"Are Table tops a good way to wargame." Topic

Warning Geek Study, not for Wargames Lite players its long and boreing for you. In Analsim's thread recently there was a starement that, It's a tabletop game so it can't be real. It got me thinking why? So here is a study that says a Tabletop is perfectly acceptable as a map compared to a military map.
The miltary in the 1980's use a map very similar scale to the Current UK 1:50000 scale OS maps.
So I use 1/144 minitures with a table scale of 1:1000. A typical single track road is about 24mm wide on table. So at 1/144 scale that is 3.456m in the real world. So the road is 6 times wider than the real world.
Now on the OS map the same road classification is about 0.5mm wide. So scaled up 25 meters wide. So about 7 times too big. The table better represents a small road than the map.
Now a big road 2 lanes (one each way) we use 50mm wide on table. So 50m ground scale. Two carrige way roads are about 8 m wide. The one next to mine is actually just under 8m but it is a bit narrow compared to some. This one is simple, the table road is 6.25 times to wide to the real world.
Now to the map. The wider roads are marked as 0.75mm wide. So 50 000 times bigger 37.5 m wide. 4.6 times too wide.
Now this is all approximate but for my model to ground scale the table is no worse than a map so fundamentaly you are playing on a map.
So the table is a good approximation of the real wold as used by UK military so that is not a valid point against the use of a tabletop.
Now the God's eye view to me is only in th eyes of folk who put all the kit on the table regarless. That is definitely aWargames Lite, not simultion approach so cannot be used directlty againt the table as a medium its just players for whatever reason want minis on the table regardless . We do this for utter beginners but it leads to boreing games for experienced players.
So the tabletop is actually an acceptable definition of the real world when compered to 1980's maps.
Like in the exams, discuss the above.

Applogies to the folk talking about Tony Baths Game. My Text appearedd under you Title

Miniature wargaming has one aspect, that other wargames lack: the visiual. Beeing impreesed by the masses of enemies, identifying by uniform the Old Guard of Napoleon will not happen in most other forms of wargames.

Miniature wargaming has one big problem in simulating war: you see everything, so fog of war is missing. It is a problem, that some rules try to solve by hidden units, random movement (but that is more riction than FOG) or preplanned movement (Spearhead). But usually FOG cannot be achieved satisfyingly.

A table top and miniatures (or even blind cards, counters whatever) and scenery still give a player way more info than a really life commander (Though watching the current war in Ukraine I suppose an argument could be made for goggle maps and satellites giving modern commanders a lot more info)

An ancient commander, like Alexander, probably didn't even know what the whole battlefield looked like other than a few major features. Sat on a horse among his Companions in the middle of the chaos, that is a battle, with clouds of dust and troops obscuring his view he is having to rely on messengers and brief glimpses of the battlefield in a way a player stood over a table never has to worry about.

I honestly think if you want a player to get a better appreciation of high command they probably shouldn't even see the table, or even know the rules that are being used, they should be shut in a room with a map and only info delivered to them by a GM with which to issue their orders. I suppose it would be cool if you could get a general miniature with a little web cam that feeds back to them so they can have a miniature eye view of the table.

I graduated from the floor to the table many years ago. I have no desire to return.
Is a Tabletop a great way to simulate warfare? Perhaps not; but it is a good place to play a miniature-based wargame.

A wargame is to real war as a kiddie car is to a real automobile.
(Or maybe even less, as a kiddie car can still move on its own.)
In fact, the scale is the least relevant difference.

Our tabletop games simulate almost nothing about a real battle, whether played with figures and terrain or cardboard chits on a paper map.

But they look good, and they're entertaining for the participants, and that's all that really matters.

Decals, on what grounds does hidden movement fail, I think it is a very good start and am interested why it fails for you.

Prince Rupert, in Tulclidies Peopleopalisien (hopeless spelling sorry) wars one battle was he measures only abut 450 yards wide so your argument may be true for some limited period.

Parzival, so all commanders from platoon up in the western world are fools for running wargames to look at possible solutions or errors by wargaming. I look forward to your learned paper explain why this is so.

Tables almost never duplicate the experience of dead ground, lines of sight, that feeling of dread that you dont quite know where the other guys are.

A group of attacks suddenly rising up from a reverse slope on dead ground must have been a rude surprise.

