Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
Chris Pringle
ParticipantI’m no expert so I’m ready to be corrected, but as I understand it:
The drill movements for changing into and out of square quickly (or any other rapid formation change) just hadn’t been developed. That’s a big reason why SYW and earlier armies deployed entirely in long lines – they couldn’t change formation to respond to a flank threat in time, so being in one line left only two flanks to be protected. (Likewise why they deployed from column of march into battle line so far from the enemy, to avoid being caught in column.) A line can repel a frontal attack by cavalry – a square is just four lines, after all.
The long line deployment also dislikes being interrupted by cavalry or guns, because any interruption creates vulnerable flanks (qv the French at Minden, I think?). In Napoleonic times, forming your infantry division into squares lets it be punctuated by artillery batteries or cavalry counterattacks, etc, in a way that would have been dangerous/unfeasible for SYW armies.
I think your answer is somewhere in there
Chris
ParticipantAll sounds great. Good luck and happy gaming!
Chris
ParticipantGreat choice. I absolutely agree – 6mm is great for being relatively cheap, quick to create armies, easy to store and transport. But most of all, great for getting an entire battle on the table and still having room to manoeuvre, getting a mass battle visual effect, and still fighting the whole thing in an evening.
What periods or wars are you finding particularly interesting to refight?
Chris
ParticipantMechanisms for an uncontrolled advance or attack that might be contrary to the player’s wishes are by no means unprecedented. Thinking of Sam Mustafa’s Grande Armee, which had such things both at the basic brigade unit level and at the corps commander level (if he was defined as Rash); and of Black Powder‘s ‘Blunders’; and of the Mars-la-Tour and Gravelotte scenarios for Bloody Big Battles.
ParticipantTerrific, Norm. Well done to you and all your willing volunteers.
Tabletop historical refights are good fun and can teach many interesting lessons. However, their major shortcoming is the lack of fog of war. Games like your Wavre campaign are much better in that respect. It’s not something any of us could do every week or month because of the time it takes, but it’s well worth doing occasionally. Your campaign seems to have succeeded brilliantly, especially the ingenious changing victory conditions. Great job!
Chris
ParticipantWonderful, thank you, John. Most illuminating.
ParticipantThanks for all the comments. I’m glad my post was so thought-provoking.
That sort of game is tough, and hard to balance when writing (if indeed balance is desired).
Actually, my experience is that getting the terrain and order of battle right and chugging the right troop ratings through the machine is usually all fairly straightforward, and that if you do that you will get a fair recreation of the action. The hardest bit to balance is the victory conditions. Bob has revised those but his scenario didn’t seem to need any other changes.
giving the Israelis a +2 […] probably hard wires the result to an extent.
No doubt. That’s adapting the model to fit the data, and it’s plausible, so I’m OK with that.
As for ‘Quality wins battles. Numbers win wars.’* it has a snappy ring to it. *It has a delightfully faux Stalinist ring to it.
Yes, a pleasing aphorism! And I find I can think of lots of wars won by numbers and not many won by quality. So it might even be true. It would indeed be nice if eg John were to chip in with some authoritative references to support or dispel.
War is still a card game and the quantitatively weaker side can still win (Especially if it has theater dominance, and the war remains limited).
Yes, I agree. The Russo-Japanese War was one example I could think of where quantity lost – is that in your theater dominance category? (Manchuria being a long way from most of Russia hindered the Russians from exploiting their quantity advantage.)
Troop training and morale and commitment is another thing and one of the problem areas in quantifying war. But who won the battles? Generally Israel, although the start of Yom Kippur was not so good for them. And who won the wars? Is the war over?
Certainly, training and morale and commitment are huge. Israelis’ backs are to the wall (OK, the sea) and there was and is more at stake for them than for the average Egyptian or Syrian conscript. I think a case can be made for regarding 1948 and 1967 and 1973 as campaigns in a war that is not over.
The peanut gallery says that logistics win wars…
The peanut gallery has a case. However, any logistic effort still needs troops at the sharp end. Is it better to have a few really good ones or lots of poor to middling? The UK began WWI with the former and ended it with the latter. Any examples of armies that went in the other direction during a war?
Keep the good thoughts coming!
ParticipantDifficult decisions!
My situation is easier as I have plenty of armies for the games I want to run, and the rest of the guys have lots more, so new armies and kit for new projects just don’t feature in my budget.
