Somebody at the USMC has been asking this question (see below, someone thinks there is a certain merit playing the same battle many different ways):
https://www.usmcu.edu/Outreach/Marine-Corps-University-Press/MCU-Journal/JAMS-Vol-12-No-2/Wargaming-and-the-Military-Napoleon-at-Waterloo-The-Events-of-June-1815-Analyzed-via-Historical-Simulation/
5 comments:
There is a value in repetition if you are trying to assess the odds of success in a particular situation. Including computer and boardgames as well as figures, I've probably done Waterloo as many times as I've done Market Garden. Well in excess of a dozen. I reckon Napoleon was a bit pessimistic when he said his chance of a win was 60%, unless you really stack the scenario against the French.
I've played Waterloo at least twenty times in various formats - including toy soldier games in four scales!
Interesting article on the battle and the game. I will
need to revisit to finish.
I have to confess that Waterloo has had the "multiple wargame experience" over the decades and I too would have to accept that unless "fettered" the French have a distinct advantage. Arnhem is another WWII epic, as is Stalingrad - the ACW well been plundered with Gettysburg. Several of the stand up hoplite battles (Marathon, Delium, Leuctra, Platea) also qualify .. though I meant to but have not yet moved onto teh Alexandrian and Successor - and Roman periods. In principle I think you are onlu just learning by playing it only once. Sink teh Bismarck .. Midway are tantalising trying to create a win!
Have to confess that as "boardgames" go Barbarossa gets started (but seldom finished) quite often!
Post a Comment