How important is history in a wargame?
Patrick Carroll
times I've shaken my head at a game and said, "That just ain't realistic!"
or "'Tweren't that way at all historically." Have you ever been dismayed by
a glaring historical inaccuracy? (Who hasn't?)
Of course, there are at least two things you can do when that happens: (1)
put the game away in disgust and refuse to ever play it again, then resume
your search for the perfect wargame, or (2) shrug and say, "Aw, well, it's
just a game, and it's fun--so grab the dice and let's play!" I've done both
at one time or another. It depends on how out-of-whack the game is and what
mood I'm in.
How 'bout you (just out of curiosity)? On a scale of 1 to 10 (10 being
"I'll trash the game immediately if I detect even the slightest historical
inaccuracy"), how important is historical accuracy to you?
Offhand, I'd say I'm about a 7 or 8. If I'm going to play any game with
rules as complicated as the typical miniatures wargame, those rules had
better add up to a reasonable historical facsimile. I'd say reading
military history is a stronger hobby for me than wargaming--and since
wargaming is an adjunct to my military-history hobby, I want the two to jibe
as much as possible.
OTOH, I've never seen a perfect simulation, and I don't expect to. So, I'm
very tolerant and forgiving about *abstraction* (glossing over details,
generalizing, simplifying). I'm just intolerant of glaring errors in the
details that are present in the game (for instance the Hasbro/AH game Battle
Cry, where ACW infantry regularly fires effectively at 1000 yards and
cavalry's shock value would impress a band of medieval knights).
--Patrick
Quid Veritas
Personally I'm with you a 7-8 rating.
However, I think you miss the main point regarding history. This coming
Friday we will recreate the campaign for Fort Donaldson -- might use
JRIII or F & F -- really doesn't matter to me. However, I will prepare
a vignette for each major commander and assign victory conditions to
each based on my personal analysis of each General. This background
will result in much discussion and jesting throughout the contest. No
matter who wins, the guys will remember the eye candy (battlefield as
good as we can make it in miniature) and the history. The game -- its
just an excuse to get together with friends.
mjc
Tim
War- the subject of the game
Gaming- It must be enjoyable ...or why bother. Gaming is not simulation. If
you want realism plug the stats into a computer and have it crunch the
numbers. I like a game to at least give a sense of the real thing ... as
long as it isn't at the expense of playability.
Just MHO
Tim
"Quid Veritas" <quidv...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:3DE1C124...@netscape.net...
: I think history is important to all of us. More to some and less to
: >
: >
: >
: >
:
Pockets
"Patrick Carroll" <Patrick...@mn.rr.com> wrote in message
news:yugE9.70229$jj5.1...@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> In my thirty-odd years of (off-and-on) wargaming, I don't know how many
> times I've shaken my head at a game and said, "That just ain't realistic!"
> or "'Tweren't that way at all historically." Have you ever been dismayed
by
> a glaring historical inaccuracy? (Who hasn't?)
>
> Of course, there are at least two things you can do when that happens:
(1)
> put the game away in disgust and refuse to ever play it again, then resume
> your search for the perfect wargame, or (2) shrug and say, "Aw, well, it's
> just a game, and it's fun--so grab the dice and let's play!" I've done
both
> at one time or another. It depends on how out-of-whack the game is and
what
> mood I'm in.
For me the history side of things, I like things to be 'in the same ball
park'
Otherwise, the spirit, that the important thing to me!
Rhandolph
annoyed if say a WWII scenario had the British with Sherman tanks in 1940 or
some Napoleonic rules gave the Spanish high morale!
I don't care if figures aren't painted entirely right as long as the
jackets and trousers look about right, nor if the uniform pattern belongs to
a few years before or after the battle took place. I wouldn't buy a whole
new army just because there hats changed abit from one campaign to another.
Unless you have unlimitted time and money to play with most of us have to
make do with what we can scrape together.
I don't get annoyed if people don't use historical tactics all the time. I
mean as the player controlling the army using textbook maneauvers detracts
from thinking up surprises or innovations... although most systems give an
army the advantage for following ingrained tactics (French in column +10 to
hand to hand!)
As for campaigns following a historical course.. well as soon as you've
deviated from history in a battle (Ney dosn't waste the cavalry..) or the
historical 'loser' has won a battle then the whole thing falls apart.
If you play 'Waterloo' and Napoleon wins then potentially you might have
another 2 or 3 years of the Napoleonic wars which never actually existed and
the players would have to decide on events themselves, which would allow all
those unheard of battles you've always pondered becoming plausible with a
little imagination.
"Tim" <ti...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:bpjE9.101286$ka.24...@news1.calgary.shaw.ca...
WARGAMING
of having the right equipment in the right year and the correct terrain for the
area of operations. However, if the uniforms are a litttle off or if an
enterprising commander uses unconventional tactics so be it. I look at
wargaming as a game of strategy and tactics in a historical context and love
the added visual dimension that minaitures allow. That is why I love 'What If'
scenarios and not just replays of historical events. My .2 cents worth
Bill
MJB
"Patrick Carroll" <Patrick...@mn.rr.com> wrote in message
news:yugE9.70229$jj5.1...@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
>
being
> "I'll trash the game immediately if I detect even the slightest
historical
> inaccuracy"), how important is historical accuracy to you?
Actually, maybe a 4 or a 5 - let me give you a couple of examples.
I designed a WW II air combat game that originally allowed a P-38
lightning's concentrated firepower to just dissolve a Japanese Zero -
which satisfied the US pilots who got to fly the 'flying buzzsaw' and
was perfectly historical. But it made for an extremely poor game
because nobody wanted to strap themselves into the cockpit of the
Japanese Zero if they were going to be shot down so easily. So I had
to reduce the firepower effects of the Lightning to the point where
one burst of fire wouldn't just tear the zero apart. Which was not
historical - but made for a much better game.
My home-brew Napoleonic rules (and who doesn't have their own set?
<grin>) have two ratings for Line infantry - ordinary and 2nd rate.
Now many rules say Spanish line are rated lower than 2nd rate, down to
the level of untrained milita - which might be perfectly historical
and accurate. But it makes for a crappy game, especially for the poor
sod who bought the spanish miniatures and painted them up in their
gorgeous white Royalist uniforms. So I simply say that Spanish Line
are rated as 2nd rate infantry - the same as most minor Germans.
Ditto for the Neopolitans - the army of Naples (in my rules) is no
worse than the other minor countries.
IMHO, most simulations do not work as wargames. And in general, I'd
rather give-up some historical accuracy for FUN! And that means fun
for everyone - not just the person who gets to command the
historically dominate army in the period being played, but even for
the person who commands the 'loser'.
--
MJB
The email is munged : to reply directly, replace 'OLD' with 'new'.
Please visit Mr. Tin's Miniature Painting Workshop:
http://web.newsguy.com/Mrtinsworkshop/
Bob Jones
> times I've shaken my head at a game and said, "That just ain't realistic!"
> or "'Tweren't that way at all historically." Have you ever been dismayed by
> a glaring historical inaccuracy? (Who hasn't?)
BJ: Few miniatures games I have played have a "glaring historical
inaccuracy." Most do a reasonably good job with the basics of ranges,
comparative values of troop types, and illustrating the pros and cons
of fire, melee, and morale. The history may be slathered on more
heavily in some games than in others, but the primary distinction
isn't the history but the cleverness, smoothness of play, and,yes,
enjoyability of the game and its mechanics.
