"Wargames' tactics that aren't historical" Topic

Battle clothes work well

I always wear a smoking jacket and cravat when I play!

Maybe we should start games in the knowledge that any figures killed or captured have to be actually handed over to your opponent or confiscated for ever and vice versa with opponents figures at the end of the game

That might guarantee playing in larger scales. I have no idea how to spike a 6mm cannon.

- Ix

+1 to the posters who mentioned cramming multiple attack columns vs one line, with the line only being able to inflict hits on only one of the attacking units at a time. Probably why I like using DSLB for Napoleonic tactics from now on; only one battalion attacks at a time, and battalions must maintain sufficient spacing between units.

"Battle clothes work well."

I don't know; I've played a few memorable games naked too.

Maybe we should start games in the knowledge that any figures killed or captured have to be actually handed over to your opponent or confiscated for ever and vice versa with opponents figures at the end of the game

I have a feeling that you'd be able to tell to quality of the player by the quality of the paint job he was willing to risk.

"Battle clothes work well."

I have no idea how that 'e' got in there, but dressing for a game can work….

Yellow – where did you find that picture please, as that looks interesting and I would like to read about it if there is a blog behind it.

Thanks

No space behind deployed artillery units. Players fill this space with Infantry or Cavalry conveniently forgetting various limbers, Caissons and reserve ammo supply.

Having not played any wargames for nearly 30 years (at present I'm just building up and painting some armies, as I slowly return to the hobby) perhaps my views won't count for much? But, for what it's worth, I'm with Trajanus, and the few others making similar points: the lack of realism in wargaming is, in my view, fundamentally integral to the nature of the pursuit.

To respond to Ochoin's OP directly, there are of course loads, many of which have already been mentioned. When I finally get to gaming again, one thing I hope my table will have is a lot of rear-echelon stuff, and non-combatants, for example, the clutter of which might materially affect the game, as such things did in real life. But when it comes to how I'll fight my battles, well… that brings me back to the main point I'd like to make.

I love beautifully painted and based figures and dazzlingly impressive terrain, and what I want to partake of when gaming is a kind of moving diorama. But the aerial view that players have, and the way that they are aware of pretty much everything that goes on as it unfolds, those factors are so massively unrealistic that I think the issue of tactics that are ahistorical, whilst undoubtedly fascinating and important, becomes, relatively speaking, small beans.

Another similar 'higher level' problem is that, unlike the generals of the era, who were evolving the 'art' of war as they fought, in real time and with far higher stakes, and whose minds were the products of very different cultures to ours, we are, by and large, people with wholly different world-views and, usually, heads stuffed with ideas and opinions about the eras we like to game. Ideas and opinions that have evolved slowly but steadily since the times themselves disappeared in the rear view mirror of history forever, and which might well strike the commanders of those days as almost wholly alien.

These views are not meant to imply that I'm dismissive of this thread or the ideas being discussed, which I think are fascinating. I'd also hazard the assumption that, hopefully at least amongst historical gamers, a desire for ever more realism is generally considered a good thing. It's just that I think I'm fairly content with (or resigned to) the knowledge that the whole enterprise is extremely unrealistic, no matter how accurately we may recreate uniforms, troop formations, or battlefields, or even what rules we use.

[scuttles away to hide behind sutler's wagons expecting a heavy bombardment]

It's just that I think I'm fairly content with (or resigned to) the knowledge that the whole enterprise is extremely unrealistic, no matter how accurately we may recreate uniforms, troop formations, or battlefields, or even what rules we use.

[Peeking around the sutlers' wagon]

SP: All true. We fight Napoleonic battles with lead soldiers on a table top with plastic terrain. Of course it's totally unreal. It is a completely artifical construct. [Who says any different?] It is like a plastic 1/35 scale model of a ten ton, ten-foot high, steel T-34. Totally unreal.

Yet, there are specific points [albeit relatively few] where that tiny model does accurately represents a real WWII tank… and is fact recognizable as a T-34.

That is what a wargame does in dynamic fashion with game mechanics. Models battle at specific points [albeit relatively few compared to reality]. The question is where there those points are. Wargame mechanics are far more abstract than that T-34 model. The connections aren't anywhere near as apparent with a wargame. Game designers don't often draw the point to point connection between the game mechanics and the reality it is supposed to be modeling.

