Slitherine

It is about the experience ratings - "poor", "average", "superior" and "elite". How are you using these?

When I make a scenario, what I usually do first is go on the internet and find out as much "hard" information that I can about the battle (terrain, troop-types, leaders etc) and put them in my notebook. Then when I construct the scenario I have to use varying amounts of my "historical imagination" to fill in the gaps. But with the experience ratings I tend to use them more as relative values rather than as absolute values (as the DAG does).

So, for example, at the battle of Pinkie Cleuch, the Highlanders were routed very quickly by fire from English warships, so I have rated them as "poor" (apart from the leader unit). Similarly, the English cavalry and German mercenary handgunners played a decisive roll in the battle so they have all been rated either "superior" or "elite". The intention being that hopefully players will consider using these units in a historical way (e.g. the English cavalry charged the Scottish pike columns repeatedly and brought them to a standstill) and thereby re-create some of the aspects of the battle that they are playing.

Of course, what this does mean that units may have different ratings in different battles that might seem anomalous e.g. the highlanders at Flodden 1513 are rated as "average" - but this is because they were a lot more effective in this battle, whereas the handgunners were of much more marginal significance.

Is this what you do? Or do you have a different approach? I would be interested to hear from you.

This is a difficult one.

Could we start off by considering that any full-time 'professional' troops would be 'average'? or perhaps on second thoughts they should be 'superior'?

Then non full-time soldiers would mostly be 'average'.

This would leave reluctant conscripts and other riff-raff to be 'poor' and really good troops would then be considered 'elite'

Are we thinking that this is mostly a morale ranking? If so, then troops in a desperate situation could be promoted at least one step ... (I'm thinking here of Spartacus' army of escaped slaves where losing meant crucifixion ... I think something like this might certainly focus the mind on not giving up easily!)

maximvs wrote: Could we start off by considering that any full-time 'professional' troops would be 'average'? or perhaps on second thoughts they should be 'superior'? Then non full-time soldiers would mostly be 'average'. This would leave reluctant conscripts and other riff-raff to be 'poor' and really good troops would then be considered 'elite'

This is what the DAG does and it rates regular soldiers as "average" and levies as "poor" etc, which is fine for DAG battles. I have no problem at all with this.

Are we thinking that this is mostly a morale ranking? If so, then troops in a desperate situation could be promoted at least one step ... (I'm thinking here of Spartacus' army of escaped slaves where losing meant crucifixion ... I think something like this might certainly focus the mind on not giving up easily!)

No, I don't think of it like that. More that I think of it as a "historical ranking". To give an example from a scenario I am working on right now - Ancrum Moor 1545 - the English vanguard have all been rated "poor" and "undrilled" (apart from the leader). This is despite the fact that they were in very good spirits because they thought that they were chasing the Scots off the battlefield. However, they blundered into a trap and were ambushed by well-prepared Scottish troops. In addition, the English were badly winded and their formation was disordered when the trap was sprung, so to create the relative imbalance between the two forces at that point I have made all the Scots pikes average and their Fife lancers "elite" (they are described as such in the historical sources too). I have done just one play-test (against myself) and the battle unfolded unerringly like the descriptions I have been reading.

i would say, don't try to force history in the games at all costs, the outcome of battles should be decided more by the players' tactical skill and, well, the damned dice

omarquatar wrote:i would say, don't try to force history in the games at all costs, the outcome of battles should be decided more by the players' tactical skill and, well, the damned dice

Yes, I agree. First and foremost it has to be a good wargame - but I do like to get as much history in as possible that is compatible with the primary objective. In this way players can attempt both historical strategies and their own innovations.

stockwellpete wrote: but I do like to get as much history in as possible that is compatible with the primary objective. In this way players can attempt both historical strategies and their own innovations.

of course. what i meant is like this:
don't try to repeat waterloo making french infantry poor and british cavalry elite, give them the proper value and let the players make their own blunders.

omarquatar wrote:

stockwellpete wrote: but I do like to get as much history in as possible that is compatible with the primary objective. In this way players can attempt both historical strategies and their own innovations.

of course. what i meant is like this:
don't try to repeat waterloo making french infantry poor and british cavalry elite, give them the proper value and let the players make their own blunders.

I agree with this.

omarquatar wrote:

stockwellpete wrote: but I do like to get as much history in as possible that is compatible with the primary objective. In this way players can attempt both historical strategies and their own innovations.

of course. what i meant is like this:
don't try to repeat waterloo making french infantry poor and british cavalry elite, give them the proper value and let the players make their own blunders.

So you would disagree with what I am attempting to do with the English at Ancrum Moor 1545, or what I have done with the highlanders and English cavalry at Pinkie Cleuch? If so, that is OK, of course - it is just that we have different approaches to making scenarios.

stockwellpete wrote:

omarquatar wrote:

stockwellpete wrote: but I do like to get as much history in as possible that is compatible with the primary objective. In this way players can attempt both historical strategies and their own innovations.

of course. what i meant is like this:
don't try to repeat waterloo making french infantry poor and british cavalry elite, give them the proper value and let the players make their own blunders.

So you would disagree with what I am attempting to do with the English at Ancrum Moor 1545, or what I have done with the highlanders and English cavalry at Pinkie Cleuch? If so, that is OK, of course - it is just that we have different approaches to making scenarios.

true, but you can still change your mind ...
but we can discuss it better after our paired game of Pinkie

omarquatar wrote: true, but you can still change your mind ...
but we can discuss it better after our paired game of Pinkie

Well, I understand your point of view entirely and your approach may well be better than mine. I have had play-testers say to me that they enjoy my scenarios because there is a lot of history in them but sometimes it is tricky to know when you have started to "force" history into a game. I have made some further changes to Pinkie along the lines that you have suggested and I will do further play-tests this week.