"Why play a whole big battle at all?" Topic

Bill N,
I think Gamesman6 is saying it as if it's a bad thing, and he's right in that the more hats the player is expected to wear the more he has to do which overwhelms both time and mental capacity. The player has too much to do to play the game in a reasonable amount of time. That's why different rules for different sizes of battle are a good thing. If I tried to play Waterloo with rules detailed enough to be interesting to fight the skirmish at the bridge we'd never get done. If we tried to play skirmish at the bridge with a set designed for Waterloo we'd be done with a single die roll.

A big thank you to everyone who responded. I appreciate all your comments (including the critical and dismissive ones – I care about your opinions too). Judging by the quantity and quality of replies, it was evidently a worthwhile question.

As far as the charge of shameless self-promotion/advertising is concerned: guilty as charged, sorry – can I make a plea in mitigation? It genuinely wasn't my original prime intention, but I struggled a bit to structure the essay, was under time pressure, then saw Jim Owczarski's remarks, got over-excited and lapsed into stream-of-consciousness anecdotes and enthusing. There is a better essay to be written on this question that actually answers it properly, perhaps enumerating types of battle and game, listing what features each provides to players, addressing limitations and practicalities …

Nevertheless, I feel my decision to just publish and be damned is partially vindicated by the wealth of ideas in all your great comments. I hoped and expected that the resulting discussion would be better than what I'd bashed out in haste, and you didn't let me down. I hope you'll forgive me if I don't reply in great detail to the multitude of points in 50+ posts. I have just a few remarks to make now:

First: I should have made a clear distinction between big battle and big game – these are not necessarily the same thing! Small games of big battles are possible, as are big games of small battles, etc.

Second: I'll readily acknowledge BBB's limitations (e.g., the lack of fog of war, albeit the activation mechanism introduces enough uncertainty to compensate for that to some degree). Other ways of fighting big battles are possible and other rules are available. All have their merits and which is the right tool for the job depends on the job and the craftsman.

Third and finally: absolutely no disparagement of anybody else's fun was intended. Tournament games, skirmishes, monster marathons on basketball courts – it's all good and all part of our rich hobby. I ain't telling anyone else how to play toy soldiers. Have fun your way! Happy gaming!

Bill N.
It is a bad thing for me… I don't like the way most rules work or how the players is flitting between leadership roles.
Sure if one doesn't want to 👍🏻 but given the op and my own opinions I was stating them.

I get we can't be accurate and these days we could almost all of this "better " with computer wargames… but when I play a live table top experience I want to play something of the constraints the person I am representing would have.

Too many rules erase those but then as Valmy92 says we are left dealing with things that eat up time and Mental energy to apply them.

Clearly if people don't mind cool. But then I'm not trying to proselytising, just stating what I'm trying to do and why.

I do think that people get work out by trying to play too many rules ans the demands they make which is why smaller scale actions with simpler rules are more popular. There arw of course other reasos, like them allowing the nice scale toys in reasonable space and reasonable price.

But then I like playing platoon or company sized games in in 3mm. 🙂

I like big battles, as the problems you tend to face are those you read about in the history books. For the game I have Views on figures, table sizes and rules

Figures – I like to have an "appropriate" number (as defined by me ;) . For eg I dislike a Brigade being represented as a square on a table with a few figs on, I at least want to see each battalion represented.

Table – I want masses on a 12 ft table, not little squares on a 4 x 4 and that's Waterloo

Rules – I find the joy/hassle of a big battle is very influenced by the rules. In a big battle there are a LOT of events (unit move, shoot, fight etc) and if they are complex/detailed – ie slow to resolve it wears down the game speed and player endurance.

I remember a character in the comic Beano called General Jumbo. The boy commanded remote controlled armies and had various adventures with them. I think that is the next step. I can imagine the future of gaming now. Two or more players waging a war with various remote controlled armies. Could be played in the local park or out in the countryside somewhere. They might be that good they could paint themselves as well.

Why play a big wargame?

Because it's fun!

^ Amen to that!!!

Old Contemptible – Yes, spot on! Whatever size games we play, I'm sure we all play for fun. And because we are all different, have different tastes, possibly prefer different historical periods, it stands to reason that some people will prefer and enjoy bigger games more than smaller ones, and vice versa. Each to their own, as long as we are all enjoying ourselves.

I see no issues with the original OP thread. It was about discussion and personally I think it has been an interesting thread. It's fascinating to see the variation of opinion on what a BIG battle is.

