Had I read Dr. Jeremy Best’s bio more closely (see Re-Fighting History), I may have been better prepared for his presentation. Maybe not. Actually, re-reading the presentation description and the author’s bio after the webinar, the topic and direction of the presentation become very clear. Hindsight, as they say, is 20/20.  |
copyright Dr. Jeremy Best
GUWS 17OCT2023 |
Dr. Best’s (hereafter “Jeremy”) thesis is concise. That is, wargames, for all their efforts at accurate simulation, often fail as history. The focal point for this conclusion is a study of operational wargames on the Eastern Front in 1941. Now, I picked up a number of parallel themes throughout the presentation including thoughts on game narrative and uncertainty but will try to contain this post to “games as history”. Well, specifically, Eastern Front wargames as history.
While the topic may be as complex as some of the wargames under study, I make an attempt at summarizing, condensing, and encapsulating some of the key takeaways (of course, in my opinion) of this presentation. As is often the case, my thoughts raise more questions than answers. |
copyright Dr. Jeremy Best
GUWS 17OCT2023 |
With a focus on WWII operational combat, a selection of wargames with Kiev as the subject are presented. The games cover nearly forty years of wargames’ development. Jeremy notes that game innovation relies more upon mechanism evolution over content. Has content really seen no innovation in forty years? I reckon much more information and a better understanding of the combatants have surfaced over these intervening years. Perceptions change with time. “Facts” as we knew them may have changed as well.  |
copyright Dr. Jeremy Best
GUWS 17OCT2023 |
Keeping focus on Eastern Front wargames, two critiques of these games as flawed history are discussed. One is that warfare is sanitized in wargames. The other is that Eastern Front wargames emphasize the Clean Wehrmacht Myth. Jeremy argues that these games are flawed because all historical actions are not included. He cites the Holocaust as an omission in player decision-making cycle. Similarly, the use of Security units in some games diverts these units from their historical, anti-partisan role to the front for use as second line troops. Does the absence of these actions in a game help to reduce German complicity? Do wargames fail as history intentionally?
Beginning with the origins of modern wargaming in the 1950s following the conclusion of WWII, is there a connection between the start of the Cold War and wargaming in general (and wargaming WWII on the Eastern Front, specifically)? Jeremy hints that the two are not unrelated. Given the move of German scientists to the US via Operation Paperclip and the desire to rearm West Germany, perhaps a connection exists.
On a larger scale, games are often guided by historical benchmarks and objectives. Having hindsight from a historical perspective, a player knows what worked and what did not work. This knowledge can affect the games' outcome. Knowledge can also promote history-altering consequences. Special game rules further reinforce historical dictates to drive the narrative. Game play and history, simultaneously, intersect and diverge in wargames. |
copyright Dr. Jeremy Best
GUWS 17OCT2023 |
Does a German-centric bias exist in Eastern Front wargames? It is only the “Eastern Front” to the German Army. Same applies to naming wargames, “War in the East” or the German operation codename. Note my meme in the header asks this question. Jeremy provided a number of game examples whereby a player may get that impression. Eastern Front maps are labeled in German and much of the accompanying game artwork and imagery focuses on the German Army.
What does it mean to play these games? If game designs make claims and arguments on only a subset of the war, do these games, then, become an ideological tool? What do I learn about the world from playing these games? What does it mean to “want” the Germans to win?
Returning to Jeremy’s thesis, game designs can produce blind spots in their models. Jeremy highlights some of the possible consequences of such inaccuracies. Does this automatically lead to a breakdown of wargames, specifically, and understanding warfare, generally?
Are wargames ideological tools?
I am a very simple wargamer, I have wargamed for nearly 60 years, I don't give much thought to how many kids or females play and whether I am glorifying a horrible thing. I also wouldn't spend any of my valuable time agonising over what Mr. Best does. How many of us give any more thought to our games other than should I go with another cohort or take the 17pdr and not the 6pdr tonight etc.
