"Why do some battles become favourites?" Topic

Refighting a battle I've already played at least half a dozen times made me ponder on its attraction. What makes a battle famous? And what makes us want to play it again and again? (These are not necessarily the same thing.)

My thoughts on this question are here:
link
I'd be very interested to know yours.

For me, sometimes it's the situation that drives interesting possibilities. Gettysburg is a great example. Both the meeting engagement aspect and the terrain make it very easy to replay and allow for doing what-if's for different periods. We've fought it in the ACW, the FPW and the 7YW for example.

Another aspect is a battle that leads itself to refighting with different rules systems to help evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of rules. We've refought Minden using Might & Reason, Carnage & Glory and Black Powder. All were great fun and each fight taught us something about how the rules model the engagement.

That is a great question. I would say that my views are very similarly to Lascaris. The "what-ifs" of a battle are what I find interesting along with the challenge of seeing if I could achieve a different outcome than that of the historical battle. I have recreated and refought Ancient/Medieval battles, FPW, ACW, and I have fought the same battle multiple times with the battle of Froeschwiller/Woerth 1870 being the battle that I have refought the most times. VERY difficult to win as the French but always a lot of fun! Another frequently played battle is Manzikert in 1071. Interesting to see what happens if the Eastern Roman reserve actually does its job.

I play battles twice for the same reason one plays chess twice.

There are some battles that are very standard and straightforward. I have played many of them. Once.
But then there are those where literally anything can happen. And it's due to player choices, not necessarily the dice.
The AWI is full of them. I mentioned Guilford Courthouse and Germantown on the Poll discussion on playing repeats. Sometimes to test new rules. Sometimes because anything can happen. Cowpens is another.
The siege of Yorktown? Meh. The only bit could come out differently is out if the players' hands. The Battle of the Capes. 🤷 Play it once, but you know what will happen. Twice? To waste your time? Why?

Fame helps, of course. Most frequently-replayed battles are ones with a great many decision points which might have seriously affected the outcome. Waterloo and Gettysburg are I think the horse & musket classics. (The Alamo makes the case for fame alone being sufficient.)

I don't know how common it is, but I'll often use a simple, relatively one-sided fight like Pickett's Charge for rules familiarity and calibration. (If the charge succeeds, or never makes it past the Chambersburg Pike, there's something wrong with mechanisms or numbers.)

I can never figure out why Alamo games are so popular. Let's ignore the cost if the buildings, etc.
Let's suppose that In Real Life the Mexicans had killed all the Texians by 3:00 PM. Yet the Texian player survived until 4:00. Somehow that's a Victory? Really???

I think the post on "Changing Situations in Mid-game" that ChrisBBB2 links to from the blog article in his link above hits the nail on the head for me.

Fluid situations with meaningful decision points for players.

thirty odd years ago I was in a group that played a lot of Warhammer. Meeting engagement, line the armies up and push them together for 4-6 turns. I got bored because very game felt very much the same.

The Alamo doesn't really appeal to me because it's a foregone conclusion.

Lately I have been replaying some of the campaigns of Hannibal. It is interesting to see the effect that changes in deployment can have on the outcome of battle. Trebia offers Mago's ambush. What if it had been different troops, or in a different spot, or not been sprung at all? Each of these gives a different battle. What if the Roman's had not taken the bait that morning and instead the Barcas had faced a well rested legion with full bellies?

Give me a game with lots of meaningful player decision points. Chess offers this. Each move is meaningful to the outcome of the game. In Tic-Tac-Toe equally matched players will always draw as there aren't meaningful alternative decisions to be made.

First maybe battles of importance, even ones that are a certainly a losing side. Call it a forlorn hope and see if you can do something better.
Last convention my side took Breeds Hill ln 1st attempt.
Didn't play but watched often 2 different games of Alamo and the Mexican side attacked totally differently way.

Thanks for all the great comments. The main theme that emerges is one that chimes with my own view: decision points. The more there are and the more meaningful they are, the better.

'Meaningful' can apply both to within the game/battle (i.e., how a decision contributes to victory or defeat) and beyond it (i.e., what that victory or defeat implies for the course of the war, and even what the result of the war implies for the world).

Of course, not all players are as focused on the decision point aspect as I am. Aesthetics, occasion, drama/tragedy can all be more important, as perhaps witness the Alamo example cited above.

Anyway, thanks again for all the thoughtful discussion. Much appreciated and enjoyed.