The other week I had the good fortune and great pleasure to take part in another of Jon Freitag's excellent on-line games, being a second go at Ilipa 206BC - as reported brilliantly by Jon on his Palouse Wargaming Journal blog. It was a thoroughly enjoyable game, of course, but it will stay in my memory particularly, becuase I contrived to have pretty much the most successful winning streak I've ever experienced in a wargame!
I was commanding the Roman left wing, with Tony 'MS Foy' as C-in-C ( Scipio ) against the Carthaginians Chris 'Nundanket' and Dave 'St Cyr', and the Roman deployment (which reflected historical reality ) was unusual in that the heavy Legionary infantry was deployed on the wings, leaving the centre deliberately weak - which centre faced the scary-looking Carthaginian heavy spearmen. Scipio's tactic had been to overwhelm the Carthaginian flanks and thus surround and crush their centre, while his own centre held their opposite numbers' attention. But we were not convinced that the thin Roman centre was up to the job, and we had good evidence for that, since in our previous essay at the same game, playing the Carthaginians, we had won by smashing the Roman centre! It looked a bit of tough scenario for the Romans, and Tony and I had been uncertain how to proceed. We had come up with a compromise 'half and half' plan whereby his right wing would swing in towards the centre, while I tried to push forward on the left wing. It was working, in a way, as Chris' centre was being drawn towards Tony's men on our right - I think partly because my wing was a bit slow to get moving forward! At which point Chris tried a charge at my Legions with his Celtic warbands and Spanish Scutarii in the centre, only for a poor die roll to leave the charge stalled and one of the Spanish units too close to my Legionaries. Only one thing for it - Legionaries, charge! What happened next is aptly described by Jon Freitag as follows :
The force of the legion bearing down
upon the light infantry is too much. They turn and flee. Marcius
(David B) orders his legion to pursue. They oblige. The legionaries
plow into the adjacent warband. They, too, are overpowered and retire.
Bloodlusted by their success, David's Romans press on, catching the
retiring warband. The warband turns and flees. Still the Romans
advance. Is there no stopping them? Not yet! Next victim is a hapless
unit of skirmishers. They are easily overpowered and scatter. With
the Carthaginian Center hollowing out, David's Ever Victorious
Legionaries turn to strike the elephant from the rear. With escape
route blocked, the rampaging elephant is dispatched.
As you see, the Legionaries managed to break no less than four enemy units - and then my second Legionary unit chipped in and scattered a further unit, completing the destruction of the Carthaginian right wing. At the end of the turn, our opponents conceded defeat, judging that although their heavy forces in the centre were still intact, they were now vulnerable to a flank attack from my triumphant Legions while pinned by Tony's Legions to their front. Victory completed in a single move - amazing stuff! I was roundly congratulated, and very pleased with myself. But of course, it wasn't my skill as a commander 'wot won it' - it was all down to the dice.
Jon's adapted version of 'Basic Impetus' rules has a 'pursuit after combat' mechanism whereby the victor of a melee decides whether they want to pursue, and rolls a die to test whether the troops will actually pursue, and how far they will move. If they are able to contact the retreating enemy, or another enemy unit, then a further combat occurs, and if the pursuers win that combat and the enemy retreat again, then they have the option to pursue again, and so on. Obviously all this is decided by the dice, and my die-rolling was good - Jon tells me that the chance of that sequence of events was 6.25%, or one in 16. So indeed, quite a lucky streak!
Just for local colour, here are the dice I was using :
Nothing very special - the blue dice came from a 'Pocket Battles' game, appropriately enough Romans vs. Barbarians ( the lid of which makes a handy dice-rolling area) , the red die is of unknown provenance. We've all got a random collection of dice we have picked-up over the years, I'm, sure. I am the very opposite of a 'must have all the latest kit' guy..
