Matrix Games Forums

There was an interesting discussion in the All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> Business News from Historicon thread about historical accuracy in wargames which probably deserves its own space so I restarted it here.

IMHO opinion NOBODY wants complete historical accuracy in wargames - we all want our own interpretation of accuracy. Does the tactical squad leader player want to take his iPad into the garden and physically crawl through the dirt in a rainstorm while he ponders how to assault the next pillbox on his screen? I'd say he'd rather sit on a chair with snacks close at hand (and I don't mean K-Rations). I know there are ACW re-enactors who starve themselves to get into the gaunt Confederate soldier mindset but I doubt anyone does that just to play Forge of Freedom.

OK, that's just one tactile level of "accuracy" and not relevant to operational/strategic games but it is these larger scale games when the problem gets worse. There was an interesting discussion in the "Time of Fury" forum about whether a successful SeaLion should be achievable within the game system. One group of purists held that hindsight showed that the Germans would never have succeeded in invading Britain and the game should reflect that reality. The other group of purists (including me) acknowledged that SeaLion would have failed in real life but at the time the British were operating under the belief that it MIGHT have succeeded and their strategic decisions were affected by that belief. If you removed the possibility of a successful SeaLion from the game system then you were not accurately modelling the challenges facing the British ("Hey, since we know the Germans can't invade the Homeland then lets just send the whole RAF to Egypt and wallop the Italians."). And why would the Germans divert part of their 1940 production into transports (as they did historically) if they know that those units will never be used in anger? So which 'accuracy' do you choose? Operational planning or strategic mindset? You can't have both in that situation. D@mned if you do and d@mned if you don't - the game designer just can't win.

I agree with DSWargamers point about allowing variable setups (and starting forces) in order to defeat perfect plans and perhaps that's as close to "accuracy" as we can hope for. OTOH he also said "You are kidding yourself if you think most computer wargames are giving you 'great' wargaming." and with that comment he perhaps risks portraying himself as the sole arbiter of what defines 'great' wargaming (I'm sure that wasn't his intention.)

"Great Wargaming" is different things to different people and for me... Pandora=[>:] + MWiF= + War in the West=. Your mileage WILL vary but IMHO there is room in this hobby for all of us and just because we may differ on what defines "accuracy" in a wargame it doesn't mean that any of us is wrong.

However I do exclude weapon performance from this thesis. While an Avro Lancaster will always carry more bomb weight than a Mosquito there may well be a viable discussion about whether the RAF should have scrapped all of the heavies and just built swarms of Mosquitos... you'd have to miss out on events like Operation Chastise but the overall effect may have been well worth the sacrifice.

So (reaching for tin hat and hunkering down under my desk in anticipation of incoming fire) what do you think?

Nice rebut Greyshaft. She makes some good comments.

Some of the choices during the war were incorrect thinking that they just couldn't get out of.
The Allies suffered from a tank doctrine that simply wasn't any good for instance, but, it was not easy to just ditch it.

In game terms, some games simply have too much trouble with map features that refuse to conform. Malta being my favourite. Gibraltar being another good one. This same problem becomes considerable with the Pacific where often the Marines were landed on flea spec pieces of ground swarming with Japanese defenses and they took hideous casualties. Some parts of the mainland jungles were so dense that modern armies had trouble crossing them. What works in a game set in Europe often falls flat on it's face in the Pacific. Much as I love Advanced Third Reich, the sequel Rising Sun was not an ideal match up.

Some games don't suffer as the scale makes it possible. I have ASL modules of the fight in Stalingrad and the Fights in the Pacific. And in both cases, you get maps that end up being knee deep in counters, but it is at least realistic. Also darned tedious and lengthy. And again, what was I thinking when I got them

Some times, a game, in order to recreate accurately, actually needs to employ an abstraction. The subs in SC 1 are worthless, totally of no value and the crafty Allied player just throws away the French fleet trashing the subs and then presto no war in the Atlantic. And all because the two counters, they are counters. In A3R, those counters are not counters on a map, they are a reflection of resource effort and you either match it or suffer. The Allies do the same with bombers and the bombing campaign. But limiting bombing to counters is also not going to get much performance value in a game.

ORIGINAL: DSWargamer

Nice rebut Greyshaft. She makes some good comments.

She??? Uh ... hate to disappoint you here but you must be thinking of another Greyshaft with a different loadout. My equipment is configured to transmit, not receive.

Seemed appropriate, she called me a he
Wondered if anyone would catch that.

I expect historical plausibility in wargaming. IF both sides play historically accurate strategies, THEN one should expect historically accurate results. Otherwise, the game is skewed one way or another and has no credibility for playing out ahistorical strategies and seeing what plausibly could have happened.

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

I expect historical plausibility in wargaming. IF both sides play historically accurate strategies, THEN one should expect historically accurate results. Otherwise, the game is skewed one way or another and has no credibility for playing out ahistorical strategies and seeing what plausibly could have happened.

