Ok,
here is the obvious:
If I know a particular battle, I have the map, to a tactical level, I have the OoB, and even the number and names of the soldiers, close to MegaCampaign production on a small scale I think. A dream of any scenario producer, then this is an historical scenario, no doubt.
If I decided to create a scenario without any research at all, just grabing units in the SPWaW list as I please, and design a map a "pretty way", and even make what-if like "USA vs USSR" or "Italy vs Germany". This is an hypothetical scenario.
Now,
imagine I have a text description of the battle (like saying forest to the west, bridge to the north) but no map. Or description of a battle to the division level on a strategic map, but no more details. But if I respect the settings (mountains, or forest, date and time) and make a plausible fight (with units according to what I know), like a skirmish that may well have happened around a big battle.
Is it historical, or hypothetical ?
How do you define yourself what is historical and what is hypothetic ?
Just curious...
Cat Lord
What do you consider "historical" scenario
Moderator: MOD_SPWaW
What do you consider "historical" scenario
Member of the Revolution Under Siege development team.
Historic is, IMO, a relative term. Obviously there are not many battles that are strictly amenable to SPWAW because of scale, rough sketches of battlemaps, etc.
So, IMO, your situation might be accurately described as "loosely based on actual events". That's good enough for me! LOL The main thing is, "is the scenario fun and entertaining to play and does it work properly?". If yes, I am satisfied.
Others will disagree.
So, IMO, your situation might be accurately described as "loosely based on actual events". That's good enough for me! LOL The main thing is, "is the scenario fun and entertaining to play and does it work properly?". If yes, I am satisfied.
Others will disagree.
No matter what you do in the historical vein, the results are going to be no better than an approximation. After all, this IS a game and as such the outcome is - or ought to be - in question. If it is 100%, dead on accuracy to real life events you want, there wouldn't be much reason to create the scenario: Just read the book.
Long as I have been gaming, the argument never settled down on realism versus "game". I contended and still do that "realism" is a bullet between the eyes. Anything short of that isn't "real". Our efforts always contain "simulation" in one way or another.
Far as I know, the only system that doesn't really make a deal out of "winning" AND has survived the test of time is Larry Bond's paper Harpoon - even the computer version had many scenarios where neither side really "won" - they inflicted or didn't inflict damage and that was it.
Not incidentally, paper Harpoon (guess I should call it "miniatures" Harpoon) has been closely supported by the designer over many years, is never out of fashion, has a small but truly devoted following, and Bond publishes Data Annex updates annually plus a new batch of campaigns about every other year. Monthly rip-rap is available via a magazine - real paper magazine, too. Just to put a cap on the truly unique nature of paper Harpoon, you write to Larry Bond, you get an answer. How many developers make themselves that accessible? Over 10+ years?
So. You want a REAL simulation - and it can be historical, including the entire Falklands War, complete with land action - get Harpoon. SPWAW is a pretty darn good simulation I think, if the limitations are understood, limitations which pertain to any attempt to emulate warfare. We're pretty close to Squad Leader and if we know our gaming history, we know the original SL was created for "real life" infantry officer's training. The developer sold Avalon Hill on the idea of publishing it for retail distribution - the rest, as we say, is history.
Kind of funny, but I just read Paul V. on the CL forum saying they slid into ASL even when they didn't realize it was happening. Does that mean the CL team understand ALL 150 ASL rules sections? I doubt it. But it does mean that a sound gaming system - SL, ASL, Harpoon - has an excellent chance for continued life in one form or another.
Bing
Long as I have been gaming, the argument never settled down on realism versus "game". I contended and still do that "realism" is a bullet between the eyes. Anything short of that isn't "real". Our efforts always contain "simulation" in one way or another.
Far as I know, the only system that doesn't really make a deal out of "winning" AND has survived the test of time is Larry Bond's paper Harpoon - even the computer version had many scenarios where neither side really "won" - they inflicted or didn't inflict damage and that was it.
Not incidentally, paper Harpoon (guess I should call it "miniatures" Harpoon) has been closely supported by the designer over many years, is never out of fashion, has a small but truly devoted following, and Bond publishes Data Annex updates annually plus a new batch of campaigns about every other year. Monthly rip-rap is available via a magazine - real paper magazine, too. Just to put a cap on the truly unique nature of paper Harpoon, you write to Larry Bond, you get an answer. How many developers make themselves that accessible? Over 10+ years?
