Capitalistdoginchina Posted May 19, 2002 Share Posted May 19, 2002 Can anyone define "Semi-Historical"? Under what circumstances can one claim a scenario to be semi-historical? CDIC [ May 19, 2002, 01:25 PM: Message edited by: Captitalistdoginchina ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stoffel Posted May 19, 2002 Share Posted May 19, 2002 For me it is something like a scenario where you have the actuall OOB for one side but not for the other side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted May 19, 2002 Share Posted May 19, 2002 Squad Leader was always semi-historical, in that the order of battle was correct (to a point) but the terrain was fudged to fit in to their premade mapboards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berlichtingen Posted May 20, 2002 Share Posted May 20, 2002 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: Squad Leader was always semi-historical, in that the order of battle was correct (to a point) but the terrain was fudged to fit in to their premade mapboards.Not even the order of battles were correct. They were usually truncated (company instead of battalion, that sort of thing) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traject0ry Posted May 20, 2002 Share Posted May 20, 2002 Originally posted by Captitalistdoginchina: Can anyone define "Semi-Historical"? Under what circumstances can one claim a scenario to be semi-historical? CDICThis is a good question and you'll get a lot of answers as each author has a personal view on such matters. In MY opinion (it is the right opinion but just for me - lol) semi-historical means that the scenario has historical background (being a part of a bigger attack for example) but the author does not have the will to use (as this could turn it terribly uneven) or have access to accurate maps or OOBs (these could also be altered to add balance). Thus it is a battle in "historical frames" lacking some accuracy to be labeled as "historical". As it is the battles are recounted by men and maps could be faulty thus making the concept of "historical" quite flimsy to begin with. Besides as the events of the scenario usually take a different path than the actual battle it is NOT a historical recreation anyway. The game engine itself is not designed to be historically accurate but to produce quality gaming! Still if the map is made based on actual models (descriptions, photos or maps) and the OOBs are formed around lists gathered from historical sources as accurately as possible a scenario is often labeled "historical". Each author puts an effort to his product and such thing as historicality should not be mixed with "playability" or "quality". Besides many fictional skirmishes might accidentally depict small encounters with much more detail than any historical scenario does -T Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olle Petersson Posted May 22, 2002 Share Posted May 22, 2002 Well, then we have the situation with CMBO... I've tried (pretty unsuccessful) to recreate a couple of battles that were not fought in the time frame and theatre of CMBO, so terrain and troops had to be substituted. That's also semihistorical to me. Cheers Olle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMplayer Posted May 22, 2002 Share Posted May 22, 2002 If you make a serious stab at copying OOB, maps and the like it's _historical_. If you're inspired by an engagement and at least consult some maps or OOB or at least a halfway decent description of the battle it's semi-historical. If you make it up, it's fictional. IMNSHO of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xavier Posted May 23, 2002 Share Posted May 23, 2002 Most of historical scenarios are semi-historical in fact. For me a true historical scenario is scenario which simulate a real situation with an accurate OB and an accurate map. That'as all the difference by instance between "The wrong Hill" by WWB and "Worthington Force" (on the scenario depot). The two scenarios are about the same battle: KG Wunsche counter-attack at hill 140. The second one (WF) is very accurate in term of OB and map. I didn't tell "The wrong hill" is a bad scenario but the map isn't accurate and the ob is fantasy (spoiler alert !!!! ! ! ! ! WWB is nearly using more puma in its historical scenario than the german 'd built in reality and no there was no hetzer in this battle or even in all the normandy theatre. No hurt here, I know the long time big job WWB has done for our wargaming experience but I'm always a little disappointed to play an "historical" scenario which in fact isn't I really enjoy Moon, MacAuliffe, Franko or Joël Montagu (and others) historical scenarios. They manage to create really good scenarios which are often very well researched and documented... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capitalistdoginchina Posted May 26, 2002 Author Share Posted May 26, 2002 Thanks for the replies. It is still not entirely clear, but the answers from Olle and TrajectOry just about sum it up for me. Cheers CDIC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWB Posted May 26, 2002 Share Posted May 26, 2002 Originally posted by Xavier: Most of historical scenarios are semi-historical in fact. For me a true historical scenario is scenario which simulate a real situation with an accurate OB and an accurate map. That'as all the difference by instance between "The wrong Hill" by WWB and "Worthington Force" (on the scenario depot). The two scenarios are about the same battle: KG Wunsche counter-attack at hill 140. The second one (WF) is very accurate in term of OB and map. I didn't tell "The wrong hill" is a bad scenario but the map isn't accurate and the ob is fantasy (spoiler alert !!!! ! ! ! ! WWB is nearly using more puma in its historical scenario than the german 'd built in reality and no there was no hetzer in this battle or even in all the normandy theatre. No hurt here, I know the long time big job WWB has done for our wargaming experience but I'm always a little disappointed to play an "historical" scenario which in fact isn't I really enjoy Moon, MacAuliffe, Franko or Joël Montagu (and others) historical scenarios. They manage to create really good scenarios which are often very well researched and documented...Uh, The Wrong Hill would be by Wild Bill Wilder (WBW), not I. As for the historical vs. semi-historical, I pretty much agree with CMplayer above. Although, I think we might need a new classification: Psuedo-Historical. These would be battles where the OOBs and maps are plauseable but fictional and are not based on any specific incident. WWB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xavier Posted May 27, 2002 Share Posted May 27, 2002 Originally posted by wwb_99: oups, sorry for the mistake;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts