Non-historical scenarios

[Steiner!]

Now you are adopting the bizarre position that unless the course of a wargame exactly replicates what happened in the actual battle, then it is fiction.

Not fiction....a REPRESENTATION! :whist:

 

[SamB]

No, you are incorrect. Now you are adopting the bizarre position that unless the course of a wargame exactly replicates what happened in the actual battle, then it is fiction. Well, since the weather die roll in every scenario allows for the possibility of elements that did not occur in the actual battle to randomly appear, by your new definition of a historical scenario, then every ASL scenario is utter fiction. That being so, why don't you give me all your ASL stuff and go play D&D.

Mark,
I respect you and your point of view. I haven't been among those hounding you on this topic. But...

First: I believe I saw you comment earlier in the thread about adding / deleting (mostly deleting, I guess) units to achieve "balance". This involves (at a minium) deciding that a unit didn't have a significant effect on the action in question. But this also greatly decreases the "historical accuracy" of the scenario.

Second: Just because YOU see no appeal to playing a scenario that is not rooted firmly (however that is defined) in history, doesn't mean that others feel the same way. (or should feel the same way). So obviously, I'm not going to give you my ASL stuff and play D&D. Why? Because I enjoy playing ASL.

Third: Can't we all just get along?

 

[Robin Reeve]

The scenario starts with an OBA mission falling on the British "Lager". Why? Because that's what happened historically. I'm confifident that the number and types of AFVs present are in the scenario because it is historically accurate.
But, the scenario is unbalanced. ROAR shows it with 13 British to 2 German wins. Why? Partly becase the OBA is a dicey affair. Partly because the real affects of tactical suprise is hard to represent in ASL.

The historicity is not only a question of OB.
Some non-hardware factors can be adressed by SSRs.
As an example, the surprise factor could be approximated with a SSR that reduces the British capacity to react (TC before move or fire, etc.).
The VC can be tweaked to help the unfavored side.

I allways gave the example of a France 1940 strategical/operational game : France will never really win the campaign, but one can give the game adapted VCs that allow the French player to prove a better strategist than the German, whatever the global, historical result can be...

 

[Robin Reeve]

I haven't been among those hounding you on this topic.

What is interesting is that Mark never attacked somebody individually.
He stated a generic behaviour and person as "lazy" - and that is a judgment one can disapprove or not, that is not the problem.
But many of those who did not appreciate his judgement have been very personal, attacking Mark directly.
I bet some of us are just lying in wait for the first occasion to become personal against Mark.
I may be "Swiss" or "mod" or whatever one wants... But I do find that direct personal attacks lead to rotten results and a thread hijacked that way looks like a series of pms...

Can't we all just get along?

I do hope so.

 

[jasperdog3329]

This whole thread just proves the point that -- now wait for it -- gee, we're all different. We each have differing sensitivities towards historical accuracy.

To give an example of differing levels of detail orientation I offer up Exhibit A, the Critical Hit Hero PAX 1 product. This pack credits numerous ASL luminaries including one of the principal protagonists in this thread. I bought it last week after reading favourable comments about the Hero PAX products on this forum. I unwrapped it yesterday and immediately saw two glaring errors screaming out at me from the cover page:

1. "Along the way you'll encounter a few MG 42's with you in their SITES." Guys, check the dictionary and choose the correct spelling SIGHTS.

2. The next sentence states "Even a few ponderous Jagdpanthers are expected to put in an appearance." Nothing wrong with the sentence except that the graphic with it shows a Jagdtiger.

Now I would sooner put a needle in my eye than be associated with a published product with such obvious errors on the cover but it seems that some people's idea of rigour versus laziness doesn't extend to proofing.

Again, we're all different and that's what makes the world go round.

 

[Tater]

I haven't been among those hounding you on this topic.

The "Pitman" has not been hounded on this subject (i.e., "non/historical scenarios").

What did happen is "Pitman" issued a blanket insult. Insulting people by refering to them as "lazy" has absolutely _NOTHING_ to do with "non/historical" scenarios.

A simple apology for issuing a blanket insult would have put a complete stop to the whole mess. Of course I don't expect to see it now since the "Pitman" has retreated into the cacoon of "it's a personal vendetta" as opposed to facing the fact that issuing blanket insults is wrong.

