Historical accuracy in gaming

[CBoy3]

After looking at the comments by some about thenew WM 47 line, I have been wondering- How much does everyone stay true to historical accuracy in their gaming? I like to keep my modeling and gaming close to the actual history, but sometimes there are some things that pop up that would be fictional, but still sound neat to try. Also, I am not completely opposed to the idea of a points based game. I like the idea of the WM 47 line because I have read some things about the things that were on the drawing board, or had a few prototypes out when the war ended. Some of the aircraft in particular sound cool. After looking at the posts here, it seems that everyone has their own idea about how they think that this hobby should be done. I like the drawing board/protype stuff, but I don't like getting into anything like earth forces vs. space ships, or even the sound cannon or light beam WWII weapons that have been discussed. I know that some people like this type of thing, and that's OK with me if they do. Likewise there are obviously a few people who think that the WM 47 stuff is too far. So, here are a few questions for everyone in their personal modeling/gaming feelings:

Do you ever do any scenarios that are "what if's"? What are some of the scenarios that you have done? Is all of your gaming completely historically accurate? At what point do you draw the line for things being too much? Do you ever play any points based games? Even if you think some gaming scenarios are too far out for you, are you intrigued by some of the weapons that were on the drawing board at the wars end?

** A quick note for the moderators** I'm honestly not trying to stir the pot on this one. It just seems like everyone may have a slightly different idea of what is OK. I'm newer to all of this, but I like to hear all of the different ideas that people have (maybe my newness is why I like to see what's out there??). That's one of the reasons that I like to look at online bulletin boards. I want to throw this out right away- if this gets out of hand, please stop/delete/whatever-you-do to this chain. I'm just interested in seeing how this hobby is the same, and how it is different for others. If you think that this is going to be too much of a lightning rod- feel free to kill this topic, I don't want to get anyone into a flaming war.

Thanx,
CBoy

[Donald M. Scheef]

I would say that over half of my games are "what if" to the extent that they involve at least some aspects that are definitely non-historical. Typical of this: what if Yamato and Musashi had come through Suriago Straits rather than Fuso and Yamashiro and faced Task Force 34 rather than 7th Fleet Support Force?

Most of the other scenarios involve small-unit conflicts that could have occurred but aren't explicitly repeating history.

Only a very small fraction of my games are exact recreations of historical events. My personal opinion is that games should be played for enjoyment, not to recreate history. Imagine playing the Battle of Denmark Straits knowing that Hood is going to blow up in the third round.

I have played science fiction games and enjoy them. I'm not in favor or GHQ going too sci-fi in the Wermacht '47 line, however. I would much more like to see weapons that realistically could have been built if the war had lasted longer or that were produced too late for combat. Flakpanzer V with 8.8 cm - yes. Sound cannon and death rays - no.

Don S.

[Timothy OConnor]

I think there are significant differences between scenario types but maybe on a spectrum from pure history to almost pure speculation:

1. historical scenario: ORBATs, maps, and victory conditions based on actual historical event (eg recreation of tank action at Mortain.)

2. representative fictional scenario: ORBATs, maps, and victory conditions representative of actual historical events but not tied to a single specific event (eg a tank game representative of Western front tank actions)

3. hypothetical fictional scenario: ORBATs, maps, and victory conditionas based on actual forces covering highly probable events even if "generic" in nature (eg Marine Corps Gazette scenarios of US marine forces engaged in combat in fictional yet representative settings using actual ORBATs or NTC scenarios of NATO vs WarPac.)

4. speculative fictional scenario: ORBATs, maps, and victory conditions not based on actual ORBATs or events but instead based on "what if" conjecture, perhaps with a point of depature based on history (eg the Wermacht 47 line or Turtledove's books)

Representative and hypothetical scenarios are similar in that both are firmly based on an underlying reality, either a composite of actual forces and events or actual forces fighting in highly probable or representative events.

Hypothetical and speculative scenarios both ask more questions but the hypothetical scenario uses actual ORBATs and highly likely events (often for training purposes) while speculative scenarios use events, ORBATs, or technologies that may have been possible but were not actually implemented, at least in any significant way, and more often than not speculative scenarios are far less likely (eg it's highly unlikely German could have won when faced with the combined industrial and man-power might of the western allies and Russia).

There are lots of shades of gray here!

I personally prefer Representative and Hypothetical scenarios although I also play highly speculative sci-fi games as well as strictly historical scenarios. I prefer Representative and Hypothetical scenarios because they can usually provide a more balanced and/or interesting game experience than a strictly historical scenario and yet they're still firmly grounded in actual or highly likely facts.

