Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
Chris Pringle
ParticipantLove the summary: “All agreed the game was a howl, and the situation unlike anything we’ve played before. Kudos to the designer. ” Thanks for a great report!
For anyone else tempted to try the scenario, it’s in “Napoleon’s Bloody Big Battles!“.
ParticipantThanks very much for your thoughtful and perceptive replies. I also posted on TMP and got over 50 replies there. Let me share with you the same response I sent to those:
===
A big thank you to everyone who responded. I appreciate all your comments (including the critical and dismissive ones – I care about your opinions too). Judging by the quantity and quality of replies, it was evidently a worthwhile question.
As far as the charge of shameless self-promotion/advertising is concerned: guilty as charged, sorry – can I make a plea in mitigation? It genuinely wasn’t my original prime intention, but I struggled a bit to structure the essay, was under time pressure, then saw Jim Owczarski’s remarks, got over-excited and lapsed into stream-of-consciousness anecdotes and enthusing. There is a better essay to be written on this question that actually answers it properly, perhaps enumerating types of battle and game, listing what features each provides to players, addressing limitations and practicalities …
Nevertheless, I feel my decision to just publish and be damned is partially vindicated by the wealth of ideas in all your great comments. I hoped and expected that the resulting discussion would be better than what I’d bashed out in haste, and you didn’t let me down. I hope you’ll forgive me if I don’t reply in great detail to the multitude of points in 50+ posts. I have just a few remarks to make now:
First: I should have made a clear distinction between big battle and big game – these are not necessarily the same thing! Small games of big battles are possible, as are big games of small battles, etc.
Second: I’ll readily acknowledge BBB’s limitations (e.g., the lack of fog of war, albeit the activation mechanism introduces enough uncertainty to compensate for that to some degree). Other ways of fighting big battles are possible and other rules are available. All have their merits and which is the right tool for the job depends on the job and the craftsman.
Third and finally: absolutely no disparagement of anybody else’s fun was intended. Tournament games, skirmishes, monster marathons on basketball courts – it’s all good and all part of our rich hobby. I ain’t telling anyone else how to play toy soldiers. Have fun your way! Happy gaming!
ParticipantHi Orm, thanks for the comments. There’s an important distinction to make between a big battle and a big game. The point of the “Bloody Big BATTLES!” rules is to avoid exactly the problem you mention. Whatever the size of the battle, BBB’s elastic troop, ground and time scale reduces it to fit on 6’x4′ and to typically about 20 units a side. With 4-6 players, that means each player handling a very manageable 8-12 units or so. With that modest number of units and streamlined game mechanisms, the game moves quickly and cleanly enough that you actually can take that step back and see what is going on, maintain and adapt a plan as necessary, and get the big picture.
Gettysburg is not dull at all if you fight the whole three days (we did it at the club with four players in four hours including set-up and take-down in time for a post-battle drink in the pub). Waterloo was great last time we did it. In fact, most big battles are interesting with the BBB treatment because it allows the time and space for the games to have depth and the players to have options.
Chris
ParticipantNBBB just got its first full review (a nice enthusiastic one, I’m happy to say) from Manteuffel on his “Wargaming from the Balcony” blog.
Participantbecause nobody speaks Hungarian,
10 million Hungarians might disagree 🙂
Arf arf. You know what I mean, though – lots available in Hungarian, but nobody has bothered to translate any of it for us Anglophone hobbyists. As my Hungarian historian friend Csaba says, Hungary’s best defence is its language, not its army.
ParticipantI got some language tapes to get the basics. Apart from that, laborious hours with the dictionary. Just reading, very little speaking. Unless the conversation turns to “In the battles for the bridgeheads, they suffered heavy losses” …
ParticipantThe Hungarian War of Independence of 1848-1849 – one of the 10 biggest European wars between 1815 and 1914, would you believe. There was next to no info available, because nobody speaks Hungarian, while the Austrians were too embarrassed to publish much.
I had to teach myself enough Hungarian to understand the Hungarian sources, and translate the Austrian semi-official histories!
I’ve published “Bloody Big Hungary ’48 Battles” to make it easier for everyone else. 😉
ParticipantOh, I thought you wanted to know how often people had played a wargame on their wedding anniversary, maybe with a follow-up question about how many were still married …
I have done some anniversary games. Normandy games in Normandy in June are a favourite, eg:
Operation Bluecoat (OK, the actual battle was early August, but it was the 75th anniversary of the battle for Normandy)
And a couple of others:
950th anniversary game of Hastings 1066
and Waterloo in its 200th anniversary year.
