aapch45 | 28 Nov 2015 8:29 p.m. PST |
I have been playing with the idea of a true general's perspective wargame. Ancient warfare was all about orders, and everything set it's self into motion *with the exception of sub-commands. Would simulation of an ancient battle be possible without physical representation? Thanks Austin |
Garth in the Park | 28 Nov 2015 8:31 p.m. PST |
Without miniatures, specifically? Or without any playing pieces whatsoever? I suppose you could play a tabletop game with just pencil and paper. |
aapch45 | 28 Nov 2015 8:33 p.m. PST |
I mean with no physical representations at all. Simply paper and some kind of means of simulating combat (dice, cards etc) |
aapch45 | 28 Nov 2015 8:35 p.m. PST |
Maybe the use of grid paper, but nothing more |
Garth in the Park | 28 Nov 2015 8:45 p.m. PST |
Sure, role-players have been doing that for years. |
Condotta | 28 Nov 2015 8:59 p.m. PST |
Yes. Truly. We are currently engaged in a campaign with over ten players and an umpire. link This is a true general's perspective war game. You must act like a general, issue orders, be aware of every little detail, from patrols to resupply. Failure in any point can lead to defeat. This may seem too detailed and yet it's not. Once you grasp the role of the general, and are actively involved, it flows smoothly and simply. The general keeps the big picture, issues orders, and expects subordinates to carry them out. Of course, the couriers sometimes are delayed, lost or captured, so best send multiple couriers and have contingency plans. 😊 We use this board game as a reference, but the campaign and resulting battles are all played out with no physical representations. We do use dice, a map and the umpire keeps track of everything. The cool thing is that once the physical limitations of a tabletop battle are removed, players separated by great distances can play together in huge battles that can last weeks. |
Grelber | 28 Nov 2015 9:17 p.m. PST |
I would have thought that approach would work less well for Ancients and Medievals than for more modern forces. In many cases, generals in these periods were expected to lead their troops from the front, and actively engage in combat, and using figures would be much better than some arcane pencil and paper calculation when deciding whether or not your leader (i.e., you) dies. Not at all like the command post General Fredendal was building in North Africa where he could sit and direct troop movements on a map. Grelber |
bsrlee | 28 Nov 2015 9:19 p.m. PST |
What, like 'The Sun Never Sets' by the late Larry Brom? More abstract games have been out there for a long time, Diplomacy being one such. |
TKindred | 28 Nov 2015 11:25 p.m. PST |
bsrless: Oh man, I LOVE Diplomacy. My old club made up a new 4'X8' board and replaced the wooden pieces with WWI type minis on special bases. We'd play with teams for each country, usually 3-4, and expected all the players to have formal wear. Rent it for the evening if you didn't have it. Guys would make sashes and add all sorts of fake awards, etc. Had an umpire to take all the written orders, and read each aloud before moving the pieces accordingly. It was a blast. We had wine and hors deuvres, and afterward, retired for Brandy and cigars. I always thought it was the way that wargames ought to be played. |
Flashman14 | 29 Nov 2015 2:19 a.m. PST |
Possible, yes; desirable, no. It's a different hobby. |
Martin Rapier | 29 Nov 2015 2:30 a.m. PST |
Possible, yes of course. As above RPGs an dialogue based games (manual and computer) have been doing this for years. Just set up a committee game with individual briefings and off you go. |
advocate | 29 Nov 2015 3:32 a.m. PST |
The British army trained (and my still train) their officers using TEWTs – tactical operations without troops. |
Trebian | 29 Nov 2015 3:34 a.m. PST |
Of course it is possible and at the risk of inflaming the thread it isn't a different hobby at all if you are talking about wargaming. I've played several Peloponnesian War games at the Conference of Wargamers where the armies are represented by cards or pieces of paper with numbers on them. The SoA's "Get Sparta" is a bit confusing but it doesn't need figures and is a very good simulation of hoplite warfare. And of course there's the Field of Glory card game produced by Treefrog games. |
zippyfusenet | 29 Nov 2015 6:41 a.m. PST |
Could you? Of course. But this site here is The Miniatures Page, because most of us love toy soldiers and want to play with them. |
RavenscraftCybernetics | 29 Nov 2015 7:38 a.m. PST |
that's play by mail and email. |
gunnerphil | 29 Nov 2015 8:08 a.m. PST |
But what trying to achieve? Was there an ancient battle were general could not see troops. Or do you mean a campaign were senate is sending orders to a legion in the field? If using map or gridded paper is that not a board game? Advocate, TEWT is tactical exercise without troops. |
Frederick | 29 Nov 2015 9:39 a.m. PST |
Sure but what's the point then |
Yellow Admiral | 29 Nov 2015 2:00 p.m. PST |
TKindred – those Diplomacy games sound awesome. I would play any wargame run that way, even Diplomacy. :-) I apologize in advance for dragging you into this new thread about special/unusual/unique wargames, but I think this topic bears further discussion. I'm with the others here who don't quite understand what the OP is driving at. I've played ancients games with miniatures, hexes and counters, and cards. I could imagine doing it as a pure thought experiment with some written records… but why? It would be sort of like the tactical game in AH War & Peace, which is great for punctuating the strategic sweep of the game with a little period tactical flavor, but not very satisfying as a "battle" game. If you don't represent "units" in some way, you lose most of the psychological attachment to the proceedings. - Ix |
Rick Don Burnette | 29 Nov 2015 9:59 p.m. PST |
Is it possible? Yes, Paddy Griffith used to do his " black" games w/o miniatures and had one in his Book of Sandhurst Wargames. Michael Korns SUTC (Small Unit Tactical Combat) is done mostly or entirely w/o miniatures. Indeed there are far too many miniatures on the table. And if it weren't for certain hobby traditions, such as the displaying of the art work aka historical miniatures, and the problem of hidden units w/o an umpire, there'd be fewer displayed figures. But that's part of the hobby, most everyone wants to show h is art work and do not want the thankless task of umpiring. I am one of the few who doesn't mind, indeed, finds it necessary for using indeterminate figures as the identification of vehicles and troops with the precision in the traditional or most games doesn't historically exist. But the game's are far more of a social event than a masters thesis on some historical event, indeed, contrary to a lot of claims that these games are in some way authentic historical simulations, they are not, not even the uniforms nor weapons statistics. A read of Sledge to Marshal yo Keegan to Chandler would reveal how uncertain the identification process is, how important recon and Intel are. But the game wouldn't be a friendly chess game, but a savage poker match among card sharps |
Dexter Ward | 30 Nov 2015 3:48 a.m. PST |
Lost Battles can be played without miniatures with pencil and paper. That's definitely a generals-eye view. |