After some really good recent discussion of the respective merits of long vs short games, I fell to thinking about how much it matters if a game is left unfinished. My thoughts on the topic are here (https://bloodybigbattles.blogspot.com/2022/02/at-that-point-we-called-it-who-cares-if.html).
A good and thoughtful post Chris and one that I agree with for the most part, if not all of it. My thoughts can be found as a reply to said post. It has certainly given me something to ponder over as I do some DIY today!
Thanks for sharing your thoughts Chris.
I have never had the pleasure of playing your rules, but if you can say that after 10 years that they continue to deliver what you set out to achieve then I think you can consider your goals to have been met :-bd
As to leaving games unfinished maybe our little group here in NZ is fortunate in that at our usual venue we can normally leave a game set up during the week and if necessary continue/conclude it the at the following session. I guess if you are playing in a club/shared hall situation continuation is often not possible, so a call must be made.
You will probably only have to speculate what would have happened if you played a few more turns, if those reinforcements had arrived etc. So if you can pack a complete battle into one session and also reach a conclusion in a few hours then your BBB rules are definitely heading in the right direction.
I wouldn't deliberately start a game that I wasn't reasonably sure could be finished. Of course sometimes life gets in the way.
That's not to say that I want games to grind on to an inevitable conclusion. If one side no longer has any realistic hope of a draw, let alone victory, I'm happy to shake hands and say,"Good game!"
However, if it becomes apparent that someone has set up a game that could never play to conclusion, that's a definite frustration. Doubly so if the organiser was me!!
Quote from: Ithoriel on 15 February 2022, 09:41:34 AMI wouldn't deliberately start a game that I wasn't reasonably sure could be finished. Of course sometimes life gets in the way.
Or the reverse. I had a game interrupted with the news that my father has just died. And I was winning too, dammit.
I prefer a fight with a conclusion.
Failing that, calling time when the result is certain and one side has little option but a fighting retreat.
In cases where the game stops before an obvious decision, my pleasure hinges on other factors.
The quality of company, the appearance of the game.
But primarily the way the rules performed:
Did we spend 75% of our time on command thinking.
or
Did we spend 75% of out time shuffling through lists of obscure exceptions, combat outcome tables or adding 12% to the normal hit chance (See paragraph 7.2.1.9).
No, it doesn't matter at all - there are more important things. However, that is one of the problems with club games where you usually have to set up and fight to the finish in a couple of hours. Deeply unsatisfying and why I haven't belonged to a club for decades. Armies rarely fought to the finish anyway and if the game is in the context of a campaign, the tendency is often to want to 'run away and fight again another day' rather than fight to destruction.
Quote from: John Cook on 15 February 2022, 11:59:58 AMNo, it doesn't matter at all - there are more important things. However, that is one of the problems with club games where you usually have to set up and fight to the finish in a couple of hours. Deeply unsatisfying and why I haven't belonged to a club for decades. Armies rarely fought to the finish anyway and if the game is in the context of a campaign, the tendency is often to want to 'run away and fight again another day' rather than fight to destruction.
Yes, but any decent ruleset forces one side or the other to withdraw before annihilation. I think the question is whether it's acceptable to call it off before getting to that point.
Actually, for me the real question is what to do about the opponent who gets the sulks and surrenders the moment he has a splash of bad luck, even though he still has a 30% chance or so of saving the day.
A thoughtful post Chris :-\
Quote from: Ithoriel on 15 February 2022, 09:41:34 AMI wouldn't deliberately start a game that I wasn't reasonably sure could be finished. Of course sometimes life gets in the way...
This, very much this. Where finished means a clear conclusion has been reached, not that the last enemy has been killed
There are many factors that contribute to this; time available, rule set, force size, scenario, player speed, set up and pack up time (one of the advanatages of naval games), ...
My wargaming friend and I have a permanent table so in that sense it never happens.
I agree with most of the posts here and on TMP (where it is also posted). Where a game is reaching an obvious conclusion there is little to be gained by continuing.
We have agreed many times to end a game when the result appears obvious and then move on to the next game.
