Do Horse and Musket Wargames lack Zen?

[repiqueone]

One of the things over the years I have noticed that strikes me as quite odd, but goes largely unremarked upon by most gamers, and that is the pervasiveness of doing nothing in most actual battles and the rarity of that occuring in our war-games, especially multi-player games.   In most battles of the 18th and 19th century the most common action by commands and units in battle was doing nothing.  Only a small portion of an army was ever active at a single time, and usually only a section of the battle line was engaged.  This only changed after the battle was decided by the primary attack, and a limited pursuit was launched.  In our wargames, however, every unit is generally being moved by every commander, and most battles see a variation of the general advance, as every player wants to get his troops into the thick of things.

Few real commanders would risk the lack of control, and the absence of a plan that the “everybody into the pool!” actions seen in many wargame battles illustrate .

Is it so important for each gamer have something to do on every turn, that we basically accept this rather ahistorical action in a game ,without comment?  Is it required because gamers only have a limited amount of opportunities to game, and nobody wants to be the passive sector, and everyone wants to be the general that won the battle?

Do our wargames lack the Zen of nothing happening in some areas of the battlefield?  Is there a Bu Ji deficit?  

[Mike]

If playing a realistic game meant not pushing the figures around I had spent ages painting I would lose interest in it quite quickly.
But then I happily admit my games are not realistic or accurate.
They are what they are and that suits me just fine.

😀

[Not Connard Sage]

Takes us back to that ‘realistic simulation of warfare’ thing again doesn’t it?

Wargamers want to see blood and snot, and quick results. Not Colonel Ponsonsby-Smythe wondering what the hell the scribbled note from his Brigadier actually means, and if acting upon it would enhance or damage his military career and social standing. The Colonel’s men aren’t bothered either way, they’re cold, wet, tired and a wee bit frightened and want it all to be over one way or another.

Apart from Private Bloggs, he died of dysentery yesterday. Which rather buggered up the symmetry of Colonel Ponsonby-Smythe’s 600 man unit.

 

‘Narrative’ enough for ya? 😀

Obvious contrarian and passive aggressive old prat, who is taken far too seriously by some and not seriously enough by others.

[Hwiccee]

Most good sets of reasonably historic rules don’t allow the gamer to move everything all the time or make it a good idea to have large parts of your army unengaged, etc – certainly the ones my group play don’t.

Personally this kind of thing is one of my benchmarks for deciding if a set looks good, i.e. looks historical. Far too many rules think that it is OK to have rules for different weapons of a period but have no idea what warfare in the period was actually like.

[Not Connard Sage]

Hwiccee wrote:

Far too many rules think that it is OK to have rules for different weapons of a period but have no idea what warfare in the period was actually like.

 

That’s another chimera.

The writer may have a whole different understanding of what warfare in the period was actually like that doesn’t chime with your understanding of what warfare in the period was actually like. Both of which may disagree with my understanding of what warfare in the period was actually like.

 

Which of us is right?

 

Obvious contrarian and passive aggressive old prat, who is taken far too seriously by some and not seriously enough by others.

[repiqueone]

Not Connard, I would always expect you to be right!  

[Not Connard Sage]

repiqueone wrote:

Not Connard, I would always expect you to be right!

 

I never insist on being right. Ask my wife.

Obvious contrarian and passive aggressive old prat, who is taken far too seriously by some and not seriously enough by others.

[repiqueone]

I guess my initial question is based on the degree gamers go to paint accurate uniforms and flags, insure that charging, squares, ground scale, timing, weapon ranges, troop organizations, and many other factors are illustrated in a way that mimics the real thing to some extent ( always admitting that its a game and meant to be fun, and can never hope for more than a “reasonable” reflection of the period) and yet never even comment on the fact that armies seldom behaved as they do in most war-games.

I’m not arguing from the standpoint of reality and simulation accuracy as much as surprise at how readily a predomiate and common behavioral trait of large armies is just thrown under the bus with so little comment!  Nor am I desiring to see the return of the laborious command rules that were so common in the 80s, but it strikes me that this is sorta like missing the wristwatch on the Mona Lisa’s wrist when judging whether the painting may be a fake!

It is certainly a personal preference, but I think I share Hwicee’s view that its seems to me like a bare minimum to observe the overall behavior of whole armies as well as the tactical behavior of individual units in deciding the merit of a game.

