"In defence of....Army lists" Topic

Yes, I'm back. O Schmidt has encouraged me to resume.

So, Army Lists. To many they're a helpful guide, to others, a bane of proper historical simulation.

So, please share your GOOD opinions about army lists and not just rail against them.

Army lists have their uses (for example the HUNDREDS in DBA v3.0). However, not all sets of rules need them.

Without them, I suspect you're just really fantasy gaming…..

How is an army list a bane of historical gaming? Never heard that on before?

Army lists provide players with some form of common currency, however terrain, command qualities are often left out of the equation.
There are also time where some units are inappropriately valued, however, once a list and cost are established, it is often difficult to change a list.
I loved the old WRG army lists, loved reading the description of the armies, loved tinkering with a list to take up against an opponent.
Army list are at times like shopping lists, beware…you cannot field a full army list :(
They are indespesible to a good ruleset, and a guidance for many players.

I confess that I spent hours pondering WH40K army codices to create the "perfect" army in the past – and it was great fun.

Now I am much more interested in historical orbats. I feel no urge to fight with "balanced" armies. I find it more interesting to work out what to do when the armies are unbalanced, as they typically are in the real world.

If you like em use em.

I simply look at them for a few moments, then toss them in the can and build what I want.

The whole point of Army lists is to prevent players from making killer armies. I need no prevention. I always under value the armies I build and make generally "loser armies." They are much more fun.

Besides-- I always remember my father's admonition to a friend who was telling him all about the Austrian Army in World War One, in which he was eventually a Colonel. His reply after a few minutes of trying to get a word in edgewise was (in his heavily accented English) "Vass you dere Charlie?"

Besides. Army lists are OK, but how often to you have an army in real life. How many times was there an unbalanced fragment of an army involved in an action, and how do you know the "REAL" order of battle- (after desertion, illness, casualties, detachments taken out etc).

In my rules Everyone is equal. The armies are equal, the values of the troops across the sides are equal, and variation comes with varying the strategic units. You are allowed two strategic units maximum, an army and a brigade. You can have on any side one brigade, two brigades, one army or one army and a brigade. The armies as I said are equal, the brigades different according to type.

I don't care a damn about history other than a nodding acquaintance. I want good games generally balanced so my gamers can have fun in and not feel like they are getting pounded by an army list.

It's a game.

It's only a game.

It has absolutely nothing to do with history or real war. As I said, it's only a notional nod to reality.

Can we have a point of clarification here:

Are we talking about army lists that simply indicate the proportions of various troop types that should make up a specific army in a given historical period (e.g. the DBA army lists) or

Are we really talking about (Shock! Horror!) points systems?

I've heard/read patronising comments about army lists.

As I don't game competitively, the building of Killer Armies doesn't concern me.

I like army lists. Firstly they can be a great source of information on possible army compositions: not only troop types but the ratios of troop types in "typical" armies.

Certainly you can supplement this with your own research but it does provide a foundation, at least.

We game historical battles (working on Ligny 1815 at the moment) but also create plausible scenarios. These sometimes need unbalanced forces but often are supposed to pit "equal" armies against each other.

A point system makes creating forces for made-up battles so much easier.

Finally, certain games require you use their lists. Field of Glory army lists provide not only troop types & numbers but information about armour, training & weaponry vital to playing the game.

And I'm such a nerd that I like reading books of army lists.

With most of the rules I own, the army list also contains the points values.

Extra Crispy…last year in Miniature Wargames magazine there were a couple of writers who went off on a tirade against army lists, at length. The summary of their argument was that it's about history and you should do copious research when planning a game.

One of the problems with our hobby is that there are too many people telling others what they should or should not do.

To quote OSchmidt – it's a game

Dear Veteran Cosmic Rocker

I don't think that's true for most gamers. Each gamer has his own likes and dislikes, his own preferences, and while that may be his "hobby horse," I don't think they mean that's the only way to do it, though they may have very strong reasons for doing it. A few might be very intolerant of others likes and dislikes, but I think most will still game.

The standard might very well be "When I'm at your house I play by your rules."

The great virtue of war games (which has prevented any large company or movement to dominate it, is that it's very much doing whatever you want to do. There really is no way to force players to do something they don't want and basement groups and clubs and conventions find that when they try that the players simply move on.

It's an anarchic hobby and players are in it for fun, not to adhere to some standard or do things the same as everyone.

To get back to Army lists. Some people like em, some people couldn't care less.

The problem for those who like em is ….

"As your argument FOR them is largely historical accuracy or some service to a historical standard, how do you know they are realistic or accurate?"

The problem for those who don't like em is….