I prefer games to reach a conclusion, or at least reach a point where it is clear who is winning.
Sometimes this doesn't happen, players may be new to the rules, or trying a particularly frustrating scenario.
Occasionally a bright spark at the club organises a mega-game, these often run far slower than expected (friction is people).
I feel it's the job of the rules to determine when an army's ready to turn and run.
The job of the scenario is to define "other" victory conditions, and occasionally override specific rules (Perhaps the castle defenders will not surrender: quarter having been offered and once refused).
I've never enjoyed games where a 3 hour battle is followed by 30 minutes totting up "Victory points".
Especially where it's necessary to keep all casualties ordered (Occasionally even noting their cause of loss).
I once arrived at a game for my pre-battle briefing and told the gentlemen running the game that the battle was over. I was retiring because no one in their right mind would fight a battle in that position. We rotated the terrain around the long axis of the table and I fought a fighting retreat. A challenge for me but not much fun for my opponent as he could never come to grips with me. I lost (I admitted that before the game started) because I was supposed to hold the untenable position, but I retreated with my army virtually intact while inflicting casualties on my opponent.
Many battles end up in similar situations and could provide for a challenging ending to a game but most war-games tables are not deep enough to accommodate a retreating force. Nor do the rules reflect the fatigue of several hours of combat. How many battles ended when an opponent escaped because there were no fresh troops to chase them?
But to answer the question. Fight until the game is decided, whatever that means, but more importantly, until everyone is satisfied that they have played enough and enjoyed the experience.
QuoteI once arrived at a game for my pre-battle briefing and told the gentlemen running the game that the battle was over. I was retiring because no one in their right mind would fight a battle in that position. We rotated the terrain around the long axis of the table and I fought a fighting retreat. A challenge for me but not much fun for my opponent as he could never come to grips with me. I lost (I admitted that before the game started) because I was supposed to hold the untenable position, but I retreated with my army virtually intact while inflicting casualties on my opponent.
Many battles end up in similar situations and could provide for a challenging ending to a game but most war-games tables are not deep enough to accommodate a retreating force. Nor do the rules reflect the fatigue of several hours of combat. How many battles ended when an opponent escaped because there were no fresh troops to chase them?
But to answer the question. Fight until the game is decided, whatever that means, but more importantly, until everyone is satisfied that they have played enough and enjoyed the experience.
That looks like an excellent answer to the question.
I've tried a few "fighting retreat" games.
It's an element of warfare that many rules handle poorly.
Examples:
* Defender able to withdraw 90% of his force using march moves, while leaving a few piquets to prevent the attacker from marching. This is at least vaguely credible where funnelling terrain like mountain passes are present.
* Rules that severely limit rearward motion. Or the closely related.
* Rules that permit the attacker to advance by group, but allow the defender to only withdraw by element.
* Variable movement / activation. I enjoy these in the correct context, but in a withdrawal they turn the game into snakes and ladders (without snakes or ladders).
Eliminate these, give the attacker a couple of fresh light cavalry, provide and a few rally points for the defender, and you have the makings of a memorable scenario.
Quote from: steve_holmes_11 on 16 February 2022, 10:12:51 AMIt's an element of warfare that many rules handle poorly.
I don't have that much experience of current rules really, but in general terms rules, surely, should allow the gamer to handle the situation well, or poorly, rather than impose strictures.
Quote from: John Cook on 16 February 2022, 11:52:14 AMI don't have that much experience of current rules really, but in general terms rules, surely, should allow the gamer to handle the situation well, or poorly, rather than impose strictures.
HI John I would normally agree. The issue I see is that rules do not deal with the drop in adrenaline that surely accompanies the thank F#$@k that's over moment. The desire to find wounded mates, limited or no ammunition availability, hunger, fouled muskets etc that accompany 6 or 8 hours of combat. Disordered units, a lack of officers to motivate activity are but some of the elements of friction that wear on engaged units. Fresh units, which we gamers NEVER have just don't exist.
It's not all roses on the other side buy if they have formed units, some artillery and unengaged Cavalry to cover their movement they are invariably able to escape.
