"Don't scenarios make the game?" Topic
21 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please use the Complaint button (!) to report problems on the forums.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Wargaming in General Message Board
Action Log
23 Oct 2023 12:54 p.m. PST by Editor in Chief Bill
- Removed from WWII Scenarios boardRemoved from WWII Discussion boardRemoved from WWII Rules boardCrossposted to Wargaming in General board
24 Oct 2023 1:40 p.m. PST by Editor in Chief Bill
- Crossposted to TMP Poll Suggestions board
07 Aug 2024 7:26 p.m. PST by Editor in Chief Bill
- Removed from TMP Poll Suggestions board
Areas of InterestGeneral
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Showcase ArticleIs there finally a gluestick worth buying for paper modelers?
Featured Profile ArticleAn inexpensive tool that might be useful on your workbench.
Current Poll
|
FlyXwire | 23 Oct 2023 4:49 a.m. PST |
I recently hosted a modern Ukrainian Conflict game, and it went well, but it got me thinking – wasn't the game's outcome pretty set from the initial disposition of forces, their missions, locations, entry times/points, with so much largely determined by the initial scenario? "Dicta" – German fighter ace Oswald Boelke back in WWI penned a series of precepts on how to ensure aerial victories – the thrust of his guidance was to always achieve positional advantage before engaging the enemy (if this was gained, kills were a matter of 'just pulling the trigger'). As a long-time member here on TMP, I often read the threads asking "what's the best ruleset for this or that period, or the most accurate, or most realistic"…… I think these threads often are putting the cart before the horse – do rules actually make the game, or is it how the forces are arrayed on the tabletop for the encounter actually, and largely influence what happens once the trigger is pulled? If this is true, or what mostly influences game outcomes by/through the initial game setup – then do most rules actually operate to interject randomness into this formula, by dice rolling to make the results less predictable (and therein enters "the game")? Furthermore, wouldn't the most realistic rules reinforce expected and predictable outcomes, and therefore make the original scenario creation that most important factor for getting expected results? |
robert piepenbrink | 23 Oct 2023 5:49 a.m. PST |
Which is the really important leg of the tripod? If you want a good game, the scenario, the rules and the host/GM all have to work properly. The rules have to reward sound historical tactics without being dense or unplayable, and be appropriate to the scenario. The scenario has to be something either side can win under those rules if the commander makes the right decisions (or his opponent the wrong ones) and don't get me started on everything which can go wrong at the host/GM level. Yes, this means a lot of realistic and historical situations are not ones I'd recommend as wargame scenarios. It's why the ACW gamers refight Gettysburg more often than Fredericksburg. But a bad set of rules can mess you up just as badly. If you think the quality of the rules is unimportant, you've been very fortunate in your choices of rules. (And if I give examples of bad rules, you'll never get this thread back on track.) I generally figure that you're "within spec" if a player has at least a chance in three in winning, and the decisions he makes do more to influence his chances than the dice he rolls. (Think random arrival of reinforcements or the blowing of bridges, for instance. If the most important thing the commander can do is roll high on the reinforcement table--as opposed, say to avoiding that obvious kill zone--it's a poorly-designed game.) Don't neglect any leg of the tripod. |
FlyXwire | 23 Oct 2023 6:20 a.m. PST |
Thanks for your reply Robert! I'd also like to ask here, what would be someone's most enjoyable historical ruleset (we'll stay on WW2 if possible)? This I think is a neglected question on the forum perhaps (maybe because it requires a respondent to actually quantify between their choice for "realistic results" vs. "variable results"). Robert wrote – "I generally figure that you're "within spec" if a player has at least a chance in three in winning, and the decisions he makes do more to influence his chances than the dice he rolls." So, but not exclusively, in player choices about timing – manuever choices, firing choices, etc.? |
Wolfhag | 23 Oct 2023 8:00 a.m. PST |
Overall I agree with RP. Furthermore, wouldn't the most realistic rules reinforce expected and predictable outcomes, and therefore make the original scenario creation that most important factor for getting expected game results? Overall I'd agree if it is a specific historical scenario. I can't see the South winning at Gettysburg or the US Marines losing an island battle against the Japanese. However, much of it depends on the player's knowledge and expectations. For a convention, I designed a game for the ACW Battle of the Crater and the Charge of the Light Brigade to give the expected historical results. There weren't many chances of historical decision points for the losing player to make to change the outcome. The rules would not be good for other battles. In tank-tank engagements, history shows that the side that shoots first will most likely win. A Sherman with a short 75mm gun can penetrate the Panther side armor out to about 1000m. If they flank ambush a column of Panthers each Sherman could get off 2-3 shots before the Panthers could respond and engage the Shermans which by then could withdraw. Some players may cry out that it is unrealistic because "everyone knows" that the Panthers are better than Shermans. Let the Shermans fire WP rounds and