"Really Real Games or non PC games" Topic

In all of the realism playability swamp is an ugly side of war left out, the treatment of civilians and captured troops which is sometimes part of the battle
I have yet to see this addressed. Indeed there were instances of say SS diverting regular troops from their combat mission to help with the other atrocities

Not sure what the point would be,unless you're contemplating a "rounding up Jews" game,which I doubt. I can't imagine any sane person wanting play such a scenario.

Or perhaps a game of Canadians shooting roadside prisoners?

Just to keep it in perspective.

There are many aspects of war that don't make it into the game side of things – mostly dull logistic stuff but also the less pleasant side of affairs, regardless of era.

Does anyone really want to game the suffering of civilian populations during Assyrian conquests, or whilst surviving the harrowing of the Noman Conquest – how about the TYW?

Some games , mostly modern asymmetric things like Charlie Don't Surf, B'maso, Rock the Casbah and Fighting Season all touch on civilian and media impact but don't dwell on atrocities.

Do you mean play the war crime? Sorry but that is no game. If want to have reference to it, then SS troops do not turn up on tables on a dice roll.

Why pick and choose?

There are MANY aspects of war that we don't address on the tabletop.

Just off the top of my head:
When did you last take a random roll at the start of a game to see how many men from each unit were on the sick list? When did you last give a force -1 for the effects of chronic disease?
(There's a reason Agincourt English have the seat of their hose cut away.)
Why wouldn't you? Aren't there many conflicts in which disease caused more casualties than combat?
In short, wasn't sickness a way bigger game-changer than war crime?

Weather too, come to think of it.

But if your interest lies squarely with the subject of atrocity, remove an SS element, stick a BTD Firing Squad (28mm) or a CP models Hanging vignette (20mm) somewhere on the table to show what that element's busy with, and enjoy the game.

Why ask the question? Do you want to recreate or reenact a war crime?

The premise of the first post is flawed. You can do a reasonable tabletop simulation of ww2 combat without simulating atrocities.

Yes.

Why would anyone want to represent this with anything more than a die roll to see if your on-table commander detached a squad/platoon (basic maneuver unit) to go do whatever it is?

Roll a d6, on a 6 the unit is not taking part in the game.

There are routinely a lot of things that aren't simulated in one off games.

Supplies. Treatment of civilians. Treatment of wounded. Treatment of the dead.

Many of these concepts can be factored into campaign type games (and yes, this includes the potential action against hostile civil populations) though this is usually shown in diminished troops on the battlefield. I think for most of us, that is enough that in a campaign setting we try to win 'hearts and minds' rather than burn the place down.

A lot depends on a good GM.

But, like others in this thread, I fail to see the point. War is itself a spectacularly ugly thing, so it seems difficult to talk about a hidden ugly side.

I'm not 100% sure the OP is advocating playing games about atrocities, however it is fairly easy to introduce various distractions via scenario design rather than specific rules.

My Cold War games often feature columns of refugees blocking up roads, SCW games have villages of dubious allegience to one side or the other etc, 1918 games where Germans units regularly stop to plunder the plentiful allied supplies etc.

But yes, if you really are talking abut your chaps being hauled off to join an Einsatzgruppe, then throw a dice on some sort of random events table of troop availability.

IMHO, a lot of it isn't gamed because no one can assess the tactical or strategic value of committing atrocities. And I think some rules, or specific scenarios, address them in the background. For example, your unit may be fearless because they know that the enemy takes no prisoners & they will all be executed if captured.

Like Martin, I have had several games where columns of refugees clogged the roads or a bridge. The attacker has no problem firing on the refugees while the defender gets extra VP for refugees moved off the board safely.
And of course, my army of Huns in Warhammer Ancients includes Human Shields on the army list.

Perhaps this post was a not so subtle ping of the nose at us gamers because we play games with death and destruction as an acceptable part of the premise?

In all of the realism playability swamp is an ugly side of war left out, the treatment of civilians and captured troops which is sometimes part of the battle
I have yet to see this addressed.

Indeed. And for good reason. Why are you even thinking of this in a wargame?

I'll go ahead and say that's a negative.

Besides, my games already have a random factor for what forces are available, you can imagine that's for any reason you like.

ASL did let you execute prisoners though it'd bolster enemy morale significantly.

