"Removing TMI from Historical Battles" Topic

The recent discussions about Too Much Information (TMI) with respect to historical games got me to wondering if a technique I use in non-historical games could be adopted and adapted for historical scenarios.

The Non-Historical Version: Players have a core, known set of objectives that equate to victory points, usually four to six of them per side. Sometimes the objectives are symmetric, but not always. Secretly, before the game each side is assigned a "major" objective and a "worthless" objective. The major objective awards give double (or more) points and worthless ones give not points (but still may be required to achieve other objectives).

This creates a situation where all the players generally know what the others are about, but not precisely.

You can tweak the approach by altering the number and type of objectives, how many (including zero) bonuses and worthless ones, and how much opponents know about others' variability in objectives. For example, a degenerate case of this occurs by placing the J-A of diamonds on the board, then randomly distributing three of the J-A of the other suits to players, face down. Players only score for obtaining (whatever that means in the scenario) the objectives in their "hand", scoring double (or triple) for repeats. Usually, we turn face up the leftover cards to increase the information value of what you have in your hand (that is what others don't have in their hands).

For A Historical Game: There is a standard set of simple victory conditions that are common and unchangeable, such as take or defend the Masada and minimize your losses. Then there would be a known set of "bonus" objectives that relate to the historical strategies or tactics of the participants. The more of these you achieve, the more additional victory points you get. And there are a secret set of adjustments to the value of the objectives know only to the appropriate players. Points should be distributed so you can win the main objective and still lose the game.

This could create a situation where players are incentivized to follow representative strategies and tactics, but not bound to do so.

Does this sound viable? Do you think the historical scenarios you play are amenable to identifying workable "intermediate" objectives like that? Might this guide players who are less interested in the history of a conflict to get more involved in that side?

It's viable.

I've done something similar with a Sikh War battle where if you don't throw in some victory conditions that limit Sikh aggressiveness, the British get rolled up.

Not sure how I'd make that work at say Antietam, but it has value.

I almost always tailor each sides objectives to what is culturally appropriate for the period/battle, and keep them secret from the enemy.

Sometimes this might include something like 'make one major tactical blunder during the game'.

I find narrative objectives easier to work with than assigning points to hill X or whatever.

I almost always tailor each sides objectives to what is culturally appropriate for the period/battle, and keep them secret from the enemy.

I agree that is a must. The TMI issue comes in when everybody already knows that the secret objectives are because they know the history. I am just wondering if the bonus/worthless approach would take some of that out of it.

change cardinal directions, fight in a different period (Talavera using ACW), Flip the map.

Just a few

etotheipi
you have missed the whole tmi problem
it is not about a knowledge of mere objectives but about knowledge in general, of capabilities, forces and intentions. the ridiculous nature of traditional non umpired games can be seen on the flames of war vietnam terrain box where the vietnamese and american figures are all in plain view in a jungle setting (the featured terrain) with of course in the rules available to all the statistics for all sides, all ghe unjt capabilities and morale.
in a word, without an umpire, tmi exists, and even with that umpire tmi exists
i his Busting the Bocage, Doubler goes through the pfoblem solving of breaking through the bocage, something the gamer doesnt have to do because he already knows the solution
real lack of info is like watching The Sixth Sense the first time. All are games, no matter how well umpired are like
watching the movje again

There are already a number of known techniques for obscuring perfect knowledge about location, composition, and capabilities of forces.

As far as intentions goes, that is exactly what changing the value of the objectives gives – ambiguity WRT opponents' intentions. A player may know a historical solution to a problem, but the definition of the problem is dependent on their opponents' intentions which are no longer constant.

Actually, I thought the "big reveal" in The Sixth Sense was pretty obvious about a quarter to a third of the way through the movie the first time I saw it. Most fiction with a surprise ending is fairly predictable because you know there is an intent to twist something around.

For example, what if at Gettysburg, you triple the incentive of the Confederates to take out the 6th Wisconsin on the flank and give them no points for attacking the center?

limiting the knowledge regarding intentions does nothing regarding forces or capabilities
that the solution to the bocage is known has notiing to do with intentions. only a change in the obstacle, from bocage to say jungle, would deny the gamer the hindsight benefit.
what is worse is the full knowledge of not only your own forces and capabilities, but also those of the opposing force. a partial solution is secret dice rolls and results, yet the suspicion of cheating would exist unless umpired
in the average unit, you dont even know if your troops will fight, or their weapons ready, they are not hardly ss nor rangers, their weapons and vehicles prone to malfunction, that the troops will desert or lose their way or, in the case of ww2 russians, germans and japanese, engage in atrocities
a stand or figure or model on the table IS SEEN BY ALL EVEN IF NOT spotted. Anyone who has played in a double blind game comes away with thatnew appreciation of limited intelligence that cannot be had otherwise

No matter what you do the gamers already have "too much information." They know it is a game, and they know that as part of a game it must obey certain rules of equity. That is there must be general equality of forces and objectives, or what used to be called balanced equality, and they know it's a battle. That's obvious- by inspection, they're there. But this assumes a quality that is completely absent in real battles. Real life commanders have NO desire to arrange equal battles where the other guy has a chance, and in fact strive to accrue EVERY advantage to their side. They would chose a 9 to 1 superiority in all things if they could get it, and in fact in World War II and around there which I seem to infer you are speaking of most battles ARE that way. So the MORE realistic way of doing it is not to worry about fog of war, TMI or equality but in effect to make "walkover games" where both sides are evaluated as to how well they did, even though one side may, in fact, be walked over.