ParticipantThat’s great to hear, thanks, Ivan.
ParticipantThanks, Steve, Tony – much appreciated!
ParticipantIIRC Clausewitz says you’ve lost a battle either when you’ve committed your last reserve or when your line of communications is threatened. When troop density is high, that means lots of reserves to throw in and no room to get round the flanks and threaten LOC. Thus battles last longer and casualties are higher. Hence the attritional warfare in WWI, and in the latter part of WWII, and (per Julian’s point) in Ukraine now.
ParticipantGood comments, thanks, chaps.
My tentative theory: % casualties are a function of troop density and technology.
That is to say, technology (and other things) being equal, opposing armies with a given number of troops will inflict more % casualties on each other on a narrow frontage than on a broad frontage.
As weapon range and lethality increases, if troop density and frontages remain the same, the effective density increases, so % casualties increase.
The cases I studied for this were comparing Napoleonic battles (often very dense) with battles in the Hungarian War of Independence 1848-1849 (still essentially Napoleonic weapons and tactics, some quite large battles, but usually with rather fewer troops per km and with much lower % casualties).
ParticipantCheers, Guy.
LOS and ranges: it confirmed the thought I’d already expressed in my reflections on the Kirkkilise game. When a 12″ grid square is 10km across, that’s really the limit of BBB’s elastic scale. At that scale, you definitely need to limit LOS to limit ranges. Otherwise, artillery becomes too much like airpower and the balance between fire and manoeuvre becomes distorted. In the present Lule Burgas game, the special rule made sense because of the particular shape of the terrain and the battle and the game worked well. In other cases, simply limiting visibility to 12″ has worked fine too.
ParticipantWhirlwind, glad you like the idea.
Guy, excellent point. Perhaps the advantage in terms of +/- modifiers goes to whoever has the last reserve to commit? Obviously I haven’t thought this through but I think there is something useful there.
ParticipantThis has prompted a thought. In the context of factors causing chaos on the battlefield, we can distinguish between ‘known unknowns’ and ‘unknown unknowns’. The latter would be the myriad random events that constitute ‘friction’: the lost courier, the broken wagon that blocks the road, the stream in spate. The former would mainly concern where the enemy forces are and what the enemy is trying to do.
I can imagine ways to modify an activation system to reflect the degree of imperfection of a commander’s knowledge. Eg, it wouldn’t be hard to define what constituted a concealed or uncommitted reserve. A side that has such reserves might be entitled to inflict some -1 penalties on the other side’s activation rolls. The number of these would be in proportion to the number of reserves = degree of uncertainty. Conversely, once some threshold of certainty is reached when enough of the enemy’s reserves are committed or discovered, the active player might be allowed a proportionate number of +1 modifiers to use on his own rolls. Cavalry reconnaissance could acquire suitable importance.
Something to consider for BBB 2nd edition (no, still no plans, it’s served us well for 15 years already!).
ParticipantLike it. Added my comment to the blog post.
ParticipantVery observant, Mike! That was there to see who was paying attention … actually I think they are French pontoon bridges waiting for the players to decide where they go. (The French constructed half a dozen for the sortie. The scenario gives the French players the option of where to put these. Scenario freely available here.)
Chris
ParticipantWell, that was fun! Report here.
ParticipantI have experienced drought years in the past, so I am very conscious of how lucky I have been to get a good game in every week or two for the last 15 years. Extra lucky last Sunday as it was the BBB Bash Day convention! My own report will follow but as a taster here’s Matt Bradley’s on “Pushing Tin”.
ParticipantThe Balkan Wars of 1912-1913. Album showing my armies on parade is here.
I finished these in 2019 so that I could fight the battles from Konstantinos’s scenario book for these conflicts.
ParticipantLately been getting into Arc of Fire so that may join the list.
As the co-author of AOF – so happy to hear that people are still getting into it after all these years! What games have you been doing with it?
Oh shoot! Yeah, your game rocks. I was pleasantly surprised that even calling artillery is pretty easy to figure out, which is usually where “realistic” games get bogged down. My brother in law is getting into miniatures (since he builds 1/72 scale model kits already) so we have been doing some East Front WW2 and I am planning to run a narrative campaign for him, where he’s going to try to survive during Barbarossa. I may try it out for some proper trench fighting in the future.
