"Victory conditions in wargames" Topic

Perhaps it would be less confusing if we were all just called Glenn?

Chris:

Magersfontein is a very interesting action – if ever you get chance, the battlefield is well worth a visit. It looks more like a wargames table than any other battlefield I have ever seen: perfectly flat for as far as the eye can see, other than a hill plonked right in the middle. If you turned up for a game and saw terrain like that laid out on the table, you would think: 'this looks so unrealistic – he has made no effort'.

If you are interested in playing some battle from the Boer War, I suggest you get hold of 'Kruger, Kommandos and Kak' by Chris Ash – some of the best maps / ORBATS you'll see, and a very different take on a commonly misunderstood war.

Hi Glenn!

"how will you ever know if [a scenario is] perfect?"
Same way you decided who'd won when you called your incomplete Waterloo game – consensual decision among consenting adults. At some point it becomes as much art as science.

"[multiple objectives and multiple ways of winning] only means that you have a bigger box"
Which is fine if it's big enough. All wargames rules are a box. The only way to truly allow unrestricted thinking outside the box is to go down a kind of RPG+Kriegsspiel route, with an umpire to arbitrate whatever wacky and unconventional stratagems and ruses players come up with.

"[In a VP-based game] A plan that allows [players] to destroy most of the opposition but fails to gain the majority of VPs is of no direct value to them. That severely limits their plan selection."
Conversely, if a game is judged only by casualties/ cohesion, in a battle like Mars-la-Tour where casualties are of relatively little consequence and geographical distance covered is everything, a plan that allows the Germans to pin the French in front of Gravelotte at cost of severe battering of the pinning force is of no value to them, even though in the real campaign it could have been a strategic victory. Or battles where one side is doomed, like Sedan, or The Alma.

Let's just say both approaches have their merits and both have their limitations, and there will be occasions when one approach needs to be moderated by some use of the other. (As per AussieAndy's comment.)

GreenLeader: thanks for the recommendations.

Chris
Bloody Big BATTLES!
link
bloodybigbattles.blogspot.co.uk

Hello Bill!

Sorry, but I had to go on a mission from God (the wife) yesterday. So I didn't have time to address your last paragraph.

I'm certainly glad to hear that your writing a Napoleonic rule set. Your understanding of the period is top notch. You have certainly enlightened me on more then one occasion. Your brief explanation sounds like you might even have found a hole in the market place that has not been properly addressed before. Good luck and please keep TMP or at least me (the only true Glenn) updated.

Best regards,

Glenn

Hello Chris!

Thanks again for addressing my comments. I would however, like to respond.

Yes indeed all rules create a box to some degree. Except conventional rules are generally limited to trying to create a level playing field. Which is normally limited to how you do things and that they will apply to all games. VP games put restrictions on individual scenarios. It basically adds a layer of rules that tightens or restricts the rules to some degree. Thus the expression in a box.

You can certainly have objectives with casualty/cohesion based battles. You simply set the threshold or time limit. etc. There is no need to have VPs to play those kind of battles. We play unbalanced games all the time and find those to be some of our best. VPs are certainly not a requirement to good scenario design.

Sorry Chris, but I've never seen any value in VP games. If anything they seem to be exactly the opposite, take value away.

Best regards,

Glenn

OK, Glenn, if that's how you see it, that's how you see it.

Chris

I suppose Victory Points, like Army Lists and Point Systems, are a useful tool for those who are gaming just to achieve a result ("You lose!"). They are much less so for those who are gaming to recreate a historical narrative.

The best parts of wargaming, for me, are the parts where something happens for reasons similar to those that impacted historical events; for example, when a flank march arrives late because the player failed to scout the terrain and underestimated the amount of time it would take, as opposed to drawing a "Bad Terrain" card; or when an attack bogs down because the player provided insufficient supporting artillery, as opposed to just rolling lousy numbers on the dice.

The importance of terrain features on a battlefield doesn't derive from some sort of intrinsic value, but from the function that they serve in the context of the player's plans and goals. In the same way that this could change during a historical battle, there must be the possibility that it could change during the course of a game.

As a "narrative" wargamer (as opposed to one whose reason for playing is just to "win"), I don't want to think "I'll hold this village because it's worth 3 VP" – I want to think "If I occupy this village that anchors my flank, it will require so much time to take it away that I'll have time to bring up reinforcements". I don't want to think "I'll take that crossroads because it's worth 2 VP" – I want to think "If I have possession of the crossroads, I'll be able to move my cavalry reserve quickly to either flank."

I would quickly grow bored with fighting over Victory Point totals because, for me, historical wargames are about the history, not about the game.

Jeff

I would quickly grow bored with fighting over Victory Point totals because, for me, historical wargames are about the history, not about the game.

Jeff:

I appreciate your view and agree for the most part. I do play wargames as a game and enjoy the experience, but for different reasons than when I play historical wargames for the historical narrative--what we experience of history and the story we create within that experience.

Both kinds of wargames have their place. The problem is when a game design is touted as providing both game and history in equal measure… but doesn't.

While certainly more difficult than designing 'just a game', creating a historical wargame can, if done right, provide both a good game and a satisfying historical experience.

Not having victory points probably works for us because we are a bunch of history buffs who happen to enjoy playing wargames. We understand that just because a player may have won according to the terms of the game does not mean that commander would have won in the real world.

For example if you are doing Gettysburg on Day 1, and if Heth's troops sweep through the town and secure Cemetary Hill before Reynolds' infantry arrives, that would likely constitute a major win in wargame circles. In reality it would not matter much. Unless Heth is isolated, Reynolds isn't likely to throw his troops against the Confederate line just to recover Cemetary Hill or some other geographic point on the field. Instead he will be looking for the next good position to confront the invaders, and Gettysburg becomes just another skirmish in Lee's Pennsylvania campaign.