For example, my Afraqistan campaign setting and scenarios are a composite of actual and highly likely conflicts in Africa, the Middle East, and Central/Southeast Asia and use actual ORBATs and real-world weapons. But it doesn't go as far as included highly speculative weapons or purely speculative "what ifs" for forces (eg no "What if the Soviets won the Cold War and took over America?")

As the same time I often find purely historical scenarios too constrained to provide a good game experience. I've watched many a game master struggle to squeeze maps and forces on to tables and then watched poor gamers suffer through scenarios that are "highly accurate" but don't provide a lot of entertainment value.

And I suppose another reason that I prefer Representative/Hypothetical scenarios to purely Speculative ones is that the former feel more real/compelling than the latter.

[Extra Crispy]

For me a lot depends on the period. For the American Civil War I tend to stick to historical battles - from map to OOB to victory conditions. For World War 2 all of my scenarios are fictional. Basically I just set up interesting tactical situations and let the game take its course.

For many interesting periods there just aren't many actual clashes - World War 1 naval comes to mind. In these cases I go with either fictional or historical what-ifs.

Some of this has to do with the availability of published scenarios. For the ACW there are dozens of books containing gaming scenarios. I confess for many periods I just don't have any interest in trying to wade through the documentation to build "accurate" scenarios. For World War 2 I know my history (as contrasted with the minutiae of which company was on the ridge and at what ranges the PzIVs engaged the enemy etc.)

Plus, many historical battles make louse games because the original battle relied on trickery, deception etc. Or because they are so well known - Gettysburg for example. You'll never be "surprised" by the appearance of 11th corps or wonder where your own troops are. You can fictionalize them or "transport" them to another period.

Just my $0.03

[voltigeur]

Tim:
Great post. There have been discussions like this before and I think you have posted the eloquent post for this topic I have seen.

I definitely fit in the hypothetical based on real TO&E's, ORBATS and equipment. I was drawn to WW2 in the early days because there are so many undocumented or semi documented skirmishes that you can play a scenario based on history but you’re not tied to a "historical result".
I sometimes will do a game to study “what if’sâ€￾ but those are limited to situations like “what if: The Americans had heeded the warnings from the radar station on Oahu.â€￾ Many times the result is the same just more casualties.

Any way just my 2 cents. HA- Extra Crispy you've been out bid!

[zaevor2000]

I agree with Voltigeur, outstanding post Tim!

Excellent a n al ysis and breakdown of possible scenario types. I am of the Jim Dunnigan school that if you can’t recreate the actual events, then it isn’t a simulation. I personally prefer to recreate an actual historical battle move by move to test the accuracy and validity of the rules…THEN since I know the simulation is solid I go onto hypothetical scenarios to see the effects of different possibilities (ex. What if the Germans had launched Citadelle before July-less Tigers and Panthers vs. less extensive Soviet entrenchments). Of course representative fictional scenarios are great places to test doctrine (such as gaming out the use of BCT w/Strykers vs. different threat forces in different environments-vs. Armored forces, in BUAs (built up areas etc.)

It all comes down to WHY you are gaming something. If merely for entertainment then of course accuracy is not so important and the entertainment factor takes primacy.

However, when you are trying to develop doctrine you tend to use the approach I have outlined above, since if you develop it on inaccurate data, you will get a lot of your troops killed from operating under a false understanding of battlefield conditions…

Tim has written an outstanding post regarding this. Well done!

Frank

[thetourist]

About a two years ago we had a very lively discussion on this board about a hypothetical confrontation between the USSR and the Western allies directly after Germany was defeated. I think that the WM 47 line will allow us to game this more accurately. I for one am looking forward to seeing what they release. Back on topic, I tend to game based on historical ORBATS but not on historical battles. For me, as a solitaire player, the temptation to have it end historically is too great.

[Panzerleader71]

I like to be as historically accurate with the forces, general locations, etc. for historical battles (ie WWII). The mini campaign I am currently running is between the Canadians and 12 th SS in Normandy, and I have researchd the TO&Es used by each force and replicated them as best I can, and still adding to my Battle Groups. But, the fighting itself is centered around a totally fictional town. I don't mind fighting a historical battle at a con, or as one-off to pass the time on a Saturday, but I don't like the possible rewrite of history in a campaign setting.

Now, if you are talking my other favourite era to wargame ('70s-mid '80s WWIII) we are entirely in the realm of "what-if". I like to test the equipment of time, just to see how things might have been. With the exception of the '67 and '73 A/I Wars I find most modern historical battles (Wars) incredibly dull. India v. Pakistan, The Ogdan War, etc. I'm interested in the Third World War, not Wars in the Third World. And the 2 Gulf Wars, and operations in A-stan are so hopelessly one sided to be of no particular fun to either side to game. But, understand that there are people out there that do find these theaters interesting, and I am glad GHQ has a line for them, to bad others can't be of the same fram of mind regardig W47.