We of course have no reason to keep any of that, so when the table situation reaches the I'm FUGGED stage is there any point to continuing?
Quote from: Stewart.gibson on 16 February 2022, 01:18:11 PMHI John I would normally agree. The issue I see is that rules do not deal with the drop in adrenaline that surely accompanies the thank F#$@k that's over moment. The desire to find wounded mates, limited or no ammunition availability, hunger, fouled muskets etc that accompany 6 or 8 hours of combat. Disordered units, a lack of officers to motivate activity are but some of the elements of friction that wear on engaged units. Fresh units, which we gamers NEVER have just don't exist.
It's not all roses on the other side buy if they have formed units, some artillery and unengaged Cavalry to cover their movement they are invariably able to escape.
We of course have no reason to keep any of that, so when the table situation reaches the I'm FUGGED stage is there any point to continuing?
Depends on when and where, surely? A retreat in horse and musket battles seldom got cut up as badly as one might expect, whereas one retreating from a light cavalry steppe army might get away with 10% of its men if the commanders were skilled and lucky.
I agree. Most Napoleonic actions that come to ming usually cannot stay in contact because of a shortage of light Cavalry. In contrast vary few battles end as did Waterloo did. But being enveloped on two sides by superior forces after two days of rain and just having seen the Guard retreating led to disintegration of the French Army.
Vary many end with Napoleonic forces retiring behind an hastily assembled rear guard that is not pressed by the victor because, if we are to believe the commentator, there are insufficient fresh troops. Particularly Cavalry.
No need for arbitrary draconian mechanisms. Combat causes fatigue, fatigue causes friction, cold, wet, hungry, tired, shell shocked soldiers are really reluctant to seek additional combat, especially if they are short ammunition, have friends who are casualties and half their NCO"s and Officers are missing.
So the unit that normally activates might now activates on a 9 now activated on a 6, moral of the story, keep reserves!. Sorry Sacriledge...
Always have a reserve but don't save it for a future your army no longer has! :)
Quote from: Ithoriel on 16 February 2022, 02:50:35 PMAlways have a reserve but don't save it for a future your army no longer has!
But who else's uniforms will be clean enough for the victory parade through (insert defeated enemies capitol city here)
QuoteHI John I would normally agree. The issue I see is that rules do not deal with the drop in adrenaline that surely accompanies the thank F#$@k that's over moment. The desire to find wounded mates, limited or no ammunition availability, hunger, fouled muskets etc that accompany 6 or 8 hours of combat. Disordered units, a lack of officers to motivate activity are but some of the elements of friction that wear on engaged units. Fresh units, which we gamers NEVER have just don't exist.
It's not all roses on the other side buy if they have formed units, some artillery and unengaged Cavalry to cover their movement they are invariably able to escape.
We of course have no reason to keep any of that, so when the table situation reaches the I'm FUGGED stage is there any point to continuing?
I use computer moderated rules, and have done for a very long time. The latest iteration of Computer Strategies games deals with most of the things you mention. Ammunition supply, fatigue - gun crews just can't go on firing for hours at the same rates, one charge and it may take some time for a unit, particularly cavalry, to recover, units become less effective the longer they are in combat, officers are fundamental to the chain of command which has an effect if it is broken by them becoming casualties and so on. In a campaign scenario it also deals with desertion, allows for some wounded to return to the colours after a battle, and so on.
The players do not have to concern themselves with the mechanics of any this, though they need to be aware of it, because the computer deals with it leaving them to command. I gave up dice in the mid-1980s, before Windows, and wouldn't return to 'steam' rules.
But, I agree there does come a time when there is little point in continuing a stand-alone game. Not so in a campaign context though.
Quote from: FierceKitty on 16 February 2022, 01:26:12 PMDepends on when and where, surely? A retreat in horse and musket battles seldom got cut up as badly as one might expect, whereas one retreating from a light cavalry steppe army might get away with 10% of its men if the commanders were skilled and lucky.
