"Games or History" Topic

A friend of min put up two battle reports on my "Society of Daisy" group. Both of them were from World War Two, and both of them seemed terribly unbalanced, resulting in a walkover (almost) for one side. Many of the players on both sides noted the imbalance, BUT, no players thought it was a purposeful set up.

The reactions highlight what I think is a telling fault in gamers.

I know of no general in history who endeavored to go into a battle under equal terms with his enemy. Everyone of them sought to accrue to his own side all of the advantages and "edge" he could. That there were enormous debacles were not those in which the sides were equal but in fact either numerically woefully overmatched, or one side was possessed of information or advantages unknown by the other which tipped the balance.

For example, one side being given a copy of the others marching orders for the next week wrapped around a few cigars. If that were done in a war game the one side would howl! Just as the other side who got them would howl when told that they must obey in a dilatory fashion as the real life benefactor of those lost orders did. To put it abstractly if X and Y are the powers (from all sources) of the two forces in a game then X=Y must yield a bloodbath- in the old Avalon Hill combat results, and exchange on the one end or an "Aback 2" and a Dback2" on the other. The introduction of luck unless widely variable will not change the result 3.5Y=3.5Y and only when you bet 1X versus 6Y do you get a real change.

I think GAMERS we read history and are always looking for the game. That is, we think that battles are equal or there is some leveling factor in war, and there often can be, but that REAL leveling factor in games is not present. Imagine you saying to a gamer. You have the enemy right where you want him, you are on his flank with superior forces and superior weapons, but… you are an idiot and can only engage 1/4 of your force because you are operating under the illusion there is a vast enemy force about to strike your flank.

Perhaps the key is to forget about the game.

No one tells the actual commanders what the victory conditions are. They are confronted with situations usually NOT of their expectations and they must make do and determine their course of actions from the progress of the game. For example, if one side finds it is physically overmatched, do you hang on and fight, or fall back for a counter-attack, or to save the material you have. It goes to an estimation of the utility of sacrifice. Is this a perpetual game of Kobayashi Maru?

Or on the other hand, if we want the equity and equality of a game be that in dead equality of everything or imbalanced equality as the rule, then will we be content with wildly variant luck to avoid the dedening "exchange" and "Aback 2 and Dback 2" results. It's kind of hard to not go this route when so many rules assume the implications of, "All XXXXX are +3" and you can put in those X's French in the Napoleonic Wars, Prussians in the 7 years war, SS in WWII or whatever.

Me? I long ago opted for the wildly varying dictates of luck.

Tolstoy sort of wrote a book about this.

If you followed his interpretation your units would almost always act in a pretty random fashion and not do anything you wanted them to except by chance.

I think as gamers we look for battles that do give a good game in that the sides are evenly matched either by strength of forces or position.

If you don't play the hopeless game once in a while though you are missing out. Sometimes it is fun to be hopelessly outnumbered by the Mexicans with no chance of the Texan army coming to your relief.

I try to use history to "set the stage" for the game.

Once upon a time, I worked as a freelance developer for Dark Age Games. The rules and forces were incredibly balanced; at the end of most six turn fight-to-the-finish games, there would only be one or two survivors on the winning side.

So we introduced random scenario generation. It was a lot like the missions from WH40K 2nd edition. Each player would draw a mission from their own mission card deck, and that would be their own victory conditions. Maybe one side is trying to build fortified positions while under enemy fire and the other is trying to scavenge resources and get them off the gaming table. The fun thing was, you never really knew what the enemy was up to. Each faction had ten missions, and they frequently did not involve engaging the enemy.

I fully believe that scenarios with private victory conditions (meaning each side is unaware of the other's orders) can be used to balance totally uneven fights. 300 Spartans vs 10,000 Persians? The Spartan victory condition is to delay the Persians for a day, and then die to a man in glorious combat. The Persian victory condition is to engage the Spartans while sending scouts to find an alternate route. Spartans win if they survive past a certain game turn, Persians win if their scouts find the secret path before then.

Flames of War had a SAS/LRDG supplement that dealt wirh small units of raiders against larger forces. It was very well done and showcased how to play wholly unbalanced forces wirh equivalent winning conditions.

Scenarios. It's the way to play.

Dear Pictors and Punkrabbit

I tend to agree. I especially agree, punkrabbit, with your "Spartans" idea. That is, completely different conditions. I also put on a hopeless battle now and then, or stage a battle and let both sides decide their victory conditions, and if, at the end, they have won.

Doesn't seem to hurt the game at all.

The only problem is when find out they BOTH can win, or they BOTH can lose.

The only problem is when find out they BOTH can win, or they BOTH can lose.

Why is that a problem?