It has set me thinking though, are we representing reality here? Or
just pure random chance? Well, I would like to suggest that the dice were representing not my tactical/leadership genius, but the grit and
determination of the little metal ( or plastic? ) legionaries on the
table, who in turn represent a historical 'Legion' of flesh-and-blood
warriors. In this case, they saw the enemy unit pull up in some
confusion a little to close to them, and were 'raring in to go' after
them. I happily ordered them to charge, and they did so with gusto and a
shower of Pila, and promptly routed the Scutarii, who fled - but not
fast enough. Their blood up, the legionaries pursued and did further
slaughter among the unfortunate Iberians. The Spanish unit
disintegrated, and the legionaries saw further easy targets, and kept on
charging, fighting - and winning. As a commander my only input was to
allow them their head, and not try to reign them in - in other words, keep rolling the dice. My thought was,
let's see how much chaos these guys can cause! And the fighting, winning and pursuing were decided (of course) not by my intelligence and decisiveness, but purely by the fall of the dice.
So in a way, what happened was simply a result of purely random die rolls, just pure chance. But I do like to think that the randomness does represent something, and I think that 'something' is pretty much all the stuff that is beyond the control of the commander. The general can give orders, but he can't determine how those orders will be executed ( or even 'if' they will ), and how the enemy will respond, and how his troops will respond to the enemy response, and that is where the dice come in. And somehow, on occasions the dice just seem to take charge, and deliver a result that no-one expected, but seems to have a sort of poetry of its own. I'm sure that on this occasion, the dice were telling us how the rank and file of that legion said to themselves 'let's go get 'em!', having decided that their commanders were being a bit too indecisive for their own good. I'm no expert on Roman military history, but I seem to remember that at this stage of the Republic, generals were in effect elected by the political leadership of Rome, and I tend to assume that as a result, those generals were not always necessarily the best soldiers. The guys in the ranks of the Legions presumably knew that, and sometimes maybe they would have thought 'this guy will get us all killed, unless we take things into our own hands,,,' So the result seems like it could be quite appropriate. Alternatively of course, and much more charitably for me, perhaps they thought 'that Marcius is a great guy, we'll go the extra mile for him!' But I think I know which of those two options it would have been...
I must of course add one more thing - the randomness comes from the dice, but the outcomes are decided by the rules, and they need to translate the dice scores into plausible effects. So I should give a lot of credit to Jon and the original 'BI' authors for their rules, which played a big part - not every pursuit goes on through four units, not every purusing unit has the stamina to keep going, and the probability of those outcomes depends on the rule-writers. I think they got it pretty much right in this case - but I would say that, wouldn't I? Not sure if Chris and Dave would agree!
Am I ovethinking? Probably! But all part of the fun. We are just playing a game, but I do always like to think, what's the story here, how does this line up with what might have happened in a real battle? That's what we wargamers are all about, isn't it?
And to finish, some more of the dice in my life. First is a pair of battered cheap plastic examples, which are all that remains of my copy of Waddingtons' board game 'Campaign' which would have been a birthday/Xmas gift c. 1974, I would guess. The game is long gone, but I have somehow hung on to these two little chaps ever since - pure sentimental value. I bet you've all got something similar..
And last but not least, these 'Percentage Dice' we would have called them, though now perhaps 'D10'. Acquired in the late 1970s when swept up in a craze, along with school/club friends, for WW2 aerial combat using Mike Spick's fantastic 'Air Battles in Miniature' book and rules. These have seen some action - massed dogfights of 'cut in half down the middle' 1/72 plastic models, with no historical accuracy whatsoever, quite possibly a Gloster Gladiator in the same mass brawl as a Messerschmidt Me 262! But oh dear, was it fun, spread over the floor of Rainham village hall.. I still have some of the aircraft, maybe they need to be given a go sometime - I have kept the book, too More recently, these dice have been used in Jon's on-line ACW games, so they are still coming in handy and adding new chapters to their story, after more than 40 years.
That's enough cod philosphy for now - but I think it is probably worthwhile thinking about this sort of stuff. 'What are we representing, here?' always seems a useful question. I'll leave you to ponder, or dismiss, that idea. Until next time, keep well, everyone.
A thought-provoking post David. Whilst I agree that sequence of dice rolls was a string of good luck, it wasn't just down to luck. First you had the decision on whether to charge or not. And then subsequent decisions to keep letting your lads follow up. You could have been cautious and decided against following up. There were also some decisions on which other unit to crash into next. All of that takes judgment.