The other way to do it, which I have seen tried (never successfully) is to insure one side is the chuckleheaded idiot by TELLING him he is the chuckleheaded idiot, which goes like this. "OK, you have the French and your opponent has the Prussians, and this is Rossbach, and the scenario mandates that you, French Commander, are an idiot and must function idiotically. The French commander's eyes will begin flicker over to the "EXIT" door in the room and he will start physically edging himself out of the room.

Another method I've seen used is giving the French points FOR acting idiotically, that is for every unit he loses he gets points and so forth but all of those collapse because the commander does not FEEL he has won or that it is a valid game.

Interestingly, my own victory point system is similar to yours, in that each side has fourtypes of Victory points they can have. Strategic spot, which is some point on the table top which if the enemy has a unit on he gets 1 VP. Each side can distribute these as he wishes. Vital units, which is a camp, HQ, and Line of Retreat which he can likewise distribute as he wishes. Again these are gained at game end by whoever has units standing on them. Critical Casualties, that is if he eliminates an enemy unit, a die roll is made and if he gets a 5 or 6, he gets a victory card which is not subject to capture or loss, and finally an Achievment card, which if he accomplishes some deed, like getting to a certain spot, or bringing about a certain condition he likewise gets a card.

But the methodology of the game is one which gives widely diverging results and allows things to happen quickly.

The enemy may have a preponderately huge advantage in troops on one flank, but in most games movement is so limited and inching like caterpillers, that the inferior side knows it may not even get into contact 6 hours later when the game must end. In my game if you have initiative, and make the move a unit can go from one corner of the table top to the extreme opposite corner in a single move. There are three mthods of movment, one which can allow a whole wing of an army to come down on an enemy, even flank him from off the table top, in a single turn. Which means you have to guard your flanks. Thus there is no need to disguise things or worry about TMI.

Finally some of the very objects of the game mitigate mightily against TMI. The forests in my game are literally "boxes" hexagonal ones into which you can put troops and snap down the lids, and no one can see what is in the forest- empty- a few skirmishes- the enemy reserves. Indeed many I shte game where the player forgets his own troops he has placed there. Troops can also be placed "in reserve" that is off the table, and hidden in a box, and on a future move, if they make the required roll enter at any point on their baseline.

You cannot prevent TMI, you can only render moot it's effectiveness by allowing decisiveness.

there is another way to mitigate tmi
the campaign. no not the socalled campaign that is merely grand tactical but a true strategic campaign, perhaps using a strategic board game to determine the tactical miniatures encounters
problem here is the better strategist will get his 9 or perhaps only 6 to the others 1 and the miniatures game which is what the hobby is all about, is ruined
and i have seen the walkovers from such campaigns
also, in my double blind skirmish game, i have seen the player conditioned to limited intel dance around others who become timid as they no longer have the crutch of the on the table placed but not spotted figures, to include at least one instance where the timid gamer hid for the game
a chess like tradition, where i always know on what square i am, what piece it is and which side it is on destroys any pretense to claiming our games as anything more
and yet every historical simulation miniatures set has much ink and art devoted to, well, the carrying weight and coloration of a swallow. all these colors and stats always inspires me to ask why not pink shermans firing 8 inch shells, as all the pai ti g guides and stats translated into to hit or odds charts are highly debatable as can be shown by comparing games. indeed, some ww2 combat troops did wear pink and for some tanks they are invincible in the game
it is more than tmi, it is the use of twi the wrong info

Dear Rick

That problem is easy. In my campaign which I am presently running I use the device of "Strategic Units" which in my case are an army and a brigade. These Strategic units are composed of a fixed number of table top units. All armies for all states and all brigades for all states have the identical number of units , for armies about 25, for Brigades 7, and a few officers. Brigades however come in 7 to 9 different types, or 4 units of type (line infantry for a line infantry brigade, cavalry for a Cavalry brigade etc., and one dragoon regiment, one light gun, one wagon and two officers.

In a campaign a player is allowed a maximum of one army and one brigade to attack and enemy or in defence of an attack, IF YOU HAVE them available. This makes a good model to make different forces for both sides. On the other hand, there may be times when you may not have enough forces. Each country has one army and three brigades. For example, assume Bad Zu Wurst attacks Flounce with an army and a Brigade. Flounce could respond in kind. If in the sane turn Flounce is attacked by Gulagia with an army and a brigade, he could respond only with two brigades, leaving him a single brigade to face Sweeta's attack with an army and a Brigade. The legal combinations of forces you can have are

an army and a brigade
an army
two brigades
one brigade.

