"Is YOUR way to play wargames the only proper way?" Topic

For instance, is 15mm the only proper scale for Napoleonics?
Can one have more than one project?
Are the rules you write the only acceptable rules for that particular period?
Are fantasy games nonsense?
Must rules account for every possibility?
Many more.

If you have very strong opinions, please add another codicil.
If Dear Editor takes this to a real Poll, he may of course set it up any way he wishes.

No, it's the way I play but I can play with others.

I've bounced around over time. Some things just don't appeal to me at various times.

If I put the game on…yes ! If someone else puts the game on I happily play their rules, etc :)

Everybody wants different things from their hobby, OFM. Who am I to tell them they're wrong and they must pursue it in any particular manner?

For instance, is 15mm the only proper scale for Napoleonics?

Naps are a black hole I avoid

Can one have more than one project?

LOL! Can one have fewer than 10?

Are the rules you write the only acceptable rules for that particular period?

Noooooo, but yes if Im running the game.

Are fantasy games nonsense?

Only if LOTR is nonsense. So no.

Must rules account for every possibility?

To dream the impossible dream . . .

A pity Bill can't give me an "irony" setting, so I'll have to do this straight. No, there are many nine and sixty ways of composing local games, and (almost) every single one of them is right.
Here's where I do draw the line:
--If you play a board or a computer game, fine. If you play a miniatures game, the miniatures should be painted at least well enough to seem complete on the table and identify the troop type. Some effort should be made to blend basing and ground cloth.
--If you play a fantasy or science fiction game, fine. If you play historical miniatures, good historical tactics should pay off better than bad ones.
--if you play solo, fine. If you have an opponent, the rules should be available to him before the game, readable and not with internal contradictions. The scenario should give both sides a chance to win, and making good decisions should improve that chance.
--There are things a platoon commander needs to worry about, and things a general has to consider. Rules writers should keep this in mind, and stick at more or less one command level.
--If you insist on playing a franchise, keep a stiff upper lip when the franchise owner tears up your rule book and disbands your army. You knew this was coming when you signed up, and no one at the game shop wants to listen to you whining about the inevitable.
--Same thing applies to bad runs of luck. You knew there were dice (or cards) when you read the rules.

All of which boils down to people should play fair and live up to the standards they set for themselves. When they don't they're open to legitimate criticism.

+1 Dal Gavan

You know, purely as a side issue, I eventually came to regard 15mm as the LEAST appropriate scale for Napoleonics. A very personal judgement, you understand, and I've certainly built and played with enough 15mm Napoleonic castings. But they're really too small for individual basing--yes, I know people disagree--which lets out skirmish games. And they're a little finicky for marking off individual casualties. Generally just not what you want for a Grant or Young style battle. But if you're fighting Borodino or Waterloo, you wind up with very high levels of representation. Think NB's 120:1.

I eventually wound up with an individually-mounted 28mm force for small, intimate horse & musket battles, and 6mm at about 40:1 for corps and above. It lets me fight corps-size battles on a card table. I'd concede a 15mm sweet spot of division or corps on a larger table, but for me it's not worth the storage problem of another scale of troops and terrain.

It really is a matter of taste and circumstances.

No. My way merely highlights things I am interested or want in the game. Hopefully that will coincide with someone else's interests. But what other people choose to play is of no concern of mine. And if I decide to try someone else's preferred system (or whathaveye), my attitude towards it needs to be positive and welcoming in the moment, even if I decide not to pursue that system in the future for myself.

If someone has a compulsions to control what other people do for fun, that someone needs to wake up to reality.

Of course it is, thanks for asking. That's why I play that way. Of course, if I want to play well with others, then I put my preferences and ego aside, we agree on rules and we play. Usually, fun is had by all, and that's the holy grail of gaming.

@Dal Gavan
"Everybody wants different things from their hobby, OFM. Who am I to tell them they're wrong and they must pursue it in any particular manner?"

This is a tongue in cheek poll. There are some on TMP, though, who seem to think that way, and are not afraid to sneer at those who think differently. I'm merely after the percentage. If this ever makes it to a real poll, I'll find it interesting if they're honest.
Heck, I play for fun, no matter the period. And I think that's the only way. It might make a nuanced choice, n'est-ce pas? Hainna?

There are some on TMP, though, who seem to think that way, and are not afraid to sneer at those who think differently.

