"Recreating the confusion of Chickamauga or Inkerman" Topic

What is the best way of recreating the confusion of battles like Chickamauga (a forest) or Inkerman (fog) on the tabletop?

The key to these battles is that the senior command didn't have a clue to what was going on or where the enemy was.

We have a godlike view of the battlefield and nothing is hidden. So how do we overcome this?

So far the only idea I've come up with that works is the three room Kriegsspiel approach. I've used this for grand tactical movement but it's hard work on the umpire – oh to have the Prussian General Staff at my disposal.

Has anyone come up with another method which is less work on the umpire?

Philosophically I don't want to use cards for encounters. The idea of having a card that says "You find a brigade of Confederates and you are on their flank" or "A brigade of Confederates appears on your flank" smack too much of a wizard either making or failing a cast "Summon Confederate Brigade spell". It also takes control from the other side.

So any thoughts would be welcomed.

If I remember correctly an earlier version of the WRG Ancient rules offered the possibility to deploy only the first rank of the troops the opponent could see. This was a "realistic" use of the using of light troops as scouts. To keep the players honest (;-)) they had to draw the choosed position of their army, and as soon as it was possible to be seen those troops needed to be put on the table.
Perhaps a larger use of skirmishers (like ACW) could be used in more modern battles, or a large cavalry screen. The fog and the dark of Inkerman could be suggested by first deciding where to place a unit and then throw a die to find whether the unit actually is there or some distance (depending on the scale) to the left or the right or back or more to the front. Collisions may happen.

Multiple players and tight turn deadlines. You might be able to see more than the actual general but if you don't have time to look, it won't matter.

Sit in a different room / put on a blind fold and ask your wife/girlfriend what is going on, then ask your next door neighbour to move your figures… that should just about do it…

Rich has got one method which will work quite well. I have started using the latter part of his solution. One of the best things I bought was a minute timer at the guy who sells all the dice at the HMGS conventions. I tell people that they get one minute to move and flip the timer. Any unit they touch after the timer is run out gets taken off the field.

I also have woods hexes that are very large (12" across parallel sides) and have an inernal box with a lid (all suitably "tarted up" with trees, brush, and a conical "hat" that covers the troops so that no one knows whats inside. In fact, quite often the guy whose troops they are forget they put them inside the woods!

The final thing is I allow people to station troops off the table top and remain hidden in boxes. If they make their command roll (and you can always fail on a six) they can enter anywhere along their own board edge.

Oh yeah! I also allow off the table movement that is swift and reasonably reliable. It's rarely worth the effort but it's fun to watch players try.

Talk about confusion. no complex rules required.

1. Reduce visibility.
2. Only put on the table what lies within that visibility.

If someone want to know what is in the "woods in the fog", let them send out reconnisance units. When the opposing side says "You MIGHT be able to see something" and then writes it down on a piece of papaer- and holds it. This makes the scouting unit try to return to report it to HQ. Once they return, dice to see if they actually return. If they do, they then can report what they saw- the opposing player passes that paper to his opponent and the scout owning lay makes plans based upon what that unit saw back then.

Honesty is required- in most cases, a typical report would be "The unit sees two units of infantry and one gun near (some local landmark on the table). A small scouting force could have just found that or is it really part of a larger force? Let that commander make decisions based upon those reports. No need to lie about what the scouts saw because those results (should they make it back to report it) should be expressed in basic/generic terms (like 2 units of infantry----not the 12th and 36th regiment of foot; 4 pieces of artillery--NOT 3/4 of the 5th Ohio Battery) Only prisioners would be a reliable source for that kind of detail! (Dice to see if the sucessful retuning scout unit brings back any prisoners)

Just a suggestion, like the OP asked for.

v/r
Tom

For Chickamauga I just used a pre written scenario. Why re-invent the wheel?

link

link

link

link

The rules you use might have some way to reduce visibility.

At some point I will want to do "Germantown" so how to do fog is a big part of the battle. Not anytime soon but if there isn't a good written scenario then I will have to modify or write my own.