What part of reality is the one artillery type in Fire & Fury modeling? Richard H. says it is historically accurate. The question is how? What do 'semi-skirmishers' represent in Empire? Or in Blucher,what does the one-off 4X normal movement for a 'reserve' model of historic battles?

Those aren't criticisms, just giving examples of where the connections between specific history and the game mechanics remains very unclear and less than obvious.

Because any simulation, any wargame will only ever be able to encompass a small fraction of reality, it is very, very easy to point out where a wargame doesn't model reality. Like any model, plastic or table top, the question is what is the game designed to model and how that is accomplished.

So if the goal of a set of miniatures rules is to model historic tactics, the question is what tactics and with what mechanics. If the rules were never intended to provide a 'realistic' command system, there is little point in criticizing them for not succeeding in modeling that system.

In so many ways of a wargame is different from the real thing, and gives a player an entirely different experience to commanding a real army. I prefer to think of the player as something akin to a historian working a what-if. He understands the unfolding events in a similar god-like way.

But there's still a big difference between a game designed to give an outing to model soldiers and an a few hours of entertainment, and those which are more grandly described as "simulation" – which are more serious in exploring historical possibilities.

But simulation rules have to be highly abstracted to make them playable – which makes the question of realism harder to answer. The main point is to reflect realistic outcomes for each episode of the battle. In practice I think this means that the outcome on the table is plausible – and that historical outcomes (when reconstructing a real battle) are possible within the rules. Most rules fail this test somewhere or other.

I am committed to the simulation route – but it's a journey. It's why I write my own rules these days. But there aren't many with the patience and frame of mind for me to play against!

But there's still a big difference between a game designed to give an outing to model soldiers and an a few hours of entertainment, and those which are more grandly described as "simulation" – which are more serious in exploring historical possibilities.

Matthew:

That all depends on the designer's purposes. Game mechanics are game mechanics. Both 'kinds' of goals share the very same game systems and processes. If you listen to and read what designers say about their designs, the difference between what a simulation does or could do isn't all that different from those rules designed for just a few hours entertainment.

Examples of the two?

But simulation rules have to be highly abstracted to make them playable – which makes the question of realism harder to answer.

Harder than what? Games for entertainment? ALL wargame rules are highly abstracted--that's all they are--abstractions. What is the difference between a low and high abstraction in game rules and why do those attempting the grandeous level of simulation require more abstraction? I have read arguments for just the opposite… that playable games require higher levels of abstraction than simulation designs with all their detail.

The main point is to reflect realistic outcomes for each episode of the battle. In practice I think this means that the outcome on the table is plausible – and that historical outcomes (when reconstructing a real battle) are possible within the rules. Most rules fail this test somewhere or other.

So how does one determine 'realistic', historical outcomes when the whole wargame is an abstraction? What constitutes--in practical game design terms--specific methods for this 'test' that most rules fail? It sounds as though this test is more than just someone's opinion. If not, then the reasonable expectation would be that most other games would always fail your personal 'test' preferences.

I agree that in comparing the historical record to the game mechanics designed to mimic them there has to be some sort of test to determine success in that effort. The question is, what is that test or series of tests? If it is just a feeling or personal opinion, that remains a very subjective preference rather than a 'test' that all games need to or even could meet.

Matthew:

I don't want to leave you with the impression that I don't believe there are any such 'objective' tests. A one would be whether units in a wargame can travel as far as they did during the battle, or even shorter time periods.

Any number of wargame rules fail this simple test. You replay the Battle of Austerlitz and none of the forces can get to where and when they actually arrived, no matter how you work the rules. Or it takes Pickett's division an hour and a half to cover the ground it did on July 3 in twenty minutes. Hard to fight a battle 'realistically when none of the forces can move like they did in the real battle.

The trouble with identifying "games" versus "simulations" is that I'm quite likely to insult somebody. Some rules set themselves out as simulations, but fall far short in my view – and yet make excellent games.

But I'll give one example of a "game": Fast Play Grande Armée. This is rip roaring stuff, but the corps commanders behave absolutely nothing like their historical counterparts. Highly entertaining though! Funnily enough standard GA fares much better as a simulation – though takes longer to play out. Another example of a "game" from the Sam Mustafa stable is Maurice (though not Napoleonic) – which is designed to be used with Imaginations – which is nothing to do with simulation in my rather conservative view. But a good game.