ReplyDeleteExcellent start to the conversation, George! I do not know enough of the subtleties to make an informed decision on whether to choose a 17pdr or a 6pdr. I may be even a more simple wargamer than you! I do know what I like and dislike in a wargame, though.
Deleteif Gerry has Tigers or Panthers, take the 17-pdr? if only Panzer IVs etc, you might get away with the 6-pdr and spend the spare points on some more troops...?
DeleteYour advice appreciated!
DeleteThat is some can of worms your man wants to open...a few more-or-less random thoughts:
ReplyDelete1 - Wargamers are generally interested in the fighting and propose that you can understand the tactical abilities and interplay of different forces without needing to take into account the nature of the societies which produce them. No doubt they feed into combat effectiveness and morale and suchlike, but since the effects are general and the mechanisms not well understood in detail, then there is not much to be gained by pursuing them at the present. If I felt by choosing a side I had to subscribe to its ideology, I couldn't play wargames at all.
2 - German and Soviet tactical accounts are irreconcilable at certain points. Most analysts I am aware of (certainly not all though) have tended to find the German accounts more convincing.
3 - As a matter of historical record, Soviet accounts have been more difficult to find for a large part of the period of commercial wargames.
4 - The iconography of Nazi Germany has tended to dominate most gaming representations of WW2 with Panzer this and Rommel that.
5 - The Germans did kind of 'set the grammar' of WW2 in Europe until Torch and Uranus and the May 43 convoy battles: you would need to compare it to a fully representative set of WW2 games I think to really make the case I think Jeremy Best wants to make.
Your thoughts are much more than random, my friend! As Steve noted in yesterday's post, perhaps, this is a straw man argument being made on wargames failing as history?
DeleteWhen I wargame, my thoughts and interests are on "combat operations" and not "war and society".
Interesting point, I can only come to this from a miniatures wargaming side as my knowledge of historical boardgames is limited to my reading of Norms blog! I would say our knowledge of the Soviet army of the period has increased dramatically, I can cite Anthony Beevor's Stalingrad , which in his notes said it would have been impossible to write before glasnost because of the access to Soviet records. In miniatures games terms there is I suppose an uneasiness , certainly in my case about fielding the SS and there is no doubt they are a popular army and the perpetuation of the clean Wehrmacht? Debatable. Morality and wargaming is a murky place to go, Spartans, or even Athenians are pretty morally suspect, let alone the Romans and you can work your way all the way through history. It's good to read, be informed about it but I still think it's good to be able to game it, having said that I generally prefer pre 20th century gaming to give me a bit of distance I suppose!
ReplyDeleteBest Iain
Well, point to Norm on exposing you to board wargaming! Norm, are you taking note?
DeleteThe combination of morality and wargaming is a minefield I prefer to avoid. Fielding SS on the gaming table, if historical, poses no problem for me. You may not be surprised to know that fielding SS in wargames was a topic brought up in the presentation. Then, that may not surprise you.
Thanks for your comments, Iain!
Ty Bomba has done a lot of east front game and I think his designs can be marked out by two specific mechanics. Firstly he uses the sequence of play to loosely represent German blitzkrieg.
ReplyDeleteIn the German part of the turn, that player can choose to manipulate the sequence of play to either move and fight or fight and move, whilst the soviet sequence is fixed to fight and move. his tends to reflect his belief that the German command system was more flexible in 1941.
Secondly, his supply rules always have a more detailed presence in his games than I have found elsewhere. These two things underpin his designs.
then there is the panzergruppe Guderian approach, which has entered several rule sets, where the Soviet units, with varying combat values, set up face down, so that neither player knows the strength of each unit, until they are revealed at the point of attack. the rule is commonly called ‘Untried Units’.
generally the values are low, but there will be a few good ones that will almost certainly hold the Germans up and reflect some of those desperately defended locations that were a feature of 1941.
Most games allow either a very high number of Soviet counters or allow ‘dead’ units to be re-cycled, to reflect the high levels of manpower at their disposal.
