What did we decide wargame(r)s are again?
Patrick Carroll
from Jim Dunnigan's "Complete Wargames Handbook," which can be read on-line
at http://www.hyw.com/Books/WargamesHandbook/Contents.htm.
<<. . . wargamers are not so much gamers as they are very curious history
buffs. While many military history enthusiasts are content to read a book on
battles and campaigns, watch a good film on war or wander through
battlefields, a wargamer wants to measure and analyze things. When I started
SPI, the name, Simulations Publications, was chosen to represent an accurate
description of what we were doing, and what we felt wargamers wanted. What
we were creating weren't wargames, they were simulations. We were stuck with
the traditional term "wargame," but every one who created or used our
"games" knew better. We called them wargames, and let other call them
wargames, an incorrect term for an activity that was incomprehensible enough
as it was. It wasn't worth the effort to expunge inaccurate terms, although
we tried. Wargamers used the terms "wargame" and "simulation"
interchangeably. But the labels issue was small change compared to the
emergence of analytic history.
Analytic history is what a wargame was before it became a game. A wargame
is, after all, an historical account of an event in simulation form. . . .>>
Couldn't have said it better myself.
--P. C., Minnesota
David desJardins
> Just because I so love beating dead horses, I thought I'd share this excerpt
> from Jim Dunnigan's "Complete Wargames Handbook," which can be read on-line
> at http://www.hyw.com/Books/WargamesHandbook/Contents.htm.
Certainly we know the Dunnigan/SPI point of view.
However, there have been and continue to be wargames being produced and
played from other, quite different, points of view. One might even,
perhaps, notice that SPI is no longer in business, and maybe this says
something about his perception of what a wargame is or should be or can
be. Or maybe not, since Avalon Hill is gone too and it had a more or
less complementary philosophy.
David desJardins
Justin Green
I may be sensitive, defensive or alternatively stating the obvious,
but in the above observation I detect the feeling that the playing of
a game (the competition, the strategizing, the luck, the limited
rolelaying, what have you) is somehow inferior (trivial, inane,
immaterial) to simulating/analyzing warfare on a tabletop, Did this
come up in that other thread (I stopped reading fairly early)? I find
the attitude much more telling than any semantic differences, or
positions on how accurate the simulations actually are. Certainly
there are plenty of people who play wargames (SPI's or otherwise) who
don't have this attitude.
Justin
Paul Sauberer
"Justin Green" <shu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:85f16397.0211...@posting.google.com...
It seems that a condescending air most often inhabits threads started and/or
participated in by Patrick Carroll. He has attributed it to a chronic case
of diarrhea of the keyboard (not that he put it in those terms). In other
words, he does not edit his posts before he hits the send button. Whatever
spews forth, no matter how little thought out, ends up on r.g.b. He has also
stated that he will purposefully exaggerate in order to provoke reaction.
Recognizing and admitting this tendency, as he has done in the past, would
indicate that he is merely prone to an overestimation of how worthy his
random ramblings are. (He thinks that we should all feel privileged to
observe the thought processes in his obviously superior brain.) However, now
that he is dredging up previous subjects and bringing in quotes of others
that merely restate what he put out before and has already been hashed out,
he is treading just on the other side of the boundary of Trolldom.
Paul Sauberer
The Maverick
>
> Couldn't have said it better myself.
That goes without saying...
the Mav
--
"Never give up -- never surrender!" Commander Peter Quincy Taggart
Phil Dutre
Oh please, why do people keep up with this self-congratulatory
attitude of "wargames are not games, they're simulations".
Although I agree there might be some truth in it, I see
this mostly as a pathetic attempt of wargamers to claim that
'wargaming is serious, please take us serious, please ....', while
in reality, it's of course about games. It's like those gamers
that insist they play with 'military miniatures' instead of toy
soldiers.
I never hear model railroad enthusiasts claim they're simulating the
logistics or decision making involved in the real railroading
business, nor do I hear collectors of toy zoo animals claim
they're prserving the wildlief or anything like that ...
DOn't get me wrong, I do think there is some simulational value
in wargames, and some interest in history might be adjoining it,
but please, let's not claim that we're involved in the great
study of military doctrine, while all we're doing is rolling dice
and move paper chits on a mapboard.
Phil
--
Philip Dutre
Computer Graphics Group -- Department of Computer Science -- K.U.Leuven
Email: ph...@cs.kuleuven.ac.be
Office Phone: +32 16 32 76 67
Web: http://www.cs.kuleuven.ac.be/~phil/
Patrick Carroll
> I . . . detect the feeling that the playing of
> a game (the competition, the strategizing, the luck, the limited
> rolelaying, what have you) is somehow inferior (trivial, inane,
> the attitude much more telling than any semantic differences, or
> positions on how accurate the simulations actually are. Certainly
> there are plenty of people who play wargames (SPI's or otherwise) who
> don't have this attitude.
That may be so. But what's the most common attitude among wargamers?
Here's another quote from Dunnigan's book which addresses that:
<<By far the most common reason for playing the games is to experience
history. Actually, since simulation games also include many
non-historical subjects (fantasy and science fiction, etc.) we might
as well face up to the fact that experience of any sort is one of the
most important things a simulation game has to offer. This experience
consists of the gamer being able to massage information in order to
see what different shapes the information is capable of taking.
<<The essence of a simulation game is that it allows, within well
defined limits, a great deal of variety in an otherwise strictly
predetermined historical event. This is the popular "what if?" element
in the games. For example, take the fact that General Custer was at
the Little Big Horn in 1876. What if he had, at the last minute, taken
along his Gatling guns (primitive machineguns) after all? He could
have taken the Gatling guns; thus, this is a reasonable what if. He
couldn't have taken any flamethrowers simply because he didn't have
them. As a final note in this area note that what makes a fantasy game
a fantasy game is that it is a game in which General Custer does go to
the Little Big Horn with flamethrowers, and maybe even a death ray
gun.>>
When Dunnigan speaks of "the most common reason for playing the
games," he's not just pulling the remark out of thin air (as I usually
do). He polled wargamers a dozen times a year for several years and
examined other demographic information as well. It sounds to me like
he has some solid data to base the above remarks on. And I'm not so
sure that data is outdated (i.e., I doubt things have changed
drastically). His book has been revised over the course of a decade
or so, and updated to take current statistics and observations into
account.
--Patrick
Peter Clinch
> When Dunnigan speaks of "the most common reason for playing the
> games," he's not just pulling the remark out of thin air (as I usually
> do). He polled wargamers a dozen times a year for several years and
> examined other demographic information as well.
It strikes me he may be getting results skewed by an unrepresentative
sample. Who does JD play with? Who does he design games for? People
who like what he likes, I'd guess... Personally, I don't recall ever
playing a wargame against someone in it primarily for the history
(interested in it, yes, but not as much as the enjoyment of trying to
outplay an opponent), but there again I play with people who play for
the same reasons I do.
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
Peter Clinch
> Oh please, why do people keep up with this self-congratulatory
> attitude of "wargames are not games, they're simulations".
Because it makes them feel better?
Personally I regard the appellation of "game" to be a very high one and
not demeaning in the slightest: to me it means something I do for
nothing beyond my personal gratification, and since my personal
gratification comes high on my list of priorities that means games are a
Good Thing to me. If I pack up my crampons and ice axes and go winter
climbing at considerable personal risk I consider it a game just as much
as an evening playing cards. Same goes for the toys I play my games
with, with my sea kayak ultimately no less a toy than a kid's inflatable
lilo.
If people consider games and toys to be beneath them, that's their
problem...
Patrick Carroll
> I detect the feeling that the playing of
> a game (the competition, the strategizing, the luck, the limited
> rolelaying, what have you) is somehow inferior (trivial, inane,
Another Dunnigan quote that addresses this:
<<Several have commented that computer wargames have made the hobby a
bit more respectable. Which raises the long standing problem of
wargames being considered mere games and their users mere gamers. Such
is not the case, as we have seen, but the label sticks and causes
discomfort at times. . . .
<<By most definitions, wargamers are a select group. Above average in
education, income and, especially, diligence. Wargames are not easy to
master. It requires unique mental skills to deal with all that goes on
in a wargame and make the game work. Even computer wargames are
considered a cut above average in complexity compared to most other
games. . . . many wargamers wince at the term "wargame" and prefer to
call them what they really are: historical simulations.>>
Keep in mind, though, that I'm quoting from a book about the wargaming
hobby, written by a wargamer for wargamers. Just posting something
like this in r.g.b. takes it out of context. Dunnigan doesn't do much
comparison of wargaming to other kinds of gaming (though he starts out
by saying wargames are like chess with more elaborate rules);
therefore he's not really denigrating gaming when he speaks of "mere
games" above. What he's saying is just that the world at large tends
to consider games as trivial things, while wargamers (the kind he's
describing and insists is the majority of them) don't consider
wargaming trivial at all. And the reason they don't is that they
perceive wargames as valid analytical studies (simulations) of
history, and they consider the study of history a more respectable
pursuit than just-for-fun game playing.
In other words, Dunnigan is not comparing wargamers to serious players
of Euphrat & Tigris or 18xx or chess or go or whatever. In the quote
above, he's comparing wargamers to the "mere gamers" who blow a few
bucks at the casino once a month, or drag out MB's Game of Life to
help amuse the kids on a rainy day, or waste many mindless hours on an
FPS (first-person shooter) video game.
Actually, everything Dunnigan says about wargames above could also be
applied to E&T, 18xx, and many other board games: "not easy to master
. . . requires unique mental skills . . . a cut above average in
complexity. . . ."
But how many 18xx players consider that game respectable mainly
because of how well it simulates historical railroad financing and
building? Or consider E&T respectable mainly because of how it
enables players to experience the development of ancient empires?
Some, perhaps. Probably not a majority. In contrast, Dunnigan is
saying that a vast majority of wargamers mainly value the games as
historical simulations.
--Patrick
Peter Clinch
> But how many 18xx players consider that game respectable mainly
> because of how well it simulates historical railroad financing and
> building? Or consider E&T respectable mainly because of how it
> enables players to experience the development of ancient empires?
> Some, perhaps.
Only if they haven't got a clue about history! ;-/
> In contrast, Dunnigan is
> saying that a vast majority of wargamers mainly value the games as
> historical simulations.
And I think he has a rather limited view of wargamers. i.e., "here is
my definition, anyone who doesn't fit it isn't a wargamer, therefore my
definition fits wargamers very well indeed".
He sets up his stall with suggesting that "mere" and "game" are words
that can and should easily be put together. Not so, IMHO, and
pretending otherwise strikes me as a case in misdirected snobbery. You
can have something which is dismissed as "merely a poor game", but not
just "merely a game".
Allan Goodall
>Oh please, why do people keep up with this self-congratulatory
>attitude of "wargames are not games, they're simulations".
I always thought it had more to do with some wargamers trying to justify
"playing at war". That is, deep down they are playing games that -- at some
level -- simulate death and misery. By pulling them out of the realm of
"games" and into "serious historical simulations" it becomes an intellectual
exercise, not just "fun with guns".
For the record, I've been a wargamer since 1975...
> It's like those gamers
>that insist they play with 'military miniatures' instead of toy
>soldiers.
As a miniatures gamer I take exception to this. They _are_ "military
miniatures", not "toy soldiers". Toy soldiers come prepainted and cost a _lot_
less! :-)
(Yes, I do comb through the Wal-Mart toy department looking for toys that can
be used/adapted for miniatures wargaming...).
Allan Goodall agoo...@hyperbear.com
http://www.hyperbear.com
"We come into the world and take our chances
Fate is just the weight of circumstances
That's the way that Lady Luck dances
Roll the bones." - N. Peart
Jonathan R. Ferro
> I never hear model railroad enthusiasts claim they're simulating the
> logistics or decision making involved in the real railroading
> business
Which is basically why I got out of model railroading, because I got
tired of being the only person who cared whether the couplers actually
coupled. I had a lot of ideas about how to organize operating sessions
to simulate schedules and freight handling, but all of the people who
seemed both interested and capable of "handling the big picture" for 2-3
hours at a stretch kept disappearing. Then I found out where they were
going: the wargaming club.
-- Jon
Patrick Carroll
> Phil Dutre wrote:
> > Oh please, why do people keep up with this self-congratulatory
> > attitude of "wargames are not games, they're simulations".
>
> Because it makes them feel better?
I'd say it's because it describes their hobby better.
If my hobby consisted of collecting toy soldiers, getting together
with other toy-soldier enthusiasts, and playing silly little
mock-battle games on a tabletop just for the fun of it, I'd
unabashedly describe my hobby that way. But that's not what I do.
If you read Dunnigan's book, you'll find that he presents a detailed
picture of who wargamers are and what they do (based on years of S&T
surveys plus other observations). And a couple main features of the
typical wargamer are: (1) he's an avid military-history buff who
considers wargaming an adjunct to military history, and (2) he tends
to play the games solitaire (if he plays them at all; often he'll just
"read" the game and put it away).
Thus, the wargamer Dunnigan describes (and there are evidently many
thousands of them) really does put history first. Not just because he
thinks it's more respectable, but because it's what he prefers.
In my case, it was probably wargaming that got me into military
history (though it's hard to say which came first, since I was
indirectly influenced by war in many ways all through childhood). But
reading military history has been a steady hobby for me for decades,
while wargaming has been an off-and-on thing. And nowadays it's
always something I read about war that prompts me to want to play a
game about war--and I always want the two to jibe. If the game
doesn't do justice to what I've read (e.g., Battle Cry, which grossly
distorts the reality of Civil War battles), I shrug it off as a poor
simulation that doesn't interest me--no matter how good a game it
might be.
As a change of pace, I've sometimes played just-for-fun "wargames"
like the old computer game Sun Tzu's Art of War. Or Battle Cry, for
that matter. But that's more a momentary flash-in-the-pan pastime
than a bona fide hobby. To me, a hobby (or avocation) is something
you stick with over the long haul, putting a substantial amount of
time, effort, and enthusiasm into.
--Patrick
David desJardins
> If you read Dunnigan's book, you'll find that he presents a detailed
> picture of who wargamers are and what they do (based on years of S&T
> surveys plus other observations). And a couple main features of the
I think he accurately describes Dunnigan/S&T wargamers. However I don't
think these are "typical" of wargamers in general, any more than the
people I know are "typical". They are just one faction; I represent
another faction; there are other factions too.
