"Most overrated battle?" Topic

What historical battle do you think is most overrated as a GAME? It gets played all the time but never delivers either because there's no room for maneuver, one side being boring to play etc.

I'll say Waterloo. It's like a knife fight in a phone booth. Meh.

All of them.

Battles usually happen for a reason, and are part of an over all plan. The outcome is usually set – the side that won was always the more likely.

Where the result is 'wrong' its because of either one commander made more mistakes, or a fantastic maneouver, often a subterfuge, that is near impossible to pull of on a table.

Additionally 20/20 hindsight means you know why one side lost, so can plan for it (the unexpected re-inforcements, the terrain worse than the maps said, etc)

IMHO, there is little point refighting an historical battle with the original orbats, start positions &c UNLESS you want to test a set of rules to see whether it can deliver historical outcomes. Though even then, there are problems: was any actual outcome that which was most likely to occur, or the equivalent of throwing a 1?
But, assuming that one has a set of rules which seems to deliver historical/realistic/personal prejudice confirming outcomes, then IMHO the Waterloo campaign has a lot to offer because one can play out scenarios based upon the numerous 'what-ifs', such as D'Erlon's Corps assisting Ney at Quatre Bras, or arriving to reinforce Napoleon at Ligny; Grouchy marching to the sound of the guns on June 18th; The Prussians arriving earlier/later/never, and so on.

D-day games tend to not be very interesting.

One side moves and makes morale checks while the other side shoots.

… or doesn't.

I don't 'do' WW2, but a few years ago I acceded to playing the defenders in a D-Day game using BKC. The host let the already on-table allies go first, and they proceeded to advance onto and most of the way up the beach without taking any fire. As I recall, he didn't see this as a problem.

There was more happening on the D-day than just the beach landings. For example the massive airborne landings on the previous night tended to result in much more varied actions.

Refighting historical battles with the same OOBs and doing the same thing should (assuming the rules represent the period) generate the same results. Near run thing or not, frontal assaults at Waterloo or Gettysburg should more than likely end up with a recoiling Guard or Rebel force.

Refighting historical battles with the same OOBs and doing something different…ah, that's the stuff of wargaming legend (even if its only in our own minds).

As for an individual battle, maybe Kursk. By mid-1943, the Axis likely had little chance of winning even if they pocketed every Soviet soldier in the Kursk bulge.

Islandawana: always too many figures, always little more than a slaughterfest, always too lang. Such has been my experience at conventions over the years.

And I agree, avoid historical battles – but too avoid the 'erudite' players who already know 'what to do' to win. Much more fun to play in a game with surprises, good or bad, as long there exists a fair chance at 'victory' for either side, even if it means a glorious defeat or annihilation for one side as the 'victory'.

All of them.

I don't want to be in any of them.

Not one of them was ever engaged in as a game. A game requires equity and fairness. That has nothing to do with real battles and real war.

I prefer Hendrik Van Loon's description of war in the 18th century from his "VanLoon's Lives" about Rene Descarte to the real battle. Or a battle as through the commemorate lens of a Mozart or a Neubauer, where both armies march on with proud marches, there is a bit of pyrotechnics and loud noises, a quite moment, and then both armies march off the field in an elegant contratanz.

Like the characters in our Internationl War Games, where players are the kings of countries, we make up our own fantasy world of bumbling generals and lascivious countess'

I don't do historical battles. I prefer made up ones.

I'm in agreement that historical battles are useful for "testing" rules to see if plausible results are happening. As interesting games, not so much….