This blog highlights the importance of good maps, the rationale for “less gaming and more war” in miniature wargaming, and the key considerations in planning visits to the battlefields.
Reading and Map Study
Historic and contemporary maps are essential references to studying military history, setting up a properly scaled miniature battlefields, and following or designing battlefield visits.
Map scale refers to the ratio between distance on a map and the corresponding distance on the ground. For example on a 1:100,000 scale map, one centimeter on the map conveniently equals one kilometer on the ground.
The smaller the map scale, the more detail it provides. The larger the map scale, the less detail it provides. I’ve found that 1:25,000 scale maps lend themselves best for my wargaming and for planning battlefield visits. This also was a common scale for battlefield commanders in the ETO. At this scale, individual buildings and other structures are included, as are contours, hedgerows, wooded areas and often the smallest waterways that might have a tactical impact.
Finding period maps from the ETO are a challenge, although those in the previously described US Army Green Books provide sufficient detail for gaming at one inch equaling 100 yards. The contemporary French Institute Geographic National (IGN) Carte de Randonnée (Hiking Map) 1:25,000 (www.ign.fr) covers all of the French battlefields. Nearly as detailed is the contemporary German Kompass Wandern-Fahrradfahren (walking/cycling) 1:50,000 (one cm = 500 meters) map series. Number 757 in this series alone covers the entire Aachen to Düren areas including all of the Hürtgen Forest and the northern shoulder of the German breakthrough in the Ardennes.
The disadvantage of the IGN series is that many maps may be needed to cover a particular area of interest, and often replicates the frustration frequently encountered by commanders throughout history that battles invariably occur at the intersection of four different map sheets. The best example of this is the IGN map coverage fighting around Saint-Lô in Normandy.
An easily obtainable source of battlefield maps is the Osprey series of books on battles and campaigns. Unfortunately, unlike the fold-out maps of the Army Green Books, one often has to flatten an Osprey book to the breaking point to see all the details.
Miniature Wargaming
Blog 1 discussed why most competitive wargaming is not particularly helpful to studying military operations as the opponents have a continuous, bird’s eye view of the battlefield that enables them to unrealistically respond to the enemy’s moves.
It is also my opinion that, in competitive wargaming, players think of their troops more like chess pieces or checkers rather than coherent units with clear chains of command and assigned missions, tasks, and objectives with fixed operational sectors that can’t be rapidly changed. The players act as if all troops everywhere are reliably and continuously connected and their maneuver and fire can be coordinated without any special effort. Even on today’s battlefields with much more improved situational awareness and means for command and control, such an ideal situation will not always be the case.
Ignoring in wargaming such things as unit missions and tasks boundaries, attached and detached sub-units, priority for road usage and bridges, assembly areas and lines of departure, etc. runs contrary to military science. In short, competitive wargaming virtually ignores the critical functions of commanders and their staffs regarding planning, issuing orders, and staging forces. My rules set incorporates these command and control elements, without making them too burdensome. I address most of these in “Commander’s Briefings” that I type up and maintain in a “battle log” for each side. This log is the means by which I keep track of such things as mission and objectives, task organization, unit zones and sectors, assignment of artillery fires, any other things that commanders (and their staffs) may change over time due to success or surprises on the battlefield. Yes, doing this slows down the pace of play, which is not necessarily a bad thing as it makes one think more like a commander, ops officer, or intel officer. More on this in later blogs!
Battlefield Visits
If you’ve visited battlefields of any era, you probably have an informal working plan to undertaking such visits. If you’re new to visiting the battlefields of the ETO, more preparation can prove very beneficial. Listed here are some general considerations for planning and making battlefield visits that deserve more time later. In particular, these planning considerations can greatly assist a first time visitor to the battlefields of the ETO.
* Time Available — How many days are actually available to spend on the battlefields? How much can be seen in a day?
* Which Battlefields — What are your priorities? Given your available time, how large an area can you visit?
* A One Time Experience or the Start of a Journey — If the latter, think through the best chronological order of seeing the battlefields. My first visit to Normandy was expected to be my only visit there. I’ve now been there eight times. My first visit of six days provided a good overview that guided the order and structure of later visits. On the other hand, I allowed myself to be distracted with several years’ visits to WWI battlefields. Although this was worthwhile in that it provides a better understanding of events and advances in technology leading up to WWII, unexpected health issues and then the arrival of covid set back our plans to visit the Ardennes and Alsatian campaigns. I’m not sure I will ever get to them. Which is okay given all that I have been able to see.