I also note that more than a few wargamers seem to resist stepping back from the table and observing the entire scope of a game, the diorama of the developing story, and enjoy the entire experience, but become locked in on just their section of the action.  It strikes me as a case of failing to see the forest for the trees.

It is also true that many games can get very much down into the weeds on minor tactical aspects of play, but the sum of these tactical pieces, does not naturally lead to the successful overview, or Mega-picture of period battle.

Should it look like the paintings and maps found in books?  Should an army behave, in total, as history says it did?

I do not think “Fun” need be a casualty of this issue-but certainly a gamer will have to learn to appreciate the whole battle and its narrative, not just his fraction of it.

 

 

 

[willz]

Me I am just happy to have opponents to game against, I throws me dice, push my toys across the table and don’t ponder the big things in life.

Sometimes chanting to the great dice arbitrator, whilst spinning my Tibet lucky dice prayer wheel.  That’s all the Zen I need.

[Hwiccee]

The writer may have a whole different understanding of what warfare in the period was actually like that doesn’t chime with your understanding of what warfare in the period was actually like. Both of which may disagree with my understanding of what warfare in the period was actually like.

Which of us is right?

Yes of course but we are I think talking about something different here. Clearly some aspects are always going to be up for discussion – the relative effectiveness of fire systems for example. But the question here was about basic rules of warfare. repiqueone correctly identified that in real battles –

In most battles of the 18th and 19th century the most common action by commands and units in battle was doing nothing. Only a small portion of an army was ever active at a single time, and usually only a section of the battle line was engaged.

I would add other factors not commonly found on wargaming tables – having 2 lines of battle for example. These are basic rules of real historical battles of this period. So any set of rules that does not say encourage 2 lines to be used and have many of the units standing around doing nothing a lot of the time can not be ‘historical’, or at least is less than fully historical. In the same way that a set for this period that is doesn’t have rules for artillery would also be less than historical no matter how good the rest is.

Of course it is fine if people want to play games with anything they like but sadly most games have little to do with history – for these kinds of reason let alone some of the very out dated tactical ideas common amongst gamers.

[Sam Mustafa]

I guess my initial question is based on the degree gamers go to paint accurate uniforms and flags… and yet never even comment on the fact that armies seldom behaved as they do in most war-games.

 

I suspect that most of the guys who insist that they’ve devoted all this time to historically-correct figures so therefore the rules must also be historically-correct, are indulging in a bit of selective memory.

I have known many guys who made that argument (“After all, we spend all this time painting the uniforms right…”), only to get very huffy when asked why they were in fact proxying-in Austrian grenadiers because they didn’t have quite enough Prussian Landwehr, or whatever.  Not to mention all those French Napoleonic figures in shakos that fought at Austerlitz and Jena…  or the French in their 1808 uniforms at Waterloo, and so on.

My favorite is the guys who insist that the only historically-correct basing system is one in which the bases must conform to the historical companies, and thus a French infantry battalion must have six bases (always representing a paper-strength unit of 720+ men) in their post-1808 reorganization…  and then they play a battle in 1805, in which the French had nine companies per battalion (Oh Well… close enough!) and the historical units were 20-50% understrength anyway, with no two of them having the same numbers.

Please.  Getting the figures “right” is theoretical at best, and about as successful as getting anything else “right” in a war-game.

As a side note: I went to the 200th anniversary reenactment of Blücher’s crossing of the Rhine at Kaub.  Except that it was held in July (not January), and in 2009 (not 2014), and there were reenactors there in British and Austrian uniforms (despite there being no Brits or Austrians at the actual historical event).  And I thought to myself:  “They’re having fun. Good enough!”

[JJ Parus]

“So any set of rules that does not say encourage 2 lines to be used and have many of the units standing around doing nothing a lot of the time can not be ‘historical’, or at least is less than fully historical”

and

“…but sadly most games have little to do with history”

may be true, but I’d offer from a GAMING standpoint rather than a HISTORICAL RE-CREATION standpoint, it doesn’t matter.  Look at DBX for example. Through all of the army lists, you have the same types of troops who may have functioned with some similarity, but were very different – blades are blades are blades etc.  One could argue that the simplifying assumption that allows that broad generalization isn’t historical either.