The earth is it flat? Not usually. Adding hill shapes still doesn't bring about true lines of sight and direct knowledge of your enemies positi9n much of the time.

The ability to read ground doesn't work with maps very well. Only a partial test with a contour map.

get a general miniature with a little web cam

I saw that done with a tank battle played over the internet. The number of misidentified targets and friendly fire incidents was impressive.
"Wait! What do you mean I just shot one of my own tanks? That last picture was my view to the right, where the enemy is supposed to be." – "That was a picture of your left." – "oh"

I guess a lot depends on your definition of "good".
If you want to be immersed in the look and feel of a firefight, skirmish tabletop wargaming isn't even close. Video games might be better.
IF you want to be immersed in the look and feel of a command center, sitting around a table with a few paper maps, lots of phones ringing, coffee and people coming in and out might be better.

One aspect of game-as-simulation seldom discussed is, what aspect of the world are you trying to simulate?

I played a game in business school which consisted of handing 3x5 index cards to a neighbor. Each player had a rule for how to do so (every third card must go left, for example). It brilliantly "simulated" a complex, international supply chain.

Too often when we talk about this in wargames we want to simulate "everything." Good simulations, IMO, focus on one or two variables and abstract the rest out.

A friend told us about a wargame he ran in the army. You sit in a room listening to the radio and then giving your orders also via radio. Results were determined by a panel of judges. Static, garbled messages, messages not meant for you, incomplete/inexact messages, all had to be dealt with, in real time.

As for the God's Eye View, even with only spotted units on table, you have much, much more info in many cases than most historical commanders. You know, for example, exact strengths and composition. (My father tells the story of being in Vietnam and getting scouting reports. Local peasants could barely count so they simply saw "many." His unit trained them to equivalize: family? picnic? clan?)

For example, most games have a binary spotting rule. But spotting is often incremental:

• 12:01: I see troops moving in the trees to the east.
  
• 12:03: At least a platoon's worth, looks like a couple HMGs too.
  
• 12:06: Looks like a pair of APCs. BMP1s I think.
  
• 12:08: We got another platoon, guess we have at least a full company moving…
  
• Etc.

In my games I often have two levels of spotting. A "blank" blind that could be anything. An intermediate that is either (a) AFVs, or (b) other vehicles or (c) ground troops. I've been meaning to add a bit more to it, but that's for another day.

SIDE NOTE: I have long thought it might be possible to make an app to do hidden movement. You would have to regularize your map into squares, hexes or areas, and it would slow game play, but it would give real hidden movement w/o a judge.

Yes! Crispy! Somebody please do this! You don't have to grid your table. Just divide into sections using scenic markers. Great for solo play, I would think.

I sometimes wargame with senior and x-senior British army officers including one very well known name in the hobby. They seem content to say that wargames can throw up 'real' tactical situations and problems, and in that way they are instructive as to what real officers should look out for and highlight what responses might be required to solve them.

Outside of that, they unanimously agree that wargaming as we hobbyists play them are just a game with toy soldiers and not much more. It all comes down to the rules we use and the format in which we play: The rules required to do a 'proper military simulation' are very complicated, and the 'playing surface' visually very boring.

There is a book called War Gaming by Andrew Wilson. It deals with wargaming history in the military up to the advent of computers. He relates how military wargames were played (pre-computers) back in the 70s. His conclusions regarding complexity and visual representation are much the same, probably because some of the officers I know took part in them.

We use Hexon II terrain so we instantly;y have an accurate map. We always map the terrain so when we arrive its a fast put up anyway.

We mark the route of the hidden movement and reveal when it is needed. Infantry has a bit of unpredictability in its movement speed but is quite quick if not trying to hide. vehicles moves are quite quick and predictable unless not on good going.

Setting aside the hobby aspect--which seems a little odd on TMP--I'd say a tabletop was a workable way of simulating battles, with some drawbacks, and working better at some levels and in some periods than others.

That's pretty much my answer to this question concerning any method of wargaming, by the way: none of them are perfect, and none of them work equally well or poorly at all levels and in all periods. I don't expect this to change.

Gus Fring, where is the insult! I play Dominos every week so I am aware of Lite games. They are undemanding games so use of Wargames Lite simply puts them where they are by a man who plays Lite games. Would you have me put Dominos up with Chess, that would be insulting to chess players, or is that acceptable in your world?