David desJardins
Patrick Carroll
> I think he accurately describes Dunnigan/S&T wargamers. However I don't
> think these are "typical" of wargamers in general, any more than the
> people I know are "typical". They are just one faction; I represent
> another faction; there are other factions too.
Well, some factions are far bigger than others, aren't they? I think JD is
talking about an enormous "faction." But while rereading a bit, I found
another Dunnigan quote which addresses your point (and seems to agree with
you):
<<But wait, what the hell is the difference between a wargame and a war
simulation? Often there's not a lot of difference at all. The main purpose
of a simulation is to present the situation so that you can manipulate the
key elements. This allows you to better understand how all these elements
interacted and, this is where the game element comes in, play around with
alternative strategies and tactics. This explains why so many wargamers
don't game at all, but simply study and manipulate the game by themselves.
Yes, two people can use a simulation as a game, many do, and the game
element is not ignored when putting these things together. The game element
is there whether you want it or not. It's the nature of the beast. There are
usually two sides in a military conflict, both have numerous elements of the
situation they can manipulate, thus you have a game situation. Some
wargamers enjoy the game element more than the simulation and history
aspects, but they are basically into the history angle, otherwise they would
play the more numerous non-historical games. And that is what many early
wargamers did when the fantasy and science fiction games came along. These
games were more game than simulation, although a simulation element was
present.>>
So, it takes all kinds--and wargames can cater to all kinds. Yet Dunnigan
insists on the importance of history (as I often have) and notes that a high
percentage of wargamers (elsewhere in his book he gives statistics of 40 to
60 percent) play the games solitaire or just "read" the games and put them
away.
Are Dunnigan's statistics skewed, so that they reflect only a particular
wargaming community? I don't know. But I do know he polled many thousands
of wargamers a dozen times a year for at least several years, then
meticulously analyzed the returns--and that he has carefully observed
wargaming trends for decades and demonstrated a lot of insight into what
makes wargamers tick. To me, that gives JD's statistics and observations
more credence than yours or mine. We can only describe ourselves and the
wargamers we've known. I think JD is talking about a much bigger group of
wargamers than you or I have ever known, and he seems to have listened to
them attentively and observed them closely.
--Patrick
Patrick Carroll
> And I think he has a rather limited view of wargamers. i.e., "here is
> my definition, anyone who doesn't fit it isn't a wargamer, therefore my
> definition fits wargamers very well indeed".
Not at all. Dunnigan is reporting the results of many years of research
into the question of who's playing wargames and why. Here's how he puts it:
<<While at SPI, I developed a market research system that constantly
monitored gamer demographics, new product preferences and existing product
satisfaction. The questionnaires were (and still are) a regular part of
Strategy & Tactics magazine, as well as several other wargaming periodicals.
It became something of a tradition. I have access to much of the survey
results for the twenty plus years S&T has been running these surveys.
Through this period, due to these regular surveys of wargamers, a large
number of interesting bits of information have been collected. Many of the
questions asked were generated by little more than a sense of curiosity, but
some of the questions and their answers should prove interesting to gamers
as a means of defining who they are as a group. The answers not only tell us
who current wargamers are, but how they got that way.>>
For the whole picture he paints of who plays wargames, go to
http://www.hyw.com/Books/WargamesHandbook/8-who_pl.htm.
Are the statistics skewed? Do they reflect "only" the community of
wargamers that subscribe to S&T and other such publications? Maybe; I don't
know. But it sure looks like JD is talking about a vastly bigger group of
wargamers than you or I have probably ever known. So, unless someone can
hold up comparable research data against JD's, I'd say his has to bear some
credence.
--Patrick
William Adderholdt
Patrick Carroll <Patrick...@mn.rr.com> wrote:
>Just because I so love beating dead horses, I thought I'd share this excerpt
>from Jim Dunnigan's "Complete Wargames Handbook," which can be read on-line
>at http://www.hyw.com/Books/WargamesHandbook/Contents.htm.
While I have great respect for Jim Dunnigan (does he still read this
newsgroup?), I don't think it is possible for even him to come up with
a definition of wargaming that everyone will accept, as attempting to
do so violates the
Fundamental Axiom of Wargaming:
No one really knows exactly what a "wargame" is.
An exercise for the reader: Come up with a definition that divides the
following list into "wargames" and "not-wargames":
1. Battle Cry
2. Battleline
3. paintball
4. miniatures gaming
5. Axis and Allies
6. chess
7. Ogre/G.E.V.
8. water pistols
9. AH Civilization
10. Battletech
Then compare definitions in this newsgroup. Most likely, not everyone
will have the same definition of a wargame. Try to resolve this
discrepancy by verbally abusing the dissenters into accepting your
definition. Prolong the resulting thread as long as you can.
A solution to the exercise:
Before attempting the exercise, throw up one's hands in despair and
exclaim, "It can't be done! The exercise is pointless! Whoever posted
this is a twit for even suggesting such a thing, knowing that some
posters here might actually attempt it!"
Our time would probably be better spent on trying to define what a "board
game" is, and exactly what features make a game a "German" game. :-)
(Note to Patrick Carroll: This isn't a dig at you! Unlike a few others
here, I really enjoy the threads you start here. You ask some very
interesting questions that get me thinking, even if I don't always
agree with the proposed solutions to those questions.)
Patrick Carroll
> While I have great respect for Jim Dunnigan (does he still read this
> newsgroup?), I don't think it is possible for even him to come up with
Nor would he likely try to. The book I've been quoting from has a chapter
titled "What is a wargame," but it doesn't include anything much like a
definition. It sort of dances around definitions.
To me, that's what makes a discussion like this interesting. You can get a
hundred different viewpoints, all valid, and it's like examining a gem's
many facets.
There's the old saying "I don't know much about art, but I know what I
like." Well, I don't know what wargames are, but I know what wargaming is
to me. And wargaming, like art, strikes me as a thing of beauty and value,
worth looking at and talking about. (In fact, if it's not, then maybe
wargames are "mere games" and wargamers "mere gamers" after all. In which
case, maybe r.g.b. itself is little more than a free-form game of Trivial
Pursuit.)
As to the title of this thread, well--I'm sure most folks recognize it as
tongue-in-cheek.
--Patrick
Robert Rossney
> Not at all. Dunnigan is reporting the results of many years of research
> into the question of who's playing wargames and why.
Dunnigan is reporting the results of many years of research into the
question of which subscribers to Strategy & Tactics were playing wargames
and why. As such, it's fair to use his results to characterize what S&T
subscribers thought about wargames.
And it also raises the question: what aspects of S&T's
market-research-honed philosophy of wargames kept some wargamers from
subscribing to S&T? This is not a question that analyzing S&T feedback data
will answer.
Bob Rossney
r...@well.com
Jean-Marc GUICHENEY
Once, in a restaurant, he loudly said :
"Napoleon was a dumb, I do better than he did at Waterloo..."
Well... The food was good, but I never came back to this restaurant.
"David desJardins" <de...@math.berkeley.edu> a écrit dans le message de news:
vohof8o...@blue3.math.berkeley.edu...
Peter Clinch
> "Peter Clinch" <p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk> wrote :
>
>>And I think he has a rather limited view of wargamers. i.e., "here is
>>my definition, anyone who doesn't fit it isn't a wargamer, therefore my
>>definition fits wargamers very well indeed".
> Not at all. Dunnigan is reporting the results of many years of research
> into the question of who's playing wargames and why. Here's how he puts it:
>
> <<While at SPI, I developed a market research system that constantly
> monitored gamer demographics, new product preferences and existing product
> satisfaction. The questionnaires were (and still are) a regular part of
> Strategy & Tactics magazine, as well as several other wargaming periodicals.
> It became something of a tradition. I have access to much of the survey
> results for the twenty plus years S&T has been running these surveys.
> Through this period, due to these regular surveys of wargamers, a large
> number of interesting bits of information have been collected.
This suggests to me that JD, and quite possibly PaCa, don't really
understand the extent to which statistics can be used to draw general
conclusions with any degree of accuracy. He's taken the results of
polls in magazines aimed at people like him and used them to "prove"
that the majority of folk are like him, which is at best a bit dubious.
And people will fill in surveys with the answers they want to be
associated with them, and if "I am interested in history" is felt to
show a better light than "I like playing games" then that's the box that
will be ticked.
> Are the statistics skewed? Do they reflect "only" the community of
> wargamers that subscribe to S&T and other such publications?
Of course they do, if that's where they come from!
> know. But it sure looks like JD is talking about a vastly bigger group of
> wargamers than you or I have probably ever known. So, unless someone can
> hold up comparable research data against JD's, I'd say his has to bear some
> credence.
This is saying that just because one badly flawed study exists, even if
we know it's flawed we have to listen to it? Why? Of course JD knows
more wargamers than I do, but as he's designing and publishing for
people like him it rather follows that the people he'll associate with
are people with the same perceptions. And his enviable reputation as a
designer doesn't mean he understands surveys.
Patrick Carroll
> Dunnigan is reporting the results of many years of research into the
> question of which subscribers to Strategy & Tactics were playing wargames
> and why. As such, it's fair to use his results to characterize what S&T
> subscribers thought about wargames.
Not "thought," but "think"--S&T is still being published. And you're
right, but that's still a much larger wargaming population than I'd
guess anybody who has so far posted comments to this thread can claim
to represent.
A statistic from Dunnigan's book:
<<Strategy and Tactics . . . reached a peak circulation of nearly
37,000 copies per issue in 1980. The actual readership was more than
100,000, giving it the widest reach of any gaming publication>>
What percentage of total wargamers is that? Here are Dunnigan's
estimates of how many wargamers there are:
<<There aren't enough of them, that's for damn sure. Sales patterns
indicate that at its peak in the late 1970s, there were only a few
hundred thousand historical wargamers in the nation. There were about
as many throughout the rest of the world. As of the early 1990s, sales
patterns indicate that there are probably only about 100,000 paper
gamers still active. Computer wargames are another story, with several
hundred thousand regular devotees of the genre and the number steadily
growing. . . .
<<There are about 10,000 miniatures wargamers world wide. These guys
spend a lot of money, so their market clout is larger than their
numbers would indicate.>>
I'm no math whiz, but it sounds to me like S&T subscribers account for
a significant percentage of total wargamers. Again, a bigger group
than most folks here are qualified to talk about.
But are S&T subscribers a representative cross-section of all
wargamers? Probably not; I don't know. They're still too big a group
to ignore, though.
I think we have to at least acknowledge that a *lot* of wargamers are
the history-oriented, happy-to-play-solitaire type that Dunnigan
describes. And evidently many wargamers of this type have become
today's computer wargamers--the largest group of all, if JD's estimate
is correct:
<<Computer wargames are another story, with several hundred thousand
regular devotees of the genre and the number steadily growing. By the
end of the [1990s] decade there will probably be over half a million.
This growth is made possible by the increasing ease of use of computer
wargames. Granted, most of these new computer wargamers are playing
simulator type wargames, but they are just as eager for historical
simulation and the historical accuracy that goes with it.>>
If that's true, then it looks to me like a *majority* of today's
wargamers may be the "history-oriented, happy-to-play-solitaire" type.
That is, the "war" aspect means more to them than the "game" aspect.
They're amateur military historians (armchair generals) first and
gamers second.
Among wargamers who frequent r.g.b, that may be the other way around,
of course. Historical simulationists may be in the minority here.
Nor is anyone making any value judgments, claiming that one group is
somehow superior to another. To each his own. But I've always been
curious about the makeup of the wargaming hobby as a whole, and
Dunnigan's book, I think, gives some good insights into it.
If someone can suggest a better source, I'm all ears.
--Patrick
Rich Shipley
news:7e9e8acf.02111...@posting.google.com...
> "Robert Rossney" <r...@well.com> wrote :
> > and why. As such, it's fair to use his results to characterize what
S&T
> > subscribers thought about wargames.
>
> Not "thought," but "think"--S&T is still being published. And you're
> right, but that's still a much larger wargaming population than I'd
> guess anybody who has so far posted comments to this thread can claim
> to represent.
But they don't do those kind of surveys anymore. Their subscription
numbers are also much lower.
> <<There are about 10,000 miniatures wargamers world wide. These guys
> spend a lot of money, so their market clout is larger than their
> numbers would indicate.>>
Where did this number come from? It looks pretty bogus to me given that
Historicon alone draws over 3000 historical miniatures guys (as opposed
to WBC's ~1000). I wasn't able to find circulation number for Wargames
Illustrated or Miniature Wargames online, but that would be a good place
to start.
If you count Warhammer (fantasy, but still wargames) they would probably
outnumber paper wargamers more than 20 to 1 at this point. The
circulation for their White Dwarf magazine is 150,000.
Rich
The Maverick
> Oh please, why do people keep up with this self-congratulatory
> attitude of "wargames are not games, they're simulations".
Because some of them are. On the other hand, why do some people
maintain a "head in the sand" attempt to diminish the value of wargames?
Peter Clinch
> Not "thought," but "think"--S&T is still being published.
No, "thought", unless the quotes you're supplying are automagically
updated with recent figures as they come in.
> <<Strategy and Tactics . . . reached a peak circulation of nearly
> 37,000 copies per issue in 1980. The actual readership was more than
> 100,000, giving it the widest reach of any gaming publication>>
>
> What percentage of total wargamers is that? Here are Dunnigan's
> estimates of how many wargamers there are:
>
> <<There aren't enough of them, that's for damn sure. Sales patterns
> indicate that at its peak in the late 1970s, there were only a few
> hundred thousand historical wargamers in the nation.
It's just too easy to knock holes in his methods. I haven't bought a
wargame for about 15 years, but I've still got a few and can still
consider myself a wargamer to some extent. Looking at sales figures
only tells you how many people are actively buying new games, which
isn't the same thing as how many people are playing them.
> I'm no math whiz, but it sounds to me like S&T subscribers account for
> a significant percentage of total wargamers.
Quite possibly a significant proportion of paper wargamers that
religiously follow the current contents of the market, but I can't see
any particular reason why that should correlate directly with the number
of people playing. Does the number of chess sets sold tell us how many
people play chess? It's related, but not directly as there are plenty
out there already.
> I think we have to at least acknowledge that a *lot* of wargamers are
> the history-oriented, happy-to-play-solitaire type that Dunnigan
> describes.
