Rewriting History

[Q Rutilius]

Over on the History & Archeology forum there was a thread: how would you fix the battle? Now I am big on wargames and have been for a long time. My primary interest is the tactics/strategy of armies, and what could have been done differently that would have worked. Naturally, this must be done in a historical context. War, like any human activity, takes place in a cultural context. For example, it would too much to ask to expect classic age Greek city states to give up their beloved hoplites and field light infantry and cavalry armies just because in my (or your) opinion this would be very useful in some particular battle.

Perhaps an example would be helpful. I have a wargame of Pharsalus (GMT- Jasper is all right to mention trade names?). Now, no fault of the designers, but there are some "artificial" rules added to duplicate the historical result. I have experimented freely (which means that at times I have thrown the system rules right out the window), and it is usually a slam dunk for Pompeius. But we know that Caesar won. So, is it possible to devise a system that would allow Caesar to win without the resort to
"artificial" rules? Or, is there an unquantifiable - (at Pharsalus and Cannae the winning general had a good day, the loser a bad day) - that can never be simulated?

Also, can we - us RATers - learn anything from simulations/games? Can we, for example, discern what the formations of the Marian reformed legion actually functioned like in battle? Can we make a good guess? In this regard, do games or simulations have any value at all?

Perhaps this topic is arcane, but I hope that it turns into a free ranging - this is what I learned from games/ this what I'd do to rewrite history/ this is where all simulations fail, discussion.

[Narukami]

This is the eternal war game debate is it not -- Realism vs. Playability.

Avalon Hill was known for favoring play over realism. Their Battle Of The Bulge game was easy to learn and fun to play, but not terrible realistic. SPI thought they could do better in the realism department and produced Bastogne, a game that tired to simulate the actual battle to include traffic jams and all. SPI's devotion to realism was so great thay made a game that was essentially unplayable. (No doubt there is some one out there who actually did play it and liked it.)

I actually have an earlier game on Pharsalus (by GDW) along with a 'sister' game Eagles (also from GDW) about Germanicus trying to recover the Eagles captured by Arminius. We played Eagles quite a bit when I was an undergraduate -- had a lot of fun. Was the game historically accurate? Not really, but it was fun to play.

Using games as a teaching tool does have a certain efficacy, but I also believe that there is an absolute limit to playing the game in the hopes of gaining new insights as to what happened and what we might have done to change the outcome. That limit is the knowledge, the benefit of hindsight, that we bring to the game.

We know that Caesar won at Pharsalus, that Napoleon lost at Waterloo and that the Germans lost the Battle Of The Bulge the moment their units crossed the LOD. That simple knowledge alone taints any game play of those battles. The more we have studied a battle, the more tainted our re-play of it and the less "honest" the results.

One of my favorites was a computer war game of the Market-Garden attack into Holland. (I had even visited Nijmegen for the 4 Day Marches and had walked some of the terrain.) I always played the Allies and I almost always won. Does that make me a better general than Montgomery? Absolutely not. I just happened to know what he didn't or, in many cases, couldn't know, and that information made a critical difference to the outcome.

Consequently I think war games, in and of themselves, have a limited utility as learning tools.

Even so I still enjoy playing war games and I do believe they can act as a strong spur to leaning more about a particular historic period, the personalities involved, technology and tactics etc. etc. etc.

Besides, it's fun to 'change' history... :wink:

Now, if I had been in command of the Death Star...but that's a different topic for a different forum. :twisted:

Oh, and about the Germans losing the Battle Of he Bulge...some might take historical exception to my statement above, but that too would be a debate best conducted on a different forum however interesting it might be.

Narukami

[Caius Fabius]

War Games have great possibility as learning tools, but mostly for the professional soldier, and then we call them combat simulations.
As someone who worked in this field for many years, I saw "war games' with counters or miniatures train the US Military to fight and win. First, a wargame saves lots of money, it is much cheaper to create, and run/referee a wargame on a board, when looking at the costs versus driving real tanks and flying close support aircraft and firing loads of ammunition. You train your combat leaders without all of the "sit around" time at the lower ranks. You can stop when something goes wrong, and teach the people , then try again, at a lot less cost and hassle.
You can familiarise the soldiers with the terrain, enemy tactics and equipment, and capabilities. (Of course, this takes loads of research and well written senarios and rules systems {one of my jobs}).

Refighting actual battles is also helpful to military leaders, to get a feel for what happened, and what could have been done differently. While weapons effects and ranges change over time, and tactics and strategy must be modified to terrain, weapons effects and modern logistics, and system interaction, the basics are the basics. Destroy the enemy's ability to resist and impose the desires of your leaders.

