Ok guys with all this talk about making games more historically correct (i for one think this will put more people off) hows about running games that are not historically correct ie the game starts with the Axies and the Allies but instead off the usally games were the Germans lose (is it me or have you noticed all the games we play the Germans lose which is not down to game play but being historically correct)lets run them on the days events if the germans are playing well then they carry one playing well not the norm "oh pull back guys" so the game stays on the route of what ever battle is being played, if i remember Gadge run a game at matlock where each game result decided the out come of the next for me it was a top game.
I know this will have alot of ya saying "oh no you carnt do that " but surly its worth a try and am sure the numbers for the games would be greater as it would be Axis forces vs Allied and yes i know CIA is about historically battles. We can still use all the great battles but the out come is on the day and then this can be carried on to the next battle who knows you could even have the Germans invading England.
ps this is just a idea and love what the CIA guys do so be gentle with me 
Operation Sealion has been mentioned as a possibility - we just need to find Walmington-on-sea! Scaley's already volunteered to play Cpl Jones, I hear. 
Obviously, Wotan and Eagle games were not based on historical events, and both were great. (However, I don't share your point of view about historically-accurate games putting people off.)
Gadge and the PBI team will be running the St Lo game in June, which will be like Operation Varsity that you mentioned - so the next combat mission will depend on the outcome of the previous one - and there will be no Brits, so it will also be historically accurate.
You've got nothing to ein, zwei, drei, vier
(However, I don't share your point of view about historically-accurate games putting people off.)
Was on about kit and badges not games 
D'oh - soz, I misunderstood. I thought you meant stuff like always having every Allied unit type vs every Axis unit type, etc.
You've got nothing to ein, zwei, drei, vier
i dont share your view of the germans always losing due to historical accuracy, they won at pocket ( lost at faliase in "44") they lost at bulge becouse they didnt play particularly well. nothing to do with history. and to be honest, i dont want to re-play arnhem were the british win, it just wouldnt do it for me.
Yes Nige, we "won" most of the scenarios at Pocket, but I think what Gaz means is that Falaise as a whole was a losing battle - we had to withdraw even when we won.
However, no matter what historical situation a game is set in, either side can "win".
You've got nothing to ein, zwei, drei, vier
I bet if I throw in the 'it's the taking part that counts' card folks will maybe get in a tizzy - but for me personally that's the important thing, that a game actually is able to take place. Win, lose or draw - is a minor point.
I agree to a large extent, Del - but getting utterly trounced all weekend can be a bit of a downer.
You've got nothing to ein, zwei, drei, vier
oops, my bad, i thought it was a case of" germany lost the war so you must lose this game" sort of thing. i still dont ever want a british victory at arnhem though.
Well, even if they "won", they'd have to withdraw because 30 Corps didn't make it that far!
You've got nothing to ein, zwei, drei, vier
The upcoming Operation Aerial is based around the time of Dunkirk, most definitely when the Germans had the upper hand in the war. I agree that a lot of previous games have featured the periods when the Germans were on the back foot.
Not sure if a "campaign" system would work to be honest, although it's an interesting idea. Gunmans' games are probably the closest you'll get to a system like that, although it's not a free flowing sequence of battles, more following the actual sequence of events, ie, D-Day, Carentan, Caen, etc. I think the CiA approach of selecting what's interesting is better personally and the "outcome" on the day can be a reversal of history.
PBI run games where the outcome of one mission directly affects the next one and will continue to do so, so it falls in between the CiA and Gunman format.
Personally, I prefer games that are historically accurate, although "what if" games, like Operation Sealion could be interesting as well.
When I want your opinion - I'll tell you what it is!
blooming tankies 
Thanks for being gentle with me 
say for example the Axis palying a Dunkirk game keeped the Allies on there heals all the game then the next event would reflecked this and so on didnt mean just on the odd battle during the game.
Right, I see what you mean now Gaz!
What you seem to be suggesting is like a PBI game but on a much bigger scale, covering many games. The Gunman D-Day onwards campaign seems to be a logical and practical solution to what you are suggesting. Loose scenaio, no predetermined outcome, no kit restrictions.
Speaking from a CiA POV, we either think of a scenario and find a site to suit or find a cracking site and build a scenario that fits. This means that the battle could be in any country and at any time of WW2 - that is to say, no logical time line. So, for us it would be impossible to have one day affecting the outcome of another.
Sometimes we plan the scenario to run a particular way. It's not a question of winning or losing - as long as players think they are getting somewhere and not getting spanked all day. By example, to make best use of Taffy's site we 'forced' the battle to move from the camp area to beyond Mnt Etna and then have a push back. And as in Steiner's example of Pocket, it's possible to be technically falling back yet still be the winners, if winning matters!
CiA isn't constrained by battle historical accuracy though if an idea was interesting enough - Wotan, Eagle and Glocke for example - and chaps still like that so I suppose that if someone put together a rolling campaign and committed to running eight games, say, then it might just be a goer but I doubt it will have legs.
But the biggest flaw in the concept though, I think, is over-emphasis on winning. I mean, after three games of, lets say, German wins would the Allies bother to book for the fourth?
Good question that.
I mean realistically the Germans didnt have a hope in hell of winning once they'd started on Russia. Regardless of their performance on the battlefield if you cant import enough stuff to run your economy you're screwed. Any alternative WWII scenarios would have to invent some way of screwing over the Royal Navy (and later the US fleet).
