As commanders of armies, albeit of miniature armies, we are exempt from consequence. Our battles conveniently end when we accumulate enough victory points, or when domestic duties call or have simply had enough and the troops go back into their boxes to fight another day. We don’t have to live with the damage that our decisions create. A defeat does not end our careers or bring shame and disgrace on our families. We don’t have to write letters to the relatives of our little men who are killed in battle, nor do we have visit battlefields and hospitals to face the human wreckage. I am thankful for that.
But the concept of consequence or risk interests me. I want to explore how to introduce it into a wargame. Brigadier Peter Young, a decorated WWII commando officer and avid wargamer, reckoned that the only way you could reasonably recreate risk or consequence in a wargame would be to make players hand over every figure that is lost as a casualty to the opposing player who must immediately smash it flat with a hammer. That would be extreme, although it would sure make you think twice of sending that freshly painted cuirassier regiment against that infantry square because there is always a chance to win - you may need to roll three sixes and he may need three ones, but those are acceptable odds, aren’t they? You can keep that hammer away from my figures thank you! Maybe there a less extreme method?
In my recent series of French in Egypt games (a sort of loosely structured campaign) casualties were carried forward from one game to the next. I thought that might be a useful means of taming the wargamer’s natural urge to throw every unit at their disposal into the fight. Afterall in any sort of campaign you need to manage your reserves carefully. But that did not act as a sufficient deterrent to committing everything in each game as though there was no tomorrow. And there was no tomorrow because it’s only a game and all the players wanted to be a part of the action so nothing was held back. They knew that if they won the game the series of games ended. Which led me to the conclusion that wargamers being wargamers will always commit whatever forces are available because the consequences of doing so have no real impact on them.
The reason I am thinking about all of this is that I have a large Crimean War game planned for our next annual Wargames weekend planned for sometime next year. The plan I have for this is for a scrambling defence in which one side will be outnumbered, holding a good position, with other troops coming up and the option of calling on still more reinforcements. I want those reinforcements to come at a cost, but how to make that cost relevant? There is no point in simply allocating a victory point deficit for taking them, because any wargamer worth his salt will play the odds.
The answer may lay in the way we play our games at that weekend, which is a that we play four games on consecutive days. What if my Crimean game was up first and penalty for taking those reinforcements was applied to the next day’s game? It doesn’t have to be too punitive, but maybe some units have low or limited ammunition, or where a player originally had four units in his command one is removed. It just needs to be something to make them think about the implications of their actions. What if that penalty could be applied across more than two games, perhaps compounding as the week went on? What if one side deliberately chose a defeat, but were able to extract the bulk of their force intact to fight another day? Could this mean that they get some advantage in the next game? I have already begun discussions with two other game organisers and I want to see if this idea has a pulse.
But enough of things philosophical, what about the toys? Well there aren’t any this week, although much has left the painting table this week - they are still in the basing queue. There will be much to show after the weekend I am sure.
Back in the very early days of WRG and Soc. of Ancients there was a convention that a captured or killed General figure was handed over to the opponent who bit the figures head off. That rather dropped out of favour when Minifigs introduced the new ranges of hard metal. A true story but hard to check as lead poisoning has taken its toll.
ReplyDeleteI have a similar story to tell. When I first started gaming at clubs, probably back about 1974, I recall an incident, that I often tell about, where in a WWII game artillery fire reined down on one player’s Infantry unit wiping them out. The recipient of the fire challenged how the firer could see the target to which the firer responded he had a forward observer. At that point the other player seized the observer figure, but his head off and threw the decapitated plastic corpse out the window, declaring “well he won’t see any more will he?”
DeleteWe played the beginnings of an 1813 campaign a number of years back and it was amazing how much player behaviour changed. Whole divisions were sheltered behind woods to avoid even light casualties, and most players were very much more cautious in their approach. It fell apart after three or four battles, but it really provided an extra dimension to just the normal encounter games. The other thing you could do is award casualty penalties to take off Victory Points. That would make some victories not worth the casualties so perhaps give pause for thought, although I suppose you’ll always get those who take no notice regardless.
ReplyDeleteSorry for the delay replying... just got back from three days in Fiji where the hotel internet was of glacial speed. I think I need to give this some more thought...I have at least 10 months to find a solution.
DeleteIsn’t that the second trip to Fiji this year? Not that I’m counting of course.
DeleteTechnically it’s three because one spanned the New Year...and we are looking at New Year again!
DeleteTaking a hammer to my figures would certainly dissuade me from taking risks. This would dissuade me from putting ANY troops on the table under those conditions.
ReplyDeleteYou pose a difficult question to answer. What is the goal of such a reinforcement restriction? Is it to recreate a historical challenge or simply to channel player tendencies into a prescribed narrative? Will the player making the decision to reinforce or not in Game 1 reap what he sows or does this decision impact another player?
Will all of your games include reinforcing elements? If so, perhaps decrease the probability of receiving a particular reinforcement in a follow-up game if a reinforcing unit in Game 1 is chosen? Perhaps have a unit in Game 2 (or later) arrive to the battle in a fatigued state for each reinforcing unit picked in Game 1? The fatigued unit would deploy in a reduced state either through numbers or unit capability. Perhaps assign completing objectives to each player for each game such that the player meeting more of his intra-game objectives can be crowned the overall victor?
I look forward to seeing your solution to this conundrum.
I agree that taking the hammer to figures was a pretty extreme example, but is guess it did express his view of the responsibility of command.
DeleteThanks for your comments.
The main purpose of constraining the reinforcements is to take the game out of the norm and create a bit of a challenge. The defenders will be outnumbered at first, with the ability to call on local reserves, but still be at an overall numerical disadvantage. While the attacker will have the advantage of numbers, both in terms of battalions and guns, they will have problems with command and control. I think that this creates challenges and a bit of tension (and excitement at the same time) for both sides that I am looking for in the game.
However, at the end of the day it is still a game for the entertainment of all playing and if the defenders are so outnumbered that the game becomes a walkover for the attackers the game will be a flop. So the defender will also be able to call on a significant reserve that will address the shortage of numbers. My concern is that if this significant reinforcement is permitted without restriction the game may as well be played with both sides lining up on either side of the table and just slugging it out on even terms, which is just as much a flop in my eyes.
I can see that there is a lot more thought to go into this proposal.