So. You want a REAL simulation - and it can be historical, including the entire Falklands War, complete with land action - get Harpoon. SPWAW is a pretty darn good simulation I think, if the limitations are understood, limitations which pertain to any attempt to emulate warfare. We're pretty close to Squad Leader and if we know our gaming history, we know the original SL was created for "real life" infantry officer's training. The developer sold Avalon Hill on the idea of publishing it for retail distribution - the rest, as we say, is history.
Kind of funny, but I just read Paul V. on the CL forum saying they slid into ASL even when they didn't realize it was happening. Does that mean the CL team understand ALL 150 ASL rules sections? I doubt it. But it does mean that a sound gaming system - SL, ASL, Harpoon - has an excellent chance for continued life in one form or another.
Bing
"For Those That Fought For It, Freedom Has a Taste And A Meaning The Protected Will Never Know. " -
From the 101st Airborne Division Association Website
From the 101st Airborne Division Association Website
-
David boutwell
- Posts: 347
- Joined: Sun May 28, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Haymarket, Virginia, USA
Catlord,
I use SPWAW as a tool to help me better understand a particular engagement by modeling it. So, I am very much a proponent of historical scenarios, and my response will follow that bias.
My answer to your question is that, based on your statement, "may well have happened around a big battle", it is a hypothetical engagement based on a historical event. That would have to be the loosest use of "historical" that there could be, because by that standard, all scenarios could be called historical. Any scenario "may well have happened around a big battle".
I would define a historical battle as having the following characteristics:
1. It is based on a documented event. This is the key, because without this, you surely don’t have 2 and 3!
2. The map is based on documentation.
3. the oob’s are based upon documentation.
2 and 3 can be of varying degrees based upon the documentation available (here also is a stumbling block, because there is much more out there than people either know about, or care to access).
If you are looking for some rationale for not designing a historical scenario, I’m sure you’ll find plenty of it around here. If you are already in that camp, then I am wasting my time giving my opinion anyway (I still will do so). But, if you really are interested in designing scenarios that make use of as many resources as possible, based on what is available/affordable to you (And that is, "IMO", the key), but lack experience finding the info. you need, etc., then I'd be glad to help you in any way that I can.
It beats the....heck out of me, why in the world people in this site would discourage the creation of scenarios that attempt to recreate a battle as realistically as possible. What are you guys afraid of? That there won't be enough "what if", "hypothetical", "pulled out of your you know where" scenarios in this community????
Every board game out there, designed by any game publisher worth a ****, assuming the board/map was designed for a specific battle, is a historical scenario by anyone's definition! (and Squad Leader gets a pass on this one, as all of their scenarios were historical, but they, for obvious reasons couldn't make their maps historical. Although, they and other companies busted their butts to thoroughly research battles such as Arnhem, Stonne 1940, the 82nd Airborne Landings on D-Day and Pegasus Bridge. And don't forget Stalingrad. Their stalingrad Module utilized tons of research, such as German air recon photos of the city.) And I would bet most of the guys in here that were around before the computer game era got their start in wargames with those board games, and still have lots of those games in their closets. By the argument of the "no historical scenarios" crowd, board games, let alone some of the most popular games (Waterloo and Gettysburg, for example, or the Alamo and Rorke's Drift to be more "exotic", that are almost unwinnable for one side, both opponents being equal) should never have been made!
Yet for some reason the "historical scenarios aren't do-able" crowd thinks that historical, fun, playable scenarios aren't possible. You know what I think? I think some people just don't want to put the time into doing what it would take to do them.
Quote from Catlord
"Now, imagine I have a text description of the battle (like saying forest to the west, bridge to the north) but no map. Or description of a battle to the division level on a strategic map, but no more details."
First, what description of what battle is so vague that that is the best information you have? I would bet you that any battle fought by American or British troops in WWII has more info. on it than that, if you researched unit histories, British regimental associations, veterans organizations, military archives (the Center For Military History, at Carlisle Barracks, for example, for American units, or the British equivalent, such as the Airborne Forces Museum at Aldershot), survivor accounts (many people these days are publishing the stories of their fathers’ or grandfathers’ experiences in particular wars and battles, especially the Arnhem veterans.) and groups, such as the Arnhem Battle Research Group, that are interested in specific battles. If you want to do historical scenarios, I can hook you up with at least one source in the U.K..
