Having responded to Chris Hahn's challenge for more people to write battle reports, I found myself thinking over the merits of my efforts.
The story is clear and it represents the action well enough. It's a shame I didn't draw a map but my lack of computer abilities would just have led to a scan of a scrap of paper, so maybe no great loss there.
But, more importantly, I asked myself "What is this for?". Was it a vanity project, a sad demonstration that, although I game alone, I do lay lead and have fun sometimes? Was it to engage you all in my latest game design project, about my medieval Dux Bellorum derivative? Or perhaps to demonstrate to those who are already interested in this project already its use in a game? Perhaps it was to explore the recreation of a period of warfare (the HYW) on the tabletop? Or maybe it was intended just to amuse and entertain?
Ok, maybe I'm overthinking. But if you look at other reports, you'll see different approaches coming through (though I think I'm the only sadass :) ). What is it that we as readers are looking for in a good battle report? I'm not looking to assemble a rigid format (because I think variety really helps with the "amuse and entertain" objective) but to get some idea of what we are all seeking. Do we want those pseudo-historical reports, with the fictious commanders like Dubius Status and Watalaf? Of "Just the facts, Maam"? Are details of the gameplay important - not "3rd cohort threw a 1 but luckily Littlemix's warband only threw a 4" type but commenting on how the rules dealt with certain situations? Are we looking for reusable scenarios which we could play out under our own favourite rules?
To return to the question "What is this for?" Can we answer that in a way that we can promote really useful and entertaining writeups here to the wider membership and Chris's ideal of more people engaged in this thread become a reality?
(Stops at this point, as question mark on keyboard has worn away)
horses for courses but for me the best ones are lots of photos and/or graphical representations with additional words rather than the other way around
Quote from: Holly on October 21, 2017, 01:07:19 PM
horses for courses but for me the best ones are lots of photos and/or graphical representations with additional words rather than the other way around
So, no prizes for spontaneity :)
Interesting, though. Are we are looking at a more "published" look in this topic, perhaps?
(Yes, I've fixed the question mark key!)
Respectfully submitted, it was not a "challenge" per se, but more of a wish, if I recall my specific wording. Perhaps this request might be attributed to my comfort level with battle reports as opposed to the more academic topics covered by scholars like Duncan Head, Patrick Waterson, James Webster, et al.
So, I suppose I should push myself to get out of that comfort zone, at least occasionally.
The question "what is this for?" is fairly put.
On a personal level (of course, I cannot answer for anyone else), I simply enjoy the process. I do sometimes wonder if (or fear that) that the volume of my submissions - both here and to the printed journal - breed a kind of familiarity and therefore contempt.
For what it is worth, I think that the "requirements" for an electronic posting should be more informal than those for the printed journal. When I was on TMP, there were quite a few opinions about what constituted a good and or useful battle report. There does appear to be a generally acceptable or required formula. The following is not complete, but such a report contains some background, followed by "how I went about it", followed by closing remarks. Pictures and diagrams do help break up the text.
Coincidentally, in recent email exchange with Aaron Bell, battle repots (and their various forms) were discussed. I confess that I had not given as much thought to the categories that Aaron has.
To answer the posed question with another question: Do more people/members read the electronic reports compared to those who read the reports contained within the journal?
Based on my "analysis" - at least with the information at hand, it seems that there are more who respond or remark upon the electronic reports compared to those who respond to printed reports.
On this forum, the opportunity is more time-sensitive or efficient. In the journal, I believe the Guardroom applies, though one certainly can start a discussion thread in the Slingshot section of this forum.
To sum up these disjointed and rambling thoughts, I think this battle reports forum should be informal and should encourage individuals and members to write as much (or as little) and to write in the style of their choosing. Of course, they are invited to challenge themselves by stepping (writing) outside of their comfort zone.
Then again, I wonder if effort spent here detracts from possible content for the physical journal?
Chris
Quote from: Erpingham on October 21, 2017, 01:22:09 PM
Quote from: Holly on October 21, 2017, 01:07:19 PM
horses for courses but for me the best ones are lots of photos and/or graphical representations with additional words rather than the other way around
So, no prizes for spontaneity :)
Interesting, though. Are we are looking at a more "published" look in this topic, perhaps?
(Yes, I've fixed the question mark key!)
Its is a matter of personal taste and too many words switch me off but I know for others that its important (who did what and when on what flank etc). This is especially important if dissecting and understanding the mechanics of the game/ruleset. I am a visual person and can pick up most cues on how something progresses if there are plenty of photos or graphics. The words are just the cherry on the top.