If you find a way around the 100 foot general please share. Battles like Waterloo are hard to pull off when the French see everything behind the ridge.

1. Reduce visibility.
2. Only put on the table what lies within that visibility.

That's way I do it. I did that for Guilford Courthouse and it worked great. The downside to a system like that is you can't see the all the pretty figures. But it is the only way I know to make it work.

Even the few British players who were familiar with the battle were surprised when they came out of the woods and confronted the Continentals all lined up.

In GHQ's American Civil War Rules there are rules for friendly fire included in the scenario for Cleburne's Night Attack at Chickamauga.

Basically, because of poor visibility, during the firing phase all units have to fire on any unit, friend or foe, that is in front of them and in range unless they are able to pass a command and control test.

The scenario is available as a free download from the GHQ website: PDF link

Other Civil War scenarios: link

Using "dummy" counters should work well……

I think for true fog of war you need a double blind (correct terminology?) in which only the GM knows what is where. Things are only revealed as you approach them(if you can spot them). I played a WW II game of German vs Russian using this system. It was great fun and really challenging.

I have never had any luck running double-blind scenarios, and have only even tried that in naval games where I don't have to duplicate the terrain. As a GM I can't keep up with the hidden moves at a pace that makes the game fun for the players. It's also a massive burden on the GM, and running double-blind map campaigns for WWI fleet battles actually burned me out for a few years.

I have occasionally had both sides deploy behind a blind to simulate deployment in fog or before dawn, but when deployment is over I just lift the curtain and fight the battle in the open after that.

In practice, I've found adding players to be the best way to guarantee a loss of centralized control. Gamers tend not to communicate or coordinate properly. A multiplayer game with at least 3 players per side is almost guaranteed to fray a bit, and the more players you add, the messier it gets. Conventions with walk-up players who don't game together much exacerbates the chaos; getting 8-12 players in a convention game just about guarantees a complete breakdown of C3. I've occasionally carried this one step farther by assigning particular commands to particular players to get the battlefield results I want to see (aggressive, cagey, indecisive, etc.), but this only works with players I know well and have played with a lot.

A local guy here ran a Fire and Fury game of Chickamauga many years ago that had some rules randomizing movement through the forest. If I remember, he basically had the players roll to see how far right or left they shifted whenever they came out of the trees. Sadly I was unable to play that game, but he said he was pleased with the results. Sometimes a unit came out exactly where it was supposed to be, sometimes it didn't…

For naval games, I made a complete set of "bogie" markers from craft sticks (I sanded them down into vaguely ship-shaped markers in "big" and "small" sizes, stained them, then labeled them with letter or number codes), and I've used them many times in WWI Baltic battles. Everything starts on table as a bogie, and is only revealed when they get within sighting distance (dictated by visibility). For extra fun, I once gave each player his own secret dossier and mission, so players didn't even know who was on which side until the ships were revealed.

- Ix

The best system I've ever played for obscuring force composition was a relatively simple system developed by a friend in VA for V&B games with a regular gaming group in the DC area.

Commands came on the table as a set of blocks; all sets of blocks were the same size & number to obscure the force composition. As soon as a block came into sighting distance of an enemy block or stand of miniatures, it had to be removed or replaced with troops, but the player didn't have to decide exactly where to put his miniatures until forced to reveal them – as long as the miniatures occupied the same ground as some of the blocks, the deployment was legal. The result was a very elegant concentration of player focus on maneuver, deployment and scouting:

• Blocks marching to the point of contact frequently got into traffic jams in rear areas, especially at road intersections. As a player-commander, I was forced to march commands on parallel routes to the front and attempt to concentrate them closer to the enemy, just like real division/corps/army commanders.
  
• Pushing around my own blocks, I had to think ahead about where I wanted to fight, choosing ground and deploying to get it or keep it. The blocks covered more ground and moved at "ideal" march rates, whereas miniatures had a "real" size and moved according to unit characteristics, so if my units got revealed before they were properly positioned, they were slowed down and lost the element of surprise.
  
