"Fighting a pointless battle" Topic

Even though I don't play the rules, I really like the British Grenadier scenario books.
Although I have Ward, Boatner, etc I like the way th book constructs scenarios. And the ones I have researched, I agree with BG's take on them. So I feel no compunction about using it for a guide for more obscure battles.

When I saw Book 4 was out, I had to have it. I immediately "did" Bennington, having already painted and washer based most of what I needed. All I needed to do was paint the famous Band. They served as a baggage guard. Nice small battle, perfect for a TSATF Flames of Liberty.
Not pnly was it doable, but it was "important", being a pivotal battle in the Saratoga campaign.

Springfield was … not so important. Until I read that BG4 would have it, I had never heard of it. Ward gives it a few short pages in a chapter dedicated to "other" battles.
The British C-in-C (the battle was so obscure I forget who he was) wondered what Washington was up to. So he sent Knyphausen over to New Jersey to find out. Curious, Washington sent Greene to find out what Knyphausen was up to. Not much, really.
Here we have a relatively large ( by AWI standards) meeting engagement by two armies with not much to do. A brief clash, minor atrocity (the Hessians shot a pastor's wife) and they separated and went about their business.
As soon as I saw the rather large OOB I immediately saw the possibilities for an Age of Reason game. This is our go to rules for battles this size. Darrell is our AoR guru and has a large 15mm SYW Prussian army. He and Roger have large AWI armies.
So we had a fun battle, with a lot more aggression than the Real Battle had. I bloodied my nose trying to force a creek and bridge into what is probably presently a dumpy strip mall.
We had probably ten times or more casualties than in the original battle.

A battle need not be important to make a good game. Springfield is a very obscure battle, much less important than many much smaller battles. It gave us an excuse to trot out the minis.
Not all battles need be Gettysburg or Waterloo or Stalingrad. This was not part of any vital campaign. It was just … there. But it was a good game.

Great idea, effectively presented too.

This is why I wargame.

I like painting. The game is fun.

But it's the 'back story", the thinking, the research & planning that makes wargaming so compelling for me.

Well done, Winston. You've mapped out that experience we all seek.

Any battle is a good game. They certainly don't have to be one of the "Big Ones." They were certainly important to the guys on the firing line. My GG grandfather's civil war service record notes that he was involved in a "skirmish at Buzzard's Roost."

Springfield can be such an interesting "What if … " battle. We did it back in 2004. link

For more information about it, see the Wiki page: link

Jim

I don't have all my notes or scenario books with me but I would encourage caution when using the BG scenarios. Some of them are very good and then a few of them I have to wonder where they got their information? Are we talking about the same battle?

Off the top of my head, one example would be "Hubbardton Save the Guns." I think it is called. What guns? None of my sources show that there were any artillery at that battle. Was there more than one battle of Hubbardton? What am I missing here?

I agree BG is a good source but only to be used as one of several sources. They are the best set of AWI scenarios available but they are not perfect.

Use some other sources to make sure they got it right. Use with a little caution. I am sure the torches and pitchforks are coming down the road looking for me.

I don't rely on wargames scenarios for accurate history. All to often what makes for good history makes for a lousy wargame and vice versa.

Some of the most fun battles to game are the "almost happened" ones. Where two armies were in the area, maybe even drew up in battle lines, but somehow an engagement never occurred. The historical forces and their positions give a good jumping off point.

Glad to hear BG4 is giving some good games, I'll have to give it a look.

Any battle is a good game.

Not true. Some are so one-sided as to be pointless. As an example, take Yermak Timofeevich's defeat of the Sibir Tatars. The Cossacks fired one volley from their matchlocks and the Tatars fled the field. Not a good game. Yet this is the victory that reputedlywon Siberia for Russia.

In wargaming a battle is only pointless if no one had fun and everyone leaves grouchy.

Looks like that scenario could make a good game for more than one era.