Debate: Historical Tactics versus Player's Personal Style?

[Danzig The Doomed]

Apologies for this being more like a magazine article in length than a forum post.

Many years ago I was part of a good War Games club at University.  Each week somebody would set up and umpire some scenario game, usually with a set of rules we were not familiar with.  This had the lovely advantage that, not knowing the rules, we had to play instinctively and not "to the rules".

In one particular battle - American Civil War - and despite not knowing before asking if the rules would allow me - I had my Confederate cavalry dismount and dig field defences in real time, to protect the rear of my position.  They successfully beat back double their number of Federal cavalry, and held at bay triple their number for the rest of the game.

One of the players complained that it was not historically accurate.  Leaving aside the point that if there was one war where cavalry would be prone to dismount and use field defences, it would be the ACW, I want to raise a different point?

My point is that when I discussed the battle with my brother (a fellow war gamer) he said it was absolutely typically of me as a player.  He then went on to correctly guess my disposition - "Heavy" infantry deployed in a strong defensive position (preferably dug in) waiting for the enemy to get bored and attack.  Artillery intermingled with the infantry concentrating on breaking up the advancing enemy, in preference to counter battery fire.  C-in-C closely involved in the infantry fight in the middle.  An improvised "third line" of spent (previously routed) units that most other people would have abandoned drawn up as a reserve, and which he has learnt to be careful of, and very unlikely to use off table flank marches, etc etc. etc.  He pointed out that I would have used similar tactics as my "starting point" for my Early Imperial Roman Army, and that my choice of armies tended to be strong heavy infantry armies, where "keeping the line" is important.

I don't mean to imply that I am entirely predictable or lacking in imagination, but I know that my brother is by nature an impetuous cavalry general.  Prince Rupert, or Ancient armies that have lots of charging cavalry and a supply of expendable peasant archers.  His battle plan I think of "fragmentation" plus outrageous luck.  I have seen him successfully charge a Macedonian phalanx with peasant archers and get away with it.  I would not have bothered, except in deperation

If you gave my brother and I the joint command of an army, we would instinctively assign the cavalry to him and the infantry to me, with the only debate being how much cavalry I would retain as my reserve and infantry he would retain as his rallying point.  In fact, even when we joined the same re-enactment society, I ended up as grimey sergeant-major, rallying the infantry centre, while he "ponced about" in a beautiful costume doing posh sword waving stuff behind enemy lines and usually fled with the rest of the posh boys when things went wrong.

It's not that I don't like cavalry - I love my Sarmatians in my Early Imperial Roman army, because the are archetypal charging cavalry:  Wind up the clock work, point them in the right direction, let them off like a scythe chariot, and only expect to see them again looting the baggage camp - the enemy's if you are lucky!

The Debate:  How much should war games be about reproducing the historical tactics of the time, and how much should they be about "what we personally would have done in those circumstances?"

Side Debate #1: Does this alter the idea of army lists dictating Brilliant and Inert general in DBMM, or Rash and Cautious generals in other rules.

Side Debate #2: If you are only one sub general amongst others in an otherwise balanced army, which would you volunteer to command: Charging cavalry / Heavy Infantry / Skirmishing Cavalry / Skirmishing Infantry / Other.

My final bit of mischievous thought is this:  My brother's name is Allan, the double "L" being a family variant of the name that seems to go back centuries.  This makes me jokingly suspect a descent from the Sarmatian "Alans" via their colonies in Brittany.  I by comparison must have picked up the genetic rarity which cuased one Roman General to be described as "despite being a Sarmatian by birth, he was prudent and cautious".  Evidentally, even the ancients recognised characters who did not fit their historical stereotypes.

[andrew]

I'd go for the flying mounted wing with the wind waving in your hair......beating down the masses at full charge.    Yes I have a bunch of Macedonian KnF wedges - they are great fun wading into opposing foot but they inevitably get surrounded and chopped down with the compulsory follow-up, inevitable counter-charge from my opponent while my companions are either no longer there or have bounced out....so I guess I'm like your brother.  But then it is also fun going for the throat grab with an irresistible force of the phalanx....either way I just want to play Ancient war games!

Anyhoo - the 'game' vs 're-creation' debate is still alive and well.  IMO the gamers win but that isn't such a bad thing....you can't get too hung up on re-creataing historical battles because who is to say the version of events is historically accurate given the history, as we know it, was written by the winner.