Parzival, so all commanders from platoon up in the western world are fools for running wargames to look at possible solutions or errors by wargaming. I look forward to your learned paper explain why this is so.

Pffft. I said nothing of the sort. If you don't know the difference between military simulation exercises and hobby games— even complex ones— there's no point in having a discussion.

By the way, in military wargames for young officers, the instructors stand around yelling rapid-fire questions at the officers, announcing developments immediately, often conveying inaccurate information, which the officers are expected to respond to in real time. According to a friend of mine who went through the experience it was among the most nerve-wracking and harrowing things he ever had to go through in his military training. It is nothing like what hobby gamers do on a tabletop. NOTHING.

So don't compare apples to oranges and think you've scored a point. The similarities between military simulations and tabletop hobby gaming are superficial at best.

As for post-battle review gaming, I have no doubt that it's done, but I'm also confident that at best it's more like the map and chit games, and nothing like miniatures gaming, the purpose being to make general strategic discussion— what if this battalion had move to that other position— but hardly are likely to deal with precision details on the battlefield.

Of course, these days the simulations are more likely to be computer-based simulations than even the map-and-chit/terrain-and-figs wargames we in the hobby play.

It's my belief that Ushcha and analsim (perfect avatar/name, btw) are the same person.

Parziva yours is a brave statement given that you don't know what my game is. Its not mainstream and it only goes to Company level at best no apologies for that. However we have used it to assess various options of the protagonists. I did do simulation of engineering systems so have a good idea of the strengths and limitations of a simulation, so your comments are well shy of the mark.

Table tops are great to game on, my knees can't handle crawling around on the floor anymore!

Too true, cavcrazy!

Unfair, mjkerner. It's true they've both discovered the One True Way of wargaming and are eager to share it with us, but I'm pretty sure each would regard the other as a heretic. (Would anyone care to recite Kipling's "In the Neolithic Age" at this point?) But if you think you've discovered something important, you should pass the word.

UshCha, lest I forget again: the quality of the spelling and grammar on your posts has noticeably improved over the last few years. Congratulations and thank you.

robert piepenbrink – I try (or am very trying ;-) ). Thanks. I had to read Kipling's "In the Neolithic Age" never having even heard of that poem and me an Englishman! TMP is such an education!

It's a shame in some respects this topic went off at a tangent. It was really was just about the fact the tabletop with miniatures at 1/144 and 1/1000 ground scale, is no worse than a military map in my period.

This is a topic clearly really only of interest to simulation geeks. However it does seem that warning went unheeded.

Perhaps I misunderstood the OP. (I read it again, and still find it unclear as to exactly what it's trying to say.) Certainly the stuff about "Wargames Lite" was off-putting and didn't add to the clarity.
It certainly wasn't clear to me that the OP was referencing any specific rules or had those rules in mind— as far as I could tell, the OP was simply discussing relative scales of terrain on a tabletop compared to details on a map, and suggesting that tabletop gaming (presumably miniatures gaming) is superior to wargaming methods used by the modern military and more accurately represents the details of battle. I objected to that as a general statement.
But I also admit that I have run into my fair share of arrogant statements deriding one person's gaming preferences versus another's, and get a little touchy on such points. Perhaps I read that experience in as well. So I apologize for being dismissive and rude; that was wrong of me.

I do maintain that hobbyist gaming is a far cry from true military simulation, but it's now clearer to me from the subsequent statements that a comparison on that level was not what was intended.
In any case, I think that hobbyist wargames are useful primarily as entertainment first and general historical education second. If they achieve the goal of mimicking an actual historical battle, that may be of interest but it's not really proof that the rules are truly accurate simulations, or that they can give deep insight to what "could" have happened, particularly at the representative scale disparity common in miniatures gaming— four tanks do not a division represent! And even then, most of our terrain is entirely out of scale to the figures— seldom does anyone actually make terrain elements truly in scale to the figures (most notably in the case of trees, which in a real scale sense should appear on our tabletops as roughly the size of a shrub instead of the little, easily hand-held bits we say are "trees." Indeed, if we played with things at a truly accurate scale, we wouldn't be able to see much of anything on the tabletop simply due to the massive array of foliage sticking above the table!
And sometimes the true scale of a thing in a battle is simply visually off-putting or (like our shrub trees) too awkward for the tabletop at all. For example, a 1/144 WW1 Zeppelin would be over 4 feet long, rendering it not much suitable for a dogfight battle on a 6x8 table. Or tanks and artillery at almost any scale actually being as close to each other as they must be to be used on a 4X6 table! Aesthetics dominates tabletop games far more than it does on a map, or even a hex-and-chit board game. So the reality gets shifted so as to "look" right to our eyes, which distorts the game and anything we might learn from it to a degree that should not be overlooked..