Quote from Catlord
"But if I respect the setting (mountains, or forest, date and time) and make a plausible fight (with units according to what I know), like a skirmish that may well have happened around a big battle."
Based on that level of depth, all scenarios in this community that say anything other than "hypothetical" or "What-if" are historical, to one degree or another. My problem with many of those is that they are presented as historical scenarios, but it only takes a few minutes of checking their maps and oob’s to realize that they are historical in title only.
Quote from Bing
"No matter what you do in the historical vein, the results are going to be no better than an approximation."
In my opinion, an approximation is far better than another scenario that, if you changed the title, no one would even notice. A well-designed historical scenario that has an accurate map and oob’s will not be mistaken for anything else. (Reminds me of a music group whose time is past. They put out an album with a different name, the titles of the songs are different, but the songs sound exactly the same….) Scenarios like that are fodder for the recycle bin!
Quote from Bing
"After all, this IS a game and as such the outcome is - or ought to be - in question."
Try this perspective. Pro football is "only a game". That’s funny, huh? Grown men arrange holiday family gatherings and meals around this "game", and spend hundreds of dollars to go see a "game", or get into fights with other grown men over this "game", or spend hours talking about this "game", the list goes on and on. Some people, me NOT included take this "game" very seriously. When you are doing research for a historical scenario, this "game" stops being just a game. Try emailing a veteran of the Mogadishu battle and saying, sir, I’m doing some research for this game…….see what you get. Or try talking to an Omaha Beach landing veteran, who is 80+ years old, and saying, "sir, I’m doing some research for this game……" When you do historical scenarios , by virtue of recreating, TO THE BEST OF YOUR ABILITY, traumatic events in the lives of real people, who we all look to as heroes, you have to look at this as more than just a game. So, if you feel that it is only a game, I understand a what level you are operating from.
"If it is 100%, dead on accuracy to real life events you want, there wouldn't be much reason to create the scenario: Just read the book."
Who ever said that 100%, dead on accuracy was even possible???? And, by the way…does anybody remember the days when we used to have knock-down drag-out fights over armor stats?? Here’s a suggestion. Change up some of the armor and weapons ratings on the Tiger tank, so that they don’t accurately represent the capabilities of that tank relative to others, and see if the S doesn’t hit the fan about accuracy!! I don’t think even you believe your comment, Bing. One of the reasons why most of us got into military gaming was because we wanted to recreate for ourselves what we already had read in books. No matter how much I read about an engagement, the mental image that I get of that battle is always much more clear after I have reproduced the battle and the terrain as a scenario.
It is not the results in a historical scenario that should exactly mirror real life. In that case, I agree. There would be no need to play the scenario. But how would one set up a scenario so that the desired results are the ONLY results possible, anyway?? Rather, it is the "environment" and the "contestants" that should be pursued to the best of one’s ability, if someone wants to present a scenario as being historical. As I’ve mentioned before, when we bought board games in the past, we expected the "contestants" and the "environment" to be correct, didn’t we??
So it sounds to me like it must be the ability or the desire to create historical scenarios that is the barrier, not the desire to have them.
"Long as I have been gaming, the argument never settled down on realism versus "game". I contended and still do that "realism" is a bullet between the eyes. Anything short of that isn't "real". Our efforts always contain "simulation" in one way or another.
You’ve never heard the word "realistic" out of my mouth. You have heard "model", which is to recreate something within the confines of the system with which you are working. By that argument, whether or not it is "real" is irrelevant.
That about does it for me,
David Boutwell
"Out of ammunition. God save the King."
I use SPWAW as a tool to help me better understand a particular engagement by modeling it. So, I am very much a proponent of historical scenarios, and my response will follow that bias.
My answer to your question is that, based on your statement, "may well have happened around a big battle", it is a hypothetical engagement based on a historical event. That would have to be the loosest use of "historical" that there could be, because by that standard, all scenarios could be called historical. Any scenario "may well have happened around a big battle".
I would define a historical battle as having the following characteristics:
1. It is based on a documented event. This is the key, because without this, you surely don’t have 2 and 3!
2. The map is based on documentation.
3. the oob’s are based upon documentation.
2 and 3 can be of varying degrees based upon the documentation available (here also is a stumbling block, because there is much more out there than people either know about, or care to access).