I don't see how you can make a game out of mistreating defenceless people. But if you have a suggestion, I am all ears.

Escape from colditz?….)

I played in a game once where I was in control of a city that was being sieged, and it was full of civilians. At one point a bridge that my civilians could use to escape was blown up and and they were left on the side that the enemy now occupied. I offered them to surrender, my logic was in this set of rules prisoners would have to be watched over which would have made the attackers leaving troops behind. When I did this my opponent stated that if they surrender he is going to kill them anyway. So not wanting them to die needlessly I charged them into the enemy, trying to do as much damage as possible….they were wiped out. my opponent gloated for a moment before being destroyed an hour later. After the game people commented on how ugly that was and that nobody ever plays out those scenarios…..So I have seen one game atrocity.

In all of the realism playability swamp is an ugly side of war left out, the treatment of civilians and captured troops which is sometimes part of the battle

Civilians have been covered in some rulesets, including Force on Force if I remember correctly.

Capturing prisoners and conducting them to the rear areas would generally be "after the battle" or left unrepresented, but I could see rules for this in a skirmish game.

Indeed there were instances of say SS diverting regular troops from their combat mission to help with the other atrocities

You're not planning to represent atrocities on the wargaming table, are you? I don't think that's in the spirit of the hobby.

OP is probably a troll. But I'll play…

Wargames are only an abstraction of real war. This fact is often not clear to non-gamers. That means that in our games we abstract out from the total reality of war a small subset of those elements which we find enjoyable. It does include certain dramatic elements, analogous to those which are customary in the typical novel, TV show, or play. Since most of us are sane, these elements do not include the real death, real destruction, or real misery which is characteristic of real warfare, nor do they include emotional wallowing in those things.

MH

As I wrote at the outset, war crimes and atrocities,veven if part of a bttle, are not politically correct.

h at I raise the issue and a m told that wbell we dont represent a lot of war, logistics, weather, commander politics, etc, is simply a lie because we do. So why not a Great Esxape skirmish game or one on the partisans?

That crimes and afrocities are not part of war, what part of
wargames or simulation war games am I missing?

L know gamers who are criticised for using dead body markers in the game
It is too gruesome
Really
What are we playing at?

"We"?

We're playing at toy soldiers. Quite happily, thank you.

A better question would be: what are you playing at?

"That crimes and afrocities are not part of war, what part of wargames or simulation war games am I missing?"

The part where both sides in the game have a chance to 'win'. If one side is invulnerable and the other are just targets, it does not make for a good game. I hope that helps.

you guys are being trolled. "do not feed the troll" applies on TMP just like it does on the internet at large.

I have to confess that I'm a bit baffled as to what Rick is getting at and why he is seems so exercised about it.

Yes, we are playing games about people maiming and killing each other. That is what 'wargaming' is, but so is playing cowboys and indians in the woods or playing Call of Duty.

None of that bothers me in the least. Humans are funny like that.

I note the use of the word and concept of "game" and the silence for "simulation"
Yes, we are doing games not simulations, these games are social gatherings where the real stuff is not mentioned.
Then why the so called historical bickering over tbe uniform colors, the armor penetration values or the comparison of legion to phalanx when we all know we are 1 playing a game that is 2 at best a hugely incomplete picture of history and 3 is someones personal opinion
In a word I am for the playable game and could care less about whatever say Osprey has to say. There are other opinions

(Disclaimer: I think this is my first post ever on TMP.)

I don't think the OP is trolling. This is a valid question and should be interesting even to those who ultimately choose not to model war crimes and other horrors of war in their games.

In my case, I see wargaming as a hobby, but in real life I'm mostly a pacifist and think war is a horrible, unnecessary tragedy (I don't subscribe to the vision that it is at all necessary for human progress). I don't want to see death in anything but an abstracted way, because this is foremost a game to me, with maybe *some* simulation aspects. I think people find it easier to focus on things like uniform colors and armor penetration tables because they are not morally controversial, and that's fine.

Regardless, the question is valid and other people who are not trolls have raised it before. I was just reading in Wikipedia about the book "The Myth of the Eastern Front", about the myth of the Wehrmacht and the Waffen SS in American pop culture. They specifically mention wargaming (though of the old school variety, I believe) where there is a certain hyperfocus on the military aspects of criminal organizations such as the Waffen SS, to the exclusion of their more relevant historical impact as part of a genocidal regime.