True enough, even with decisive battles such as Jena, or Waterloo (yawn), parts of the defeated army, though disorganised, retreat without being utterly destroyed, even if there is a vigorous pursuit. I only go back as far as the medieval but defeated armies seem to come out of it far less well. Not sure why but I suppose it might be something to do with the nature of combat - more hand to hand.
QuoteAlways have a reserve but don't save it for a future your army no longer has! :)
I seem to spend a lot of time griping about rules here.
Keeping a reserve seems like good practice in real battles.
An awful lot of established rules are organised to make it impractical:
* Convoluted interpenetration rules - preventing them reaching the action.
* Army morale - they have to retreat once the main body is 4 elements down.
* Rules designed for long lines and anchored flanks.
Quote from: John Cook on 16 February 2022, 03:56:50 PMNot so in a campaign context though.
The Campaign context is quite critical. Hard to do effectively because most campaigns I have been involved in end up with all of the units at one place and facing one large battle for all the marbles, Lines of Communications be damned.
I'm not sure I agree that armies did not suffer large losses post battle in the Napoleonic Era. Statschen Pond, at Austerlitz or the Crossing of the Berezina They may not have been ridden down and massacred as the might have been 300 years earlier but they certainly deserted the colours in droves and were not present for duty. If troops are pursued and unable to rejoin their units they just disappear. If they are not, for whatever reason, their officers regain control and they are available to fight the next day.
In 1809 the same Austrian, French and Bavarian, regiments were in action day after day with the Austrians giving ground each day, retreating in good order and the French/Bavarians often unable to pursue.
Post ligny, a well managed aggressive pursuit by Grouchy should have prevented the Prussians from reinforcing Wellington. Poor reconnaissance and superb staff work by the Prussians enabled the Prussians to fight at Waterloo. The fact that Grouchy/Soult/Exelmens lost touch with the Prussian army and could not determine their line of march was a critical factor. Once that critical Cavalry task went unfulfilled the rest is history.
Many battles contain the codicil that there was nothing available to pursue the defeated force. Even when there was, a well organized and determined rear guard could protect the defeated army. As with Sir John Moore's retreat to Corunna.
Quote from: Stewart.gibson on 16 February 2022, 01:42:38 PMMost Napoleonic actions that come to Ming....
Corrected the capitalisation so as not to provoke the Chinese. The free world can probably beat Russia or China, but both together? Not even Napoleon.
The best-managed retreat in history must be Ieyasu's after his defeat at Mikata-ga-Hara.
-bd
Quote from: FierceKitty on 17 February 2022, 04:40:13 AMCorrected the capitalisation so as not to provoke the Chinese
Quote from: FierceKitty on 17 February 2022, 04:40:13 AMCorrected the capitalisation so as not to provoke the Chinese
Quote from: steve_holmes_11 on 16 February 2022, 11:27:44 PMKeeping a reserve seems like good practice in real battles.
An awful lot of established rules are organised to make it impractical:
* Convoluted interpenetration rules - preventing them reaching the action.
* Army morale - they have to retreat once the main body is 4 elements down.
* Rules designed for long lines and anchored flanks.
I agree fully. Most rules do not reflect the napoleonic battlefield at all. By and large, especially of late, they are vehicles to sell miniatures. Thus they are aimed to put as many miniatures on your painting table as is humanly possible. You will note the distinction between painting table and game table.
This is my soap box too.
So units are always deployed in columns, just so there is enough room for all of them. Movement has to work so everything is made as loose as possible to enable all the units to attack on frontages that would have been suicide. Ask the Imperial Guard advancing on the British at Waterloo in closed column of companies or columns of divisions. I cannot find the reference right now but I understand that the columns were formed without intervals instead of the normal half or full company intervals. No way that formation could maneuver or defend itself once it came under fire. I suspect the intent was to scare the British. I'm sure all they saw was a massed target.
I think we aim too high when it comes to playing with our toys. But we are here to have fun so is people are happy go for it. But Im not satisfied by what is on offer. I'm looking far lower down the chain of command to create my battles.
Stu
QuoteCorrected the capitalisation so as not to provoke the Chinese. The free world can probably beat Russia or China, but both together? Not even Napoleon.
