Why play a whole big battle at all?

[ChrisBBB]

In recent years, small skirmish games have come very much into vogue. A level up from that, brigade- or division-sized games are popular. Plenty of us are happy to push a dozen battalions around. By contrast, recreations of substantial historical battles are relatively rare, and the seriously big ones like Bautzen, Leipzig or Dresden seem virtually never to get tackled.

It's understandable, because big battles take more effort to prepare and longer to play than a simple "fight for the wagon" skirmish or "capture the bridge" brigade punch-up. I think it's worth the effort, though (and it doesn't have to be an inordinate effort, either). Some recent conversations have prompted me to try to make the case in my latest "Reflections on Wargaming" essay, "Why play a whole big battle at all?", on the BBBBlog here:
https://bloodybigbattles.blogspot.com/2024/08/why-play-whole-big-battle-at-all.html

I hope readers will find it enjoyable and thought-provoking. Maybe I'll even encourage some to dip a toe in the big-battle water! Comments welcome, as always.

[jon_1066]

The main difference between a big battle and a part of one are the musket ranges.  In a big battle you command divisions, a part and its battalions or even companies.

For any game you ideally need 5-20 units, that doesn’t change with the scale it is a constraint of what a player can sensibly manage to interact with in a reasonable time frame.  Call them battalions and you are fighting with a brigade per side, call them divisions and you each have an army.

So it just comes down to weapon ranges really and what you are shooting with. 

In terms of why play a big battle - personally I prefer to fight the whole rather than a part because I like the big picture.  Chaps on maps gets a lot of stick these days but for gaming you can’t beat it.  Skirmish games are the equivalent of the first person memoir but it only gives that small slice.

[Harry Faversham]

"Why play a whole big battle at all?"
Simple innit, because you can!
 

[AKULA]

"Why play a whole big battle at all?"
Simple innit, because you can!
 

This.

[SteveBurt]

It's not just the ranges which make it a big battle; command and control at the army level is much more ponderous than at the divisional level

[Aethelflaeda was framed]

Didn’t we just have this conversation or are my meds off again?

[Pattus Magnus]

I don’t think your meds need adjusting, topics along these lines have popped up frequently for as long as I have been wargaming.

The points about ranges and command resonate with me. They’re a big part of why I haven’t enjoyed “bathtubbed” scenarios using rules designed for tactical levels to represent full battles- you can get the troop type proportions right, but the game doesn’t “feel” right to me.

[vtsaogames]

I think you can "bathtub" maybe 2 or 3 levels up, as in your battalion represents two actual or so. The further up you go the stranger it gets, as in "My Third Army takes cover behind Paris from your Seventh Army's machinegun".

[Pattus Magnus]

 

Yeah, taking to extremes adaptation of rules designed for lower command levels to depict full battles becomes ridiculous!

I meant to add in my earlier post, because I find that bathtubbing doesn’t fit well for me, I prefer games that are designed to represent a specific command level and make suitable abstractions to keep the game flowing.

[jon_1066]

It's not just the ranges which make it a big battle; command and control at the army level is much more ponderous than at the divisional level

Interesting point.  I guess that comes down to what the designer puts in for c&c.  Blucher is a good example if a big battle game with an interesting activation mechanic.  BBB uses a 2D6 activation roll for each unit which is a common mechanic in games set at many different command levels.

[vtsaogames]

Interesting point.  I guess that comes down to what the designer puts in for c&c.  Blucher is a good example if a big battle game with an interesting activation mechanic.  BBB uses a 2D6 activation roll for each unit which is a common mechanic in games set at many different command levels.

BBB has the additional C&C feature of passive & fragile attributes to hinder sluggish armies. Where many other rules represent all generals, BBB uses generals to represent skilled ones or to show that any army has better staff work. The Imperial French in 1870 are passive, and the Prussians have lots of generals to help them activate.

One big difference between Pips and 2D6 is with Pips or similar you can be assured that your most critical force activates. With 2D6 you can goose the modifiers but nothing is certain.

[Dice Roller]

Why play a whole big battle?
To paraphrase the words of that renowned philosopher, Billy Piper, 'because I want to.'

It's my free time, it's my toy soldiers, and I'll damn well do whatever I'm in the mood for - big battle or small skirmish. I think some people over-think their hobby just for the sake of finding something to write about on a blog.

[Aethelflaeda was framed]

The main difference between a big battle and a part of one are the musket ranges.  In a big battle you command divisions, a part and its battalions or even companies.

For any game you ideally need 5-20 units, that doesn’t change with the scale it is a constraint of what a player can sensibly manage to interact with in a reasonable time frame.  Call them battalions and you are fighting with a brigade per side, call them divisions and you each have an army.

So it just comes down to weapon ranges really and what you are shooting with. 

This. add command control friction and differences as noted elsewhere and the tactical puzzle is quite different in character to that of a divisional battle or squad level skirmish.

[dadlamassu]

I play big games often; sometimes as part of a campaign, sometimes to get almost forgotten figures on the table, sometimes just because I can.

But always because of the fun of playing the game.

[jon_1066]

… I think some people over-think their hobby just for the sake of finding something to write about on a blog.

That’s not adding much to the discussion is it?  Some people like exploring various aspects of wargaming.  A big battle does/should play differently to a small engagement.  How does it play differently?  How have rules writers tried to incorporate those differences?  Does C&C reflect the scale of the game?  People might prefer it or not like the greater abstractions required.  Why not bath tub it?

Also Chris has written a set of big battle rules.  It’s not unreasonable for him to promote interest in them by sparking discussion around the idea.