I think GAMERS we read history and are always looking for the game. That is, we think that battles are equal or there is some leveling factor in war, and there often can be, but that REAL leveling factor in games is not present. Imagine you saying to a gamer. You have the enemy right where you want him, you are on his flank with superior forces and superior weapons, but… you are an idiot and can only engage 1/4 of your force because you are operating under the illusion there is a vast enemy force about to strike your flank.

Perhaps the key is to forget about the game.

Then it is a problem with how the gamer is defining a 'balanced game' [everything even]rather than creating victory conditions in a scenario.

No one tells the actual commanders what the victory conditions are.

Really? I can think of a dozen situations off the top of my head where the actual commanders were told what the victory conditions were.

They are confronted with situations usually NOT of their expectations and they must make do and determine their course of actions from the progress of the game. For example, if one side finds it is physically overmatched, do you hang on and fight, or fall back for a counter-attack, or to save the material you have.

This is often true, but that doesn't negate commanders being given victory conditions.

It goes to an estimation of the utility of sacrifice. Is this a perpetual game of Kobayashi Maru?

Only if its designed to be.

Or on the other hand, if we want the equity and equality of a game be that in dead equality of everything or imbalanced equality as the rule, then will we be content with wildly variant luck to avoid the dedening "exchange" and "Aback 2 and Dback 2" results. It's kind of hard to not go this route when so many rules assume the implications of, "All XXXXX are +3" and you can put in those X's French in the Napoleonic Wars, Prussians in the 7 years war, SS in WWII or whatever.

Me? I long ago opted for the wildly varying dictates of luck.

That certainly is one game design option.

The only problem is when find out they BOTH can win, or they BOTH can lose.

That is a problem only if you see it as one. That certainly happened in historical battles. Pyrrhic Victories and all that.

I know of no general in history who endeavored to go into a battle under equal terms with his enemy. Everyone of them sought to accrue to his own side all of the advantages and "edge" he could.

Wanting to go into a battle with a clear advantage is a different thing than saying "No, I will not fight this fight because I lack a clear advantage." Sometimes, you gotta do what you gotta do. Especially, when the enemy brings the battle to you.

No one tells the actual commanders what the victory conditions are.

Along with McLaddie, unless you are talking about a militocracy, the supreme military commander is always under the control of the supreme political power, which tells them what constitutes victory.

Even in a militocracy, such as a raiding warband, political pressure from the other raiders at least shapes what constitutes victory conditions, if not clearly defines them.

Or on the other hand, if we want the equity and equality of a game be that in dead equality of everything or imbalanced equality as the rule, then will we be content with wildly variant luck to avoid the dedening "exchange" and "Aback 2 and Dback 2" results.

I think you leave out strategy. Beyond game (mechanics) and victory conditions (as well as the rest of the scenario), there is the players' decisions within their decision space. If you're playing a game where there is only one option, then you're not playing a game.

The only problem is when find out they BOTH can win, or they BOTH can lose.

Or they could both win or lose at the same time.

You have the enemy right where you want him, you are on his flank with superior forces and superior weapons, but… you are an idiot and can only engage 1/4 of your force because you are operating under the illusion there is a vast enemy force about to strike your flank

I've run that very scenario, only I told the superior force's commander (without calling him an idiot) that the outflanking force was really coming, and I put out a big tray of opposing forces in plain sight to drive the point home. Of course, I also told his outnumbered opponent that the outflanking force was really coming, and he only needed to hold out for a few turns.

Naturally they never arrived, but it certainly had an effect on the way the players perceived their respective positions.

Cruel? Maybe, but a little creative scenario design can make for some truly memorable games.

The point is not to force the players to act historically, but to place them in situations where they have to make the same kinds of choices as a historical commander.

I have absolutely no problem with it. Sometimes the players do. But then I'm a historian and read games as if they were history. That is, in many cases one side cannot win.

I got howls of protest when I ran a campaign where players got to chose their own victory conditions and it was possible for none, one, some, or all of the players to win.

Otto

For example, one side being given a copy of the others marching orders for the next week wrapped around a few cigars.

This gave me a little brain storm; rather than use actual written orders (which few players obey anyway), you could accomplish the same net effect by having one player participate in the set up of one side and then switch sides just before starting. There are some kinks to be worked out, but I'll have to try this some day.

- Ix

Along with McLaddie, unless you are talking about a militocracy, the supreme military commander is always under the control of the supreme political power, which tells them what constitutes victory.

While that is a good example, that isn't quite the command level I was thinking of. Just saw a BBC documentary on D-Day. EVERYONE were given objectives/victory conditions.

Napoleon gave his corps commanders objectives/missions/victory conditions, and they in turn did the same.

That being said, generals often had multiple 'victory conditions', some that could be in conflict, such as the British Commander French landing his five divisions in France, but told it was 90% of the British Army, so don't lose it while being given a generous swath of Belgium and France to defend.

I've enjoyed games where the players are given orders [that is, objectives], but also have personal goals and secondary victory possibilities. And both sides, with different objectives, could 'win' depending on what they achieved.

