Do you prefer historical scenarios?

[Don Maddox]

Do you prefer historically-based scenarios over hypothetical battles? If so, why? What makes for a good battle in your opinion?

[CPangracs]

I like both. The problem with trying to recreate historical battles in a computer game is that you will most likely NEVER get the exact same results as the original battle! This is bad if you are trying to REPLICATE the outcome, but good if you are trying to compare your tactical ability to that of the original commanders' abilities. Still, there is almost no way to accurately recreate a historical battle down to the exact movements and actions,...there is just no model out there built to that level of fidelity.

On the other hand, hypothetical battles allow for the designers' creativity and knowledge to shine,...or not. I like both types because they serve different purposes well. The historical simulation gives someone a chance to "change history", whereas the hypothetical simulation allows the player to "create history". both appeal to our human need to control/manipulate our environment! ;-)

[Gary]

My thoughts exactly Curt.

I enjoy playing both types.

As you point out Hypothetical sims allow the player to write history and the scenario designer full rein to create situations to challenge the player.

Historical sims give the player the chance to rewrite history. As well as try "What If" (are these hypothetical)situations. As I am learning with The Falklands War 1982.

With an historical sim once combat starts history tends to go out the window. The designer can produce the terrain as faithfully as possible, provide acurate orders of battle, but short of telling the player that you must move this unit there at this time it would be impossible to recreate a true historical battle. Nor as a player would I want that, I play historical games because I like to try to do better than the real life commanders. I guess thats the same for most of us.

So in answer to Dons question, and in great danger of sitting on the fence on this one, I like both.

cheers

Gary

[Don Maddox]

I think that the guys on this particular forum (the Military Simulations section) are a lot more open-minded about using hypothetical scenarios. This is probably because a good number of us have military experience and we know that wargaming against the OPFOR is a normal part of training. NTC and JRTC have taught us to fight against all sorts of hyothetical enemies. Other wargamers, however, are a lot less receptive to the idea. Even mentioning the word hypothetical to ASL players is like poison!

It must be pointed out that even the most realistic and detailed scenario is only historically accurate until the first move. Or is it? This is a debate we had a while back and we reached no general consensus on it. The TOAW players were probably had the most extreme views on the subject because that system's event engine can be used to nudge the players toward fighting the battle the way the real life commanders did. Events can be set that more or less force a player to do something or refrain from doing so, and in some cases barriers to movement can be triggered that prohibit forces from moving into certain areas. But what's the benefit of all this and how far should we take it? If the player's hands are tied too much, then the scenario may become unbalanced or simply boring to play. Yet, many wargamers feel that scenarios should be as detailed as the game engine will allow the designer to make them. They want to face the same challenges the historical commander faced and see if they can do any better.

I like both types of scenarios myself, although I must admit I rarely play hypothetical battles in WWII. The exception to that is Combat Mission "quick battles," which I find quite enjoyable, and ASL DYO (design your own) battles. Many modern wars have been terribly lopsided so I think that also is another factor that contributes to modern wargamers' willingness to fight on hypothetical battlefields.

[Redwolf]

I often prefer hypothetical scenarios.

For one thing, I like military exercises, which usually means there is some specific challenge involved, I don't have enough of anything but a bit of most things.

Then, scenario designers are not perfect. They often fail to grab military realities and then fill up the OOB with stuff they came up on their own.

This particularly applies to artillery and CAS. Military exercise scenarios usually give some meaningful amount of artillery or non at all of that is what the exercise is about. Scenario designers often fail to grasp what artillery is about. Historical information will usually not mention what kind of artillery support was available, not to speak of how many rounds. If designers fill it up they often give pitiful amounts, emphasizing on the difficulty most games have in modeling artillery.

Military exercise type scenario also tend to have high quality units in games that model this (e.g. veteran instead of green). As I think the existing games do a pretty bad job modeling green-ness I enjoy playing the tougher digital troops a little more. Obviously I recognize that in reality at least one side fights with mostly morons but still, I rather play a rare situation with more realism than a common situation with less realism.

Military exercise scenarios will usually be not only balanced but more symmetric, meaning roughly the same force capabilities and quality just different amounts of everything. Again, this is good, because wargames are usually pretty bad modeling any kind of asymmetric combat.

[Don Maddox]

This is the most lopsided poll we've had in a while.

[India 51B]

I also voted for both. The main thing for me is that the game is fun to play and the fact that it will give me hours of pleasure. Replayability (is that a word!) also counts for a lot so as long as those parameters are met, I am happy :)

[switch_back]

I have voted for both also, because it is always interesting to put yourself in the shoes of someone else years ago commanding forces in situations that actually occured, and testing how you could fair against the odds they faced.

But on the other hand its fantastic to be able to hack at a new challenge which has'nt happened before, but could happen or could have happened, there are no references to build strategies on at get ideas, your on your own which provides some excitment and a sense of acheivement.

This is how I feel, I dont know if anyone sees it the same, but this is defiantley the way I see things. :D

[Wolfe Tone]

My thoughts exactly Curt.

Historical sims give the player the chance to rewrite history. As well as try "What If" (are these hypothetical)situations. As I am learning with The Falklands War 1982.


cheers

Gary

Looking the Falklands War over with hindsight did the Argentines really have a chance with what they actually deployed?

I mean I know if they had more Exocets etc etc kind of argument could have tipped the balance but given the superior quality of the British ground forces v's what was to all intents and purposes was a conscript army badly led and badly fed, then I don't think the outcome was in doubt once the main landings had taken place.

Must admit it was kind of obvious that the British would land where they did, wonder the Argies never saw it coming! :surprise:

[Gary]

Did the Argintines have a chance once the British had landed? The short answer is no, but they could have done so much more. However to acheive more depends on a lot of "Ifs".

If they had thought about the landing beaches, were the British really going to land South of Stanley as the Argintine command expected. San Carlos was not the only choice open to the British but there was no way that the British were going to try a Normandy style oppossed landing if they could find an alternative.

If they had hit the beach heads instead of letting the British come ashore and build up unopposed.

If they had gone after the troop ships and not the warships during the build up. Look what happened at Bluff Cove when troopships were attacked.

If the conscripts had been better lead. Where there was good leadership the Argintine consripts gave a very good account of themselves. They did not all run away everytime the British showed up.

Once the British were established ashore the outcome was certain, but the Argintines could really have caused an awful lot of hurt and made it an even higher price for the Islands than was paid.

Gary