• On the bright side, revealed units suddenly shrank a bit (the blocks nearly always covered more table than the units they represented), leaving more room to bring up reinforcements. Sometimes it was a good idea to reveal them, to gain room to deploy, or even to threaten the enemy with a particular unit or type of force.
  
• Commands could be "wrong-footed" by forcing them to deploy with a scouting move or feint, then moving off in different direction. Since a revealed unit moved slower and with more restrictions, revealing a unit felt just like committing them to battle.
  
• Scouting, feinting, and pinning suddenly happened organically, without special rules. With all the above considerations, it made perfect sense to send small, fast detachments all over the table, to reveal oncoming forces, force the enemy to commit to disadvantageous deployments, and to intercept enemy detachments. Even better, troops historically best at scouting were also best used that way in the game; in most games, players have no particular use for scouting forces, so tend to throw them away in suicidal attacks.
  

He pulled down his web site years ago, but I saved a PDF of the house rules for this system if anyone wants it.

- Ix

I really like the counter method from Johnny Reb. You get a certain amount of numbered counters per real unit. You can have one counter represent a single regiment, a single battery, or the center of one brigade. If they don't represent actual units, they are scouts. You only put the counters on the board, or units that are plainly visible. Counters are moved with normal unit movement rates. If a counter can see another counter using the set's visibility rules, then they have to declare if they are real or not. Sometimes in the woods, where you have to roll for visibility, you can have a situation where one can see the opposing unit, but not the other way around. Real units have to be deployed on the board. Fake or scout counters are removed. It really brings out the use of skirmishers and their traditional role in game play.

Short of a computer-moderated system, I like Yellow Admiral's with plenty of dummy blocks.

I like large multi-player double blind games for that aspect, but it's not something you can arrange on a Monday night (and those games tend not to feature figures either).

Yellow Admiral, I like the sound of the system you've described (simple solution, with the gaps filled in and no record-keeping)and would appreciate a copy of the pdf please. pmh1882 at yahoo.co.uk

I use the Spearhead(WW2) system, modified for other periods in which you draw up a map with your unit locations and lines drawn to where they are ordered to go. You wed that to the order system where units get to Attack, Defend or be in Reserve. That controls how they move and regardless of what the player can see the troops can only react to what they can see according to visibility rules. Order changes are possible when enemy units become visible.

I've played a number of games where a player could see his troops walking into a buzz saw but because of orders and visibility he couldn't do anything to prevent it. I also play with trustworthy guys and so in Attack/Defend scenarios without a referee we are even able to work in hidden movement with defending forces kept off table until actually spotted by the attacking troops.

It takes a little more prep work but for me it's worth it.

One that I saw recommended years ago (for TSaTF?) was to have a C-in-C for each side to issue orders to troop movers, then only allow him to view the table with binoculars or a telescope from a single point and otherwise keep his back turned or similar – you can buy low powered (x3 or so) binoculars and telescopes from 'science' stores. The effect is removing your ability to judge distances or account for 'dead ground' when looking at the field – you know there are troops there but not exactly how far away they are or how fast they are moving.

Rules in which troops need activation rolls to move don't remove the 'helicopter general' problem but they can be good at recreating confusion. If you can't guarantee that a given unit will move, then coordinating attacks becomes appropriately difficult.

I've fought both Chickamauga and Inkerman with BBB. My buddy Scott, who knows Chickamauga very well, really liked the scenario and felt it captured the feel of the battle very well.
link
A key element is that in BBB, woods are 'Difficult Terrain' which penalizes a unit's movement roll. Another was that the Chickamauga scenario provided a choice of objectives so the Confederates had a variety of ways to win; and the Union had some choices over deployment and arrival of reinforcements.

For Inkerman (which is in the Bloody Big European Battles scenario book), the scenario includes Prince Gorchakov's feint attack. It includes secret objectives. The Russians get reinforcements halfway through which may either join the northern columns, or turn Gorchakov's feint into the main attack. This works pretty well to keep the Allies guessing. Meanwhile the Russians are hampered by being Passive which penalizes their activations. It's a good game.