What I like to see in a battle report (and I am happy with just words, with progress diagrams a welcome optional extra) is: who had what, who did what and when and to whom. My focus of interest is in the troop interactions, coordination of arms (if any), effective use of deployment, terrain (if any) and stratagems to deal with difficult/dangerous enemy troop types or maximise the effect of one's own.
The actual rules and their mechanisms are of peripheral interest but worth a mention as this can help to understand why play went as it did ("My troops did not move because they had no command PIPs" as opposed to, say, "My troops did not move because I forgot to write orders for them").
I largely agree with Patrick's summary.
The only thing I would add is where a specific historical battle is being recreated, were any scenario specifics required to be added to cover things the rules as written did not cover? This could be either those put in place before the game was played or those that were found to be required as a result of playing the game. The best games seem to be those where you don't have to but not all battles work under all rulesets without adding scenario specific rules.
I suppose what I'm looking for in a battle report can be described as an illustrated story of the battle. In short reports I don't think there is any need to spend time providing precise details of army lists or dice rolls. If the short report generates enough interest then I might want to look at a more detailed report which could use a variety of presentation methods but a longer narrative might be off putting.
In my short reports I try to set out what and why the plans were, provide a summary narrative of the battle with photos (trying to link explain what is in shot and what they were doing at the time) and then some analysis of why it finished the way it did.
Quote from: dwkay57 on October 26, 2017, 06:09:22 PM
I suppose what I'm looking for in a battle report can be described as an illustrated story of the battle. In short reports I don't think there is any need to spend time providing precise details of army lists or dice rolls. If the short report generates enough interest then I might want to look at a more detailed report which could use a variety of presentation methods but a longer narrative might be off putting.
In my short reports I try to set out what and why the plans were, provide a summary narrative of the battle with photos (trying to link explain what is in shot and what they were doing at the time) and then some analysis of why it finished the way it did.
good shout and better put than my own efforts!
Battle reports can be written for many different reasons. They can be about a historical re-fight in which case what/why of deviation from history (or insight into history) are key pieces. They can be to illustrate a rule set - so need to talk about mechanisms.
A few years back I wrote one for Slingshot in which I tried to set up the problem (forces/table), invited reader to think of their plan and then revealed mine and briefly described how it worked (or not). This was inspired by the table top teasers of old in glossy magazines.
More generally they probably should include forces, plans, main events, why it ended as it did. Particularly where they are using a rule set which I don't know then I do like to understand how command/control and morale are represented - and which parts are random and which are not (eg ability/distance moved, combat, ...). But I do also enjoy reading those written more from the point of view of Septimus Diggus in the Tenth Cohort ......
Actually, returning to my jokey reply to Dave, if there is a consensus emerging in this thread it is for a more considered approach. People may wish to see different things, or are happy with seeing a variety of things, but some preparation to ensure the game is documented properly to bring out the sorts of thing people want to see is essential. My decision to try a write up of a game I'd played in order to contribute to Chris' wish to see a wider range needed more thought at documentation. A fuller OOB, a map and some inaction reshots (or at least some re-enactment of key stages) would have helped.
I have since returned to the table to try and see if I can get some shots of the armies but frankly I'm struggling. The room is dark and remains so for photographic purposes even if I turn on all three lights and I'm relying on my phone's camera. I've attached the best shot - the others have little merit. Is it worth attaching shots like this or don't they illustrate enough?
Quote from: Erpingham on October 28, 2017, 01:08:06 PM
Is it worth attaching shots like this or don't they illustrate enough?
Sadly despite the photographer's best efforts my answer is no, the reason being I prefer to see both sides' deployment relative to each other. Please do not get me wrong - I am certainly not in any position to criticise, not even having a mobile phone let alone being able to take pictures with one ;) - it is just that a diagram might serve better to illustrate which bit of each army is where and doing what.
I like to see both - illustrations and photos. I do know it is hard to get good shots of figures sometimes hence why I like a mix and match of both
It is of course challenging for those as unskilled as myself to produce either diagrams/illustrations or photos. However we do have an editorial team who, in their brief Slingshot-focussed periods in between running all-week jobs, moving house, etc. are able and willing to help turn a scanned sketch into a presentable and professional-looking diagram.
Quote from: Holly on October 28, 2017, 08:42:10 PM
I like to see both - illustrations and photos. I do know it is hard to get good shots of figures sometimes hence why I like a mix and match of both
Dave, what do you like to see in those photos? Does a partial line-up of one side giving an idea of the figures and some of their deployment satisfy, or do you hanker after Paul Innes-style full table shots, or would a good close-up of a single unit be worthwhile? What is your preference (assuming you have one)?