 

[Tater]

He stated a generic behaviour and person as "lazy" - and that is a judgment one can disapprove or not, that is not the problem.

Actually that was the whole problem.

 

[Pitman]

Mark,

First: I believe I saw you comment earlier in the thread about adding / deleting (mostly deleting, I guess) units to achieve "balance". This involves (at a minium) deciding that a unit didn't have a significant effect on the action in question. But this also greatly decreases the "historical accuracy" of the scenario.
playing ASL.

Hi, Sam. First of all, there are all sorts of ways to achieve balance without adding or deleting units, so I don't think it is even an important issue. But when it comes to the issue of units in ASL, designers will rarely know the exact size of a force (because few historical resources will usually be that specific). Moreover, even the size of a force does not indicate how much of that force was really used to effect in a particular action. This means that there is a pretty fair amount of "give and take" in a lot of actions, in which one can tweak force compositions without actually increasing or decreasing the historical accuracy of the scenario. It does not hold true that if your scenario started playtesting with 9 German squads and ended playtesting with 8 German squads that the final version is somehow less historical than the first version. Now, if suddenly a Tiger Tank were dropped into the scenario out of the blue, then you might have a point, because that would likely be beyond the "give and take" parameters.

 

[Pitman]

The "Pitman" has not been hounded on this subject (i.e., "non/historical scenarios").

You have got to be kidding.

What did happen is "Pitman" issued a blanket insult. Insulting people by refering to them as "lazy" has absolutely _NOTHING_ to do with "non/historical" scenarios.

First of all, I issued a blanket nothing. I made a very specific statement about a (very small) theoretical class of scenario designers.

I notice that not a single person has come forward and said, "I am insulted. I design generic scenarios without doing research and I resent being called lazy."

This is all just you attacking me. That's what you do.

A simple apology for issuing a blanket insult would have put a complete stop to the whole mess. Of course I don't expect to see it now since the "Pitman" has retreated into the cacoon of "it's a personal vendetta" as opposed to facing the fact that issuing blanket insults is wrong.

I have done nothing that would require an apology. You, however, have engaged in a bizarre vendetta.

 

[Oliver]

It does not hold true that if your scenario started playtesting with 9 German squads and ended playtesting with 8 German squads that the final version is somehow less historical than the first version. Now, if suddenly a Tiger Tank were dropped into the scenario out of the blue, then you might have a point, because that would likely be beyond the "give and take" parameters.

I don't follow you here, Mark. Either a scenario is historically accurate or it isn't. If there were 90 German infantrymen in the firefight, and the designer deletes 10 of them, then it doesn't seem "historically accurate" to me.

Or, to put that another way, ASL is really a representation of combat, a fiction or designer's interpretation that is "historically based"--but not history. What game could claim to be?

I'm always surprised in these discussions that an "official" article was written on this subject in J2, "Can you ever be sure?" In it, in the last paragraph, two version of PB6 are offered (PB6 and PB6a). BOTH are offered as completely viable options, one arguably *more* historically accurate than the other. In fact, one version is described as "historically based."

This article underscores the problem--as well as the delight--of historical research. Just as in "true" historical research, new sources are often found. Rather than decry the old version as less true, why not issue your paper or book--what we call a scenario--and say, "I found new sources that shed a different light on this battle"? That very rarely happens in ASL, as far as I have seen.

Lastly, I rediscovered this thread while searching for ABTF-related items. I noticed someone mentioned the "King Tigers in Arnhem" debate. It's worth remembering that this caused a nasty split at the time, namely between CH's "The Third Bridge" and the official product. That debate serves as an example of how such differences may be more healthily resolved in the future, with the simple acknowledgement that "My sources disagree with yours," and see how *both* interpretations *play* out (in the manner of PB6 and PB6a, perhaps).

 

[Robin Reeve]

I don't follow you here, Mark. Either a scenario is historically accurate or it isn't. If there were 90 German infantrymen in the firefight, and the designer deletes 10 of them, then it doesn't seem "historically accurate" to me.

What if these ten were taking tea while the other 80 really participated in the fight?
Or if all did fight, but weren't as good as normal?
There can be a number of good reasons to fine tune a scenario, further than the numbers would indicate.

