PseudoQuasiSemiDemiHemiHistorical

[Eden Smallwood]

What does "Semi-Historical" mean? Meaning, what does it *really* mean? Probably too much to hope for, but possibly we have a CMBB Scenario Industry *standard* for what Semi-Hist' really means?

I mean, _The Titanic_ was a Semi-Hist' movie- the big boat sank.

I just played JagerMeister(sp?), and I'm perusing the 'S's at Combat Depot... I dunno, just wondering,

Eden

[The Oak]

I don't think there is any way to have a 100% accurate historical scenario. Historical records concerning OOB and unit strength are sketchy, and obtaining accurate tactical maps from the period is difficult. Therefore, many scenarios use an actual situation (time-place-involved units) as a starting point and fill in gaps in information.

[busboy]

Well, to use your example, the film Titanic is actually the most accurate rendition of the sinking of the Titanic yet filmed. It just happened to put a crappy love-story on top of an otherwise noteworthy event.

Titanic was historical fiction with a well done historical event in the background.

As to CM? Good question. I'd bet that some of them are cases of "There was this battle, with roughly these forces, in roughly this kind of terrain."

If only a written account of one or a few men survive, with no maps or force lists of a particular event, then such a CM battle made from such events would seem to me to be "semi-historical" based on the suppositions that would have to be taken to build the scenario.

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by The Oak:

I don't think there is any way to have a 100% accurate historical scenario. Historical records concerning OOB and unit strength are sketchy, and obtaining accurate tactical maps from the period is difficult. Therefore, many scenarios use an actual situation (time-place-involved units) as a starting point and fill in gaps in information.

Exactly

[Sergei]

And then, if you make a scenario of Russians seizing the fortress of Dr. Schinister, that would be fictional .

Not only that, but there also are hypothetical ones. For example: what if Red Army advanced to liberate Warsaw while the uprising was on? That could have happened, and we could simulate how it would have been. So, it's not exactly semi-historical, nor fictional, but in-between.

[Michael Dorosh]

I've always thought:

Historical - actual names of units, full order of battle for actual units involved, and map done from detailed drawings or actual period contour maps.

Semi-historical - map done from rough sketches, if available, but mostly fictional and based at best on descriptive texts. Units scaled down from the real thing, perhaps terrain or events (ie reinforcement arrival) compressed in areas also to make for a more interesting game.

Note that purely historical scenarios are impossible - for example there are no references to how many men were in each squad of any given rifle company anywhere in the literature available out there - even military after action reports do not go into that level of detail. There is simply no way for us to know how many men would be in a given set of rifle squads, and if there was, the CMBB editor doesn't let us take men away in anything but percentages.

[MikeyD]

A good number of the scenario makers for the CD were such sticklers for historical accuracy that they simply couldn't bring themselves to hang the "Historical" banner onto their work, despite the fact that they had done everything in their power to recreate a particular event using the references they had. You could say they had too much respect for the word 'history' to abuse it.

I may be recalling this wrong, but at the time of the final roundup of scenarios for the CD the designers were asked to drop 'semi-historical' from their descriptions, but the history fanatics in the group simply couldn't come up with an alternate phrase to use!

If someone wants to propose an alternate description regime for all the upcoming 3rd party scenarios it might just catch on.

[Atlas_TH]

Recently had this discussion over at the Scenario Dev. site. I am also one of those designers who can't hang the "historic" moniker on any of my "semi-historic" scenarios (BO or BB).

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=002090

-SPK

[Michael Emrys]

What's wrong with:

</font>

• Historical—A miniscule fraction. </font>
• Semi-Historical—They tried their best to document this. </font>
• Fictional—This can't be shown to have ever happened in exactly this way, but it effectively gives the flavor of what this kind of combat was like. </font>

Michael

[Atlas_TH]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

What's wrong with:

</font>

• Historical—A miniscule fraction. </font>
• Semi-Historical—They tried their best to document this. </font>
• Fictional—This can't be shown to have ever happened in exactly this way, but it effectively gives the flavor of what this kind of combat was like. </font>

Michael

Nothing. A fellow designer told me that a scenario is "Historical, if you base the map accurately, if the units are correct, and you have done the best you can, then it is historical," which I personally disagree.

It is impossible to base the map accurately with the tools CM:BB affords, know all the units down to each platoon, travel to the battle site to see the lay of the land (if it has not changed), get information on what the area looked like in the 1940s and include hundreds of different factors that influenced the battle.

But I do not fault those who see it differently. If they put hours and hours into gathering information, working the map and briefings, they have the right to call their scenarios more "historical" than "semi-historical."

I have made many scenarios, some more "historical" than others. Do we need a rating system so the players know the depth of the scenario's history?

Not sure. Hopefully, the "semi-historical" scenarios we create, based on recorded history (which may or may not be completely true, but that's another debate), will inspire others to read more on the East Front and make their own decisions.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

I've always thought:

Historical - actual names of units, full order of battle for actual units involved, and map done from detailed drawings or actual period contour maps.