Politician speech

Define historically plausible.

Germany never had a chance with Sealion, they just didn't know their limitations.
Then again, Hitler's ambitions never involved invading Britain.

But in purely analytical terms, did they ever really possess the resources needed to invade if they had considered a life or death need to do so?

The RAF was on the verge of collapse and only a switch to bombing London saved them.
How do you game that decision though? In a wargame, you don't wipe out the other guys forces and then concede defeat.

Crete cost the Germans dearly. But, if they had dropped on Malta, and decided, if we lose every last paratrooper and win the war, was it ok to let them all die?
I don't think the Allies would have won if Malta had fallen.

The war was just so many instances of near total defeat, and then the opponent took the other route regardless.

In a wargame, when I invade Russia I do my best to NOT get my armies cut off and wiped out. But war is not a game, it's politics run by humans often unable to see the forest for the trees.

I have read a lot of angst directed at the bombing of Europe and the firebombing of Japan and the dropping of the nukes. Today it is easy to forget how much the Allies despised the Japanese. There was no real sleep lost over nuking them.

When a wargame can't insert the human equation, it becomes nothing more than a math problem to solve.

ORIGINAL: DSWargamer

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

I expect historical plausibility in wargaming. IF both sides play historically accurate strategies, THEN one should expect historically accurate results. Otherwise, the game is skewed one way or another and has no credibility for playing out ahistorical strategies and seeing what plausibly could have happened.

warspite1

The RAF was on the verge of collapse and only a switch to bombing London saved them.

I don't think it was quite that black and white. In terms of losses of men and aircraft the Luftwaffe was in doo doo before the decision to switch to bombing London.

I don't think the Allies would have won if Malta had fallen.

Never heard that view expressed before. Why do you think Malta was so crucial?

In a wargame, when I invade Russia I do my best to NOT get my armies cut off and wiped out.

The Germans were defeated as soon as they invaded the Soviet Union. Having made the decision to attack there was nothing the Germans could have done - Hitler or no Hitler.

ORIGINAL: DSWargamer
Politician speech

Define historically plausible.

I. Just. Did.

You are picking a nit. Enjoy yourself.

What is historically accurate?

A proper map. The correct units. Units which have the proper combat strengths.

The same outcome - No. I like to play as the old Avalon Hill board games use to suggest in their advertisements. Can you change history? Can you do better than Lee (or Napoleon, or Hitler or you name it)

In other words give us the correct situation and then let us change history by our superior generalship. I don't want to play a game where the result is already known, nor do I want to play a game that has no similarity to the real situation.

ORIGINAL: Yogi the Great

What is historically accurate?

A proper map. The correct units. Units which have the proper combat strengths.

The same outcome - No. I like to play as the old Avalon Hill board games use to suggest in their advertisements. Can you change history? Can you do better than Lee (or Napoleon, or Hitler or you name it)

In other words give us the correct situation and then let us change history by our superior generalship. I don't want to play a game where the result is already known, nor do I want to play a game that has no similarity to the real situation.

Well put.

Regarding Malta.

Well considering how well Rommel did under the crappy conditions he was given. And then you ponder, ok if it wasn't treated as a side show by his own people, and if the supplies had been even just a bit better, although no Malta would have meant the supplies would have been considerably better, I dare say ole Monty would not have gotten his moment to shine and save the day. He likely would not have even had the chance to show up. Lose Suez and well those dominoes are going to make a LOT of differences.

Like as with Midway, little details have drastic effects on the whole war.

Hindsight always does this though. The Germans couldn't have seen the future, so they simply wouldn't have realized 'oh we need to get rid of Malta'. But a wargamer is simply playing a game simulating the entire war after it is already known.

I tend to prefer to play games that have scenarios starting with specific situations as they were and then going from there.

For instance, the game in 39, the game in 41, the game in 42 and the game in 44. The war experienced significant conditions in all 4 of those years.

North Africa was on a knife edge several times (and in both directions).
Its not beyond the realm of possibility that better supplies may have tipped the balance at one of those critical times.

However, with the terrain, and length of the supply lines, more supplies at the back, may not necessarily translated into more supplies at the front.

I agree with your statement that "little details have drastic effects on the whole war". It is like a domino effect; the first one hits the second one causing it to hit the third one and so on. Each battle is in effect the results of what happened in previous battles. Their outcome will determine how the winner and loser will react and follow up.

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

I expect historical plausibility in wargaming. IF both sides play historically accurate strategies, THEN one should expect historically accurate results. Otherwise, the game is skewed one way or another and has no credibility for playing out ahistorical strategies and seeing what plausibly could have happened.

Are you saying that if both players commit their forces in EXACTLY the same way each time then we would expect exactly the same result each time? What then is the role of the gamer? Let's assume that we are sufficiently educated in history to be able to make 100% "historical" moves for ALL units on ALL turns... does you mean that dice rolling is superfluous?