If my history's correct, Napoleon couldn't beat one of the pair.
Quote from: steve_holmes_11 on 17 February 2022, 10:34:55 AMIf my history's correct, Napoleon couldn't beat one of the pair.
Mine would appear to agree.
Quote from: steve_holmes_11 on 17 February 2022, 10:34:55 AMIf my history's correct, Napoleon couldn't beat one of the pair.
True, but he'd have a lot of allies against those ones by now.
Quote from: steve_holmes_11 on 17 February 2022, 10:34:55 AMIf my history's correct, Napoleon couldn't beat one of the pair.
That's odd. This website
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Fourth_Coalition
mentions a War of the Fourth Coalition in which Russia has Prussia, England and others on its side, yet at the end of which a beaten Russia sues for peace, signs the Treaty of Tilsit, joins Napoleon's Continental System and engages in hostilities against Perfidious Albion. Just goes to show you can't trust Wikipedia.
QuoteI agree fully. Most rules do not reflect the napoleonic battlefield at all. By and large, especially of late, they are vehicles to sell miniatures. Thus they are aimed to put as many miniatures on your painting table as is humanly possible. You will note the distinction between painting table and game table.
This is my soap box too.
So units are always deployed in columns, just so there is enough room for all of them. Movement has to work so everything is made as loose as possible to enable all the units to attack on frontages that would have been suicide. Ask the Imperial Guard advancing on the British at Waterloo in closed column of companies or columns of divisions. I cannot find the reference right now but I understand that the columns were formed without intervals instead of the normal half or full company intervals. No way that formation could maneuver or defend itself once it came under fire. I suspect the intent was to scare the British. I'm sure all they saw was a massed target.
I think we aim too high when it comes to playing with our toys. But we are here to have fun so is people are happy go for it. But Im not satisfied by what is on offer. I'm looking far lower down the chain of command to create my battles.
Stu
Well, even the best rules can't make a wargamer clever. The fault here, it seems to me, is not so much the rules as the people using them.
Quote from: steve_holmes_11 on 16 February 2022, 11:27:44 PMI seem to spend a lot of time griping about rules here.
Keeping a reserve seems like good practice in real battles.
An awful lot of established rules are organised to make it impractical:
* Convoluted interpenetration rules - preventing them reaching the action.
* Army morale - they have to retreat once the main body is 4 elements down.
* Rules designed for long lines and anchored flanks.
Can't comment on the rule you allude to but Room 101 would seem the best place for them.
Quote from: John Cook on 17 February 2022, 05:05:04 PMThe fault here, it seems to me, is not so much the rules as the people using them.
Quite a sweeping statement.
Personally I prefer rules that lead a player to learn and use correct tactics. Not mandating them. But most rules do not. We have already heard statements about problems with interpenetrations and other tactical issues that could be solved by utilizing better mechanics. Typically that would mean recognizing that interpenetration under fire was well nigh impossible unless gaps were left between formations. Thus needing more table space or fewer troops.
Playing a game to satisfy the whims of a computer program to reach the right precisely calculated odds sounds too much like a hex and counter board game where finding an attack factor to get to the optimal 3-1 attack is paramount. Fine for those who like that, but not my cup of tea.
.
Hi
In my experience of playing computer moderated wargames (mainly Carnage and Glory, ECW, SYW, Napoleonics and ACW for around 30 years) they seem to work best when decisions (on the table top) are based on what (I think) happens on a real battlefield and the tactics of the time. Precisely beacuase they take into account thing like fatigue, ammunition supply etc. the kind of thing most paper based rules do not take into account but real commanders do. I'm probably not expressing this very well, but I find I am not 'playing the rules' or trying to understand what the computer is doing.
Cheers Paul
Quote from: Stewart.gibson on 17 February 2022, 06:36:06 PMQuite a sweeping statement.
Personally I prefer rules that lead a player to learn and use correct tactics. Not mandating them. But most rules do not. We have already heard statements about problems with interpenetrations and other tactical issues that could be solved by utilizing better mechanics. Typically that would mean recognizing that interpenetration under fire was well nigh impossible unless gaps were left between formations. Thus needing more table space or fewer troops.