In certain scenarios/historical actions, that is quite 'realistic.'

Cruel? Maybe, but a little creative scenario design can make for some truly memorable games.

Not cruel, manipulative.

I'm totally going to steal that idea. Putting out a tray of troops "on the way" is a lovely bit of misdirection.

- Ix

McLaddie said:

[…]Just saw a BBC documentary on D-Day. EVERYONE were given objectives/victory conditions.

Napoleon gave his corps commanders objectives/missions/victory conditions, and they in turn did the same.

Excellent examples, but not necessarily typical. D-Day was one of the most thoroughly organized, coordinated and detailed military operations in history, and Napoleon was a notorious micromanager. Many commanders in history were more laissez-faire, less communicative, less competent, or had other reasons for being less coordinated. Admiral Rodney famously summarized his taciturn command style with the quote "the painful task of thinking belongs to me". Sadly, his haughty attitude was probably not rare in his own era, and perhaps not even in military history…

I've enjoyed games where the players are given orders [that is, objectives], but also have personal goals and secondary victory possibilities. And both sides, with different objectives, could 'win' depending on what they achieved.

Me too. I've sometimes gone one step farther and given each player an individual victory point score. The player at the end with the most VPs wins the game. In AoS naval games I even crafted unique "personalities" out of these victory conditions to set up the kinds of subordinate performance issues I wanted to see – some admirals woodenly and rigidly obeyed the letter of each order, some were too bold, some were cowards, some were political enemies and wouldn't support each other properly, etc.

War Artisan said:

The point is not to force the players to act historically, but to place them in situations where they have to make the same kinds of choices as a historical commander.

Well put, and precisely my view. I consider the definition of objectives to be part of the job of a general, so I prefer to set some overall victory conditions and let the player-commanders develop their own battlefield objectives to achieve them. In the games I've run, some players have formed an effective command staff and developed a plan; most haven't. Either way the results are entertaining for me as GM. The scenario design is a lot of fun, too.

- Ix

The point is not to force the players to act historically, but to place them in situations where they have to make the same kinds of choices as a historical commander.

Yes! Participatory Simulations create artificial environments for decision-making. If the environment does a good job of modeling the historical battlefield dynamics, then players will find that many of the historical decisions 'make sense' while being able to explore 'what ifs' of other decisions.

Excellent examples, but not necessarily typical.

YA:
I was only presenting them as examples. What do you think are 'typical'? [Knowing that we could be talking about a wide swath of military history]

I wasn't trying to suggest there is such a thing as "typical". The opposite, really. You gave two good examples of some kind of ideal staffwork which tries to guarantee everyone knows who's doing what/when/where, and proved your point nicely. I just meant that there are an awful lot of contrary examples too, when somebody was unprepared, uncoordinated, wrong-footed, taken by surprise, or maybe the staff just sucked at writing orders, making Otto's overstatement ("No one tells the actual commanders what the victory conditions are") a correct observation in some cases. Probably way too many cases, actually. No plan survives contact with the enemy and all that…

- Ix

Me? I long ago opted for the wildly varying dictates of luck.

I've been trying to get away from games dominated by luck, but they seem to be everywhere. I'd much rather play games that rely on an interesting decision cycle evocative of the period and the level of command. I don't mind luck in games, I just find many wargames suffer from an excess of monkey wrenches.

- Ix

I'm with YA on this too.

The wide swings of chance need to be reigned in sometimes so that decision making plays a part. Too often I have seen a player depending on luck win against superior (and historical) tactics – not games I really am interested in playing.

No plan survives contact with the enemy and all that…

Well, von Moltke said that, but he was a obsessive planner. I think it would be wrong to suggest that he and his army commanders didn't have or weren't given objectives/victory conditions that did survive.

In that pattern, when von Alvensleben 'ran into' the French army at Mars-la-Tours, he had to improvise 'objectives', yet they were all based on his understanding of his broader mission objectives and the overall plan to encircle the French armies… objectives that certainly survived first contact.

So, yes, there are certainly situations where the 'plan' goes out the window and new goals are determined in the moment.

Battle is the struggle between order and chaos, between objectives and necessity, between plans and the unexpected. Playing games that have wide swings of luck do emphasize how important it is to 'keep to the plan' rather than face every turn opportunistically, which is what many games, even those without wildly varying luck seem to reward.

And while I appreciate von Moltke's observation about no plan surviving first contact, the great captains including the man himself, often disprove that.

I agree that many games do suffer from an excess of monkey wrenches. Lots of chance layered about, but that isn't how systems work. There are weak points in organizations where a majority of the SNAFUs occur, and the enemy is employing very specific methods to inflict chaos. Certainly, the battlefield is a place where chance/friction has wide play, but chance doesn't cover the battlefield evenly an inch deep. It more often collects in 'predictable' places. Military men know this.