We as gamers are ahistorical as well when we game.  Most of the time we are fighting with a God’s eye view, much more historical background than did the generals, understanding of the terrain and how it played out rather than assessing how it will play out, historical knowledge of the battle and possibilities to exploit that the general did not have, dozens at least of articles, magazines, books and films that analyze, dissect, comment, “what-if” and so on.  All of this puts us in a position to do differently / better / mistake free (at least the ones they made!)  and even if in two lines of battle employ tactics based on things we know that they did not.

So, you may be concerned about that, or not, and either way it doesn’t matter.  If you want to be completely true to history, you need to script the actions of the troops and their performance, and push your lead for a re-enactment, not a game.  If you want to game, then it is up to the individual and or group the extent to which they replicate history, approximate it or totally distort it.  My .02 is whatever they enjoy (they are GAMING) then that’s fine for them.  Maybe not for you, maybe not for me.  But I don’t see it as having a “sad” component to it.

 

JJ

[paintpig]

It depends on whose shed your gaming in and the mind set of the group doing the gaming. Are we going to advance onto the table and run through some manouvre or are we going to set up in position waiting for the flag to drop, do we have a plan and orders or do we feel like playing a general advance and biff up game tonight.

Does every game need to be historically accurate in it’s approach, does the mood of the group need to be taken into account? Personally I like plans and orders with a manouvre element, great scope for cock ups and bucket loads of “zen”.  Thankfully we don’t game like that at every gathering because a general advance and biffo game is most often a lot of fun…..

I've learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel
Slowly Over A Low Flame

[Steve Johnson]

“Is it so important for each gamer have something to do on every turn, that we basically accept this rather ahistorical action in a game ,without comment?  Is it required because gamers only have a limited amount of opportunities to game, and nobody wants to be the passive sector, and everyone wants to be the general that won the battle?”

 

One of the critiscisms levelled at ‘Maurice’ by Sam Mustafa was that not enough action happenend for many players, with the game taking too long to get into the ‘combat phase’. I found ‘Maurice’ to be a good game and didn’t mind this at all. In the end it didn’t work for me as a mainly solo player due to knowing my ‘opponents’ cards.

 

Time is another major, major issue these days. My regular gaming chums all agree that the ideal game is around 2 hours long, as that gives us enough time for a game plus the obligatory chat, before, during and after the game. Long gone are the all day games that just don’t appeal to us now.

 

Another factor comes down to scenarios. Far too often do we see both sides lined up for the ‘classic encounter’ game. Rather dull but easy for all concerned as outlined above. For my own forthcoming Black Powder games I will be using many of the scenarios from the Bruce Weigles books, that have interesting deployments, varied arrival of troops etc. It will make me and my chums think more. Whether it will work as we plan remains to be seen…..

[Shandy]

Intererstingly, I just read a piece by Richard Clarke somewhere (WS&S?) where he said that if there is one thing wargamers don’t like, it’s to wait. This was in reference to criticism against his card driven mechanics, were people complained that there was too much luck and too little room for tactical decisions involved. Well, sometimes you just have to wait with a unit until the other ones can be activated and brought into position before you attack.

In my experience with skirmish games like Sharp Practice, waiting is pretty central and achieving coordination between different units is the key to winning. But I admit to often being impulsive and moving in just for the fun of it. Also, because of the limited gaming time issue Steve mentioned, our games are scenario-driven and most of the time have a turn limit, so hanging around with your units too much is not a good idea.

My blog: http://wargamingraft.wordpress.com

[willz]

That’s the thing about war 99% boredom and 1% action, how to transpose that to the gaming table.

I don’t know the answer, I believe we all eventually find the rules that suit our perceived ideas of what war/battles/campaigns were like be that dice, card or scenario driven.

[grizzlymc]

It seems to depend on the number of players. In a multi player game, most people want something to do, so you don’t get to have “quiet sectors”. Certainly, if I have an order to defend and my opponent doesn’t attack, I will attack him.

On the otherhand, in a two player game (or a solo game), the action tends to be more focussed and quiet sectors occur in areas where neither side sees much point in advancing.

If we are to get our knickers in a twist over this, how about the appalling level of subordinate discipline?

[repiqueone]

So, many wargamers prefer being Sickles at Gettysburg, Ney at Waterloo, or Steinmetz at Gravelotte- St. Privat, interested only in their own limited view of the battle, and ignoring any real plan?