Where I depart from many is that I think it is perfectly respectable for simulation games to be highly abstracted and to play quickly. However the episodes that you are trying to represent will be bigger and longer in a quick, more abstracted game. Say the outcome of two hours worth of time, rather than whether it was the infantry or cavalry that scored the decisive blow in a particular combat. The fact that the higher levels of abstraction will only tend to produce realistic outcomes for longer/bigger episodes is what makes the question of realism harder to answer. One the one hand you might be asking whether La Haye Sainte stands or falls, or else you might simply ask whether the French push on the centre of the Allied line succeeds, or the level of damage that it inflicts.

In fact I like the challenge of simulating a high levels of abstraction, as this forces you to focus on the key dynamics, rather than hoping accuracy will come from a detailed bottom-up process.

I do try to apply a realism test on my rules by playing them against real battles on real timescales. There is a strong subjective element in judging this, of course, but I think there is more to it. Two examples. I played out a reconstruction of Vitoria with my own grand tactical rules. I was quite pleased that it evolved hour by hour at a similar pace to the historical original, and although the French collapsed an hour or two earlier, it wasn't hard to attribute this particular player decisions that differed from the original. I could certainly quibble with some of the outcomes at a lower level of detail though.

Second example: I tried out a tactical ruleset on Quatre Bras. It was impossible for the French attack to develop fast enough to give them any chance victory, or get them anywhere close to the historical original. I didn't analyse this deeply – it may simply have been bad advice as how long each turn should represent. But a clear fail which showed that more work would be needed to succeed as a simulation.

The real question is whether, after such an exercise, one just shrugs and says "its just a game", or whether one investigates why, and what adjustments might be made to get closer to accuracy. These may not be in the rules themsleves, but in other aspects of the game set-up (terrain, troop and commander ratings, etc.). From this process you can gain further insights into history.

But you are still going to be left with differences of opinion.

Some rules set themselves out as simulations, but fall far short in my view – and yet make excellent games.

Well, the games don't make themselves out that way…the designers do that, stating what their wargame was designed to do or be. And any confusion fun games and/or simulations is also created by the designer.

But I'll give one example of a "game": Fast Play Grande Armée. This is rip roaring stuff, but the corps commanders behave absolutely nothing like their historical counterparts. Highly entertaining though! Funnily enough standard GA fares much better as a simulation – though takes longer to play out. Another example of a "game" from the Sam Mustafa stable is Maurice (though not Napoleonic) – which is designed to be used with Imaginations – which is nothing to do with simulation in my rather conservative view. But a good game.

Sam's designs are a good example. Sam has been very clear about his primary goal: Fun games. From the sounds of it, he has been successful in that design goal. He has also been very outspoken about simulations: Not possible with table top games. The confusion comes when he then states that the game mechanics of Grande Armée "may not be as fun as other games, but that is the way it was" or that "La Salle can simulate Napoleonic Battles." Sam isn't alone in that "it is/but it isn't" presentation.

Where I depart from many is that I think it is perfectly respectable for simulation games to be highly abstracted and to play quickly.

I agree. There is no design imperative that says simulations must be slow to play or have low abstractions. I am still not sure what constitutes 'highly abstracted' when the whole exercise of game design is one of abstractions.

However the episodes that you are trying to represent will be bigger and longer in a quick, more abstracted game. Say the outcome of two hours worth of time, rather than whether it was the infantry or cavalry that scored the decisive blow in a particular combat.

So you are speaking of scale, larger areas, longer periods of time when you say 'more abstracted'?

The fact that the higher levels of abstraction will only tend to produce realistic outcomes for longer/bigger episodes is what makes the question of realism harder to answer.

I don't see the question of realism any harder to answer at lower levels of abstraction/scale than higher. You are comparing history at that scale against the game mechanics representing that scale.

One the one hand you might be asking whether La Haye Sainte stands or falls, or else you might simply ask whether the French push on the centre of the Allied line succeeds, or the level of damage that it inflicts.

The specifics of the action become broader, encompasing more, but if you simply ask whether La Haye Sainte stands or falls, look at all the specifics and detail that have to be abstracted even to portray that game dynamic. There are innumerable variables at whatever level you choose.

