Scenario Marquees

[davep]

Are Scenario Labels really that affective or useful for tactical events, other than to hype or advertise an event?

While an event needs a "date frame" on which to help determine the appropriate clothing, boots, webgear, weapons etc to bring out. Is it really necessary to give tactical battle that sexy sounding battle names? Wouldn't it actually be more authentic to have "skirmish" names such as "battle for hill 325" or "holding the line a crossroad 20"?

[bthodgson]

Why not combine Titles, like Dave has with a place and date?

Assualt on Hill 20: Italy 1945.
Breakout: Normandy 1944.
Escape the Pass: North Africa 1943.

The names are then cool, and the time and place is given. You know what will be appropriate uniform and gear wise, and you have a title that gets your mind going as to what the event might entail doing

[davep]

Here is what someone else posted on this topic

I remember when we did not bother with "naming" an event. We would just put out a letter saying that we are doing an event that will be ETO, 1944, eastern front, 1942 or Africa, 1942. We would list what impressions were welcome and which were not. We also would list what uniforms and equipment were welcome and which were not. For example at the Eastern front battle we only wanted German and Russian re-enactors and no weapons made after 1942.

I agree most of these names placed on events now a days are to hype an event, others do it to give it the time and place and are necessary, an example of this would be FIG, Battle of the bulge.

I think if reenactors are putting on an event using a marquee battle name it should have several elements from that battle, like terrain, weather conditions, and unique elements of the engagement(s) itself. An example of such is the "night drop" for a D-Day event, snow for a Battle of the Bulge event. Otherwise use generic "skirmish names".

If you think about authenticity, which everyone seems to be big on using a Farbee Marquee Battle name is sort of a oxymoron.

[bthodgson]

Well, if we put out the "Scenario Timeline" in with the emails and newsletter, then why do we need to have it in the title of the battle? Send out the news letter, the part with the details about the battle, there could be a little history about the time and battle we would be portraying. The people planning the scenario should also have that in mind.

This past Roberts, we were supposed to be portraying Aachen; and yet, we were the ones fighting off the advancing Germans? How does that work? How does that add to the historical authenticity of the battle? Why were the Germans not defending the positions and we be the ones advancing?

All these questions raised because, as implied by the name, it was supposed to be the battle for Aachen, in which the Allies were pushing relentlessly forward trying to capture the city. The battle, however, did not reflect that at all. I can understand the battle titles the way they are now; however, I do not understand why the actual tactical side of it is not reflected by the name of the battle which we are supposedly trying to portray and pay honor to. To me, that just does not make sense.

I think that adding newer names to the events could be pretty awesome. Like I said before, it might even spark some people's interests as to what may be in store in the battle ahead. That could create hype as well. Hype that would make sense when we are out fighting the Huns.

[davep]

Brett, I'll agree with you, after four plus years of WW2 there are a lot more names that should be popping up. But, that brings up another problem with the sexy sounding marquee battle names, that is they tend to hyper focus the event, to who can be there. By their very nature they limit who can go. And if you get real anal what countries can be there, and what type of combat units can be there.

Also when you talk about these Marquee battle names there are large scale battle names and you also have campaigns.


Here is how another reenactor puts it. His opening line is exactly what happens

If the scenario really does differ from the usual events where you go to the same site, have a line up, go off and shoot-em-up, and retire at a predetermined time to BS and drink, then no I don't see a point in naming the scenario. It's almost a joke really to call that 'Arnhem' or 'Aachen' or 'Ardennes' or any other historic battle name. We aren't following the same tactics, the same objectives (I'm fairly sure 'capture the flag' was rarely a routinely selected course of action where commanders felt they could risk their soldier's lives).

If you have a fresh scenario that follows even some semblance of authenticity, then by all means. For example the Colorado 'March on Stalingrad' event featured basically a long road march, which makes sense. Fresh idea that executed what they advertised. The problem is that far too many events are more of 'Western Front/ETO event at location X' , 'Russian Front event at location Y in the snow', or even the generic 'desert battle' variety than something novel in a new location. Inventiveness and creativity are tall orders to fill, and it's a LOT easier to hold the 'Western Front/ETO event at location X, mark 1, mod 0' than it is to really have something unique. The unique ones are the reason I come out year after year and stay into this hobby, not the 'Western Front/ETO event at location X' events. Those I really could care less about.