I can see why a gamer would want to be moving everything, as opposed to watching others do the heavy lifting.  I can see how being the beau sabeur would be more attractive than holding a part of the line where no attacks occured. This is especially true when there is no price to be paid for bullying on ahead, regardless of the commanders wishes.

I’ve seen too many games where NO ONE was defending, but, like a gang fight,every section of the line of both armies advanced like two prize fighters into the center of the ring to duke it out.  No one wanted to be the CinC, because once the battle started there was nothing for him to do, or any way to enforce his orders.

To many this is what they want, and they never consider its dissonance with almost all battles.  I’m ok with that, but then don’t get too fussy with me about the use of squares, marching rates, or the number of buttons on a jacket!

It is glorious, but is it war?  Is it really just a super-sized skirmish game?

[Mike]

repiqueone wrote:

It is glorious, but is it war?

No, but I would argue it is a wargame.

[Patrice]

A good way to force players to act historically, if you want them to, is to include hints for this in the scenario. Of course you must also give them something to do. In some of my games (but these are skirmish games) we sometimes have large armies beautifully displayed on the table edges, but the players only command small groups and skirmish in the forefront ; the larger contingents are there for the public to see, and can send reinforcements if needed.

Sam Mustafa wrote:

there were reenactors there in British and Austrian uniforms (despite there being no Brits or Austrians at the actual historical event). And I thought to myself: “They’re having fun. Good enough!”

That remembers me a re-enactment skirmish and historical camp I organized ten years ago in Waterloo for the 300th anniversary of the first battle of Waterloo (1705-2005). I had managed to invite quite a large group of British and Dutch re-enactors, but I was the only French. Which was a bit of a problem because I couldn’t fight all the other guys alone… So when we arrived on the field (a large park near the town center) we began by some marches and drill and playing drums etc, then I ordered the (red uniformed) British to march to one side of the park, and the (blue uniformed) Dutch to march to the other side. Then, standing in the middle in my French white uniform, I told the (good-humoured) public that I was alone but that anyway they would see what a 1705 skirmish could look like and that I had a cunning plan to win this skirmish. I pointed to the Dutch and I shouted to the Brits: “the enemy is there!” and I pointed to the Brits and I shouted to the Dutch: “the enemy is there!” and I ran to hide myself amongst the public and there was a skirmish between the allies! and everyone was happy

http://www.argad-bzh.fr/argad/en.html
https://www.anargader.net/

[JJ Parus]

” A good way to force players to act historically, if you want them to”

That’s two of the key points I think we are discussing, and upon which there is a disagreement.

1. Should you have to, or even choose to “force” players to act historically? I’d say that depends on whether you are having a game or not. The players should be allowed to play at their own skill and knowledge level, and command skill.  If you are forcing them to do other things, either by blatant hints, subtle suggestions, or whatever, it ceases to be the gamer’s game and becomes your game.  I’d submit that isn’t why they are playing.

2. Should the game be driven to be “historical?”  In my earlier post I indicated all of the reasons, dice notwithstanding, and player skill which will not replicate that the historical leader did, the game, unless scripted with scripted results isn’t going to be “historical” anyway.  Who wants to play historically and get the same results the loser did, historically?  If you say, “Well, he can see if they can do better” then that is an ahistorical result, which you would presumably not want if you are in the “…but it isn’t historical” group..

3.  Does it matter? I’d say no.  If the players want to do research and fight historically in their GAME they can do that.  If they don’t do the research, or did the research and don’t like what the historical counterpart did or did not do, why should they be encouraged or forced to make the same mistakes?  So the host can feel good about an attempt at a historical representation?  Charging the Scots Greys without infantry support IIRC (not a nappy player) was a big, big mistake, and one that the leader should not have made.  Should the player HAVE to do the same?  Or other mistakes that were “historical” and a disaster?  WHY?

 

Bottom line for me is:

1.  What you are trying to do with your game/reenactment/history lesson, and

2. what your players want to be doing.  It will assuredly be different for all of us, but I don’t see that it matters, or that anyone here’s opinion of how it SHOULD (or MUST) be matters outside their gaming group for a normal game.

The answers to those two questions, whatever they are, will inform your decision.

