3 – Military Commanders Always Planned Everything
The Video Game Version: In almost every strategy game, the player is the ultimate, omniscient commander, with endless sheets of information, stats, exact locations, and 100% accurate unit reporting. You can formulate a flawless plan, see the entire battlefield from a top-down perspective, and issue direct orders to every single unit under your command. Your orders are, for the most part, executed instantly and perfectly. The game’s challenge is about developing the perfect strategy, executing it without a hitch, and out-thinking an enemy commander who is also operating with a clear, defined plan.
The Historical Reality: The matter of fact was (and still very much is) that the reality of military command was defined by uncertainty, misinformation, and the constant need to adapt to a situation that was rarely what was expected, having to deal with outdated information, and a lot of guesswork. People are not reliable, reports can be poorly worded or written, a unit you want to order might be unreachable, and the orders you so carefully laid out can be misinterpreted. The famous Prussian field marshal Helmuth von Moltke famously said, “No plan survives contact with the enemy”.
Why the Myth Persists: Again, the “planned everything” myth is a necessary abstraction for the strategy genre. It provides a clear framework for the player to engage with, a puzzle to solve, and a sense of mastery. Some games have attempted to go the alternate route, like Radio General and Radio Commander, where players are far away from the field of battle and have to rely on reports about what’s going on to make decisions, and they do a great job at showcasing how chaotic, uncertain, and frustrating the reality of command was, but there’s also a reason as to why games like that account for a very small niche. Players want to be in control of everything, and for that, they need to be given perfect information and control, because most games are set up as a solvable problem that needs to be overcome, and not necessarily a simulation of real-world chaos. Of course, a lot of wargames remove this agency from players, and I love that, but once again, there’s a reason why those games only account for a small fraction of all strategy games out there, and the majority are titles where players have full control of everything.
2 – Bayonets Were A Last Resort Weapon
The Video Game Version: In many strategy games (and historical shooters), the bayonet is treated as a final, desperate option. The players’ troops might “fix bayonets” only after their ammunition is depleted, or in a frantic last-second charge to close a small distance out of desperation or to close out a fight. The act is portrayed as a risky, high-effort move, often resulting in a messy, close-quarters fight that a player would rather avoid than engage with. The bayonet is seen as an object of desperation, a last symbol of a soldier’s unwillingness to surrender.
The Historical Reality: Far from being a last-resort weapon, the bayonet was a primary weapon and a crucial psychological tool for infantry for centuries. It was its main defense against cavalry charges, and it was used with terrifying effectiveness in infantry charges. Remember that musket fighting doctrine used the musket as a way to soften up the enemy before the decisive charge was to take place. Bayonets were as much of a primary weapon option for a musket as the bullets it fired. When charged, the purpose was not just to kill, but to intimidate and break the enemy’s will to fight before a single bayonet actually touched a person.
Why the Myth Persists: I actually think this myth doesn’t stem from games necessarily, but from players themselves, who would rather be a lot more conservative in the way they use their troops, opting to have them out of range and fighting at a distance, other than closing the distance and risking it all in a fight they cannot control. Also, the idea of a last-ditch, desperate bayonet charge is more cinematic and emotionally resonant than a systematic, morale-breaking tactic. It fits the “heroic soldier” narrative and provides a clear, visceral moment of triumph or defeat. In games, especially online ones I have played, players tend to use this as a “finisher” or a desperate last-second move.
1 – Age of Gunpowder Guns Used to Be Ineffective and Inaccurate
The Video Game Version: In many games, especially those that feature a mix of melee and ranged weapons, early firearms are presented as a novelty at best and a liability at worst. They have long reload times and a huge accuracy penalty. The sound and visual effects often suggest a large, wild recoil, and the projectiles themselves are slow and often miss their mark. The game’s design encourages the player to get close to the enemy, where a sword, bow, or modern firearm would be more effective. The myth is that a person with a musket couldn’t hit the broad side of a barn.
The Historical Reality: This myth is absolute historical garbage. And while it is true that early firearms lacked the accuracy of modern-day weapon systems. The truth is that most of those guns were incredibly effective and accurate, especially when used in the correct context and at the proper ranges. At ranges of up to 100 meters, a musket could hit its target around 70% to 75% of the time. The accuracy problems started when fights occurred beyond those distances, and even then, the drop wasn’t that significant, with smoothbore muskets being able to strike their targets 35% to 40% of the time. The myth of this lack of accuracy stems from other “soft” factors, such as the training of the troops, the difficulty in aiming through the amount of smoke these guns produced, and the sizes of the powder cartridges. Their impact on warfare was so profound precisely because they were such a powerful and game-changing weapon.
Why the Myth Persists: This myth serves a number of purposes in game design. For RPGs, it allows for a clear progression from a “less effective” weapon (musket) to a “more effective” weapon (rifle), providing a tangible sense of character growth. For strategy games, it allows for a clear technological shift that can be balanced against other unit types, like cavalry or pikemen. The reality of a highly effective, mass-produced firearm would render a lot of other weapon types obsolete very quickly, especially since games don’t do a great job of simulating soft factors. These firearms tend to be hard-coded to be inactive from the get-go, and that’s fine, because it allows for more gameplay variety. Overall, in games, this myth comes from the usual video gaming abstraction of soft-factors.
The Real History is More Compelling Than the Game
As we’ve seen, the battlefields of our favorite video games are often far removed from the brutal, chaotic, and often tedious realities of history. The heroic duels, flawless battle plans, and ineffective early firearms we’ve grown accustomed to are not the result of poor research, but of a deliberate and often necessary compromise for the sake of entertainment. And that’s perfectly fine, game designers want to create an engaging playable experience, and the real-world aspects often get in the way of making a game fun. Some games, especially more realistic wargames, do a great job of tackling these myths and dismantling them altogether, but those are often a small fraction of existing titles. The next time you charge with a bayonet or shatter a castle wall with a single cannon, remember the truth behind the fantasy, because more often than not, real History is even more compelling than the one on your screen.
Support Strategy and Wargaming
I do what I do in Strategy and Wargaming because I love to do this, and I’m never going to stop. If you would like to support me with that, you can buy me a coffee for a dollar if you’re feeling generous. If you can’t, no worries, Strategy and Wargaming will always be free, and I’d love to have you around!
Leave a Reply