robert piepenbrink  | 01 Oct 2025 7:02 p.m. PST |
OFM asks "Is there ANY battle in history that can be "accurately" depicted on a Wargame table?" Two poll questions, really, I think: 1. Can we really "do" historical battles--unit for unit, with critical terrain represented--on a tabletop and, with historical decisions, have a decent shot at historical outcomes? 2. If so, which battles? My answers are (1) yes we can, though not always. Often we simply don't know enough. (2) Where we're most likely to be able to pull if off is "horse and musket" warfare--brigade or larger battles in Europe and North America between about the English Civil War and the Franco-Prussian War inclusive. The battles are about tabletop size, they're generally well-documented, we have contemporary accounts and manuals and we understand, pretty well what the commanders were trying to do and how they went about it. Understand, I am not saying one period is superior to another--only that it's easier, on a wargame table, to put yourself in Daniel Morgan's or Frederick the Great's boots than into those of George Patton or Alexander the Great. Your opinions? |
 Parzival | 01 Oct 2025 7:39 p.m. PST |
It's too broad a question. The answer is both "yes" and "no." "Yes," because the numbers, terrain, and capabilities of the forces can be known for some battles— The Combat of the Thirty comes to mind as a rather easily done battle… although some of the elements would be interpretive (as actual weapons and such): link
It can even be done 1:1 at pretty much any scale where individual figures are discernible.
But that would be a very basic battle indeed. "No" because even which such a simple battle, the details are often lost to history— including details of which we are completely unaware. A battle can turn on incidences which no one present realized, and about which no chronicler ever heard. And even where eyewitnesses gave accounts afterward, time could have altered their recollections unintentionally— or they may have aggrandized their preferred side's behavior (or excused it) and diminished that of the foe (or inflated that of the foe in order to make their preferred side seem all the greater in its victory or all the nobler and honored in its defeat). People are notoriously bad observers, but people are in the end all we have. So, no, one can never truly reproduce a historic battle with static sculptures on a green tablecloth and dice or cards or neither or both. All one can hope for is an approximation that "feels right" and hits the high notes of history. But yes, one can have a fun time trying for the latter experience. However, I note that I see little entertainment personally in a "game" which invariably reproduces the known and expected historical result. That's not a game, but a manipulated diorama. In order for a historical battle to be a "game" there must be provision for the unexpected and even completely reversed outcome. Not all battles are suitable for this— as an example, there is really no way for the Texans to win the fight at the Alamo. The result was inevitable, and a game which creates a reverse possibility may be a fun game but would also be lousy history. |
 John the OFM | 01 Oct 2025 7:45 p.m. PST |
Cowpens, with a relatively small OOB, has a frequent "new book" on the battle every few years which "re-examines" the battle.
It's a tiny battle, and we still don't know. 🤷 I've seen YouTube videos of guys laughing at the Iraqi tanks being outfoxed, but can you trust them? Let's just laugh at any "accurate" Ancient reenactment on the tabletop. |
| John the OFM | 01 Oct 2025 7:50 p.m. PST |
The answer is both "yes" and "no." I'm hoping both options are available in the Poll. |
 Old Contemptible | 01 Oct 2025 8:14 p.m. PST |
We can only do the best we can. |
 Wolfshanza | 01 Oct 2025 10:36 p.m. PST |
i don't think so as a game ? You could prolly do a 'demonstration' pushing the figures around but as a game, too many variables (dice, etc). Or am I looking at it wrong ? <lol> |
| Martin Rapier | 01 Oct 2025 11:59 p.m. PST |
1. Yes, obviously, otherwise I wouldn't have spent the last 50+ years being a wargamer. 2. Many, although obviously some will be an approximation. As to whether they have historical outcomes, that is down to player decisions and the luck of the dice, but it would be nice if the historical course of events and final outcome is within the range of possibilities. A game where eg it is physically impossible for the Imperial Guard to reach the British position at Waterloo because infantry moves are too short, isn't going to work. |
| 14Bore | 02 Oct 2025 1:41 a.m. PST |
I think the major issue to recreate a historical battle is somehow blinding opponents what their opponents are doing.