Chris

Bloody Big BATTLES!
link
bloodybigbattles.blogspot.fr

1) I used hidden on map ( pic of the table top in my computer- one for each side) for units not able to be seen at all( deep in woods, behind significant ridge etc. or hidden & not moving ( depressed location, tall crops etc)
2) Troop formations that are detected but not seen are blocks. IE enemy can see body troops but not str/composition etc. The player has option to use bluff blocks also to give impression of larger body or just "bluff' a maneuver with a scout party/small detachment/general and his staff etc.
3) Revealed- once visibility is made per contact distance per rules for the terrain and or dice roll- troops are placed on table per their deployment at the block center or map location.
Deployment is controlled by the special carrying trays/boxes which represents the area of the formation may deploy within and players arranged their force ( typically brigade or less formation) within the tray which is magnetic and holds the figure in place and to their deployment status.
A little more work for me as GM but much, much, enjoyment witnessing the players actually now having to function like real commanders and scout or move cautiously etc….& sweating out unknowns.
I have done this at a convention venue only so far- works great with C&GII computer modulated tactical play!

MG

Yellow Admiral, many thanks – gentleman and a scholar

You could use the mechanism in Pony Wars,Company B Aint Comin' Back in which you have a table of possible events and outcomes. Then on each turn, the player rolls dice to determine which outcome might occur. Just some made up examples off the top of my head:

1-10%: an unidentified infantry unit appears on your right flank.

11-20%: enemy infantry unit appears to your front

21-40%: you see nothing in front of you

41-50%: an unidentified infantry unit appears on your left flank.

etc. So roll percentage dice each turn to see which event occurs.

"We have a godlike view of the battlefield and nothing is hidden. So how do we overcome this?"

Its why I started to play Piquet and then Piquet's Field of Battle and I'm very happy with the result. Never enjoyed gaming more than I do now.

This is a WONDERFUL topic and I can only hope it is being read and appreciated by a large number of gamers/would be designers, and not only those of us posting to it.

Regarding some elements of surprise, I must agree with 138SquadronRAF, the originator of the thread, regarding his flat condemnation of a card based system he exemplified. Clearly, any game mechanic that magically produces enemy units not part of the original OB and placing them randomly and arbitrarily is not suited to games with opposing players. Such a mechanic could work in SOLO games, but not otherwise.

However, as the author of some 17 commercial card decks that can introduce a wide variety of unknowns into games, I understand they must provide plausible circumstances/events that don't produce "magical" results.

Two general kinds of "surprise" results seem to be mentioned so far: The immediate effects of terrain (e.g. forest), and the broader issues of visibility range and line-of-sight. The former can be addressed without changes to the rules in use with a variable terrain effects deck that can set the visibility and movement effects of a given terrain feature when first encountered by any unit(s) attempting to enter/cross it. The second is well represented by the use of markers in place of the actual miniature units.

The use of actual 3D blocks was well described, though as a matter of sheer convenience, printed 2D counters are easier to produce and can even rested atop some miniature terrain features. Wooden or other media blocks would seem to need to be cut to size and shape, and clearly have weight/bulk issues.

Of course the actual area occupied by such counters is crucial. A Regiment of Cuirassiers can't occupy the same area as a Company of Infantry in square. But it's easy enough to measure the area occupied by the miniatures comprising the smallest game sized unit in, say, field column, and making the counter that size, with perhaps another inch or two added to width and depth to allow for variables.

The goal should be to reasonably sure that when the unit is revealed and replaces the counter, it is plausibly no larger than area originally represented.

This seems important for itself, but particularly if a large enough number of counters are being use to represent a sizable force trying to follow the indicated roads, or moving cross country. If two or more markers end up even partially occupying the same space, clearly there has been a traffic jam, and movement distance/time should be lost straightening out the mess. Obviously, 2D counters can overlap more easily than 3D blocks.

