tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5185876513552272723.post8064779588553999260..comments2024-03-28T03:10:23.679-07:00Comments on Polemarch: The Problem of GeniusThe Polemarchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10958736917525649927noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5185876513552272723.post-73329176009186584492014-09-30T00:40:00.943-07:002014-09-30T00:40:00.943-07:00I spend a fair bit of time sorting out campaigns. ...I spend a fair bit of time sorting out campaigns. it doesn't seem wasted, until I start pushing toy soldiers around. And being a solo player, of course, is constantly being an umpire....The Polemarchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10958736917525649927noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5185876513552272723.post-26163714125295446532014-09-29T07:27:59.693-07:002014-09-29T07:27:59.693-07:00Aye, it gets further and further away from playing...Aye, it gets further and further away from playing with toy soldiers too, which drew many of us in to the hobby in the first place.<br /><br />I too would be up for umpiring - in my case I think it's down to a character flaw.nundankethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12895608927860103442noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5185876513552272723.post-81158108298335102862014-09-29T06:29:36.667-07:002014-09-29T06:29:36.667-07:00Aye, well, the essence of military genius is far b...Aye, well, the essence of military genius is far beyond us, even if such a thing exists. But I suppose we want rules which are flexible enough to allow the unorthodox while punishing the really silly.<br /><br />Cromwell, for example, is credited as being a bit of a (late starting) military genius. How do we accommodate his political and military nous on the battleifeld; in fact, is it something we want to recreate? Cromwell, I suspect, was a fairly unnerving person to be that close to in battle, but he usually led his men very well. <br /><br />Was he a genius? Well, he won a lot of battles, sometimes by his own decisive action. Does he need special rules? That is really not clear to me, and he is perhaps less of an obvious military genius than some. <br /><br />But I'm waffling now. Thank you all for the thoughtsThe Polemarchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10958736917525649927noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5185876513552272723.post-43381065640549036342014-09-29T06:24:14.833-07:002014-09-29T06:24:14.833-07:00Hm. Training and generalship? I do wonder how much...Hm. Training and generalship? I do wonder how much Alexander in particular benefited from simply having experienced troops who didn't run away at the slightest provocation. <br /><br />I'm not sure about whether these military geniuses (genei?) did actually change the rules, or simply exploited them more extremely than others. The English / welsh longbow was a bit of a shock to continental armies in the 1340's, but should it have been? Was Edward III a genius, an able exploiter of an underused weapon system, of just lucky in meeting inept opponents? And how could we tell?<br /><br />i suppose part of the problem, as Nundanket suggests, is that if a set of rules allows you to do something like Marlbrough at Ramillies, then everyone will do it and it is no longer a move of genius, just routine. But at the time it was unexpected.<br /><br />So I agree, but I'm not sure how the rules can be made to fit the bill (being too young to remember WRG 3rd ed :)).The Polemarchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10958736917525649927noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5185876513552272723.post-88134684101580905712014-09-29T06:16:46.283-07:002014-09-29T06:16:46.283-07:00I think that the problem with blind game, differen...I think that the problem with blind game, different rooms, umpires and all is the set up time and the feeling that we could be playing a wargame. I guess it is where gaming and simulation grind against each other.<br /><br />Me? I like the idea and would certainly umpire, but then I'm as bit odd...<br /><br />I suppose the problem with blanks and so on is that they can start to look like cheating, and anyway, if I were facing Napoleon, 'd do something else. I fear he problem might simply be an ever receding one.The Polemarchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10958736917525649927noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5185876513552272723.post-84067075001217129642014-09-29T03:11:34.471-07:002014-09-29T03:11:34.471-07:00Another very interesting post! Thanks for this! ...Another very interesting post! Thanks for this! I think that you are absolutely correct in deciding not to attempt to create a rule, or rules-system feature to legislate for "genius". I agree that there have been, through history, commanders who repeatedly trounce opponents. Yet the essence of these repeated victories seems far more elusive than something you can just distil to a single rule or set of rules to address those circumstances. For me, one which seems to amount for the success of many of the Great Captains is the ability to obtain information and act on it faster and in a more sure-handed manner than the enemy in the field. Is that genius? I have no idea - but it was always difficult to overcome a Marlborough, Turenne, Frederick the Great or Napoleon acting in such a manner.