I don't see why being happy to play solitaire means you have to be
interested in history. Lots of people play chess solitaire because they
like the game of chess. A great example would be Stalingrad, which has
had a devoted following for years, AFAICT including the sort of folk who
love playing against themselves, but I don't think anyone's pretending
to play it because it tells them all about the Russian Front in WWII.
I'm not saying these people don't exist, but JD's basis for claiming the
quantities he does just strike me as very obviously flawed. It looks
like to me he's come up with a thesis, and *then* tried to squeeze some
facts in behind it.
> If that's true, then it looks to me like a *majority* of today's
> wargamers may be the "history-oriented, happy-to-play-solitaire" type.
> That is, the "war" aspect means more to them than the "game" aspect.
> They're amateur military historians (armchair generals) first and
> gamers second.
Again, one doesn't necessarily lead to the other. Playing solitaire
suggests a love of playing games solitaire to me at least as much as it
suggests that person *must* be primarily interested in the history of
the conflict that's being portrayed. If such a large proportion were
"Dunniganesque" then there'd have been rather more Campaign for North
Africas than actually got published...
> But I've always been
> curious about the makeup of the wargaming hobby as a whole, and
> Dunnigan's book, I think, gives some good insights into it.
To be honest, judging from the quotes supplied, he gives some rather
flawed analysis of a limited range of figures.
> If someone can suggest a better source, I'm all ears.
I can't, but just because I can't build a better car than a Yugo myself
doesn't mean I can't describe one in unflattering terms with some degree
of justification...
Robert Rossney
news:7e9e8acf.02111...@posting.google.com...
> > Dunnigan is reporting the results of many years of research into the
> > question of which subscribers to Strategy & Tactics were playing
wargames
> > and why. As such, it's fair to use his results to characterize what S&T
> > subscribers thought about wargames.
>
> Not "thought," but "think"--S&T is still being published.
Dunnagain stopped collecting S&T feedback survey results before 1980. The
fact that another publisher is producing S&T to this day doesn't make
Dunnagain's analysis of 20-year-old data a reliable characterization of what
S&T's subscribers today think.
Also, for better or worse, it's a very different magazine today than it was
20 years ago. For instance, it no longer has a 4-page feedback
questionnaire in the back of every issue.
Bob Rossney
r...@well.com
Patrick Carroll
> Of course JD knows
> more wargamers than I do, but as he's designing and publishing for
> people like him it rather follows that the people he'll associate with
> are people with the same perceptions.
Many thousands of such people, evidently. Which is just my
point--that there are (or at least were) many thousands of such
wargamers. A sizable group--big enough to have a significant
influence on the demographics of wargaming.
If we're wondering (and I am) whether most wargamers care more about
the military history than game play, how are we to find out? So far,
we've got JD's "badly flawed" survey results on one hand, which
indicate that many thousands of wargamers are primarily
military-history buffs. And on the other hand, we've got lone
individuals like you saying, "Well, my friends and I are much more
into game play--so there."
It seems to me that JD's "badly flawed" survey results still weigh in
much more heavily. Whether they're accurate or not, it'd be difficult
to convince anyone that those statistics are nothing but a
self-serving deception, designed to support JD's views with thousands
of imaginary wargamers. Clearly those wargamers are not imaginary.
The very fact that they continued to subscribe to S&T and send in
survey cards says something about them. The fact that they bought so
many Dunnigan-designed wargames (plus his book) says something too, as
does the fact that so many of them are now playing historical computer
wargames.
You may not like what it says about them. You may prefer to associate
with a different type of wargamer. But it'd be ridiculous to suggest
that those thousands of Dunnigan-type wargamers don't exist, or that
they really can't stand history and would much rather be playing
Ricochet Robots.
Whether the survey and its analysis is flawed or not, it's pretty
clear that there are (or were, in the time period covered) many
wargamers of the type Dunnigan describes. Wargamers who put history
first, to the point where they'll often play wargames alone or just
study them.
You're right: the statistics I quoted are not strong enough to
indicate that Dunnigan-type wargamers are (or were) in the majority.
I'm still wondering about that. But right now, we've got those survey
statistics on one hand, stacked up against what you and your friends
prefer on the other.
I'm still waiting to hear how to resolve the question. So far, I
personally have to credit Dunnigan with representing the larger
constituency. (And I'm not hopeful of finding any real resolution
here in r.g.b., where most folks seem content with, "Who knows--or
cares? Every gamer is unique, and different groups do different
things. And besides, they're only games.")
--Patrick
Eric Nielsen
> following list into "wargames" and "not-wargames":
>
> 1. Battle Cry
> 2. Battleline
> 3. paintball
> 4. miniatures gaming
> 5. Axis and Allies
> 6. chess
> 7. Ogre/G.E.V.
> 8. water pistols
> 9. AH Civilization
> 10. Battletech
Don't forget:
11. Tic-Tac-Toe
Some important lessons about thermonuclear warfare can be taught by the game
of Tic-Tac-Toe. If one's definition includes something like "teaches
lessons about warfare", the TTT must be a wargame.
Patrick Carroll
> Dunnagain stopped collecting S&T feedback survey results before 1980. . .
.
Then why does Dunnigan say this in his 1997 book:
<< I have access to much of the survey results for the twenty plus years S&T
has been running these surveys. Through this period, due to these regular
surveys of wargamers, a large number of interesting bits of information have
been collected.>>
S&T had a false start in 1967, then JD revived it in 1969. Presumably the
surveys were added some time after that, in the 70s. So, "twenty plus
years" takes us up into the 90s. Sounds pretty current to me (unless we're
talking computer games, in which case the 90s might be considered a
different era).
It's not "twenty-year-old data" at all; it's data collected over the course
of twenty-plus years.
--Patrick
Paul Sauberer
And, because of the way it was obtained, is still not the data needed to
draw any valid conclusions other than "the people who answered this survey
feel this way." The group of respondees is not a valid representative sample
of the larger wargaming community or any other group for that matter.
No statement about anything about any group of people other than those who
answered that survey is valid. None. Even then, it may be questionable
depending on how many repeat respondees there were.
To try and make any other assertion is patently false, no matter how many
times and in how many ways it is made.
Paul Sauberer
Patrick Carroll
> > Not "thought," but "think"--S&T is still being published.
>
> No, "thought", unless the quotes you're supplying are automagically
> updated with recent figures as they come in.
According to JD, the data was collected over the course of twenty-plus
years. Since his book is dated 1997, I'd guess that covers the period from
the mid-70s to 1997. And I don't think 1997 is a lifetime ago; it's just a
few short years back.
> It's just too easy to knock holes in his methods.
But why do you want to? Why not just shrug off the probable inaccuracy and
accept JD's findings as interesting ballpark figures, or a fair
representation of one wargaming community?
> I haven't bought a
> wargame for about 15 years, but I've still got a few and can still
> consider myself a wargamer to some extent. Looking at sales figures
> only tells you how many people are actively buying new games, which
> isn't the same thing as how many people are playing them.
Good point. But if Dunnigan's claim (or rather my suggestion, based on
reading JD's observations) is that there's a sizable community of wargamers
who buy wargames, study them awhile, then put them away and buy more games,
sales figures would track that group pretty well.
As to the other group of wargamers you're bringing up--the ones who buy a
wargame and play it over and over, rarely getting around to buying a new
one--well, that's a different group, isn't it? Quite possibly the "gamers"
as opposed to the "simulationists." Yes, we'd need data on that group too,
in order to get a good size comparison. But the point is, it's a different
group. A different kind of wargamer.
> > I'm no math whiz, but it sounds to me like S&T subscribers account for
> > a significant percentage of total wargamers.
>
> Quite possibly a significant proportion of paper wargamers that
> religiously follow the current contents of the market, but I can't see
> any particular reason why that should correlate directly with the number
> of people playing. Does the number of chess sets sold tell us how many
> people play chess? It's related, but not directly as there are plenty
> out there already.
Again, you're bringing in that "playing" criterion. One of the main points
here is that a large number of wargamers apparently don't (or didn't) play
the games they buy--at least not very often, and not always with other
people. Rather, they study them, much as they'd study history books.
> > I think we have to at least acknowledge that a *lot* of wargamers are
> > the history-oriented, happy-to-play-solitaire type that Dunnigan
> > describes.
>
> I don't see why being happy to play solitaire means you have to be
> interested in history. Lots of people play chess solitaire because they
> like the game of chess. A great example would be Stalingrad, which has
> had a devoted following for years, AFAICT including the sort of folk who
> love playing against themselves, but I don't think anyone's pretending
> to play it because it tells them all about the Russian Front in WWII.
I'd say it's usually because these folks want to experience the military
history of the Russian front in WWII. If it's flawed-but-familiar history,
some may be satisfied with that (others may have turned to The Russian
Campaign or some other game). But I seriously doubt if many wargamers play
Stalingrad solitaire for the same reason chess players play chess solitaire.
Solitaire chess is basically a good mental challenge--and there's a
competitive edge to it if done on a computer. I'd be very surprised if many
wargamers tackled Stalingrad solitaire with the same purpose in mind. No
matter how poor a job it does, Stalingrad is still a military-history game.
> I'm not saying these people don't exist, but JD's basis for claiming the
> quantities he does just strike me as very obviously flawed. It looks
> like to me he's come up with a thesis, and *then* tried to squeeze some
> facts in behind it.
Isn't that how one formulates an argument? That's what I was always taught
to do in school: come up with a thesis, then gather evidence to support it.
I'm sure there's a lot of subjectivity in JD's book, though. Knowing
something about his interests (I've seen other books he has authored, and
once saw him on TV talking about modern or future war), I think he goes a
bit far when he says that most wargamers want to study history so as to
better know how to approach the future. To me, that's just JD, not
wargamers in general. Many of us like history just for history's sake--just
because the past can be exotic and interesting--and don't have any intention
of applying our knowledge of history to help plan the future.
> > If that's true, then it looks to me like a *majority* of today's
> > wargamers may be the "history-oriented, happy-to-play-solitaire" type.
> > That is, the "war" aspect means more to them than the "game" aspect.
> > They're amateur military historians (armchair generals) first and
> > gamers second.
>
> Again, one doesn't necessarily lead to the other. Playing solitaire
> suggests a love of playing games solitaire to me at least as much as it
> suggests that person *must* be primarily interested in the history of
> the conflict that's being portrayed. If such a large proportion were
> "Dunniganesque" then there'd have been rather more Campaign for North
> Africas than actually got published...
But the games are basically just analytical history--military history in
game form. As Dunnigan puts it:
<<Why do people buy the games? We once ran a survey listing 28 reasons that
someone would have for buying a game. We asked them to rate each of these
factors on a scale of 1 to 9. What follows are the results (with the average
1 to 9 rating).
<<1. The subject of the game (8.36). This was the single most important
determinator in buying the game. This makes sense. People tend to be
interested in the subject. When it comes to wargames the gaming element is
simply a means toward an end. . . .>>
The other reasons follow, in descending order. As JD says elsewhere:
<<Some wargamers enjoy the game element more than the simulation and history
aspects, but they are basically into the history angle, otherwise they would
play the more numerous non-historical games.>>
I for one can't imagine playing solitaire ASL, for example, (something I've
done many times, btw) and thinking, "This is such a fun game to play! I
just love the sequence of play, the dice rolls, the odds calculations, and
looking up all those rules! What a great time!" All those things are a
royal pain in the neck. They're the price I had to pay in order to enjoy
the experience of WWII tactical combat, which is what ASL is all about. (Or
at least I thought so at the time.)
If I wanted to play solitaire just for the fun of game playing, I'd most
definitely choose patience, computer chess, or some other suitable game.
Something playable. Most wargames (compared to other games) are eminently
unplayable. They're heavy with rules, unit-counters, numbers, calculations.
If they weren't simulating history, it's hard for me to imagine anyone
wanting to play them at all, much less play solitaire. To me it'd be a form
of gaming masochism.
As to CNA, well, it was just too big and time-consuming. By the time it
came out, many wargamers were deserting the SPI fold: older wargamers
taking to computers, younger ones to fantasy and sci-fi. Nobody had time
for CNA; it was overwhelming even for the most avid history buffs. Yet, in
a recent Consimworld survey, CNA did pretty well.
> > If someone can suggest a better source, I'm all ears.
>
> I can't, but just because I can't build a better car than a Yugo myself
> doesn't mean I can't describe one in unflattering terms with some degree
> of justification...
True. But if you were in need of transportation, and someone offered you a
free Yugo in running condition, would you turn it down?
--Patrick
Paul Sauberer
> "Peter Clinch" <p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > I'm not saying these people don't exist, but JD's basis for claiming the
> > quantities he does just strike me as very obviously flawed. It looks
> > like to me he's come up with a thesis, and *then* tried to squeeze some
> > facts in behind it.
>
> Isn't that how one formulates an argument? That's what I was always
taught
> to do in school: come up with a thesis, then gather evidence to support
it.
Creating biased "evidence" is how one formulates an argument...if one
doesn't care whether the thesis is true or false. In other words, if one
wants to troll.
If one wants to answer a question, one formulates a thesis and then tests
the thesis against the evidence. One doesn't manufacture invalid evidence to
support the thesis.
Paul Sauberer
Patrick Carroll
> No statement about anything about any group of people other than those who
> answered that survey is valid. None. Even then, it may be questionable
> depending on how many repeat respondees there were.
>
> To try and make any other assertion is patently false, no matter how many
> times and in how many ways it is made.
Technically I suppose that's true. But polling companies would all go out
of business if everybody treated the results that way. The whole idea of a
poll is to get a representative sample and extrapolate the results to a
larger group.
For instance, I read not long ago something like, "according to a recent
Gallup poll, 33 percent of Americans polled have had a profound spiritual,
religious, or mystical experience." Yes, that specifically refers to the
group of Americans polled--and we don't know how big that group was or
whether it was a fair cross-section of the American public. But the reader
is expected to lend credence to the Gallup name and conclude that some 33
percent of *all* Americans have *probably* had the kind of experience
described.
The S&T surveys are nowhere near as reliable, of course. Furthermore
they're admittedly skewed (only the magazine's subscribers are polled).
Nevertheless, I'd venture to say that S&T subscribers are not the only
wargamers described by the survey results. It'd be surprising if the
typical S&T subscriber held a set of opinions absolutely distinct in every
way from non-subscribers. More likely, the survey results describe
something like a near-average of S&T subscribers and also describe an
unknown number of other wargamers as well.
