"Does TMI Ruin Historical Scenarios?" Topic

Are scenarios based on historical battles (especially well-known battles) spoiled due to players knowing too much about the battle?

It can, I suspect.

Best not to give them the name of the battle, or other revealing info in such cases.

I don't think so. I think as gamers, interested in various periods of history, we tend to game interesting battles that we have read about to see if, maybe it turns out differently.

That is the way I look at it. Besides the initial set up, once the game starts it will not play out as it did in history. The end result of who won or lost the battle might be the same, but it is interesting to see how the outcome came to be.

Matthew

It can, especially if there are reinforcement arrivals or victory conditions that must be satisfied. Hard to overcome.

Overall, I agree with 45thdiv, though.

Mike

No. I vastly prefer playing historical battles compared to hypothetical ones. Always interesting to see how they turn out.

The real high point of scenario design is when the game follows the historical course driven soley by player decisions (rather than lots of complex scenario specific rules).

Bringing history too life and all that.

They can be. Waterloo plays differently when everyone knows the Prussians arrive on turn 4.

One thing a GM can do is disguise the battle by either not telling the participants ahead of time what the battle is or setting the battle in an alternate period. Pharsalus in the ACW or Gettysburg with Napoleonics can be interesting and suspend the issues around pre-existing knowledge although really distinctive and well known terrain such as Gettysburg or Waterloo might be blindingly obvious.

It really isn't an issue. If both sides know then all is even. You maybe surprise how little the players know about well known battles.

Just give each side their own OB, reinforcement schedule and victory conditions. If they bothered to look at the scenario book then good for them. They are a little less in the fog than others. I wouldn't worry about it.

If they read up on the actual battle, then good for them. They should get an advantage for doing their homework. But it won't make that much of a difference when the game starts. They are too focused on what is in front of them or on their flanks to remember details about the battle. It is a non-issue.

I am more concern with the thousand foot General that can see over the ridge at Waterloo.

Not sure when that everyone who sees the title will understand what TMI means. I didn't, but I bothered to look, some wont. When I see TMI the first thing that comes to mind is Three Mile Island.

Why would such a scenario be spoiled? Spoiled in what sense?

Lots of similar questions from the editor lately show a rather limited view of what a wargame can or should be. A wargame should never solely be a game in which the only purpose is for a player to win and beat the opponent.

Lots of similar questions from the editor lately show a rather limited view of what a wargame can or should be.

I think the editor trying to generate conversations… but maybe he just wants to learn from you. You in the plurality of TMP

Yep, it's just for discussion's sake and to set up a future poll. I don't see what's wrong with it at all, and they don't really "show" anything in particular.

yes

No plan survives contact with the enemy.
So as soon as a die roll goes different than expected, or you opponent tries something new, it seems all bets were off.

I did a Waterloo board game not too long ago, where I (French) went after Brits hard and just did a screening action with Prussians. Totally confused my opponent.

Why would such a scenario be spoiled? Spoiled in what sense?

It wouldn't spoil anything. Using that logic we would never do a battle more than once. We have done the same historical scenario dozens of times over the years.

I put on a historical scenario a while back at one of our monthly games. Everyone wanted to do it the very next month. We did it again and it did not make any difference that everyone knew what was going to happen.

Heck we played the 1st Day at Gettysburg so many times we had the OB memorized. It has had very little affect on the game.

What about board games?

Do I throw away my "Panzerarmee Afrika" game just because we played it once and it is now spoiled? Of course not. I have played it dozens of times against the same opponents.

Are scenarios based on historical battles (especially well-known battles) spoiled due to players knowing too much about the battle?

No, but they do have to be tweaked. Arthur Harman has written lots of interesting things in various magazines over the years on disguised and transposed scenarios. And there are certain battles which are just different if you play them with full hindsight because the optimal strategy is so different: Waterloo being the prime example.

In scenarios capturing a real battle where surprise elements played a decisive role (Waterloo, to name but a famous) then TMI (too much information) will play a role.

To overcome these, you need to use random factors (eg Waterloo: roll starting round 3: 1-3 arrives, 4-6 not – which may mean they arrive earlier or not at all).

In battles with objectives, or with different chances to win, play twice with swapped sides, then compare results, if you want to be competetive. Or just play once for fun.

Campaigns are imho more fun, giving sense to a battle rather then fighting for set objectives.

Factors:
Was there a decisive surprise?
basically anything you know they did not, that had an impact might work against the game.
It can be weighed into the victory conditions, can be made random, working with hidden forces helps…
Otherwise, if the game set up is somewhat not totally fixed, if a bit of randomization( troops quality, strength, variable reinforcements) are played with, your battle won't be so " historical" but more fun.
Anyway if your rules do not give the apropriate results, your terrain is not accurate not to speak of the oob, your refight will not be historical either.

Campaigns are great, but so often someone falls out and folks lose enthusiasm.

Some times it is worth tinkering with a known scenario – dice for when Blucher arrives at Waterloo, where he arrives. Dice to see if Grouchy appears!

Tally Ho!

To continue with the Waterloo example.

So the French player is aware Blücher is arriving. I never had a problem with this. What are the French players options. Send enough troops to defeat or hold off the Prussians for the remainder of the battle? If he does that he weakens his position versus the British.

The ability of the French to attack the British is diminished, if they can advance at all. The British may go on the attack earlier. So even though the French player is aware of the coming Prussian attack, he still has basically the same decision to make as Bonaparte.

Napoleon was able to react to it. He kept sending troops to Plancenoit until he had to find a way to defeat the British before the Prussians fell on his flank. He had time to react to them. They didn't just magically appear directly on his flank and rear.

He just didn't have enough troops to both hold them off and attack the British. Foreknowledge of the Prussians attack on such and such turn doesn't help that much. You only have so many troops. I see no harm in dicing for the Prussians, but I see no reason to.

How would you handle a Battle like Monmouth Courthouse? You might want to dice for the arrival of the British flank attack. Depends if the river is fordable or not.

He just didn't have enough troops to both hold them off and attack the British. Foreknowledge of the Prussians attack on such and such turn doesn't help that much. You only have so many troops. I see no harm in dicing for the Prussians, but I see no reason to.

It changes Napoleon's optimal strategy: the odds against the French are only going to get worse as the day goes on, regardless of any attrition the French do. This is particularly true in a wargames situation, which tend (IMHO) to be faster and more decisive than IRL.

Yes – without a doubt – a player is not going to make the same dumb mistakes as the real generals did – for example, why would you keep charging squares and getting repulsed as done at Waterloo? And you know when the Prussians are going to arrive, so you get ready in time.