The real question is whether, after such an exercise, one just shrugs and says "its just a game",…

From what I can tell, the designer has already answered that question for the gamer in designing the wargame. That isn't an opinion, but rather an unavoidable decision in designing the game. I can monkey with the system afterwards to my heart's content to 'get it closer to accuracy', but that doesn't change the designer's goals or how successful he was in achieving them.

If in the end, we are left with only a difference of opinion, then there are no historical, objective 'tests' that most games fail, but rather one person's opinion and preferences.

I tried answering you last night Bill, but realised I was rambling even more than I normally do. So a fresh read of your post and a fresh think. I usually agree with the things you post.

I think the issue is that I am on a personal and quite lonely mission in this hobby. I am using the words "simulation" and "abstraction" in a different way to others. It also means that I devour games for my personal ends, without getting too fussed about what the designer intended – though that is always of interest. This is ending up with me developing my own systems, almost inevitably. Though I am happy enough to use properly constructed rules just for the game. My own systems are usually in pieces when the opportunity comes to get the little men out.

By simulation I am not trying to reproduce the experience of a real participant. That indeed is far to much. In that sense I agree with Sam Mustafa (whom I greatly admire). I am trying to explore historical what-ifs to get a better appreciation of what mattered in a battle – and the consequences of particular choices. Because it is important to reference back to real events I use the word simulation to cover it – and to present that in contrast to the other objective, which is to get a good game. The advantage to this interpretation of simulation is that it is actually feasible. You are interested in the way a battle evolves from a god-like perspective. But taking the part of Wellington, say, in a game has very little to do with that general's experience in real life. But at the end of it you might have a better appreciation of some of his decisions – and especially those that many history books discuss at length.

Great discussion guys – and Matt, your not as alone as you think n your perceptions :-) I is imperative for me that a game design lets Soult march the 1600 meters to Pratzen in the 20 miuntes he said he needed, but if it doesn´t matter to others, heck let them play Black powder and we are still friends.

By simulation I am not trying to reproduce the experience of a real participant.That indeed is far to much.

Matthew:

Of course. A simulation of that kind of experience would be very, very different, more in the line of the 'prisoners' simultion where psychologists put participants in the roles of prisoners and guards in a prison-like setting. Doesn't sound like my kind of fun at all. But that kind of simulation of various intensities are carried all the time in the military, business and research at different levels of personal 'realism.'

In that sense I agree with Sam Mustafa (whom I greatly admire). I am trying to explore historical what-ifs to get a better appreciation of what mattered in a battle – and the consequences of particular choices.

That is simply choosing to simulate different things. In one way you are still attempting to simulate some of the experiences of a real person: the command choices, circumstances and outcomes of an officer's decisions--which is part of their experience. A simulation and/or wargame of a battle is from some perspective telling someone's story of events.

As you point out:

But taking the part of Wellington, say, in a game has very little to do with that general's experience in real life. But at the end of it you might have a better appreciation of some of his decisions – and especially those that many history books discuss at length.

The question isn't of how much doesn't have to do with Wellington's real life. The question is what specific 'very little' are you are reproducing with the game system? At best, simulations of all kinds can only mimic 'a little bit of reality.'

Because it is important to reference back to real events I use the word simulation to cover it – and to present that in contrast to the other objective, which is to get a good game.

While a 'good game' and 'simulation' can be two different things with two different goals, it can also be the very same thing… Take Kriegspiel for instance. von Riesswitz's goal was a training platform. He was surprised to find officers found it "entertaining". It still is after two hundred years, even though it has long since stopped being a training tool. Can that be an indication that it's a 'good game?' It all depends on what the designer wants to do and what others find entertaining: fun.

Creating a simulation has some fairly strict boundaries if it is going to actually function as one. The criteria of a 'good game' is a fairly wide arena and far more subjective, even if there are some common threads shared by all good games.

So, you are going for greater 'abstraction' with your simulation games. How do you see that accomplished in the game systems you work on?

I think the issue is that I am on a personal and quite lonely mission in this hobby. I am using the words "simulation" and "abstraction" in a different way to others. It also means that I devour games for my personal ends, without getting too fussed about what the designer intended – though that is always of interest.