Refighting a civilian wargame usually comes down to 1. who knows the rules best, and 2. whether the rules are fair to the period. One of the things that I don't like about many rules systems is the move - counter move system. That is usually unrealistic. Also the god's eye viewpoint that allows the player to know what the enemy has, and how his troops will react, completely unrealistic! I enjoy miniatures rules like "Piquet" because they come closer to forcing commanders to think like generals instead of rules lawyers and micro managers. I like the computer games "Combat Mission" "Afrika Korps" and "Barbarossa to Berlin" not only for the graphics, but also for the uncertainty and loss of command control. (and for the feeling of being a small unit tank commander).

My first wargames were with Airfix minis in the 1960's and SPI games like "Years of the Rat" and the introductory "Napoleon at Waterloo" mini game.

Yes, war games can be fun, but they can also be learning tools, if the rules have enough detail. Making troops function as they did historically is important. Morale is important. Command and control is important. Luck is important.

I still use "counter-games" to drive the various campaigns that I run from time to time, and for large military classes and training. Counters or grease pencil on acetate is something I still use when computers are unreliable, and when trying to design a presentation. I know I could use a computer, but it's easier to burn acetate and paper. hock:

Someday they'll drag me kicking and screaming into the 21st century, and I'll do everything on computer, but I still like painting miniatures and setting up the troops, laying out the lead, and using miniture figures... :lol:

I did sell my 1:1 1995 Russian 1/285th micorarmor MRD, and my US/NATO/ 1/285th Brigades and my Modern Middle Eastern 1/285th armies when I switched to computer gaming for all post 1945 stuff, (except small unit company sized games with 20/25mm figures).
I think I had over 40 poounds of 1/285th miniatures sold in one lot on ebay! (But I still have photos!) :twisted:

Just my thoughts on the topic...

[Q Rutilius]

Thanks Caius. I always wondered how much the military used wargames of the board/miniatures type.

[Aryaman2]

I have played Pharsalus with Great Ancient Battles game, and in that game it was almost impossible to win as Pompeius, at least against a human opponent, but the battle developed on very different lines than historically. Veteran status was a great advantage in that game system, so while Pompeius flanking cavalry had some limited chance to succeed, Caesarian veterans regularly pierced the center of Pompeius line.
IMO a good wargame would be that in which historically accurate tactics succeed, but it would be better played not on individual historical battles, in which you have a preset situation and insight knowledge of how all ended, but a strategic game in which you fight battles as a result of your strategic movements, a sort of Roman Total War but in a wargame version.

[Q Rutilius]

I have done something like what you suggest Aryaman2. Using Macedonian forces at Vercellae instead for Roman forces, or Romans at Gaugemela instead of Alexander's forces, for example. Also, I have tried to have two armies marching on the the map, and sort of blunder into each other. What is needed is a referee so that both armies are moving and they have no idea what is up ahead. Of course this is unrealistic as in most cases the two armies were camped close together, and knew perfectly well who they were facing, i. e. Pharsalus.

[Aryaman2]

I have done something like what you suggest Aryaman2. Using Macedonian forces at Vercellae instead for Roman forces, or Romans at Gaugemela instead of Alexander's forces, for example. Also, I have tried to have two armies marching on the the map, and sort of blunder into each other. What is needed is a referee so that both armies are moving and they have no idea what is up ahead. Of course this is unrealistic as in most cases the two armies were camped close together, and knew perfectly well who they were facing, i. e. Pharsalus.

Yes, but my idea of an strategy game is one in which several factors that have a weight in battle are managed, for instance supply, morale...you know, armies could be camped close because they were waiting for the other one to make a mistake, or because they were waiting reinforcements, or the enemy to exhaust supply, etc. All those thinga had an impact on battles that games with set battles can not model

[Q Rutilius]

You are right, but the boardgame format sort of limits you to a specific battle. I have tried a few "strategic" board games but they did not work very well, or perhaps I just prefer a tactical simulation.

[andym]

AH's version of Alesia was a great game,indeed it now commands high prices ofr even a poor condition copy.SPI's Crimea Quad was excellent and i still have a copy this also i have seen for £80+
I never really took to AH's phased movement games(the one with 2 moves per turn).Strategy and Tactics used to issue some superb Battle games,my faves were Hastings:1066 and Hell Hath No Fury,the revolt of Boudica.Unhappily i cant find my copy of Hastings but i do have a mint Hell hath no fury! :lol:

[Commilito]

well hex based games with set battles don't have to model the entire strategic level. They are just asking you to play out a few hours of history. Sure it limits you to a specific battle, but isn't some of the fun of it trying to see if the losers can win or vice versa?

[Narukami]

well hex based games... Sure it limits you to a specific battle, but isn't some of the fun of it trying to see if the losers can win or vice versa?

Absolutely! ) )

Perhaps I was a bit too strident in my previous post, because I do believe that games can teach us something about the history of the event they depict, however I still think of games as more of a starting point, a spur for leaning, more than as a primary source/means in and of themselves..

A current favorite around the house these days is that old warhorse Conquest Of The Empire.

Historically accurate -- hardly.

Fun -- Yes sir and perfect for introducing the grandson to both games and Ancient Rome. :wink:

Narukami