Hell, some people sneer in person. At least once a convention I overhear some passing troglodyte make a derisive comment about the "wrongness" of a game, usually within earshot of the host and/or attendees. It's fascinating to me that nearly all gamers have the social etiquette to not comment on aesthetics, but will absolutely rip on period, scale, or mechanics. The weirdest example I encountered was two guys oohing and ahhing over the visuals of one of Bruce Weigle's 6mm Franco-Prussian, then in the next breath say , "But 6mm? What's the point if you can't enjoy the uniforms?"

No, obviously.

Playing with politeness and good grace is the only proper way to play.

~ , ~

Playing with politeness and good grace is the only proper way to play.

Shouting, flinging dice, and arguing with the GM's rules arbitration are all very bad form.

~ , ~

It is playing with toy soldiers.

The idea that there is any 'right' way/size/era/rules other than decent manners while playing is simply extraordinarily silly.

Yes. :)

I saw a Napoleonic game in 10mm at the weekend and it looked great. I have trouble seeing 6mm now and 15s seem a bit big for big battles.

But that's just me!…

No.

I fully agree with Robert on expecting troops to be painted. I go to great lengths to paint my armies to a high standard both out of pride and common politeness to other players.

For me Naps have always posed inherent contradictions. Anything smaller than 25mm and the major attraction of the period uniforms is lost. Anything bigger than 6mm and the feel of a Napoleonic battle is absent. If I want skirmish games I do 19th Century Colonial, but not Napoleonic. 15 mm is the worst of both worlds.

While I do mostly historical gaming, I am very partial to Victorian SiFi, and Konflict 47 esp. if there are rocket girls in the game. But Warhamer 40K I find too silly and abserdly $$$$ to interest me.

+1 for Stryberg.

Yes…

I hame many individual stands in my 15mm armies

More power to you, 14bore. I know a wargamer who has nothing but individually-based figures. But for me, they're too finicky.

I once knew a gamer who played Empire in 6mm by halving all base dimensions and distances, and maneuvering bases with two infantry figures by means of tweezers. Not how I'd pursue a compact, portable game, but he was clearly happy with it.

There are things a platoon commander needs to worry about, and things a general has to consider. Rules writers should keep this in mind, and stick at more or less one command level.

Where are those rules?

Even in a military exercise/experiment (something with "rules" that adjuciate outcomes instead of live (including live simulated) actions) where I have multiple levels of command represented, it is extremely difficult to confine the decision space to a realistic individual decision space. You have to add stuff in to make the game work and you have to leave stuff out to keep the game going. And that's ignoring the non-realistic context.

If you play historical miniatures, good historical tactics should pay off better than bad ones.

It depemds on what you mean by "historical tactics".

Ignoring the lists of commanders and combatants who made widely acknowledged blunders and still won and the ones who made the right call and had a bad outcome …

Have you ever done anything stupid and had it come out OK?

Should that tactic be rewarded?

After all, taking a one0-in-a-million shot can pay off.

Then we get to the historical events where a commander made a bad decision and lost, but there were other realistic options.

I frequently talk about the Battle of Puebla on these boards. The French lost. The French commanders made two really bad ssumptions: (1) the Mexican peoople of Peubla would turn or their Army and help the French, (2) the conscript cavalry of farmers on nags with lances (in the era of rifles) were not a significant factor.

Should the French always be penalized into ignoring the Mexican cavalry? Wouldn't it be "realistic" for them to set up a cavalry defense on their right flank, the way they (and other armies of the time) did in the past? SHould the Mexican cavalry always be as effective if the French did something different? Would they even have charged into contact if they met an initial colley at range?

This is a tongue in cheek poll.

Fair enough, OFM. But those of us who have had recent contact with Hobby Hitlers may take it seriously.

Do you want to run a book on the final percentage? I'll say 3% admit to thinking the hobby should be run their way.

IMHO, each player should approach the hobby in a way that he gets maximum benefits. Whether it is relaxing, learning (my favorite), compelling.

Some day you must tell me how I have offended you eto.

I don't recall calling for the end of dice, cards or uncertain identification of enemy capabilities. But if a sharp player reads the rules, does the math and concludes that his consistent best tactical bet is something no competent historical commander would have regarded as a smart move--and experience proves him right--the fault is not in ourselves but in our rules. Examples:

If your WWII big ship commanders see that their best bet is to ignore all those guns and torpedoes and go for boarding actions--and they're right and win games that way--it's time to have another look at those rules.

Same if the key to defending BUAs is NOT to have a clear chain of command--garrisons drawn from different regiments with no one in command have superior morale.

And if the trick to winning ACW battles is massed cavalry charges, or if infantry column attacks in the open are your best move in WWII, while the game may still be fun to play, it lacks something as a historical miniatures game.