That is not all an uncommon mission in this hobby. It certainly is a common 'ailment' of game designers. Raph Koster, in his book A Theory of Fun for Game Design noted:

Game designers spend less time playing individual games thatn the typical player does. Gane designers finish games less often that typical players. They have less time to play a given game bcause they typically sample so many of them…Basiccally game designers suffer from what I call "Designeritis" They are hypersensitive to patterns in games. They grok them very readily and move on.

If the number of unplayed rules that sit on a gamer's shelves while he instead designs his own game is typical, then a good number in our hobby suffer from Designeritis to some extent.

Great discussion guys – and Matt, your not as alone as you think n your perceptions :-) I is imperative for me that a game design lets Soult march the 1600 meters to Pratzen in the 20 miuntes he said he needed, but if it doesn´t matter to others, heck let them play Black powder and we are still friends.

Sparta:

Yes, I couldn't agree more. To each his own and more power to them. However, if we are talking simulation and wargame design, then as designers-what the creators of Black Powder have to say about the goals and purposes of their design are of interest.

The Black Powder game is first, foremost and most decidedly an entertainment. Naturally, we wish our game to be a tolerably convincing representation of real combat; however, no pretence is made to simulate every nuance or detail of weaponry, drill or the pyschology of warfare.

Fair enough. I could say that those are the goals I would want of any wargame and certainly my own rules. Certainly, without any desire to simulate every nuance…as if that were even remotely possible.

Obviously, some folks see BP as very convincing and others like you, don't. To each his own.

My design questions would be:

1. What parts of real battle did the designers attempt to simulate?

2. What made them think they were 'simulating' and with what mechanics? [particularly as they weren't trying for every nuance…what nuances were they trying for?] and,

3.What makes a wargame/simulation 'convincing'?

I would hope the answer to the last question is more than simply catering to current prejudices.

Matthew:

Did you happen to go to Salute yesterday? A friend of mine, David Cummerford and buddies put on a three brigade per side version of Longstreet. Did you happen to see it?

Bill. I did sweep through in the afternoon – I saw the Longstreet game but didn't pay it much attention I'm afraid.

Next time I go it needs to be in the morning and with more time and a clearer agenda. I found it all a bit overwhelming. I was mainly looking for terrain/table inspiration, though didn't find much to go on on that front.

Sorry to hear that. I've always wondered how British cons only run a day when here in the US they go two or more… often with less attendees. I understand there were 5,000 at Salute.

What era are you building terrain for?

Note: On the fly, I spelled David Commerford's name wrong. I know two, one with a 'U' and one with a 'O'. I'll owe him for that mistake.

I've read it was standard to have the army deployed in two lines, and a reserve. I have only seen deployment in one line, and rarely a reserve.

Sorry – what's a reserve?

Even in the afternoon there were lots of people – though around the stalls, which made things a little difficult to get to. Still I'm whinging. Put out because I arrived too late for the goody bag and still paid full whack. Shows that the hobby is in some state of health.

I am focusing on Napoleonic. My hope is somehow emulate Bruce Weigle with something a lot easier to construct, if less precise. I think that means cloth pinned to polystyrene formers. But I'd rather not create a new mat for each battle, but construct out standard elements.

I have seen very nice tables made with polystyrene former under cloth covers, held in place by pins which are either part of trees or bushes, or simply covered up by them. Even 'rock' heads to the pins.

With the styrofoam or poly forms, stream banks can be created along with low portions of the table without too much trouble. I am experiments with that method. I agree, I hate to put all that terrain-creating effort into a single battle, one piece of terrain.

Hello Ochoin!

Great post, well done.

"What table top tactics do you know of that aren't really grounded in the history of the period?"

Well as you have seen the list is long and some believe that it's all of them. Their probably right.

I'm surprised that know one has mentioned my favorite which is what I fondly call "square dancing". Probably because it's so ingrained into most wargamers that they don't even see it. That's where the game starts off with the cavalry player surveying the table to see who is not in square and then spending the rest of the game trying to sneak up on them. The infantry players then take the dance to the next level by constantly trying to not be asked by the cavalry player to dance unless it's a square dance.

It's just hilarious to watch, not to mention the constant "well if I knew he could do that I would have been in square".

Some honestly believe this is the heart and soul of Napoleonic wargamimg. Well I think their right! The problem is it's not the heart and soul of Napoleonic warfare.

Best regards,

Glenn