"Do you create historical scenarios for your given genre? " Topic

Do you take historical battles and turn them into gaming scenarios for your current set of rules and time period?

A) Yes, but it's a labour.
B) Yes, I enjoy it very much.
C) No, I prefer using pre-made scenarios in the rule book or scenario books.
D) No, I just play pick-up/ matched point games.
E) No, but only because I don't play historical battles.
F) Other, explain.

For me, the first half of my gaming career was "C". More recently I have thoroughly enjoyed creating historical scenarios. About 10 years back I use to publish them for free on Yahoo gaming groups pages. More recently they are just for me.

My most recent scenarios have been for Mortimers Cross, Towton, Bosworth, Stoke, First Newbury, Agincourt, Vernuil, and Shrewsbury.

In the past I've done quite a few Roman Republic battles as well.

All of these were created Hail Caesar rules in mind ranging in scale from 1:15 to 1:50.

The most important lesson I learned in making them is to right them for yourself. Not for other people! Otherwise you'll never be happy with them.

B. Do it. Love it.

B. I love to do the research.

I love B and C, I don't see them as exclusive.

D

Absolutely B & C can go together. I love reading other people's scenarios and buying scenario books but creating my own is my current favorite part of the hobby.

B. It's what I live for.

B

E

F – I expect the rules to come with historical scenarios and to expand on them with scenario packs. Doing so is part of what makes ASL such a big name in the board wargaming niche.

B

B and C (if available).

All the time so rate me "B"….. once a quarter as a minimum, typically twice in the same quarter. Napoleonic and larger scale team FOW. Ancients COE scenarios generated by gaming friend for the third monthly game. So three games a quarter with historical scenarios. Generally avoid points gaming except for the FOW games at the LGS which fill in the free weekends during the same quarter.

B.

B. C. & D.

B

E – too many compromises and substitutions. Real orbats are a pain in the ass to replicate. The terrain is always an approximation, same with buildings and other features that are hard to model to scale.

G – Yes, it's a labor that I enjoy very much

And I am not above taking option C, though that still requires a certain amount of labor, too, to adapt a scenario for the rules and number of troops available.

Rick

B. Definitely B. Sort of. Maybe you'd call it F, though. I take historical scenarios and adopt them to other genres/times. Which does that count as?

Rob

B

Of course. Doesn't everyone?

B is how you learn the period and test the rules. But it's time consuming, and frequently unbalanced--or unplayable, if everyone knows the history. A lot of battles hinge on unexpected reinforcements or bad terrain analysis.

C is--well, actually, I'm C.1, mostly: Grant or OHW scenarios adapted to my period, troops and rules.

D is sometimes necessary. Hard to adapt a generic to CLS for instance. You don't always have the right forces for a historical, and you really need to check point as a rough guide to scenario balance. When I haven't, I've wished I had.

I like doing the research and planning for historical scenarios, but if I'm in a rush I'll just use canned ones from scenario books.

B

B and C.

I use C for inspiration for B

F? I sometimes try to present a plausible historical background for a fictitious game.

B

C

B. And I love it!

B

B. Useugi, my friend, hope you're healthy & safe & doing well, and still churning out those Wars of the Roses scenarios!

E. I just make stuff up that I think will be fun, and tactically challenging to all players. Cheers!

All the time, B, I also love to take battles and transport them to different eras.

Yes, the "Disguised Scenario" such as Katzbalger practises is the way to get around the problem of Hindsight as adduced by robert piepenbrink, and I'd always prefer a "plausible historical background" as mentioned by khanscom (providing plausible equivalents for the real commanders' names, and for the actual towns/villages/rivers/hills and other features of the original locations, can be entertaining in itself, though of necessity it tends to be a Solo Game).

""*[//]) {> ::::

I don't think I have ever fought a battle. In WW2 a battle can last several days and cover tems of miles and example being say Alemaien. Looking at the dictionary definition you could reduce the definition to less say one sector.

Me I fight very limited engagements, the engagement may be based on features of a real engagement which is part of a battle. I never try for historical mirroring of a real battle as by definition a wargame is a "what If" system.

B

This depends on the rules, but refighting historical Napoleonics battles is very interesting. This video contains a number of maps and observations concerning ground scale and unit scale.

youtu.be/L4UzZyRgAUs

I have written several WW2 air combat scenarios based on actual historical missions. I find that gamers are far more willing to expose their avatars to unacceptable risk than their historical counterparts. Push a head-on attack to almost guaranteed collision range? Does it give me a better attack odds? Go for it! Well, I died, but so did my target. So that's a win.