"" What if " topics?" Topic

I recently have been putting up "what if" posts and will continue to do so?
However, these seem to annoy a small few?
SO -- when you game historical battles such as Waterloo do you FORCE the French players to launch the Cavalry assaults or have such a large emphasis on Hougemont-- or do you allow "WHAT IFS?"
If you play Gettysburg do you force the Confederate players to NOT allow Heath or Buford to push the attack on the first day or are "WHAT IFS" allowed?
MUST the Confederates launch the ill fated "Pickets charge" or is another "WHAT IF" allowed ?
MUST Vercingetorix wall up in Alesia ?
On and on …….
"WHAT IF" Custer had the Gatlin guns?
I always thought one of the purposes of Historical gaming was "WHAT IFS?"
Different decisions, circumstances, possibilities,event's etc?

Regards
Russ Dunaway

We play plenty of what ifs, however we keep to the orbats at a particular battle. We dont keep to most battlefield timings, but usually do for arrival times. However not always such as Waterloo where we diced to see when and where Blucher turned up and also Grouchy.

Otherwise one is in danger of just producing a moving diorama!

Or we have the Cold War, we have ORBATs, we know the terrain, otherwise it is all what ifs,

Tally Ho!

I will generally do a historical set up but let the game play out as the players wish instead of forcing a historical plan. Some battles however are not much of a game unless you force one side to make historical blunders which gives the other side a chance to win. When I have ran Bannockburn scenarios I forced the English knights to charge to start the battle. If they don't do this and bring their infantry up the Scots have very little chance of winning in my opinion. This is just an example of how I try to use historical scenarios.

Gettysburg is full of interesting "what if's".

What if Jackson had not been shot at C'ville and what would have been his actions on the field?

What if Lee had listened to Longstreet, (and a living Jackson), and either A: Continued the first day push, or B: Moved and swung around to the right?

What if Meade would've pulled back to the Pipe Creek Line?

I let all the tabletop generals make their own plans. They win or lose by their own planning and maneuvering. It's more fun that way. The winner can gloat over the looser.

I only follow "historical" when it comes to possible engagements. Mongols vs Incas, WWII Germans vs Zulus, not really interested and will play just fantasy or sci-fi. Mongols vs Persians of the same era, ya I'll do that. I don't play specific battles though if I can help it and would rather do historically plausible hypothetical. No interest in refighting Jutland.

No interest in refighting Jutland.

What the heck is wrong with you?!?!

- Ix

I wouldn't make too much of some people getting annoyed at "what ifs". Taste is a factor. One man's "what if" is another man's belly laugh.

No interest in refighting Jutland.

What the heck is wrong with you?!?!

Maybe he's just not interested in naval wargames.

As noted above it is usually the OOB and terrain that are as close as can be made. Arrival times can be the same or varied.

Sometimes units that were 'close' can be added as well.

This is how I get more mileage out of the same battles

WRG Ancients and most Ancients rules are all giant what ifs.
Early Egyptians engaged with Vikings, etc.

Russ Dunaway

Let me see if I can articulate this properly.

I thrive on "what ifs" which puts someone in the commander's boots and lets him make some decision the historical commander might have but didn't. Lee might have given firm orders to take Culp's Hill. Bonaparte might have attacked earlier at Waterloo, or held back his cavalry. (Custer's Gatlings are fuzzier. Fine in a campaign, but would he have caught up with the Sioux with condemned horses dragging the guns? So the battle becomes iffy.) I'd rate a surviving Jackson at Gettysburg as interesting and playable with the right command & control rules--but I'd keep in mind that with Old Jack still around, a battle in the summer of 1863 might have been fought elsewhere than Gettysburg and under different conditions.

(Mind you, there are historical battles difficult if not impossible to wargame, because the battle was only fought historically due to some now-famous commander error--usually in order of battle or terrain analysis--and any wargamer interested enough to fight the period knows about the error, or will feel horrendously cheated when the enemy drives tanks through what he was assured in game conditions was not tank country. Sometimes disguised scenarios work, but not always.)

I have no use for teleported armies. Someone started a thread a few years ago about Ottoman Turks vs Shogunate Japanese. What, he asked, would have surprised one about the other? Well, for a start, that one or the other had conquered Persia and China. By the time they had conquered enough real estate to fight each other, at least one army and probably both would have been substantially different--and known quite a bit about one another: it's pretty much only in colonial campaigns that the enemy is a complete surprise, and not always then.

A more recent thread on TMP wanted to move a "unit"--no size or year specified--of a certain famous amphibious force around the world to face another opponent very different from their usual ones, and called for speculation on the outcome. I think that, (a) under those circumstances, unit size and year are critical and (b) probably the new mission would have called for a review of training, equipment and organization. Certainly it should have. So to me, very like the Turks vs Japanese above.

If I can't see how to get from history to the proposed battle, then I'd rather fight open fantasy and SF.

But if we all agreed on such matters, we wouldn't be the hobby famous for having more rules than players.

Since you asked, I think some of your what-ifs are more Imaginations questions than historical what-ifs. To me, aside from the what-ifs of a historical battle, a what-if question would be, what-if Germany invaded Russia in 1940 (or '42), or what if Germany had made aggressive use of airborne units in the invasion of France? Tournaments that pit Vikings against Aztecs are fantasy games with historical figures.

You are, of course, free to pose whatever questions that you like.

To me a "what if" is a "what if" so simply the size of the "what if" troubles some?
The difference with this and SciFi or fantasy is that real life units with actual history behind them are being speculated on.