it gets even worse for the Panthers. What I see happening in "historical" war games is "unhistorical" scenarios because the game needs to be fair and balanced and historically that was rarely the case. Good luck trying to find a player to play the side that is unfairly outnumbered and at a tactical disadvantage. The other problem I see with historical war games is the unrealistic and unhistorical tactics and rules. Some are better than others but it generally comes down to a preference of the type of game sequence and game mechanics none of which are found in the manuals. Regarding Ukraine: A good friend of mine was with a Spec Ops unit doing SigInt, drone ops, and artillery FO on the front lines of Bakhmut from Nov to March. Strategically, they were conducting a fighting withdrawal. As long as they had their drones up, SatCom/internet connection, and arty ammo the Russians/Wagner Group assaults would be repulsed with heavy causalities. If not, the Russian assaults would continue until the Ukrainian defenders ran low on ammo and enough men to defend the trench line. When the Russians got into the trenches it was normally game over because the Ukies ran out of artillery ammo and the defenders were low on ammo and the Russians would send in real troops as reinforcements. The fallback trench would be in the next treeline 200-500m meters through open ground so there was normally no other choice but to fight or surrender. He said it was sad to watch through thermals and live drone feeds guys he knows valiantly fighting a losing battle and refusing to surrender. Tank engagement: link Tank comparison: link One item it does not mention is the reload time for automated reloaders. The T-64 and T-80 are supposedly a few seconds quicker than the T-72 and T-90. However, there have been many upgrades and modifications for both sides. Also, as the ammo carousel gets emptier the reload time can be 50-100% higher. The Abrams can get off 3 shots in about 12 seconds using "lap loading." That's a real force multiplier you won't see in Team Yankee because it is "unbalanced." Thermals and night vision are a game changer if one side does not have them and generally negates any technical advantage the side without them may have. Realistic (unbalanced) scenarios are not going to be much fun for one side. So, but not exclusively, in player choices about timing – manuever choices, firing choices, etc.? The only games that I know of that use real timing in seconds are computer simulators, Phoenix Command (not very playable), and mine. Traditional game rules and die roll modifiers can attempt it but gets very unplayable. I know I've tried and failed. Historic timing needs a playable way to portray simultaneous movement on a second-to-second basis. It can also recreate historic rates of fire and maneuvers like Reverse Slope Defense. It can also portray historic engagement times (turn/pivot/traverse times), fire control techniques like Battlesight (basically reduced aiming time for a snapshot), and Bust on Target (quicker follow-up shots/rapid fire). I think most importantly is that better crews will be quicker than poor crews and a better portrayal of Situational Awareness. When you have an IGYG game with 30-second turns a vehicle moving at 30kph moves about 250m and historically could be fired at 2-4 times. I'd like to see someone come up with a game that can simulate interactive historic rates of fire between all units in the game. Be warned, historical timing accuracy in a game will generally not be fun – reality sucks. Wolfhag |
FlyXwire | 23 Oct 2023 8:14 a.m. PST |
Actually, I just doubled back and re-read what Robert wrote again…..I'm good to go! Gaming (if you play scenario-based encounters), involves the tabletop situation, good judging of it, and acceptable rules for it. Maybe not Robert's exact break down of his 3-legs categories, but I believe rules are just a third of what makes for a good game presentation. Now of course there's bad rules, or often misapplied rules……and how often do some sets get played incorrectly, as there's nothing realistic about botching a game because the presentation is too challenging to pull off with the rules being used. So scenario, a competent presenter, or multiple-players knowing the rules well enough, and the actual [perceived] rules appropriateness for the end-result can make up for a good mix. Wolfhag, I just saw your posting here – thanks for your thoughts too! When I mentioned timing, I wasn't speaking about seconds – more about decision-making timing – when to act for maneuver commitment, or when to engage fires – and as you mentioned (what ammo supply is on hand to affect those decisions for instance). Just a side note, on the simple set of modded-rules I'm using for my Ukrainian Conflict stuff – Trenches. Trenches have their own spotting requirement (of hidden vs. seen units)……I guess I could even rename the rules "Fighting Position", but it's the trenches (and tree breaks) that have their own simple, but dedicated rules mechanic that largely defines the scenarios I'll be presenting. With the observation drones, present too in 2014-15, now our gamer's '10,000 ft. view' of the tabletop suddenly becomes plausible. Wolfhag wrote – "I'd like to see someone come up with a game that can simulate interactive historic rates of fire between all units in the game." That's what I was scratching at with that thread to you on combined-arms integration – we're talking multiple minutes to secure [responsive] fire missions with the WW2 era – which doesn't sync with a seconds-based system. Of course, the timing can sync, but in the context of encounters, the differential in direct-fire gameplay, and then supporting fires may seem 'disconnected'….or more so 'disorienting' to players. (?) Hey, that touches on another part of your thread, and how I'm conceiving mission writing for these modern Ukrainian scenarios – much of the game situations will have to be 'raids', in their expected duration to accomplish. If/when the artillery support does arrive – these missions can effectively be considered compromised. I've never been a fan of turn-based mission requirements, but can now see turn limitations as a means to express operation urgency – (dear player, you have so many turns before the heavies rock your world – get to it). |