It’s therefore something like:
£2.50 x 25 or so club nights a year = £62.50
£??? for books about whatever battles I want to do scenarios for.
This last is a variable item that is impossible to budget. Luckily, contingency funds are always available for it!
ParticipantBash Day update – 11 March 2023
Dear All
Here is the latest update for BBB Bash Day, 09:00-17:00, 1st July 2023, at
Leeds Wargames Club, Hicks Hall, 60 Bankfield Terrace, Burley, Leeds LS4 2JR.
1. Dedicated email. We’ve set up an email for booking the BBB Bash day. The address is: [email protected]
2. We are now opening the sign up lists for games – just send an email and we’ll add you to a game. As this is early, everyone should get their first choice. We’ll book people in to the morning session unless notified otherwise. (The idea is that each game should be run twice, morning and afternoon.)
3. We’re pleased to announce that Bruce McCallum will be bringing his 28mm Zulu game. Chris Pringle recently provided an AAR on the “Bloody Big Battles” blog. Bruce is offering Isandlwana or Nyezane. It looks fun!
List of games so far:
Napoleonic – Lutzen (1813) (this may change)
Anglo Sikh War – Gujrat (1849)
Crimean War – Inkerman
ACW – 2nd Manassas
ACW – Chancellorsville
Austro-Prussian War – Kissingen
Franco-Prussian – Sedan
Zulu War – Isandlwana or Nyezane
We still have room for more games, so if you are thinking of hosting a game, please do not hesitate to contact us.
We trust that this is clear. If not, let us know. Please sign up now!
Cheers
Chris and Colin
Bleeding Big Bash Day Team
ParticipantPromoted to a sinecure provincial governorship, surely? This is the Austrian army, after all!
ParticipantExciting!
ParticipantKonstantinos, Vincent: great to see you test-drive the LJdPB concept so successfully. Thanks for the reports.
Tony: as Vincent says, there are quite a lot of modest-sized scenarios in the BBB group files. People also occasionally strip down the published scenarios – reduce the number of troops, etc – to make them even more feasible. (Sort of ironic, given that the original ambition of BBB was to make the biggest battles feasible in an evening. But it’s true that some scenarios are still quite demanding just in terms of figures required.)
Chris
ParticipantLovely game and I bet it was a ton of fun. Well done!
ParticipantEnjoyed that, thanks, Vincent!
ParticipantOh yeah, so it does! (The highlighted text isn’t very obvious.)
Chris
ParticipantSounds very interesting. Could you give us a link to the pdf, please, Konstantinos?
Thanks,
Chris
ParticipantYes, this exactly. However, I was talking with my “nappy invested” friend about it and he stated that he deliberately chose scenarios in which he could put out his entire collection, and so thinks he has done me quite the disservice. As I am more interested in Imaginations rather than historical, I think my preferences for rules are more of what I think feels right for what I imagine and less so on what it was really like. One of those “miles may vary” cases for sure!
Historical or imaginations, first and foremost we want a good game that gives us plenty of interesting decisions to make, don’t we? Regardless of rules, if you do take a historical battle as the basis of a scenario – whether with historical armies or imagi-nations – there is an obvious advantage to fighting the whole battle as opposed to just some sector or episode within it. The latter is likely to be more constrained, will probably suffer from the wall-to-wall-troops syndrome, and has its more interesting choices pre-set. The former – the whole battle – can be framed wider in terms of time and space and just allows a lot more scope to explore interesting options and alternative plans. That’s my experience, anyway.
ParticipantDave, I know I’m being overly sensitive
You’re really not. Some people are tone deaf.
Cheers, NCS – I appreciate the reassurance.
Participantsorry i was trying to point out, if NEW people haven’t read a lot of the history, and broadly, how can they judge whether rules are ‘fit’ or not? My reply got Names merely to indicate that part of my reply was directed- not all of it… nothing to do with experienced gamers, so you shouln’t be offended… If you don’t agree that a wide and deep intake of information is better and more efficient to understand a subject, especially where subject to considerable variations AND bias, then I have nothing else I can offer. d
The fact that more information is better is so banal as to not need saying. Not unless you are making a specific point about a specific case where some specific information was lacking. If you want to do that, great, name names and we can discuss it, but please don’t scattergun us all with sweeping patronising disparagement of unspecified others’ efforts.
The conversation wasn’t even about history per se. Norm is trying to choose a ruleset. DSG helpfully offered ESR, and incidentally said why he dislikes historical scenarios. I suggested his complaint was really about gameplay rather than history. I don’t see how we got from there to being lectured about inadequate reading.
