Quote from: John Cook on 11 December 2021, 02:26:57 AMThen use the 'correct' OB. 

Then you aren't fighting Market Garden!

This is my point. It is impossible to actually know the historical forces involved. You may have found that the sources say a battalion, so put 15 bases down, but in reality you should have just 1 base, because that's what was actually deployed.

I'm not against 'historical battles', I've played them. I am just VERY wary of anyone whom says I only do historic scenarios',because they don't.

You seem to be letting perfection get in the way of good enough. 

I think there is enough info out there to know if a given battalion was at full strength or at  5-10% strength at the start of a given battle. Yes, we might not know if they had 200 or 220 men in a depleted battalion - but I'm not sure that level of granularity really matters. And I'm not sure any commander on the day knew his unit strengths that accurately. 

In some ways this seems to mirror the bottom up vs top down arguments when looking at tanks or other weapons. Taking a lot of technical details (that are often easy to know) vs looking at overall performance (often harder to gather and more subjective). Feels very similar to going if its not the paper ToE then how can you be sure what was there. But as long as within a degree of certainty you can say what units were there at what strength, and have an understanding of how they performed then I would say its an historical battle you are recreating. 

There is a continuum of ways of playing wargames from pure fantasy to pure history - with I suspect very few people playing at either end of the spectrum. But lots playing towards the ends. But we seem in danger of wanting absolutism from the language - whereas I think most gamers know what they mean with an historical game, without feeling the need to get into too much detail about what the realistic limits are on that. 

Fred, I agree completely.  I'm afraid LH's point eludes me completely.  If you discover that your initial OB is wrong, then use the subsequent correct one.  History is not set in concrete and is subject to frequent revision and re-interpretation.  That is part of its attraction.

My approach might be different though.  I love history for its own sake and my wargames have to have historical context.  Without it they are reduced to the level or just another competitive, but otherwise pointless, game with counters and dice.

I think that LH's point* is that even for modern wars we don't have a "correct one" and probably never will, except by sheer chance. Infinite monkeys with infinite typewriters given infinite time will eventually come up with a 100% accurate OOB, level of chance.

The further back in time you go the worse it gets.

And one platoon, one tank, one plane could make all the difference.

I contend that Japan did not lose Midway because the Americans had better code-breakers than the Japanese, though they did.

Nor because the Americans had a had a smart plan, though they did.

Nor because their high command dithered over re-arming and refueling, though they did.

They lost because the one scout plane that mattered was not where it was supposed to be, when it was supposed to be there.

"all for want of a horseshoe nail"


*I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm misrepresenting him.

My question remains is how do you decide when an OB is 'correct' or not?  That has to be a subjective judgement, unless you've done all the research yourself, sat in the archives and looked at all the unit returns, collated the results and then done the analysis.
I agree that the farther you go back the more difficult is becomes as far as granularity is concerned but so what?  You can certainly come to a valued judgement. 
My Hattin OB, for example, is in large part extrapolation but it reflects overall numbers and types, as far as it is possible to know. I would certainly contend that when I refought the campaign it was a historical game.  It might not have been perfect but it was not some imaginary scenario without context.  Historical wargaming is not easy insofar as it needs significant planning and preparation and, perhaps, that is the real problem.
As for Midway, I'm not sure I understand you in the context of the accuracy, or otherwise, of historical OBs and the ability to refight historically based wargames.

My point, about Midway, is that very, very minor errors in OOB could lead to very, very unhistorical outcomes.

Which leads me back to if "near enough is good enough" in what way are your games not fantasy?

Fantasy/ SciFi games can have a background and a set variation on the laws of physics and "historical" battles in terms of their lore.

I've been involved in refights of Helms Deep and The Pelennor Fields that took every bit as much research as anything historical.

Several of the supposedly historical refights I've been involved in were basically "knock 'em down, drag 'em out" encounter battles on terrain that vaguely resembled the purported battlefield.

I remain bemused that you see such a division between the games we play.

Hi

As one who is quite keen on visiting the ground on which 'historical' battles were actually fought I must admit I was bemused by Ithoriel's comment above:

QuoteI've been involved in refights of Helms Deep and The Pelennor Fields that took every bit as much research as anything historical.

Exactly how many books and personal accounts were consulted in doing the 'research' for the refights of Helms Deep and Pelennor Fields? 

I thinks we have two very different meanings/understandings here of what constitutes historical and fantasy wargaming.