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on October 29, 2017, 07:22:41 AM
It is of course challenging for those as unskilled as myself to produce either diagrams/illustrations or photos. However we do have an editorial team who, in their brief Slingshot-focussed periods in between running all-week jobs, moving house, etc. are able and willing to help turn a scanned sketch into a presentable and professional-looking diagram.
Quote from: Holly on October 28, 2017, 08:42:10 PM
I like to see both - illustrations and photos. I do know it is hard to get good shots of figures sometimes hence why I like a mix and match of both
Dave, what do you like to see in those photos? Does a partial line-up of one side giving an idea of the figures and some of their deployment satisfy, or do you hanker after Paul Innes-style full table shots, or would a good close-up of a single unit be worthwhile? What is your preference (assuming you have one)?
another good question Patrick. If the photos are of sufficient quality and the size used in the magazine layout is large enough then I really like the 'panoramic' style shots. Having said that, a good mix of photos is also preferred for me. It all depends on whether diagrams and illustrations are being used in the same report as well as the photos or not
Some examples:
1. Very good quality camera available (DSLR with high quality sensor and good lighting etc)
Lots of wide angle shots of the battlefield showing both sides dispositions from an elevated offset side 'viewpoint'. Possibly (but not necessarily), a diagram of the initial deployment and then again another at the end of the game. Turn by turn shots with maybe one or two close ups of a particular melee or command group. Good lighting, tripod and a wide angle lens etc really help to produce great pictures etc
2. Reasonable camera available (budget DSLR or top end phone camera but no tripod or special flash/lighting)
Initial deployment shot (from an elevated offset side viewpoint) with a corresponding diagram. Turn by turn shots as long as the basic flow of the game is conveyed reasonably well and the battlelines are observable without too much trouble. Again, an end of game final diagram
3. Simple camera available/poor lighting (eg cheap camera or std phone camera with poor lighting conditions)
Use of diagrams for all turns of the game (or at the very least start and finish if diagrams arent your thing) and then one or two shots to illustrate a particular phase of the game or just to convey the layout of the table.
Of course, these days there are much better standards of cameras and camera phones available than ever before. Good lighting really helps and not being too close to the figures helps reduce shadowing (if doing close ups then good background lighting really helps obviously). I think the key is to cut your cloth to fit with photos. I have to admit that the worst thing to my mind ever is a report or article with lots of poor quality photos...just turns me off. Eg there was a certain book produced not long ago which insisted on using vertical standpoint shots of figures (ie looking straight down on them) which was bad enough in itself but compounded by very poor quality lighting and camera being used. For me, the better the camera (and the user) the more shots should be included and from different angles and distances to convey the battle.
Very thorough Dave. I suspect you may have to compromise on your highest standards if Chris' wish is to be fulfilled - having a proper lighting and camera set up is not something a lot of folk have and might discourage people from submitting. I think your middle and low end categories are promising. My own attempts with my phone camera can produce decent snapshots but it will lack depth of field for the wide shots both you and Patrick prefer for illustrative purposes. Lighting is a big bugbear - if just shooting a unit or some figures being painted you can stick them by a window but a battle is a bit less mobile. I will carry out further experiments for my own amusement and see if I can improve.
Patrick's kind offer of the services of the Slingshot team for diagrams I'm sure is OK for Slingshot content (Justin did me a great one for an article) but are they going to want to be creating blow by blow diagrams for the forum? Does that, in fact, move so far from spontaneity that it won't fit with the way people approach the forum? This is another of those meta questions about "publishing" on the forum, I suppose.
Quote from: Erpingham on October 29, 2017, 08:10:45 AM
Very thorough Dave. I suspect you may have to compromise on your highest standards if Chris' wish is to be fulfilled - having a proper lighting and camera set up is not something a lot of folk have and might discourage people from submitting. I think your middle and low end categories are promising. My own attempts with my phone camera can produce decent snapshots but it will lack depth of field for the wide shots both you and Patrick prefer for illustrative purposes. Lighting is a big bugbear - if just shooting a unit or some figures being painted you can stick them by a window but a battle is a bit less mobile. I will carry out further experiments for my own amusement and see if I can improve.
Patrick's kind offer of the services of the Slingshot team for diagrams I'm sure is OK for Slingshot content (Justin did me a great one for an article) but are they going to want to be creating blow by blow diagrams for the forum? Does that, in fact, move so far from spontaneity that it won't fit with the way people approach the forum? This is another of those meta questions about "publishing" on the forum, I suppose.
yes, a thorny question about standards. I am not trying to 'force' people down the route of adhering to a set of battle/article picture 'rules' just musings on what I think might look ok. I certainly wouldnt want to discourage people from submitting rather I feel that guidance on such things like this and suggestions for ways to convey a battle is the way to go. At the end of the day, a battle report is far better than no battle report :) I just like pictures but realise this is not everyone's cup of tea or capability. For me its a nice to have not a must have
My favourite site for photo illustrated battle reports is the Italian DBMM site tagmata.it by Lorenzo.