On the other hand, I was reading Steve Thomas' (of the awesome Balagan website) battle report for Crossfire Day 2014, where they had in-table a detachment of Gestapo trying to control a group of panicking civilians and, um, firing into the crowds. This is definitely the ugly side of war!

I mean, we don't roll to see how many of our men have dysentery either, before a battle and nobody sits down to write letters to the widows of our fallen troopers afterwards.

Agreed, we don't roll for dysentery, but while dysentery is a reality of war (and one that a really accurate simulation should model, I suppose as part of the "friction" of warfare), it's not the most important aspect of WWII.

In contrast, massive death tolls and genocide are both relevant and among the most noteworthy aspects of WWII; in a way they define it. It does seem odd *not* to model them. (I don't, for the reasons I outlined before: to me this is a game, and I'm very aware my game doesn't resemble the real WWII except superficially, and I'm fine with that because the real WWII was horrible and there was nothing enjoyable about it).

We all know this history, but sorry, i think this tread is moderately bonkers

"I note the use of the word and concept of "game" and the silence for "simulation""

Most games are simply games and no more. Simulation would focus more on supply and of course include medical services. Lots has been written about why and how soldiers commit atrocities – in some cases officially encouraged. But nothing to do with a wargame.

someone is going to have to be specific with what it is they feel is lacking, because I am still not understanding it.

So here's the deal: One of the most popular games right now is Chain of Command.

I have a Brit and a German platoon on the shelves somewhere, walk me through how I can holocaust up the rules so they can be more realistic.

Well,Weasel,you could paint up some Americans,and game the Malmedy massacre. That might be "fun". . .

Seriously,though,I'd hesitate to accuse Rick of trolling,as he raised some thoughtful and interesting what if ideas on a LOTR thread.

OTOH,"War crimes and atrocities. . .are not politically correct" seems a trifle incoherent. In what context ARE they "correct"? "Historically" correct? OK, I'll give you that. Though even there,we could argue meanings.

There's a reason they're called war GAMES, not war simulations. It's the same reason Monopoly doesn't feature people being turned out of their homes to build that new hotel.

But if you feel you're being more "realistic" portraying such things,you're certainly free to do so.

I have to wonder what sort of people would be attracted to your games,though. . .

Oh,and Andresf, please post more often. Some people may be getting tired of hearing the same voices all the time--including mine!

"I have a Brit and a German platoon on the shelves somewhere, walk me through how I can holocaust up the rules so they can be more realistic."

Ammunition supply, a squad carries enough ammo for about 5 minutes fire at full effect. So someone needs to resupply them with ammo.

Prisoners. When enemy surrender (oh yes there should be rules for that) how about the men needed to guard the prisoners. Or do you just shoot them to avoid the need to guard them (first atrocity point). Interrogation (second at. point). A bit of torture (encouraged in some armies, 3rd at. point).

Wounded, who looks after them. How many men do you leave behind to protect them (or to carry them)?

Oh and rules for weather (just for added realism),

I always tell people "Reality Sucks" and is not going to be much fun in a game. Balanced scenarios where neither side has a tactical advantage is to be "fair" and not historical.

One facet you could include is that the defenders know they will be executed so fight to the death with no morale checks.

From my experience players will normally commit atrocities like executing prisoners or running over civilians if it is going to help them win the game. There is no downside for them.

Also to be historically accurate you could have German Panther and Tiger tanks perform a breakdown check every time they attempt to move.

Wolfhag

"Also to be historically accurate you could have German Panther and Tiger tanks perform a breakdown check every time they attempt to move."

Early Panthers yes but they did get better.

I'm not convinced.
There's a moment in Stephen King's "Apt Pupil" where the unhealthily fixated Todd grows impatient with Ex-Sturmbanfuhrer Dussander's retelling of his wartime experiences, and urges him to get to "the gooshy bits".
That's what this comes down to.
Regardless of whatever other, more significant factors may be overlooked when playing toy soldiers, some people will only be interested in "the gooshy bits".

Great example with "Apt Pupil", but I draw the opposite conclusion! Todd is fixated on the "gooshy bits" but completely lacks the overall picture and has no real understanding of history. He is a nerd obsessed with Nazism. Hopefully no one wants to be compared to him :)

How about making your medic the game points getter? You do have Medics, don't you? The Medic earns points for getting the "wounded" back to the aid station. The more each side's Medic returns the wounded to the aid station, the more points achieved and hence, game victory. Missions and objectives usually fail in my games, anyway. Why not go with the Medic to achieve the victory?

