Hi all,

Three general experiences of my many years of wargaming stand out.  One involves the wonderful Steel Panthers computer game in its Matrix/SPWAW incarnation, the others miniatures Napoleonic Games (Empire and Napoleon's Battles).

I loved (and still love) Steel Panthers.  I applied all the updates over the years to both SPWAW and SPWWII, but for some reason I ended up playing SPWAW more often.  I never undertook campaign games in any of the versions -- my battles were always stand alone, one-off battles.  this introduces a level of unreality insofar as one is inclined to be less casualty-conscious knowing that you're not going to have to fight again the next day.  Try as I might to keep my forces organized as they would be in real life, I always found myself tempted to split off individual tanks or infantry squads to go after targets of opportunity.  My helicopter view of the battlefield, even using fog of war, enabled me to do this far more efficiently than any real-life commander would have been able to do.  Still, I would grab the nearest available unit(s) to take advantage of the opportunity, irrespective of their organizational affiliation.  Because I didn't do these things entirely stupidly, I would win the scenario more often than not.  From a purely tactical standpoint, my play may have employed sound principles, but they were executed with penny-packet units from entirely different organizations that, in real life, would not have known or particularly trusted one another, and who would never have trained together.  At the end of one of my battles, even a victorious one, any semblance of unit cohesion was purely coincidental.  Again, strictly based on my limited, single-battle-at-a-time approach, I concluded that the game allowed me to win without employing the tactics that real combat would have imposed on commanders.

SP (whatever version) campaigns may alter this situation, and I believe the reports of devotees that, over time, not adhering to real-life tactics is an invitation to disaster.  I'm simply saying that I was able to win stand alone battles without employing them.

My Napoleonic miniatures experience is much different.  I know more about Napoleonic warfare than I do WWII tactical combat.  It's fashionable for people (many of whom show no evidence of ever have played Empire) to deride it.  Most of the critics claim that it is too pro-French.  I, on the other hand, believe it is not pro-French enough -- the French, at least until the end of 1812, were simply that good.  Having played it in its various incarnations for more than 20 years, I can assure you that it is a subtle game that has kept abreast of recent scholarship.  Using real-life tactics produces results that are within the bounds of historical experience.  More important, not using the historical tactics of the time results in severe punishment by those who do.  We have played scenarios from all years and all major nations, but we most frequently play scenarios based on the 1809 campaign against Austria.  These are tough battles that make a mockery of the criticism that the rules are too pro-French.  Admittedly, our Austrian commanders are bolder and better at the game than the real-life Austrians were at war.  But the historical tactics of the historical opponents are still vital to success.

That said, I have found it almost impossible to make the historical tactics of the 1813-1815 Prussian army work successfully within the rules structure of the game.  However, what I consider to be the overall historical validity of the game (in as much as any game can model real-life warfare) gives me hope that I will someday figure out the secret to doing this.

On the other side of the equation, at least for me, is Napoleon's Battles.  I played that every week for about a year and a half before finally concluding that the game had nothing to offer me, including fun.  Unlike Empire, no historical knowledge I brought with me to the game gave me any help or advantage, nor did playing the game enlighten me in the least about the historical aspects of Napoleonic warfare (you know, the "Oh, that's why they did it that way" moments).

I think what you're talking about is the difference between a wargame and a simulation.

My thinking on the subject was formed by years of reading the old SPI and Command magazines, both defunct.  When I talk about something being a wargame what I really mean is simulation with a few game-like elements (needed to make the thing playable).  Most of the wargames that get talked about here are really heavy on the game part with relatively little simulation content.

The difference is that real life tactics rarely work in games, but usually work in simulations.  And whether they work or not is one of the tests for determining which is which.

I love miniatures but rarely find myself in situations where I get to play them.  But a persistant problem with miniatures is that there is no fog of war and things happen sequentially.  Depending on the situation, neither one of these is a killer, but complete information is one of the differences between a game and reality.  One of the reasons I loved the old Atomic Games V for Victory series so much was that the fog of war was so complete that sometimes you even lost sight of some of your own units.  I'm a big fan of simultaneous movement (aka WEGO as opposed to sequential movement or IGOUGO), but sometimes the 'unrealistic' IGOUGO gives better overall results.  This usually happens when the time and/or movement scale makes it hard for the two sides' moves to mesh properly.  I still wonder how I would feel about the opening campaign of WWI Gold if it used sequential rather than simultaneous movement.  It really highlights the absurdity of thinking about games in terms of TBS versus RTS when you realize that in design terms different solutions and time frames work better for different situations, and splitting things into arbitrary marketing categories is fairly meaningless.

The real eye-opener for me was the old Combat Mission, especially CMBB and CMAK.  These were a tad more simulation-like than CMBO (which was slightly more fun to play), but real life tactics worked, for the most part.  My current computer isn't up to the latest incarnation of the Combat Mission games, but if you have a modern computer you might want to pay a visit to Battlefront's website.

As for Steel Panthers, many years ago I was working my infantry squads up a ridge in Italy only to discover that I had been flanked by a machine gun nest that was hidden by a fold in the ground.  I still remember screaming "What bunker ?!?" at the computer before it dawned on me that my knowledge of the terrain was not total.  One of the reasons that there are so many Combat Mission scenarios is so that you won't run out of new scenarios to flounder around in.

