Almost all of the miniatures games I've played have been multi-player. A lot of rule sets today include forced elements of friction and chaos to make two-player games more interesting and less predictable, such as card or chit draws to randomly activate formations. These are less necessary in multi-player wargames. The players bring their personalities and skill levels (and luck) to the table, and that's usually enough to create entertainment.

My group normally has 2 games a year which everyone joins in on, normally in the region of 5v5. There is 1 particular player who always goes against the plan and causes so much frustration, it is hilarious every time! These big game days are so much fun due to the chaotic nature of them however if we were to do that week in week out then my opinion would probably be different. Enjoying these weekly updates a lot, very glad to have found the chanel.

Love the FPW content! Also enjoy watching friends squabble over muddled plans especially when playing as Napoleonic generals.

Hi again Lee. An interesting topic this one. During the various Campaigns we have run over the years, most games are played by more than two people. The main difference though is they tend to lead their own Kingdoms forces, rather then be a subordinate to a main Commander. However, multiple players per side does lead to tension. Whereas with a one-off war-game, there is not really any implications for the future, but in a Campaign game, what happens in a game is vital. We have had games where someone will deploy their forces, at whichever Turn they enter the battle, but then after 2 further moves, will retire off the table, to live and fight another day. These games though are great fun, as a player can write his own history (within historical limits), as he/she play the Campaign. Personally I would recommend multi-plyare battles to all, however, I would also advise an Umpire be present, to settle the undoubted disputes.

Really enjoyed the last Quick Strike report! You've some fun and busy months ahead!

Friction is a key element of war, as Clausewitz famously pointed out. May it be because of incomplete information, unforeseen circumstances, commander personalities, competition, etc. I really enjoy so called perspective based games, in which sub-commanders don't necessarily follow the player's godmode orders. The issue concerning classic miniatures games, though, is that the highest ranking commander usually has little to do (which is not necessarily unrealistic, but might not be the most enjoyable recreational experience), while everybody else is pushing figures around (on behalf of their sub-commanders) and thus busy (even if that's unrealistic). There need to be mechanics which support the perspective based setup and keep everybody involved. On another note, if you'd like to try Kriegsspiel, Lee, let me know and I'll put you onto the mailing list for scheduling my next invitational online game at the International Kriegsspiel Society.

Congratulations Lee on the boost of subscribers, absolutely deserved!! Possible question... How do you focus on one project when we are constantly tempted by shiny new periods?

I played a multi-player game of Napoleonic Shako in Albuquerque, New Mexico, a game in which pre-game orders involved drawing a track on a map to define the direction of attack for each command. Somehow, the division commander next to me moved all his troops to hide behind mine! 😮😂😅

I've played a quite a few multi-player big games and having the extra friction of not knowing what your allied commander(s) is/are actually doing and how well things are going in other sectors of the battlefield does add something to the experience. Removing the CinC from actually playing with the figures on the table might be more realistic but is a bit harsh on that player. It's what we all most enjoy doing after all. The best compromise we've found is to give the CinC control of the army strategic reserve which he can commit in whatever sector and at whatever time he judges best. That usually encourages subordinates to keep to the overall battle plan, but not always 🙂

Imagine a game where the overall general gets to issue his overall battle orders to his Generals and discuss the plan before the battle, but after that he can only talk to 1 General a turn, the one his figure is by, and has to issue written orders to the others, which may or may not be received and could be captured by the enemy. Seems like it could be adapted to any big game.

Excellent topic! Played many big battle games, such as Waterloo, Leipzig, etc at the Wargames Holiday Centre as army commander; and running around trying to keep all players just vaguely adhering to the battle plan is exhausting!!😂

You also asked for ideas for talking points. I wondered what you think about running wargames campaigns? I've been involved in several different campaigns over the years from short 1 day events using quick games like DBA through to months long mega campaigns. They can be massively rewarding to play in, especially if they play through to a conclusion, and I've had some of my most enjoyable wargaming playing in them but equally they can fizzle out in acrimonious disagreements.