Me I am really still in the dark about what a big battle really is in this context. A refight of say Waterloo from the original dispositions is not really a big battle as all the big battle decisions as to where, when and who are long since done. A battle somewhere near Waterloo would be sensible as the protagonists decide where and when they want to fight.

The second thing is waterloo is small say compared to the Normandy landings and the move inland where the depth of the Big battlefield is measure in miles, as it becomes about where to sight field artillery potentially several miles behind the front line. That positioning being key in a big battles sence as they will need to move forward to new sights at the protagonists advance or retreat and the timing of these moves is a big battle decision.

What is your take on what a real Big battle? To me it's not about figures on the table. It could probably be done better on a map. Our own larger games do use a lot of map movements as Mortars may need to move during the course of the game to support forward advances or being overrun but they rarely are close enough to the action to by physically on the section being modelled by the tabletop.

Good question, thanks, UshCha. Yes, what is a 'big battle'? (As distinct from a 'big game'.) This can be answered both in absolute and in relative terms.

Bear in mind that I'm approaching this from a nineteenth-century perspective, whereas I take it you are more a 20th/21st-century guy. In the C19, campaigns and whole wars were generally decided by just two or three big battles, often lasting no more than a day, rarely more than two or three days. Those major, discrete, pivotal events provide my definition of a big battle in relative terms (being larger, longer and more important than the many smaller sideshow actions that may also have occurred).

As for the absolute definition, when we were developing BBB and creating scenarios for the rulebook and first companion volume, we operated a rough cut-off of 'corps-sized' – i.e., at least one side had to be ~30,000+ strong. (Albeit since then people have done scenarios for many actions that are smaller than that but still interesting.)

Waterloo meets both those criteria. Whether a game of it meets your criterion of entailing 'big battle decisions' depends a little on the scenario design, I think? The Waterloo scenario in the newly published "Napoleon's Bloody Big Battles!" scenario book draws the frame wide enough in space and time that there are still some options: plenty of room for maneuver (both width and depth), choices over point and sequence of attacks, option to start earlier than Napoleon did … Alternatively, Matt Bradley has done a couple of great scenarios for the Hundred Days, one of which fits both Quatre Bras and Ligny on the same table, the other combining Waterloo and Wavre on the same table. Those definitely give you major 'big battle decisions' to make.

Many other BBB scenarios give you 'big battle decisions' as well. Chancellorsville (ACW) is one of my favourite examples, as both sides have to make operational-level decisions about shuttling forces across a 15-mile front in a multi-day battle. And yes, in C19 battles, siting artillery in the right place is often key, just as you describe – I lost Froeschwiller (Franco-Prussian War) earlier this year because I got that wrong.

Thanks again. I appreciate the thoughtful response.

ChrisBBB2 That does seem to be a reasonable definition. It makes it significantly diffrent in approach to smaller battles where high level support has already been defined to the lower tactical levels.

UshCha we have always defined a "Big Battle" by its time and place in history. In the Napoleonic wars Waterloo is not only a "Big Battle" involving three big armies. It's also a decisive one that set the course of history. What else would you call it, a small or medium battle?

Once you move back in time away from "where, when and who" your no longer gaming Waterloo. Your now gaming a "what if" or "fantasy" version. In others your creating a totally different battle maybe Waterbras?

Both Waterloo and the Normandy landings are "Big Battles" in their respective time periods.

Unless you're playing a "scripted version" of Waterloo, so and so attacks at 10 and somebody else at 11, etc. the protagonists in most games are faced with a multitude of critical decisions. Do I follow the historical events or do I create my own? What is the other side going to do? The most popular rules are generally "unscripted" where the players are allowed to create their own battle plans and execute them to the best of their ability. So every game starts from the same point, but often does not end the same way. The challenges on the table are often fast and furious for most of the players. There is no shortage of decisions in most rule sets that can either make or break your game.

Best regards,

Glenn

Glenn Pearce I have no doubt that players have fun, but basically they are simply sub commanders. A big battle is decided by the generals as to where and when. By starting late you have missed all the big decisions at the top level. High level games are about the where and when at the strategic level.

A far as I can discern your definition of "Waterbras" is the real Waterloo. Without that all the big decisions have already been made. Your definition is really just the same as playing a series of company games, who turns up where and who is allocated to who is already made. Nothing wrong entertainment wise, I have done lots of English civil war games like your Waterloo but they are not really big battles as the start conditions are to late in the day.

Hello UshCha!

Once you back up your starting point to include player created strategic moves your shifting your game into a mini campaign. Which means you are no longer playing Waterloo. You will end up playing a fictional battle not Waterloo. You might not even end up playing any battle!