" four tanks do not a division represent!"

Well, if they each represent one of the battle groups of a square organised 1944 British armoured division, then yes they do.

As ever, it depends on the degree of abstraction you are comfortable with.

Ushcha: Decals, on what grounds does hidden movement fail, I think it is a very good start and am interested why it fails for you.

The problem IMO is, that the strength of miniature wargaming is in the visual aspect of the miniatures. You dont read a counter with the stats, you identify the troops and the uniforms. (In a Waterloo replay, we once did, the british really trembled when they saw the masses of french troops. That wouldnt have happened in a counter wargame.)

The moment you use hidden movement, you loose that strength. – And usually the players of miniature wargaming are in the hobby, because of the visual. That is why they not so happy with hidden movement.

I too missed what the OP was about.

However, in most cases I would disagree about a table being as good as a map.

OS maps – ordinance survey – were, as I understand it, created so that in the event of war our artillerymen could shoot over hills without hitting them (tongue in cheek flippant but, about right). If there is an ever-present argument about wargames terrain, it's about the crests of hills and dead ground. Using a OS map this can be worked out scientifically, to a large degree; on a wargames table it's usually abstracted to simple rules that (to me at least) only make sense half of the time.

The moment you use hidden movement, you loose that strength. – And usually the players of miniature wargaming are in the hobby, because of the visual. That is why they not so happy with hidden movement.

That to me is not a universal. To our group not having some hidden movement is a massive failure no amount of figures could restore, but we are war gamer's who use figure not figure painters that war game.

Really the thread was about that the fact that the roads in our case are no more out of scale than on an equivalent map and that most linear features ,streams, hedges and ditches can be represented adequately.

Now dead ground and real heights that is another field. I have to confess we have stylized that horribly, like buildings. Area scale items are difficult, one house at 1/144 represents something like 24 real buildings with gardens. We have had to massively compromise that. Real maps are no better other, than isolated buildings it just shows a blob with most roads running through it.

Dead ground. I admit it, the table is not as good as a map, but neither are my terrain, analysis skills up to it! It would take me ages to calculate real dead ground and that would take too long. So we made a massive compromise as sometimes simulations have to, Better to have something than nothing.

It would be possible to do much better but the cost of time setting up the hills would be much higher and to some extent is really of more interest to an artillery expert trying to calculate ridge clearances and elevations when the targets are not at the same level. So as a designer we decided that it was not a Key parameter in our simulation, A case of like it or lump it its my simulation ;-).

My friend Phil Jarvio (where are you, Phil?????) and I played a number of games featuring hidden movement and hidden positions. It is absolutely possible if the participants are honest people and IMO it dramatically transforms the gaming experience – there is no substitute for the phenomenon of the "empty battlefield".

I had a 6ft 8in x 15 ft table (5 x hollow core doors) upon which I recreated (in 1-inch = 25 yards scale = a scale table area of 2,000 x 4,500 yards) a segment of French terrain around Soissons taken from an old AEF 1:50,000 WW1 tactical map. Topography was built up using stacked 1/2-inch Styrofoam cut to the correct map contours. The large wooded and forested areas, which covered as much as 1/3 the table area, were created using suitable twigs from local plants and bushes. Towns and villages were created using wooden blocks which approximated the true layouts of each locality. The terrain was so large and varied that we were able to play a number of very enjoyable (WW2 and Warsaw Pact era) scenarios kept fresh by swapping sides, set-ons and situations.

Was it a lot of work? Yes. But the combination of such a large tract of real terrain and the use of hidden positioning and movement gave a gaming experience unlike any other in my experience. All of a sudden factors like flank security, forward reconnaissance and good observation assumed a great deal of importance.

Wish I had the space today to duplicate that table.

FWIW.

B

Blutarski, how did you determine when two hidden units could see each other?