Everyone has a drone these days even if your playing a 7YW battle having a 1000 feet overview.
Yet historical battles is my main goal and interests. |
 20thmaine | 02 Oct 2025 2:20 a.m. PST |
I'd say no – as it only becomes a wargame when things can turn out different from history. Otherwise it is just a moving demonstration of how the battle went. |
 Dal Gavan | 02 Oct 2025 3:47 a.m. PST |
I think we can, and agree that pre-mechanised periods are probably the periods where it's easier to do. But as others have said there's a number of variables that will also affect the attempt- dice, commander decisions, etc, but more importantly how we deal with the issues of morale, training, experience, fatigue and similar human factors. Most of all, what rules we use. It's the old discussion of reality versus playability versus historical opinions. Each person will have different ideas of what they want and opinions on how they can get there. That's probably a strength in our hobby, as it ensures there's no "One True Set of Rules" that rules the hobby- despite what Warlord and GW may think. For myself I like NMTBH because it has an historical flavour, the Perry 28's look good on the table (even with my paint jobs) and it is fun to play. If I wanted to re-fight Towton, though, it would be with my 15mm figures and a different set of rules. Which game would be more historically accurate, though, and would that matter? |
 etotheipi  | 02 Oct 2025 4:04 a.m. PST |
|
| robert piepenbrink | 02 Oct 2025 6:30 a.m. PST |
Several good points. I'd say we'd succeeded if both players had all the historical commanders' options, but only those, and that historical choices led to historical results. Truthfully, the low-level, unknown to history details bother me less than the troublesome level of known historical misunderstandings. Quite a number of historical battles hinge on faulty terrain analysis or OOB work by one side or the other, and become impossible to replicate with wargamers familiar with the battle--unless one can get away with "disguised" scenarios. |
| Wolfhag | 02 Oct 2025 6:50 a.m. PST |
The military conducts what they call a "War Game Exercise." Military exercises focus on the simulation of real, full-scale military operations in controlled hostile conditions in attempts to reproduce wartime decisions and activities for training purposes or to analyze the outcome of possible wartime decisions. etotheipi and Martin Rapier are familiar with these types of real military operational level games, as is John Curry, who sometimes posts here. I've seen many of these high-level operational games at the US Army War College Connections conference, and they do not resemble what typical gamers play. On a professional level, there are lessons learned that can be applied to their profession, as Martin stated. These are normally vastly different than the tactical level miniatures games we play. The "field exercise" part is how well units execute their orders and respond to enemy threats and coordinate with other units. Will commanders do what they are supposed to do when the time comes, and how quickly can the unit execute? It's not so much about attrition and winning or losing. Mistakes will be made and lessons learned. In 1973, I was part of a wargame logistical exercise at Quantico that involved the logistical planning to land the 1st and 3rd Marine Divisions in NVN. It wasn't a "game" with a winner or loser. The idea was to test the upper command's reactions, decision-making, and coordination in overcoming the problems they'd encounter. In 1973, I was a member of the "Aggressor Force" going against the new 2LTs just out of OCS, learning to be Rifle Platoon Commanders. We were out in the woods of VA every day running patrols, which involved sub-unit formations, scouting, patrolling tactics for crossing different terrain, setting up and responding to ambushes, etc, for VN. Some events were "staged exercises" where we had specific orders and limitations on what we were allowed to do when attacking or defending. It was great training for me too. We had the real Fog of War, situational awareness, and the speed of execution in a meeting engagement is what normally won. Mistakes were made and lessons were learned right on the field. Even the new PFCs took turns being squad leader and walking point. Attempting to represent squad and platoon-level tactics in a game is going to be very difficult and not going to be enjoyable for players, as the unit densities are too great and the tables too small for maneuver. It can take months of firsthand intensive training to learn real military tactics, and you can't expect new players to grasp them right away. Consequently, you end up with a balanced, highly abstracted game that allows players to move and shoot in a playable manner and have fun with little regard to real tactics. There is nothing wrong with that. If it gives them the feeling of historical accuracy and realism, so much the better. If you don't like the rules available, make your own. It's hard to have a historical outbattle if the rules are designed to be "fair and balanced", with unrealistic mechanics like IGYG, no hidden units or movement, drone's eye view, etc. All we can do is try and hope that it meets the players' expectations of realism, playability, and fun. Wolfhag |