The only way to play an historical version of Waterloo is to use the historical positions in place when the battle actually started. The players assume the roles of the highest commanders present and are now required to make the "big decisions at the top level" during the actual course of the battle. The strategic decisions that brought them here have indeed past. However, the major decisions they make on the actual day of the battle will make or break their armies! The fate of Europe now rests in their hands. Can't imagine any decision being more important than that!

I have no problem with you using your definition for big battles. I've gamed that way many times myself. This is a hobby and everyone makes their own rules.

Best regards,

Glenn

That's another issue with any battle or action. Is where you're role begins to make decisions and where when playing history… do you allow the players to move away from the history.
That is easier I'd say when you are in the role of a person who didn't have too much say.

Waterloo seems obviously to be a big battle, with big battle type decisions (which corps to commit, where and when; how hard to push; how long to allow for the prepatory bombardment; how amny troops to commit to protecting the flank, how many to the diversions, how many to the assault). I cannot follow the logic of saying that big battle decisions should be 'strategic'; a battle is a tactical affair, a big battle is the biggest tactical affair, but I submit if Leipzig isn't a big battle because the 'big decision' is to fight there in the first place, then that definition is not very useful.

Hello Gamesman6!

Our players assume their historical roles in their historical locations at their historical times. Each side then holds a council of war and plans their game. From that point on history is sometimes thrown out the window. Oddly enough most games end up similar to their historical counterparts.

Best regards,

Glenn

As regards "big battle" and "big game" backed into a corner I'd define a "big battle" as one so physically big the commander could no longer "see his chessboard" and his personal intervention, while dramatic, is probably irrelevant. Say above corps in horse & musket and above brigade in WWII. (AWACS and drones may make "ultramoderns" different. We need time for perspective, and I won't have that much.)

I'd say a "big game" is one so big the commanders don't themselves push troops: it's their job to monitor subordinates, encouraging and restraining, and allocating reserves. As a general rule, you're talking about multiple boards, and maybe 10 players or more per side.

Robert P:

Not for the first time, I like your thinking.

Coincidentally (or not), your definitions broadly mark the dividing point at which I – and I issue no challenge to those who do otherwise – choose to fight my battles with figures on the table or counters on a map/board.

Acknowledging that this thread was launched by Chris P, I add that BBB seems admirably suited to either.

Of course, I should love to take part in replaying Leipzig or Sadowa or the Marne or Op Bluecoat as part of a team effort spread over a dozen tables. But my visual range should broadly correspond to historical awareness.

Robert P – good differentiation. We've played some very big games (multiple players per side, all weekend) with multiple Corps size forces on large tables (horse & musket mainly)

The "Big Battle scenario" on its own in essence means each Corps commander is fighting their own battle, even if next to each other, driven by "orders from the Big Cheese" but these typically are not amended in a timely manner as the situation develops (typically only when all the players break for lunch etc)

The "Big Game scenario" has 1 player not pushing figures, just managing the situation. Good news is the orders ae updated more frequently. But for the Big Cheese it's quite dull IME, not much to do and being bombarded by subordinates wanting the reserves, army boons etc, NOW (and possibly losing a few friends by the end :D )

You can have a competitive scoring system for the generals so their actions are also driven by what makes them look good or bad to ther Beloved Commander. Just something simple like "ranked in terms of losses caused/losses taken ratio" produces interesting behaviour if people play "in character"

Thank you, laratenue, freecloud. As regards the non-playing CinC, it wouldn't be my favorite role either--though better than umpiring. But I have seen wargamers who thrived on it, and I have a hunch that the role--sitting there a little apart from the battlefield, listening to reports from officers of varying personality and capabilities and even getting reports from a microscopic staff while making only a handful of really big decisions--puts them a little closer to Napoleon at Leipzig or Borodino than I'm ever going to get.

^ I am one of those who likes equally being either C-i-C or Umpire. I do not care to be an observer of wargames for a long time.

Hey Glen.
Yes. Again there is not right or wrong answer only those we favour.

Unless we are starting from scratch we are making those decisions about where are we allowed to change the history.
The sooner that's placed the less likely the battles we fight will match those in tbe history.
Similarly where we place the top and bottom levels of control the player has in any particular action.

This is an interesting thread in that it raises interesting perspectives on what folk want out of wargames. That these vary widely is unsurprising but it is interesting that it has clarified for me what I do and do not want out of a wargame as a function the level of decision making I want to be involved with.