Hi Gauntlet,
Phil and I used Phil Barker's Armor/Infantry Rules (both WW2 and Warsaw Pact scenarios) and operated on a basis of "mutual collegiality". I'd openly move scout/recon elements (say, a platoon of infantry spread in skirmish line). I'd halt my advance at the forward edge of edge of woods and ask what elements of his could be seen from there. Phil would put out any element that would be visible to my unit.

Some examples from actual games I recall playing -
1 – I moved my lead scout platoon cautiously to the edge of some woods and asked Phil what I could see from there. Phil measured from my elements and discovered that an anti-tank gun he had emplaced not too far way to enfilade the open space beyond the wood's edge was within my sight and he placed the counter down. On his turn phase, he did not react in any way to my platoon because they could not be seen by any of his elements. In my phase, my platoon opened up with rifle an MG fire and knocked out the gun and crew.

2 – On another occasion, I moved a platoon of Tiger tanks across an extremely large field and lost them all in one turn to a platoon of M36s hidden in the edge of woods far off on my flank.

3 – One scenario had me in command of a company of Panzer-grenadiers supported by a platoon of Stugs to advance of a big ridge line, into a valley, across a substantial stream bridged at two places and seize one of two small towns on the opposite side. I advanced my force into protective defilade just behind the ridge crest and pushed my one armored car to the top of the ridge to see what I could see. The armored car was immediately knocked out by an AT gun, leaving me with no info. Not knowing anything of the American defensive dispositions, I opted to trust to luck and rush all my vehicles in one mad dash across the bridge to the other town rather than my objective town. My opponent had not anticipated this. Not sure where my force (invisible to him) was actually concentrated behind the ridge line, he was unable to make any alterations to his initially faulty defensive position. My grenadiers reached the cover of the adjacent town, dismounted from their half-tracks behind the cover of buildings and launched a coordinated infantry attack supported by the Stugs and MG fire from the half-tracks following along on the flanks. Most of the American infantry ended up suppressed and their defensive position was quickly rolled up.

4 – I once launched an assault upon a thin band of woods atop a low ridge line with an entire US infantry battalion supported by a preparatory bombardment by a battalion of 4.3-inch mortars plus supporting MMG suppressive fire on the wood line. I was too far from the wood line to spot any opposing infantry but assumed that they were hiding inside. My attack, however, carried right through the wood-line and out the far side, where I discovered that Phil had dug in a company of infantry on the reverse slope behind barbed wire with mortar and MMG support. My infantry in the open was shot to pieces by the dug-in German infantry and MGs and pinned down in the open where the mortars finished them off. The survivors fled back into the woods. My mortar FOs were all on the far side of the ridge, so were unable to being the 4.2s to bear. Had the German infantry been placed on the table at the start, my plan of attack would have been DRAMATICALLY different. In such big static situations, we would often mark maps accordingly for reference.

The above requires honest and trustworthy gamers on both sides. It's hard to do with rules lawyers and ego problems at the table. But if one has the luxury of like-minded intellectually honest gaming friends, it provides (IMO) wonderful dividends and challenges to the gaming experience.

Hope this all makes sense.

B

Blutarski+1 That reflects our experience.

Even dummy markers if not overdone for the defending side do wonders over a sterile (to me only of course) all figure on the table game. It all depends on what you personally want out of a game. Is the priority the game or the figures?

Blutarski, your games sound great. So it sounds like you just only use fow for the defender?

What if units were only set on on the table when they would first become visible to the enemy commanders. At extreme range they would just be represented by counters. As they moved closer cavalry and infantry could be distinguished from each other and an idea of number of units could be coming into focus. Again as they get even closer, individual unit types could then be identified. Players would submit their moves each turn to the GM and the GM would then determine what is visible and at what range for identification. This has probably already been done. It sounds like a lot of work for a GM but fun for the players.

rampantlion. For us that is too much work, we like to play not umpire and its more suited to large games, personally no fan of them as there are too few really good players to make a good game) for me. In addition I suspect its really too time consuming for evening games even if connected. Again it's what you want and what you are prepaired to "pay" in spare boddies and time.

The trick is to have a system that does what you need/can cope with and the manpower you are prepared to use.

What does suppridse me as a rabid player (not painter or moddeller)is how few really good terrain systems are around. The best to me and I have no commercial involvement, is Hexon 2 for hills as it gives a lot of flexability and allows accurate mapping but to me its limmited to no bigger than 1/144 scale models which is not ideal for some.