* Does a "historical" replay of Chancellorsville always result in Jackson's death?
* Does a "historical" replay of WWII always end in May '45 for the Germans?


(I'm not looking to pick a nit here - just trying to make sure that I understand your point of view.)

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

I expect historical plausibility in wargaming. IF both sides play historically accurate strategies, THEN one should expect historically accurate results. Otherwise, the game is skewed one way or another and has no credibility for playing out ahistorical strategies and seeing what plausibly could have happened.

warspite1

I would have to disagree with that - not least because actually modelling that to ensure that happens would be a nightmare if not impossible - unless you took dice out of the equation.

So many battles / campaigns were on a knife edge as to who won - a mistake here, a misplaced signal there etc. Just to take two examples:

Battle of The River Plate

So are you saying that if playing as the German, you choose to engage the three RN cruisers, and the RN take up the battle, the outcome MUST be Graf Spee sufficiently damaged to have to flee to Montevideo and Exeter being so badly damaged she had to exit the battle and sail for the Falklands? That battle could have gone just about any way. What if Graf Spee had not had problems with her guns? what if any of the torpedo attacks had struck home? What if? What if?

Weserubung

Again, given the variables in play, it is entirely possible that the German invasion of Norway could have been a total disaster. Its not strategy that matters here, its individual actions by small groups of people that were so vital. Just one example, the Admiralty countermanding orders of RN officers at sea that could have netted at least one of the invasion Groups.

I do not see how historically accurate strategies must net historically accurate results.

And as for France 1940 .....[X(]

ORIGINAL: DSWargamer

ORIGINAL: Yogi the Great

What is historically accurate?

A proper map. The correct units. Units which have the proper combat strengths.

The same outcome - No. I like to play as the old Avalon Hill board games use to suggest in their advertisements. Can you change history? Can you do better than Lee (or Napoleon, or Hitler or you name it)

In other words give us the correct situation and then let us change history by our superior generalship. I don't want to play a game where the result is already known, nor do I want to play a game that has no similarity to the real situation.

Well put.

Regarding Malta.

Well considering how well Rommel did under the crappy conditions he was given. And then you ponder, ok if it wasn't treated as a side show by his own people, and if the supplies had been even just a bit better, although no Malta would have meant the supplies would have been considerably better, I dare say ole Monty would not have gotten his moment to shine and save the day. He likely would not have even had the chance to show up. Lose Suez and well those dominoes are going to make a LOT of differences.

warspite1

I think you have given the role of Malta too much importance. Have a read of O'Hara and see how much of the Afrika Korps supplies were actually lost on route - nowhere near as much as you may think.

Rommel's problem was twofold: North Africa WAS a sideshow because of what was happening in the Soviet Union - Malta does not change that.

The Mediterranean Fleet operating from Alexandria and the RAF in Egypt/Libya were responsible for the fact that Rommel's supplies were landed in Tripoli and (the much smaller) Benghazi. It cost him a huge amount of oil and trucks just to get reinforcements to the front - Malta does not change that.

Malta's survival was symbolic - it did not win/lose the war for either side. In fact, the RN (and the RAF) would have suffered far less losses if it hadn't had to re-supply the island with supplies and war material.

ORIGINAL: warspite1

The Germans were defeated as soon as they invaded the Soviet Union. Having made the decision to attack there was nothing the Germans could have done - Hitler or no Hitler.

I think it was doable...they started too late and were not prepared for a winter campaign.

ORIGINAL: Anguille

ORIGINAL: warspite1

The Germans were defeated as soon as they invaded the Soviet Union. Having made the decision to attack there was nothing the Germans could have done - Hitler or no Hitler.

I think it was doable...they started too late and were not prepared for a winter campaign.

warspite1

It's one of the great debates. There is the argument that they could not realistically have started earlier because of the muddy conditions in that Spring.

But I think moreover, the fact was the German army was simply too small, too ill-equipped, for all the tasks allotted to it.

If they didn't have to help the Italians in the Balkans in april 41, they would have started early enough. They have lost 2 precious months...they would have made it. Barbarossa was supposed to start on the 15th of may.

ORIGINAL: Anguille

If they didn't have to help the Italians in the Balkans in april 41, they would have started early enough. They have lost 2 precious months...they would have made it. Barbarossa was supposed to start on the 15th of may.

warspite1

In Ostkrieg - Stephen G Fritz, says the following about that:

..... Ironically, despite later claims to the contrary, the one thing they [the excursions in the Balkans] did not do was significantly affect the timing of Barbarossa, which would have been delayed in any case by German economic and transportation difficulties as well as the flooded condition of most of Western Russia in the spring of 1941.

Edit: It wasn't two months either. Even if 15th May was do-able, that's just over one month.

Apologies I have taken this thread off topic. Happy to continue the discussion in a new one if interested.