* Guided or Self-Guided Visits — Limited time and unfamiliarity with travel in Europe may make a guided tour (usually by bus) the better option. However, if you have an in-depth or a special interest to follow, renting or leasing a car is the better way to go. It is also possible to hire local guides for individual battlefields. Train travel is NOT a good way to visit WWII battlefields. There are several excellent self-guided battlefield tour series, but covid has largely precluded new and updated guidebooks. Nonetheless, even dated guidebooks can be helpful.
* Museums — There are countless WWII museums. Although some are quite good, few are unique. Consider whether your time is better spent on an actual battlefield or inside a museum, particularly one that offers nothing different from what you can see here at home at your leisure.
* The Interest of Others Traveling with You — Margot and I have used the WWII battlefields as the route for exploring all periods of history, not simply the Second World War. We view travel as the best way to “connect the dots of history.” Alternating days on the battlefield with other historical sites — a château, a medieval festival, the home of an author or painter, a cathedral, a museum, etc. provide a balanced travel experience. As Margot likes to say, “Paris is always a good idea.” (And Paris is also a WWII battlefield!)
* Changes in Battlefield Appearance since 1945 — Before you leave, be sure to do an “urbanization” assessment. Google maps provides a quick, scalable aerial photo overview. Some battlefields are completely built over, especially in the Netherlands (e.g., Eindhoven today is a megacity); the battlefield north of Aachen to Geilenkirchen is completely built over. Open pit coal mining has eliminated much of the battlefield north of Aachen and east of the Roer. Normandy and Lorraine are the best bets for the least change since 1945. But even so…the site where Easy Company of the 506th Parachute Infantry withstood 17. SS Panzer Grenadier Division and Fallschirmjäger Regiment 6 is now a suburban housing tract.
* Timing of Visits — Unless you have connections, visiting Normandy on or near D-Day can be disappointing as tight security, road closures, and crowds limit lodging, local travel, and access to sites. The same is true for the anniversaries of many other WWII battles. It may be better to visit these at another time.
Please make short comments below. To begin a discussion among other viewers, please go to Forum at the top of the page.
While I can’t speak for the current state of table top “boxed” wargaming, I do have familiarity with tabletop miniatures wargaming. In the circles I frequent, wargamers fall into two categories a) hobbyists, and b) competitive gamers. For hobbyists, it’s about collecting, painting, and fielding models, usually in that order. They gravitate to genres that pique their hobbying interests, more often based on what models look like than how they perform on the tabletop battlefield. They’re typically invested in multiple game systems within their favored genre. When it comes to actual play, they can be all over the spectrum, but again, in my experience, they’re at the table to see their models in action, and so the accuracy of rules is inconsequential. In fact, more often than not they’ll gravitate to rules which emphasize speed of play over authenticity. Nothing wrong with any of that.
Competitive gamers, on the other hand, gravitate to games they enjoy, but also games they can win, and often win = dominate. They select models (units) based on how effective they are, always aspiring to field the most powerful combination of units. When it comes to rules, they need to be coherent, easily consumed, but most importantly providing them with a platform to win. Historically accurate rules reduce the chances of dominating on the field.
Some gamers can be both. And of course there are gamers who aspire to the reenactment end of the spectrum. I don’t frequent those circles, and my one experience at GameHoleCon a few years back being roughed up by a “game designer” who’s unyielding commitment to the reenactment of his civil war battle rules sucked every last ounce of joy out of the experience, has me hesitant to insert myself into the local population. I don’t enjoy games whose design lends to absurd armies and combat scenarios, but neither do I long to play games where the intent is to either confirm the historical outcome or perhaps discover how a tactical change here or there could have changed the outcome. I’m there to have fun and be challenged. Oh, and show of my models.
All that to say that I believe the most popular game sets out there strive to meet the needs of hobbyists and competitive gamers because that’s where the money is. I don’t know if meeting the needs of historical gamers who desire more accuracy in how armies are controlled, is seen as being a profitable avenue to pursue.
Great insights and comments on the miniature wargaming hobby. In the early ’90s there was some concern that computer games would hurt the hobby. Instead, it’s thriving with a dedicated following, an expansive range of figures and models, and a lot of great rules sets. The core strengths of the hobby are the modeling aspect of it and the fun of competition in that and on the “battlefield.” I’m more of a history buff (with no talent for modeling and panting) and am fascinated by how the armies of the period were organized, led, and operated. I backed into miniature gaming as a means to somewhat different ends. How I game and what I get from doing so isn’t going to appeal to most gamers. It’s the analytical study of the 1944-45 period that drove me to gaming in a very different manner — the how’s and why’s of how the battles were fought and considering alternative decisions. Maybe it’s also a Walter Mitty-like wish to have been an S-3/G-3 Operations Officer in 1944. Anyway, it’s how I get my fun out of the hobby. Thanks for sharing your thoughts!