| cavcrazy | 02 Oct 2025 7:05 a.m. PST |
I have gamed battles such as Waterloo and Shiloh, and many others…very rarely do they ever have the same results as they did in real life….but it is great fun gaming such battles and everything that is involved in this wonderful hobby. Good games, good friends, good times. |
| etotheipi | 02 Oct 2025 7:09 a.m. PST |
I'd say we'd succeeded if both players had all the historical commanders' options, but only those This can easily be done. And is. and that historical choices led to historical results. Your later post indicates that you have some high level defintion of this. You're not worried about whether rank-in-file infantryman James Stuart died before rank-in-file infantryman Stuart James. Like the other part, if you can specifically define what you mean by "historical results", it can be achieved. impossible to replicate with wargamers familiar with the battle Again, it depends on what your criterion for replication is. At the start of the post, you talk about historical commanders' options. We game the Battle of Puebla on or about Cinco de Mayo (maybe a couple of times, maybe an extra one elsewhen) every year. The French commander is short on artillery. He is likely to run out of shot unless he can strike hard and have early success or moderate his shot. This is one key aspect of the dynamics of the battle. He knew this. He did not know specifically that he would run out of shot toward the end of the second assault up the hill, and before he started his third. Is it a historical result if shot runs out only at the retreat phase of the second assault? The commander had the option to moderate and focus his shot, but didn't do it. Its a perfectly legitimate tactical option for the period, it was on the table and discussed the night before. He just chose not to do that. Is that a historical option? Should the battle events progress along the historical timeline if a major decision is different? We use stochastic ammo depletion. The French players know that generally, the more they employ artillery, the faster it will run out. They also know it is subject to being destroyed by Mexican artillery or cavalry (possibly a Mexican infantry charge, too, which while possible seems an improbable choice as opposed to moderating shot, which is taught and seemed to work well other situations, "Don't fire until you see the whites of their eyes!") But they don't know exactly when any of those things will happen (the cavalry charge takes three turns to execute from starting positions, so you get a little heads up on that). I think this is a perfectly historical challenge for the French side. They're facing the same dynamics and the same decision trade-space. And they know they are fighting the Battle of Puebla. There are a ton of other things that are historical options, actually discussed at the time, but not done. It's the nature of history – it's a series of one-time choices. I'm waiting for a player to ask if they can attack from the north instead of the east (the way we set it up, how it happened). The French commander, Lorencz, had Mexican generals defect to his side. They told him to attack from the north, not the east. I tend to think that was a great piece of advice that was not heeded. The point is, where you want players to face unknowns, don't lay out knowns in the game. |
 aegiscg47 | 02 Oct 2025 7:57 a.m. PST |
Our group finds one of the biggest challenges to be actually recreating the terrain. Even if your group has access to all kinds of terrain pieces, mats, buildings, etc., trying to get it exactly right is nearly impossible. After that, players aren't comfortable with the amount of forces deployed into very small areas. Take Dresden, for example, where there are corps upon corps stacked up with little maneuver room. Most images of games at conventions or club nights show a lot of figures spread out over a huge area, so this by itself creates a lot of unhistorical tactics during the game. |
| etotheipi | 02 Oct 2025 8:23 a.m. PST |
Our group finds one of the biggest challenges to be actually recreating the terrain. Again, this comes to what you mean by recreating. Are you recreting the physical look of the terrain, or are you creating the terrain effects on combat? Our Battle of Puebla game uses tierd hills and (usually) two fantasy keeps. They don't look like the hills or Forts Loreto and Guadalupe. But they give two fortified positions and a connecting trench for the Mexicans to fight from. And they slow the French advance once they are in reasonable gunfire range, the way the hills did. The hills are also not physically being represented as muddy, but again, they stop the advance and make it appropriately hard for the French to get to the battlements. |
| Oberlindes Sol LIC | 02 Oct 2025 9:45 a.m. PST |
I'm hoping both options are available in the Poll. I agree. Maybe the options should include:
Yes
No
Yes and No |
 miniMo | 02 Oct 2025 9:47 a.m. PST |
The [rare] gold standard is having access to relatively contemporary accounts from both sides.