Quote from: gavindbm on October 29, 2017, 10:39:58 AM
My favourite site for photo illustrated battle reports is the Italian DBMM site tagmata.it by Lorenzo.
thanks for that, not seen it before an the reports are very good with the right level and quality of photos for me
personally I'm happier with just a plan of the battle. If I want pictures I can buy the professional magazines with glossy paper
It's one of those slightly touchy topics, isn't it? Everyone has their own ideas about what should go into a battle report, but trying to write to others' tastes is always a thankless task.
I like variety, and enjoy different writers' individual idiosyncrasies. Blogs mean that we are spoiled for quality photos, and I think it is a mistake for reports in Slingshot to try to compete with blog reports (or pro photography as seen in the glossies) on the visuals front. But as mentioned previously, where Ss does have points of difference is seen in Justin Swanton's graphical skills (we've all enjoyed his lovely maps and battle diagrams, and when he is involved the visuals are always worth the column space) and in the knowledge base of our members.
Another thing that is important is context. Lorenzo's reports at Tagmata.it are beautiful to behold, but Spartans against Marian Romans, and Frankenstein Marians at that, combining Caesar's tenth legion with Scipio's jumbos and some Gallic skirmishers very far from home? It may as well be WWII Germans fighting WWII Japanese. I've played pretty fast and loose on that score myself, but while it's fine for fun games and for blogs, I would not want to see that in Slingshot unless there was context for it (e.g. a showdown between two champions in rules X which angled in on the history between them and how they attempted to outfox each other).
But as far as the forum is concerned, I'm glad to see anything here. If someone is prepared to take the time to write up / photograph and post a report, well done to them, much appreciation for their efforts, and I'd certainly not want to see any posting of criticism.
Quote from: Holly on October 29, 2017, 12:47:16 PM
Quote from: gavindbm on October 29, 2017, 10:39:58 AM
My favourite site for photo illustrated battle reports is the Italian DBMM site tagmata.it by Lorenzo.
thanks for that, not seen it before an the reports are very good with the right level and quality of photos for me
Having looked at the site, the blogger is clearly focused (is that a pun?) on technical illustration rather than the art of pretty figures, which is suitable to the task in hand. The annotation helps to identify the troop types. It has the advantage to fans of DBMM that he doesn't waste much on fancy description, keeping comments to the gameplay. To non-DBMM fans though its hard to understand what going on and a bit dull (IMO). For technical illustration though good to have as an exemplar. Bit beyong my current capabilities alas.
Following on Jim's point that he'd rather have a plan, I've spent a few hours exploring simple ways of drawing wargames maps. I picked up on an idea for using Powerpoint and, as I had some basic understanding from work, thought I'd give it a go. The result is now posted attached to the original Rivers of Babylon report.
I'd say the result is workmanlike and a bit schematic rather than precise. I think I know how to create a sequence of maps using copy/paste, which I might explore further. But it does show something other than a scanned sketch is doable in a couple of hours using standard software, even by the less skilled of us.
In response to Anthony's comments on using Powerpoint, I tried using this with diagrams in some of my earlier full battle reports that are lurking on my website but found it took too long to do. I still use Powerpoint for these full reports but now annotate photographs. To me this moves it away from looking like a board game to one using figures and terrain. My photography isn't that great either but some of the editing tools now available help a bit.
The only drawback to this approach is that I have to keep remembering to take the photographs on a regular basis which can slow the game down but as I'm fighting solo with no real time restrictions (other than when the wife wants the dining room table back) it doesn't matter too much.
one danger about setting too high a standard of artwork, photos or maps is that you deter people without decent photography capability from submitting
Maps, yes, the editor can have somebody do something with it because they've got the facilities, but photos have to be taken there at the day
Quote from: Erpingham on October 29, 2017, 08:10:45 AM
Patrick's kind offer of the services of the Slingshot team for diagrams I'm sure is OK for Slingshot content (Justin did me a great one for an article) but are they going to want to be creating blow by blow diagrams for the forum?
Sadly but understandably, only for Slingshot - but using Powerpoint sounds like a good idea. On the question of how many diagrams would be required, I think three would suffice in most cases: the initial lineup (perhaps with a few arrows to give a general idea of initial moves), the crisis, where the battle is about to be decided (perhaps with a few arrows to show how things went) and optionally a final position when the battle has been decided. If there is complex manoeuvring or if play takes an unexpected turn, another diagram between the initial and crisis shots might serve better than a final position illustration.
