What sort of battle reports do we want to see?

[Erpingham]

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)

[Imperial Dave]

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

[Erpingham]

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!)

[Chris]

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

[Imperial Dave]

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.

[Patrick Waterson]

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").

[Tim]

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.

[dwkay57]

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.

[Imperial Dave]

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!

[gavindbm]

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 ......

[Erpingham]

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?

[Patrick Waterson]

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.

[Imperial Dave]

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

[Patrick Waterson]

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.

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)?

[Imperial Dave]

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.

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.