(Norm, is this helping you?)
ParticipantChris/ guys Some runover of various aspects… There are fundamental issues to be addressed- starting with what you know or believe you know about the period. Have you read 30-50 books on the period; hopefully but not always from different perspectives? […] I would recommend, and I’d be more helpful personally, but I don’t live where you are, that you broaden your focus for a while- get library books and read more facets about the period.
Dave, I know I’m being overly sensitive and shouldn’t care, but I found your message very rude. You have no idea how many books anybody on this thread has read, do you? What deficiences in what any of us have said or done are you implying when you tell us we need to read more?
Participantone of the biggest issues for me was that every game I played was a “designed scenario” and in most cases was just a line of soldiers stretching from one edge of the table to the other. No maneuver, no tactics or strategy of any kind. Just “this general and his units were here across from this other general and his men and these guys show up on turn 3”. I found that I really really dislike historical scenarios, and even more disliked not having any room to make decisions.
DSG, I certainly recognise the phenomenon you describe, and I am right with you in finding that simple line-out punch-ups are of very limited interest. But dare I suggest what you actually really, really dislike is poorly designed scenarios? A good historical scenario should present you with room to manoeuvre and options to choose from, giving you the opportunity to shape the battle rather than just sticking you in a position where all the interesting decisions have already been made for you and it is just a dice-fest. If you’ve enjoyed your ESR games, why don’t you try an ESR historical scenario and see how that works?
I’ve written a series of essays, “Reflections on wargaming“, one of which is “Reasons NOT to refight historical battles“, which might amuse you.
Anyway, my point is: please don’t let your bad experiences with badly designed scenarios put you off historical refights entirely. My own view is that historical scenarios can provide plenty of interesting and unique decisions to make, and the result is a much richer experience than any non-historical match-up could offer.
ParticipantI just posted about the variety of games I played this month (with SYW to follow tonight). Lots of photos here. It’s a healthy balanced wargaming diet with no nasty brussels sprouts.
ParticipantDidn’t von Moltke say something about no plan surviving contact with the enemy? 😉
I don’t know how far $100 will go on 28mm terrain? But perhaps far enough to fill a 3’x3′ table.
Anyway, the plan and budget look sensibly modest and very achievable. Best of luck with it all and I look forward to following your progress.
Chris
ParticipantMaybe I’m a wargaming omnivore. I do try plenty of other games. Last weekend, as well as BBB, I played General d’Armee (Napoleonics), O Group (WWII), Test of Resolve (Wars of the Roses), Live Free or Die (AWI), Fire at Sea (WWII naval), and a professional military education map game of the 1799 campaign. All good fun, but also confirmed I’m happy with my core diet.
ParticipantThanks, Konstantinos. Actually it is a super-interesting battle that deserves more attention. It was a bit of a mystery to me until I started the serious reading up on it so I could write the scenario. It was a revelation to discover all its distinctive features, and quite a difficult challenge to create a scenario that captured its character with all its dramatic manoeuvre. I was really chuffed that it turned out so well.
ParticipantI like your thinking, Konstantinos. One of the groups I play with periodically I’d characterise as “wargaming butterflies”: each time I see them they’re enthusing about new figures, new rules, new periods, which is all great but can result in a lot of fumbling through rulebooks playing unfamiliar games with half-painted armies … I and the gang at OWS are the opposite, having been stuck in our BBB rut for over a decade, but for the good reason that we can fight interesting and diverse battles across a rich variety of different C18-C20 wars without having to wrestle with a different ruleset every time. And then there is the other half of OWS, the competition gamers, who have progressed through different tournament rulesets over the decades (WRG, DBM, FOG, MeG, etc) while apparently playing the same ancients line-out every time. 😉
Anyway, I endorse your wise words: find the right game to play and let the rest follow.
ParticipantThanks, Buck, Mark! Actually this turned out not to be our last game of the year. Opposite end of the spectrum, just 2.5 players but tons of troops, we fought Borodino in a morning.
ParticipantWow – that was popular! A big thank you to the dozens and dozens of you who provided such thoughtful and interesting replies, here and elsewhere. I have done my best to respond to everyone’s comments with a (long) summary update to the original post.
ParticipantA case of wine?
ParticipantBut Konstantinos, the US is a land blessed with massive basements and garages for wargamers’ delight! How did you end up with so little space? Your plan ought to include “Get a proper war room”!