Three of those four come from actual rules, by the way. Like to guess which three? Which may only mean I haven't run into the rules which screwed up the fourth--yet.

As for levels of command, don't wave your experience at me: I've been in some of those TOCs myself. And to an extent, I agree: wargame commanders don't have to do or can't do a number of realistic historical things, so it's feasible (and more fun) for one of us to occupy several historical levels--but not ALL historical levels. If you command a miniature WWII division, you see that the attack has artillery support, but you don't calculate shot falls, penetration angles or whether something happened to the C/13 IR CO. Similarly, if you're commanding a French division in Spain c. 1810, shooting civilians you though might be guerillas may have repercussions down the road, but it's not going to bring down more guerilla bands in the course of your present engagement, which might last an hour or so. Again, this last taken from real rules.

Are we all happy now? I've got Russian horse artillery to paint.

I am not offended. Some day you must tell me why you project that on me.

The fact that something happend in history neither means it was a good idea or that it would work more than that one time.

The fact that some rules you don't like (no idea which ones you cite) allow something highly implausible to work doesn't mean that the only way a historical commander could have won a battle is they way they actually did.

it's feasible (and more fun) for one of us to occupy several historical levels--but not ALL historical levels.

Glad we actually agree.

In your previous post you didn't say not to implement for all levels, you said confine mainly to only one. That's what I took exception with – it can be done but it makes for a very tedious and difficult game.

don't wave your experience at me:

I didn't wave it at you. And you seem to agree that its very difficult and results in an unpleasing game of you try to implement at one level of command without allowing other things to happen.

Let's not forget. In Tunisia a Free French Char 4 (?) took out a Tiger by jamming a 37mm shell under its turret ring.
Do your rules account for that? Hmmm???

Do your rules account for that? Hmmm???

Well, actually, yes.

We use Quick Intermediate Level Skirmish as a preference. The rules don't stat out Chars and Tigers (or any other unit). However, it is not possible under the rules to stat out any unit that is invulnerable. You can make mission kill as arbitrarily unlikely or as effort-consuming on the part of the attacker as you want, but not impossible. So I would say the rules allow for that possibility, though not as an explict mechaism. Then again, there are dozens of other low-probability ways tanks have been taken out by "impossible" odds … who is to say which one that figure used when you ordered it to attack?

This discussion reminds me of one time when DOM with two under-powered Mouslings took on my full health Master Bacon. She whipped its butt. Later we calculated the odds as just over 60,000,000 to 1. It was awesome! The best bit was that everyone at the table understood that this outcome was the result of (1) a desparate action, and (2) a long string of successive low-probability rolls.

Nope.

It's probably the wrong way….

Dave

If you're not offended, eto, I'm thrilled. But I'm certainly misunderstood.

I am NOT complaining that someone occasionally gets lucky, or even very, very lucky, and I thought I made that clear. I am saying that sometimes historical wargame rules inadvertently(?) make unwise historical moves sound wargaming tactics--not something which just might work, but something a sensible wargamer would consistently do. I consider that this reflects poorly on the rules.

Do you think otherwise? Would you think better of a set of ACW rules if nine times in ten an exact replay of Pickett's Charge resulted in a Confederate victory, or a 2-pd AT gun could stop a Tiger with some consistency?

"For instance, is 15mm the only proper scale for Napoleonics?"

Well, if you aren't playing 1:1 then tsk, tsk, tsk… ;-)

I think how you feel about the ‘correct' way to play any particular game/era/scale is less important than how you react to something perceived as incorrect.

I really abhor unpainted figures on a table and I would not have them on a game I put on but, I will not criticize another person choosing to do so, in particular a younger gamer. Similarly if I find myself at my FLGS or a Con playing a game where the rules allow things I feel are wrong, I will try my best to enjoy the game and simply not play those rules again. If I am close to the GM I might discuss my concerns quietly afterwards but during the game, I will enjoy things as they are.

We all have our personal preferences and that is just fine but basic good manners dictates that we allow others to have theirs without recourse to snark.

This is probably one of the most OFM questions to have ever appeared on this site. Welcome back in style, John.

Whatever you guys are doing, you're doing it wrong. Obviously.

</s>

My way or the highway. Wargaming is a chance to demonstrate my superior knowledge, analytical and modelling skills. Everyone else is wrong about everything.

For some reason I can't find anyone to play with….

But I'm certainly misunderstood.