<br /><br />When it comes to reducing that to the tabletop, I think its possible to grasp towards a simulation of those features. Dummy "blinds" for an able or exceptional commander is one way. "Koenig Krieg" had an extreme example of this, which worked rather well in the deployment phase, allowing a Prussian player to field up to almost a dozen dummy units on the table. A pre-game off-map deployment phase, when one side has very limited intelligence and the other had significantly more, is another. Hampering one side with slow moving baggage, which the other force marches with speed and sureness is yet another. All ideas to spread fun and havoc no any wargames table or club night game!<br /><br />We can't recreate genius (if it ever existed), but we can conjure up the magical spell that some commanders cast on the battlefield. Great post, Polemarch - I really enjoyed it!<br />Sidney Roundwoodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14795563060856586670noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5185876513552272723.post-41428461575482367602014-09-27T09:26:38.013-07:002014-09-27T09:26:38.013-07:00I agree with much of the post but not the conclusi...I agree with much of the post but not the conclusion apart from the bit about not being able to elevate ordinary players into geniuses.<br /><br />One thing many people forget about most military geniuses is that in addition to their innate abilities, they usually have done a lot of study and know their business.<br /><br />In general these geniuses do not change the rules, they just change their choices. Look at Epimondes or Alexander, the armies they led to such stunning and unconventional victories using unorthadox tactics were not newly raised armies full of troops trained in new methods, they were armies inherited and used as is. <br /><br />This is one advantage of rules like the old wrg 3rd edition (laying aside various faults for now). They laid out what various troops were capable of foing and then gave uou a free hand. Using a representative army in the historically appropriate fashion tended to get the best from it but every now and then a player would come around and seem to be able to predict what an opponent would do and how he would react to a certain move and be able to use that to destroy him.<br /><br />Rules that lay out not only what troops can do but which also impose a mefiocre "typical" layout or plan do take away the possibility of genius while still allowing for lucky.Ross Mac rmacfa@gmail.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04053555991679802013noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5185876513552272723.post-36784975301371873242014-09-27T03:18:46.332-07:002014-09-27T03:18:46.332-07:00Interesting article. That opening description is ...Interesting article. That opening description is reminds me of the 18th century concept of coup d'oeuil (only writ large)l.<br /><br />If we could somehow lose the helicopter view during wargames, I think it might be possible to construct a rule for that kind of genius. I suspect that this is one of those areas where miniature figures get in the way of a "good simulation". It probably wouldn't be possible in a traditional 1-2-1 game without some form of technological aid (beyond my feeble experiments with Excel!) or umpires Rather like those old military war-games where the protagonists are in separate rooms and fed information by the umpire. <br /><br />The umpire/computer could give "Napoleon" better quality information in any given situation and misinformation to his opponent. Some games use "blanks" to represent formations until they get into closer range, and Napoleon/Alexander etc get to use some decoy blanks too.<br /><br />You could also give bonuses when it comes to grand tactical manoeuvres - on the basis that the genius has a better judgement of time and space and therefore how to move thousands of men without it leading to traffic jams and chaos. The same sort of benefit could also be given to armies which might be short on geniuses but have more training on moving large formations (Old Fritz at Leuthen for example).<br /><br />But I agree, you can't legislate for the blinding flash of inspiration that leads to a brilliant manoeuvre.<br /><br />Having said all that, isn't part of the wargamer's make up is wanting to see what they would have done in Napoleon's shoes?<br /><br />nundankethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12895608927860103442noreply@blogger.com