But of equal importance when using any markers in place of the actual miniatures is the limit to how many such markers can be used without spoiling the game. Having only one marker per available unit in each army negates the whole purpose. Even a few times more markers per unit is ridiculous for obvious reasons, and any set ratio provides predictability. A simple formulae such as a D6 roll read as 1,2= 1: 3,4,5= 2; 6= 3, then multiply the result by the initial number of hidden units provides the crucial uncertainty with a variable number of "dummy" counters.

Yes, not all of our beautiful miniatures start on the table using any system of markers, but the chance for surprise, and the use of scouts all then follow naturally without actually changing your favorite rules.

Looking forward to additional posts and ideas on this thread!

TVAG

The use of actual 3D blocks was well described, though as a matter of sheer convenience, printed 2D counters are easier to produce and can even rested atop some miniature terrain features. Wooden or other media blocks would seem to need to be cut to size and shape, and clearly have weight/bulk issues.

The blocks I made for testing the rules I described were essentially 2D – 2"x1" flats of 1/4" thick balsa, neither bulky nor heavy.

If I were to make another set, I'd avoid any cutting altogether and just buy a huge lot of pre-cut wood blocks, or acrylic blocks in two colors (red and blue, maybe?). The pre-cut wooden squares and rectangles I've bought for other craft projects come sanded and beveled, needing nothing but stain/paint and an ID code.

- Ix

Many years ago we played Inkerman (sort of) double blind (sort of). Both parties had a map of the table stuck to a piece of foam board. The table was represented on the maps in squares. Units could only see into the adjacent squares, and movement was reported to the umpire (me) who was the only one who knew where all units were. The units were represented by numbered pushpins. Only when units moved into squares with enemy units were they placed on the table. It was somewhat laborious (especially for me trying to prevent players from seeing my map :-)), but it was fun! Once the troops were on the table it became a fairly standard game, of course, but a great time was had by all.

With my students I have used a mix of blanks, obscured units, and openly shown units with good success. I have done this with some operational level games I have created, or with large scale tactical battles using BBB.

Where one side has a much better scouting screen, then they get to unobscure the other side's units more effectively. E.g. if one side has lots more skirmishers, then they might find an enemy 'unit' is just a blank counter, or that the marker hides two stands of cavalry. Or the players can allocate light cavalry to the role, and this is then abstracted to give them the ability to see further, unless the enemy also does something equivalent. The down side for the player is that if the cavalry is used in this way, then it is not readily available for other battlefield uses, or for pursuit.

To the grand tactical (operational level), it allows for the proper use of light forces which are then required to both scout for and screen the main body.

I have found it is very simple to do, and adds a great deal to the tension on the map or table.

Nick

Another option is to preprogram the battle until contact. Both sides set up their armies on maps and give orders for units, assuming that the unit has no contact with the enemy ("March up to that farmhouse then occupy the ridge to the right."). Then both sides set up their troops and roll randomly to see if they're in the right spot or how far wrong they are. Each turn units roll to see if their speed is affected or if they veer off in one direction or another. When two enemy units catch sight of each other their orders are no longer followed but other units around them roll to determine if they are marching to the sound of the guns or continuing on their original objective.

I'll second the Johnny Reb system that Cleburne1863 mentioned.

One of the problems with the "helicopter" general is that it is possible to see areas that are free of enemy troops and decisions can be made based on this so using "blinds" for all troops and having plenty of dummies can generate some uncertainty.

Another thing I like to do is allow the players to mis-represent the placement of troops by not necessarily having the correct figures in play. For example only use troops in British uniforms in a Waterloo refight until units become close enough to determine whether they are Brunswickers or the Guards division. Or if you want to see the mixture of British, Dutch, Germans etc.on the table then place them wherever the owning play wants but again only confirm which troops they are when the French make close contact.

I played a game with Andy Callan called Forest Fight many years ago. The ground was divided into squares representing a forested area but the squares did not relate to the adjacent squares. For example if you exited square A1 by the left edge you came on next on the right edge of D3 (and taken to the extreme D3 could have been rotated 90 degrees). This was for an AWI game and if I recall resulted in the British player using his units as reference points rather than any terrain feature.

Have the Russians brigades commanded by teenage girls.