[snips]

What scenarios are there that actually meet these rather demanding conditions? I don't think I've ever had a full order of battle for both sides in the detail needed by CM for any tactical battle of WW2. Villers-Bocage comes close, in that I've read the original war diaries of every unit involved on the British side, and have the orbat information form "Villers-Bocage Through the Lens", but even that doesn't give actual strengths on the day.

All the best,

John.

[rune]

Guys,

This was debated back under CMBO, it was debated under CMBB. The standard I posted is what BFC used for the scenarios on the CD. Some wanted it loosened up even more. Bottom line, by definition, the second a scenario starts it is no longer historical. So, if the map is as accurate as can be made with the scenario editor, if the units are the best you can find as an author, if you tried to make everything exact, then it is historical. The reason Semi-historical was removed, was almost all battles fit under this category. We needed the space in the briefing. Fictional is a made up/alternate history type thing. In my briefings, i post the references, and why a scenario is semi-historical [i could not get an accurate enough map, etc.] Since we have had the SAME standards since CMBO, please do NOT change them now. Feel free to call yours semi-historical if you want, but degrees of historical is going over-board. This is a game, enjoy it.

Rune

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by John D Salt:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

I've always thought:

Historical - actual names of units, full order of battle for actual units involved, and map done from detailed drawings or actual period contour maps.

[snips]

What scenarios are there that actually meet these rather demanding conditions? I don't think I've ever had a full order of battle for both sides in the detail needed by CM for any tactical battle of WW2. Villers-Bocage comes close, in that I've read the original war diaries of every unit involved on the British side, and have the orbat information form "Villers-Bocage Through the Lens", but even that doesn't give actual strengths on the day.

All the best,

John.</font>

[Eden Smallwood]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

What's wrong with:

</font>

• Historical—A miniscule fraction. </font>
• Semi-Historical—They tried their best to document this. </font>
• Fictional—This can't be shown to have ever happened in exactly this way, but it effectively gives the flavor of what this kind of combat was like. </font>

Michael

After reading this thread, I see one obvious thing wrong with it- "Fictional" is referring to two completely different types of scenarios. One is just a completely made up thing, someone threw together something in the editor willy nilly.

The other "fictional" is like the one someone mentioned about Warsaw- the "what if?" scenario. IOW, On the Third of June, Hitler had a tummy ache, and couldn't be bothered. But IF HE HADN'T EATEN THE WHOLE THING, THEN THIS BATTLE WOULD HAVE HAPPENED. It's like the "PeterJohn" one in TacOps, which supposes that if the weather HAD been bad, (or was it good?), this battle almost certainly would have occurred about like this...

To me, I imagine to you as well, this What If? type of scenario has alot more interest factor than something completely fictional. Why, of course it's *almost* historical, right?

Anyway. This has been two cents from Eden. Lastly, guys... I was just wondering what I was supposed to understand from "semi-hist". I certainly wasn't expecting, let alone demanding, an accurate amount of machine gun ammo in a scenario labeled semi-hist. I'm not even disrespecting _Titanic_; I'm glad it's accurate but I think you know what I meant. Please subsitute your least favorite "based on a true story" WWII film; I know there *is* one!

It seems to me that if we find playing historical or semi-historical scenarios in this game, then we perforce are also interested in what people mean when they label their scenarios that way. That's all.

Eden

[Eden Smallwood]

Oops. Sorry, Mr Emrys, but there is of course one more type of fictional, the one you describe, the "Typical". This was not a battle which specifically is known to have occurred, nor one which specifically could or would have occurred, but one which more than likely occurred generally speaking, with about these types of units, with generally this type of weather on this type of terrain during that part of the war... Typical!

OK, I'm done now

Eden

[Michael Dorosh]

I kind of like the increased number of categories - "Typical" is a natural, really. Well done! This would imply the use of only common equipment and unit types in particular terrain?

ie - King Tigers supporting SS infantry in the Ardennes would be a "typical" scenario if the rest of it was fictional - but, say, King Tigers supported Heer in marshy terrain would not be typical, if billed as a Northern Front scenario in Feb 45 and you knew that no King Tigers were actually employed on that front in large numbers?

[Michael Dorosh]

So how about this?

Historical – map drawn from actual contoured terrain map, order of battle actually researched (either just one side, or both) and are correct down to company level (ie the actual companies employed in the battle are used in the scenario, but may or may not accurately reflect the strength and exact composition of those companies)

Semi Historical – as above, but only one side of the scenario has been researched; the enemy force is fictional or “typical”

Historical What If – as above, accurate map and order of battle, based on a projected action, or taking a choice the actual participants could have, but didn’t. (ie if KG Peiper didn’t delay and reached the Baugnez Crossroads an hour early, when CC B of the 9th Armd Div was documented to have arrived there – this is what might have happened).