Dave's point about the length of time spent is one to consider. If one has a background map template of sorts and a file with standard unit blocks that one can utilise, it can speed things up measurably.
I think all the battle reports I've written in recent years for Slingshot have been illustrated using the power point (or word) diagram approach.
I believe you can use the annotated photo approach (which I have never done) or the diagram approach - or push the boat out and use both.
But you can also just go for a short text description.
I find a long text description without some form of illustration is rather hard to follow - unless it sticks to first person style or is humourous.
Quote from: gavindbm on October 29, 2017, 07:47:30 PM
I think all the battle reports I've written in recent years for Slingshot have been illustrated using the power point (or word) diagram approach.
I believe you can use the annotated photo approach (which I have never done) or the diagram approach - or push the boat out and use both.
But you can also just go for a short text description.
I find a long text description without some form of illustration is rather hard to follow - unless it sticks to first person style or is humourous.
I do tend to agree but I really feel the emphasis should be on getting more people to submit battle reports. I just think some guidance for those unfamiliar or unsure could be used as encouragement not a reason not to
My own preference is narrative. But I dispute the need for any sort of complex photographic setup. I simply use a reasonably good (Galaxy s6) camera phone, and you can get excellent results. This one is a bit compromised by the need to shrink the image - but it is perfectly adequate, and the originals are good enough for magazine print quality.
(I have mine set to use approx 5mb per picture, and depending on magazine they will generally use higher than this for full page spreads, but half page and under it is fine. I also have a very good DSLR camera plus tripod and flash, and it simply isn't worth it for most purposes.)
Bear in mind as well, the image below has been shrunk to 20% of the original picture)
Thanks Doug. I agree a modern phone camera should be able to produce a workable photo in a well lit situation - I just need to work on that last bit, as the table is in an attic with one small window :( . But at least I have a permanent table, so shouldn't complain.
I'm struggling with annotations at moment - mind telling a novice what you used for yours?
And to echo Holly, we mustn't make a set of requirements so strict and onorous that even less people put in reports. What I'd like to be able to draw from this is some idea of what we are looking for here, as guidance to would be contributors. So far, it seems to me we have a very varied set of preferences - no surprise there - but I think we are getting a bit closer on images and plans. We don't expect glossy pictures illustrating terrain or figures but rather functional photography that helps us understand the layout and way the story unfolds. Plans can be basic, again with the same over-riding purpose. Turning to text, it should be easy to follow, giving a narrative of the battle and pulling out rules points where they are relevant to explain why certain things happened. Does this seem to be a reasonable summing up so far?
One thing that has also occured to me during this conversation is there is a set of choices for members to report a battle.
For a quick, simple and limited detailed record, we have Last Game You Played. If you want to give a little more detail and have a little more time to prepare, we have Battle Reports. For a full report, perhaps considering more extensively a battle reconstruction or exploring a ruleset, we have a Slingshot piece. For Slingshot pieces, we have the possibility of the Slingshot team doing work to produce plans and graphics.
Quote from: Erpingham on October 30, 2017, 10:02:18 AM
For a quick, simple and limited detailed record, we have Last Game You Played. If you want to give a little more detail and have a little more time to prepare, we have Battle Reports. For a full report, perhaps considering more extensively a battle reconstruction or exploring a ruleset, we have a Slingshot piece. For Slingshot pieces, we have the possibility of the Slingshot team doing work to produce plans and graphics.
good points......and of course there is always the option to 'upgrade' a forum report to a slingshot report as well
Does the editorial team review forum reports to see which ones might make good Slingshot articles?
I shall leave our Editor to answer that one. At present, I suspect not, as our volunteers have limited time on their hands, but in the future, who knows?
I've felt for some time that we need more diagrammatic battle reports in Slingshot, and I prefer diagrams (obviously) that show exactly who went where and did what.
Doing diagrams from photos is straightforward for gridded systems. For free movement systems I can do it but it is essential that the four corners of the battlefield are visible in the image. What I do is take the photo into Photoshop, then use the free distort tool to line up the battlefield corners with a regular bird's eye view battlefield rectangle. This moves all the photographed bases into a bird's eye view position from which I can draw an accurate diagram. Something like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/aLiGByg.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/TUX4RkQ.jpg)
I'm with you Justin on the use of diagrams although I do like seeing both diagrams and photos in a report. The photos give you a visual feel for the battlefield whereas the diagrams give you a tactical view of a batlefield
I agree. A mix of diagrams and photos is the ideal option.