I imagine the underpinning formula for most designers hangs of the critical points of the the campaign (1) the German made it to the gates of Moscow, (2) the Germans defeated entire Soviet armies by encirclements (3) but there always seemed enough Soviet new units to form another defensive line (4) the Soviets will not have any counter offensive capability until December.
One way or another, most designs hand on these base principles, how they go about is another matter and perhaps there-in lays whether a game is or ‘feels’ accurate.
Norm, we are lucky that you are familiar with many of these East Front game systems. Knowing and playing some of these games allows you to see a bigger picture of how different designers tackle these problems differently. Every cook brings their own recipe to the making of the dish.
DeleteOh and I should have mentioned the mud months, which designers use to great effect to put a brake on the speed of the German advance.
DeleteYeah, mud features in many of the Eastern Front games.
Delete"game designs can produce blind spots in their models." I agree with wholeheartedly. And, I expect that the further one goes up the line - from a command viewpoint i.e. skirmish to platoon/company/battalion/division/etc - the possibilities of leaning towards one side or another exacerbates the outcome. Makes me glad I do not design games!
ReplyDeleteWith the Eastern Front, there has been a tremendous amount of new material released within the past few decades, especially with Russian writers finally getting their works translated. One can not have a balanced view without having that information.
Since wargame designers, like historians, get to pick and choose what to include and exclude, blind spots are possible whether intentional or unintentional. Without having access to both sides of an account, it is difficult to make any judgment.
DeleteHmm! A quick look at his resume suggests "Jeremy" may have an agenda which he seeks to prove through his presentation! He has reached a conclusion and selects evidence to support it.
ReplyDeleteMention of the Holocaust is especially telling. How many wargamers would want to play a "game" on this? Or even include it as part of the supply rules (assuming this is his point)? Or does he wish to associate it with the German military (collective guilt)? Imagine the outrage at such a bad taste subject for a "game"?
What about Stalin's purges on generals and pogrom of Ukranians which had a definitive impact on WW2 in the east? Should games include this to be better "history"?
The older games were no doubt based on information available at that time; accounts by German generals keen to please their US masters with the Cold War narrative they wished to hear (the "back-hand blow" etc).
Frank Chadwick, a boardgame designer of note, covers this in an article in one of the CPQ magazines. He takes a more balanced view of both sides capacities and abilities.
Neil
Always enjoy seeing your thoughtful and reasoned comments, Neil. Today's is no exception. On top of those skills, you are able to peek over the horizon. You nailed one of the contentions for needed to explicitly account for extra supply and logistics.
DeleteOn Frank Chadwick, do you still have access to that article? I know the magazines supporting the GDW/GRD Europa series (ETO, TEN, etc.) are filled with logistical and OB details.
Jonathan,
DeleteIt was in Command Post Quarterly 9 the magazine for Command Decision. The main article is "The late great (unfought) war" which is a Bathtub Warpac v Nato campaign. As a supporting article FC demolishes the idea of "Soviet Hordes" v Ubermensch propagated by post war histories. He points out by 1945 the Soviet Army was a flexible well developed force; they also perfected "Operational Art" focusing on higher levels rather than low-level tactical fighting. He compares German / NATO doctrine as like a boxer - jab, jab, jab dancing around, as oppose to Soviet Karate, feet flat on floor, hit once with a knock out punch.
Unfortunately, I can't find an online version.
Neil
Thanks, Neil!
DeleteI wouldn't be interested in playing a game that was so 'realistic' as to constrain the players to only the historical outcome, even if it was educational. However, it could be argued that anything short of that is not historical as it fails to take into account every factor. I much prefer the possibility of being able to affect the outcome, which still allows the participants to appreciate some of the challenges faced by the actual combatants and gain a better insight into certain aspects of a battle of a campaign. I really enjoy that Mitchell and Webb sketch. The other two that always have me laughing are the Admiral Donitz and Naturopath Emergency Ward.
ReplyDeleteLawrence, I appreciate abstraction in a game and no need to count buttons. A mathematical model builder does not need to account for every variable to yield a useful model. Parsimony is a good goal to which to strive. That sketch is a classic, isn't it? I was surprised that I could easily create a meme to go along with my topic.