What we end up with is a description of a pretty big group of wargamers.
How big, compared to other groups of wargamers, I don't know. It'd be cool
to find out, though.
--Patrick
Patrick Carroll
> > Isn't that how one formulates an argument? That's what I was always
> taught
> > to do in school: come up with a thesis, then gather evidence to support
> it.
>
> Creating biased "evidence" is how one formulates an argument...if one
Er . . . I said *gather* evidence.
> If one wants to answer a question, one formulates a thesis and then tests
> the thesis against the evidence. One doesn't manufacture invalid evidence
to
> support the thesis.
Er . . . I said *gather* evidence, not "manufacture." Are you claiming that
Dunnigan designed the S&T surveys just to get the results he wanted so as to
support his view of wargaming, so that years later he could dazzle the
wargaming world with a book on the niche hobby?
I rather doubt that.
--Patrick
Todd Derscheid
> "Paul Sauberer" <spamgr...@aol.com> wrote :
> > No statement about anything about any group of people other than those
who
> > answered that survey is valid. None. Even then, it may be questionable
> > depending on how many repeat respondees there were.
> >
> > To try and make any other assertion is patently false, no matter how
many
> > times and in how many ways it is made.
>
> Technically I suppose that's true. But polling companies would all go out
> of business if everybody treated the results that way. The whole idea of
a
> poll is to get a representative sample and extrapolate the results to a
> larger group.
In fact, if we're willing to assume that certain personality types (given
unto playing Stalingrad solitaire, for whatever reason) probably filled in
their surveys and mailed them every month... I think we can probably
conclude Dunnigan's results are way off base. How many of those readers had
subscriptions throughout? One hardcore obsessive's responses over the years
are worth 240 times as much as a more casual subscriber who sent in a survey
once.
I'm not sure if I'm a wargamer or not... but I never subscribed to S&T.
> For instance, I read not long ago something like, "according to a recent
> Gallup poll, 33 percent of Americans polled have had a profound spiritual,
> religious, or mystical experience." Yes, that specifically refers to the
> group of Americans polled--and we don't know how big that group was or
> whether it was a fair cross-section of the American public. But the
reader
> is expected to lend credence to the Gallup name and conclude that some 33
> percent of *all* Americans have *probably* had the kind of experience
> described.
Yes, yes, and Dewey defeats Truman, IIRC. Most of the hardcore hippies were
out on the commune, so the number's actually higher... or was that lower,
since us worker-bees were hard at work, not answering polls?
> The S&T surveys are nowhere near as reliable, of course. Furthermore
> they're admittedly skewed (only the magazine's subscribers are polled).
> Nevertheless, I'd venture to say that S&T subscribers are not the only
> wargamers described by the survey results. It'd be surprising if the
> typical S&T subscriber held a set of opinions absolutely distinct in every
> way from non-subscribers. More likely, the survey results describe
> something like a near-average of S&T subscribers and also describe an
> unknown number of other wargamers as well.
What? The S&T subscribers who responded to the survey are absolutely
distinct from those subscribers who did not, and both those classes are
absolutely distinct from non-subscribers. If you concede those choices were
based on their opinions, why keep seeing subscribers as representative, as
Paul says, of anything other than themselves.
I'm not even willing to give you the more likely part, for the reason
described above, and I think that describing an unknown number of wargamers
can be filed under "wild guess".
> What we end up with is a description of a pretty big group of wargamers.
> How big, compared to other groups of wargamers, I don't know. It'd be
cool
> to find out, though.
Bleah. I'd need to read through more of the Dunnigan material, but it's
highly unlikely I'll do so. I guess we'll never know how many licks to the
center of the Tootsie pop.
Todd Derscheid
For that information, we'd need to know how his subscriber base varied over
the years... as some have suggested, one reason that companies do poorly is
a failure to accept the market.
I imagine Dunnigan designed the S&T surveys to figure out how to sell as
many games as possible... that's a typical manufacturer's reasoning.
Whether his own personal blind spots kept him from realizing his full
game-designing potential, we'll never know. (Wow, talk about a
non-starter...)
I think about Dunnigan about the way I think of John K, the creator of Ren
and Stimpy, and more recently, the Ripping Friends. Creative geniuses, but
obsessed in a way that hampers their full potential. Dunnigan by following
historical themes, John K. by fixating on bodily functions. Betcha never
saw that analogy coming...
Paul Sauberer
> "Paul Sauberer" <spamgr...@aol.com> wrote :
> > > Isn't that how one formulates an argument? That's what I was always
> > taught
> > > to do in school: come up with a thesis, then gather evidence to
support
> > it.
> >
> > Creating biased "evidence" is how one formulates an argument...if one
> > doesn't care whether the thesis is true or false. . . .
>
> Er . . . I said *gather* evidence.
Gathering and manufacturing evidence are not mutually exclusive activities.
In fact, the evidence will be gathered after it is manufactured.
>
> > If one wants to answer a question, one formulates a thesis and then
tests
> > the thesis against the evidence. One doesn't manufacture invalid
evidence
> to
> > support the thesis.
>
> Er . . . I said *gather* evidence, not "manufacture." Are you claiming
that
> Dunnigan designed the S&T surveys just to get the results he wanted so as
to
> support his view of wargaming, so that years later he could dazzle the
> wargaming world with a book on the niche hobby?
>
> I rather doubt that.
I'm not saying that he did it intentionally.
However, by constructing his survey and its distribution in the way he did
(maybe he didn't know any better) he gathered invalid "evidence" that played
right into his thesis. This by definition invalidates his conclusions, if he
is stating them as facts based on his "evidence."
In fact, the way the surveys were constructed made them of limited use for
even determining the views of S&T subscribers, much less those of wargamers
as a whole. A significant flaw is that the surveys were self selected and
not a random sample. Dunnigan may be a wargame design genius, but he didn't
evidently know the basics that are included in marketing survey classes. the
only conclusions that can be drawn from those surveys is "This is how those
who fill out S&T surveys feel."
BTW, how does the popularity of Warhammer factor into this whole question? I
doubt if any Warhammer players do so in order to study the history behind
the campaigns they play, since there is no history, it's entirely fiction.
Or is Warhammer arbitrarily defined out of the realm of "wargame" in order
to maintain the thesis? Another case of only accepting "evidence" that fits
the thesis?
Feel free to troll away.
Paul Sauberer
Paul Sauberer
> "Paul Sauberer" <spamgr...@aol.com> wrote :
> > No statement about anything about any group of people other than those
who
> > answered that survey is valid. None. Even then, it may be questionable
> > depending on how many repeat respondees there were.
> >
> > To try and make any other assertion is patently false, no matter how
many
> > times and in how many ways it is made.
>
> Technically I suppose that's true. But polling companies would all go out
> of business if everybody treated the results that way. The whole idea of
a
> poll is to get a representative sample and extrapolate the results to a
> larger group.
Exactly. The S&T surveys are not a representative sample of anything,
therefore the results cannot be extrapolated to any larger group.
>
> For instance, I read not long ago something like, "according to a recent
> Gallup poll, 33 percent of Americans polled have had a profound spiritual,
> religious, or mystical experience." Yes, that specifically refers to the
> group of Americans polled--and we don't know how big that group was or
> whether it was a fair cross-section of the American public. But the
reader
> is expected to lend credence to the Gallup name and conclude that some 33
> percent of *all* Americans have *probably* had the kind of experience
> described.
The readers are expected to lend credence to Gallup because they have a
track record of polling statistically valid representative samples that can
be extrapolated into numbers for larger groups.
The public should not lend credence to the results of a poll as representing
the American population at large if it was taken of people who sent in
surveys in official publications of the Democratic or Republican parties.
>
> The S&T surveys are nowhere near as reliable, of course. Furthermore
> they're admittedly skewed (only the magazine's subscribers are polled).
> Nevertheless, I'd venture to say that S&T subscribers are not the only
> wargamers described by the survey results. It'd be surprising if the
> typical S&T subscriber held a set of opinions absolutely distinct in every
> way from non-subscribers. More likely, the survey results describe
> something like a near-average of S&T subscribers and also describe an
> unknown number of other wargamers as well.
Not only is it the S&T readers who are polled, it is a subset of those
readers- those who are interested enough to go to the trouble of responding
to the survey. This group would not represent the average S&T subscriber at
all, since the average S&T subscriber undoubtedly didn't bother to fill out
the survey. Thus you would end up with the rabid fringe of those who likely
already were in major agreement with Dunnigan's approach already because
they subscribed to the magazine of his company.
>
> What we end up with is a description of a pretty big group of wargamers.
> How big, compared to other groups of wargamers, I don't know. It'd be
cool
> to find out, though.
Size alone does not mean much (and it is undoubtedly the case that the
respondents to this survey were relatively small anyway, in terms of both
S&T subscribers and wargamers in general.) I'm sure that you have seen
online polls where there have been millions of responses. They mean
absolutely nothing in terms of the attitude of the general American public.
What we end up with is a group of people who subscribed to a magazine and
filled out a survey. This group can tell us nothing about the larger groups
of which they are a small part. I don't find it interesting at all, since it
can't tell us any useful information.
Paul Sauberer
Josh Adelson
"Patrick Carroll" <patrick...@mn.rr.com> wrote in message
news:7e9e8acf.02111...@posting.google.com...
> ..... (And I'm not hopeful of finding any real resolution
> here in r.g.b., where most folks seem content with, "Who knows--or
> cares? Every gamer is unique, and different groups do different
> things. And besides, they're only games.")
Patrick, you're starting to sound like a bit of a whiner now. If you would
like to start a new Usenet group, where people resolve your questions for
you, you will need to stop presenting them as though you already have the
solutions. If you do this, you have a remote chance of not being the only
poster on that new newsgroup.
Josh
Peter Clinch
> "Peter Clinch" <p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
>>It's just too easy to knock holes in his methods.
>
> But why do you want to?
More a case of "but why would I ignore that?"
> Why not just shrug off the probable inaccuracy and
> accept JD's findings as interesting ballpark figures, or a fair
> representation of one wargaming community?
Because I don't see there's anything much to be gained from doing so.
You say "this is all we have, we might as well use it", I say "what we
have looks dodgy, might as well get on without it".
> Good point. But if Dunnigan's claim (or rather my suggestion, based on
> reading JD's observations) is that there's a sizable community of wargamers
> who buy wargames, study them awhile, then put them away and buy more games,
> sales figures would track that group pretty well.
Pretty big "if". Later on we get onto Stalingrad, which you say is
still being played by history buffs. It's been out of print for years,
how do these people fit your thesis?
> As to the other group of wargamers you're bringing up--the ones who buy a
> wargame and play it over and over, rarely getting around to buying a new
> one--well, that's a different group, isn't it? Quite possibly the "gamers"
> as opposed to the "simulationists." Yes, we'd need data on that group too,
> in order to get a good size comparison. But the point is, it's a different
> group. A different kind of wargamer.
But back to Stalingrad again, apparently not that different from your
later arguments.
> Again, you're bringing in that "playing" criterion. One of the main points
> here is that a large number of wargamers apparently don't (or didn't) play
> the games they buy--at least not very often, and not always with other
> people. Rather, they study them, much as they'd study history books.
I think this is semantics. You can't really study a game properly
without playing it, otherwise it's just a pile of maps and OB charts.
Even if you play it solitaire, retake moves as often as you want, you're
still playing it. Only if you regard "play" as derogatory is this a
problem.
> I'd say it's usually because these folks want to experience the military
> history of the Russian front in WWII. If it's flawed-but-familiar history,
> some may be satisfied with that (others may have turned to The Russian
> Campaign or some other game). But I seriously doubt if many wargamers play
> Stalingrad solitaire for the same reason chess players play chess solitaire.
Quite so, but that doesn't mean they're playing according to JD's
thesis. As has often been pointed out, Stalingrad is terrible at
recreating the Russian front in WWII, so you won't experience the
military history by playing it. What you'll experience is playing at
war on a map of Russia, and if that floats your boat, on you go. But if
you think you're learning anything much about military history then
you're kidding yourself. And if you fill in a survey saying you are,
you're kidding Jim Dunnigan too.
> Isn't that how one formulates an argument? That's what I was always taught
> to do in school: come up with a thesis, then gather evidence to support it.
"If the facts do not conform to the theory, they must be disposed of".
> I for one can't imagine playing solitaire ASL, for example, (something I've
> done many times, btw) and thinking, "This is such a fun game to play! I
> just love the sequence of play, the dice rolls, the odds calculations, and
> looking up all those rules! What a great time!" All those things are a
> royal pain in the neck. They're the price I had to pay in order to enjoy
> the experience of WWII tactical combat, which is what ASL is all about. (Or
> at least I thought so at the time.)
But how much military history do I actually learn storming Hill 621 for
the 4th or 5th time?
> If I wanted to play solitaire just for the fun of game playing, I'd most
> definitely choose patience, computer chess, or some other suitable game.
> Something playable. Most wargames (compared to other games) are eminently
> unplayable. They're heavy with rules, unit-counters, numbers, calculations.
> If they weren't simulating history, it's hard for me to imagine anyone
> wanting to play them at all, much less play solitaire. To me it'd be a form
> of gaming masochism.
Flavour. Storming Hill 621 gives me a very different feeling to
declaring Atari in Go. But I'm not storming Hill 621 to learn about it.
It's simulating something less abstract and more eventful.
So why aren't people playing more F/SF games if all they want is playing
at war. Well, quite frankly, they're not as good on the whole. By
using a historical basis you've got a benchmark of what should be
possible which is a great aid to the design of an effective game.
>>I can't, but just because I can't build a better car than a Yugo myself
>>doesn't mean I can't describe one in unflattering terms with some degree
>>of justification...
>
> True. But if you were in need of transportation, and someone offered you a
> free Yugo in running condition, would you turn it down?
If I can see the wheel's likely to fall off and I don't really trust the
driver's methods, certainly I do.
Peter Clinch
> It seems to me that JD's "badly flawed" survey results still weigh in
> much more heavily.
Yes, but how heavily is "much more heavily"? In terms of survey design
and what he's extrapolating from it, it's very much a lightweight piece
of work. To the extent it's not worth worrying too much about, AFAICT.