Just my opinion

Andrew

[DaveMather]

Yes I have a bunch of Macedonian KnF wedges - they are great fun wading into opposing foot but they inevitably get surrounded and chopped down with the compulsory follow-up,

Andrew just in case you have missed it (I certainly did for some time)

From p42 Pursuing elements 3rd bullet

"It chooses not to pursue; and is either (a) Knights who fought in an enemy bound unless against Knights, (b) Cavalry or light troops, (c) regular Blades or regular Spears if either fought against foot."

They do not need to follow up against foot in enemy bound

Regards


David Mather

[andrew]

Hi Dave

I had missed that so thanks for the tip!  If I charge foot formations I try not to get stuck there if I lose, so the follow-up is usually occurring in my bound anyway, but that is still handy to know!

Cheers
Andrew

[Grumble_goat]

The great thing about DBMM, and Ancient/Mediaeval wargaming in general, for me, is that there are numerous different army types, meaning it?s a pretty safe bet that there will be an army to suit most different player styles. I?m not a competition player so my views are based purely on the enjoyment aspect of the game, rather than fielding an effective competition army, although I accept that the two are not necessarily always mutually exclusive..
Personally, I like nothing more than commanding Cavalry & light Horse armies because of their abilty to ?re-deploy?, to a certain extent, when faced with an unexpected enemy disposition, as well as their ability to out-maneouvre an opponent, working around their flanks etc.. Obviously, this type of army doesn?t suit everyone, with some members of my gaming group preferring to put their faith in massed bow or heavy foot, with others preferring the raw power of Knight based armies ? ?vive le difference!?
That said, I do like to keep my opponents on their toes by occasionally fielding something unexpected ? for me at least.. This has the added benefit of forcing me to play ?outside my comfort zone?, often giving me a greater appreciation of troop types I?d disregard, or play the absolute minimum of. This, I think, also helps improve my play.
Ian, one of the guys I game with, and I play a lot of DBMM200 and have quite different gaming styles. We?ve started re-playing particularly interesting games, swapping sides and playing with each others army. The troop selections are unchanged, although we do allow restructuring of commands. Afterwards we comment of the effectiveness of each army, and suggest changes to the army lists. Insightful stuff ? I suggest everyone gives it a try?

The debate:
I feel that following historical deployments and then allowing players to devise their own tactics is the best approach, and an acceptable compromise between staying true to history and enjoying the ?game?. Recently, our group put on a DBMM re-fight of the battle of Nicopolis at ?Targe? in Kirriemuir. We stayed true to the initial historical deployments and, with a couple of house rules to better model that particular battle, played an equal number of games using historical tactics and our own tactics (with, it has to be said, no discernible change to the outcome/margin of the Ottoman victory). On the day we opted to play using historical tactics agreeing, if time allowed, to play a 2nd game using our own tactics ? again, no real difference in the outcome. Why is this? I feel that because DBMM effectively models the battlefield role of different troop types, by following historical deployments, your troops almost always ?default? into a historical role, and barring catastrophic die rolls or unnatural ineptness, will quite often achieve a historical result (for better or worse).

Side Debate 1:
The brilliant & inert generals are, to me anyway, an effective way of modelling history?s greats (and not so greats) without being a guarantee of success..

Side Debate 2:
Skirmishing cavalry ? every time..!

Regards
Bob Mcleish

[Barritus]

Interesting question!

My personal opinion is that players should be given good reasons for behaving historically, although they should be given the option of behaving differently if they wish.

In my case, I change my style of play to match the army I happen to be using.

Over the years, I?ve used a variety of DBM and DBMM armies.

DBM: My Trapezuntine Byzantines were an army of maneuver and ambush, picking away at the enemy element by element. My Sub-Roman British were a Pillow of Death army in which the C-in-C was far too valuable to risk in combat. On the other hand, my Alexandrian Macedonian army often relied on throwing Alexander into combat to make the necessary breakthrough.

DBMM: My Nikephorian Byzantine army relies on throwing the C-in-C into combat. On the other hand, my Late Imperial Roman army relies on the C-in-C keeping out of mischief, letting the guys on the wings win their battles first. Both armies use Brilliant Generals. In the case of the Nikephorians, the Brilliant Strokes are used to improve combat factors. In the case of the Romans, the Brilliant Strokes are used to change PIP allocations, and maybe change deployment.