DeleteThe problem of a German centred narrative of the eastern Front has been recognised for a while now. It was sort of inevitable because the Americans in particular were keen to learn how to fight the Russians and "commissioned" lots of detailed tactical studies from former German officers (which I think Neil mentions). This information fed the game industry and popular history. The German army came across as heroic and skilled. The nasty side of things - the ground level ethnic cleansing and Holocaust activities - were neatly skirted. At the same time, there was a wholesale buy-in to all the propaganda stuff- aces, panzer aces, u-boat aces. Hopefully, we can see a move beyond this in modern versions of games (did Dr Best discuss the evolution of narrative in games?). Incidentally, as a wikipedia editor, I've observed this debate as wiki attempts to escape from an over reliance on apologist and neo-Nazi sources, so a pertinent discussion beyond wargame circles. The game's representation of history can only be as good as its sources, so we all need to pay attention to our sources if we want a historical game.
ReplyDeleteExcellent feedback, Anthony! You provide a most useful and clarifying addition to the discussion. There was no mention of narrative evolution during Jeremey's presentation. Thank you for your input!
DeleteAlways an interesting discussion Jonathan and lots of great posts above.
ReplyDeleteI definitely think there was a lot of emphasis on the German WW2 knowledge & experience in the 50s and 60s and ignoring most of the atrocities. This was not confined to boardgames or the military - certainly Dr Von Braun made himself useful at NASA. This is also true how the allies dealt with Japan post war.
Regarding historical accuracy, I always think that boardgames will always struggle to recreate history properly due to the players' historical knowledge. For example, in 1940 the French generals thought the Ardennes were effectively impassable to tank divisions, while in any boardgame we can see the movement cost in the rules. 😁
Thanks, Ben! I am learning a lot about these topics from the presentation, my summarization of the thesis, and of course, the commentary that you mention. I have been awakened by this exercise. You make a good point on the effect of hindsight on the perceived impenetrable nature of the Ardennes. Reduced movement rates really do not impart the same sense of security and later surprise do they?
DeleteVery interesting discussion. I should start by saying that I tend much to the view that wargames are a game rather than a historical simulation.
ReplyDeleteI’ve been thinking about wargames for Normandy and wonder how the Allies won. The German forces have superior equipment (on the surface), elite troops, better tactics etc etc. it seems that those factors which led to Allied victory aren’t included on the table. You get the impression that Germany only lost because of Hitler’s poor decisions which is convenient.
I’m very much with Anthony Clipson on this and how this came about. I found this article very helpful in explaining “victory through writing”. I have more reading to do.
https://web.archive.org/web/20160131232026/https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=10716
The discussion has been very interesting, indeed; enlightening too. Like the Soviets, in 1944, the allies enjoyed a quantity that had a quality of its own. Interesting article that works to dispel some myths. Thanks for bringing it up.
DeleteThanks for the summary, Jonathan. Much appreciated.
ReplyDeleteYou are welcome!
DeleteI believe most of my thoughts have already been covered, one way or another, (but I am now about to ramble on for five minutes!) by previous writers, although I must say, I have never had the impression of a "heroic" or "clean" Wehrmacht on the Russian front - both sides were almost equally barbarous - it was an existential fight to the death and fortunately for the world, the Russians won it, because the Nazis would have been a much worse prospect post 1945 than the Soviet Union (in my opinion anyway)
ReplyDeleteIf it wasn't in absolute and total bad taste, it would not be hard to design a board game that focused players on building camps, assigning police units, arranging railway schedules, rounding up and concentrating people etc to "simulate" organising the Holocaust - but why would anyone do it - who would want to "play" such a game? Was Jeremys point simply that some of the German potential military strength should be removed, to take into account the men "wasted" in Einsatzgruppen or anti partisan units? Surely, game designers take that into account when deciding the relative strengths of the units involved - If there were 250,000 German troops in Ukraine but 50,000 were in rear echelon duties, the game would allow 200,000 to be engaged in combat against the Red Army wouldn't it - we don't need to specifically move a few units around each game turn, committing atrocities in the rear, to know that's what the German army did!