Most complaints, in my experience, revolve around very subjective
assessments of extremely fine points. I can remember gamers going on
and on about some niggling minor detail(that they believed absolutely
critical) usually involving organization, squares and the general
subject of cavalry versus foot, the turn sequence(Time), or arcane
aspects of command.
In most cases the critic is NOT really a wargamer, but someone who
revels in acquiring, and exhibiting "expertise' about some extremely
limited and obscure historical facts. (The more limited and obscure
the less is the chance of being contested.) The best way for him to
show off his book larnin' should be by writing a good book or a series
of articles. That, too often, is beyond the skill of this expert.
(Or it could be that his "central facts" are so obscure and
meaningless to the wider world that no one could imagine giving them
the weight of a book or article!)
The next best way would be by designing a good game that puts his
conceptions into motion. This, though often promised, is also a
relatively rare event.
So they end up as critics on the internet forums, always professing
their committment to "realism", often quantifying games(which are
intuitive in their best manifestations) in terms of an "objective" 1
to 10, and give their reasons why such and such doesn't work
'historically', or how they will creatively combine several rule set
ideas "someday".
This allows them to continue as an "expert", to proclaim their soulful
search for the perfect wargame, ignore the strongly subjective nature
of wargaming and, instead of exploring how to make the game more
enjoyable, seem intent to insist the games fit their view of history
at the expense of damn near everything else. This has been the curse
of the hobby and the cause of too many repetitive(copy-cat) and boring
designs.
I often think these people never expect, or want, to find satisfaction
in a design as then they would have to give up what is truly their
favorite hobby-expounding on history and critiqueing the creative work
of others.
"That ain't realistic!" is generally heard after a bad die roll, a
poor combat result, an unexpected event, or a lost battle. The worst
thing a wargame can do for these folks is present them with a loss or
embarassment. They see that as an indictment of their expertise and
knowledge. Any hint they might be wrong, confused, or "don't get it",
well, "That just ain't realistic!"
BJ
Patrick Carroll
>
> However, I think you miss the main point regarding history. This coming
> Friday we will recreate the campaign for Fort Donaldson -- might use
> JRIII or F & F -- really doesn't matter to me.
Well, if the name of the battle matters to you, FYI it's Donelson, not
Donaldson.
> However, I will prepare
> a vignette for each major commander and assign victory conditions to
> each based on my personal analysis of each General. This background
> will result in much discussion and jesting throughout the contest.
Especially with generals like Floyd and Pillow! ;-)
> No
> matter who wins, the guys will remember the eye candy (battlefield as
> good as we can make it in miniature) and the history. The game -- its
> just an excuse to get together with friends.
Hmm. . . . I'm betting that's the majority view. Not mine, however.
Maybe it comes from my board-wargaming background, but to me a wargame
is basically a nonlinear account of a historical battle or campaign.
I approach wargames pretty much the same way I approach books--except
that in a wargame I'm not stuck with the historical beginning, middle,
and end; I can write the script as I go along, so to speak. In any
case, to me the joy of wargaming is experiencing a slice of military
history--even if I'm doing it solitaire.
--Patrick
Patrick Carroll
> Personally, I view the hobby by breaking down the word. War - Gaming
> War- the subject of the game
> Gaming- It must be enjoyable ...or why bother. Gaming is not simulation. If
> you want realism plug the stats into a computer and have it crunch the
> numbers. I like a game to at least give a sense of the real thing ... as
> long as it isn't at the expense of playability.
I *insist* that the game "at least give a sense of the real thing,"
because to me that's what it's all about.
As to playability, well, it's necessary. If you can't play it, it's
not really a game, is it? But to me the enjoyment of the game is
connected to "a sense of the real thing," *not* to the playability.
Battle Cry (a Hasbro/AH Civil War game), for example, is eminently
playable. As such, it's a lot of fun for gamers (even if they're not
wargamers). But it's so unrealistic as to make an ACW buff like me
wince and gag. It doesn't give me any more "sense of the real thing"
than Monopoly gives me of the real-estate business.
OTOH, take a computer "game" like Harpoon (an ultra-realistic
simulation of modern naval warfare). It's way too much of a
simulation for my taste. It's more work than play. In that case, I'd
prefer that the game be abstracted and simplified--but not at the
expense of historical accuracy. Simulational detail is expendable,
historical accuracy is not, IMHO.
--Patrick
MJB
"Patrick Carroll" <patrick...@mn.rr.com> wrote in message
news:7e9e8acf.02112...@posting.google.com...
> Quid Veritas <quidv...@netscape.net> wrote:
> >
> > However, I think you miss the main point regarding history. This
coming
> > Friday we will recreate the campaign for Fort Donaldson -- might
use
> > JRIII or F & F -- really doesn't matter to me.
>
> Well, if the name of the battle matters to you, FYI it's Donelson,
not
> Donaldson.
D'Oh - you lawyered a lawyer! I love it.
<grin>
>
> > No
> > matter who wins, the guys will remember the eye candy (battlefield
as
> > good as we can make it in miniature) and the history. The game --
its
> > just an excuse to get together with friends.
>
> Hmm. . . . I'm betting that's the majority view. Not mine,
however.
And that's sad for you, because otherwise there is NO point to playing
with toy soldiers. 'Quid Veritas' (or other less charming names to
those who know him well) was the person who introduced me to this
hobby in 1979 and was the very first person to ever hire me to paint
figures when I was a wet-behind the ears college student. And while I
haven't seen him face-to-face in over 12 years - he, along with
Patrick and Bud and Bryan and Randy and many others I've met in those
long-gone days remain among my dearest and most valued friends. All
because we one time crawled about on our hands and knees pushing 25mm
Nappies in someone's attic during the middle of a Montana winter.
Miniature wargaming is by it's nature a co-operative venture, not a
competitive one. Rules have to be selected and oftentimes modified to
suit the opinions of everyone, figures have to be purchased, painted
and organized by ALL parties involved, terrain has to be either
constructed or purchased and somebody has to agree to host and
organize the event. Unlike a boardgame or a computer game where you
can pay your money, pop open the box and play with whatever you find
inside.
Miniature wargaming is a social, cooperative event that requires an
abililty to compromise and 'play well with others'. And if you are
going to be argumentative, uncivil or ill-tempered, you will find
yourself shut-out of future events. Even if your POV is entirely
correct on the facts being discussed.
Or oftentimes, especially if your facts are correct!
<grin>
Nothing I've written should in anyway be taken as a personal poke at
you. I've just found, over the years and after supporting myself on
the miniature hobby that a little LESS history (and resulting
histrionics) oftentimes leads to MORE pleasure in other people's
company. And now I must close - the game room must be prepared
because my dearest friends are coming over tonight for a dinner, a
game and to toast my 44th birthday.
And to pick-up their recently completed toys.
--
MJB
My email address is munged : to reply directly, replace 'OLD' with
Murvihill
that, at some point the rules designer has to decide to depart from reality.
Otherwise you set up Denmark Straits, then pick up the Hood, set a cotton ball
on the PoW and call it a night (I know a guy who did that). I believe that
wargames are (either intentionally or otherwise) set up to provide realism only
on a certain point. The design notes in "Command Decision II" state that the
designer intended for a company to behave historically, not for each stand
within that company to do so (or was it a battalion?). This balance is a
sacrifice which must be made to make the game playable at all. I've been
trying to design a set of rules which allow the entire Battle of the Bulge to
be played in a convention setting (about 5 hours and 10 players), and each new
rules set sacrifices more realism in some aspects to allow for playing speed,
but tries to keep the Corps commander's decision-making process intact. Most
games sacrifice the limited intelligence aspect, perhaps since it is the most
difficult and time consuming to recreate.
