Suicidal Charges: Because Somebody has too . . .

[Dining Room Battles]

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 . . . One of the funniest conversations I have had as a gamer.

http://toysoldiersanddiningroombattles.blogspot.com/2020/12/because-somebody-has-too.html

[Harry Faversham]

Perfect example of why I avoid mixing with 'proper' wargamers at all costs...
that 'Game Master' ( ) sounds like a right tit.

[beefcake]

Lol, that was a good read.
I would have loved to have seen an alternative to the suicidal charge.

[syrinx0]

We have done historical reenactments at our gaming club just to see how the game mechanics might change certain events.  If it's obviously going to remain a crushing defeat (as expected) we might restart mid game with a few tweaks to the battlefield or tactics.  Of course these were not convention participation games.

[armchairgeneral]

I have re-enacted a lot of ACW and Napoleonic battles where we recreated the terrain and troops available as accurately as we could according to the information we had but we always deployed and fought the battle as we liked or what would have been the point?

Okay so if you do Waterloo the British usually lose but that just highlights what a great victory it actually was.

[N.C.S.E]

To me, this sort of thing highlights the need for an "operational" layer to be added to those kinds of games. We know how an historically accurate Agincourt goes when the actions starts post Henry V pulling up his stakes and marching forward and the French watching him do it and doing nothing.
We don't know, however, what an "Agincourt" that begins days or week earlier when Henry hasn't even crossed the Somme. The battle that follows that would be extremely different.
Personalities also seem critical here. My recollection is that half the French problems stemmed from no one in the French camp really knowing who was in charge - was it the Duke of Orleans or the Marshal of France or someone else? That sort of infighting would make things interesting, historically accurate and give French commanders the ability to do whatever they wanted - so long as they have to also operate under that sort of disorganisation.

Unfortunately, that sort of stuff is really tricky and if it isn't really good will probably ruin a game. I played a game recently where we spent hours doing a kriegspiel style march up to the point of contact, all for it to result in a thoroughly pedestrian battle where both sides deployed slightly apart and it really would've been easier to just have set deployment zones.
A lot of that stuff also comes under the heading of "unquantifiables" which a lot of us enthusiasts are quite allergic to!

[has.been]

Your story remind me of two events;-
1) (overheard) Umpire to very frustrated player, 'I know that is a stupid result,
     but that is what the rules say'.
2) Visitor to the club, I was then a member of, asked author of our home grown
    7YW rules, 'I know what I should do, but what should I do under your rules?'
    The Author replied, 'Do what you would have done historically. If my rules
    are any good you will get the expected result.'
    'What if I don't' The visitor asked.
    'Then my rules are wrong & I will rewrite them.'

[FramFramson]

You might say the Umpire only offered you a forlorn hope of changing the battle. 

... I'll get my coat...