There are NO clean armies, let alone no clean WWII German Army - I think most people with even a passing knowledge of military history would recognise that fact - but it doesn't make the study of military history or playing games based on military history any less attractive to me - or most wargamers I presume!
We all know there are some gamers who have an issue with Colonial games - I don't - and some don't think we should play games about the War on Terror or The Chechan War or dare I say it, the Ukraine/Russia War - yet I have read a blog this week (sorry can't remember which one) where the game played was Ukrainians v's Russians in 2022/3.....
I have personally written rules and worked out ways to simulate IED's and how Coaltion forces can spot them, or a suicide bomber - and its exactly the same as any other wargaming concept - roll a D6 and if you get 4 5 or 6, you spot it - and if you have a dog handler or are Special Forces, you spot on anything but a 1..... or whatever!
An interesting adjunct to this whole subject is the series of YouTube videos about a video done by someone called MidWinter Minis (I think) where the 40K-playing presenters postulated the idea that the "problem with historical wargaming" (is there one??) is that someone has to play "The Nazis" (They seem to think Bolt Action is "the" historical wargame and possibly don't realise many historical gaming is done in other eras when there were no Nazis!)
This of course drew a barrage of outraged replies from historical gamers although, surprisingly, a lot of them seemed to focus on the idea that "not all German soldiers were Nazis" (so maybe Jeremy's thesis that we have created a fallacy of a "clean" German Army isn't so far off the mark?) Personally, I agree that by 1945 a lot of German soldiers were cynical and had lost any faith in Nazism - but I think in 1940 or 41, the vast majority WERE Nazis and were happy to be part of the Herrenvolk and the mission to create Lebensraum in the east. The disenchantment came later, once they started losing a few battles.
Final comment on "Anonymous" points above - the Allies won in Normandy and then NW Europe because they had overwhelming superiority in almost everything except leadership and tactics!
The Germans might have had better tanks and more experienced men - but they could not hope to beat an enemy that totally dominated the airspace and had virtually unlimited supplies of artillery shells and material (manpower, at least for the British, WAS an issue, but replacement Sherman tanks were not)
Oh I meant to say, there is a really interesting doco called Ordinary Men on Netflix, which covers some of this - its about Reserve Police Battalion 101 of the German Order Police in Poland.
DeleteThanks for your comprehensive reply, Keith. clearly, others before have not said it all!
DeleteDesigning boardgames on sensitive topics is not easy. It has been done, though. This Guilty Land tackles the sensitive topic of slavery prior to the Amercian Civil War. Morally, it may be a hard game to play (or sell) as the Oppressor but playing provides a valuable teaching moment.
https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/250488/guilty-land
The Netflix movie was mentioned in the presentation. I have added it to my Watch List.
Its a PC game but Cauldrons of War - Barbarossa has a "brutality" mechanic as the Germans. Brutal genocidal events fire and your choices range from "cover up/ignore" to "prosecute war criminals" . As your "brutality" score goes up the Russians fight harder... I've simplified it slightly but you get the idea, I was taken aback initially because as discussed one is not used to dealing with these things in wargames. On balance I decided it was a neat acknowledgement of the dirty side of things. To take a tangent, Bomber Command by GMT can make one squirm in moral quandry, accepting one is going to miss the target due to lack of tech level player is "forced" to load up on incendaries in which case a bunch of civilians are going to die. Chose.
ReplyDeleteHmmm....that one does sound a bit close to the bone - I understand your eventual acceptance that it acknowledges a reality - but do we really need to make those acknowledgements in a game? It would be like playing a U Boat commander and getting extra points for machine gunning survivors in the water/lifeboats??
DeleteThis one sounds like a tough game to play. I wonder what "replayability" scores are on this one? Without any knowledge of the game, itself, I suppose that it could provide teaching moments. Perhaps something akin to This Guilty Land mentioned above.