We do a 1/72 set of folding hills and buildings which to me are adequate but most certainly not eveybodies cup of tea.

link

Clearly one reviewer was expecting something more than cardboard.

However thats beside the point it is a set of hill pieces that can be put together in a wide variety of ways and is mappable as its in sections of precise dimentions. Its not as flexible as Hexon 2 but its for 25mm stuff so the hills are 60mm tall.

It could be done with scenic pieces to get the flexability without hard edges of the card. In any game where hidden movemnent is needed, an accurate map is a neccessity. Early folk did not always have accurate maps but it is a neccessity if an honest representation of hidden troops is required. A sketch map by most folk is too inaccurate and open to interpretation to allow an honest representation of where troops are in detail whrn it counts.

So the tabletop really is a great place to play a 3D map that looks good with figures on, whats noit to like as a simulation tool.

I guess one option I have not tried but could work but at the expence of time. That is to send one side out of the room while the other deploys then removes the figures and the same for the other side but you still need an umpire but it would be better than a poor sketch map.

rampantlion. For us that is too much work, we like to play not umpire and its more suited to large games, personally no fan of them as there are too few really good players to make a good game) for me. In addition I suspect its really too time consuming for evening games even if connected. Again it's what you want and what you are prepaired to "pay" in spare boddies and time.

The trick is to have a system that does what you need/can cope with and the manpower you are prepared to use.

What does suppridse me as a rabid player (not painter or moddeller)is how few really good terrain systems are around. The best to me and I have no commercial involvement, is Hexon 2 for hills as it gives a lot of flexability and allows accurate mapping but to me its limmited to no bigger than 1/144 scale models which is not ideal for some.

We do a 1/72 set of folding hills and buildings which to me are adequate but most certainly not eveybodies cup of tea.

link

Clearly one reviewer was expecting something more than cardboard.

However thats beside the point it is a set of hill pieces that can be put together in a wide variety of ways and is mappable as its in sections of precise dimentions. Its not as flexible as Hexon 2 but its for 25mm stuff so the hills are 60mm tall.

It could be done with scenic pieces to get the flexability without hard edges of the card. In any game where hidden movemnent is needed, an accurate map is a neccessity. Early folk did not always have accurate maps but it is a neccessity if an honest representation of hidden troops is required. A sketch map by most folk is too inaccurate and open to interpretation to allow an honest representation of where troops are in detail whrn it counts.

So the tabletop really is a great place to play a 3D map that looks good with figures on, whats noit to like as a simulation tool.

Hi Gauntlet,
You wrote – "Blutarski, your games sound great. So it sounds like you just only use fow for the defender?

Not sure what "fow" refers to. Can you clarify?

B

What if units were only set on on the table when they would first become visible to the enemy commanders. At extreme range they would just be represented by counters. As they moved closer cavalry and infantry could be distinguished from each other and an idea of number of units could be coming into focus. Again as they get even closer, individual unit types could then be identified. Players would submit their moves each turn to the GM and the GM would then determine what is visible and at what range for identification. This has probably already been done. It sounds like a lot of work for a GM but fun for the players.

That is how I run my Herero games, which take place in German South West Africa, 1904 (present-day Namibia). Because of the Hereros' use of smokeless powder and their expert use of cover, concealed Herero riflemen could continuously and furiously shoot at the Germans without being spotted.

Thus, in my games, concealed Herero units are not put out on the board. As was the case historically, the Hereros remain concealed even after they begin firing. Thus, a concealed Herero unit that shoots is still NOT put out on the board – and its location still remains unrevealed to the Germans.

The German players initially confront an apparently empty battlefield. Even as the Germans take fire from the Hereros and suffer casualties, they still see nothing. The German players must therefore maneuver, while under Herero fire, until they get close enough to spot the concealed Hereros.

A German infantry unit spots by rolling 2 D6 at the end of its movement. Any concealed Herero figures within that 2 D6 distance are revealed and put out on the board.

The feedback I consistently get from my players is that including such challenging historically-derived elements as hidden deployment and movement adds to, rather than subtracts from, their enjoyment of the game. As one player enthusiastically described it: "this was the most fun headache I ever had!"

For a more detailed discussion of how I run games with hidden deployment and movement, suppression of hidden units, and off-board shooting and off-board charging, you can go to this TMP thread:
TMP link
(my post is at 01 Sep 2021 10:00 a.m. PST)

Blutarski,

Fow = fog of war

I'm ask because if both sides have hidden units, how do you know when one can see the other?