Bill N:

I appreciate your points and the one you make about Day 1 Gettysburg. My view too. And playing the wargame for the history… and vice versa is the way we play most of the time. Even so, I enjoy wargames that don't emphasize history too.

So, some folks play wargames for the competition and clean, clear victory conditions/points are important…

and others play for the history and more varied and real world criteria.

Both are great approaches providing players with what they want. I think the debates occur when the designer claims to have provided both in one set of wargame rules without ever really explaining how that is accomplished…

Hmm

But while you are all right that terrain objectives in themselves had no instrinsic value, the reality is that the concept of "battle of annihilation" was operationalised, especially in the 18th and later centuries) via "holding or taking ground".

From our own limited experience in Turkey we always felt that BBB with its terrain objectives produced a feel that better matched descriptions of the battles we read of, compared to BP were we usually played with no clear objectives. I think it makes sense to guide the players towards what seemed as the logical possible central points in the battle to the commanders who fought it (which seems to be the design strategy Chris uses).

We are not competitive players, but the existence of terrain obejectives help us create a narrative that either matches the historical outcome or was a plausible counter-factual.

I must ask if the issue is not partly conflating the grand tactical with the operational levels of strategy? Battles were fought to control ground, but operations were designed to lead the foe to a position that would force him to surrunder?

One of the major problems with VPs is your using "hindsight" as your guide. You know who won, why and where.

Real commanders had a reasonable sense of what might happen and where. In fact they planned it as best they could. But they certainly never had the certainty that VPs provide.

If your looking at trying to replicate the battle as much as possible, or to "script it" as some call it. Then VPs can be of value. From my experience this is not what most players want when they play historical scenarios. They want to see if they can do better then their historical counterparts. If their locked into objectives that even the enemy knows, their options are severely limited.

In actual battle some terrain objectives are certainly identified at some point in time by both sides. But these are not always know by the enemy and are often fluid. Sometimes places that were thought to be important don't pan out, while others were never realized until late in the battle, if at all.

Enemy concentrations are not always known and as these shift during the course of the battle the opposition can very easily come up short if they don't respond. If players are tied to terrain objectives as the only way of winning a game they will rarely respond to the actual dynamics taking place beyond the objectives. So players are encouraged to act in way that was at times foolish in an actual battle. It's like asking a person to look for lost silver dollars on a race track, during a race and telling them the more they get the better their chances of winning the race.

An actual battle is something that is very fluid with changing objectives and anything that limits or detracts from that changes the dynamics.

My wife and I wargame a lot. All of our games are generated by a PBEM campaign, so we have no control over the game objectives. They are usually quite simple objectives. Hold a town, attack the enemy. The wargame is often quite different from the intention of the campaign player, because we make extensive use of "march to the sound of the guns" and most battles involve more corps than either side intended.

We use our own wargame rules, and they rely heavily on Command and Control, morale and dice. I would say they are very much "old school". Over the past six years we have gamed 195 campaign battles.

We do not use Victory Points.

The larger battles have a CinC and up to four corps per side. The smallest would be one corps v one corps. The game starts with the campaign objective. The CinC can then change each corps objective. If a single corps per side the corps commander decides objective. In a larger game the corps commander can always halt, but only the CinC can change the objective.

It is relatively difficult to inflict casualties, which are usually 10% of brigade strength. The brigade then has to test morale. A trained brigade can usually take 20% casualties, but is likely to break with 30%. Any friendly brigade within 4" then has to test their own morale.

All wargames last a maximum of twelve moves. We have found that smaller battles are usually decided within eight moves. Larger battles sometimes have to add an extra move to get a result. But every single game we have played has been decided on morale. And every single game has had a clear winner and loser.

Early loss of morale is not critical, but as casualties are received throughout the corps each morale test becomes critical. As brigades become brittle one rout can easily result in many more.

The end result is that the corps simply ceases to be capable of carrying out their game objective.

It is always very clear which side has won.

We have used a lot of commercial rules over the years, and have found fault with them all. This is because we have always gamed a lot, and quickly found the weakeness of each set of rules. Any attempt to correct one problem area usually led to other unexpected consequences. Because these rules are tailored to the type of games we like to play they have provided enjoyable games time after time.

From my reading it would appear that most, if not all, battles ended when one side was no longer able to overcome the enemy. I don't think the taking, or loss, of objectives in itself was the deciding factor. It was when one side realised that they could no longer hope to defeat the enemy.

I must ask if the issue is not partly conflating the grand tactical with the operational levels of strategy? Battles were fought to control ground, but operations were designed to lead the foe to a position that would force him to surrunder?

KTravlos:
That is a good question. If we are talking about a brigade or divisional commander, then 'controlling ground' may well be the typical combat mission. Even at the corps level it *could be*. There are battles where taking particular ground is indeed a battle objective, a strategic objective. The Boer War provides a couple of good examples.

However, for an army commander, battles were fought for strategic and/or operational objectives, which often wasn't about controlling particular ground. It all depended on the strategic situation. i.e. Terrain objectives may or may not work at all.

So, my absolute, definitive stand on terrain objectives in war games is "It depends." It depends on:

1. The game design objectives
2. The scale of the game
3. The time period of game [Alexander the Great fighting over terrain at Gaugamela??]
4. The particular battle. For instance, at Worth in 1871, neither side had 'terrain objectives' beyond holding or forcing the other side to retreat. The terrain was simply something they fought over. The French could lose every bit of defensible terrain and still stop the Prussians from either forcing them to retreat, rout, or destroy them.

I just think it just fine to have all battle objectives involve terrain for wargame scenarios. But as a historical generalization or 'The One Way' to portray realistic victory conditions, it isn't defensible at all.

Best Regards, Bill