If you are looking for some rationale for not designing a historical scenario, I’m sure you’ll find plenty of it around here. If you are already in that camp, then I am wasting my time giving my opinion anyway (I still will do so). But, if you really are interested in designing scenarios that make use of as many resources as possible, based on what is available/affordable to you (And that is, "IMO", the key), but lack experience finding the info. you need, etc., then I'd be glad to help you in any way that I can.
It beats the....heck out of me, why in the world people in this site would discourage the creation of scenarios that attempt to recreate a battle as realistically as possible. What are you guys afraid of? That there won't be enough "what if", "hypothetical", "pulled out of your you know where" scenarios in this community????
Every board game out there, designed by any game publisher worth a ****, assuming the board/map was designed for a specific battle, is a historical scenario by anyone's definition! (and Squad Leader gets a pass on this one, as all of their scenarios were historical, but they, for obvious reasons couldn't make their maps historical. Although, they and other companies busted their butts to thoroughly research battles such as Arnhem, Stonne 1940, the 82nd Airborne Landings on D-Day and Pegasus Bridge. And don't forget Stalingrad. Their stalingrad Module utilized tons of research, such as German air recon photos of the city.) And I would bet most of the guys in here that were around before the computer game era got their start in wargames with those board games, and still have lots of those games in their closets. By the argument of the "no historical scenarios" crowd, board games, let alone some of the most popular games (Waterloo and Gettysburg, for example, or the Alamo and Rorke's Drift to be more "exotic", that are almost unwinnable for one side, both opponents being equal) should never have been made!
Yet for some reason the "historical scenarios aren't do-able" crowd thinks that historical, fun, playable scenarios aren't possible. You know what I think? I think some people just don't want to put the time into doing what it would take to do them.
Quote from Catlord
"Now, imagine I have a text description of the battle (like saying forest to the west, bridge to the north) but no map. Or description of a battle to the division level on a strategic map, but no more details."
First, what description of what battle is so vague that that is the best information you have? I would bet you that any battle fought by American or British troops in WWII has more info. on it than that, if you researched unit histories, British regimental associations, veterans organizations, military archives (the Center For Military History, at Carlisle Barracks, for example, for American units, or the British equivalent, such as the Airborne Forces Museum at Aldershot), survivor accounts (many people these days are publishing the stories of their fathers’ or grandfathers’ experiences in particular wars and battles, especially the Arnhem veterans.) and groups, such as the Arnhem Battle Research Group, that are interested in specific battles. If you want to do historical scenarios, I can hook you up with at least one source in the U.K..
Quote from Catlord
"But if I respect the setting (mountains, or forest, date and time) and make a plausible fight (with units according to what I know), like a skirmish that may well have happened around a big battle."
Based on that level of depth, all scenarios in this community that say anything other than "hypothetical" or "What-if" are historical, to one degree or another. My problem with many of those is that they are presented as historical scenarios, but it only takes a few minutes of checking their maps and oob’s to realize that they are historical in title only.
Quote from Bing
"No matter what you do in the historical vein, the results are going to be no better than an approximation."
In my opinion, an approximation is far better than another scenario that, if you changed the title, no one would even notice. A well-designed historical scenario that has an accurate map and oob’s will not be mistaken for anything else. (Reminds me of a music group whose time is past. They put out an album with a different name, the titles of the songs are different, but the songs sound exactly the same….) Scenarios like that are fodder for the recycle bin!
Quote from Bing
"After all, this IS a game and as such the outcome is - or ought to be - in question."
Try this perspective. Pro football is "only a game". That’s funny, huh? Grown men arrange holiday family gatherings and meals around this "game", and spend hundreds of dollars to go see a "game", or get into fights with other grown men over this "game", or spend hours talking about this "game", the list goes on and on. Some people, me NOT included take this "game" very seriously. When you are doing research for a historical scenario, this "game" stops being just a game. Try emailing a veteran of the Mogadishu battle and saying, sir, I’m doing some research for this game…….see what you get. Or try talking to an Omaha Beach landing veteran, who is 80+ years old, and saying, "sir, I’m doing some research for this game……" When you do historical scenarios , by virtue of recreating, TO THE BEST OF YOUR ABILITY, traumatic events in the lives of real people, who we all look to as heroes, you have to look at this as more than just a game. So, if you feel that it is only a game, I understand a what level you are operating from.