Thats why if you had a million wargamers and a million typewriters, there
would be a million versions of Shakespeare's "Hamlet: floating around...
No real point here, but the question is harder to answer (for me anyway) than
it sounds.
Pardon my digression
Dave M.
Christopher TenWolde
> "I'll trash the game immediately if I detect even the slightest historical
> inaccuracy"), how important is historical accuracy to you?
History is the pallette upon which we paint. Some of us may be
impressionists, and blur the details to produce their own unique view
of a particular scene, while some us may belong to the classical
school, and seek to reproduce the widest range of details in our quest
for the perfect picture. In the end, we share both the medium, the
tools, and the desire to pursue the common goal of the enjoyment of
our past-time.
Regards,
Christopher TenWolde
NJH
> "Patrick Carroll" <Patrick...@mn.rr.com> wrote in message news:<yugE9.70229$jj5.1...@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>...
> > a glaring historical inaccuracy? (Who hasn't?)
>
>
> Most complaints, in my experience, revolve around very subjective
> assessments of extremely fine points. I can remember gamers going on
> and on about some niggling minor detail(that they believed absolutely
> critical) usually involving organization, squares and the general
> subject of cavalry versus foot, the turn sequence(Time), or arcane
> aspects of command.
bell curve for events of the time, I'm happy. Two would be an almost
unmanageable amount of chrome (Empire V - a 192 page homage to the
concept of "there is never too much chrome") for today's gamers.
People who want the opportunity to play games in the furthest reaches
of the bell curve should do RPG's because they are all about
excruciating detail and vicious rules lawyering.
> "That ain't realistic!" is generally heard after a bad die roll, a
> poor combat result, an unexpected event, or a lost battle. The worst
> thing a wargame can do for these folks is present them with a loss or
> embarassment. They see that as an indictment of their expertise and
> knowledge. Any hint they might be wrong, confused, or "don't get it",
> well, "That just ain't realistic!"
*NJH: I really enjoy playing TSATF. It's quite possibly my favorite
set of rules for convention games. I seldom ever hear anyone familiar
with TSATF say anything about realism or historical precedent. Perhaps
because we know better, and near as I can determine the author has
never made a claim that TSATF is a definitive or comprehensive
simulation.
Perhaps authors should stop making outrageous claims regarding
historical realism and detailed definitive accuracy. I'm more
impressed by rules that work as a game and make no claim or pretext to
be the definitive and all encompassing Great Historical Miniatures
Rules Set.
For rules to work as a game they have to be fun, easy to understand,
and they really must be written in plain colloquial North American
English. Or, at the very least, they must be translated into
colloquial North American English for the North American market.
Reader's Digest level would be preferable to graduate level writing.
Why? Because if an author can't make or state the point in colloquial
North American English they really don't have a fun, easy to
understand set of rules. They have built in job security, because if
they can convince someone to print the rules they will always have to
be on retainer to explain the rules. One could make a career out of
explaining the obscure nuances of incomprehensible word choice and
sentence structure. And, then we can consider an imaginative (strange)
or cutting edge (downright weird) game design and structure.
I spend virtually all my reading time on history. History is
fascinating for me, but I don't always look for it on the tabletop. If
I can use the tabletop to help me understand something then so much
the better, but I look for history in books and primary sources. The
tabletop is for having fun, playing games, and chatting about history.
IMO - Rules that are fun are more easily accepted than rules that are
not.
Just some thoughts.
Cheers
NJH
Eric K
news:f27516c2.02112...@posting.google.com:
> History is the pallette upon which we paint. Some of us may be
> impressionists, and blur the details to produce their own unique view
> of a particular scene, while some us may belong to the classical
> school, and seek to reproduce the widest range of details in our quest
> for the perfect picture. In the end, we share both the medium, the
> tools, and the desire to pursue the common goal of the enjoyment of
> our past-time.
>
> Regards,
>
> Christopher TenWolde
Very nicely put Christopher! Of course some of us are more like a
sculptor,flailing away with hammer and chisel,errants bits flying into our
eyes,keeping the neighbors up at all hours,inhaling volumes of unhealthy
dust,and wondering whether the next stroke brings us an inch closer to
beauty or a great pile of rubble.
Patrick Carroll
> History is the pallette upon which we paint. Some of us may be
> impressionists, and blur the details to produce their own unique view
> of a particular scene, while some us may belong to the classical
> school, and seek to reproduce the widest range of details in our quest
> for the perfect picture. In the end, we share both the medium, the
> tools, and the desire to pursue the common goal of the enjoyment of
> our past-time.
I don't mean to quibble, but I think this bears looking at more
closely.
First off, an artist doesn't paint on a pallette, but on a canvas.
This raises the question What did you mean? That history is the
pallette, or the canvas?
If the pallette, then the implication is that history is like a set of
paints: something we're free to draw from as we like, using the
colors (historical facts) that suit us while ignoring or
changing/distorting others.
If the canvas, the implication is that history is just a
backdrop--that when we play a wargame, we're just superimposing our
present-day game events onto a faded background of actual historical
events.
I suppose both could be true--so maybe the jumbled metaphor works
after all. In either case, wargaming is an art-form and its essence
and aim is beauty, which may manifest in many different ways. In a
game, primarily as enjoyment, which may arise as much from the
camaraderie, ambience, and dice-roll surprises as from the game being
a window into history.
Still, to me there's something a little disconcerting about the first
interpretation above--where the artist/wargame designer feels free to
use historical facts as he sees fit, twisting history to suit the
game. Doesn't that border on what fantasy/sci-fi wargamers do? I
always thought there was a real difference between historical
wargaming and f/sf wargaming. But if one feels free to alter
historical facts just for the fun of it, that's no different from a
fiction like "Time Bandits," is it?
There's no doubt that wargaming is for fun, not for serious study.
But where do we draw the lines between history, history-based fiction,
and fantasy/sci-fi? Or is it even important to draw such lines?
Clearly the lines mean more to some wargamers than to others--which is
why I posed the question that's the title of this thread.
--Patrick
MJB
> ca...@traverse.net (Christopher TenWolde) wrote :
> > History is the pallette upon which we paint. Some of us may be
> > impressionists, and blur the details to produce their own unique
view
> > of a particular scene, while some us may belong to the classical
> > school, and seek to reproduce the widest range of details in our
quest
> > for the perfect picture. In the end, we share both the medium,
the
> > tools, and the desire to pursue the common goal of the enjoyment
of
> > our past-time.
>
> I don't mean to quibble, but I think this bears looking at more
> closely.
>
> First off, an artist doesn't paint on a pallette, but on a canvas.
> This raises the question What did you mean? That history is the
> pallette, or the canvas?
Poor choice of words - I would have said "history is the pallete with
which we paint." That would have more closely matched the metaphor he
was tying to make.
>
> If the pallette, then the implication is that history is like a set
of
> paints: something we're free to draw from as we like, using the
> colors (historical facts) that suit us while ignoring or
> changing/distorting others.
I think you're being deliberately obtuse and perverse here. The
changing /distorting line pretty much tells me you're trolling now.
>
> If the canvas, the implication is that history is just a
> backdrop--that when we play a wargame, we're just superimposing our
> present-day game events onto a faded background of actual historical
> events.
History IS just a backdrop - it is after all, HISTORY! And in the
present day, we are playing a game for recreation that in some small
way seeks to give pleasure by letting us imagine this might have been
how it could have been in the past. The actual history is lost and
what REALLY happened is just supposition - the further back you go
into the past, the less you can rely upon what you think you know is
true.