DeleteWell, it's a point of view. The mythologising of the German Army as the apogee of the mid-20th century art of war is something that we have to deal with, along with those "The Waffen SS were great soldiers" idiots. The Eastern Front is a war we know more about from the German side, due to issues accessing Soviet archives, and the reliability of their sources. He may have a point that in Operational Games on the Eastern Front the German player should probably have to allocate units or resources to rounding up Jews and slave workers. That might be a difficult sell, as you could then be guilty of glorifying the Holocaust. Getting games to teach morals - which seems to be what Jeremy wants as much as anything - will always give you problems. Players bring their own moral compass to the game. As you know, we've been playing an Eastern Front operational campaign for over 30 years. I'm more comfortable playing the Soviets, but Stalin wasn't a very nice person either, and the Red Army also committed atrocities. If you want to see an academic without an agenda discuss the limitations of wargaming, have a look at Charles Esdaile's "Wargaming Waterloo", just published as a pdf by the US Marine Corps, on this link: https://www.usmcu.edu/Outreach/Marine-Corps-University-Press/Books-by-topic/MCUP-Titles-A-Z/Wargaming-Waterloo/
ReplyDeleteExcellent response, Graham. Teaching morals through gaming is a tough job, no doubt. Still, they may open up players' minds to other options. The notion (and often experienced classification in wargames) of SS as super-troops was mentioned in Jeremy's presentation too. One wargame was mentioned (I forgot the title) rated SS as militia. quite a change from standard practices.
DeleteEsdaile's work has been mentioned routinely on one of the groups I follow. Thanks for the link. Time for me to download and give it some study.
Without getting too deep into the issue, German tanks in Normandy were superior provided they were there, were in working order and had fuel. The allies had advantages in all three of these, even if their tanks were inferior on the guns and armour side. You could, and should, bring these out in an operational game, otherwise the history will be distorted. But most table wargames assume a starting point to an action is when stuff rumbles across the start line, not before. You can bring in a friction mechanism e.g. turn a card and a panzer company is delayed by an airstrike or a Tiger broken down in a lane and perhaps you should. But overall, I've yet to see a tactical game that really fits the soldiers' eye view accounts in memoirs etc. for the Normandy campaign. I suspect that Dr Best, though, is more interested in a higher level of history than the driver of a tank or an infantryman in a wet ditch.
ReplyDeleteI am certain you are correct on the last point Anthony! (The rest of what you say is right too, BTW)
DeleteIt is also normally overlooked that German tanks did have a reliability issue as well. We tend to ignore it as we're obsessed with German engineering competence.
DeleteGood points, all! From the presentation, Jeremy's work focused on studying operational wargames. I wonder how many of the wargames listed he actually played?
DeleteInteresting stuff, thanks. It may be stating the blinking obvious, but if the wargames must be strictly 'historical' then the Russians must always win..?
ReplyDeleteI do think there's a lot of bias in games/rules towards the Germans and their 'superior' equipment, organisation and tactics - but it is exactly that, bias. On Al Murray and James Holland's podcast (We Have Ways..) they have discussed this recently when talking about Kursk, Al forcefully putting forward his view that the German offensive was a futile gesture ( even if 'successful', what was it likely to achieve? ) and countering a lot of 'incoming' comments about supposedly superior German tactics etc - quite thought-provoking stuff. It's good to think about this stuff - wargaming is perhaps NOT 'only a game'..
The pro-German bias pops up everywhere. They get extra dice for their LMGs (because they're a GPMG), but you don't get mobility/accuracy benefits for the good old Bren gun. It isn't just in WW2 either. Great War Germans get better stats, generally, despite being out fought by the British and the French on numerous occasions.
DeleteIn my many years of wargaming, especially in board wargaming, the German bias seems prevalent throughout. Perhaps not so much with some of Jack Radey's games but everywhere else.