Cheers Paul

Quote from: T13A on 14 December 2021, 04:24:51 PMExactly how many books and personal accounts were consulted in doing the 'research' for the refights of Helms Deep and Pelennor Fields? 

Books? Half a dozen plus several websites.

Personal accounts? Exactly the same number as I'd read if I wanted to refight The Fields of the Gu'Edina.

Are we now extending Fantasy to cover the Early Bronze Age? Welcome to the Dark Side!!

At last! Converting history to fantasy one era at a time

QuoteThe biggest problem with fighting a historical battle is you can't.

We don't have the accurate orbats for both sides.
.......

How many Prussians actually arrived at Plaicenot?

I'm distraught. My crest has never fallen so far. Although Adkins only managed to find out the exact strengths of the great majority of units in his orbats, and not all of them, does that mean my Waterloo Companion is not historical?

[Plaicenot? ... sounds fishy ....] 

QuoteI'm distraught. My crest has never fallen so far. Although Adkins only managed to find out the exact strengths of the great majority of units in his orbats, and not all of them, does that mean my Waterloo Companion is not historical?

[Plaicenot? ... sounds fishy ....] 

Alas, as fictional as the Wheel of Time series .... the TV adaptation of which I am also enjoying. 

Quote from: Ithoriel on 14 December 2021, 04:06:51 PMMy point, about Midway, is that very, very minor errors in OOB could lead to very, very unhistorical outcomes.
Which leads me back to if "near enough is good enough" in what way are your games not fantasy?

What error in the Midway OB do you allude to?  I thought you were talking about the well known delay by the Japanese in sending out a scout plane, which if it had it been sent 30 minutes earlier it might have found the US carriers.  This is in the realms of if your auntie had balls she'd be your uncle and nothing, that I can see, to do with the OB. 

I'm not aware that I said "near enough is good enough" anywhere.  My aim, with all my projects, is to get the relevant OB, and all other aspects, as historically accurate as it is possible to do.  I thought that was clear enough.  I also reiterate that all history, military or otherwise, is not something that is set in concrete.  It is subject to continual research and revision, and that includes OBs.

I simply can't accept the contention that fantasy and science fiction scenarios require anything like approaching the kind of research that historical ones do, if they are done well.

In the case of Lord of Rings there is one source and one alone - Tolkien himself.  Anything beyond what is in Tolkien's trilogy is the invention of third parties.  The same can be said for any work of fantasy or science fiction.   

Your disappointing experience with historical games suggests that they were not done well and the fault, it seems to me, is the preparation rather than the genre. 

Quote from: Westmarcher on 14 December 2021, 05:54:23 PMI'm distraught. My crest has never fallen so far. Although Adkins only managed to find out the exact strengths of the great majority of units in his orbats, and not all of them, does that mean my Waterloo Companion is not historical?

Of course Adkin's Waterloo Companion is a historical work but if you must do Waterloo (about as interesting as Gettysburg as battles go in my view) then a lot of water has flowed under the bridge since he wrote it.  All history is a constantly evolving subject and there are more recent and better sources on Waterloo today.

Certain arguments here are on the lines of "Perfect sterility is unattainable, so surgeons needn't wash their hands."

QuoteWhat error in the Midway OB do you allude to?  I thought you were talking about the well known delay by the Japanese in sending out a scout plane, which if it had it been sent 30 minutes earlier it might have found the US carriers.  This is in the realms of if your auntie had balls she'd be your uncle and nothing, that I can see, to do with the OB. 

If a single plane/ gun/ tank/ squad can be crucial then if it is missed out in the OOB doesn't that skew the result to something unhistorical?

And since we rarely have something as obvious as the Japanese scout plane what else are we missing with "this is the best OOB we can manage?"

QuoteYour disappointing experience with historical games suggests that they were not done well and the fault, it seems to me, is the preparation rather than the genre. 

The problem wasn't the preparation it was that despite carefully researched OOBs and the best that could be done to replicate the terrain and objectives designed to push players to follow the general historical outlines of the battle everyone just ignored it all and got stuck in. Self included, to be fair. Because none of us wanted to do the stupid stuff we all believed our historical counterparts had done.

QuoteCertain arguments here are on the lines of "Perfect sterility is unattainable, so surgeons needn't wash their hands."

More along the lines of surgeons can't wash their hands perfectly sterile and shouldn't pretend they can.