>
> I suppose both could be true--so maybe the jumbled metaphor works
> after all. In either case, wargaming is an art-form and its essence
> and aim is beauty, which may manifest in many different ways. In a
> game, primarily as enjoyment, which may arise as much from the
> camaraderie, ambience, and dice-roll surprises as from the game
being
> a window into history.
Now you're taking sense. <grin>
>
> Still, to me there's something a little disconcerting about the
first
> interpretation above--where the artist/wargame designer feels free
to
> use historical facts as he sees fit, twisting history to suit the
> game.
That's your interpetration - I much rather think that history sets the
outer limits of what is possible, not what is probable. It's rather
like the HUGE arguments I've seen erupt over this simple question in a
Napoleonic game.
Should you treat an Austrian batallion in a 'mass' formation (the
actual formation name escapes me) as a square or a column versus
infanty? Versus cavalry?
Books say different things - and if your playing the White coats you
want the rules interpetration that most favors your side. Ditto for
the French. So who's twisting history then?
> Doesn't that border on what fantasy/sci-fi wargamers do? I
> always thought there was a real difference between historical
> wargaming and f/sf wargaming. But if one feels free to alter
> historical facts just for the fun of it, that's no different from a
> fiction like "Time Bandits," is it?
<cue up 'rawhide'>
Trollin', trollin' trollin'
Keep those statements flowing...
Upset all the stalwarts
Troll on!
Comparisons a' plenty
No sense I make of any.
But I'm sure the right is on my side!
<grin>
I make better than half my income off painting fantasy and sci-fi
figures. And there is NO difference between historical gamers and
fantasy-sci/fi gamers - with the exception that the fantasy / sci-fi
gamers pay a whole lot better than the historical gamers.
>
> There's no doubt that wargaming is for fun, not for serious study.
> But where do we draw the lines between history, history-based
fiction,
> and fantasy/sci-fi?
Some of us don't. We play all of it with equal seriousness and equal
pleasure. As anyone who took a look at my library might understand.
I read history for pleasure, yet you'll find Chandler's "The
Campaign's of Napoleon" in the very same bookcase as my D & D books.
I have an entire shelf devoted to Games Workshop products - and
another full of the most arcane details of Napoleonic uniforms you
might ever imagine.
I think you're trying to set-up a straw man here in order to stir the
pot. There are NO lines to be drawn - history just sets the outward
limits of a historical rule set, while the others are limited by the
authors imagination. A rule writer of a historical game is limited by
the facts available and if he deveates to far from those facts, his
work will not be accepted by the general historical gaming audience.
People who know something will scoff - and he will be embarassed. Or
perhaps defiant. In either case, he rules will probably fail.
> Or is it even important to draw such lines?
No. It is not important. Drawing such lines leads to exclusion - and
since the fantasy/ SF market is so much larger and healthier than the
historical hobby (and younger), drawing lines that demean or degrade
other gamers simply means they won't listen to you when you talk
anymore. And then you might find yourself alone.
Been there, done that. Now, I'd rather play any sort of miniature
game with people I like (even if it is fantasy or sci-fi) than play no
miniature game at all.
> Clearly the lines mean more to some wargamers than to others--which
is
> why I posed the question that's the title of this thread.
No. You're just trying to set-up the gaming barriers that were tore
down years ago.
To the Barricades!
Liberte, Equalite, Fraternti!
Or something rather like that. If this aging revolutionary's memory
serves.
IMHO, of course.
Ray Trochim
Hi everyone,
Depends on the game really, but I suppose I rate myself as an 8. But some
games are just so fun to play I keep coming back for more. Take TW&TF-20AE
for example. I've had games that were just down right funny and enjoyable
to play with the outcome anything but historical. Sure, the intension was
set out to be historical, but the outcome wasn't. But then, just because
the history books say what had happen doesn't mean things could have been
quite different had even the smallest aspect been changed or modified, or
a particular battle had been fought in another way.
The problem with wargaming is that it is never going to be a true
simulation of actual combat. Take your tipical Napoleonic game. Just the
fact that you can see the whole table with every unit upon it is so
unrealistic it should perplex the mind. But it looks so darn good.
The way I veiw a game (or rule set) is if it is fun to play and if it
captures the flavor of the period the game depicts. Some games of course
do a better job at this than others.
-Ray Trochim
Designer of "Napoleon's Eagles"
http://ucsu.colorado.edu/~trochim/NE/NE.html
Tim Marshall
>
<SNIP a lot of confrontational stuff>
What the hell is wrong with this group lately? First Jon Petersen
interprets something totally different from what I and someone else said
and now you're picking a fight with Patrick. Why? I've been on this
group for quite some time, and through the dreadful Bob Jonesian PK nyah
nyah battles.
Perhaps you and PAtrick were on different sides in those? I can't
remember, but it sure sounds like *you* are picking up from some long
dead flame war. Unless I read Patrick incorrectly, I don't see any
trolling whatsoever.
C'mon guys.
--
Tim - http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~tmarshal/
^o<
/#) "Burp-beep, burp-beep, burp-beep?" - Quaker Jake
/^^ "Want some?" - Ditto
Ray Trochim
>impressionists, and blur the details to produce their own unique view
>of a particular scene, while some us may belong to the classical
>school, and seek to reproduce the widest range of details in our quest
>for the perfect picture. In the end, we share both the medium, the
>tools, and the desire to pursue the common goal of the enjoyment of
>our past-time.
Well said and I wish I thought of it first.
MJB
"Tim Marshall" <tmar...@mun.ca> wrote in message
news:3DE3DE03...@mun.ca...
> MJB wrote:
> >
> <SNIP a lot of confrontational stuff>
Pleaseeeeee... confrontational? Moi? Not a single curse word
anywhere to be found on my part - just some most probably mis-spelled
French.
>
> What the hell is wrong with this group lately?
Nothing. It is Usenet after all. Sorry if I tipped over the table,
dumped your cigars on the floor and spilled the port onto your smoking
jacket. If the worse I ever do is be confrontational on usenet, then
I guess I'll still get to heaven.
<grin>
Sometimes I post advice, sometimes I answer questions, sometimes I ask
questions and sometimes I like to play devil's advocate. Sorry if I
wrote something that upset you.
> First Jon Petersen
> interprets something totally different from what I and someone else
said
> and now you're picking a fight with Patrick. Why?
Why? Because he's trolling. Re-read his postings - 'twisting
history', 'misinterpetrening', etc - all loaded words designed to
generate a response. Well, he got it. Sorry you didn't like it. But
to say that my interpetration of what was said is totally different
from what was said, is well, your interpetration of what was actually
said.
> I've been on this
> group for quite some time, and through the dreadful Bob Jonesian PK
nyah
> nyah battles.
Pleaseeeeee.... I was here then too. PK wasn't worth the cost of
admission so I never got involved. And to compare this to the
dreadful Bob Jones PK battles is silly - this hardly counts as much
above two kids hollering from the backseat "He touched me! He's
looking at me!" while I thought the Bob Jones PK battles were going to
be akin to nuclear war.... followed by nuclear winter.
<grin>
>
> Perhaps you and PAtrick were on different sides in those? I can't
> remember, but it sure sounds like *you* are picking up from some
long
> dead flame war.
