"[Opinion] A pitched battle = a boring wargame" Topic

"In his outstanding book One Hour Wargames, author Neil Thomas points out an interesting tendency among miniature wargamers: we devote tremendous energy to ensure realism through research into the conflicts we seek to re-enact, through the rule sets we choose, through the figures we purchase and accurately paint, and even the terrain pieces we build. We then proceed to play what is essentially the same battle each time: the set-piece, or pitched, battle, which involves forces equal in strength fighting on terrain that favors neither side.

Historically, these sorts of battles happened frequently in classical times, when open plains were the only suitable terrain for battle and tactical options were far more limited than today. To be accurate, then, wargamers focusing on ancient battles will often need to choose a pitched battle to re-enact a conflict, even for fictitious or hypothetical battles…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

Some wargamers are not in the hobby to enjoy themselves but to feed their egos that they're a great general. It might be why some are also obsessed with flanking maneuvers. Additionally, you get the guys with the clerk-like minds who can't play anything but historical refights, the minutiae nerds, the control freaks and the realism bullies.

In any case, if you approach is that you have to win, then you would require an even setting for both sides which suggests minimalistic terrain and equal sides.

It could be that fear of losing translates itself to other frustrations in life. For me, some of the best games I ever played, I lost and some of the people I most enjoyed gaming with werent very good tacticians. It's a social hobby, or should be, and the people obsessed with realism or winning annoy me.
I suppose the bottom line is, always have a referee who is basically god and you will be insured a good game.

Oh, and more rules should be like Neil Thomas'; packed with realism but with an easy to learn end remember interface. Rules like this go a long way to saving the hobby and opening it up to a broader audience rather than keeping historical wargaming the privilege of the soi-disant expert.

I gavre up "competion" games yers ago. We no exclusively play scenarios. A good scenario is when neither of us have a clue how it will end but the task looks interesing.

Glup!….

Amicalement
Armand

Doesn't have to be.

Depends upon the forces, scenario, GM, and players.

Agree.

Amicalement
Armand

I think the problem is that players are often hamperd by points systems. Pionts systems impose sterile terrain in order to make the points system work. Use real terrain and optimise the rules for a consistent period, no cavemen vs WW2, beloved of competition games and you can have a pitched battle that is far more complex and challengeing.

Seems odd to me that a GM features as an issue, we almost never use a GM, why would you do that when you can play? Perhaps it's a UK thing that GM's are almost never used, except a conventions and such games are not real games as thay only last about an hour and generally the players know insuifficent of the period to make credible tactical battle plans.

It may be we need to define what boring means. Yes I know what the dictionary says but its never that simple in detail.
I have noted at odd times, I have suggeted to folk they put a weight limit on the game. This would for instance not allow tanks on the board. Now to me that makes an interesting game, but I am no model enthusisat and so not having my latest artistic creation on table is of no conseqence. Perhaps if you are really a modeller more than a simulator a game with just a few light vehicles may be boring. A technical challenge it is, but it will be and an illustration of the empty battlefield, but if really your aim is little more than to put your models on the table and admire them, rolling a few die, to cahnge their positions, then my game may be boring for that individual.

Big battles with almost too many vehicles may be an ideal for some.

Historically, these sorts of battles happened frequently in classical times

I'm not sure that's true. Most historical commanders would only initiate a battle under those conditions if they had "no other choice".

forces equal in strength fighting on terrain that favors neither side

Nor am I sure that is a tendency amoung wargamers.

Since I don't personally have (even the referent for) a statistically significant sample of wargames played, it could be that everywhere I have been in the 30 years is an abnormal outlier exception.

This eveing may be an example of what some may define as a boring game. I spent an evening on or virtual battefield empty as hell while trying to prevent a BMP 1 company escorting some armoured cars across a narrow but poorly defended choke point. I had for the most part 3 dummies and 1 infantry element on table the rest mapped or off table. My opponent had 15 vehicles on table and in the end a couple of infantry elements de-bussed. To me it was a riveting "cat and mouse game" and a study in command and control. so good wea are going to reverse rolls and do it again.
Would you call it boring?