Even with the relatively well-documented Napoleonic battles, the French weren't too keen on doing the level of recording, compiling and analysing that the British have gleefully engaged in ever since. More recent scholarship by folks with access to dig into available archives has helped somewhat.
Dawson's Marshal Ney At Quatre Bras (2017) finally brings some measure of French perspective to what we 'know'. Lieven's Russia Against Napoleon (2011) was a hercualean dig into available Russian archives, a perspective largely missing from our available histories. |
| Perris0707 | 02 Oct 2025 10:16 a.m. PST |
My question to the question is why would we want to recreate historical outcomes of battles? Or even to have "historical outcome" as a goal. Wouldn't we want non-historical outcomes as a possibility? Who wants to play a game where you are the "guaranteed loser"? Napoleon should have a chance to win at Waterloo to make it interesting. Or am I misinterpreting the question? |
| etotheipi | 02 Oct 2025 1:16 p.m. PST |
Who wants to play a game where you are the "guaranteed loser"? In the Battle of Puebla, the French lose every time (except once out of 30+ battles, plus many playtests). The goal of the French is to beat the Mexicans (and it is possible). The victory criterion for the French is to make more progress toward capturing the forts than the French did. In the sense of the game, vice the battle outcome, it's about 50/50. So it comes back to "what do you mean by a historical outcome?" |
| robert piepenbrink | 02 Oct 2025 1:33 p.m. PST |
"Or am I misinterpreting the question?" Yes. Perris, you are. What you're describing is a "scripted" game, in which each player must make the commanders' historical choices. It's quite rare for just the reason you describe, though it's worth doing in the game design stage, just to make sure everyone CAN do in the game what they DID do in real life. As Martin Rapier says "A game where e.g. it is physically impossible for the Imperial Guard to reach the British position at Waterloo because infantry moves are too short, isn't going to work." What we're discussing is just what I already wrote--tabletop battles in which historical forces deploy on a historical battlefield, and each side of the wargame has all the options open to the historical commander, but only those options. Clearly either commander may choose to deviate from history, and if he does a different outcome may well result. But to do this, we have to know pretty well the historical terrain and troops and the historical tactics, and our basing has to let historical units occupy their historical positions. |
| Uesugi Kenshin | 02 Oct 2025 3:59 p.m. PST |
|
| Stoppage | 02 Oct 2025 4:52 p.m. PST |
An idea that immediately pops into my head: Goggle – Inherent Military Probability The solution of an obscurity by an estimate of what a trained soldier would have done in the circumstances Wiki – Alfred H Burne Of course this assumes that the commanders of our historical battles behaved like trained soldiers. |
| robert piepenbrink | 02 Oct 2025 7:29 p.m. PST |
Good point Stoppage. Note that Burne didn't just use it for a best guess on where and how an army deployed, but also in numbers and composition. Personally, I'd say there was too much guesswork involved to meet OFM's standard--or even mine--but often it's the best we can do for ancients and medieval warfare. |
| Martin Rapier | 02 Oct 2025 11:43 p.m. PST |
Robert +1 eg I ran a game this week covering the advance of 1st Airborne Brigade to Arnhem on the afternoon of 17th September 1944. The general course of the action followed the general historical course of events, it was inevitable given the initial deployments of the forces, their arrival times and the configuration of the terrain. However in the game the British did rather better than their historical counterparts as 3 Para managed to push back KG von Allworden back by operating on a broader front and made it right into the northern outskirts of Oosterbeek. 1 Para still got stalled fighting past the Hartenstein, and Goughs recce jeeps still got shot up in an Ambush at Wolfheze, but it was the players choice to push on down the road despite being flagged down by a platoon of South Staffs and being warned there were Germans down the road. Other stuff I just introduced as semi random events, like General Kussin driving his staff right into 1 Para, or Brigadier Lathbury and General Urquart wandering the battlefield somewhat lost. That is what I mean by refighting a historical battle. It didn't turn out exactly as it did in real life but it could have, and players also apparently had some fun doing it. |
