dreadnoughts but kept the guns. This amounted to something like 64 9.4" guns and 64 11" guns, or something like that, and 250 5.9 to 6.7" guns. I made these into two "artillery armies." Kept the 9.4 and 11" on the Western front, sent the rest to the east (less fortifications.) Did not invade Belgium but invaded France head on.I used the 1914 game as a test bed. It was a positive mincing machine and the French forts vaporized under the hail of shells. Verdun was wiped out in a day. French 6-10-3's flew off the board like tiddly-winks. I'm sure it wouldn't have worked in real life but … well… it was "historical" in one sense, but definitely not in another. |
Winston Smith | 18 Mar 2015 1:02 p.m. PST |
The Tank Destroyer rules for Americans in Flamed of War come pretty close. Strangely enough when Sovieys or Commonwealth forces use American Tank Desyroyers, the magic does not work and they are ordinary. |
Jcfrog | 18 Mar 2015 1:07 p.m. PST |
Suddenly something off happens: Ww2/ modern rules where shooting the flank of a tank unit is not a valid tactic. Played once ( well 3 times had to be diplomatic) with a " napoleonic" system where attacking guns in square formation was as in line! Remember using a sort of central circular caracole of knights in was it Wrg7 th? To keep some momentum, can't recall, but yes French HYW knights behaving like tartars. Sailing Ships in the ocean ( no coast nearby) getting in a circle, anchors down, to avoid raking and getting a better shooting. 18 th century battalions moving in independent lines, and able to shoot further than their own length, in the holes between them to stop cavalry going in the middle. Ww1? Numerous ancient tribes known for their ambushes in wooded terrain, nor able to perform inside. |
cavcrazy | 18 Mar 2015 2:05 p.m. PST |
I think the "tipping point" for me is when you have clearly bested your opponent, inflicted horrific casualties, and they refuse to submit and send everything at you in one final rush of glory. |
AussieAndy | 18 Mar 2015 2:12 p.m. PST |
I've said it before, but I'll say it again, horse and musket era wargame rules that purport to cover command and control with a die/dice roll for each unit that allows you to whatever you like if you roll high or low enough. By all means make some provision for the sub-commander on the spot to exercise some initiative in appropriate circumstances (which means that relatively few sub-commanders will exercise initiative), but it is a nonsense to have any unit able to do whatever the commander wants when the commander is five miles away. Yes, I am talking about games like Blackpowder that try to hide the lack of a proper command and control system behind a lot of "old school" claptrap. I suspect that, if you were to wargame with a bunch of generals or former generals, they would take a very different view of how command and control works than many wargamers. I'm done. Probably time for a cup of tea and a lie down. |
RavenscraftCybernetics | 18 Mar 2015 2:25 p.m. PST |
when the pride of Rome comes into contact with Samuri it has left the definition of historical in the dust. |
duncanh | 18 Mar 2015 2:26 p.m. PST |
I'm afraid I cannot comment. I may be a frother? |
James Wright | 18 Mar 2015 2:34 p.m. PST |
Most of my gaming is at the modern level. Honestly, at the skirmish level, any rule that prohibits you from breaking up a small unit into the size team you need to do the job. Along with that, any rule that forces a hard and fast distance between figures of the same unit. On the modern battlefield (from the late 1800s on) the dispersion of individual riflemen is pretty much a necessity. Bolt Action comes to mind with 40k like unit cohesion rules. (Don't get me wrong, I like and play BA, but it is in no way a historical rule set to me). |
Cardinal Ximenez | 18 Mar 2015 5:03 p.m. PST |
|
Fried Flintstone | 18 Mar 2015 5:17 p.m. PST |
Being able to walk around a tank in plain sight so you can get a shot at the most vulnerable point |
Henry Martini | 18 Mar 2015 5:44 p.m. PST |
Unless perhaps you're playing AK47 Republic or another modern game involving solely 'third world' forces, when a multitude of apparent realism sins can be explained away by resort to 'general incompetence'. |
CATenWolde | 19 Mar 2015 2:30 a.m. PST |
There's a sliding scale of aesthetics (uniforms types and so on) that's really up to the individual players – I don't think that we should be snobs about people that don't have the "correct" figures simply using what they have to try out a new type of game. I'm the type of guy that repaints part of his ACW canteen covers based on the latest research … but I know that nobody notices but me! ;) In general, however, if you are making decisions in the game based either on 1) capabilities in your own troops that would not have been possible in reality, or 2) threats from the enemy that would not have been possible in reality – then you have slipped off the edge. On the other hand, *deliberately* jumping off the edge (i.e. unhistorical match-ups "just for fun" or experimenting with what-ifs to see what would have happened etc.) is far different – and more palatable to my mind – than rules that intend to portray history and fail. For instance, I'll happily play "heroic" The Sword & The Flame games, or a one-off WWII game with Pershings in 1944, and so on. But, for example, if I can mount an effective charge with cavalry against infantry in the ACW "by the rules" then I start to wonder how I could better spend my time. Cheers, Christopher |