After D-Day you've about three German offensives, the Normandy Counter Attack, The Arnhem Counter Attack and The Bulge, other than that they are on the back foot in every sense of the phrase. So I think you'd have t come up with some really good plausible back story in your campaign cos simply winning the battle of the bulge for example would have kept Germany in the fight for another month at best.
As mentioned we've done some 'what if' scenarios that have the Germans as the attackers (like op lightning) but As Guy (old un) mentioned in his how to run game thread. You have to give both sides a go at attacking and defending over the day.
PBI games are always written so that each faction has a mission or two in which they are attacking, one or two in which they are defending and one or two which could be ran either way so we can shape the day depending on the results.
While I think a day of 'what if' (seal lion, german troops sent to the jungle to fight brits or other madness) could be fun i dont know how big an appeal you'd have.
Most of get into it because of a love of military history (and the kit) and I dont know how much they would enjoy a game where the path of history changes radically.
As Nige says doing Arnhem you know you're doomed to lose as a brit but the challenge is to see how long you can last out and how well you can fight.
Having said that we did varsity and the germans won (which is historically incorrect) but we didnt really say 'the germans won operation varsity' we said 'this platoon of oxs and bucks failed to fulfill there objectives whereas the germans in this sector fought them to a standstill'
One of the beautiful things about taking a micro approach to the game is that you can have an axis win (or wins in succession) without altering history - it just means they are doing well in that sector.
"I think we are in rats' alley - Where the dead men lost their bones."
Yes Nige, we "won" most of the scenarios at Pocket, but I think what Gaz means is that Falaise as a whole was a losing battle - we had to withdraw even when we won.
However, no matter what historical situation a game is set in, either side can "win".
The withdrawal of the Germans was actually the winning clause for the game though. "Winning the game" doesn't always need to be crushing the enemy. At the Pocket game, the Germans stalled the Allied counter-attack to the point where they all escaped the pocket, ready to fight another day.
Interesting idea , but not a goer for all the reasons CW mentioned. Re historical accuracy & our games :-
1 Battle of the Bulge - historic
2 Arnhem - historic , even so the Brits won .
3 Churchills - fictional
4 Wotan - fictional
5 Eagles has landed - fictional
6 Bryansk - fictional
7 Husky -historic
8 Mist - historic
9 Glocke - fictional
Many more fictional than historic !
Aalso a bit peed that you feel the Germans always loose , both at Husky and Mist we had a distinct advantage to win , and didn't ...thats the way players acted not any predetermined script .
Think about it , WTF would me , Kermit or any other want to keep playing battles we organised just to loose ????, fuck me- I like winning too , beating Chomers is all that keeps me going at time . 
I'll keep saying it , it's not about the kit it's about whats in your head.
When we say more realistic/historic/accurate we mean people getting into the zone in their heads, and acting behaving and playing like soldiers of WW2 not like airsofters at an open day . What badges you wear is not really of importance.
The comment ..I don't care if my kit looks shit we're airsofters is exactly the attitude we don't want at our games frankly, as it says to us , you've put in a lot of effort to have a different game to every other airsoft site but bolloxto that - I couldn't give a shit and just like dressing up as a German /Yank /Brit and playing with a toy gun
Not aimed at you P1 , more of another general restating of where we are .
This is why i try not to post as it always seems to go of track. and ok i have to admit iam not very good at putting it in writing what iam trying to put a cross The main topic was why should the Germans have to pull back ie let the Allies take the ground to keep the game on course when they are playing well, been to many a game where this happens just thought it would be good after a great battle for this to reflect on the next game .
Old un never said the German always loose 
what was i was getting at is if they are playing well they are some times asked to give up ground to help the Allies.
Oh and before someone jumps in Saying "us Allies dont need the Axis to give up ground cause we are the dealers of death " not having a go about how you play so take that chill pill and i will see you on the next battle field YELLOW IS THE NEW BLACK 
I see your point mate.
I think the thing is though that we do sometimes change history for that battle (arnhem and varsity being a good example) without changing the end result of the war or history.
Its harder with CiA or Gunman regen games to make sure that both sides get to attack and defend in equal measures, a game played on the defensive in trenches all day is boring and a game where you constantly attack is exhausting and you'd need three times as many attackers as defenders to make it realistic.
We're luckier with PBI games in that the mission format means we can write an equal amount of attack and defende scenarios and even if you're losing you can be given a convincing reason to be on the offensive and vice versa.
However I think if the next *event* was swayed by the results of the last one and you were folowing a path like gunamn do with the chronology of D-day you would start off quite interesting but have potential to get silly later on..
Hypethetically:
D-day, the germans win hands down... what do you arrnage next 'the second evacuation of france', 'the invasion of England'?
That goes well where next... tigers in washington?
Taking it to a ludicrous extreme there but you see my point.
Personally I always wanted to see a 'Germany 1946' what if game where the war drags on for a seventh year and you start seeing stuff like allied assault rifles, funky german camo... the proposed new helmet (worn by the DDR in the end) for the germans... night vision kit on both sides etc etc.
I'd equally be interested in a game set in mid 45 where the soviets dont stop and its US vs Russian with WWII kit.
"I think we are in rats' alley - Where the dead men lost their bones."
CiA games are ALWAYS written with a rather open brief on the attack/defend side of things.
The idea is for any one side to be able to decide to attack/defend/counter attack at any given time.
Like Guy says, it's down to the attitude and tenacity of the players to get stuck in. Sometimes we'll prescribe a route of attack (as at Husky) and at others you'll have free rein (as at Churchill's Revenge) but the opportunity will always be there to move in either direction rather than just sit still and wait.