My experience of DBMM is that it generally rewards successful historical tactics against historical opponents. Some people have complained that some troop types aren?t worth the points they cost, making their armies unviable. But from my reading of their battle reports, they insist on using historical tactics against non-historical opponents ? and rather than developing new tactics to meet new situations, the players complain that there?s something wrong with the rules. That?s not how I see it.

[Valentinian Victor]

Using historical tactics as per those found in the various military manuals written by the Ancients work, as long as you stick with what they say.
For example, most ancient writers will tell you that if you have less cavalry than your enemy then you should either keep them in reserve, or mass the bulk of them on one flank. This is exactly what I do with my Late Romans, I either keep my mounted in reserve behind the flanks, or I keep the Kn and Cv massed on one flank with just a couple of LH in support, the other flank only has a couple of elements of LH really to slow down and keep amused the enemies other wing!
The ancients always state the importance of having reserves, so I tend to have my C-in-C in the center rear with a command comprising of the bulk of my Ax (s) and a couple of LH elements. This is quite a historical Late Roman tactic.

[MikeCampbell]

IMO ideally rules should make little metal figures "behave" in a manner analagous to the way large groups of armed men behaved 500+ years ago.

If they do that then players should be free to screw up....errr I mean experiment as much as they like with deployments, using different troops together, etc.

and they should probably discover why the ancients didn't do it that way!

One of the things I love about DBMM is the way it encourages depth.  It does not do it by giving a morale factor for rear support.  Instead it does it by making winning head on something you can reasonably hope to do before the other guy wins on the flanks (assuming it's a race)

DBM failed to do that - the win on the flanks was always a much faster option than the win in the centre - and that was its major failing IMO (and yet it was used for 15+ years...so that's not too shabby.....)...but 'MM fixes that just nicely - superb.

[Valentinian Victor]

Very few historical battles were won in 'head to head' contact in the center, it is a sad but true fact that most battles were won on the wings. When one or both wings collapsed you were done for as the enemy just rolled up your flanks and hit you in the rear.
I know its totally boring, but I always try and win on one of my flanks so I can then push onto the flank/rear of my opponent.

[MikeCampbell]

You misunderstand me - winning on the wings is fine - but even on the wings most battles were won or lost "head to head" and not by a few light horse outflanking the other guy.

Eg Hastings - arguably won by the Saxon right wing pursuing hte Bretons and getting clobbered - but even after then the Saxon army still held for a long time and finally broke after a lot of frontal atttacks.

All of Phyrus's battles - "won" by hard fighting in the middle rather than by wide outflanking, although at Heraclium it may have been the defeat of the Roman cavalry on one flank that won the day - but Phyrus was expecting his phalanx to win "head on" and was surprised when it didn't.

Alexander's battles -

• Guagamela won in the middle and not lost by his being a narrower army and some major attempts at outflanking
• Issos - again Alex easily outflanked on both sides, but won by a frontal attack across the river
• Granicus - not so much outflanked, but again won by a frontal attack against a weak point
• Hydaspes - here Alexander seems to have managed to outflank the Indians
  

Roman-Carthaginian battles

• Zama - a head on stoush until the returning Numidians take the Carthaginians in the rear
• Cannae & Trebia - Ok - fair enough
• Metaurus River - Romans smashed into the Cartho's head on and only outflanked them when that failed
• Cissa - Catrthos fight when outnumbered - no need for anything fancy - the Romans jsut roll over them
• Castulo - Numidian attacks on the flanks distract the Romans, but ultimately they break due to total casualties, not particularly being "rolled up"
• Baecula - Romans successfully attack the Cartho's on 3 sides, but most of the good Cartho troops still get away
• Ilipia - Scipio does his famous "exchange commands" stratagem crushing both Carthaginian wings with attacks on their front and flanks

sure flanks were important, but there were a LOT of battles that were won or lost somewhere in the middle, and so that needs to be a possibility too.

It wasn't much of one in DBM.

In MM you can certainly still win on the flanks - but it's no longer the only way.

[spelling edited!!]

[Valentinian Victor]

And your quite right, winning on the flanks should not be the only way for your army to win, but it's probably the quickest and easiest way to do it!
It's very interesting how debates like this send us scurrying to our historical works and look up battles to see how they were won, and all the better for it too in my opinion.

[MikeCampbell]

Yes - I enjoy looking at historical battles and erlating how they should happen in a game

And you're right - hitting a flank should always be an easy win - the problem in ancient times seems to have been getting it to happen, so it should be a command problem for the player IMO.