So looking at the capabilities of a unit of orcs or space Marines is entirely make believe -- we can actually speculate on the capabilities of a true historical unit --

"imaginations???"
So what is so odd wondering what would have happened had Napoleon and Lee "put on their boots" one morning to face off?
Everything we do in this hobby is about imaginations??
Russ Dunaway

It's all fun anyway you look at it!

The Lost Battles book has a scenerio mechanic where a certain historical outcome in a battle is not required, but is worth significant points towards victory.

I used this in a Hastings convention battle. Historically, the left side of of the Saxon forces broke ranks and tried to run down the Normans. No gamer is going to duplicate this key event to the battle. To incentivze the action, the Saxon players had a high victory point goal to move an infantry unit into Norman territory on the left flank. The Players were free to figure out when and how (or if) to accomplish the goal.

There are what-ifs and there are what-ifs. Historical OB and terrain with historical or alternate deployment, plus commander freedom from that point are fine. Aztecs vs Space Orcs, no thanks.

In many cases, these things can be gamed out, particularly strategic stuff (What if Germany invaded Russia in 1940? Approx a 20% chance of success – based on years of bitter experience playing AHGCs Third Reich). Tactical ones are harder as frequently rules are designed around the doctrines, training and tactics of that particular period unless you are just playing glorified WHB with Aztecs armed with clubs fighting Space Orcs with laser rifles or whatever.

Each to their own of course.

Years ago late a night in the Pentagon, "Gettysburg" was playing on a monitor, and one of the inevitable helicopter pilots was having orgasms imaging his gunship vs Pickett's Charge. I wasn't much impressed then, and I'm still not impressed, even though "we can actually speculate on the capabilities of a true historical unit." If there had been Yankee helicopter gunships, the ANV would have fought and been organized differently--and a helicopter gunship flying and fighting in 1863 fuel and ammo restrictions would have been a different beast too. Armies exist in specific times and places and gear to fight certain opponents. When those change, so does the army.

Take your fantasy straight, Russ, and don't pretend it's anything to do with history.

I think there are time periods where the troop types are closely related enough each other
Although I clearly recall a episode of the twilight zone that had an M3 Stuart at the little big horn-- the Tank ran out of gas I believe and was wiped out also ??
Another movie with the a modern U.S carrier in the WW2 Paxific? Did not view this one.
But these would require a wealth of imaginations?
I have never understood why " scenario books" are so popular today -- me-always having absolutely no problem easily developing my own, be they straight historical or "what if."
Also, USMC could easily have engaged German troops.

Indeed -- to each their own.
The glories of freedom!!
I have also since my aprox 5 year experience with social media garnered the wisdom as to not read things I have virtually no interest in.

Russ Dunaway

This one is really down to personal opinion. I read it all and went away and thought about it.

Some rules seem to me to be Fantasy even though they are purported to be plausible. On that basis its seems impossible to put a limit on where reality finishes and fantasy starts.

Interactions of protagonist far separated in time and space don't interest me. They will not help me understand real history so to me are no interest. Its not that they are fantasy per-say, but they are uninteresting to me.

The Twilight Zone episode was "The 7th is Made Up of Phantoms." The crew is duly massacred, and their 20th Century commander finds their names on a LBH monument--not clear how. If the Sioux had left the dog tags, the burial party would have known these guys weren't with the 7th.
The movie was The Final Countdown (1980.) No one ever seriously discusses the pros and cons of intervening at Pearl Harbor, which was poor scripting.
If you want to see it done right, read "Hawk Among the Sparrows" by Dean McLaughlin. A fighter patterned closely on the SR-71 is transported to France c. 1917. You need WHAT for fuel, sir? And HOW much? And WWI biplanes don't generate enough heat to attract heat-seeking missiles.

You're never going to let go of those ETO Marines, are you, Russ? (I clicked on the link because there really were two USMC officers in occupied France--one OSS and one Jedburgh--and I thought you had something to say.) If you'd asked "What if a Marine division had gone ashore at Normandy?" you'd have gotten a straight answer. But "units" no year, none of the usual associated equipment and terrain made largley of handwavium is not a historical "what if:" it's a Star Trek episode. ("Arena" Season 1 Episode 18.)

But look at the pleasant exchange it has wrought between us Robert that may not have ever transpired as I shun conversations concerning modern politics and conventions.
Also, the episode of the twilight zone mentioned above was my second favorite after the one where some fellow spending a stormy night in a monastery mistakenly releases Satan back upon mankind and then spends his entire life in recapturing the fallen angel --only to have his curious secretary release him once again.

Merry Christmas
Russ Dunaway

It is the "What if" questions that makes history incredibly fascinating to me. It exercises the brain to tackle these questions and their possible answers, and of course, sparks a lively and interesting discourse among brethren (and sistren) of the hobby.

There is that, Russ. (But you'd rate "The 7th" above "A Nice Place to Visit" "Miniature" "Terror at 20,000 Feet" "Of Late I Think of Templeton" and "The Thirty Fathom Grave?" "Really?)

Anyway, it's "They're Tearing Down Tim Riley's Bar" from Night Gallery which digs deeper with time.

I loved Night Gallery and Night Stalker both
Never cared for " terror (and/or Shatner) at 2000 feet?"
Did not care for "the outer limits either" -- primarily because I was stupid and every single time I and DID reach for my TV dial to adjust it ???

Russ Dunaway

Maybe he's just not interested in naval wargames.

Nope I like naval wargames, just not interested in fighting battles that already took place. I'd rather a campaign where forces are set based on actual ships but then the players determine the forces and missions and battles generate from that.

Most if not all wargames are fictional. No one actually knows the actual Orbat, and further back you go, the less we know.