Awesome! I hope you and your b-i-l have a great time. Also, if you aren’t already doing so, I recommend you try Scott’s SkirmishCampaigns scenario books – lots of clever (historical) situations and tight contests.
Chris
ParticipantLately been getting into Arc of Fire so that may join the list.
As the co-author of AOF – so happy to hear that people are still getting into it after all these years! What games have you been doing with it?
ParticipantAt risk of sounding like a broken record – “Bloody Big BATTLES!” (BBB).
I’m sure there are folks on TWW who are heartily bored of me reporting on BBB games. (Sorry, guys.) But there’s a reason why it has been the main diet for me and a growing crowd at OWS and beyond for 15 years. We always do historical battles, so the games have infinite variety and each one is a unique tactical challenge. (There are 100s of scenarios available now.) The combination of quick and simple rules with a tight scenario structure and history-based victory conditions means it is easy to play, the rules don’t get in the way of plans and tactics, and it appeals to all sorts of gamers. Whether you’re there for the competitive challenge, the historical spectacle, or just because you enjoy a good cavalry charge – our group includes all these players.
If you like the sound of this and can get to Daventry this Sunday, we’ll do our best to fit you in!
Please excuse the sermon. I just want to share the love for gaming big 19th-century battles.
ParticipantHmm, missed the Maida scenario. Must give that a try when I get back to NYC.
I remember you did your own BBB Maida game, a scant nine years ago.
ParticipantOK, an example of a BBB game with just a few battalions a side is Maida. See “Colin the Wargamer” blog report here.
The Maida scenario is freely available in the BBB group files here. (You have to join the group to get access, but it’s free and it’s easy to leave.)
Some players like to have extra skirmish counters out in front of their units just for the aesthetic. That works too.
ParticipantI haven’t tried BBB but maybe I should because that sounds like a very good system to me.
Thanks, General. It works for us. 🙂
For a less biased opinion than mine, you might want to take a look at Shugyosha’s “Ultimate Napoleonic Wargames Rules Review and Comparison“.
(Incidentally, the next BBB supplement, “Napoleon’s Bloody Big Battles”, went to print this weekend: scenarios for the 16 biggest battles where Bonaparte commanded in person while he was emperor.)
ParticipantI suppose BBB uses a sort of hybrid approach that would count as your option “3 – something else”. Although designed for much larger battles, its elastic scale means it does also get used for games where a unit is a battalion. A typical unit might have 4 or 5 bases. Of these, 0-5 might be “Skirmisher bases”. These represent “1 – a factor integral to the battalion”, so they don’t get physically deployed as a separate skirmisher screen, they just remain part of the unit’s line or column formation, and give it a shift right or left on the combat table when the unit fires or is fired upon. However, if the unit takes casualties, skirmish bases are the first to be removed, so it can lose its skirmish ability. This would represent loss of men from the better-trained flank company, so even if the skirmish screen is then fed with men from the line companies, it will not be as effective. (A trained light infantry battalion would have every base being a Skirmisher.)
ParticipantThanks, Whirlwind. Indeed, the set-up and victory conditions are crucial, of course. As I likewise replied elsewhere, I think it has to have the initial “oh merde” moment that makes it Salamanca. Mark’s scenario has that but still leaves the French enough time and space to rectify that if they are smarter than we were and have reasonable luck on their movement dice.
I’m sure we’ll roll this out again and see the French do better next time.
Participantnot a biscuit, just a memorial from St Mary’s Church, Harefield, Middlesex.
Well done.
The Bulford Kiwi is worth seeing.
ParticipantI can confirm they are not only very tasty but also easy to make. (Though I only marked ANZAC Day with a whisky this year.)
ParticipantAlways fancied but haven’t touched yet:
1. The South American wars of independence: exotic, colourful Napoleonic-style warfare, with some heroic figures. I’m particularly intrigued by Coronel Pringles (no relation).
2. The Russo-Turkish War of 1828-1829. I’ve fought plenty of Crimean War and 1877 Russo-Turkish actions, but not this earlier war. As a teenager I read up on it and drew maps to understand the campaign, but never got round to getting it onto the tabletop. Maybe this decade.