Don't know Patrick at all. But I have spent a long time in the battle
with 'history only' purists who want to isolate this part of the hobby
from the great unclean masses playing fantasy / SF games - some of
whom are my customers as well. But the notion that because we read
books about history and our games are steeped in tradition ("I know
someone who played with Scotty Bowden and he said Scotty said....")
makes us somehow superior to those silly children playing with their
orcs and trolls is well, silly.
It is ALL grown boys (and some girls) playing with toys - and if we're
smart, when the kids are older and we're suddenly less stupid in their
eyes, they'll maybe want to play a historical game with the 'cool old
guys' with all the little soldiers with all the little flags. It's
especially more likely to happen when you've played with their orkies
and space marines... and you haven't been dismissive about their games
or lecturing to them either about how what they're doing isn't really
'wargaming'.
Look at how the question was stated. "How important is history in a
wargame?" Not how important is history in a HISTORICAL wargame. Now
granted, this is RGMH so it can be assumed that any wargame under
discussion is going to be a historical wargame, but still....
> Unless I read Patrick incorrectly, I don't see any
> trolling whatsoever.
You read him incorrectly. Once the majority of people posting to his
original query stated that the socializing and the game aspects were
more important than historical accuracy (in general), he continued to
argue and restate and dig away about twisting history and how that
makes historical gaming the same as fantasy and SF, etc.
All IMHO, of course.
Christopher TenWolde
> impressionists, and blur the details to produce their own unique view
> of a particular scene, while some us may belong to the classical
> school, and seek to reproduce the widest range of details in our quest
> for the perfect picture. In the end, we share both the medium, the
> tools, and the desire to pursue the common goal of the enjoyment of
> our past-time.
>
> Regards,
>
> Christopher TenWolde
Okay, okay! Serves me right for posting so late... usually gamers
can spot ordre mixte better than they can a mixed metaphor!
"History is the pallette from which we choose our own particularly
hued interpretation of history" would come closer to the mark of my
original intention.
And yes, I do realize what this means about how gamers pick and choose
what history suits them, but I see that as a necessary precursor to
defining what we want out of a game. If someone leaves out certain
colors from the rich variety available to them, or picks colors which
seem to jar the observer as not being particularly appropriate, we
should just remember that the enjoyment derived from this "painting"
is on a personal level, not a public level - this is "art" (and I use
the term purely metaphoricaly) intended to please the creator, not the
audience!
In the larger scope of things, I hardly think this is as dangerous as
the more recent trend of redefining the *actual* study of history and
prehistory according to the needs of modern politocal trends. "Black
Athena" indeed! Now *that* issomething worth arguing about... ;)
Regards,
Christopher TenWolde
Patrick Carroll
> . . . now you're picking a fight with Patrick. Why? I've been on this
> group for quite some time, and through the dreadful Bob Jonesian PK nyah
> nyah battles.
read Patrick incorrectly, I don't see any
> trolling whatsoever.
Well, in this thread, it sounds like BJ and MJB have *both* declared me
public enemy number one.
But, maybe it's my fault for jumping in here with a discussion question and
not giving my reason for asking it. That sort of thing is bound to make
people start guessing at my motivation. Can't blame 'em for that.
For the record, I've just been sitting around lately doing some
soul-searching and self-reflection, and this question about history started
nagging at me. Ever since I was about sixteen (36 years ago), reading
military history has been a hobby of mine. I played my first wargame (AH's
Waterloo) at thirteen and became obsessed with wargaming--and though I play
only sporadically (and usually on the computer) nowadays, the wargaming
hobby still has a hold on me.
But even after all these years, I'm constantly torn over the old "history vs
playability" issue. I'd never be able to enjoy a game of Waterloo today,
because knowing what I know now about the actual campaign, I can see what a
pitiful job the game does of re-creating it. It's so ahistorical as to
strike me as ludicrous.
Sure, it could still be a fun game if I just lightened up and played it
instead of thinking about it. But if I'm going to do that, I might as well
play Unreal or something. Way back when I was thirteen, I enjoyed Waterloo
because I believed it was a scientifically scaled-down model of the
historical event, converted to game form. That was the whole attraction.
It was a slice of history come to life.
Over the next few decades, I got into ever-more-complex wargames, chasing
the illusion of realism. When I was an ASL fanatic in the late 80s and
early 90s, I was sure that was the ultimate simulation of WW2 tactical
combat--and that's the main reason I was willing to put up with that huge
rulebook.
Now I find myself still reading military history all the time, and still
*wanting* to get back into wargaming, but being unable to reconcile the two
in my own mind. Sometime in the early 90s, ASL became laughable to me (I
saw that it was really nothing but an elaborate chess variant after all),
and I was dismayed to realize I'd wasted years trying to master it for the
sake of learning about WW2 land warfare. I'd have done better sticking with
books and documentaries.
With that experience far behind me, but the desire to play wargames still
alive in me, I'm hemming and hawing and trying to find something that might
work for me. But the critical question is What do I really want from a
wargame?
In my case, I clearly *don't* want an excuse to socialize with fellow
wargamers, because I'm content to play solo and doubt that I'd ever consider
joining a club (though I started & ran a wargaming club many years ago).
Nor do I *just* want to enjoy some fun entertainment, because if I did I'd
probably just settle for computer games of various kinds (but probably not
wargames, since they tend to be dry and studious in comparison to other
computer games). No--for me it has something to do with a love of military
history.
Yet even here in r.g.m.h. I've gotten recommendations of games like Battle
Cry (Hasbro/AH), which is a fun, exciting, competitive game--but a
hopelessly poor historical simulation. I have a copy of BC, and I
appreciate its game value. But that's not what I'm after. I bought it
because it was about ACW battles, not because it might be fun or because I
thought the little toy soldiers were so cute.
So--to finally get to the point--I thought I'd ask the question above (the
thread title) just to sort of take the pulse of the minimen who frequent
this newsgroup. I figured maybe others have already come to terms with the
issue I seem to forever wrestle with--and maybe some of their solutions
would work for me too. Or at least I'd get an update on where the wargaming
hobby is at, and maybe keep myself from becoming too much of anchronism.
Meanwhile, other folks might enjoy having a chance to spout off with an
opinion and swap ideas, and thus they'd benefit too.
So, anyhow, I hope others have gotten something out of it. As for me, I got
my little update on the state of wargaming (or at least a glimpse into part
of it)--a reminder of why most folks do what they do. Unfortunately, that
does nothing toward solving my internal problem. I'm still torn--still
wanting the same kind of thing from wargames as I get from history books,
but having no idea how to go about getting it.
Well, at least I may not be entirely alone in my way of thinking. I
recently read Jim Dunnigan's "Complete Wargames Handbook" (available on-line
at http://www.hyw.com/Books/WargamesHandbook/Contents.htm). And his take on
wargaming being a form of "analytical history" rings a bell with me. Of
course, his wargame company (SPI) folded a couple decades ago . . . so maybe
I'm just a dinosaur wandering around to see who else isn't quite extinct
yet.
--Patrick
PS Oh, btw--I didn't explain why I picked a miniatures group to burden with
my personal problem. Why not a board wargaming group? Well--frankly I've
always hated paper wargames. Back in 1968 when my friend Lenny first showed
me the copy of Waterloo he'd bought, the first thing I said was, "You paid
$5.98 for that? You were gypped!" All that paper and cardboard was
terribly unimpressive. Because of that, I've made false starts into
miniatures for years. Not because I like miniatures per se, but just
because I've always wanted to have a wargame with the kind of high-quality
components that a chess set has.