ParticipantThere are different ways to divide up the “wargaming market” (that’s us): by geography, by period of interest, by scale, by preferred ruleset … perhaps the successful events will be those that are clear about which segment of us they are targeting and do so well. Large, broad-scope regional events covering regions large enough to support them; themed events like the Seven Years War convention or the Naval Wargaming Day; Joy of Six for us 6mm devotees, Perfect 10 for 10mm; the Bloody Big Battles Bash Day (OK, no traders there yet, but you get the idea) …
ParticipantI suppose I’m somewhere in the middle in this debate.
In terms of its importance to me, uniformology is definitely a long way behind what the guys in said uniforms were actually doing. If I waited until I’d painted all the troops correctly, I’d never get a game in, especially given the wide variety of conflicts I want to wargame. I’m perfectly happy to use proxies.
That said, I am one of those dilettanti who are entertained by such curiosities. For instance, it gave me great pleasure to discover that Jellacic’s Grenzers at Schwechat in 1848 were not wearing their usual uniforms, as these had either been worn out by campaigning or else never issued in the first place, so they borrowed the line infantry’s change of uniform.
But I don’t actually have any Grenzers in the right uniform anyway, even though I’ve played dozens and dozens of 1848 games that feature them. Hasn’t spoiled the games as historical exercises, nor as entertainment.
ParticipantA sort of tangential update to this: the scenario I ran for Peter was not only his first, but also the first in the newly published book of scenarios for the 16 largest and most important battles of the Hungarian War of Independence:
“Bloody Big Hungary ’48 Battles!”
I hope this is of interest to some fellow TWWers.
ParticipantWhat I really feel guilty about is that I should be representing battles with one figure per man, and with the ground scale the same as the figure scale. Anything less is mere parody. I realise now that my error lies in focusing on portraying how historical events occurred when I ought to be prioritising visual verisimilitude.
I think Keith Flint has found the way forward with this new figure range.
ParticipantDid someone just call someone else’s game ‘quick and dirty’ and ‘pseudo-scientific’, suggest that time hadn’t been taken to research it properly, and imply that it failed to achieve a semblance of recognition of what it was supposed to display? Pretty funny really.
ParticipantThanks, Guy. Yes, there was discussion on the day about what was the appropriate ratio between hours of preparation time and hours spent actually playing. If I lovingly sculpt hills to just the right shape for a given battle, then model the unique church or castle or whatever that was a distinctive feature of the battlefield, that might look great but it will take me precious hours and days to do, and I can’t justify spending that kind of time these days.
ParticipantThanks, guys, glad you appreciated being pointed towards Peter’s work. He is a very talented chap!
ParticipantWhat else could possibly match that Monday night dopamine rush … ? 😉
One of my ‘Reflections on Wargaming‘ addressed the different things we get from different types of game: ‘Wargames: how much “war”, how much “game”?‘ Another looked at what makes a good game: ‘The Quest for the “High Quality Gaming Experience”‘.
At the ‘meta-level’ where Henry and Mike pose the question, a big one for me is puzzle-solving. Consider sport as the context for a moment rather than wargaming: some folks like the big occasion, the drama of red vs blue, being swept up in the emotional highs and lows. Me, I am more interested in the cold tactical analysis. Consequently I like my sports complex – cricket, rugby union, American football – and I’d rather be on the sofa getting replays and intelligent commentary than wedged into Twickenham or Lords.
A wargame lets me apply that kind of competitive intellectual analysis myself and see how and why my plans or those of my fellow players do or don’t work.
My interest in particular historical conflicts, periods, regions etc provides interesting context in which to apply that analysis – more interesting than sterile abstract puzzles like sudoku.
The aesthetics, the craft, the social dimension, the drama – all these play their part as well – but flexing my brain on what are for me interesting historical problems comes first.
ParticipantCheers, Konstantinos. Third Pleven, eh? (aka Plevna, for any TWWers who may not know.) The Turks don’t have quite so much scope for manoeuvre as the Germans at MLT, so MLT still gets my vote. But Third Pleven is certainly epic!
03/08/2022 at 07:42 in reply to: Yarkshire Gamer Podcast – Brews in the Binyard Summer Special #176436ParticipantTa very much, Ken, enjoyed that – except now I feel guilty about the blue felt rivers I’ve been using since I was a teenager! Time for an upgrade …
-
AuthorPosts