| Old Contemptible | 03 Oct 2025 11:33 p.m. PST |
When some people hear the word "historical" they equate it with "reenactment." But that is usually not the case. You are presented with the same OB and situation but you can conduct the battle in a completely different way and have a different outcome. Remember the old AH slogan "but you can change history." |
| 14Bore | 04 Oct 2025 1:19 p.m. PST |
It's probably a bad result, but done a number of historical battles, figuring out exact numbers of armies, try to do as best recreation of terrain. But start at a point then that's the last of what's historical.
Shame playing solo |
 piper909 | 04 Oct 2025 5:15 p.m. PST |
I'd agree with the first two posters, that all seems to sum up both the yes and no aspects of the question. Alamo games are put on frequently, the issue is how to define "victory". (And how to make the experience "fun" for all) Historically, it's hard to see how the defenders could have held the fort (mission) against any determined assault. Or even a prolonged siege. But if the objective for the Texians is more than simply "hold your position", that opens up a range of alternative outcomes besides just making the attackers pay dearly. They might try to hold out long enough to be reinforced or relieved by an outside force (think about Alesia?). Or they might attempt a breakout. "Where IS that Fannin or Houston?" |
| etotheipi | 05 Oct 2025 5:07 a.m. PST |
All one can hope for is an approximation that "feels right" and hits the high notes of history. I've done table-top (chits, not miniatures) recreations of actual battles where the analysis uncovered they type of observer issues Parzival discusses. I say "uncovered" because the reality of the unreported or misreported things was validated by deeper looks at part of the existing battle damage assessment or additional collections (both are empirical evidence). but people are in the end all we have. To a certain extent. Even the empircal evidence I cited above is directed to be collected by human judgement (there is no such thing as an autonomous system). But we do have collection systems that are set up a priori, which have less influence of any collector biases. And there is a wealth of data from sources that are free from the kind of bias discussed above. Best example: economoic records. By and large, economic records are set up and kept by people who care about having money, getting more money, and not losing money. By and large, such concerns do not directly correlate with political motives. In many cases such records demonstrate the difference between what happened and how political biases characterize it. I am currently working on a historical scenario pack where some of the mythology about the battles (complete annihilation of civiliian villages in a campaign) is contradicted by economic and social records that show no missing villages. The interesting bit is where the social history records of Villages in region A talk about villages in Region B being completely destroyed, a fate their region was spared. And the Records from Region B say the same thing, with roles reversed. |
| Parzival | 05 Oct 2025 7:35 a.m. PST |
In order for a village to have been "lost," one either needs to know where it was to begin with, or one needs to discover evidence of a thing in a place where no one recalled there was such a thing. We actually do this all the time. Recent stories tout archeological finds which alter our understanding of how and where various cultures extended or reached. Sometimes we do have rumors or scant or vague records of these, but sometimes somebody just starts digging to make a sewer line and… "Hey, Boss! There's something interesting down here…" And then we find that the Romans were north of this region, or Celtic influences reached further east, or there were once cities where now there is Amazonian jungle… or even that a battle where hundreds died occurred at a given spot, and we had no idea it ever happened. History is what we've been told, until somebody discovers evidence that we were told wrong, or at least incompletely. |