Also, board wargames are ridiculous in that you have to learn a whole new
set of rules for each new game. You learn Anzio to play the Italian
campaign in WW2, but then you have to learn Afrika Korps (or Campaign for
North Africa) to play the North African campaign, The Russian Campaign to
play the east-front campaign, and so forth. You can spend your whole
wargaming life just learning new rules sets, and you never do get to really
compare one battle or campaign to another on an even playing field.
Miniatures rules are far more sensible to me: one rulebook covers a whole
period, at least at a given scale.
That said, though, frankly I hate painting miniatures (I gave it a good try
in 1976 and haven't been back since) almost as much as I hate the look of
paper wargames. And I can't be bothered with those huge model-railroad-like
battlefield layouts. Definitely not my cup of tea.
DLCRCF
Well you can't have your cake and eat it too:-).
That being said Patrick you could try several other things.
1. Build a coffee table within which the game table is held. A glass cover
could be placed on top just incase you don't finish the game.
2. Use 6mm figures
3. Modify an existing set of rules to match ground scale PoW comes to mind for
this.
4. Use the Featherstone practice of anylizing a battle and changing the
commanders desicions at critical points.
Just like everything else in life Wargaming is a comprimise. My main enjoyment
comes from painting the minis and than setting them out on model-railroad-like
battlefield layouts. I read Military History for recreation and for motivation
to paint and buy more lead. I play wargames because it's an excuse to look at
my lead.
Even with an accurate OB and an exact copy of the terrain unless you do exactly
what the other commanders did and don't introduce any variables a wargame by
it's nature will produce different results. It's kind of like " any given
Sunday"
Pat these are just my thoughts on this last post of yours. I haven't read any
of the previous posts. We all have our Holy Grail of wargaming. I know I'm
still looking for mine.
Dan
MJB
> "Tim Marshall" <tmar...@mun.ca> wrote:
> > . . . now you're picking a fight with Patrick. Why? I've been on
this
> > group for quite some time, and through the dreadful Bob Jonesian
PK nyah
> > nyah battles.
> > Perhaps you and PAtrick were on different sides in those? . . .
Unless I
> read Patrick incorrectly, I don't see any
> > trolling whatsoever.
>
> Well, in this thread, it sounds like BJ and MJB have *both* declared
me
> public enemy number one.
Hardly - nobody swore at you. You want to feel scorched, go visit our
unwashed bretheren in RGM.warhammer. Those fellows will turn your
hair white with their invective. Especially if you <gasp> top-post or
don't tag your posts!
<grin>
>
> But, maybe it's my fault for jumping in here with a discussion
question and
> not giving my reason for asking it. That sort of thing is bound to
make
> people start guessing at my motivation. Can't blame 'em for that.
Nah - I just saw your applecart and felt the uncontrollable urge to
turn it over.
>
> For the record, I've just been sitting around lately doing some
> soul-searching and self-reflection, and this question about history
started
> nagging at me. Ever since I was about sixteen (36 years ago),
reading
> military history has been a hobby of mine. I played my first
wargame (AH's
> Waterloo) at thirteen and became obsessed with wargaming--and though
I play
> only sporadically (and usually on the computer) nowadays, the
wargaming
> hobby still has a hold on me.
Common story - most everybody over forty who's been in this hobby
since they were a teen can probably tell pretty much the same tale.
Or something rather similar.
>
> But even after all these years, I'm constantly torn over the old
"history vs
> playability" issue. I'd never be able to enjoy a game of Waterloo
today,
> because knowing what I know now about the actual campaign, I can see
what a
> pitiful job the game does of re-creating it. It's so ahistorical as
to
> strike me as ludicrous.
But - what do you expect from a game where little cardboard counters
represent the actions of thousands of men?
>
> Sure, it could still be a fun game if I just lightened up and played
it
> instead of thinking about it. But if I'm going to do that, I might
as well
> play Unreal or something. Way back when I was thirteen, I enjoyed
Waterloo
> because I believed it was a scientifically scaled-down model of the
> historical event, converted to game form. That was the whole
attraction.
> It was a slice of history come to life.
Hah - turns out you were mis-informed. When I was thirteen I thought
it was love whenever Patty (or Sarah or Becky) looked at me - turns
out I was mis-informed as well. <grin>
>
> Over the next few decades, I got into ever-more-complex wargames,
chasing
> the illusion of realism. When I was an ASL fanatic in the late 80s
and
> early 90s, I was sure that was the ultimate simulation of WW2
tactical
> combat--and that's the main reason I was willing to put up with that
huge
> rulebook.
Hah - turns out you were mis-informed. And let me go you one better -
I was such a SL fanatic in the 80's that when AH announced they were
going to scrap all of squad leader in favor of Advance SL - I promptly
constructed my own Italian counters for the original game - complete
with artillery, heavy weapons and AFVs in order to play the N African
and Italian battles I so wanted to fight.
>
> Now I find myself still reading military history all the time, and
still
> *wanting* to get back into wargaming, but being unable to reconcile
the two
> in my own mind. Sometime in the early 90s, ASL became laughable to
me (I
> saw that it was really nothing but an elaborate chess variant after
all),
> and I was dismayed to realize I'd wasted years trying to master it
for the
> sake of learning about WW2 land warfare. I'd have done better
sticking with
> books and documentaries.
Wow - you certainly expect a lot out of a recreation. I merely expect
to be entertained.
>
> With that experience far behind me, but the desire to play wargames
still
> alive in me, I'm hemming and hawing and trying to find something
that might
> work for me. But the critical question is What do I really want
from a
> wargame?
The smell of blood and cordite in your nostrils? Seems like you won't
be happy until you can be strapped into a full body immersion suit
like something out of the "lawnmower man". Reality is, well,
reality... I play games to escape reality.
>
> In my case, I clearly *don't* want an excuse to socialize with
fellow
> wargamers, because I'm content to play solo and doubt that I'd ever
consider
> joining a club (though I started & ran a wargaming club many years
ago).
> Nor do I *just* want to enjoy some fun entertainment, because if I
did I'd
> probably just settle for computer games of various kinds (but
probably not
> wargames, since they tend to be dry and studious in comparison to
other
> computer games). No--for me it has something to do with a love of
military
> history.
So Garbo speaks - you 'vant to be alone'. Yet you don't want to be by
yourself. The classic dilemma that a lot of us anti-social misfits
face, myself included. But things have gotten better since I
lightened-up and started playing what my friends wanted to do instead
of expecting to get my own way all the time.
>
> Yet even here in r.g.m.h. I've gotten recommendations of games like
Battle
> Cry (Hasbro/AH), which is a fun, exciting, competitive game--but a
> hopelessly poor historical simulation. I have a copy of BC, and I
> appreciate its game value. But that's not what I'm after. I bought
it
> because it was about ACW battles, not because it might be fun or
because I
> thought the little toy soldiers were so cute.
Don't demean cuteness. It can give you a rare and special glow when a
woman picks up one of your painted figures and cooes "Oh, their so
cute!" But I share your opinion of Battle cry - it is not much of a
historical simulation.
>
> So--to finally get to the point--I thought I'd ask the question
above (the
> thread title) just to sort of take the pulse of the minimen who
frequent
> this newsgroup. I figured maybe others have already come to terms
with the
> issue I seem to forever wrestle with--and maybe some of their
solutions
> would work for me too. Or at least I'd get an update on where the
wargaming
> hobby is at, and maybe keep myself from becoming too much of
anchronism.
> Meanwhile, other folks might enjoy having a chance to spout off with
an
> opinion and swap ideas, and thus they'd benefit too.