I think some of the basics certainly apply to wargame simulations; the better the design the more that proves true.  Things like anchoring flanks to terrain features, maintaining a reserve, enfilade of position, rear-slope defense, and of course ambush come to mind.  There's a book called "Last Hundred Yards" that details tactics at the squad and fireteam level.  I used to assign certain concepts explained in that book to be done both on chalkboard and sand table in exercise form before applying it to the field.  Games that offer real fog-of-war attributes are even better trainers than sand tables.  I met a Major Breen (promoted I'm sure) who said that everything he knew about infantry tactics he learned using the computer game 'Close Combat'.  Concepts that machine gunners all know, like "dirt on each cheek" translate well from sniper hides to TOW missle placement.  So yes, although there is always some shortcoming due to what I consider design flaws which allow 'gaming the system' that players can (and will) exploit that ruins the value of using sound real-world tactics, I think that overall many simulations do indeed serve to instruct and reinforce the basic foundation of military tactics.  I prefer computer simulations to sand tables and table top due to the fog-of-war element and solo play.  Using blinds to offset fog-of-war shortcomings more acts like horse soldiers using drags to fool distant observers into assuming the presence of a larger force.  That doesn't work well for what should be unseen movement.

First of all  - thanks for the detailed and thoughtful responses. Sincerely appreciated.

I agree that the difference between a simulation and a wargame is an important distinction to make. The simulation often has the advantage of having an umpire (the computer) and thus some tactics (such as ambushing) become more usable in that context.

A game (whether war or not) has specific rules that can be exploited (and often are by those evil ones known as "powergamers" - forever may their name be cursed!)

But on a more serious note, yes, knowing the basics are still important. One thing I love about Steel Panthers is the importance of recon - if you blunder into the enemy you are often the loser in the ensuing firefight. It does reward basic tactical thinking - though formations almost always end up in a lumpy mess. Its hard to maintain organizational control, and you do tend to just send units where they need to be, irrespective of who they are attached to (though the command function does try to mitigate this by allowing better rally chances when you are in formation).

I too have found games that ceased to be fun as they taught me nothing about tactics and the way history came out the way it did.

I like the WEGO systems too - and am playing solitaire games as playing the same group of opponents ceases to be a challenge when you know what they are going to do before they do it.

I will check out Combat Mission - I haven't played that yet!

Once again, thanks for the feedback and insights.

Originally Posted By Malty666 (22 JUN 2012 11:01am)

First of all  - thanks for the detailed and thoughtful responses. Sincerely appreciated.

 

I agree that the difference between a simulation and a wargame is an important distinction to make. The simulation often has the advantage of having an umpire (the computer) and thus some tactics (such as ambushing) become more usable in that context.

 

A game (whether war or not) has specific rules that can be exploited (and often are by those evil ones known as "powergamers" - forever may their name be cursed!)

 

But on a more serious note, yes, knowing the basics are still important. One thing I love about Steel Panthers is the importance of recon - if you blunder into the enemy you are often the loser in the ensuing firefight. It does reward basic tactical thinking - though formations almost always end up in a lumpy mess. Its hard to maintain organizational control, and you do tend to just send units where they need to be, irrespective of who they are attached to (though the command function does try to mitigate this by allowing better rally chances when you are in formation).

 

I too have found games that ceased to be fun as they taught me nothing about tactics and the way history came out the way it did.

 

I like the WEGO systems too - and am playing solitaire games as playing the same group of opponents ceases to be a challenge when you know what they are going to do before they do it.

 

I will check out Combat Mission - I haven't played that yet!

 

Once again, thanks for the feedback and insights.

Excellent point about recon!  I feel equally subservient to the concept 'maintaining a reserve'.  Combat mission is great for learning the importance of terrain, recon, and bounding overwatch tactics.  Enjoy!

A lot of info about recon and wargaming and how to get "realistic" tactics back into wargames

http://grognews.blogspot.com/2011/11/battle-lab-recon-and-wargaming.html

More info about tactical intel / recon (includes some videos shot at Origins '11)

http://grognews.blogspot.com/2011/11/more-thoughts-on-tactical-intel-and.html

More general article about Fog of War (friendly and enemy) and how recon affects some of it

http://grognews.blogspot.com/2011/06/battle-lab-fog-of-wargaming.html

And a long article about Games & Sims for training & learning, that talks about differences btw "game" and "sim"

http://grognews.blogspot.com/2012/03/battle-lab-games-and-sims-for-training.html

Feel free to come discuss over www.grogheads.com/forums/ since I don't hang out here anymore

Actually you guys should read Malty666's blog.

In his article, he's not really talking about applying real-life tactics on the game itself because some games are just games while others do well at simulating combat as many of you have pointed out.

What's interesting in his article is that we can actually employ tactics / schemes outside the game mechanics that will affect your opponents psychologically and cause him to make mistakes.

I've had several cases where my PBEM opponent quitting the battle and felt that the fight is hopeless.  Shock and awe... best use of units to show the image of full superiority scared him.

Originally Posted By Philippe (22 JUN 2012 9:14am)

The real eye-opener for me was the old Combat Mission, especially CMBB and CMAK.  These were a tad more simulation-like than CMBO (which was slightly more fun to play), but real life tactics worked, for the most part.  My current computer isn't up to the latest incarnation of the Combat Mission games, but if you have a modern computer you might want to pay a visit to Battlefront's website.

Indubitably. If you want to play a game/sim where application of real life tactics realises dividends, you'll at least want to check out the demos of Combat Mission: Battle for Normandy and Combat Mission Shock Force. There will be a demo for CM: Fortress Italy, shortly, we are told.

While it's possible to do some things counter to "historical doctrine" and get away with it, flagrant disregard for the techniques of fire and movement and neglecting the use of combined arms will get your PixelTruppen killed in their droves.