DeleteMust the Russians win a wargame to maintain a strictly historical result? Absolutely not. Of course, it depends upon the level and scope of the wargame under play and study.
To be fair, the Soviets normally win because there's lots more of them.
DeleteIt is a difficult one , this. Wargames can be historical teaching aids but usually aren't. However, in the absence of the teaching of military history in schools, they, alongside films and computer games, build up a popular understanding of wars. This can be dated, mythologised or just downright wrong. Even if we don't put history front and centre in a game, we should be cautious not to disseminate false narratives.
ReplyDeleteOn the Russians always winning a historical game, I know Mr Freitag has strong views on the inevitability of the historical outcome in games :)
Anthony, I agree that historical wargames ought not be promoting false narratives. I think wargames can be utilized as useful teaching aids. Not everyone agrees. Likewise, not everyone agrees that the historical outcome is but one data point along a spectrum of possibilities.
DeleteAm I too predictable?
Wargames - and for me designing wargames - is a good way of stress testing the history as understood or described. When statements are made of "X did this so Y happened" it is great to set it up on the table top and run the event/battle through the rules model and see what pops out. Sabin's "Lost Battles" overstates the claims for his model most likely, but he isn't entirely wrong that putting the troops on the ground can show up when an established narrative is open to question.
DeleteI agree! I really never get a grasp of how a battle unfolded and why until I set the armies out onto the table and give it a go. Often times, several goes.
DeleteIn Lost Battles, Sabin does more than "overstates claims for his model". From my study, those models are over-specified in such a way to produce the historical outcome. That is not experimental science.
I agree with so much of the above whether it is at the strategic or tactical level. It seems to me that many WW2 rule sets are based on insufficient and superficial technical detail rather than the human factors.
ReplyDeleteAn MG42 had a higher firing rate than a Bren but the ammunition carried by the section/squad was probably the same. Should the Germans run out of ammo earlier- you don’t see that in many rules? It is often said that it took 5 Shermans to destroy a Tiger. Post war analysis by the British army showed that it took 1.65 75mm Shermans to knock out a Tiger at 600 yards and 0.9 Sherman Fireflies at 1000 yards. This is based on armour, mobility and firepower not reliability. I have recently read that no Allied armoured offensive succeeded in Normandy. However, the author then followed it with saying that no German offensive succeeded either. There is much more to this and at times I wonder if a simulation or even a reasonable tabletop game is possible.
As so many have mentioned, I suspect that much of this follows from books written postwar by German officers who still believed that they were the Master Race and couldn’t accept that they had been defeated by their inferiors. The only possible explanation for this is Hitler’s poor generalship and the Allied numerical superiority.
I have a feeling that it may be possible to incorporate these considerations into board games (although I have little experience of these) but much more difficult for battalion/company level games. I’d be interested to hear if any rule sets that people feel do include these factors.
Thanks for your comments, Anon. I, too, am interested to see if rulesets take these factors into account. On your MG42 example, I am certain I have seen rules giving this weapon a greater possibility of ammo depletion. This would be more applicable in a tactical setting, I suspect.
DeleteAn interesting post with lots of excellent replies (as always) which raise multiple point of discussion. Certainly the history of the Eastern Front has changed a lot over the past 40 years as Soviet archives have been made very accessible. This came across in Glantz's superb updated book 'When Titan's Clashed). Prior to this we certainly had to rely upon German accounts as there really wasn't much else in comparison.
ReplyDeleteNow when designing operational level games, it is a fine art in knowing what to include, but as importantly what to leave out. The further you zoom our from the action, the harder it is IMHO to try and reflect what happened historically within the limits of the game mechanics. You could add lots of detail, but then would the game be 'fun' to play, finish in a reasonable amount of time etc.
Compare this to say Company level actions or smaller, where you can add much more detail without potentially ruining the 'fun', such as the MG42 vs Bren Gun points raised above. In Normandy the newer history books have finally pointed out rather well that both sides generally failed when on the offensive, due to the nature of the terrain. Say 30 years it tended to be the Allies had bad tactics and the German's excellent ones. Now we know those on the defensive generally 'won'.