ReplyDeleteI agree that this does model those occasions in a historical battle, when a unit makes a break through and follows-up rolling up a large part of the enemy line, whilst everything else seems to stand still. They're not stood still, but due to the confused nature of battle, the paucity of first-hand accounts (or in modern times the sheer proliferation of accounts) we don't often know what other units were doing at that time (beyond dealing with the chaps in front of them who mean them harm). The odds in the game make it rare enough to it not become implausible.
As for the 'overthinking'.....well isn't that part of what we like about this hobby? We could just go off and play chess or backgammon or Ludo with nice clear, settled rules. But we don't, because we want to do something a bit less abstract.
All the best,
Chris
PS, can you and Dave swap dice next time? 😉
Thanks Chris, glad you enjoyed that. Yes, I suppose I did have some input, but equally I only got to take subsequent decisions because the dice kept rolling in my favour. I like that idea of 'time standing still', I think that is very true. And yes indeed, the 'overthinking' is indeed a big part of the hobby for me!
Deletep.s. Dave's die-rolling was better, he smashed my cavalry in the same game! So I think he has beaten his jinx..
DeleteSome interesting points. In no particular order......
ReplyDeleteThe "storytelling" or rationalisation is just the natural human tendency to make something out of often disparate elements . The human brain is hardwired to see pictures in random shapes, and to a lesser extent, to create a narrative or explanation from a sequence of events.
I think *some* wargamers are more disposed to creating a story than others. For some, its a game, I won because I'm brilliant / a tactical genius / know the rules better is enough.
For others, the story's the thing; creating characters, imbuing lead or plastic soldiers with personalities and a backstory.
TBH it is possible to see wargames rules as no more than a narrative creation mechanism, although some take them more akin to a holy text....
I have played many rules, including one set that eradicated dice and chance! I've also played rules that minimised chance to a variable, but were fairly predictable and also some that were wildly unpredictable where each turn was a case of dealing with whatever chance had given you by way of options. Much depends on the rule designers views on friction and command and control, as well as how much control he wishes to give the player.
More predictable sets are a somewhat cerebral affair, approaching chess; where you know the better quality troops are almost certain to prevail and where you can predict how many moves it will take for them to reach or be in range of the enemy.
The other extreme will often save the player who has no real plan; they react move to move and can get lucky due to the dice. As it's a matter of choice, both extremes have their adherents.
Most seek a compromise; they reward a good plan but introduce enough random elements to ensure it is not 100% certain how far the units will move or how well they will fight.
Some perhaps overdo it; I can think of sets in the horse and musket era that introduce frequent "blunders" or undiscovered marshes in front of units, or sets where every unit can move in one turn but all but one unit mysteriously stop.
The random events need rationalising or explanation so lend themselves to a narrative; if every battle involves blunders or marshes it's hard to create different stories.....
Without any random events, the harder it is to make a story.
Dice create randomness and provide a focus for a game, blaming poor dice or the excitement of them rolling well. In the narrative, they need rationalising and translating in to real life battle events.
Without much random influence, the more mundane the narrative.
Romans; from my reading of the classics, the Roman armies from Republican to Late Imperial come across as a volatile unpredictable lot! Just read Caesar. The modern view is of a disciplined military machine, relentlessly stabbing and advancing against wild barbarians, but the ancients describe something much more unruly. A lot depends how you see ancient warfare; a neat set of lines or a swirling football mob style conflict.....
Neil
Thanks Neil for such a full response, I'm really glad to have stimulated a bit of thinking, and you make loads of interesting points. Yes I agree many of us look for 'stories' in seemingly random occurences, and that is certainly me - definitely not in the 'gamey' competitive group. Very interesting comments about various rule sets, especially those with no random elements at all. Chess is perhaps the original wargame, and of course has no random outcomes; I remember Terry Wise's Airfix guide to the ACW with rules where no dice were rolled for firing, and I have played some boardgames in the 'CoIn' series, where battles are decided without dice - I found this really unsatisfactory, as players simply knew they would automatically win if they simply assembled enough troops. Equally I find rules with large amounts of random events in the name of 'friction' to be really quite annoying! So indeed, a middle way seems right, and allows a degree of 'storytelling' to emerge.
DeleteFinally, good and interesting point about the Romans - I really need to put Caesar and Livy on my reading list! Thanks again for your excellent comments.