Well, I think your ideas were pretty mainstream twenty years ago - but
started to fall out of favor ten or twelve years ago. I can tell as I
look at rules I wrote on the same subject since the early 80's. The
current philsophy seems to be 'simplify, simplify, simplify' - which
seems to work as all my gaming friends are now a)married b) can only
game on the week nights and c) have to be home tucked in beds
alongside their wives by 11 PM. So rule sets that will keep us at the
table into the wee hours are now 'verbotten' - fast and not too stupid
(like Shako) is now the defacto standard.
>
> So, anyhow, I hope others have gotten something out of it. As for
me, I got
> my little update on the state of wargaming (or at least a glimpse
into part
> of it)--a reminder of why most folks do what they do.
Unfortunately, that
> does nothing toward solving my internal problem. I'm still
torn--still
> wanting the same kind of thing from wargames as I get from history
books,
> but having no idea how to go about getting it.
Unfortunately, to quote Paul Simon: "The problem is inside your head,
she said to me, the answer is easy if you take it logically..."
You want the reality of books to be reflected on the wargaming
tabletop. But that's rather like the purists in the Alt.tolkien
newsgroup braying on and on (and on and on....) about how Peter
Jackson's movie trilogy of Lord of the Rings betrayed Tolkein's
vision, debased a classic of english literature, yada, yada, yada.
When in reality he made a rollicing good movie... the book remains
unchanged and the movie should rise and fall on its own merits.
Same for a game. Try to put aside your preconceptions and
expectations and simply enjoy the game for what it is. A recreation,
that views history as "through a veil, darkly."
>
> Well, at least I may not be entirely alone in my way of thinking. I
> recently read Jim Dunnigan's "Complete Wargames Handbook" (available
on-line
> at http://www.hyw.com/Books/WargamesHandbook/Contents.htm). And his
take on
> wargaming being a form of "analytical history" rings a bell with me.
Of
> course, his wargame company (SPI) folded a couple decades ago . . .
so maybe
> I'm just a dinosaur wandering around to see who else isn't quite
extinct
> yet.
Honestly, some of Dunnigans designs from the late 70's and early 80's
were completely unplayable. I know because I bought most of them when
I was in high school!
>
> --Patrick
>
> PS Oh, btw--I didn't explain why I picked a miniatures group to
burden with
> my personal problem. Why not a board wargaming group?
Well--frankly I've
> always hated paper wargames. Back in 1968 when my friend Lenny
first showed
> me the copy of Waterloo he'd bought, the first thing I said was,
"You paid
> $5.98 for that? You were gypped!" All that paper and cardboard was
> terribly unimpressive. Because of that, I've made false starts into
> miniatures for years. Not because I like miniatures per se, but
just
> because I've always wanted to have a wargame with the kind of
high-quality
> components that a chess set has.
Try some of the wooden counter games - they've got pretty nice
components. But I frankly think they might be wayyyyy too gamey for
your tastes.
>
> Also, board wargames are ridiculous in that you have to learn a
whole new
> set of rules for each new game. You learn Anzio to play the Italian
> campaign in WW2, but then you have to learn Afrika Korps (or
Campaign for
> North Africa) to play the North African campaign, The Russian
Campaign to
> play the east-front campaign, and so forth. You can spend your
whole
> wargaming life just learning new rules sets, and you never do get to
really
> compare one battle or campaign to another on an even playing field.
> Miniatures rules are far more sensible to me: one rulebook covers a
whole
> period, at least at a given scale.
HoHoHoHoHo.... Hehehehe... quit it, you're killing me. Like we
miniaturists could agree on a common set of rule mechanics. We can't
even agree on a common set of basing criteria for our figures!
<grin>
>
> That said, though, frankly I hate painting miniatures (I gave it a
good try
> in 1976 and haven't been back since) almost as much as I hate the
look of
> paper wargames. And I can't be bothered with those huge
model-railroad-like
> battlefield layouts. Definitely not my cup of tea.
>
Honestly - it sounds like you have more dislikes than likes. And that
makes you a pretty hard person to ever satisfy.
Just my own humble opinion.
Martin Rapier
> does nothing toward solving my internal problem. I'm still torn--still
> wanting the same kind of thing from wargames as I get from history books,
> but having no idea how to go about getting it.
Have you considered the various more free forms of wargaming, especially as
you are thinking about solo games? The Solo Wargamers Association publish a
newsletter with all sorts of interesting ideas:
http://www.theminiaturespage.com/periodicals/lonewarr.html
http://www.theminiaturespage.com/ref/clubs/clubgl.html#swa
However some things which might be more suitable for what you have in mind
are possibly some sort of Free Kriegspiel (German for 'making it up as you
go along') based approach, a Paddy Griffiths style 'Muggergame' where you
simply look at the situation and decide what is the most likely thing to
happen in a particular situation, running the game as an interactive
narrative or possibly the more structured approach of Chris Engles Matrix
Games where the basic rule mechanisms are trivially simple but the
complexity of real life is generated by the use of 'arguments' to drive the
game along.
These types of games are described in more detail in the Wargames
Developments Handbook on the WD homepage, along with appropriate links:
http://www.users.dircon.co.uk/~warden/#The%20Conference%20Of%20Wargamers
Of the three types I've most experience with Matrix games & we've had great
fun with these, running entire campaigns or entire wars with a few players
in an evening, shoving a few figures around and producing outcomes which do
not seem entirely unrealistic yet without the constraints of complex formal
sets of rules. It is worth having a look at the sections on SCRUD (Simple
Combat Resolution Using Dice) as a quick way of handling combat generically.
> That said, though, frankly I hate painting miniatures (I gave it a good
try
> in 1976 and haven't been back since) almost as much as I hate the look of
> paper wargames. And I can't be bothered with those huge
model-railroad-like
> battlefield layouts. Definitely not my cup of tea.
I play quite a few games with 6mm figures (easy to 'paint', just spray the
base colour on and give a quick drybrush in a higlight colour) on 'tables'
which are bits of paper with the relevant terrain features drawn on in felt
pen. I did Waterloo, Busaco, Fuentes de Onoro, Salamanca, The Mespotamian
Campaign, the Arnhem Campaign & 56th Panzer Corps drive on Dvina that way.
The biggest of these was the map for Mansteins adventure, some 20" wide and
5' long, the rest of them are on flip chart paper or smaller. I'm doing a
map for Operation Crusader at the moment and it is about 2'6" x 3',
regimental bases, 1"=5km. Essentially all of these are boardgames played
with toys, some of them use area movement, but most of them don't.
Cheers
Martin
Patrick Carroll
when the computer did something really strange, and I'm having to
start over.
"MJB" <mrt...@OLDsguy.com> wrote :
> But - what do you expect from a game where little cardboard counters
> represent the actions of thousands of men?
I hear that sort of thing all the time, and I really don't get it.
That is, I do but I don't. I think it's perfectly reasonable for
cardboard counters to represent the actions of thousands of men.
I've never expected a wargame to be some sort of time machine that'd
transport me back to an actual battle. If I had such a time machine
I'd never use it to visit a battle, of all things.
But when I read a well-written history book or watch a well-made
documentary, I feel I'm getting the true history of a battle or
campaign (even though printed pages and videotape are nothing like
bullets and bleeding soldiers). And when I play a well-designed
wargame, I want the very same thing, except that I expect it to be
"modular" or "nonlinear," so that I can manipulate elements myself and
get a sort of hands-on feel for the situation.
> > Now I find myself still reading military history all the time, and
> still
> > *wanting* to get back into wargaming, but being unable to reconcile
> the two
> > in my own mind. . . .