Going back to the Eastern Front, I always feel there are so many 'big issues' that a designer needs to take into account, that we don't normally see in Western Europe or Italian theatre games, such as the 500km trip wire of supply limits for the Germans, the mud and of course the sheer vastness of the of the land area fought over, the varied terrain etc. Of course this is not to say that this didn't happen in Western Europe (the Ardennes late war a prime example), but it is less of a factore IMHO.
To finish off, whatever game and period you play, I feel that a good grounding in the history of the conflict will hopefully allow players to play 'historically' alongside exploring potential 'what if's?', but with a good grounding in historical plausibility.
Steve, count yourself among those that regularly contribute to the discussion.
DeleteAs practicing wargamers, we should have recognized that attacking through constricting terrain which channels the approach ought to favor the defender. Attacking is hard! no surprise that the final assessment is defenders generally win.
I had a graduate professor who once exclaimed that is it always useful to have theory on your side. The same can be said about history.
An interesting post and series of comments, Jon. Thanks for posting it. I would make the observation that usually, when folk generalise, they mean "people that I know, or have read". I am no exception to that case.
ReplyDeleteMy operational Eastern Front games over the last 30 years have made no concessions to the Germans and have included logistics in one form or another. Like many others before me, I came to the conclusion that after an initial period of having surprise on their side, Barbarossa was doomed to eventual failure by increasing material support from the allies and the increasing operational military competence of Stavka.
Although I have Partizans and security troops, they only see the light of day in the very largest games, when their operations can have some effect on the front line.
Most of the time, these operations ran separately to the frontline and it is my opinion that the Waffen SS have received quite enough attention in print, without me adding to it.
Steve J.'s comments strike a chord - it has taken me thirty-odd years of adding and removing rules to reach a workable set that I am happy with. Even so, the urge to continue tinkering is still overwhelming at times.
Regards, Chris.
Good to hear from you Chris and thanks for weighing in on the topic.
DeleteBy nature, I think, wargamers are tinkerers. Rules' writing is no different. Early this morning I awoke with a rules' tweak to (hopefully) enhance my latest work in progress!
A splendid couple of posts here Jonathan with very thought provoking replies I have enjoyed reading. I have no experience of playing WWII board games so I am not sure how to contribute has to how "realistically" they reflect the war. On the table top I am a Platoon commander or Battlegroup commander so higher level circumstances which may effect the troops and supply and support I have will already be in effect. In short as long as the rules reasonably reflect the weapons, troop morale and reward real life tactics and do not glare with what I have read or listened to over the last forty odd I am happy.
ReplyDeleteThank you, Phil! Encouraging to see that you enjoyed both post and discussion. The discussion has been quite interesting.
DeleteWell I guess my comment on your last post was unnecessary.
ReplyDeleteInteresting sounding presentation, though I feel it seemed almost unneeded. (?) History is written and concrete for the most part. It gets re-written from time to time, but the realities/details/moralities/etc are there, recorded and accepted. They can get modified as more evidence comes to light as years go by, but one can pick up a book(s) and educate themselves.
Games aren't strict recreations of historical events in my mind. The realities of war in general are awful, from the amount of carnage involved to atrocities that are commited to the plights of innocents not even involved in combat or partisan-activities. Do we "really" need to recreate these details or allow them to "add" to our gaming experiences?
I don't know the answer. I like a clinical gaming experience where the only casualties are plastic, resin or metal soldiers. I have plenty of stories from my grandparents of war, of the Germans, of the horrid things humans will do to eachother and those were real. A game to me is for entertainment first and foremost.
And now my break here at work is over, though I suspect I've waffled on too much already so this is a good spot to stop.
Our wargames are sanitized, no doubt. Without that filter, I am not sure we would even enjoy armchair generaling any longer. Abstraction and filtration are OK in a game. Like you, a game should provide an entertaining diversion and a chance at learning something.
DeleteThanks for your feedback, Dai. Much appreciated!