Obviously Flounce will be overmatched in the three to one pile-up but that's part of history. As Umpire I even up the odds with terrain as much as I am allowed etc. There are other resources a player has that can mitigate such a desperate situation but I have left them off for now. The Army/Brigade system I use works well. One final point, you can neither build up brigades into an army nor break down armies into brigades.

Also, as umpire, I am completely free at some point to tell Bad Zu Wurst, Gulagia, and Sweeta to "knock it off" and go pick on someone your own size. Presentl three powers are trying this in the campaign against a country which has no player at its head. Therefore I as the umpire assume that position. I have no compunction about using every advantage and dirty trick I can pull to counter such unfair situations.

The theme of the campaign is the table top battle. It is the central piece of the game. If you connive to make table top battles unpleasant, then the umpire is fully justified in taking whatever action is needed. In the group of guys I have certain things to let them know I am not pleased. If a person tries to do something flaky I will probably say "Cheesy but legal." Which means, ok, you can do it, ONCE.

limiting the knowledge regarding intentions does nothing regarding forces or capabilities

I said that. I also said that there are already other techniques for handling that.

So spades are artillery units, clubs are infantry units, and diamonds are armoured cavalry. Pip number indicates force size. So what am I fielding here?

Oh, BTW a joker or jack is an OPDEC canard.

There are limitations to this technique, but this is just a three sentence example. The point is not to rehash known existing techniques for handling perfect knowledge. You can easily play tabletop games where the composition, state, and location of forces is not known until it is revealed through their action. Without suspicions of cheating (for which, you should really find different opponents, not a different game).

that the solution to the bocage is known has notiing to do with intentions. only a change in the obstacle, from bocage to say jungle, would deny the gamer the hindsight benefit.

Not familiar with that example, so I don't know what the fundamental issue is. It would be tied into whatever mechanism is implemented in the game. For whatever stats you have supporting a mechznism, you can easily substitute an unknowm value.

in the average unit, you dont even know if your troops will fight, or their weapons ready, they are not hardly ss nor rangers, their weapons and vehicles prone to malfunction, that the troops will desert or lose their way or,

Variability in the behaviour of your own troops also has lots of known mechanisms for eliminating perfect knowledge. One of them for handling stuff like morale, competence, and materiel condition is this thing called a "die roll".

They know it is a game, and they know that as part of a game it must obey certain rules of equity.

In combat, you know it is combat and there are certain things that are within your control and capability and others that are not.

That is there must be general equality of forces and objectives, or what used to be called balanced equality,

That is not a general problem with TMI, it is a preference in the game you select.

otto
why, if after massinh, managing and deceiving I should be "rewarded" with an umpired fixed game?
in my double blind skirmish game, if the player has his troops eithrr by ontention or accident fall into an ambudh I will not intervene as umpire to save the player from a sure and game ending loss anymore then I would "save" a player whose strategy produced a tactical disaster, Yes the game is for the tactical miniatures, but is the tactical game so important that we must deny the strategic? this idea of making all games more or less equal makes a mockery of the historical side. shall we balance the 1940 campaign in France, 1945 Poland, 1944 Pacific through victory points or French panzer divisions or a dozen extra Japanese carriers?? wbat happens to the history then? pink Tiger tanks and Japanese jets are in order then
Let us get this clear. if you criticise someones painted figures or a rules declares a historical foundation, such as what Bolt Action, Command Decision, Crossfire, Team Yankee, etc etc do..they All have lengthy discussions either in their rules or painting guides or websites on how historically based the game is, they even use the words game and historical simulation interchangeably, then you are, well, I wont say the words, but they are not nice.
Phil Barker was one of these with his ancients rules, with fake historical battles between assyrians and carolingians Phil arguing the history and nothing has changed in r5 years

Dear Rick Don

What are you talking about? These things have nothing to do with me, why are you therefore addressing your comments to me. I don't advocate any of these things, and I certainly have never criticized anyones painted figures.

As for your seeming hatred of equity in a game, I wish you years of historical gaming on the short end of the stick.

it would seem that the Win condition should be set based on the battle.

If your being attacked by 5 times your force, your win condition is much different than attacking with even odds.

If not then you might as well just use an odds table.

it would seem that the Win condition should be set based on the battle.

I agree and believe this is essential for all scenarios. If you're the British in Islandlwana, victory is about how long you hold out and how gracefully you lose.

I like using a matrix, as Queen Catherine suggests, and then adding some random weighting elements into it. This means players know the general timbre of the progress of forces toward victory (however that is defined for each force by the matrix), but should always be concerned that a row or column has a different weighting than they expect.