>
> Wow - you certainly expect a lot out of a recreation. I merely expect
> to be entertained.
Is that all it is--recreation? Maybe, but I keep hoping not. I get
antsy when I read pulp fiction or watch TV or whatever. I always feel
I could be making better use of my free time, while enjoying it just
as much (or even more). So right now, I'm rereading Catton's
"Terrible Swift Sword" (actually the whole Centennial History
trilogy), which I feel is giving me some realistic looks into the ACW.
And when I sit down to an ACW wargame, I want pretty much the same
kind of experience (except that it's nonlinear and "hands on").
> > But the critical question is What do I really want
> from a
> > wargame?
>
> The smell of blood and cordite in your nostrils? . . . Reality is, well,
> reality... I play games to escape reality.
So do I--but not in the same sense. As noted above, I certainly do
*not* want "the smell of blood and cordite." I want to escape that
level of reality by taking refuge in comparatively abstract history.
But I want it to be true history, not fiction.
There's a difference between re-creating the Battle of Crecy and
playing a wargame about Robin Hood or Ivanhoe. The latter is purely
fictional. Granted, the Crecy wargame will immediately devolve into
historical fiction also, since players will likely do things that
weren't done in the actual battle. But at least players will be
manipulating scaled-down representations of the actual armies on a
patch of historically accurate terrain, and the moves they make can
reasonably be considered "historical possibilities."
Abstract? Yes. A departure from strict history? Yes. But still not
purely fictional. Still true to history.
> > I have a copy of BC, and I
> > appreciate its game value. But that's not what I'm after. I bought
> it
> > because it was about ACW battles, not because it might be fun or
> because I
> > thought the little toy soldiers were so cute.
>
> Don't demean cuteness. It can give you a rare and special glow when a
> woman picks up one of your painted figures and cooes "Oh, they're so
> cute!"
I blushed in embarrassment when that happened to me. Ever since,
anytime my wife catches me playing a wargame I almost feel I've been
caught in a "compromising position" or something.
Actually, though, she's great about it. Years ago, she offered to
help me paint miniatures and build a wargame table. She's far more
interested in those craft aspects of the hobby than I am.
It'd be a great match, except that my period (18th-19th-century North
American wars) is her least favorite. She's strictly a pre-gunpowder
person. And that's hard for me to take, because I dislike the mass
formations, all the melee combat, and the scanty historical
information.
As to "cuteness," I'll never understand why some miniatures fans
actually *like* the "cartoonish" look. During my very brief foray
into painting figures, I went to great lengths to avoid ending up with
anything like that "cartoonish" look (I skipped painting eyes, for
instance, or just suggested them with the tiniest black dot). I
rather liked figures that others thought were too stiff-looking, and I
never saw the appeal of figures with a lot of "movement."
> You want the reality of books to be reflected on the wargaming
> tabletop. But that's rather like the purists in the Alt.tolkien
> newsgroup braying on and on (and on and on....) about how Peter
> Jackson's movie trilogy of Lord of the Rings betrayed Tolkein's
> vision, debased a classic of english literature, yada, yada, yada.
> When in reality he made a rollicing good movie... the book remains
> unchanged and the movie should rise and fall on its own merits.
True, and I'm sure that'll happen. But I don't see the critics as
trying to start an anti-movie movement or anything. I doubt they'd
want the movie banned and all copies destroyed. All they're doing is
praising the book and expressing their preference for it. If they end
up denigrating the movie in the process, that's incidental. It's not
going to change the minds of anyone who likes the movie, but it may
elucidate some of what's better (in their opinion) about the books.
Likewise, I don't have any problem with Warhammer being so popular.
Or Battle Cry either, for that matter. I'm sure they're great games,
and I'm glad to see so many people having fun with them. But I've
read a fair amount of true ACW history, and I value my
knowledge/impressions of what the battles were really like far more
than I value the stylized, off-the-mark sketches in Battle Cry.
> Try some of the wooden counter games - they've got pretty nice
> components. But I frankly think they might be wayyyyy too gamey for
> your tastes.
Yup. Been there, done that. (I've still got Columbia Games'
"Eastfront" on my hard drive, but haven't playtested it yet.) Kinda
tough playing 'em solo, because you have to keep walking around the
table.
> > Miniatures rules are far more sensible to me: one rulebook covers a
> whole
> > period, at least at a given scale.
>
> HoHoHoHoHo.... Hehehehe... quit it, you're killing me. Like we
> miniaturists could agree on a common set of rule mechanics. We can't
> even agree on a common set of basing criteria for our figures!
B-b-b-but . . . you mean Fire & Fury isn't *the* standard for ACW
gaming? (Or is it JR3--I forget.) Well, maybe it's true that "a man
hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest" (S&G "The
Boxer"). I've always been very fond of standards, to the point where
I've constantly hoped for international time-honored standards to
evolve in wargaming (the way they have in chess and bridge, for
instance). But every once in a great while, I have to open my eyes a
little and see how chaotic it all still is.
Sometimes I wish I were one of those folks who seem to thrive on chaos
and are quite comfortable with anarchy. But I'm not. In fact, one of
the things I especially like about military history and wargaming is
the way order and discipline typically pay off, preventing formations
from disintegrating and circumstances from devolving into chaos.
> Honestly - it sounds like you have more dislikes than likes. And that
> makes you a pretty hard person to ever satisfy.
Hmmm. . . . Good point. I may have to work on that.
--Patrick
Martin Rapier
news:3DE54225...@ixpres.com...
>I agree. If one is not interested in historical accuracy, why not play
Warhammer or Startrek? The conumdrum is >balancing historical accuracy
against playability. However, I am a firm believer that the rules should 1)
allow you to >anything that was realistic, and b) Punish you for being
stupid. Using a Roman legion in skirmish order is possible, but....
>Attacking with Napoleanic cavalerie without horse artillerie is also stupid
(Ask Ney!).
At the time he presumably had good reasons for doing so, as did Murat at
Eylau. What is interesting is trying to recreate the circumstances under
which it _is_ worth (or appears to be worth) throwing masses of unsupported
cavalry at the enemy. Considerations of fog of war etc come in here which
can be hard to recreate with the 200' generals view.
Cheers
Martin
Tom Bryant
You've kind of hit all the bases in your intro here. I guess I'm a 5
or 6. I like "historical accuracy" but what exactly does that mean? Does
it mean that the rules FORCE historical situations on a player so that
if you rerun Waterloo it MUST happen exactly as it did historically, or
do the rules merely provide a framework for a PLAUSIBLE scenario. I
don't like the idea of running Shermans in the British army in 1939 or
giving the US NAvy Iowa and Midway class ships in 1941, but I'd like to
see a game like that as a pure "what if" from time to time. I really
don't complain to much if you have your Panzers painted in early war
Panzer grey when they should be in dunkelgelb for this 1944 scenario,
and that has to be with appropriate Russian patterning for the Eastern
Front you know. I feel the same way about playing an 1813 scenario with
Napoleonic Russians in the 1805 pattern of uniform. Can I tell which
side is which? Yes? Is the equipment "period correct" and if it isn't is
it clear what is "standing in" for what? if the answer to this is "yes"
also then I will play the scenario (or run it) and the toffee nosed
twits who demand EXACTING DETAIL can go stew in their own juices. I want
to have fun in a tabletop firefight. I want to see the narrow escapes,
the impossible shots made, the obvious ones missed, and in general the
good times to be had in the game.
Tom Bryant
President, HMGS-GL