I've taken part in a few of the large Kriegspiel Games and I can confirm that tension do manifest themselves between players in senior and subordinate command positions.. I actually played Napoleon in a refight of the Eylau Campaign and having sufferred from indecisive leadership in earlier games as a subordinate commander I was determined to follow Napoleons command and staff system to the letter issuing my subordinate Corp commanders detailed orders and schedules for wherev ach of their division had to be and by what time. The intention being to outflank and surround the Russian Army. It didn't go down to well with my sibordinate players who complained to the umpire that they were being denied any ability to command their own troops. Which wasn't really true in my opinion they had plenty of things to do all I was doing was making it clear that in order to fulfill the objective they had to be where I wanted them to be by the date I wanted them to be there. Which was exactly how Napoleon won every campaign. I also remember one painful battle which was caught on video where In was commanding a division of elite Russian Infantry as a subordinate to another player playng my Corp Commander. My division were crack troops but had no assign infantry or cavalry support, which was heldat divisional level and so not under my command. The orders I received were complete gibberish and made tactical or strategic sense. AT one point I was told to charge a division of French cavalry, to which I suggested that perhaps my Corps commander might like to provide me with some cavalry support or at least assign some artillery to provide support and got a really cirt reply telling me basically to stop whioning and get on with it. Needless to say my infantry ended up locked in squares and unlike my commander theirs was clever enough to bring up some artillery to support his cavalry and the fate of division was sealed.

One of the best command friction/multiple commanders games I ever ran was when I was teaching and ran an after-school wargames club. It was an ECW battle using, IIRC, the Spanish Fury rules - which uses IGYG, but only one unit at a time. This led to huge arguments on one side about what to do next and was a great opportunity to talk through making logical decisions with kids.

Great video Lee. Thanks for posting

If an experienced commander like Reille can let a junior, Jerome, and himself get sucked into a viewing their portion of a battlefield as the only thing that matters then who are we to stop the wargamer from following in their footsteps? The commander on the ground has to be allowed to command. If he views success can be achieved with 'just one more charge' or uses the reserve then that is how they see it. Controlling the general by the army commander is putting that general into being just a figure mover. You would soon tire in that role. Yes, we are all Murat's looking for that 'Death or Glory' epitaph.

Further to my comment: You can use dice to decide if the sub-general gets to use the reserve unknowingly of the army commander. Depending on how the sub-general is rated you can weigh the result either way.

Let us consider the idea of a supreme commander on each side who moves no models, and his sole responsibility is the big picture. What does this high command player do most of the game? We do not want this player to become a back seat field commander constantly looking over the shoulders of the players moving the miniatures. Two things come to mind. One, each sides supreme commander is also responsible for helping search the rule-book when a question arises. Two, place the commander in charge of high level reserves/assets such as off-board artillery to be handed out when and where the high commander believes it necessary. I would also suggest, give the supreme commander a map of the battlefield either laminated with markers or on a secondary table with little unit blocks with which he can busy himself keeping track of the macro flow of the battle, and he can use this as a visual aid during the inevitable inter-turn emergency meetings. As a test of this idea, I would suggest a game where one side's supreme commander tries this while the other side keeps their supreme commander as one of the field commanders. In effect, you would have, for example, a 4v3 game to test which is more effective. This will also test how much fun this hands-off high command position is.

A friend and I recently had a conversation about changing how you play based on the opponent you are playing a against. A member of the group I play with isn't really into table top war games, he just plays because we all do and its an excuse to play with his mates. With no intent to offend he just doesn't have the mind set to look at a battle field and formulate a plan that might span multiple turn. So when I play against him I don't bing all the best units and some times if I see an opening during play that would give me an advantage I choose not to take it for the sake oh offering an enjoyable experience to the other player. I have experienced with this player before that if I do play to the best of my ability that feel as if there is little point in continuing to play against me. So I choose to play in a more friendly style I guess you could say so that we both enjoy the game and that this friend continues to want to play the game with me. This other friend I was talking to about this said that he wouldn't dream of changing the way he plays based on the apparent skill level of his opponent. That the responsibility to derive enjoyment from the game leys almost exclusively with the individual. I think both arguments have their merits though I was wondering what your thoughts on the subject might be?

There is a flipside to the obvious command friction of multiple players on one side, and that can, if handled skillfully by the C-in-C, be a real boon, multiple brains mean multiple approaches to fighting the battle, and, as long as they can be melded into a coherent whole, this method of arriving at an overall strategy is often an improvement on a single 'top-down' plan. This requires an overall commander strong enough to both delegate where necessary and firm enough to finally decide on the plan . Two questions today, are you planning to attend Joy of Six this year, Lee? And, do you think a section contrasting and comparing different ways of activation used by different rulesets, pros and cons of each. I can think of five different styles but there are probably more .1 basic IGOUGO, 2 Basic alternating activations. 3 & 4 are 1&2 with the addition of a random element ,dice, cards, chits, etc. 5 'Command point' assignment in the 'planning phase which may, or may not, have a random modifier to the limited number of points available. Perhaps a suitable discussion point for an episode of the pod?

Only recently started historicals I can’t comment on those but when playing Warhammer Apocalypse (big multiplayer warhammer 40K) we used to split the board into subgroups and then had an overall commander due to workload. Often we would play on 20+ foot of board and with so much going on at battlefield level we would only come back together as a group to discuss next steps, usually when our opponents were starting their movements. Lots of fun but very long games, usually all weekend.

