"Should “historical" scenarios be choreographed?" Topic
14 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.
Remember that you can Stifle members so that you don't have to read their posts.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the General Historical Discussion Message Board
Action Log
12 Nov 2025 6:53 p.m. PST
by Editor in Chief Bill
- Changed title from "Should “historical scenarios be choreographed?" to "Should “historical" scenarios be choreographed?"
Areas of InterestGeneral
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Ruleset
Featured Showcase Article
Current Poll
|
 John the OFM  | 12 Nov 2025 9:46 a.m. PST |
Prime example is Guilford Courthouse.
It is ubiquitous in AWI scenario books. I've used it myself to try out new rules.
But one thing has always annoyed me. Some, not all, scenarios mandate that the Continental CinC cannot use the second or third lines until Cornwallis advances far enough to "trigger" them.
In my opinion, this is forcing the players to conform to what the scenario designer … requires.
Yes. That WAS Greene's plan. Why does it have to be MY plan? I ran it once at the FLGS. The Highlanders and the Hessians were run by players who vehemently disliked each other in real life. Plus, the 1st line militia had phenomenal die rolls.
The player who was channeling Greene desperately wanted to seize the moment and roll up the British flank. But the second and third lines were frozen in place by the faulty scenario design. Ever since, I have allowed "Greene" to handle his troops as he wished, but using the alleged "historical" placement. Just remember that there is a cottage industry in the historical community to announce breathtakingly that "Here is what really happened!" You know. Publish or perish. 🤷 Comments and examples eagerly solicited. You won't hurt my feelings if you disagree. 😄
To me, it sometimes seems like the GM really wants the game to come out the way he wants it too.
Hint. It's also in movies where the hero is a gamer. |
 Dal Gavan | 12 Nov 2025 10:40 a.m. PST |
If the game is scripted to follow the original battle then all you've got is a moving diorama with irrelevant dice rolls. Seeing how "what ifs" turn out is part of the hobby I enjoy. So what would have happened at GC if the support lines were committed? What would have happened if Cornwallis organised his logistics better and arrived with near full strength regiments? No wargame can give a definitive answer to what would have happened, but you can have some fun looking at different possible outcomes. |
| Perris0707 | 12 Nov 2025 10:40 a.m. PST |
I have always believed that Historical Scenarios should be based on the historical situation, but that the deployment of available troops should be left to the discretion of the commander(s). Who wants to play a game where the outcome is basically pre-determined? "What if?" scenarios are my favorite type of games. |
| Korvessa | 12 Nov 2025 10:58 a.m. PST |
|
| BillyNM | 12 Nov 2025 11:11 a.m. PST |
Surely the only sensible answer is: if you want them to be. |
| Griefbringer | 12 Nov 2025 11:15 a.m. PST |
If you are particularly interested in a specific battle, and have a like-minded opponent, then why not try playing the particular battle multiple times with increasing levels of freedom? For example: 1st time: historical forces, historical depolyment, historical command/activation limitations
2nd time: historical forces, historical deployment, free command/activation
3rd time: historical forces, free deployment, free command/activation You can probably stretch it even a bit farther by making "what-if" variants where so-and-so contingent might have made it in time to participate (or alternatively, missed the action due to problems on the march). |
| DisasterWargamer | 12 Nov 2025 12:41 p.m. PST |
I like the concept of "historical" placement |
 Parzival | 12 Nov 2025 1:01 p.m. PST |
Initial placement is one thing. After that, let the players decide. |
| robert piepenbrink | 12 Nov 2025 1:21 p.m. PST |
I've been known to choreograph a solo game, either to test the rules, or to look for things which, from a wargamer's standpoint, should have happened and didn't. But for a game with opponents, each should have as much freedom as their historical counterparts did, which is not always absolute. Bladensburg is a nice example. I think pretty much any wargamer would place those 18-pound guns in the earthworks, nailing the British as the cross the Anacostia River. He might throw out skirmishers on either flank. But those are not historical options, because (a) the guns arrived too late, and (b) the Secretary of State was messing with the deployment. But at Guilford, Greene had time and authority to deploy as he wished, and to use any tactical scheme he desired. The scenario rules should reflect that. |
| John the OFM | 12 Nov 2025 3:34 p.m. PST |
If the game is scripted to follow the original battle then all you've got is a moving diorama with irrelevant dice rolls. My thoughts too. 👍 |
| Dave Crowell | 13 Nov 2025 7:17 a.m. PST |
Every historical wargame is going to deviate from the history at some point. The questions are: at what point do we begin to allow deviation, and how much freedom of deviation do we allow the players from that point? In gaming Guilford Courthouse we will likely want to use at a minimum the historically present, or at least plausible, troops fighting over the historical terrain. Significant alterations to either of these will yield a battle that is no longer Guilford Courthouse, at least not as wer know it from history. What follows depends on the "what if?" questions we want to answer. Different deployment? Different tactical choices? Changes in readiness, supply, morale, etc of the troops? As a player I would be very frustrated to be handcuffed by the decisions of my historical counterpart after the game jumps off. Just because Greene waited for Cornwallis, why should I have to? |
| Martin Rapier | 13 Nov 2025 7:19 a.m. PST |
I think there is a certain amount of of 'straw man' about some of this. A historical battle does not necessarily require complete scripting, but it may require a certain amount of choreography if it is to bear the slightest resemblance to the real thing. Would you have the Prussians arrive at Waterloo at 11.00? Probably not. Would you let the French attack with the Imperial Guard one turn one? – well that depends doesn't it, on how much free setup you go with and how much free movement you have. It isn't all or nothing. I spend most of my wargaming time refighting historical battles, and scenario design is more of an art than a science. Sometimes you need to place a few constraints to capture the feel of it, otherwise you may as well just be playing DBA or Settlers of Catan. I just ran the 24th Panzer Corps attack east of Tula on 19th November 1941. It was right down the boundary of 3rd and 50th Armies, so I divided the Russians up into two teams with severe restrictions on what could cross the army boundary. If you simply allowed free movement for the Russians the Germans would never get off the starting line, or not far at least. In other situations you might want to try various what-ifs, but my gaming time is too short for endless experimentation with real players who have made the effort to turn up, they actually want to play a game, not a massacre. |
| John the OFM | 13 Nov 2025 7:54 a.m. PST |
Just because Greene waited for Cornwallis, why should I have to? Yeah. That's kind of my point. Note: Greene lost that battle, didn't he? 🤔 As for Waterloo, the arrival of the Prussians is not contingent on the players, but on actual marching time and resistance.
Committing the Imperial Guard is a player decision that should not be constrained. Napoleon had a good reason to hold them back, but it was HIS decision. Not necessarily Jim's or Mike's. I'm perfectly happy to let the campaign decide a lot of things. But commander decisions should be player decisions. |
| IronDuke596 | 13 Nov 2025 10:04 a.m. PST |
|
|