> You may not like what it says about them. You may prefer to associate
> with a different type of wargamer. But it'd be ridiculous to suggest
> that those thousands of Dunnigan-type wargamers don't exist, or that
> they really can't stand history and would much rather be playing
> Ricochet Robots.
Which is why I haven't suggested any such thing. I'm quite sure these
people exist, but the survey design doesn't tell you *anything* useful
about how big the group is in proportional terms because the statistics
are coming from a highly biased sample.
> You're right: the statistics I quoted are not strong enough to
> indicate that Dunnigan-type wargamers are (or were) in the majority.
> I'm still wondering about that. But right now, we've got those survey
> statistics on one hand, stacked up against what you and your friends
> prefer on the other.
So he has a bigger sample, so must be right? Flawed is flawed is
flawed. I'm not saying he must be wrong, mind, I'm saying you can't
tell one way or another from the evidence presented.
> I'm still waiting to hear how to resolve the question. So far, I
> personally have to credit Dunnigan with representing the larger
> constituency.
Why? On the basis that he's come up with some very probably skewed
figures and I haven't come up with anything but criticism? Until you
have evidence to resolve the question satisfactorily it's pretty
pointless drawing conclusions.
Patrick Carroll
> I think this is semantics. You can't really study a game properly
> without playing it, otherwise it's just a pile of maps and OB charts.
> Even if you play it solitaire, retake moves as often as you want, you're
> still playing it. Only if you regard "play" as derogatory is this a
> problem.
OK. I certainly don't want to get tangled up in semantics again. As long
as "playing" just means doing something with the game (as opposed to the
strict definition of sitting across from someone and playing the game out
competitively), I take your point. People who have all the wargames they
want, and are playing them, may not be buying any new ones--and that'd make
sales figures a questionable indicator of how many people are wargaming.
> > I'd say it's usually because these folks want to experience the military
> > history of the Russian front in WWII. If it's flawed-but-familiar
history,
> > some may be satisfied with that (others may have turned to The Russian
> > Campaign or some other game). But I seriously doubt if many wargamers
play
> > Stalingrad solitaire for the same reason chess players play chess
solitaire.
>
> Quite so, but that doesn't mean they're playing according to JD's
> thesis. As has often been pointed out, Stalingrad is terrible at
> recreating the Russian front in WWII, so you won't experience the
> military history by playing it. What you'll experience is playing at
> war on a map of Russia, and if that floats your boat, on you go. But if
> you think you're learning anything much about military history then
> you're kidding yourself. And if you fill in a survey saying you are,
> you're kidding Jim Dunnigan too.
Well, I take the term "experiencing military history" as loosely as you take
"playing." JD does seem to think wargamers are dealing with serious
history, but I only agree with that up to a point. I'd drop the "serious"
qualifier. As far as I'm concerned, if you're watching an old episode of
Gunsmoke, you're experiencign the Old West, and if you're playing Stalingrad
you're experiencing WWII on the eastern front--no matter how ludicrous the
media might be.
Note that even JD doesn't say "learning about" history (as you do above); he
says "experiencing history." There's a difference. If you set out to have
the vicarious experience of an historical event, you know from the get-go
that it's not going to be a perfectly accurate experience--unless you're
operating a time machine. At best you'll approximate actual history. And
considering what an abstract level you're working with in wargames, you're
always quite a ways removed from the actuality of historical events.
> But how much military history do I actually learn storming Hill 621 for
> the 4th or 5th time?
I don't know if you *learn* any. But you vicariously (simulationally)
*experience* WWII tactical combat (if you're playing the game with any
awareness of what the game was designed to do).
> Flavour. Storming Hill 621 gives me a very different feeling to
> declaring Atari in Go. But I'm not storming Hill 621 to learn about it.
> It's simulating something less abstract and more eventful.
Exactly. And more specifically, "less abstract" means "more
realistic"--which in this case means more like WWII tactical combat on the
eastern front. In that sense, you're experiencing military history.
> So why aren't people playing more F/SF games if all they want is playing
> at war. . . .
According to Dunnigan, they are. In his book, he says that by the late 70s
the S&T surveys showed him the writing on the wall: younger wargamers were
turning to F/SF games, while older ones had less time for paper wargames and
were moving toward computers (despite the primitive state of computer games
at the time).
--Patrick
Patrick Carroll
> Not only is it the S&T readers who are polled, it is a subset of those
> readers- those who are interested enough to go to the trouble of
responding
> to the survey. This group would not represent the average S&T subscriber
at
That reminds me of something I once heard in a stand-up comedy routine
(though IIRC the comedian was sitting down at the time). He rhetorically
asks how reliable poll results are, then asks, "When you get one of those
calls at dinnertime saying, 'Excuse me, but can I have just a few minutes of
your time for a marketing research project?' what do you say? 'No way,' of
course. You and I don't have time for crap like that. We hang up. So,
who's giving these folks all their data? Well, it's the dork who's sitting
in his living room watching a porn flick when the phone rings, and he says,
'Sure, I'll talk to you. I want to have friends.' Thus, our national polls
are representative of a bunch of time-wasting, masturbating morons!"
I suppose that's funny because there's probably some truth to it. (And for
the record, I'm one of those who always hangs up. Though I think I did send
in an S&T survey once or twice back in the 70s.)
--Patrick
Patrick Carroll
> Bleah. I'd need to read through more of the Dunnigan material, but it's
Well, to save you the trouble, here's all I was able to find in JD's book
about his statistical methods. Just two fairly vague paragraphs, which I'm
sure won't be convincing at all:
<<While at SPI, I developed a market research system that constantly
monitored gamer demographics, new product preferences and existing product
satisfaction. The questionnaires were (and still are) a regular part of
Strategy & Tactics magazine, as well as several other wargaming periodicals.
It became something of a tradition. I have access to much of the survey
results for the twenty plus years S&T has been running these surveys.
Through this period, due to these regular surveys of wargamers, a large
number of interesting bits of information have been collected. Many of the
questions asked were generated by little more than a sense of curiosity, but
some of the questions and their answers should prove interesting to gamers
as a means of defining who they are as a group. The answers not only tell us
who current wargamers are, but how they got that way.
<<These trends were uncovered by using a correlation and factor analysis.
Only statistically significant trends are commented upon here. In addition
to periodic random surveys to validate the voluntary results, we also
performed correlation analysis on new game preferences (before the decision
to publish was made) and subsequent sales. It was a nearly perfect fit. Even
I was impressed. Pity I wasn't publishing mass market items. But then, we
probably wouldn't have gotten such thoughtful feedback in the first place.>>
For anyone who wants to see just what picture of S&T wargamers the survey
painted, go to http://www.hyw.com/Books/WargamesHandbook/8-who_pl.htm.
--Patrick
Peter Clinch
> Well, I take the term "experiencing military history" as loosely as you take
> "playing." JD does seem to think wargamers are dealing with serious
> history, but I only agree with that up to a point. I'd drop the "serious"
> qualifier. As far as I'm concerned, if you're watching an old episode of
> Gunsmoke, you're experiencign the Old West, and if you're playing Stalingrad
> you're experiencing WWII on the eastern front--no matter how ludicrous the
> media might be.
I'd say that's taking things rather *more* loosely. Watching Gunsmoke
isn't experiencing the Old West, it's watching an entertainment loosely
themed on the Old West. Just as Stalingrad is playing at war loosely
themed on the Russian Front of WW2. If you don't have mechanics that
reflect the large encirclements of Blitzkrieg tactics then you're not
experiencing WW2 on the Russian Front, however much the terrain and OB
may be familiar.
> Note that even JD doesn't say "learning about" history (as you do above); he
> says "experiencing history." There's a difference. If you set out to have
> the vicarious experience of an historical event, you know from the get-go
> that it's not going to be a perfectly accurate experience--unless you're
> operating a time machine. At best you'll approximate actual history. And
> considering what an abstract level you're working with in wargames, you're
> always quite a ways removed from the actuality of historical events.
Yes, fair point.
David desJardins
>>> [quoting Dunnigan]
>>> Some wargamers enjoy the game element more than the simulation and
>>> history aspects, but they are basically into the history angle,
>>> otherwise they would play the more numerous non-historical games.
Here Dunnigan displays the same lack of understanding that posters here,
including you, often have. He refuses to recognize or admit that there
can be things about the game qua game that some people enjoy, completely
independent of the theme or background. That board wargames tend to
involve particular types of thinking, of analysis, of strategy and
tactics, that engage many people, who play the games primarily for that
reason, and not because of the theme.
There could, in principle, be non-wargames that involve all of the same
game elements, and that would appeal to those players just as much as
the wargames do. In fact, there *are* lots of non-historical wargames,
which is strong evidence that the many people who play those games and
historical wargames more-or-less interchangeably don't care primarily
about history.
>>> And that is what many early wargamers did when the fantasy and
>>> science fiction games came along. These games were more game than
>>> simulation, although a simulation element was present.
Here Dunnigan seems to be claiming that non-historical wargames (those
with fantasy or SF themes) are actually more numerous than historical
wargames. I think that claim is, in fact, false.
> Are Dunnigan's statistics skewed, so that they reflect only a
> particular wargaming community? I don't know. But I do know he
> polled many thousands of wargamers a dozen times a year for at least
> several years, then meticulously analyzed the returns--and that he has
> carefully observed wargaming trends for decades and demonstrated a lot
> of insight into what makes wargamers tick. To me, that gives JD's
> statistics and observations more credence than yours or mine. We can
> only describe ourselves and the wargamers we've known. I think JD is
> talking about a much bigger group of wargamers than you or I have ever
> known, and he seems to have listened to them attentively and observed
> them closely.
The size of the sample doesn't make it more significant, when there are
obvious biases in how the data is collected. Anyone who reads S&T can
see how subscribers to that magazine would be more interested in
history. Anyone who observed what SPI was doing in the 1970s and
compared it to what Avalon Hill was doing at the same time can see that
buyers of SPI games would be more interested in history.
If the Republican Party polls a million Fox News viewers about XYZ, and
finds that 80% of them support the Republican Party position, that
doesn't make those views representative of the population as a whole,
just because it's a really big sample. Size doesn't overcome biases in
data collection.
David desJardins
David desJardins
> As to the other group of wargamers you're bringing up--the ones who
> buy a wargame and play it over and over, rarely getting around to
> buying a new one--well, that's a different group, isn't it? Quite
> possibly the "gamers" as opposed to the "simulationists." Yes, we'd
> need data on that group too, in order to get a good size comparison.
> But the point is, it's a different group. A different kind of
> wargamer.
That was the point made by the people who replied to your original post.
But your admission now, that those people are wargamers too, is in
direct contradiction to Dunnigan's claim, which you endorsed ("couldn't
have said it better myself"), that "wargamers [are] history buffs".
David desJardins
David desJardins
> If we're wondering (and I am) whether most wargamers care more about
> the military history than game play, how are we to find out?
I think it's a meaningless question unless and until you define which
wargames and wargamers you are willing to include. If you only include
SPI wargames, you'll obviously get one answer. If you include
everything up to Hasbro wargames like Axis and Allies, and Risk, you'll
obviously get a different answer. The definition determines the result.
David desJardins
Peter Clinch
> Here Dunnigan displays the same lack of understanding that posters here,
> including you, often have. He refuses to recognize or admit that there
> can be things about the game qua game that some people enjoy, completely
> independent of the theme or background. That board wargames tend to
> involve particular types of thinking, of analysis, of strategy and
> tactics, that engage many people, who play the games primarily for that
> reason, and not because of the theme.
An illustration of this is how many historical games appeared in the UK
in the late 70s/early 80s. SPI and AH had individual UK importers, but
just about everyone else who imported into the UK went through Games
Workshop. GW started life (IIRC) as importers of D&D and subsequently
expanded to import other titles from the likes of TSR and GDW. Though
their main audience base was (and indeed remains) fantasy and SF their
connections meant they had one of the best selections of historical
wargames in the country, and their shops stocked AH and SPI titles as
well as the ones they brought in themselves. Historical wargaming has a
much lower profile in the UK than the US, and basically nobody's ever
heard of it, but quite a few folk know that fantasy and SF games exist
beyond Toys R Us, and when the people playing these (I was one) were
exposed to a catalogue that didn't stop at D&D some got interested and
looked further. That's how I got into historical paper wargames, and
how my friends did too. If we hadn't looked at GW catalogues, we'd
never even have heard of them!
Similarly, today I think a lot of interest in German games in the UK
(about which Joe Public (John Q. Public's British cousin) knows nothing)
comes from folk going to places that get them their CCG fix and noticing
there are all these game boxes on the shelf...
> Here Dunnigan seems to be claiming that non-historical wargames (those
> with fantasy or SF themes) are actually more numerous than historical
> wargames. I think that claim is, in fact, false.
I think it is too. For F/SF you've got to come up with something new to
a greater extent. With a working game system for historical use, we
just need to port the system to a different battle, but there's not much
point when the battle's notional in the first place. So we get a few
games with a similar theme (like interstellar warfare, that we "know"
about from film, TV and literature), but since the themes tend to be
rather generic there's a smaller spread of titles. How many games about
D-Day and the Normandy campaign are there? Against how many for *all*
of Middle Earth, the most popular fantasy setting?
Patrick Carroll
> That was the point made by the people who replied to your original post.
> But your admission now, that those people are wargamers too, is in
> direct contradiction to Dunnigan's claim, which you endorsed ("couldn't
> have said it better myself"), that "wargamers [are] history buffs".
D'oh! <blush> Guess I lost track again. . . .
This kinda zeroes in on my main interest here, though. In Dunnigan's book,
he devotes three short chapters to the history of wargaming, and the way I
read it he says that in the late 70s he saw the writing on the wall: before
that, most all wargamers had been playing lots of paper wargames (often
solitaire, and mainly to "experience history"); but now those wargamers were
splitting off in two different directions. The younger wargamers were
taking to fantasy/sci-fi (RPGs and such), while the older ones were already
turning to computers. He pretty much ignores the f/sf gamers after that
(except to say their games have to be counted as simulations too), but he
insists that todday's computer wargamers are the same "history first" gamers
who used to play the paper wargames.
That leaves me wondering: what about the "game-first" wargamers? IIRC,
Avalon Hill ostensibly catered primarily to them. Dunnigan sort of
dismisses them by saying that even if a person does care more about the game
play than the history, he's still choosing to play history-based
wargames--so he's involved in a "history first" experience whether he likes
it or not. I'm *almost* happy to see it that way, but there's something
disconcerting about it.