Martin Rapier | 19 Mar 2015 4:41 a.m. PST |
Many of the examples above are just features of specific rules that people don't like as it doesn't align with their conception of the period. All our wargames rules are abstractions, some are more abstract than others. When is a game not historical? When it is fantasy or sci fi. ie it has magic or as yet un-invented technology or mythical monsters or whatever. Otherwise, it is all historical, even imagi-nations (as they are usually/often based on real-ish armies, or at least behave like them). The rest is just arguing about degrees of simulation. Is Memoir 44 a simulation or a game? well, it tends towards the game end of things. Is Memoir 44 historical? yes. One my gaming acquaintance argues that all Ancients gaming is fantasy, as we don't actually know enough about warfare 2000 years ago to write rules about how it worked, let alone paint the uniforms the right colour. I beg to differ, we do the best we can. There will always be some grey areas, WW2 1946? VSF??, Cold War??? Just because I might think that e.g. die roll modifiers for order changes in Spearhead, or the incremental damage model in Blitzkreig Commander or the use of the modern era CRT in AHGCs Waterloo are silly, doesn't stop them being historical games. Inspired by history. Bringing history to life. |
Dynaman8789 | 19 Mar 2015 5:10 a.m. PST |
> or the incremental damage model in Blitzkreig Commander Sorry, armor penetration just does not work that way. Makes the game fantasy at best. |
Decebalus | 19 Mar 2015 10:19 a.m. PST |
Who has said, that BKC uses the consept of armour penetration? Ed. 1, p. 110 clearly states: "Hits represent not just physical damage…" |
The Virtual Armchair General | 19 Mar 2015 11:27 a.m. PST |
To AussieAndy ad CATenWolde, Gentlemen! HEAR! HEAR! TVAG |
Mallen | 19 Mar 2015 11:29 a.m. PST |
I had an opponent while Play Wooden Ships & Iron Men (his initials are "Jurgenation") who would bring his line to a halted, and transfer as many crew as possible to the ship nearest the enemy. So, When I grappled and boaded, I got hit with half the sailors and marines in France. It was referred to as the "Nose to Ass Boarding Tactic." It is only effective once, unless the opponent is truly gormless. |
Dynaman8789 | 19 Mar 2015 11:31 a.m. PST |
I don't care what excuse CWC uses. It is just that, an excuse. |
Decebalus | 20 Mar 2015 3:24 a.m. PST |
What you care is your buisiness. That cant be discussed. CWC/BKC has a firepower and attrition model. So big armour can be stopped even by smaller guns. If the Churchill platoon is stopped by killing dumb commanders looking out of the tank, by fearful crews fleeing or by destroying the tracks isnt relevant in that model. Maybe you know that Wittmanns famous Tiger attack was stopped by a shot at the vision slit and afterwards by a disabling shot obviously on the tracks. That attack is beyond the scope of BKC but shows that armour penetration isnt everything. |
Martin Rapier | 20 Mar 2015 5:47 a.m. PST |
"CWC/BKC has a firepower and attrition model. So big armour can be stopped even by smaller guns." Yes. I have no problem with an attritional model, particulalry where the stands represent platoons or larger. Even at 1:1 it can easily be rationalised as cumulative damage, loss of crew confidence etc. But I would also accept that some people are unhappy with that level of abstraction and want the actual clang of steel on steel. Neither of those points of view makes it 'fantasy', as I don't see any wizards or enchanted castles. Some people really, really hate the unit activation system in BKC, as they like to push all their stuff around every turn. Arguably neither extreme is 'realistic', but it still doesn't make it fantasy. |
Bowman | 20 Mar 2015 5:57 a.m. PST |
………..On the modern battlefield (from the late 1800s on) the dispersion of individual riflemen is pretty much a necessity.Bolt Action comes to mind with 40k like unit cohesion rules. (Don't get me wrong, I like and play BA, but it is in no way a historical rule set to me). James, what's stopping you? Split up your squad into teams and add another activation die to the pile. Simple. Cohesion rules are to allow your opponent to see which figures belong to which units. It's a courtesy in Wargaming that has no real bearing in actual warfare. |
Dynaman8789 | 20 Mar 2015 7:40 a.m. PST |
Sorry but those are excuses for the CWC model. Rules for morale failure are already in there with the forced back or pinned result (forget exactly what it was). > But I would also accept that some people are unhappy with that level of abstraction and want the actual clang of steel on steel. It is not abstraction. It is forcing a totally inappropriate mechanism onto the simulation. |
Dan 055 | 21 Mar 2015 12:11 p.m. PST |
I agree with Dynaman8789, it's one of the reasons I don't play those rules. |