Playing a game to satisfy the whims of a computer program to reach the right precisely calculated odds sounds too much like a hex and counter board game where finding an attack factor to get to the optimal 3-1 attack is paramount. Fine for those who like that, but not my cup of tea.
Not really. It was quite specific in response to your complaint that "most rules do not reflect the Napoleonic battlefield". I agree entirely about rules encouraging people to use the right tactics. But which rules force people to cram an unrealistic number of units on a table that is too small to accommodate them? That, it seems to me, is a matter of choice rather than anything else. As far as computer moderated rules are concerned I seriously doubt that any computer program operates on a whim and what you describe is certainly not my experience, at all. I wouldn't use them if it was. They remove the overly inconsistent outcomes that are the bane of dice, which aren't a tool for gambling for nothing, onerous consultation of tables and reference to arcane procedures. But, the rules one uses is not mandatory.
Quote from: T13A on 17 February 2022, 08:53:46 PMHi
In my experience of playing computer moderated wargames (mainly Carnage and Glory, ECW, SYW, Napoleonics and ACW for around 30 years) they seem to work best when decisions (on the table top) are based on what (I think) happens on a real battlefield and the tactics of the time. Precisely beacuase they take into account thing like fatigue, ammunition supply etc. the kind of thing most paper based rules do not take into account but real commanders do. I'm probably not expressing this very well, but I find I am not 'playing the rules' or trying to understand what the computer is doing.
Cheers Paul
I understand what you are driving at. I think you mean that they allow you to concentrate on 'commanding'. The only down-side to computer rules is that somebody has to operate the computer and input the command decisions but with the advent of tablets with touch screens this is much less of an issue. But as I get older I'm quite happy to sit anyway and in my small group of a couple of like-minded friends, it has never been the issue it is for some.
A brief read of scenarios provided with rules like black powder suggests that playable battles can be played by two people on a 4x6 table with anywhere between 35 and 95 standard sized units. Yes you are correct people could choose to play the 35 unit scenario but by and large we try to play Waterloo.
Thé Plancenoit scénario calls for 78 standard sized units on a 4 foot front. Obviously far too many. That is typical of what I'm finding so I do find that is a trend.
No doubt the old school, to many modifiers paradigm is tedious as are buckets of dice. That does not mean that computers are the solution. After all they are the embodiment of the beliefs of the algorithm writers, often opaque to the user and once learned usually quite predictable and manipulatable. So by whims you are correct, not of the software, it is after all simply a data manipulation and storage tool. More correctly the whims of the designer(s) Are there full designers notes?
I think if we change the scope of the action we make additional tools available to us that with some creative measure can result in new paradigms. Am I the guy with the smrt's to do that, doubt it, but I am looking to start the conversation.
Quote from: T13A on 17 February 2022, 08:53:46 PM....... are based on what (I think) happens ........
What I also meant to say was that you are spot on. It is all about our perceptions. It is our perceptions that make rules acceptable to us, or not, and there really is no possibility that any of us really perceive what Medieval/17th Century/Napoleonic warfare etc was like.
Quote from: Stewart.gibson on 18 February 2022, 04:24:33 AMA brief read of scenarios provided with rules like black powder .......
I'm not familiar with Black Powder so, obviously, I can't comment except to say that the suggestion for Placenoit seems ludicrous to me but would it not be affected by the size of the figures used, for example it might well be possible with 2mm or 6mm figures but not with 28mm. But I don't really see the need for spoon-feeding scenarios anyway. I also don't like armies constructed around points and prefer to think for myself in the context of scenarios. Similarly I don't like standard sized units – there's no such thing and, while were on the subject of dislikes, I dislike Waterloo intensely for all kinds of reasons, not least because it is an atypically Napoleonic battle, in my view.
But, returning to computer moderated wargaming, and not because I'm on a crusade to convert people but because you ask.