Toward the end of Dunnigan's history, he mentions how publishers had to
start putting out simpler wargames, since the older wargamers didn't have
time for anything complex and would otherwise keep drifting off to
computers. He says there are two ways to make a wargame simpler: (1) "sweat
blood" and work painstakingly to condense the historical event down to its
essence, or (2) just make playability the priority and start stripping away
rules, hoping nobody notices. The latter "low road," he says, is the much
easier route, and the one often chosen. IIRC, AH made no bones about
putting playability first. And if those games sold and were (and still are)
enjoyed, then there may be a group of "game first" wargamers who don't care
as much about the history as Dunnigan suggests all wargamers do (either
that, or there's a group of dunderheads who haven't noticed that the history
has been stripped out of their games).
My view, FWIW, is that Dunnigan overestimates how interested most wargamers
are--or ever were--in serious historical study via simulations. The truly
serious historians I know would object to Dunnigan's non-linear "what if"
approach to history in the first place, seeing it as historical fiction
rather than military history per se. And the wargamers I've known (myself
included) are usually pretty much content with historical fiction, as long
as the data and "what ifs" are convincing enough.
But this other possible group of wargamers (the one you come across as a
prime spokesman for) keeps nagging me. Even long ago in wargaming's
history, there was AHIKS, and then came the AREA rating system, and then
tournaments at AvalonCon and other conventions. So, evidently at least
*some* wargamers were focusing on game-play skills, much as serious chess
and bridge players do. I always found this a little odd myself, because if
that were my interest I'd surely take up a more playable game like chess or
bridge, instead of competing at a complex monstrosity like Anzio or ASL.
But I can't deny that lots of folks signed up for AREA ratings and showed up
at the AvalonCon tournaments.
And when AH was struggling in the 80s, after this mass exodus from paper
wargaming that Dunnigan describes, I wonder if their emphasis on playability
was a genuine reflection of their customers' interest, or if it was just a
marketing ploy to keep more wargamers from turning to computer games. In
any case, by the end of the 80s, when the Smithsonian series started coming
out, AH was clearly trying the low-road simplification method Dunnigan
mentions--where the Smithsonian logo was supposed to substitute for the real
history that had been largely stripped out of these games.
In short, I guess I'm wondering if the emphasis on playability (the "game
first" philosophy) was merely an AH marketing invention that came up during
its competition with SPI, or if many wargamers naturally approached
wargaming that way (contrary to Dunnigan's claim that "history first" is the
natural approach for wargamers). I'm inclined to believe the "game first"
philosophy was artificial, but I don't know. And it's especially hard to
tell, since even early games like Tactics II were referred to as "military
chess." Come to think of it, the first few lines of Dunnigan's book pretty
much make chess and wargames synonymous. And I doubt if many people play
chess in an effort to experience medieval battle.
--Patrick
Patrick Carroll
> >>> And that is what many early wargamers did when the fantasy and
> >>> science fiction games came along. These games were more game than
> >>> simulation, although a simulation element was present.
>
> Here Dunnigan seems to be claiming that non-historical wargames (those
> with fantasy or SF themes) are actually more numerous than historical
> wargames. I think that claim is, in fact, false.
I don't follow. How is the suggestion that "many early wargamers" took to
f/sf games a claim that f/sf games are "actually more numerous"?
--Patrick
Patrick Carroll
Good point. I don't know who has the credentials to come up with a list of
which games to include, though, so how do we get anywhere? Just based on my
question, though, it'd seem fair to exclude games which clearly have no
"military history" to care about (as well as any game--if there is such a
game--which has no "game play" to care about). I don't know where to draw
the line, though.
--Patrick
Peter Clinch
> This kinda zeroes in on my main interest here, though. In Dunnigan's book,
> he devotes three short chapters to the history of wargaming, and the way I
> read it he says that in the late 70s he saw the writing on the wall: before
> that, most all wargamers had been playing lots of paper wargames (often
> solitaire, and mainly to "experience history");
Someone's suggested JD appeared to be underestimating miniatures, and it
looks that way again here to me. At least in the UK, at least AFAICT,
miniatures wargaming has always been far more significant than
historical paper wargaming, so "most all wargamers" had *not* been
playing lots of paper wargames.
> That leaves me wondering: what about the "game-first" wargamers? IIRC,
> Avalon Hill ostensibly catered primarily to them. Dunnigan sort of
> dismisses them by saying that even if a person does care more about the game
> play than the history, he's still choosing to play history-based
> wargames--so he's involved in a "history first" experience whether he likes
> it or not. I'm *almost* happy to see it that way, but there's something
> disconcerting about it.
As one of those people, I find it disconcerting too. I played Squad
Leader because it was the best small unit tactical wargame I'd found,
not because it was about WW2. If it had had another theme, say
NATO/Warsaw Pact, I'd have played it. As it happened I was interested
in WW2 history, but one of my two usual opponents wasn't, and he was the
one that moved onto ASL!
> Toward the end of Dunnigan's history, he mentions how publishers had to
> start putting out simpler wargames, since the older wargamers didn't have
> time for anything complex and would otherwise keep drifting off to
> computers. He says there are two ways to make a wargame simpler: (1) "sweat
> blood" and work painstakingly to condense the historical event down to its
> essence, or (2) just make playability the priority and start stripping away
> rules, hoping nobody notices. The latter "low road," he says, is the much
> easier route, and the one often chosen.
I'd agree with that, except the "hoping nobody notices" bit. I don't
think the simpler games are really trying to pretend they're just as
valid as simulations except where the first route has been taken
(something like Storm Over Arnhem is IMHO a good example of how it could
be done well).
At the end, if you have a game that the players appreciate and enjoy,
for whatever reasons, then you'll have a game that sells. If the easier
route can achieve this (and it can), why bother with the hard one?
People who are bothered about history would want the first sort, people
who don't can be happy with either.
> IIRC, AH made no bones about
> putting playability first. And if those games sold and were (and still are)
> enjoyed, then there may be a group of "game first" wargamers who don't care
> as much about the history as Dunnigan suggests all wargamers do (either
> that, or there's a group of dunderheads who haven't noticed that the history
> has been stripped out of their games).
Yesterday I raised the point of Stalingrad being laughable as history,
yet despite acknowledging that to some degree you still appeared to feel
many Stalingrad players would be in it for even the little history they
got. I don't see that as much different to a simplified game with some
degree of history "stripped out". Or are Stalingrad players all
"dunderheads"? ;-)
> My view, FWIW, is that Dunnigan overestimates how interested most wargamers
> are--or ever were--in serious historical study via simulations.
Well, we certainly agree about something then! But ultimately I don't
think he's in a position to even make the call based on the data he's
collected.
> And the wargamers I've known (myself
> included) are usually pretty much content with historical fiction, as long
> as the data and "what ifs" are convincing enough.
So you find history flavouring, rather than pure essence, to be quite
acceptable? I know that's all I've ever looked for... If flavouring
will do, I don't think you're really *that* interested in history, or
even experiencing it. I think a lot of us would prefer to vacation in
Westworld (as long as Yul wasn't on duty that week ;-)) rather than take
a time-trip back to the real thing. Whether we'd fill in a
questionnaire that way is another matter!
> And when AH was struggling in the 80s, after this mass exodus from paper
> wargaming that Dunnigan describes, I wonder if their emphasis on playability
> was a genuine reflection of their customers' interest, or if it was just a
> marketing ploy to keep more wargamers from turning to computer games. In
> any case, by the end of the 80s, when the Smithsonian series started coming
> out, AH was clearly trying the low-road simplification method Dunnigan
> mentions--where the Smithsonian logo was supposed to substitute for the real
> history that had been largely stripped out of these games.
The idea struck me as a device for selling wargames to people in gift
shops who would otherwise not try one. AH certainly weren't ignoring
complex games, or the ongoing enthusiasm for SL/ASL would never have
existed. With the likes of SOA and Up Front they were also clearly
trying quite hard (and I'd say successfully) to create playable games
that catered for people more interested in simulations, but I think Up
Front for a first wargame would be a poor choice (it still had lots of
rules).
> In short, I guess I'm wondering if the emphasis on playability (the "game
> first" philosophy) was merely an AH marketing invention that came up during
> its competition with SPI, or if many wargamers naturally approached
> wargaming that way (contrary to Dunnigan's claim that "history first" is the
> natural approach for wargamers).
It depends where they're coming from. If they buy a box because they're
interested in WW2 and want to broaden their horizons beyond history
books, or if they buy a box because they're interested in D&D and want
to broaden their interest beyond RPGs. I came from both directions at
once, now I'm far more interested in games.
Also the case that with SPI churning out games by the boatload for the
history crowd, it would make more sense for AH to look at something else
to keep selling titles. Especially as SPI created too many games even
for their *own* business sense...
Patrick Carroll
> Someone's suggested JD appeared to be underestimating miniatures, and it
> looks that way again here to me.
Well, JD said there are about 10K historical miniatures gamers
worldwide, and I don't know if that's in the ballpark or not. Based
on JD's figures, there are about ten times more paper wargamers, and
about fifty times more computer wargamers. Considering the high cost
of getting into miniatures (plus all the work involved), I would guess
offhand that it's probably the smallest group. But for the same
reason, it's also probably the most dedicated group.
> As one of those people, I find it disconcerting too. I played Squad
> Leader because it was the best small unit tactical wargame I'd found,
> not because it was about WW2.
Same here. For the ten or fifteen years I was into SL/ASL, I vaguely
regretted that it was a WW2 game. In spite of that, it was the most
exciting and best all-around wargame I'd found--so I kept at it (until
I finally got overwhelmed by the rules and decided it wasn't worth
it). But even though I wasn't into it because it was about WW2, I
*was* into it because it was about war. (Certainly *not* because I
liked calculating odds and rolling dice and doing all the associated
problem solving.)
> Yesterday I raised the point of Stalingrad being laughable as history,
> yet despite acknowledging that to some degree you still appeared to feel
> many Stalingrad players would be in it for even the little history they
> got. I don't see that as much different to a simplified game with some
> degree of history "stripped out".
As I said elsewhere (and again below), there's history, and then
there's history. Dunnigan seems to be talking about hard-and-fast
history per se, but to my way of thinking that inevitably gets lost
when you turn it into a wargame anyway. My idea of "experiencing
history" in a wargame is what you call "historical flavour."
Sometimes I call it "historical fiction," because that's what it is
when you're dealing with "what ifs" (as all wargames do).
What I said about Stalingrad is that I think people play it (if anyone
still does) because it's flawed-but-familiar historical fiction. It's
a game they know which once seemed to capture all the epic
thrust-and-parry of east-front warfare; and even though they now know
better, the game still brings east-front warfare to life in their
mind's eye when they play, and that's enough.
To me, that's still a "history first" approach. A "game first"
approach would mean liking Stalingrad just because of the number and
types of unit-counters, the configuration of mapboard terrain, the
combat results table, and the kind of head-to-head competitive problem
solving posed by the game situation.
> > And the wargamers I've known (myself
> > included) are usually pretty much content with historical fiction, as long
> > as the data and "what ifs" are convincing enough.
>
> So you find history flavouring, rather than pure essence, to be quite
> acceptable? I know that's all I've ever looked for... If flavouring
> will do, I don't think you're really *that* interested in history, or
> even experiencing it. I think a lot of us would prefer to vacation in
> Westworld (as long as Yul wasn't on duty that week ;-)) rather than take
> a time-trip back to the real thing. Whether we'd fill in a
> questionnaire that way is another matter!
Sounds like we're on the same wavelength but just using different
terms. To me, "history flavouring" pulls just a little too much in a
direction I'm uncomfortable with. I still prefer to call it
"experiencing history." But OTOH, I doubt that a wargame can ever be
much more than a sort of Westworld in game format.
At the moment, for example, I'm rereading Bruce Catton's "Terrible
Swift Sword," a history book on the American Civil War. I read
serious history all the time, because I'm interested in finding out
something of what really happened--how things really were. And when I
play a wargame, I expect the game information to correspond closely to
the historical information I've gleaned from books. I'm disappointed
when that doesn't happen.
For instance, I'm disappointed with Battle Cry, because in many of its
scenarios infantry can fire effectively up to a thousand yards; and
historically they could fire accurately only up to about 400 yards
(and according to Paddy Griffith, they rarely fired for effect beyond
100 yards). That's just one gross distortion that appears in BC. And
it's unnecessary. With a bit of research, the designer could have
created a far more convincing game--one with more historically
accurate data.
But even if BC had been designed with historical accuracy in mind,
it'd still be a "what if" game--and thus historical fiction rather
than true history. Dunnigan seems to think you can take accurate
historical narrative, chop it up into modules, and turn players loose
to experiment with valid, nonlinear history. I disagree. I think
that by doing that you destroy the cohesion of the narrative and most
of its connection to actual history. In effect, you turn history into
fiction. But that's OK with me, because AFAICT it's inevitable in
wargaming--so as long as the data is accurate enough to be convincing,
I can be satisfied with historical fiction.
However, I almost never *read* historical fiction. Though I'm a Civil
War buff, I've never read Jeff Shaara's ACW novels--the one the movie
Gettysburg was based on, for instance, "Killer Angels." I'd rather
read actual history books and find out (as best I can) how things
really were. I want the real story anytime I can get it.
Westworld is great--as long as the staff is working tirelessly to
ensure that everything about it is historically accurate. If Doc
Holliday was 5'10" tall, I don't want to see a Doc Holliday robot
that's 6'2" tall. And if Wyatt Earp carried a Colt .45, I don't want
to see him packing a Smith & Wesson. In fact, I care enough that in
my spare time I'll research the history myself to verify the facts.
> It depends where they're coming from. If they buy a box because they're
> interested in WW2 and want to broaden their horizons beyond history
> books, or if they buy a box because they're interested in D&D and want
> to broaden their interest beyond RPGs. I came from both directions at
> once, now I'm far more interested in games.
Well, now that I've said what I just said about my idea of "history,"
it probably won't surprise you to hear that I had to reread your
paragraph above a couple times before I finally understood it. To me,
the interest in RPGs is based on the very same "desire to experience
history" as is the interest in wargames. The only difference is that
in RPGs you're dealing with make-believe history instead of chronicled
history. In one case, you're simulating a battle you've read about in
a history book; in the other case you're simulating a battle (or
series of encounters) you've read about in fantasy-fiction literature.