I am all for the W47 line, as long as it follows the logical progression of weapons systems that were, really, available at the time. Not that I have a problem with sci-fi gaming, but sci-fi is not my first though when I think GHQ.

[Mk 1]

Great posts so far, folks! Very well reasoned/well stated.

I agree that Tim's construct of 4 kinds of scenarios is a useful tool for describing how we game.

For me, I game mostly with the 2nd category - representative clashes based on forces and capabilities that are as close to historically accurate as I can get. But the reason I am in the 2nd, rather than 1st category (historical scenarios with historical OOBs), is mostly because I game at a level that is too small to find full historical information all the time (or I am too lazy in my research?). I really do like fully historical scenarios. I have run a couple such games, and researched many more scenarios. I often flag potential scenarios for future gaming as I read my many military history books. I then search for other sources on the same events, and if I can find enough, I put together the scenario.

Examples are a big Prokhorovka scenario I did at a con a couple years back. No secrets about finding sources on that. But also a Sened Station (Tunisia) scenario I ran at my home, and a Port Lyautey scenario I've played (Operation Torch - US Stuarts and M3 HT GMCs vs. French R35s, fun stuff!).

I have also done a fair bit of the 3rd category -- the "what if" scenarios based on historical premise. Most of my modern gaming falls into that category -- what if a USMC force faced an advancing Soviet MRD -- how would they deploy to delay the advanced guard? Although I guess some also falls into the 2nd category -- I've run scenarios with guys who served on the inter-German boarder who really wanted to use the exact forces they had, against the exact forces that they believed they would have faced, on the exact terrain they would have defended.

I think my perspective is close to Zaevor's, where he says:

It all comes down to WHY you are gaming something. If merely for entertainment then of course accuracy is not so important and the entertainment factor takes primacy.

However, when you are trying to develop doctrine you tend to use the approach I have outlined ...

With these exceptions. I don't develop doctrine. I try to understand it. And I try to understand historical perspectives. And I find that to be enormously entertaining, as recreating, at whatever level, is the Nth level of historical study for me, and I like studying history. It is all mind-candy.

I think that's why I game.

[Thomaso827]

I prefer historical scenarios and maps, but I honestly feel that no game ever goes exactly as history, or it wouldnt be any point to play. The winner and loser are already chosen. The interest is taking a historical event and changing it. Things like the Skirmish Campaign series are a great help, adding little variable elements to the historical scenario. When first learning a game, I play more for a balanced force, not necesarily a point balance (I avoid points games when I can), but a balance of my platoon vs another platoon (or company, battalion, whatever scale game we are playing). Once I have the rules understood, it is back to research and historical starting points. I'm not hesitant to get into another player's game, and, while I havent spent any hobby money for it yet, I am somewhat intrigued by these 'alternate WW2' games, Wierdwar, GearKrieg and such. I'll probably give the GHQ system a try if I see it at an upcoming convention, and since more and more non-historical games are making their way onto the HMGS convention tables, I expect to see that in the next year or so.

Tom Oxley

[pmskaar]

I would have to say that I generally do games using the 2nd or 3rd category. My games, using the Mein Panzer rules, are of fairly small unit actions featuring a battalion at most on a side.
The actions that I depict are not based on any actual historical forces but I do try to have actual unit TO&E's represented on the game table in typical situations. Most of my gaming so far is on the East Front so I will create typical scenarios for the period of the war I want to portray. As an example, I recently did an aftermath of Kursk scenario set in August 1943. I called the scenario "Stemming the Tide" and gave the Germans a couple of depleted Panzer companies with some additonal assets to hold off a Russian tank brigade with some additional assets. While the scenario was not researched off of an actual unit on an actual piece of terrain, it was something that could have occured during this period even if did not occur in the actual way I depicted it.
Doing scenarios and forces that likely occured or could have possibly occured is the way I enjoy my games the most. In this way, I can deviate from actual history somewhat and give the players an enjoyable game. This also allows for better fog of war if I want to use it in that neither player necessarily needs to know the exact compositon of the opposing forces or their objectives in advance which is hard for a strictly historical game to duplicate.
Most modern games I would imagine would be of a somewhat hypothetical nature such as the famous potential NATO vs. Warsaw Pact confrontation of the Cold War era starting as early as the mid 1940's through the late 1980's. In that one you have 45 years of equipment and TO&E changes that you can use in a variety of likely encounters but none actually did happen. The same is true for other potential conflicts or likely encounters from historical conflicts such as the Arab-Israeli Wars.
In my games I am more interested in comparing TO&E's and various weapons systems pitted against likely adversaries than in gaming an actual historical event.

Pete - Binpicker, Out!