 

[Oliver]

I agree Robin. One can never be sure.

 

[Pitman]

I don't follow you here, Mark. Either a scenario is historically accurate or it isn't. If there were 90 German infantrymen in the firefight, and the designer deletes 10 of them, then it doesn't seem "historically accurate" to me.

Or, to put that another way, ASL is really a representation of combat, a fiction or designer's interpretation that is "historically based"--but not history. What game could claim to be?

I would agree with your last point.

Re your first point, it is not necessarily possible to say that "a scenario is historically accurate or it isn't." Obviously, blatant errors make it easy to judge a scenario inaccurate. But it is probably not possible to be able to say definitively of most scenarios that they are "historically accurate." Part of that is because different actions have different standards of accuracy--for some actions, there is a paucity of sources such that the designer must make more educated guesses than for another action. It is hard to judge them all by a single standard.

More importantly, though, ASL does a great deal of abstraction. That is obvious with almost any scenario by the very presence of geomorphic mapboards. Take your 90 German troops. First of all, there may not be consensus that there actually were 90 German troops in an action. Second, units are often described as such--mentioned as "a German company" rather than "90 German troops." It is up to the designer to figure how many people might be in that company. And paper strength versus "on the ground" strength. Then too the designer also has to figure out how many people in Force X might actually not deserve to appear in counter form. Every ASL counter can do certain things, guaranteed. Not every person, though, may be effective on the battlefield (or even relevant; they may be doing other things that ASL would not represent). Because of all this, there is a certain amount of "wriggle room" that most designers will have in designing most scenarios. Stay within that "wriggle room" and it would be hard to judge such a scenario "inaccurate" by ASL standards. Jump way out of the wriggle room and you are leaving yourself open for criticism.

 

[Tater]

Jump way out of the wriggle room and you are leaving yourself open for criticism.

..."criticism"...from who, for what? Who decides what the allowance for "wiggle" might be? Never mind...I can guess who. Since all ASL scenarios are unavoidably ahistorical why should anybody be critical of anyone else's designs?

I suspect that Mark's allowance for "wiggle" is suspeciously wider on his own designs than for anyone else's.

 

[Oliver]

Because of all this, there is a certain amount of "wriggle room" that most designers will have in designing most scenarios. Stay within that "wriggle room" and it would be hard to judge such a scenario "inaccurate" by ASL standards. Jump way out of the wriggle room and you are leaving yourself open for criticism.

I see. FWIW, I agree, then. I like the idea of using "wriggle room" when it comes to judging accuracy "by ASL standards." Altogether, this strikes what seem to me to be a healthy balance between the search for the historical truth and game design decisions.

Also, I think you have expressed here a more nuanced opinion than I have read (or taken away from my reading) elsewhere in the past, so thanks for your explanation.

 

[Pitman]

I see. FWIW, I agree, then. I like the idea of using "wriggle room" when it comes to judging accuracy "by ASL standards." Altogether, this strikes what seem to me to be a healthy balance between the search for the historical truth and game design decisions.

Also, I think you have expressed here a more nuanced opinion than I have read (or taken away from my reading) elsewhere in the past, so thanks for your explanation.

Ha! I think my own position has always been consistent, but I think it has been pretty consistently re-worded and twisted by several other people.

Here is my "official" opinion, taken from my as-yet-unpublished ASL Scenario Designer's Guide:

Historicity versus Playability

It is easier to say that scenarios should be “historical†than to define precisely what “historical†means in ASL terms. But designers need to keep one thing in mind: ASL scenarios are inspired by historical situations; they do not replicate them. As complex and as comprehensive as ASL is, there is no way that it can duplicate what actually happened in a World War II tactical action. ASL’s geomorphic mapboards can never be a precise match for the actual terrain. One can do months of research and still not uncover all the factors that explain why a particular action played out the way it did, much less perfectly translate those factors into ASL terms

It is better to think of an ASL scenario in terms similar to Hollywood attempts to portray historical persons and events. The medium just does not allow complete accuracy, nor would complete accuracy necessarily make the most compelling viewing (or playing, in the case of ASL). Both Hollywood directors and ASL designers should come away happy if they have succeeded in recreating much of the flavor of the historical event; they needn’t give themselves ulcers trying to get every detail matched. This is especially true for the ASL designer, who doesn’t have costume designers and production designers to do much of the work!

