"Battle Reports – What Makes a Good One?" Topic

Battle reports are a regular feature here, but they often seem to receive fewer comments than other posts.

I'm curious what people actually look for in a good battle report.
Is it the narrative of how the battle unfolded, plenty of photographs, an explanation of the scenario and rules, or something else? Do you prefer detailed turn-by-turn reports, or a shorter summary of the key moments?

And if you rarely comment on battle reports, is that because they're self-contained or because they don't invite discussion?
Do you find them dull, especially if they cover a period you're not interested in? A rule set you don't use or a scale you don't care for?

Personally, I like them , not least as a source of inspiration. NB I "steal" shamelessly from them -scenarios, terrain, figure painting etc .

"Is it the narrative of how the battle unfolded, plenty of photographs, an explanation of the scenario and rules,"

For me it is. For one thing they give me a bit of a feel for how a set rules plays, sometimes how others interpret a set of rules I use. As you wrote, it can provide ideas for my own games. The photos help me understand the narrative and also I enjoy a look at how people are doing their terrain, their figures and models.

PS- When writing an AAR please tell your readers what rules you used.

"[A]n explanation of the scenario and rules and the narrative of how the battle unfolded."

Critical that I understand what decisions the commanders made, and how the rules affected both decisions and outcome. If the rules wouldn't permit two corps to attack together, I want to know. If major battles are decided by a single die cast rather than tactics, that should be in the report.

Photos to the degree they help me understand the actions, please. Nothing against eye candy, but it's not the point of a battle report.

Yes, definitely say what rules you are using. I also like to know what figures are used as well if it is a small battle or skirmish.

"And if you rarely comment on battle reports, is that because they're self-contained or because they don't invite discussion?"

Tbh I just skip over battle reports posted on forums, I don't think they suit the medium. I read loads on blogs and comment on those.

They are sometimes handy to find another blog to add to my reading list.

Now, objectively, there isn't any reason why I shouldn't read forum battle reports, but it isn't part of my routine. Skip over the new messages on the few forums which still exist, then spend hours reading blog updates. A hangover from old days of use net and rec.games.miniatures.historical I guess.

My only criteria for a battle report is that it is about something which interests me. Hats off to everyone who takes the time to write them.

Reading battle reports. I've BOUGHT battle reports, and will always treasure Otto Schmidt's "Three Roads to Paris" but they have to check at least one of two boxes: either they go over a historical battle I'm familiar with--ideally multiple times seeing how different options play out, or they do multiple rules sets to see how they differ. Ideally, they do both.

Typically, TMP battle reports are either "Joe and I had a nice game: admire the table" or advertising. "Look how well my rules--for sale HERE--handle this battle" which I trust like campaign promises and new car advertising. I'm hard up for reading material, but not that hard up. So no click and hence no comment.

Interesting replies so far. And diverse, as you'd expect.

Personally I tend to enjoy the narrative side of battle reports – the story of how the battle unfolded and the decisions the players made. In a sense, some of the classic books are really just extended battle reports. For example, the scenarios in "Wargaming in History" by Charles Grant are essentially detailed reports of refights, with explanations of what happened and why.

Another development I've noticed is video battle reports – You Tube. These seem to be quite popular. I wonder if that format suits battle reports better than forum posts, since you can see the table and hear the players explaining events as they happen. I find ones that use this medium as a mechanism to explain a rule set I'm interested in are essential viewing.

I frequently read them. Sometimes I just look at the pictures. I would like to know what rules you are using and a little something about the figures (size, if nothing else).

Thinking about it, most games I've taken part in end with a kind of informal "after-action review."

We usually end up talking through the battle again – the key decisions, the lucky or unlucky dice and the moments where things might have gone differently. In effect it's a verbal battle report.

Perhaps that's another reason people enjoy reading them. They're a written version of the same post-game conversation we tend to have around the table.

In that sense, the classic refights in Wargaming in History by Charles Grant feel very familiar – they're essentially that same discussion written down.

I'm with RP.

I think they should start with a tactical and/or strategic overview of the situation and the challenges both sides will face.

There should also be some level of an intel report on enemy forces which may or may not be very accurate.

Wolfhag