Too famous battles ?

[paulr]

So the question now raises it's head,  can you genuinely play a historical battle?

Apart from Cannae which, we all know,  I don't have the first clue about!

Yes, but sometimes the organiser has to play mind games. Also don't expect a re-enactment

Often historic scenarios are more "interesting" than created ones, to paraphrase someone history doesn't have to worry about plausibility 

[Ithoriel]

Surely if it does not follow the course of historical events exactly it is not "the historical battle?"

If Napoleon beats Wellington, the Germans break through to Kursk or the Takeda win Nagashino then, to me, we're into territory every bit as much fantasy as the new Hill Dwarves and Goblins.

To be clear, it's a fantasy I heartily approve of but it's also why I prefer to use fictional formations (based on real ones) in campaigns based on historical circumstances.

As ever, it's my personal take and if refighting Borodino, or whatever, floats your boat I encourage you to go for it!

[getagrip]

Yes, but sometimes the organiser has to play mind games. Also don't expect a re-enactment.

Good point,  well made.

Surely if it does not follow the course of historical events exactly it is not "the historical battle?"

If Napoleon beats Wellington, the Germans break through to Kursk or the Takeda win Nagashino then, to me, we're into territory every bit as much fantasy as the new Hill Dwarves and Goblins.

To be clear, it's a fantasy I heartily approve of but it's also why I prefer to use fictional formations (based on real ones) in campaigns based on historical circumstances.

As ever, it's my personal take and if refighting Borodino, or whatever, floats your boat I encourage you to go for it!

Agree completely 

[Duke Speedy of Leighton]

Sometimes it's fun to play different battles with the wrong armies, and not tell the players, especially if it's an umpire run game.
Boridino fought by Prussains and French in1870 is a good example. French struggle being aggressive.
Bunker Hill with Wars of The Roses troops has been done.
Also Quatre Bras as a WWI (early) game or modern armour is a challenge (wood, built up area, objective of the crossroads and beyond).

Best one ever was each player taking a ww2 tank or platoon in a map game. All local players but took them a good two hours to realise they were fighting over their home town of Lancaster!

[getagrip]

Best one ever was each player taking a ww2 tank or platoon in a map game. All local players but took them a good two hours to realise they were fighting over their home town of Lancaster!

that's a great idea 

[Hertsblue]

The fact is that if famous battles went with history every time they were replayed, wargaming as a pastime would be dead. Who would bother to fight a battle to a conclusion that was already known? So, Ithoriel is right. I prefer to call our games "what if", rather than fantasy, which to me is a game based on imagination rather than history, but his basic contention is correct. As for arriving at a set of rules that mirrors history exactly, it will never happen. There are too many subtle unknown factors that influence the course of a battle that will never be catered for by manual (as opposed to computerised) rules. And if some supernatural film director could conjure up both sides exactly as they were in history, and yell "Take 2!", I suspect that such a battle would end differently in a lot of cases.

We tailor fictional scenarios to give the historical loser a chance of winning. Or, if we go for the strictly historical option we allocate "victory points" so that the disadvantaged side can win by achieving some limited objective. If you are doomed before you start, why would you play?   

[getagrip]

Perfectly put,  which is why we do "what we do"; even if the rest of the world thinks we are a little unhinged 

[Westmarcher]

Surely if it does not follow the course of historical events exactly it is not "the historical battle?"

Well, its never going to be the historical battle. Its a horde of toy soldiers on a table. 

But seriously, I think Hertsblue has nailed it when he says its a "what if?' situation. How many times have we read about a battle and wondered "what if this or that had happened instead, what would the result have been?" Same goes for a fictitious battle in a book (e.g., Lord of the Rings). But if there's no foundation in fact or fiction, I don't think we're quite 'into territory every bit as much fantasy as the new Hill Dwarves and Goblins.' 

(otherwise see and agree with what you're saying Ithoriel  )

[getagrip]

Well, its never going to be the historical battle. Its a horde of toy soldiers on a table. 

But seriously, I think Hertsblue has nailed it when he says its a "what if?' situation. How many times have we read about a battle and wondered "what if this or that had happened instead, what would the result have been?" Same goes for a fictitious battle in a book (e.g., Lord of the Rings). But if there's no foundation in fact or fiction, I don't think we're quite 'into territory every bit as much fantasy as the new Hill Dwarves and Goblins.' 

(otherwise see and agree with what you're saying Ithoriel  )

Perfectly put, the "what if" is what makes us come again and again to certain battles. 

[Chris Pringle]

Hi Ronan,

An emphatic "yes"! A historical battle situation is likely to be far more subtly complex and interesting to play than an invented scenario. Plus you get the bonus of learning about the historical battle by fighting it.

I do think it is best to play an entire battle rather than just part of it, mainly because that is more likely to allow space on one or both flanks, room to manoeuvre, and therefore more interesting options for players than just charging straight ahead.

If you expect to have multiple players, it is important to share out the forces in such a way as to ensure that everyone has a share of the action. If a player's force doesn't arrive until halfway through, the first half may be dull for them (or it could be ideal for the player who has to arrive late).

I encourage you to read Bob Mackenzie's fine essay on scenario design and what makes for a good game:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/bob_mackenzie/index.html
(Follow the links to "Wargames" and then "Scenario design".)

I myself play big historical battles almost exclusively. My approach is pretty much as recommended by Hertsblue. I generally take the historical result as a "par score" and design the victory conditions so that both sides have to do better than their historical counterparts to claim a victory. Thus the historical loser can again be defeated on the table, but still win in game terms if he is defeated significantly less badly than in history.

Since you mention First Bull Run, there's a full 3-page scenario here which I imagine you could adapt for Piquet:
https://flic.kr/p/r2AeMd
https://flic.kr/p/rgQApw
https://flic.kr/p/qZPeTa

and here's a report of how the scenario went:
http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=374838

Good luck - I hope you and your friends have a great time.

Chris

Bloody Big BATTLES!
https://uk.groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/BBB_wargames/info

[ronan]

Thanks to all !

[getagrip]

My approach is pretty much as recommended by Hertsblue. I generally take the historical result as a "par score" and design the victory conditions so that both sides have to do better than their historical counterparts to claim a victory. Thus the historical loser can again be defeated on the table, but still win in game terms if he is defeated significantly less badly than in history.

That is brilliant methodology.

Love it.

[Westmarcher]

That's what I was alluding to in one of the other threads when talking about weaning you off points systems, Grip. Not saying that points systems are bad, of course - they have their place in certain types of game - but not strictly necessary in Historical genre wargaming either.  

[getagrip]

That's what I was alluding to in one of the other threads when talking about weaning you off points systems, Grip. Not saying that points systems are bad, of course - they have their place in certain types of game - but not strictly necessary in Historical genre wargaming either.  

Agreed, but it just gives me something to "hang" the game on.

You will NEVER get me away from points.

[paulr]

That's what I was alluding to in one of the other threads when talking about weaning you off points systems, Grip. Not saying that points systems are bad, of course - they have their place in certain types of game - but not strictly necessary in Historical genre wargaming either. 

Agreed, but it just gives me something to "hang" the game on.

You will NEVER get me away from points.

There is nothing wrong with points systems per se. The risk is what is done with it.

If you use a point system to work out the relative strengths of two (comparable) historic forces so you can balance a scenario (by forces, situation, or victory conditions) it is a useful tool

If it is used to maximise cheesy forces then it is compounding evil