04/04/2024 at 14:00 in reply to: Was there a gap between historical games and fantasy/scifi for you? #196773ParticipantMy trajectory: started with conventional wargaming (Napoleonics, ACW, WWII …); off to university, virtually no wargaming, lots of RPG; post-uni, back into regular wargaming, very little RPG.
The crossovers were primarily due to external factors, i.e., availability of friends/clubs with relevant interests.
But the Clausewitzian trinity (“emotion/chance/reason” or “subjective/random/objective”) is also in play. I was always interested in the objective analysis of war – who beat who, how, and why, in terms of numbers of tanks and arrows on maps. Add dice for the random element and voila, I found I liked wargaming. RPGs opened my eyes more to the “subjective” factors of human motivations and aided my understanding of war.
I did achieve what I believe was a truly successful fantasy/wargaming crossover. (Pace Guy, I think imaginary wars can still be analysed and simulated as wars.) I ran two and a half multi-year, multi-player campaigns, for a mix of wargamers and RPGers. Details here.
ParticipantAs a lurker dropping in and out, I found it entertaining. Unusual scenario from a forgotten conflict, nice terrain, authentic Greek war cries!
ParticipantThanks, Vincent, enjoyed that. “Everybody enjoyed the game” – always good to hear!
ParticipantThe Alma and Balaclava now added to the agenda. These are Matt Bradley’s outstanding work, as showcased on his ‘Pushing Tin‘ blog.
Bash Day blog post updated accordingly.
ParticipantDave, you are quite right, thank you. It’s not possible everywhere and I overlooked the Edit button here. Acted on now. Thanks for the tip re editing.
Re verbose headings – in general I agree – for this event announcement I thought best to include full details so people could immediately rule it out if wrong day or wrong country for them.
ParticipantThe Alma and Balaclava now added to the agenda. These are Matt Bradley’s outstanding work, as showcased on his ‘Pushing Tin‘ blog.
Bash Day blog post updated accordingly.
ParticipantYes I will add it to my links, there is a lot of them that need adding or updating. I’ve visited your blog a number of times and the battle reports are always very impressive and they showcase 6mm beautifully.Cheers, Kieran!ParticipantNice website, Kieran – obviously a lot of work has gone into it and as a dedicated 6mm fan I appreciate it. Particularly interested to see your positive review of Sabre Squadron. SS’s author, Nick Overland, is one of our club members at OWS and I periodically suggest he should run a game for us but it hasn’t happened yet!
I note you plan to add a section on the Franco-Prussian War. As and when you do, I hope you’ll give BBB a mention, since it was first created to enable us to fight entire FPW battles in an evening at the club and includes a 9-scenario campaign of all the biggest battles of the war. Also lots of love for 6mm in the many reports on the BBBBlog.
ParticipantI can see the appeal of ‘Quick and Easy’ to players who like to dabble in many different games or just don’t get to play very often.
I can also see its appeal to a games publisher who might want to lower the barrier to entry and encourage new players who could be put off by a game that looks too complicated, or who are sick of being beaten by more experienced players just because there are so many rules to learn.
Its appeal to me is that a game should be Quick enough to finish it in a reasonable time. (My definition of ‘reasonable’ is 3 or 4 hours max. I’d rather play two 4-hour games than one 8-hour marathon.) It should be Easy enough that players’ options are clear to them and they can focus on tactical decisions rather than wrestling with rules.
That said, as others have noted above, there still needs to be enough variety in the armies to make those tactical decisions rich enough to be interesting. Asymmetry is always good, as the decisions then become about exploiting your own strengths and the enemy’s weaknesses. Terrain is important too – spare me those sterile tables with just two or three bits of terrain or a single objective, ‘fight for the bridge’ – more terrain makes for more complex and interesting interactions between troops and terrain without any need for more complex rules.
I will blow a trumpet here for my own ‘Bloody Big Battles!’ rules for 19th-century big battles. These have gained a decent following (1,000 members of the BBB io group; collected reviews here) and kept our club entertained for over a decade now. Partly this is because the rules are Q&E enough for occasional players to cope with and for new ones to pick up quickly; partly it is because the period they cover has such a rich diversity of wars, battles, armies, weapons and tactics that the games stay fresh and the rules don’t get stale. I’d imagine the same could be true of a decent set of fantasy rules too.
-
AuthorPosts