| John the OFM | 05 Oct 2025 8:20 a.m. PST |
In an Alamo game, the objective for the Texans is to survive for two turns longer than the original garrison. Smashing victory is FOUR turns. |
| piper909 | 05 Oct 2025 4:46 p.m. PST |
Fantasy/sci-fi versions of the Alamo clash I know about include everything from dinosaurs, Marines, time-travellers, Undead, sorcerors, and extra-dimensional magic. "Then Sir Launcelot arrived in his spaceship and teleported them all to safety." (Because Marshal Grouchy is NEVER going to come.) |
| piper909 | 05 Oct 2025 4:49 p.m. PST |
"Davy Crockett stood on a wall --
And killed them all." |
| huron725 | 05 Oct 2025 5:50 p.m. PST |
+1 John the OFM Recently my buddy and I played the Battle of Bunker Hill specifically the attack on the redoubt. The victory conditions were thus: Rebels make the British use 4 waves to take the redoubt it is a major rebel victory. 3 waves a rebel minor victory, 2 waves a rebel loss and 1 wave a major rebel loss. |
| Wolfhag | 06 Oct 2025 6:42 a.m. PST |
Terrain-wise, N. Africa is probably the easiest to represent, except for the wadis or other depressions. Wolfhag |
| etotheipi | 06 Oct 2025 7:04 a.m. PST |
In order for a village to have been "lost," one either needs to know where it was to begin with, True, but I'm not talking about "lost" villages. The history says that a force rode through the countryside and annihiliated villages. Entire villages along known routes, known to others (or else, how would the reporters know). There are simply no accounts of destroyed villages. The histories say it happened "over there" (in a time when 80-90% of people stayed within 30 miles of where they were born), but give no village names or specifics. In the East, they said many villages in the West were completely destroyed and in the West, many villages in the East were completely destroyed. As a single incident, it might be believable that it is overlooked. But as part of a massive campaign of destruction, there should be records from the other 10-20% that are merchants like "Farthwellswarthing doesn't seem to be here this year." or "Kellmanbellsmell has nothing to trade this season; they are rebuilding." However, trade, production, and the economy were on a slight, but steady increase. And no missing villages. The stories took hold mostly because they were told by the current victor (who had an army with them), who had a need to demonize their oppoent. Anywho, the point of the point was that there is empirical evidence and we are not just left with people telling stories. |
| John the OFM | 06 Oct 2025 8:41 a.m. PST |
10% of all British officer casualties in the AWI were at Bunker Hill. I read that somewhere, and it might even be right! Camerone is another Alamo game. I don't really see the point, unless you like killing Mexicans and French.
Come to think of it, the REAL objective of an Alamo game is to kill as many Texans and Mexicans as you can. |
| John the OFM | 06 Oct 2025 8:53 a.m. PST |
History is what we've been told, until somebody discovers evidence that we were told wrong, or at least incompletely. Let's go back to Ancient history, and it hasn't changed much. Plutarch, with his "parallel lives" was adamant about teaching moral lessons. Caesar's Gallic Wars was absolutely a masterpiece of self promotion. William Tarn wrote a biography of Alexander the Great. In it he absolutely rejected any inference that Alexander was a homosexual. Why? Because he was a "great man", and thus could never be gay.
Arrian based his Alexander biography partially on the memoirs, now lost, of Ptolemy. He trusted him because, as he writes, "it would be shameful for a king to lie".
Every bio of Alex is agenda driven. More modern, Germans loved Carlyle's biography of Frederick the Great because it praised him so much. All history is written by humans with biases and agendas. When it's written by AI, it'll be worse. |
goes to sea with the Terrain Mat.