No significant difference, AFAICT. (And Dunnigan seems to agree at
one point in his book.)
To me, the interest in games is very different than the interest in
simulations (of any kind--wargames, RPGs, computer flight sims, or
whatever). The interest in games like chess, bridge, Settlers of
Catan, and Through the Desert has to do with the love of
problem-solving challenges, social interaction, mental exercise, pure
(mathematical) strategy and tactics, and sometimes negotiating skills
and such. In non-simulation games, there's no "history" (in any sense
of the word) to get involved in or desire to "experience." Thus that
can't be any part of the game's appeal.
If someone buys the game 1830 because he's heard that it's a very
challenging game, requiring negotiating and calculating skills, with a
good balance of concentration and player interaction, he's taking a
"game first" approach. But if someone buys 1830 just because he loves
trains, or because he's attracted to 19th-century history, or because
he wants to learn more about big business, then he's taking a "history
first" approach. (Though I'll admit there might be a better name for
it.)
Aside: The *only* reason I'd ever buy 1830 would be one of the
reasons I list above under the "history first" approach. All the
reasons I list above under the "game first" approach are completely
incidental to me (though they might become important to me later, if I
kept playing the game over a long period of time).
That's what I think Dunnigan means when he says wargamers are not
"mere gamers": that they're not just interested in game play (balance,
challenge, social interaction, etc.) but are truly and mainly
interested in the game's *subject.*
OK, enough rambling for now.
--Patrick
Michael Abramowski
I don't follow either. The expression "more game than simulation" to me means
that those F/SF games (no matter how numerous) emphasized the game aspect over
the simulation aspect, without totally neglecting the latter.
Looking forward to your further discussion,
Michael
Peter Clinch
> Well, JD said there are about 10K historical miniatures gamers
> worldwide, and I don't know if that's in the ballpark or not.
Someone already pointed out single conventions in the US attract
thousands, so that seems ridiculously low.
> Considering the high cost
> of getting into miniatures (plus all the work involved), I would guess
> offhand that it's probably the smallest group.
It's actually very cheap to get into. Although many miniatures gamers
are playing with expensive lead, lots of them are playing with cheap and
plentiful plastic. My first foray into wargaming was with plastic
soldiers, trucks and tanks, and I think it's fairly natural for boys
with toy soldiers to want to formalise their hobby a bit more than
rolling marbles at the other side as they mature.
> As I said elsewhere (and again below), there's history, and then
> there's history. Dunnigan seems to be talking about hard-and-fast
> history per se, but to my way of thinking that inevitably gets lost
> when you turn it into a wargame anyway. My idea of "experiencing
> history" in a wargame is what you call "historical flavour."
> Sometimes I call it "historical fiction," because that's what it is
> when you're dealing with "what ifs" (as all wargames do).
There's degrees. If we look at the Old West again, and compare
Unforgiven to For a Fistfull of Dollars, one has considerably more
history in it than the other. Though the other has just as much western
flavour.
> What I said about Stalingrad is that I think people play it (if anyone
> still does) because it's flawed-but-familiar historical fiction. It's
> a game they know which once seemed to capture all the epic
> thrust-and-parry of east-front warfare; and even though they now know
> better, the game still brings east-front warfare to life in their
> mind's eye when they play, and that's enough.
It's never allowed encirclements and breakthroughs to any degree, so it
was really just flavour. It is so lame at reproducing history that
flavour is all it really is.
> To me, that's still a "history first" approach. A "game first"
> approach would mean liking Stalingrad just because of the number and
> types of unit-counters, the configuration of mapboard terrain, the
> combat results table, and the kind of head-to-head competitive problem
> solving posed by the game situation.
It strikes me that that's *excatly* why people still like to play it!
> Sounds like we're on the same wavelength but just using different
> terms. To me, "history flavouring" pulls just a little too much in a
> direction I'm uncomfortable with. I still prefer to call it
> "experiencing history." But OTOH, I doubt that a wargame can ever be
> much more than a sort of Westworld in game format.
Yes, but again, there are degrees. Russian Front in WW2 without
breakthroughs and encirclements just doesn't allow you to do the Russian
Front in WW2. It would be like Napoleonic tactical with no squares or
WW1 without trenches. Despite the "what if" nature of games, it should
at least be *possible* for the original outcome to happen if a game is
to be considered "good history". Thus, Diplomacy is lousy "historical
experience".
Of course, "there are degrees" means drawing lines somewhere, which is a
subjective game...
> But even if BC had been designed with historical accuracy in mind,
> it'd still be a "what if" game--and thus historical fiction rather
> than true history. Dunnigan seems to think you can take accurate
> historical narrative, chop it up into modules, and turn players loose
> to experiment with valid, nonlinear history. I disagree.
I think "what if Hitler hadn't taken to bombing London rather than the
RAF?" is an interesting question, and a game provides interesting
answers. But to ask the question well, you need a well designed game.
> Westworld is great--as long as the staff is working tirelessly to
> ensure that everything about it is historically accurate. If Doc
> Holliday was 5'10" tall, I don't want to see a Doc Holliday robot
> that's 6'2" tall. And if Wyatt Earp carried a Colt .45, I don't want
> to see him packing a Smith & Wesson.
And if you have a bad tooth on your Westworld holiday, do you want it
pulled by a quack with a large pair of dirty pliers and bad whiskey as
an anaesthetic? Or would you prefer to step back into the resort's
state of the art dental suite? This is what I mean by flavour being
more appealing than realism.
> In one case, you're simulating a battle you've read about in
> a history book; in the other case you're simulating a battle (or
> series of encounters) you've read about in fantasy-fiction literature.
Not by any means a "given". The only fantasy I've ever read is Terry
Pratchett's stuff, and long after I abandoned D&D et al. It never
worked for me at all, so I was never trying to recreate it. I was
having fun playing a character of my own devising.
> No significant difference, AFAICT. (And Dunnigan seems to agree at
> one point in his book.)
For my purposes, no significant difference, though for the opposite
reasons. I'm not interested in recreating anything beyond a conflict
with an opponent (but one where nobody gets hurt for real).
> To me, the interest in games is very different than the interest in
> simulations (of any kind--wargames, RPGs, computer flight sims, or
> whatever). The interest in games like chess, bridge, Settlers of
> Catan, and Through the Desert has to do with the love of
> problem-solving challenges, social interaction, mental exercise, pure
> (mathematical) strategy and tactics, and sometimes negotiating skills
> and such. In non-simulation games, there's no "history" (in any sense
> of the word) to get involved in or desire to "experience." Thus that
> can't be any part of the game's appeal.
Then why do people go to such lengths to put themes into games, even
where they're comedically poorly linked to the game? Through the Desert
isn't anything to do with caravans or water supply, but for my money it
works better with wee plastic camels everywhere than it would with
nondescript pawns on an undecorated board. Elfenland is a fairly simple
travelling salesman problem, but part of the reason people like it is
Doris's amazing artwork and the thought of riding magic clouds over
mountain passes. Flavour to experience, in other words.
> If someone buys the game 1830 because he's heard that it's a very
> challenging game, requiring negotiating and calculating skills, with a
> good balance of concentration and player interaction, he's taking a
> "game first" approach. But if someone buys 1830 just because he loves
> trains, or because he's attracted to 19th-century history, or because
> he wants to learn more about big business, then he's taking a "history
> first" approach. (Though I'll admit there might be a better name for
> it.)
But of course there are those of us who come somewhere from the middle,
and a well executed theme (even if just a graphical one, like Lost
Cities), often enhanced by good physical pieces, will help sell a game.
Lots of threads here are, "I'm interested in X theme, what games are
best?". It can be (and I think often is) a mixture of the two which is
difficult to attribute and quantify well in many market surveys).
> That's what I think Dunnigan means when he says wargamers are not
> "mere gamers": that they're not just interested in game play (balance,
> challenge, social interaction, etc.) but are truly and mainly
> interested in the game's *subject.*
If that's the case if a game is broken in play it shouldn't bother
"wargamers", but from what I see it does...
Patrick Carroll
> > Considering the high cost
> > of getting into miniatures (plus all the work involved), I would guess
> > offhand that it's probably the smallest group.
>
Well, if you already have the toy soldiers. I'd abandoned mine years
before I discovered (board) wargaming. And by the time I discovered
miniatures wargaming (in May 1972, to be exact), I was surprised to
find that anyone was using plastic figures. Lead (and now pewter) was
the thing.
I made several false starts into miniatures, but only because I always
hated the cheap look of paper wargames. My dream has always been to
have an extremely realistic (and "flavourful") and flexible wargame
that's about as simple, compact, and good-looking as chess.
So far, the closest thing I've seen is DBA (but it's not my period, so
I'm now excited about Phil Barker's HFG project).
> > A "game first"
> > approach would mean liking Stalingrad just because of the number and
> > types of unit-counters, the configuration of mapboard terrain, the
> > combat results table, and the kind of head-to-head competitive problem
> > solving posed by the game situation.
>
> It strikes me that that's *excatly* why people still like to play it!
Well, you could be right. I guess that's what I'm inquiring into
here. I can't see playing wargames for such reasons, but I get the
impression there are some wargamers who do.
> Yes, but again, there are degrees. Russian Front in WW2 without
> breakthroughs and encirclements just doesn't allow you to do the Russian
> Front in WW2. It would be like Napoleonic tactical with no squares or
> WW1 without trenches.
I'm sure all those things are quite possible. In fact, I've seen some
of them. I have a computer wargame where Germany and the USSR are
just splotches of color. When Germany attacks the USSR, there are no
pieces moving, but the German player gets back a detailed after-action
report such as: "General Paulus advanced with 50,000 men, overcame
stiff enemy resistance, and captured 1258 sq. km. of territory." No
mention of *how* Paulus did it (via encirclements or whatever); but he
did it, and for all I know it's historically accurate.
Same thing could easily happen with a WWI game. Trenches need not be
mentioned.
And I've certainly seen tactical Napoleonic games where each unit is
always just considered to be in its optimal formation (be it column,
line, or square), and thus players never get to see or hear about
"squares."
What you're describing is "chrome"--and it's entirely possible for a
game to be historically accurate without having *any* chrome. The
question is, when you start adding chrome, does the history remain
intact?
> Despite the "what if" nature of games, it should
> at least be *possible* for the original outcome to happen if a game is
> to be considered "good history". . . .
I suppose. But that's just one factor. I wouldn't give two cents for
a Napoleonic wargame which gave historical results but required
players to use circular and triangular formations instead of the
historical column, line, and square. Or had the Imperial Guard armed
with submachineguns. Besides being able to achieve an historical
outcome, a wargame also needs to be historically accurate in all its
"chrome"--if it's to be considered "good history."
> I think "what if Hitler hadn't taken to bombing London rather than the
> RAF?" is an interesting question, and a game provides interesting
> answers. But to ask the question well, you need a well designed game.
I think such questions can be addressed just as well without the use
of simulations (wargames). Historians deal with such questions all
the time, and they rarely have to resort to simulations. If they did,
it'd take a monumental effort to ensure that the simulation is
objective and complete.
Me, I'm just an amateur history buff and armchair general. I'm happy
to let the real historians address serious questions like that.
> And if you have a bad tooth on your Westworld holiday, do you want it
> pulled by a quack with a large pair of dirty pliers and bad whiskey as
> an anaesthetic? Or would you prefer to step back into the resort's
> state of the art dental suite? This is what I mean by flavour being
> more appealing than realism.
Well, there's certainly a limit to how much realism I want. If I had
a time machine, I doubt I'd ever use it to visit an actual battle
(certainly not unless I was guaranteed protection from harm). If I
wanted to experience real war, I'd be in the military or serving
somewhere as a soldier of fortune. That's not what I want at all; not
what I've ever wanted from a wargame.
In fact, I prize abstraction. One of the big things that makes
wargames appealing to me is that they take extremely messy real-life
events and turn them into quite pleasant and orderly tabletop
exercises. I, for one, wouldn't have it any other way.
However, I insist that during the process of abstraction and
miniaturization, everything be kept strictly to scale and in alignment
with historical fact. I don't want to see the British soldiers
wearing blue coats in an AWI game, and I'll be disappointed if my foot
soldiers can move faster than cavalry across clear terrain.
> For my purposes, no significant difference, though for the opposite
> reasons. I'm not interested in recreating anything beyond a conflict
> with an opponent (but one where nobody gets hurt for real).
Just any conflict, or an historically accurate conflict? A conflict
which pretty accurately demonstrates the effectiveness of the weapons
at hand, terrain effects, the importance of mobility, etc.? Or just
any completely fictitious shoot-em-up?
As I've said, I think even historical battles end up being fictional
when turned into wargames, because after initial setup you're dealing
with "what ifs." Your units do different things than they did
historically, so you're automatically wandering into a realm of
"historical possibility" where you're dealing with things that may or
may not have in fact been possible. (If it's a perfect simulation, it
was all possible; but how many wargames are perfect simulations, and
how many are just reflections of a designer's viewpoint?)
But even if you're not recreating anything in a historical wargame,
you're still "experiencing" the relative weight of different arms,
advantages of superior mobility, and so forth. To some extent, you're
getting the hands-on feel of Napoleonic warfare or whatever the game
is about. And if it works, you'll have a better understanding of what
you're reading next time you peruse an account of Waterloo.
The same can be true of fantasy/sci-fi games. After playing a "Helm's
Deep" wargame, your impression of the battle may be more vivid and
detailed next time you read it in Tolkien's "LotR." (Or, conversely,
your reading may prompt you to go back and modify the game to bring it
more in line with the book.)
> Then why do people go to such lengths to put themes into games, even
> where they're comedically poorly linked to the game? Through the Desert
> isn't anything to do with caravans or water supply, but for my money it
> works better with wee plastic camels everywhere than it would with
> nondescript pawns on an undecorated board. Elfenland is a fairly simple
> travelling salesman problem, but part of the reason people like it is
> Doris's amazing artwork and the thought of riding magic clouds over
> mountain passes. Flavour to experience, in other words.
Good point there. Can't argue with it. In fact, I myself have
sometimes found it refreshing to play such a game, where the theme is
*not* connected to anything specific in history or fiction. Since
it's not, there are no facts to verify; I can just relax and enjoy the
game.