"How do you avoid things getting out of hand with oddball weapons, killer armies or completely unrealistic things and units.

There are other problems for either side as well.

There may be some people who REALLY want to force wargamers do "do it there way" but I think their percentage is vanishingly small.

Otto

Nobody is going to force me (or anyone else for that matter) to "do it their way".

Army lists and a point system can provide for very balanced games though not historically accurate scenarios for actual battles. I have used Army lists in almost all of my rules since the 1980s.

A percentage of the army scale is an item that some designers leave out. These are key to preventing or limiting top heavy armies.

Army lists ought to try and keep the proportions of troops to fairly historic parameters I think, which is where I think they are useful.

Army lists with points usually provide balanced games – which is sometimes what my group wants to have – but may also give quite historic looking armies by weighting the points for certain unit types.

I am not sure either of these are particularly historically accurate – but I don't think that lessens the validity of using them. It is a game after all.

That said, some of the most enjoyable games that I have played have been historical based scenarios with fixed armies – the means to balance the game is to give varying victory conditions of course.

As stated, it's a game. Which means rules, and those rules should include the idea of fair play. Lists and points systems both have a major part to play in some circumstances. Army lists were originally designed to stop people fielding unrealistic armies at the UK National Championships as a result of this and points are useful in making sure armies are roughly equivalent, as well as enabling you to 'measure' winners and losers in time restricted battles.

If you are playing a historical battle then of course that is your army list. Fielding a couple of Regiments of Russians in a replay of Waterloo… not good. Between friends or following a scenario… well, probably not needed – though giving players a certain amount of choice and see 'roughly equivalent' above.

So yes, they have their uses, but no, you don't (or shouldn't) have to use them all the time.

Armies lists can be the source in the rules where the differences in historical detail can be detailed. Our approach was to give the drill/tactics, and organization, and troops mix, in the armies lists, then the reader can refer back to the main body of the rules where each of those things is detailed. You don't have to read the whole rule book first, only the parts that your and your opponent's armies make use of….

I would argue that the three WRG 6th army books inspired more obscure armies to be produced than would ever have seen the limelight otherwise. I would look for an army I found interesting to game with first, before I read anything about its history. While this means there will be people who look for uber combinations, that's the people, not the lists- and if those people weren't already around anyway there would have been no need for army lists and points would there?
So, if you want a theoretical match up between two armies based on their most common troops available and fairly balanced in terms of efficiency, army lists are great. If you want a scenario or recreate an actual battle, they're not needed.

Army lists and a point system can provide for very balanced games

There is no such thing as a "balanced game".

I use them occassionally in SciFi but historically I would go with an OOB.

I'm much more likely to go with vanilla WW2 so give me an infantry company and some support weapons such as MG platoon within the historical norms.

For Naps and ACW, give me a generic brigade/divion organisation.
As long as it makes sense from a period standpioint I'm fine. Incidentally I like thing ssuch as Regiment of Foote which will then randomly tweak such an organisation before the game begins.

David

I dislike army lists so much I could easily end up being quite rude.This is especially true with ancient and mediaeval periods where they are mostly 'made up'anyhow. As you move forward through history and our knowledge about the composition of armies becomes clearer then the lists themselves become futile. What self respecting Napoleonic enthusiast could be comfortable with an army list? we have enough info to say (fairly precisely) how brigades divisions and armies were composed. N didnt sit around a table with Berthier and Davout, Ney Lannes etc and say well we have a thousand points to play with! he didn't say well I'd really like the Greanadiers a cheval in my Guard Cavalry Brigade but I have already chosen the Empress Dragoons so I don't have points left. Nor can you imagine him saying in 1813 well I could have forty battalions of conscripts or I might promote 16 of them to grenadier status, which leaves me with no points for cannon!
Generals fought with what they had and did the best with that. It was never equal. Indeed the whole point about warfare was to make it as unequal as possible in your favour!
AAAAAARRRGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!! This is a topic so fraught with disaster.

yes and no. as a guide, yes. to be dogma, NO!
for those tournament folks, its great. so,so, so many times i have seen here on TMP and hearing the tourney guys mention building the "ultimate army".

use them to scale your forces for the period and as mentioned above. how many times did paper strength match actual strength? For me, point systems lead to building super armies. mine is bigger than yours! :-0.

as a GM, balanced games mean designing the scenario, terrain, troops, and provide the tactical opportunity for victory on both sides. troop balance is not the primary factor.

lists have their place. but keep them "in their place".

never use them.

wyeayeman – do you only refight historical battles, or do you also do imaginary encounters?

wyeayeman – do you only refight historical battles, or do you also do imaginary encounters?