They are only the solution if they meet the players perception of warfare in the period concerned and, of course, they do not suit everybody. The two most popular, indeed the only ones I know of are Carnage and Glory and Computer Strategies. The ones I'm really familiar with are Computer Strategies. I like them because they allow the player to either accept the defaults or tailor them to suit their own preferences. But, they have no influence on the player's generalship. The players' are at complete liberty to make fools of themselves and competence is their own responsibility. If you want to cram 78 units on a 4ft front you can, but, on the whole, you will be rewarded if you are sensible.
The 'whims' of the designer are no less apparent than the whims of the designers of conventional paper rules and, yes, they do have user documentation, more comprehensive than some paper rules I've seen. There are 73 pages of them, downloadable if you want to, with diagrams, explanations and rationale for the Battle (tactical) Module to Iron Duke (Computer Strategies' Napoleonic program) alone. There is further user documentation for the Grand Tactical Module (wargaming at formation level), Naval Module, Campaign Module and Solo Module. Far from constraining the gamer, they are far more dynamic than any paper rules I know, which I concede is not many these days.
John
I don't necessarily disagree. However, I think they are only suitable for multiplayer games with one player operating the program. My wargaming friend and tried them some years ago but found that, with only two players, the need for one player to input the information to progress the game was not a satisfying experience as regards playing the game. Another friend runs a monthly multiplayer game using computer software and this leaves the players free to focus on the table itself and gives a very enjoyable game.
If computer moderated games work for people then why not.
Personally, if a computer is going to run the game I'd sooner go the whole hog and play an actual computer game. Beautiful and varied terrain, ready "painted" figures, no storage problems. A no-brainer, surely.
I like dice for the same reason I like little lead men. It's a tactile, analogue experience in an increasingly digital world.
Do we sometimes often get some aspect of the rules wrong? Of course. Do we care? Not at all, providing it doesn't skew the game to badly and everyone has fun. I don't think we've ever got anything significant wrong.
Anyway,
"Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the adherence of fools" :)
Well, Stu, I use them with two players all the time, and over the past two years for a lot of solo games too. Having to input information is not much of an impediment and since I bought a tablet with touch screen you can do it at the point of the 'action'. It is much more portable than any lap-top and no more onerous than having to consult paper rules really. I understand people like to use dice but I can do that with Snakes and Ladders if I want to. Good luck with your quest to find the perfect rules.
I doubt that there are any perfect rules. If only because we cannot know exactly what transpired on the battlefield. I think that we all have perceptions based upon our reading of the materials available to us. From that understanding we develop a model that replicates the factors we feel most important.
I'll continue on my quest.
I think it fair to say that the plethora of rules available at variable game scales shows that there are no perfect rules and only represent the authors view of the period, as you indicated. Different but not necessarily perfect. No disrespect, but you are probably searching for the Holy Grail oF rules. Good luck.
I think the plethora of rules shows many things:
Boredom - 'let's try something different' (usually only cosmetic)
Mechanism fad/fashions (the PIP for example, or the 'card driven')
Amnesia - how many clones of 1960s chuck a bucket of dice and throw another bucket of 'saving rolls' have there been?
Different interpretations of what we want to game - tactical? grand tactical/operational? Top up, top down design? No relevance to reality at all - it's only a game?(the vogue du jour). A mind numbing attempt to simulate every activity on a battlefield? - not possible and ineffably tedious.
Searching for/designing a rule set that produces a representation true to your vision of what Napoleonic warfare looked like and which allows players to make the mistakes and achieve the coups real commanders did is an admirable goal. Just don't expect the majority (or even a sizeable minority) of gamers to play them forever as their sole late 18th early 19th century set. They'll get bored and move on. 'Hey why don't we throw a dice for every man to hit and then you can throw a die for each hit and see if you dodged/survived somehow? That'll be cool!'
QuoteI think the plethora of rules shows many things:
- a raft of new periods and places being explored
- a whole slew of new mechanisms being tried
- different levels of action being explored
- that it's possible to have multiple sets of rules for a period and remember enough of the basics to play a game without undue reference to the rules.
- IDIC
Ah! I see you're a cockeyed optimist! :D
I suspect we're all falling on our face.