I am NOT complaining that someone occasionally gets lucky, or even very, very lucky,

Obviously I am too, since I wasn't talking to you about luck. The discussion of probability was in response to a (snarky?) post by John the OFM about whether or not rules support outlier events. Nothing to do with our conversation.

-BT-

In our conversation, you have changed tack again no longer talking about historical tactics, but your most recent post now talks about

wargame rules inadvertently(?) make unwise historical moves sound wargaming tactics

Being a historically appropriate tactic is a very different thing than a wise tactic. I believe in terms of a historical tactic (still not sure what you mean by that), I have already pointed out that commanders have made dumb choices and won and good choices and lost.

Would you think better of a set of ACW rules if nine times in ten an exact replay of Pickett's Charge resulted in a Confederate victory

So, here you are conflating tactics with the combination of tactics and the situation. But Pickett's Charge is a great example for several reasons.

1) This was not an unwise choice for Longstreet (or Lee). At the strategic level, a change is a viable (and historically appropriate) tactic. At the operational level, Longstreet believed the Union forces to have been evenly distributed along three separate fronts. He also believed that the center front that he was going to charge was softened by the previous night's artliiery barrage, and out of artillery support.

If Longstreet's belief had been the actual situation, the Confederates would have had a 3 or 4 to 1 advantage, and probably would have been fine. Or at least successful.

The differnece between charging a roughly equivalent sized force with artilery support and charging a much smaller force without is not tactics, it is battlefield situation. The mistake was not tactics, but the information that guided the decision.

2) Longstreet believed the Union forces were depleted and out of artillery capability because of an ahistorical operational deception. The OPDEC was Hunt staggering cease fires on his artillery early made it look to anyone like the Confederate barrage had progressively taken out their artillery.

It was not a known tactic at the tlme. In fact, had it been a known tactic of Hunt (the man who literally wrote the book on Army artillery), it probably wouldn't have worked.

So … is that battlefield innovation or an ahistoric tactic?

If you replay the same mismatch the same way, it should come out with a mismatch type result.

But what about the tactic of saying, "Screw Lee … We're going to head into town and burn it to the ground." This is a tactic typical of the time. But it didn't happen in this case. So is that a historical tactic?

Fact check on etotheipi's post citing Pickett's Charge:

First, the attack was entirely Lee's plan. Longstreet in fact was against the attack and tried to persuade Lee not to make it. There was no previous nights artillery barrage. The main barrage occurred 2 hours prior to the assault. Even before the attack, Longstreet did not believe the position could be taken.

Union artillery engaged the confederate guns in a counter battery duel. Henry Hunt did send word out to cease fire, not as a ruse, but because he wanted his guns to preserve ammunition for the expected infantry assault. Hunt's order was countermanded by II Corp commander W.S. Hancock to resume firing as he believed it was demoralizing to the troops to not respond to the confederate artillery.

When the charge was finally given the go ahead, it was Longstreet's chief of artillery E.P. Alexander, who was to determine if the bombardment was effective, told him he's supply of ammunition was running low and if the assault was to be made, it had to be made now. Longstreet reluctantly gave the order to advance. Because much of the confederate bombardment was overshooting the union line, it was in fact ineffective.

Longstreet's belief that the position could not be taken would be confirmed of course. While union artillery would certainly be effective in repulsing the attack, the infantry at the angle was prepared with extra firepower from rifles captured from confederates that had failed in their attack on the second day. Many of the men had 6 or 7 loaded rifles along the line at the point of the charge. This combined with a double envelopment of confederate flanks was the decisive action of their defeat.

Kim

First, the attack was entirely Lee's plan.

First I didn't say it was Longstreet's plan. Longstreet carried it out.

Sorry, the artillery barrage was day of. I was going to say something about the Union scouts, which were deployed the night before. They signaled indications of where the attack would come, resulting in reenforcing the center. That wasn't really relavant to my point, so I poorly edited that bit.

Hunt was conducting OPDEC, on Hancock because as you say they did disagree on the value of "morale fire". Hunt believed (or at least wrote afterwards) that if he hadn't been required to spend all his long-range ammo, there never would have been an assault. Regardless of why he ordered it in a progressive manner that looked like individual units being taken out, it did look like that to the Confederates. Or at least that's what they wrote.

Most of the Confederate artillery shots were long, but there was also so much smoke, that no one could see the Union positions to evaluate them. I suppose you could believe that the Confederates could easily see that their shots were falling long and deliberately continued to miss without adjusting fire.

"Is YOUR way to play wargames the only proper way?"

Obviously.

Surely that's true for each of us.

It is if they want to play in my games.