Does that matter?

A perfectly balanced wargame is called "Chess"
Or Tactics II if you are as old as me.

Even in chess, someone has to go first …

Even in chess, someone has to go first …

Is that an advantage or a disadvantage? And if you randomise (by tossing a coin, say), does it matter?

Always an advantage, because "White" starts with the initiative, in fact, one turn ahead of "Black". You can tell, palpably, when you've got the initiative and when you've lost it….

@wyeayeman: What you reveal in your almost-rant is a dislike for any system that tries to provide "balanced" games/battles. Armies lists don't have to do that. As information for the types of troops available, their likelihood or rarity, their tactics/drill capabilities, their arms and armor, all of that, armies lists are very useful.

I would suggest, however, that "points battles" are only useful in "tournament play".

My preferred method for "once-off" games is to randomize the scenario. That way the comparative sizes of the armies is almost never even; the terrain is not at the whim of anyone setting up the game; the troops mix is unknown before the units are rolled up, etc….

Assuming the author has done at least SOME research into army composition, they can provide a valuable baseline.

They provide the author's expectation of army size.

They provide a frame work for quick pickup games.

Always an advantage, because "White" starts with the initiative, in fact, one turn ahead of "Black". You can tell, palpably, when you've got the initiative and when you've lost it….

Are you sure about that? We usually reckon that moving second in a game confers an advantage in that you can see what your opponent has done.

quick pickup games.

What are these "quick pickup games" of which you speak?

Isn't an OOB just a different form of army list? I think army lists are a useful tool especially when dealing with topics that aren't easily researched elswhere. While I like reading history I want to be able to play the game out of the box, not do a research thesis to find out which 10 guys were at that bunker on that date before the game starts. Lists save players a lot of work on scenario design.

While I agree perfect balance isn't really possible because of all the variables it should be possible to get some estimates on each sides capabilities. Historically if you had balanced forces meeting somebody must have messed up. You always want to bring more to the table than the enemy if you want to win. For a game unbalanced scenarios can be fun with proper victory conditions for the each side. But a lot of the time we want all players to have a roughly equal chance of winning with the main variables being our skill and appeasing the dice gods. Well designed army lists can give players a variety of options (which could be historically plausible if not 100% accurate) without having it become an exercise in Min/maxing.

Isn't an OOB just a different form of army list?

Of course it is.

But a lot of the time we want all players to have a roughly equal chance of winning with the main variables being our skill and appeasing the dice gods.

Do we?

In defence of army lists …

I like the concept in One Hour Wargames where each player has 10 units, but each then rolls a D6 to select a particular combination of 6 units from the 10 available.

Simple. Means each player has a randomly generated yet plausible army. Balanced? Who cares?

So is MajoB playing devils advocate in an effort to make posters think about other options or is he just in a bad mood?
Some comments on here lack anything more than a question. No supporting material to defend his position or refute other points.

In regards to his comment on my post, I think he is wrong. There are plenty of scenarios in many systems which offer balanced games.

Isn't this actually a discussion about points values?

Not really Weasel. The OP asked for GOOD reasons for army lists. Sadly it went off on a tangent about why some don't like them and chess (white does win more often in tournaments btw, suggesting an advantage).

I think Army Lists can also be a good way of beginners getting a feel for what a typical army of a given type/period/nationality might be like (even if they go on to form their own vision as their understanding and research develops) …

Phil

Isn't this actually a discussion about points values?

Not really Weasel

Well, it rather depends if we are talking about army lists such as those in DBA which do not have points, or those in other games where the army list is actually a points system.

Sadly the OP has not clarified which he wants us to talk about …

I am indeed making an effort to make posters think about other options.

In regards to his comment on my post, I think he is wrong. There are plenty of scenarios in many systems which offer balanced games.

Well, it rather depends what you mean by a "balanced game". If by that term you mean a game in which each side has an equal probability of winning then I contend that there is no such thing unless the forces are exactly equal and fought on a table completely bare of terrain.

Balanced games means you can blame your loss on the dice roll, or as in chess, the bumbling decisions of the commanders.
On the scale of things, with or without army lists, we are fantasy gamers.

Nothing wrong with army lists that are TOEs, it is adding points to them where the problem comes up.

I liked the old Halifax system. Army lists were based on percentages, so you rolled percentage dice to see what units you got…

"Isn't an OOB just a different form of army list?"
No I don't think so. An Army list is like a greasy spoon cafe menu. The guy who set it forth does not appear to be able to cook, often only has a vague idea of ingredients and adds a lot of salt at the end to mask imperfections but you are hungry so what can you do?
Perhaps I prefer to starve these days because of WRG/DBA army lists, where you can have asparagus, tomato and wasabi – often just 'cos you can.
Essentially wars/battles are fought on a get what you are given basis…
(a metaphor too far? Unfortunately as typical wargamer I have often chosen too many dishes!!!)