"If it is 100%, dead on accuracy to real life events you want, there wouldn't be much reason to create the scenario: Just read the book."
Who ever said that 100%, dead on accuracy was even possible???? And, by the way…does anybody remember the days when we used to have knock-down drag-out fights over armor stats?? Here’s a suggestion. Change up some of the armor and weapons ratings on the Tiger tank, so that they don’t accurately represent the capabilities of that tank relative to others, and see if the S doesn’t hit the fan about accuracy!! I don’t think even you believe your comment, Bing. One of the reasons why most of us got into military gaming was because we wanted to recreate for ourselves what we already had read in books. No matter how much I read about an engagement, the mental image that I get of that battle is always much more clear after I have reproduced the battle and the terrain as a scenario.
It is not the results in a historical scenario that should exactly mirror real life. In that case, I agree. There would be no need to play the scenario. But how would one set up a scenario so that the desired results are the ONLY results possible, anyway?? Rather, it is the "environment" and the "contestants" that should be pursued to the best of one’s ability, if someone wants to present a scenario as being historical. As I’ve mentioned before, when we bought board games in the past, we expected the "contestants" and the "environment" to be correct, didn’t we??
So it sounds to me like it must be the ability or the desire to create historical scenarios that is the barrier, not the desire to have them.
"Long as I have been gaming, the argument never settled down on realism versus "game". I contended and still do that "realism" is a bullet between the eyes. Anything short of that isn't "real". Our efforts always contain "simulation" in one way or another.
You’ve never heard the word "realistic" out of my mouth. You have heard "model", which is to recreate something within the confines of the system with which you are working. By that argument, whether or not it is "real" is irrelevant.
That about does it for me,
David Boutwell
"Out of ammunition. God save the King."
-
BryanMelvin
- Posts: 1048
- Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Colorado, USA
"I don’t think even you believe your comment, Bing. "
Sure I do. You might not agree, but I believe it. WAW is a game and that takes us just so far. Historical accuracy is fine, I am not even trying to say it isn't. A game is a game. Yes, 22 grown men fight over a bag of air - its a popular game. Grown men hit small white balls with sticks and call it a game - and get upset when they don't hit the little white ball the way they want to.
I wouldn't get my shorts all twisted over the principle. What's the difference - if we play and enjoy, that is the first concern. We have a reasonably accurate game when it comes to the way equipment and weapons work - that makes the game better.
Different folks, different strokes. Enough from me on the subject, the beast is dead so far as I am concerned and I for one will stop flogging it.
Anyone don't agree, well, that is why we have horse races.
Bing
Sure I do. You might not agree, but I believe it. WAW is a game and that takes us just so far. Historical accuracy is fine, I am not even trying to say it isn't. A game is a game. Yes, 22 grown men fight over a bag of air - its a popular game. Grown men hit small white balls with sticks and call it a game - and get upset when they don't hit the little white ball the way they want to.
I wouldn't get my shorts all twisted over the principle. What's the difference - if we play and enjoy, that is the first concern. We have a reasonably accurate game when it comes to the way equipment and weapons work - that makes the game better.
Different folks, different strokes. Enough from me on the subject, the beast is dead so far as I am concerned and I for one will stop flogging it.
Anyone don't agree, well, that is why we have horse races.
Bing
"For Those That Fought For It, Freedom Has a Taste And A Meaning The Protected Will Never Know. " -
From the 101st Airborne Division Association Website
From the 101st Airborne Division Association Website
I think I quite agree, otherwise, on some campaigns, in most of the battles, you will end up with very very large empty maps, and mostly infantry, and should consider yourself lucky if you have a section of 2 armoured vehicles at all.Originally posted by BryanMelvin
Any scenario based on a historical battle is at best is
semi-historical on the spwaw scale as either side has a chance to win (the what if's) and play balance added in to make a battle fun to play and to learn from. Therefore I would term historical scenarios - semi-historical
Probably a bit boring :rolleyes:
Well thanks for all the answer, I was a bit shy about when I could present any works as "historical". I think that if I design scenario with good OOB, real company/commanders' names, and enoug information about real or plausible skirmish and accurate maps (or at least settings), I would called them between "semi-historical" to "historical".
If I design largely hypothetic fight for fun (or because my map is pretty), I will call them hypothetical.
Cheers,
Cat
Member of the Revolution Under Siege development team.