 

JJ

[Bandit]

Do the various rule sets available offer this? Many but not all, some definitely allow for the finesse of zen that you speak of where knowing how to wait is as important as knowing how to act. Napoleonic Command by Jeff Knudsen is one, I hope ESR proves to be seen as one too. Such games are the minority and I think will remain so. Neither of these examples *requires* that patient approach by the players but both allow for it. I think there are others which have not only allowed for it but required it and I think those games — good as they may be — suffered in the market for it.

The issue of requiring this sort of game play, I imagine, works well in a two player game arrangement because it means both players are always doing something, they just aren’t each doing all the available things. But in a multiplayer game of 3+ there is a valid practical concern of how long my partner has to wait before participating. I say valid because I think telling ten players that in the first 2-3 hours of play only maybe 4 of them will do much of anything will likely result in at least one if not more walking away.

In the end my pragmatic view of the question is that allowing it is good, incentivizing it may be good, requiring it is problematic.

Cheers,

The Bandit

[Patrice]

JJ Parus wrote:

The players should be allowed to play at their own skill and knowledge level, and command skill. If you are forcing them to do other things, either by blatant hints, subtle suggestions, or whatever, it ceases to be the gamer’s game and becomes your game.

I was not referring to the exact representation of what happened in a battle, but to the representation of what troops could do and would do in this historical period.

Obviously the players have tactical choices to make, and they are their own. But if a guy is organizing the game and preparing a scenario, it’s also his game too; the players want him to arrange things so they will have fun, and there’s no harm if in his game settings he plans that what the armies will have to do will respect a feeling of the period.

http://www.argad-bzh.fr/argad/en.html
https://www.anargader.net/

[Noel]

I realize that I am a rare gamer.  However, I have at times spent the entire game not engaging if it meant that I would be able to satisfy the objectives set for me.

I frequently “hold back” from engaging if I think it fits the tactical situation while my team members are slogging away.  We are, after all, playing at battles and not rioting — so sometimes it is better to be a threat or hold in reserve than it is to rush forward and spend your troops.

It might not be as much fun as rolling dice and yelling “huzzah” but if it is playing smart then I am still enjoying it.

[Glenn Pearce]

Hello repiqueone!

Excellent post and perhaps an age old topic rarely discussed.

I would say that yes today most games do lack Zen and perhaps it’s a bit of the “got to have it now” culture that is prevalent today. Combined with a general lack of gaming skills and a very limited understanding of the actual strengths and weaknesses of the period. Even a well written rule set can’t stand up to the abuse dished out by the vast majority of players. Although most of the players believe understanding and using good tactics is important. They also firmly believe it’s a game of chance, not skill, so they blunder forward regardless of anything else hoping to “out dice” their opponent. They are completely oblivious to the true dynamics of the game and simply want their place in the sun now.

However, it does sometimes happen that I have been in games where Zen has been used very effectively. The classic one in our group happened many, many years ago when it contained a number of highly skilled players. My side had a weak starting force and I decided to hold the center while feeding reinforcements to both wings. The wings in turn would when ready launch a sort of Zulu attack. The opposition felt that I was the strongest player and therefore our hidden strength would be with me. So they dutifully held their flanks and pushed their strong center towards me. The timing was perfect. Just as they reached my weak line the horns of the bull appeared and sliced them to pieces.

So Zen is and always has been in our Horse and Musket Wargames, but sadly today it seems to be rarely executed.

Best regards,

Glenn

 

 

[Jeff Glasco]

I think that Bob Jones has made an excellent point. I think my answer comes down to why the players are there to play the game. Some are more interested in the history and simulation aspects and they will avoid the rush to the brawl, which usually helps their side win. Others are there for the social aspects of gaming. They want to come an chat with friends and throw some dice; they really don’t care about the military situation. If they don’t rush to the front, they don’t get to roll their dice and only half of their evening’s goals have been reached (the other half being the social aspect). I think this has been made worse by groups having only a few hours of time for each game. When games were an eight hour deal, I could sit in reserve for four hours knowing that I my units would be heavily involved in the last four hours of the game. With only two or three hours of play time, I have to “get to the front” quickly or my units might not do a thing in the game. So I would argue that the rush to the brawl is more about why players come to the games than issues with rules or understanding of the historical period.

[Author]

Posts