"is a dislike for any system that tries to provide "balanced" games/battles."
yes probably this is true. These sort of games often boil down to how many Gauls equal one Roman or how many left handed sailors throwing stones recruited by Pope Pius , can be said to have the same military effectiveness as cherubs riding unicorns.
Perhaps a 'balanced game' is something quite different to equal sides. For example Leuthen 5 December 1757 was never balanced from the moment Fredrick the Great woke up that morning, But Charles of Lorraine did not know that. In fact I would wager he thought the odds were overwhelmingly in his favour. Ditto Austerlitz.
Isn't the challenge, the real interest,a game which starts with 'where the chuff did that lot come from?'and the 'balance' stems from one sides players skill at exploiting advantages and the others at defeating them.
The example is perhaps extreme but all battles have moments of subtlety where they change from overwhelming defeat to 'a near run thing'.
A game that sets to 'vanilla' everything from the start is largely an exercise in dice rolling and tears.

Are you sure about that? We usually reckon that moving second in a game confers an advantage in that you can see what your opponent has done.

Absolutely positive: in chess, White begins with the advantage because s/he is always one move ahead of anything that Black can do. There is not chance for Black to react to seeing what White has done, because White will finish what it is doing one turn before Black can avert the outcome. Of course, this supposes that the players are equally matched and don't make any mistakes that the other player capitalizes on. At world class level, losing a single pawn through error can mean the game….

For those of you that dislike army lists how do you decide what to put on the table? Without some sort of guidelines how do players know what is available? If it's a fantasy game how do I know how many dwarves were facing the orcs without a list of some sort? I'm all for hearing about other options.

Major B, maybe you don't but we, as in myself and the majority of people I've played with, do. It may or may not be an illusion but we like the idea of balance. Mostly we want games that are fun for all involved. Close games always seem more interesting to us than walkovers. I prefer army lists that urge players to take well rounded armies with a healthy amount of average troops and only a smattering of elite types. Not all games do that.

Isn't the challenge, the real interest,a game which starts with 'where the chuff did that lot come from?'and the 'balance' stems from one sides players skill at exploiting advantages and the others at defeating them.

Exactly. And that's where a set of armies lists can help out. If you avoid straight up equal points battles, and roll randomized scenarios, then your "once-off" games don't attempt to achieve balance. The armies are randomized. The terrain is randomized. The victory conditions can be as well, if you prefer. Or you can set up "stock" scenarios, with built in inequality. One of my favorites that I have shared here before is "the battle in the pass" (or blocking the bridge/ford). An outnumbered infantry force is blocking the escape of a raiding party. The raiding party is being pursued by mounted defenders bent on revenge. Can the raiders hack their way through the defenders before getting caught between both defender forces? There is no balance to this game. The defending infantry begin greatly outnumbered. The raiders (maybe) end up somewhat outnumbered by the total defender forces, if the pursuing cavalry come on the table in time (randomized entry).

To keep this in harmony with the OP, this scenario is easily set up randomly by rolling up the units from the army lists, with a numerical advantage for the raiders versus the defender infantry, i.e. more units of invaders. The pursuers, all cavalry, only roll up units from the cavalry section of their army list….

I really want an Iron Age game with wyeayeman.

He can field whatever he likes in terms of Iron Age Warriors.

I'll field a bunch of iron Tiger IIs.

A bit more seriously, a *considered* use of an army list helps every game from being a mismatched walkover. NB *considered* I said. Please don't ignore this concept. I'm NOT a tournament gamer & I don't mean mirror image armies: just 2 sides with some parity. I would point out that historically almost every outnumbered commander did his best to avoid a pitched battle unless he could swing other factors in his favour to…..provide a balanced fight.

Clearly factors such as terrain advantages, attack/defence ratios & other issues will cause us to tweak a list. An army list is a beginning not necessarily the end of preparing a game. And "balanced" quite obviously means either side has a chance of winning it. God may well love Big Battalions but continually let one gamer have overwhelming numbers &/or quality & his opponent have neither & the former will soon be a solo gamer.

And I am not denying the fun of taking a losing side sometimes. A few years ago, I took the French at Leipzig in 1813. It was great fun holding out as long as I could. However, some times the fun comes from defeating an opponent who is your equal. Army lists facilitate this.

There are several wargaming "hot spots" where a mere mention seems to cause some to foam at the mouth. Army lists are clearly one.