Fictional – maps and force composition are entirely pure imagination

Fictional What If – either maps or forces are drawn from a real life example, but the situation they are enmployed in is not drawn from a real life example (ie Kampfgruppe Peiper is recreated in detail, on an historical map of Antwerp, but no such battle was possible in WW II, and the opposing force is completely a fictional British unit drawn from imagination.)

Typical – terrain and forces are drawn from imagination, but based loosely on historical examples (ie a bombed out city with German infantry and Russian Guards set in Oct 42 might be a “typical” Stalingrad battle)

All of this bearing in mind that the term "historical" is very loosely used, as mentioned above, really only useful down to the number of companies employed.

[ October 09, 2002, 02:53 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[KNac]

I've devated the "historical accuracy" issue in several games and forums.

At the end we can say that historical accuracy 100% cannot and will never accomplished, because it would be similar to RL. Even with perfect VR, if people does not die it will not be 100% historical accuracy or realitic as you wish. SO the only 100% reallitic game/scenario will be RL always. I know this is a wider discussion that the one being discussed here. But I only want to make some points clear.

SO we should talk of "historical accuracy in the game context", I mean within the scope and with the tools the game gives us and with the available information we have, in a single word "abstraction". For example we never will be able to model maps 100% real because we cannot place individual trees or terrain features to the point that they make a diffrence (centimeters), it can be done in some first person shooters, but it can be really insane (and I say it because of my experience!).

So, we must qualify a scenario within the conetxt of game possibilities, it would be insane to do it to RL/history standars, you will see why now:

-Historical: within the game context, it would be historical if it uses the max posibilities of the game to recreate a historical battle (what means, that it happened, you know the time, you know the ground, you now the conditions and you know the forces) with the "historical" (which is not 100% accurate) data you have available. In percentage it would be between 85/90-100% WITHIN GAME CONTEXT.

-Semi-historical: the data avialable and the recreation of the historical counterpart is far inferior than the above. 0-85%

-Fictional: a totally different class of scenario, because you know that it never happened so it cannot be classified with the anterior scale. If you were trying to make a similar battle to one that you know that did happen in RL, but you came with a totally different thing, you can give it a 0-10/25%.

Now, why doesn't make sense to qualify the scenarios in a RL scale. Because of the first thing I said, one guy said one time that of the all wargames he had played (on smallest sclae, tactical) he would give a 3 in a scale of 10 to the most realist one. SO you only ahve to make the calcs and you will get why it's stupid (100% would be 30-40% in RL scale).

[Michael Dorosh]

And how would you propose that mathematical percentages be calculated? Seems quite useless to me...

We all agree there is no such thing as purely "historical", so let's leave that as a given.

I do think scenario designers need to indicate in their briefing why they chose to use one label or another - for those to whom it matters...

Even better would be - in the next engine - the ability to put bmps or gifs of reference photos and maps into the briefing and let the player judge for himself.

Look at A SHOT IN THE DARK for an example of what I consider an "historical" scenario. The troop mix is correct down to the number of companies and individual vehicles involved, and the map is a perfect representation of maps shown in a book on the battle of Tilly.

[ October 09, 2002, 03:46 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[Andrew H.]

I like that scenario designers are cautious with their use of the word "historical." I do wish that there was a better term than "semi-historical," though, since I don't think that semi-historical implies the (high) level of historicity that these scenarios actually contain. I can't really come up with an alternate term, though - "plausibly historical" sort of suggests what I'm looking for, but it's both cumbersome and has it's own problems.

Even many of the fictional scenarios could be described as "semi-historical" - they don't meet the high level that "semi-historical" has among scenario designers, but there is more history to most "fictional" scenarios than there is to, say, a QB, which is purely fictional.

I guess it goes like this:

Historical: a documentary; Ken Burns' Civil War

Semi: "based on a true story"; the movie "Glory"

Fictional: made up "Gone with the Wind"

Not permitted by the engine: "Guns of the South"

One reason BFC doesn't permit game engine modifications by users is to prevent a "Guns of the South" effect. :cool:

[KNac]

I don't have magic formula Michael

It was just an indicator, also the percentages are subjetive (so are subject to change). That's more a guide for the scenario designer which percentage of historical accuracy they think they have archived. If you are puting "historical" rather than a percentage it's not important, because when you are saying that your scenario is "historical" you are thinking in a involuntary manner that in a scale of 0-10 your scenario is nearer to the 10 than to the 0. That's why there are ranges and not absolute numbers (I mean from 0-5; 5-10 for example).

However it would be interesting if someone comes with somekind of function.

[MikeyD]

I got a tiny scenario onto the CD under the title of "Fictional" (made-up units, made-up map) BUT the briefing was rooted in historical fact. Actual location, actual dates, units belonging to units in-country at the time.

I suppose this could have alternately been called 'Typical" instead of "Fictional", if you're reserving the fictional designation for those "The Germans have just invaded Wisconsin" outlandish scenarios.