Lets face it, hobbies are simply a way of spending a little of the time between now and our inevitable demise pleasantly.
You can be optimistic or pessimistic but evidence suggests optimists live longer so if I'm an optimist I get to spend more time enjoying my hobbies.
"I don't believe there's a power in the 'Verse can stop Kaylee me from being cheerful," :)
Of course Professor Don Moore of Berkeley Haas School of Business found that optimism improves persistence but not outcomes.
So you may live longer trying to to enjoy your hobby, doesn't guarantee us realists won't have a better experience. :)
This has proved to be one of my most popular "Reflections on Wargaming" to date, generating scores of comments. I am grateful to all of you who took the trouble to respond, whether at thoughtful length (like Steve J in his comment at foot of the blog post itself) or with pithy brevity (OSHIROmodels, "Nope!", on LAF). It seems only right that I should in turn summarise all these responses. I have added this summary to the original blog post here:
http://bloodybigbattles.blogspot.com/2022/02/at-that-point-we-called-it-who-cares-if.html
Excellent summary, which (I think) really adds to the original blog post.
QuoteNo disrespect, but you are probably searching for the Holy Grail oF rules.
I just have to avoid those pesky normans and their cows and the killer rabbit...
Quote from: Chad on 19 February 2022, 11:13:48 AMNo disrespect, but you are probably searching for the Holy Grail oF rules
None taken, I also meant to say that My Holy Grail might not be what other's seek. Only a different view of the battlefield which. "in my view" better reflects combat in the period. There are many rule sets that work to allow the player to be Napoleon, If I was to more narrowly define my focus it is those rules that attempt to combine Napoleon's task with a bridge commanders that fail utterly. ymmv
Quote from: Gwydion on 19 February 2022, 12:08:22 PMJust don't expect the majority (or even a sizeable minority) of gamers to play them forever as their sole late 18th early 19th century set.
No doubt they will not. I'm filling a niche for myself. Regardless of how (un)successful. my ideas may prove they only reflect a small part of the whole. That is because, I see us as trying to do too much on the table top and that no one set of rules can capture decisions and command at the Army level and the decisions of brigade and battalion commanders at the pointy end. In my view, they are, and should be different things.
Some great games can and have been made that reflect this reality. Grande Armee, Baccus' 6mm Polemous series amongst others.
I just cant find the other end of the spear. Where are the rules that reflect the pointy end that are somewhere above what Lt Sharpe has for lunch and below Napoleon's subordinates screwing up a battle beceause he has a stomach bug?
Quote from: Ithoriel on 19 February 2022, 02:27:38 PMLets face it, hobbies are simply a way of spending a little of the time between now and our inevitable demise pleasantly.
Quote from: Ithoriel on 19 February 2022, 02:27:38 PMYou can be optimistic or pessimistic but evidence suggests optimists live longer so if I'm an optimist I get to spend more time enjoying my hobbies.
Optimists live longer, Agree!. I'm optimistic that I can find a solution to my pessimistic view of the state of the rules available? The hobby has never been better off. More and better vendors, fora that enable discussions such as these. When has it ever been better?
It's all playing with toy soldiers in the end. The fact that is, as I'm retired, I get to play with, and think about toy soldiers most of the time, horrendous weather and trucker convoys not withstanding. How can that be bad? I'm not about to worry myself into ending play time anytime soon.
Quote from: Chris Pringle on 20 February 2022, 11:14:24 AMThis has proved to be one of my most popular "Reflections on Wargaming" to date, generating scores of comments. I am grateful to all of you who took the trouble to respond, whether at thoughtful length (like Steve J in his comment at foot of the blog post itself) or with pithy brevity (OSHIROmodels, "Nope!", on LAF). It seems only right that I should in turn summarise all these responses. I have added this summary to the original blog post here:
http://bloodybigbattles.blogspot.com/2022/02/at-that-point-we-called-it-who-cares-if.html
Thanks Chris for prompting an interesting discussion and thanks to all the contributors
and as Steve said
Quote from: steve_holmes_11 on 20 February 2022, 12:50:48 PMExcellent summary, which (I think) really adds to the original blog post.