I've always been searching for ways to make double blind to work. Defender only hidden units is acceptable most of the time though since the attacker won't be ambushing anyway.

Hi Gauntlet,
FoW = Fog of War. Thank Goodness. I was afrain it meant "Flames of War" ….. ;-)

All the games I referenced were played between me and a very good friend, Phil Jarvio, who shared my interest in gaming as more of a "laboratory experiment" than a competition.

We'd start the game with our units marked on maps. The defender drew in his positions and any field defences (barbed wire, mines, AT ditches, etc); the attacker would lay out his attack plan with arrows showing direction(s) and objective(s). We trusted each other to be truthful.

So it would go like this.

Me: I'm moving some infantry through the woods here. Do you have anything there?

Phil: No, go ahead.

Me: My infantry has stopped at the ewood'e edge and is looking at the promontory overlooking the valley. Do I see anything?

Phil: Yes (and he puts out his anti-tank gun on the table).

Me: I have a platoon here on the wood's edge and am going to shoot at it (I roll dice and knock it out, but don't necessarily even bother to put the troops out unless Phil says that he has some stand(s) who would be able to see infantry and MGs shooting from that position).

Phil: OK, you killed it. I have no one who can see you guys shooting. Go to your next turn of movement.

So, this sort of game was conducted as more of a mutual dialogue between two people conducting an experiment than it is a competition in the conventional sense. That's why I mentioned that hyper-competitive rules lawyers and players with ego problems are not a good fit for this sort of approach.

As earlier mentioned, we used Barker's Armour/Infantry rules for purposes of movement, visibility limits, fire combat, morale, etc.

Hope this helps.

B

Thanks for the information! I see, so you do have to announce when you have troops that might want to see something, but you don't necessarily have to say how many or exactly where.

Very interesting

This is an old version using offset markers to determine where hidden units are:
link

The offset markers can be moved by the player but the position of the hidden unit can stay the same. This keeps opponents guessing. I use an abstracted pre-game recon phase and the winning side gets to place a number of fake markers he can use to bluff his opponent.

I also developed a nomo to help determine maximum spotting distances without die rolls.

For a meeting engagement I'll have both players plot the movement of their columns from their table edge. The hidden units are kept off the playing table but in the formation they would normally be traveling in. We then determine the speed and when a mutual LOS is established the units are put on the table and the game begins. This takes only a few minutes and normally results in recon units spotting each other and radio to their HQ the contact and players can then re-plot the movement of their columns that are still hidden. Players can change their off table units from a column to a bounding over watch once they have an idea of where the enemy is.

Smart players will have their recon unit deployed across their front and put some concealed in a treeline or turret down behind a slope.

For hidden anti-tank guns in a treeline I'll put a small marker with the units number under or in the terrain/building. When it fires/ambushes the model is then put on the table and location revealed.

Wolfhag

The similarities between military simulations and tabletop hobby gaming are superficial at best.

I guess the NATO Modeling and Simulation Center of Excellence missed this fine point, too:

link

Extra Crispy is talking about the right issue – it depends on what you want to simulate. In both cases = military analysis or training and hobby gaming = the answer is the same: the Decisions.

Decisions are what make a game. Tabletop is a good medium for some decisions and not for others. How well an artificiality can be mitigated (even if it needs to be) depends on what aspects of the decision are important.

In this discussion, it is important to remember that reality is not necessarily a good simulation of reality. A lot of people on these boards can cite examples like WWI vets in WWII, or colonial campaign vets in WWI. I saw a lot of that rotating people for second and third tours in Iraq or Afghanistan. I also experienced it rotating to Kosovo after Bosnia.

etotheipi,
Is that link your site?

inlgames.com

Yes, decisions should be the heart of the game. Ideally the same decisions that their real life counterparts would make.

Wolfhag

Wolfhag,

The link in the post above yours is the NATO M&S COE site. It is their article on hiring INLGames to provide instruction to the military sim professionals about integrating tabletop wargaming modalities into their retinue.

The link you provided is to my site, which is a glaring reminder that I haven't posted any project WIP in several months (still doing stuff at the same rate, just need to motivate to post).

And just to be complete:

link

is a link to our stuff on WarGame Vault (including the table top cyber warfare product that interested NATO).