Seeing this meme reminded me that years ago in another century when I was a young senior captain, I traveled to a convention in Pennsylvania sponsored by HMGS East. One of the participation games was the Battle of Agincourt and it looked beautiful. The game was subtitled: Was the long bow that good? So I approached the game master with two friends to play on the side of the French.
Me: Those are great figures. We'll sign up to play the French and see if we can beat the English this time.
Game master: Great!
Me: We've got some ideas on the French attack and how they should be organized.
Game master: We are going to use the historical organization.
Me: Not a problem. Here is a sketch on how we are going to deploy and when we will launch our attacks.
Game master: You have to deploy just like the actual battle and attack with their units when they did.
Me: (Long Pause). Ummm . . . what are the objectives in this game for the French?
Game master: To beat the English.
Me: So we have to . . .
Game master: Charge the English.
Me: We can't use some of the alternative plans that were discussed at the council of war the night before?
Game master: Nope.
Me: Can we use some of the other historical tactics of the period?
Game master: Nope.
Me: Do we get points if we capture someone or not die as much?
Game master: Nope.
Me: (Paused as I looked at the cool figures ) So why play the French in this game?
Game master: Well . . . the purpose of the game is to show the superiority of the long bow.
Me: Didn't the dead French knights in the actual battle prove that?
Game master: That never really settled the argument.
Me: Uh . . .it didn't?
Game master: Some historians believed that if the French deployed differently they could have won.
Me: Exactly! Here is a sketch on how we are going to deploy and when we will launch our attacks.
Game master: Then the English might lose . . .
Anyway we played the game as designed. I charged with the flower of chivalry right up the middle and got massacred. Quickest participation game ever. I'm going to think about ideas about some ideas on designing historical scenarios to be "games" which gives each player a chance to "win."
This was the problem that I noticed the Don Featherstone ran into. He designed a lot of scenarios based on real battles. Like your 'game master' he tended to see them as somehow proving something, such as the superiority of the longbow, or of British musketry during the Napoleonic wars and suchlike. But in order to give the losing side some incentive for being there he'd suggest certain 'military possibilities', just as you did on the occasion you describe.
ReplyDeleteBut THEN he would put a caveat on the possible alternatives as being unhistorical, or not being the real action. I have always felt that he was in two minds about how the conundrum might be resolved.
Personally, I don't mind playing out scenarios in which 'my' side is designed to lose. But there has to be something positive to fight for, to keep the enemy honest. Who wants to be Aunt Sally?
I agree completely but we played anyway because both armies were beautiful. Whenever I do a "real" battle I do one of two things: put it a different historical period; or give the guys you know are going to lose an incentive to actually win the game, e.g. hold this for so long, get this unit off my such and such a turn, etc. But those figures were nice!
DeleteWith those constraints, why play the French (or game) at all?
ReplyDeleteJonathan,
DeleteIt was one of the funniest conversations I ever had with a gamer and my fellow Army Officers/Gamers were doing there best not to laugh. It was also the third real "Catch 22" I ran into in real life. Why play the game? The figures were beautiful, it looked great, we had fun and got slaughtered! The best part was when the Game Master said,"Well, I guess the French lose again."
We've played Agincourt a few times, I tend to set up a fairly historical deployment and let the French take it from there.
ReplyDeleteThe battles have been about 50:50, some reports on Scrivsland if you care to take a look.
It's also important to point out to both sides that the French did not have to attack at Agincourt. The English were weeks into a "short march across France" and the French were sitting in the way of their route to Calais. If the French could have kept their army together and blocked the English getting to Calais they would have likely mopped up the entire English army with much less bloodshed.
Paul,
DeleteI agree. When we have re-fought we did the same thing you did and it works out about 50/50. Good ole King Hal certainly put his army in a bad spot, but as Napoleon said, "I'd rather have lucky generals".
Neil
You are a better man than I. I would have respectfully declined to game and told the GM why.
ReplyDeleteI am a stickler for historically accurate games. However, if the scenario does not offer players options to change the outcome then there is no point or motive to the game.
Cheers, Rod
IronDuke596,
DeleteBut the figures looked so good! I was actually working on my dissertation at the time about Revolutionaries in Military affairs and one of my comparison was the adoption of the arquebus vs. the longbow. The longbow is the superior weapon but takes a lifetime of training; heck, I can teach anyone to shot safely in 2 to 3 hours. Anyway, still one of the funniest conversations I ever encountered and as 3 Army guys, we had a good time.
Neil
I recall a show participation game where I was given a command on a flank. After some time it became clear that my command could have absolutely no impact on the game; they were a separated by an unfordable stream from the rest of the action. Why, oh why, give a role like that to a player?
ReplyDeleteBecause somebody has too . . . I was in a similar role once. I was the reserve and there was no mechanism or situation to activate the reserve. Drank a lot of coffee though!
DeleteNeil
It seems like the game description should have stated that the players were only needed to roll dice and move figures, and that no decisions would be required.
ReplyDeleteNC1717,
DeleteI really think it was his first go at a participation game. The figures were beautiful but the design (other than the historical accuracy) was lacking.
Neil
Agree with most of the comments...when doing a historical game, you need to ensure an unlikely win ..such as the English at Agincourt or the British at Rorkes Drift ..... is possible...but a predetermined recreation of the result is not a very interesting event to participate in!
ReplyDelete