Martian Root Canal | 23 Oct 2023 9:20 a.m. PST |
Furthermore, wouldn't the most realistic rules reinforce expected and predictable outcomes, and therefore make the original scenario creation that most important factor for getting expected game results? I'd change that from 'reinforce' to 'allow.' Expected and predictable outcomes have led many a general to the wrong decisions on the battlefield. I'd rather make a plea for rulesets that increase fog of war for all parties. Most battlefield decisions before satellites and drones were made with incomplete knowledge, and the greatest tactic of all is often surprise. Surprise is hard to achieve in the birdseye view and incredible command & control most rules sets provide players. |
robert piepenbrink | 23 Oct 2023 9:27 a.m. PST |
Thank you both. I am duly flattered. And yes, "choices about timing – manuever choices, firing choices, etc." were the sorts of things I had in mind. As regards observation, That's why I seldom design or adapt a scenario higher than corps (through FPW) or Brigade (1914-forward.) It's the highest level at which the commander could reasonably expect to see his battlefield--though AWACS and now drones are changing this. Seeing the battlefield often reduces the concealed unit problem to something more manageable--not the 1,000 foot tall general, perhaps, but a colonel on a hill or a marshal in a windmill. May I go a little further into the weeds and suggest that part of the joy of converting a historical event into a wargame is finding the right match? That means both the level of conflict at which important choices are there to be made, and rules which emphasize the elements of combat most important to that battle. I've been reading lately about some of the clashes on the south flank of the Battle of the Bulge--combat commands of 4th US Armored vs regiments or battalions of 5th Fallschirmjaeger. The details of rates of fire and armor penetration strike me as much less important to the outcome than morale, training, communications and command & control. A few years ago I was working pure or nearly pure armored engagements in North Africa. The battles were on pretty much the same level, but the rules emphasis would have been almost exactly the reverse. It would be so much easier if all we had to do was find the single most perfect set of rules for a period, and now I'm suggesting that not only may we need one at each command level, but that "best" might depend on the scenario. I'm sorry. I'd give you an easy solution if I had one. |
FlyXwire | 23 Oct 2023 9:41 a.m. PST |
MRC – a nice addition to the discussion! Perhaps, much of that fog of war or C3 imdepia can come with the scenario crafting – or, let's not wait for some rules writer to enable it, we as game crafters – just do it. Robert, you're getting into that suppressive/shock aspect of warfare there aren't you, that's maybe not dealing with tactical hit probabilities – well yes, but maybe with a combined volume-of-fire aspect to probabilities…..and that's the Soviet Way of War – where so much ammo tonnage applied gets the desired results. As you mentioned, these are the results that become the calculus of unit-based gaming (volume-effects). I think it interesting some tactical systems that present that "Matrix results" to combat reactions – basically a CRT, with a more 'human face" to it. Oh yes!, we need different rules and different scales for different command levels of gaming – and I try to believe that all my multiple scales for the same historical period were pre-conceived with this organizational approach in mind (not!), but I'll claim publically that I knew exactly what I was doing. :))) Actually – 2-3mm, it's the most 'honest' game scale ever…..it's hard to claim you got into it for skirmish gaming. |
UshCha | 23 Oct 2023 9:48 a.m. PST |
Good scenarios need good rules. They must be capable of dealing credibly with complex scenarios. Similarly good scenarios need a third leg good players. An interesting scenario to some is far too complex for say beginners. The rules may be the same, but if now you have too many options (great for folk like me) a beginner gets analysis paralysis, nothing to do with the rules, that's not good and he won't have fun. A good scenario will have both sides guessing about how to approach it and hopefully the Setter of the scenario is not that certain it can be achieved, but is certain it is no walk in the park for either side. In the end winning or losing is not it, having a great challenge and watching the other guy sweat is what its all about. So a good scenario is one that is testing for the participants. This can be virtually impossible with too wider gap in capabilities between the protagonists so the the scenario has to be a common denominator thing in that case. That may be all some players want anyway. Fog of war is easy, have a map and hide stuff. Beginners may not even cope with this given a blank board they may again have analysis paralysis. Dummy markers may be as much as they can cope with. Fog of war is actually quite easy to overdo for beginners. Mind you if you hate hiding troops from a visual approach standpoint, then there is no complaining that you have not got any, its your own decision to screw it up for other requirements. Any decent set of rules does not allow instant massive response to a surprise. Many rules neglect this aspect and the 6" 12" sets are particularly bad. DBM did better than them! |