I think it will depend on the purpose of the game. If it is a box standard 'big battle' with x players per side, each player taking a command (no separate C in C), in my experience, it always ends up as separate games within the main game. If the scenario writer has chosen the commanders based on their personality, that is a clever move. I find multi player games where each participant has different conditions and objectives to fulfil are more entertaining.

I have tried the 'supreme commander' with subordinates; this can lead to the supreme commander standing around being a spectator ☹. Our group usually ends up with the commanders attending an 'O Group' with no particular CinC, & deciding on a plan, then being relied on to carry out their part of the plan; not to say that ribald comments aren't thrown at commanders going 'off plan' during the game - all adds to the fun. As an aside: Campaigns, with all of their pros & cons could give you some mileage? How do you introduce ex Warhammer/Fantasy gamers into the right sphere of historical gaming when they decide to move?

In my limited experience if I've had a sub commander it's very difficult to get them to stay on track simply because it's a game not real combat... I couldn't reprimand or demand ... after all its their game too..... It relys on the sub to remember the overall task.

As someone who has come from a warhammer background I’ve been finding it overwhelming going through so many historical rulesets, where do you start? - no club to rely on others and it seems reviewing historical rulebooks seems limited on KZfaq whereas going on drive thru wargames there are hundreds of rulesets. Wondered if you had any suggestions for those with warhammer backgrounds?

More They Died for Glory would be great especially on the model ranges that would fit and how do you organise the units, as I thought the rules are individual based figures but you do the strips? Franco-Prussian and the time from Hungarian Revolution seems a rich goldmine of wargaming that sits in unwarranted obscurity it seems!

We used to often play multiplayer, as a kind of “autonomous collective”. As a rule, plans were still adhered to or re-discussed. Quite unrealistic. 😉 Today I would try to implement some Kriegsspiel elements. 🤔

The game part of a wargame demands that anyone playing at the table must have something meaningful to do, not just move figures according to someone else’s exact orders. Each player should have some local decisions to make in their area, to accomplish the overall commander’s general orders - “Take that hill” can mean charge straight at it, or circle it, or dig in and bombard it. There’s a Napoleonic naval scenario by Miles on the LWTV website, 4 frigates per side, that pits 4 players on the British side vs one playing all the French. This is meant to lead to friction among the 4 British players, representing the recorded historical rivalries and distrust between the 4 British captains. Playing with friction between players can work if everyone is all-in on the idea and keeps it friendly. There are no court marshals at the table, but there can be resentments among players who think one player went rogue and cost them a victory.

Nice video, gave something to think about. How would one calculate the outcome of a miniature game instead of playing it out in full, for a campaign where there is no time or opportunity to play? Have been in this situation a couple of times where campaigns dragged out when one or players were able to attend or finish a game.

Playing WaT as I listen to your report.

Omg, Sharp Practice is the best! Enjoy!!

I have two questions. What makes for a well written and easily understood set of rules? And, what are the best ways to introduce a new set of rules to players who may not be into the period or the type of rules you're introducing them to?

No plan ever survives contact with the enemy. Big Lee I find it really annoying sometimes when playing solo and my sub commanders go rogue. It definitely puts a wrench into my glorious plans when my sub commanders just toss my plan and go it their own way. There is only so much chastising of my self I can do hah. Sorry could not resist that Big Lee.

Co-operative gaming (All players play against the game, either AI or umpire/GM), is it a good or bad thing? Would it reduce or increase command tension?

Hi Lee, was wondering if you have tried GDA2 out yet?

Is command tension a bug or a feature? Independence and freedom to respond to local conditions of sub commanders has long been seen as the mark of a great army - the much vaunted "mission command" or "Auftragstaktik". What (most of) we wargamers lack, is the experience of rising through the officer ranks, commanding increasingly larger units and of course any sort of staff college training. We lack the professionalism and necessary skills to be proper sub- or superior commanders. To be clear though, real world senior commanders have these problems too. How many generals, successful and competent in peacetime, have been found to be lacking when war's bugle sounds? How many battles have not gone to plan because senior and junior commanders just didn't like each other? Command is a skill that must be learned, no matter how thorough one's understanding of a particular set of rules. 😉

We nearly always play 2 or 3 a side games, I dislike 1 on 1s, less sociable and too much control.

you have turned your wooden tommy gun around the other way !!!!!

Best fun had in these multplayer games and some of your subs go off script.. Lots of slagging and joking with ribald comments thickening the air.. Never have serious people play these games though.