The tension between historicity and playability leads to two different approaches to ASL scenario design. Historicity designers place a priority on recreating as closely as possible the historical order of battle, terrain, and feel of the action. Playability designers believe that the most important consideration is creating a scenario that players will want to play and replay. Just a touch of historical flavor may be enough to satisfy a playability designer.

Orders of battle are one of the easiest ways to distinguish between historicity and playability designers. A historicity designer, for example, will typically not include a weapon, gun, or vehicle in an order of battle unless he can find positive confirmation that those items actually appeared in the battle recreated by the scenario. If a historical reference mentions a 40mm AA gun, he will put that gun in the battle. If no references mention any AFVs, he will not include any.

A playability designer, on the other hand, has a somewhat different attitude. While he will include weapons for which he finds references, he might also go one step further, putting a tank in a scenario, for example, because there were tanks of that type “in the area,†and one could have been involved in the battle. Such a vehicle might especially be included if it is an “interesting†or uncommon vehicle or weapon (such as a Sturmtiger or a Goliath). The reason is that players like to play scenarios that include such unusual items, and this would give them a chance to do so, while giving at least a nod to historical considerations. A historicity designer would never do this, even at the cost of making the scenario blander.

It is important to understand that both approaches are equally valid. One need not sacrifice playability at the altar of historicity, or vice versa. Most designers will consciously or unconsciously find a comfortable niche somewhere along the spectrum between the two. However, it is true that a minimum amount of respect has to be paid to history, if for no other reason than players expect it to be paid. While there are scenarios that depict counterfactual or fictitious situations (such as Operation Sea Lion), by and large those scenarios are not very popular—-much less so than one might suspect they would be. The reason is that most people who play ASL do so in the hopes of creating at least the illusion that they are replicating a World War II action. This is one reason why there are very few “Patton vs. the Russians†scenarios out there.

It is true that players will often forgive ahistoricity if a scenario is particularly fun to play, such as the classic “Hill 621†(Scenario E, from The General magazine), which is not really based on a historical action. But since it is entirely possible to design fun scenarios without having to go into the realm of fiction, there are few reasons to venture completely beyond the bounds of history.

 

[Corporal Kindel]

. Because of all this, there is a certain amount of "wriggle room" that most designers will have in designing most scenarios. Stay within that "wriggle room" and it would be hard to judge such a scenario "inaccurate" by ASL standards. Jump way out of the wriggle room and you are leaving yourself open for criticism.

The thing is, most ASL players (I would venture to guess) are not Historians, so they don't know the details of the small unit actions as does the Historian scenario designer. So, the concept of "wriggle-room" has no value to non-designers. Most ASL players (again venturing to guess) are probably more interested in balance though, so a designer is probably much more likely to be criticized for creating an unbalanced scenario rather than on some Historical basis that goes over the head of most players (who are just interested in playing an enjoyable well-balanced game).

 

[crabe tambour]

Ha! I think my own position has always been consistent, but I think it has been pretty consistently re-worded and twisted by several other people.

Honestly, Mark, there is a "subtle" difference between what you said at the begining of this thread (something like "non historicity designers are lazy") and what said your "official opinion" posted here ("It is important to understand that both approaches are equally valid. ")
I think if you had posted this at the beginning, this thread would have a other content today...

I'm very curious of your designer's guide. It seems very interesting to me. Do you expect to publish it?

 

[wrongway149]

Design for effect.
Design for effect.
Design for effect.
Design for effect.

If the situation is EFFECTIVELY simulated, then the man-to-cardboard ratio is irrelevant.

For example, if the Germans were outnumbered 5 to 1 in a particular battle, it really doesn't matter if the Russian player has five squad counters to every German; what matters is that the German player feels that Russian numbers are quite problematic.

Thus ASL is a simulation of the effects of battlefield problems and conditions relative to the historical situations.

Pete 'so I basically agree with Pitman here' Shelling

 

[Tater]

Here is my "official" opinion, taken from my as-yet-unpublished ASL Scenario Designer's Guide:

Naaa...can't be your official position...you didn't call anybody "lazy".