FlyXwire | 23 Oct 2023 9:55 a.m. PST |
Analysis Paralysis – that's a good one for a fourth leg perhaps (and not necessarily talkin' bad players, but bad matching of players to game systems). (?) |
smithsco | 23 Oct 2023 10:15 p.m. PST |
I don't think analysis paralysis is a problem to be dealt with. Commanders faced it in real life. If McClellan acted more and thought less he might have won more battles. My issue is that most games give you the battlefield and little else. Surprise is essential in war but how can you surprise if there are no mechanics or else rules in the scenario itself for flanking or being able to come up behind. |
UshCha | 24 Oct 2023 12:44 a.m. PST |
smithsco you answered you own question, wrong rules, even DBM made sure regular armies could not span the entire t able. If your rules do that, dump then and get a better set. Suprise is not always possible, see current Ukraine war, some supprises but lots of no supprise battles. |
robert piepenbrink | 24 Oct 2023 2:21 a.m. PST |
"Have a map and hide stuff" works well if you have a non-playing third party. I don't think I ever have, outside of conventions. |
UshCha | 24 Oct 2023 3:02 a.m. PST |
robert piepenbrink , never had an umpire, hidden static units is enough and if you can't trust your opponent then no point in playing at all. The maps ar marked so after the game you could check if you wanted too. Again its not perfect, but as complicated as I can cope with. You can use dummy markers instead but its not as good but it helps begginers as it puts limits on what they need ot analyse. More experienced players need less dummy's as there are lots of places that are so obviously dumb places to be, it matters not if its real or dummy, in either case its not an issue, if its real its just a gift. So good players only put markers that are a threat real or otherwise and keeps the game moving fast and no loss in fidelity by losing those extra markers. You have to give begginers more markers as they can't always work out where the stupid positions are so they need more so they can get the decent positions marked as well. Again not sutable for convention games, but they already have severe limitatios on the standard of games the participants can realisticly expect to contend with. They are only ever going to be "social games". |
mildbill | 24 Oct 2023 3:18 a.m. PST |
Having the terrain have the correct affect on the scenario is just as important as the combat power between the forces. Get those two items right and unless the rules are just terrible, you should get outcomes within historical probabilities. |
FlyXwire | 24 Oct 2023 4:15 a.m. PST |
MildBill – wrote what I largely wanted to express – but in two easy-to-read sentences! (maybe he should write gamin' rules too….just sayin') |
miniMo | 24 Oct 2023 6:56 p.m. PST |
I think you forgot to put the question in the form of a poll. |
FlyXwire | 25 Oct 2023 3:38 a.m. PST |
It would be interesting to see a breakdown, but sometimes those poll questions…… Do you like cheese? :))) |
UshCha | 25 Oct 2023 1:26 p.m. PST |
mildbill – Not sure your comments don't miss the point. Rules should cover terrain. Rules that get it wrong are just as bad as rules that get Command and control wrong. Now you may have a point that if you can't represent the terrain you need physically on the battlefield your scenario will be pants. A good scenario needs to ensure you have physical terrain that can represent scenario terrain. As an example I would not be able to do an airfield scenario covering a real raid on an airfield as I would need all of the runway which could be 6000m, treble a modern T72 effective tank range, noway have I got that much space. I may be able to do the built up area bit but I don't have a hanger big enough to even cover the real area at ground scale. never mind at model scale. Would I want to make one for a one off game, no way, not a good use of my playing time. We did spend a lot of time getting a playable approach to dead ground within the physical limits of our terrain system and model scale. It will fail to be a good approximation outside these limits, but that is immaterial as we can't represent them anyway! It's just a bounding condition within which the scenario must fit. |
Old Contemptible | 08 Aug 2024 12:13 a.m. PST |
The Scenario is the primary engine of a good game. Rules are important but they are useless without a scenario. I own more scenario books than rules sets. I also research and write my own scenarios either from scratch or using one or more pre-printed scenarios as a basis. Scenarios make the game. |
UshCha | 08 Aug 2024 12:54 p.m. PST |
The tripod analogy is the valid one. There can be no decent scenario with poor rules> If the rules can't model reality at least plausibly then writing a scenario is impossible. The scenario needs to be plausible so you can use experience to define optimum strategies. Now if the rules can't cope with the real world even approximately (and there are a LOT of them), then the best scenario in the world is worthless. Terrain needs to be clear enough in depiction that the players is not spending half his time trying to work out what real world terrain is being represented. Stylization is fine if its easy to understand. Ill matched players will ruin any game, even if the scenario and rules are up to it. If one of the players can't handle the analysis of a very complex and hence by definition an interesting and challenging game then it's going to be a dreadful game for both sides. . |
|