I have games where a squad will lose a full point of Morale if they don't take care of their wounded. i.e. a vulture lands on a wounded guy for a snack in view of the squad and they just watch them peck at "Joe." Or if they just leave him laying there. Ick.

Now I did have a Russian gamer in one of my fog games, mortar the German Aid Station. ("It was the only target I could see through the fog.") Talk about unsavory East Front stuff!

In the same game, I had an NKVD squad pursue a Russian line squad fearing that they would go over to the Krauts.
They had bad information. The regulars defending themselves shot the crap out of the NKVD, but what position did that leave the Russian Regulars in? Certainly they could not return to their lines. Eh?

And of course there are those that say that obeying the laws of war, weakens us and makes us lose. However SS, Japanese and Russians lost lots in WW2 and other wars. Being a 'bad guy' does not seem to make armies successful.

Here's the deal about "gooshy bits": if you have them you don't tell them- especially to a wide-eyed civilian. The only exception might be to another veteran who you know saw his share of it over a pint.

This may be unique to me, but having seen my share of "gooshy bits" I enjoy wargaming because the tactical level of things helps me to understand (and thereby accept) that which I experienced and didn't understand at the time it happened. For example, being on the receiving end of a mortar attack may be a terrifying experience, but when you play it out on the table you realize what a small piece of the big picture it really is.

As far as gamers wanting gooshy bits, there are plenty of sickening 1st person shooter computer games out there to keep them busy.

This is why in my modern game, "The Shattered Century" which models Army level combat between the wars and into World War Two, everything is done with Imagi-Nations. But it's not hard to figure out who the Fahrvergnuggen and the Workers Winter Wonderland of Freeland Represents. The imagi-nations are all burlesques and more like those created by The Marx Brothers in Duck Soup, or the Three Stooges in "I'll never Heil Again." I do not care to fight with three of the greatest moral evils of mankind. I know that the denizens of the WWWF, Terramasu, or Tropicana will never do atrocities .

It's also why my first love is the 18th Century, again Imagi-Nations, where such things just aren't done.

As to reproducing these things in war.

What? Is there not misery enough in the world, you want to bring it into our games.

I'm crediting RickDonBurnette with having tongue in cheek with his original post. I can't imagine wanting to "game" the scene in Saving Private Ryan, where the mother sees that car winding up the road to her house and her legs go out of her, because she knows… she KNOWS what news that car brings. I can't even watch the film. I don't want to play such things.

War has nothing to do with war games.

+1 Wizbangs.

Come September, I'll have racked up 28 years in various paramedical disciplines.
One of my best friends in gaming is a serving police officer.

Good luck telling us your game of toy soldiers is somehow "real" just because you've addressed the burning issue of some little toy people being insufficiently unpleasant to other little toy people.

That's just so precious.

(On the flipside, though – dont expect us to get worked up about even the most 'controversial' subject matter on the games table. You want to build yourself a 1/72 Auschwitz? Knock yerself out, mate.
It's still only toy soldiers.)

I have yet to see this addressed.

The only thing that comes to mind is having to garrison territories in the Hearts of Iron series to prevent partisan activity.

I don't know about PC. It is a game. There is such a thing as Taste and there are people still alive who endured and suffered under these experiences. I create a game to honor and remember the History. I would not game the horrific part.I have had the Honor of veterans coming to my table and sharing their stories. I feel privileged to hear and listen to their experiences. I think that making a game out of atrocities would trivialize that.

I would not game the horrific part.

and which part of warfare is that?

I have just added the following rule to my 18th century rules

Surrender, a brigade or army commander can choose to surrender the remains of his command to the enemy. The enemy gain half the points of the troops surrendered and the other side get half the points as well. However sometimes a massacre will take place. That may happen when surrendering in; the American Indian wars, the American war of Independence, the Jacobite risings or when surrendering to Turks. Test to see if a massacre takes place by rolling a D6. On a result of 1, 2 or 3 the prisoners are massacred and the side that killed them get their full points value, the surrendering side get nothing.

Idea is you can try to preserve points by surrendering but that may not work against some opponents.