David, the philosophical thoughts you express here are very insightful and prompt even more thought. I guess many of us are "overthinkers"! For just as many, this is why we play the game.
ReplyDeleteAlong with your assessments, Chris and Neil bring up good points and insights as well, especially on creating a plausible and interesting narrative. Not sure there is much for me to add into this excellent discussion, but I offer up a few of my own thoughts.
As you all allude to, the game is far from an exercise in pure random chance. As General, you put your units into motion and choose combats. Your direction sets up either success or failure for your subordinates. No random chance there. You also make the decisions on whether or not to pursue. Again, this is another of the decisions YOU make as general.
Once you put the troops in motion with your desired intentions, it is their job to either carry them out successfully or fail in trying. These are decisions and outcomes below your level of command and control. As in a decision tree, each choice and outcome carry a probability of success or failure. The outcome is not pure random chance but a probability matrix of what is possible or likely with each interaction. These interactions of success or failure are what helps to build the combat narrative.
Do the dice take charge? In a sense they do but what they control is how we quantify and interpret what is happening down on the table below our direct supervision and direction. From our vantage point as generals, we cannot 'see' firsthand what transpires in tactical combat between opposing units. The dice provide that interpretation in the chaos of battle and drive the narrative.
Your multiple attacks and pursuits were poetry in motion, just as you state. The 6.25% probability of seeing four successful pursuits actually overstates the probability of success. Into this, one must also account for winning four combats in a row with enough remaining combat value to risk successfully pursuing after each one. That probability is much less than 6%.
Your cutting through the Carthaginian line was a thing of beauty and an impressive account for the annals. You did a great job!
Thank you Jon, that is a great analysis. I am certainly an 'overthinker' in that I do want to consider what we are representing in our games. I agree that the dice are representing the events which are 'below the level' of us players in our command roles, and I think that is a vital element in the game.
DeleteYour game was a fantastic experience for me, it won't be forgotten, and I was very aware of my good luck!
If you get a couple of good dice rolls strung together with Basic Impetus and risk it with the pursuits a lot of damage can be done. Well done on your victory.
ReplyDeleteThanks Peter, indeed it was amazing how much chaos those legionaries ( driven by the dice ) were able to cause! I think it is a strength of the 'BI' rules.
DeleteVery nice post - set me up for the morning! My own collection of dice, I admit it, has a lot to do with a rather unhealthy fascination with exotic dice and random number generators! Through a series of lessons learned by making mistakes, I have gradually simplified my tastes, so that I mostly choose to use fairly simple types now.
ReplyDeleteThere are a number of games which seem to use lots of different dice almost because they had to find a use for all the oddities they had collected! I do not dislike the games, but Piquet seems an extreme form of this; using multiple dice to solve fairly straightforward problems is just a little weird, isn't it?
Fictitious example:
Is it raining? Check a couple of tables - it's Thursday, and we are in the 23rd turn of the game. The tables tell us that we have to roll a D12 and a D8 and subtract one from the other. If the result is less than 3, it's raining. Don't you feel better for that?
Many thanks Tony, glad you enjoyed the post! I do tend towards simplicity with dice too, the good old D6 is usually good enough for me, and sometimes a D10 or two. Having said that, some rules have interesting ideas around different quality units rolling different dice, thus allowing better troops an advantage.
DeleteAn interesting sidelight that has occurred to me is that my mantra of 'what are we representing' was perhaps also the motivation behind all those over-complicated rules from the WRG and others in the past - so I need to be careful where this leads me! The real trick is surely to achieve 'authentic' outcomes with simple mechanisms..
Trust me to miss the game with the most excitement. Having seen you on the wrong end of a number of heroic but unlucky outcomes I was chuffed to hear about your dramatic reversal of fortune. Well done mate. As most have already commented it’s not all about the dice. Choosing when and where to let rip is also very important. I shall endeavour end up somewhere other than opposite you in any new online games, lol.
ReplyDeleteThanks JBM, I admit I was glad my luck had changed!
DeleteI don't expect a repeat in future games - I fully expect 'regression to the mean' to occur before very long...
I don’t know about missing the game with the most excitement. Remember the last turn/last dieroll victory on Little Round Top? That was pretty exciting too.
Delete