So, you're right. Art itself can strike the imagination and add
immeasurably to the enjoyment of a game.
> > That's what I think Dunnigan means when he says wargamers are not
> > "mere gamers": that they're not just interested in game play (balance,
> > challenge, social interaction, etc.) but are truly and mainly
> > interested in the game's *subject.*
>
> If that's the case if a game is broken in play it shouldn't bother
> "wargamers", but from what I see it does...
Sometimes *fixing* the game bothers wargamers too. For instance, in
France 1940, the only historically accurate scenario was called "The
Idiot's Game." It had rules which forced the French player to suffer
historical limitations of command. Players were expected to laugh at
that scenario and avoid it because it was so unbalanced. But it was
more historically accurate! Every time I played one of the more
balanced scenarios, it bothered me that I was experimenting with
something ahistorical. At least to some extent, I preferred the
unbalanced game to the ahistorical scenarios.
--Patrick
George D. Phillies
> spend a lot of money, so their market clout is larger than their
> numbers would indicate.>>
This number surfaced on another group some years ago. THe miniatures
gamers were incensed, since it implied that every miniatures gamer in the
world had bought around 4 copies of a named rules set. Also, it is
possible to look at the hits on magazines at magweb.com (a truly fine
site) All of the top magazines are miniatures oriented. One may infer
that Jim underestimated the number of minatures gamers, or not.
George D. Phillies
> "David desJardins" <de...@math.berkeley.edu> wrote:
> > >>> And that is what many early wargamers did when the fantasy and
> > >>> science fiction games came along. These games were more game than
> > >>> simulation, although a simulation element was present.
> > Here Dunnigan seems to be claiming that non-historical wargames (those
> > with fantasy or SF themes) are actually more numerous than historical
> > wargames. I think that claim is, in fact, false.
It may have become obsolete rather than wrong. Around, say, 1980, it was
more realistic than now, I think.
Peter Clinch
> I'm sure all those things are quite possible. In fact, I've seen some
> of them. I have a computer wargame where Germany and the USSR are
> just splotches of color. When Germany attacks the USSR, there are no
> pieces moving, but the German player gets back a detailed after-action
> report such as: "General Paulus advanced with 50,000 men, overcame
> stiff enemy resistance, and captured 1258 sq. km. of territory." No
> mention of *how* Paulus did it (via encirclements or whatever); but he
> did it, and for all I know it's historically accurate.
>
> Same thing could easily happen with a WWI game. Trenches need not be
> mentioned.
But they do need to be accounted for if it's going to be good. A fine
example is Storm Over Arnhem again, where the lines of sight don't have
any rules effect but *are* considered in the mapboard areas (as it
states in the designer's notes). If this wasn't the case it wouldn't
work as well at recreating Arnhem. With Satlingrad there's not much
evidence that breakthroughs and encirclements are "built in": looks more
the case that current wargame technology had move, combat sequential
turns and combat was odds based CRT and a die and that was it. That was
how you built a wargame, so you get the units that were there, decide
how far they can move and how powerful they are, and that's it.
So if you had a WW1 strategy game where the fronts were very fluid, one
could reasonably conclude that not only weren't trenches mentioned, they
hadn't been accounted for either! One reason I think why WW1 isn't well
represented in games compared to periods either side of it is it makes
for lousy games, because you just feed cannon fodder in for 4 years and
nothing much moves...
> And I've certainly seen tactical Napoleonic games where each unit is
> always just considered to be in its optimal formation (be it column,
> line, or square), and thus players never get to see or hear about
> "squares."
But again, they must be accounted for, or cavalry vs. infantry is a no
contest win for the cavalry.
> What you're describing is "chrome"--and it's entirely possible for a
> game to be historically accurate without having *any* chrome. The
> question is, when you start adding chrome, does the history remain
> intact?
Or is it intact to start with? In Stalingrad, quite clearly not. I
don't think figuring trenches into a WW1 design is really "chrome"
though, it's a very fundamental part of the setup and thinking otherwise
is like thinking of a car's tyres as "chrome"!
> I suppose. But that's just one factor. I wouldn't give two cents for
> a Napoleonic wargame which gave historical results but required
> players to use circular and triangular formations instead of the
> historical column, line, and square.
But it wouldn't be giving historical results if it required you to form
circles... It shouldn't be just the outcome, it should follow through
at whatever level of abstraction the game takes.
> I think such questions can be addressed just as well without the use
> of simulations (wargames). Historians deal with such questions all
> the time, and they rarely have to resort to simulations.
And rather significantly, they don't all agree!
> In fact, I prize abstraction. One of the big things that makes
> wargames appealing to me is that they take extremely messy real-life
> events and turn them into quite pleasant and orderly tabletop
> exercises. I, for one, wouldn't have it any other way.
Well, quite! You want some flavour, but without the bloodstains on the
carpet.
> However, I insist that during the process of abstraction and
> miniaturization, everything be kept strictly to scale and in alignment
> with historical fact.
And since you don't have the bloodstains on the carpet, that's a very
good way to get the flavour.
> Just any conflict, or an historically accurate conflict? A conflict
> which pretty accurately demonstrates the effectiveness of the weapons
> at hand, terrain effects, the importance of mobility, etc.? Or just
> any completely fictitious shoot-em-up?
Whatever the frame of reference of the game is. Squad Leader works
because it manages to be believable to some degree. Star Fleet Battles
works the same way. A good conflict game should have consistencies but
as long as it has that I don't really mind.
> But even if you're not recreating anything in a historical wargame,
> you're still "experiencing" the relative weight of different arms,
> advantages of superior mobility, and so forth.
Only if they're designed in. Back to Stalingrad, mobility advantages
aren't really experienced that much. Certainly not as much as the
Wehrmacht enjoyed in at least the earlier stages of the Barbarossa.
> Sometimes *fixing* the game bothers wargamers too. For instance, in
> France 1940, the only historically accurate scenario was called "The
> Idiot's Game." It had rules which forced the French player to suffer
> historical limitations of command. Players were expected to laugh at
> that scenario and avoid it because it was so unbalanced. But it was
> more historically accurate!
This is a design issue, really. In SOA the British will get whipped
every time, practically guaranteed. But the *game* is very close
because of the design of the victory conditions, and they don't upset
the history angle at all. So why not have your cake and eat it too?
Patrick Carroll
> > Same thing could easily happen with a WWI game. Trenches need not be
> > mentioned.
>
> > And I've certainly seen tactical Napoleonic games where each unit is
> > always just considered to be in its optimal formation (be it column,
> > line, or square), and thus players never get to see or hear about
> > "squares."
>
> But again, they must be accounted for, or cavalry vs. infantry is a no
> contest win for the cavalry.
Sure, all the critical factors have to be accounted for. But you can
"account for" something on a ledger sheet. If you zoom out to a high
enough level of abstraction, the game of go or tic-tac-toe might
arguably be a historically accurate wargame covering the Battle of
Borodino.
Or, if you zoom in close enough, it could be that General So-and-So
stubbed his toe at an inopportune moment, shouted something that an
aide took to be an order, and a whole division got sent off in the
wrong direction before anyone could do anything about it. So, without
a toe-stubbing rule, the game's not quite realistic.
> > What you're describing is "chrome"--and it's entirely possible for a
> > game to be historically accurate without having *any* chrome. The
> > question is, when you start adding chrome, does the history remain
> > intact?
>
> Or is it intact to start with? In Stalingrad, quite clearly not. I
> don't think figuring trenches into a WW1 design is really "chrome"
> though, it's a very fundamental part of the setup and thinking otherwise
> is like thinking of a car's tyres as "chrome"!
Again, it just depends on how closely you want to zoom in. At one
level, WWI warfare on the Western Front was "a static war of
attrition" (no need to mention or think about trenches). At a
somewhat closer level, it was "trench warfare." At an even closer
level, it was all about barbed wire, trenchfoot, and heavily laden
soldiers struggling through a shell-pocked no-man's-land in the face
of machine-gun fire. All levels are historically accurate; it's a
choice as to how closely one wants to zoom in.
I dare not say much about Stalingrad, since I've never played it and
only saw it once, many years ago. But from the sound of it, I'd say
that at some point in the game's design, the history may have been
intact. Then the designer "zoomed in" and incorporated some detail,
but neglected to incorporate other detail that should show up at that
level (e.g., the encirclements). That may be unforgivable; or it may
be a case of simply highlighting some features while leaving others
subdued (as in Third Reich, where land warfare is emphasized at the
expense of naval warfare, for instance). Do we criticize Monet for
his water lilies being so washed-out and fuzzy-looking? Or Picasso
for his limited view of the Guernica air raid? Historians (and
historical wargame designers) have some artistic license too:
Gibbon's "Rise and Decline" largely just expounds his cyclic view of
history--a view he illustrates with well-placed historical evidence
(emphasizing some features while letting others fade to the
background).
> > I suppose. But that's just one factor. I wouldn't give two cents for
> > a Napoleonic wargame which gave historical results but required
> > players to use circular and triangular formations instead of the
> > historical column, line, and square.
>
> But it wouldn't be giving historical results if it required you to form
> circles... It shouldn't be just the outcome, it should follow through
> at whatever level of abstraction the game takes.
I think that's what I said. But then I just sort of contradicted
myself above, where I pointed out that in a design, some features are
in the foreground while others fade into the background.
What I mean is, I'd be happy with a Napoleonic wargame designed at a
level where formations such as column, line, and square *could* have
been made explicit but are instead abstracted out to "best formation
for circumstances." The designer may want to emphasize command
control or some other features he considers crucial, and he may have
felt that by creating rules for explicit formations he'd just be
distracting players from his main point. So, he acknowledges
formations in passing with a "best formation" remark, then gets on
with other design factors. As long as infantry can defend handily
against cavalry charges (but in doing so becomes vulnerable to
artillery attack), formations don't necessarily need to be made
explicit--or even mentioned.
> Squad Leader works
> because it manages to be believable to some degree. Star Fleet Battles works the same way. A good conflict game should have consistencies but
> as long as it has that I don't really mind.
I wonder what makes a game believable. With regard to fiction (e.g.,
SFB), Coleridge said all it takes is a "suspension of disbelief."
That is, the reader or audience member (or game player) willingly
partakes in a form of entertainment which requires a sense of realism,
so he suspends any disbelief or skepticism and just takes the
fictitious story as true. While you're in the theater watching Harry
Potter or Two Towers, it's all quite real--and you experience real
emotions and such; but afterward, you shrug it off as "just a
movie"--just fiction.
But does it work that way with historical games like Squad Leader too?
I suppose so, since that's basically just historical fiction (like
Gunsmoke or Westworld). But because it's historical, it's important
that the setting and costumes and language and everything be
historically accurate--at least to the point that the audience (or
game players) are likely to be knowledgeable about it. Because if
Wyatt Earp saunters into the OK Corral packing an M-16 rifle, people
are no longer going to be able to "suspend their disbelief."
My suspension of disbelief in SL/ASL lasted many years, until the
early 90s when it struck me how ahistorical the (lack of)
command-control rules were. As a battalion leader, I had absolutely
amazing, superhuman powers of micromanagement! Despite the heat of
battle and all, I could give extremely detailed orders to each and
every unit, knowing that each order would be obeyed to the letter. At
that point, I couldn't believe in SL/ASL anymore. The gaming
experience seemed too unrealistic.
But in any case, I'd like to believe that behind every historical
wargame is an actual historical event. The Battle of Marston Moor
really happened, and the events were chronicled. And so, to the
extent that the chronicle is accurate, any wargame on Marston Moor
ought to be consistent with all known facts--even if some of those
facts would likely be unknown to the game players. That way, by
playing the game, one ends up learning some valid history.
The reason I think that's important is that I may someday read about
the Battle of Marston Moor and learn some things I didn't know before.
And when I do, I'll be very pleased if the wargame I've been playing
jibes with what I just read. But if the wargame clashes with what
I've read, I'll be so disappointed that I won't enjoy playing the game
anymore.
I'm not talking about the *course* of the battle. Obviously the
specific course and outcome are going to be flexible and changeable in
a wargame. But the strength and composition of opposing forces, the
weapons and uniforms, the topography of the battlefield, the command
structure--all these fixed things should be consistent with historical
fact.
Some features can be emphasized over others. If a patch of woods was
present on the field but is not mentioned in any account of the battle
as having any importance, I don't care if the woods are left off the
game map. There's some chance that the woods *might* have become
important--but they evidently weren't, so I'm content if the designer
decides to just leave the woods out.
> > But even if you're not recreating anything in a historical wargame,
> > you're still "experiencing" the relative weight of different arms,
> > advantages of superior mobility, and so forth.
>
> Only if they're designed in. Back to Stalingrad, mobility advantages
> aren't really experienced that much. Certainly not as much as the
> Wehrmacht enjoyed in at least the earlier stages of the Barbarossa.
Well, you experience whatever the game designs in, yes. And if you
think the designer left out something important, you won't like the
game. And probably the more history you read, the less realistic
wargames will seem to you. That's what happened to me. I can hardly
stand to play an ACW game anymore because I've read enough to see
flaws in almost every game design.
Sometimes it's easier to stick to f/sf wargames, where there are no
facts that can be verified.
> > Sometimes *fixing* the game bothers wargamers too. For instance, in
> > France 1940, the only historically accurate scenario was called "The
> > Idiot's Game." It had rules which forced the French player to suffer
> > historical limitations of command. Players were expected to laugh at
> > that scenario and avoid it because it was so unbalanced. But it was
> > more historically accurate!
>
> This is a design issue, really. In SOA the British will get whipped
> every time, practically guaranteed. But the *game* is very close
> because of the design of the victory conditions, and they don't upset
> the history angle at all. So why not have your cake and eat it too?
Yes. That's also the case in Battle of the Bulge (1981), IIRC. If
the Germans do better than their historical counterparts, they
win--even though in a larger sense they've still lost.
--Patrick
Peter Clinch
> Sure, all the critical factors have to be accounted for. But you can
> "account for" something on a ledger sheet. If you zoom out to a high
> enough level of abstraction, the game of go or tic-tac-toe might
> arguably be a historically accurate wargame covering the Battle of
> Borodino.
But there again it might not be...
> Or, if you zoom in close enough, it could be that General So-and-So
> stubbed his toe at an inopportune moment, shouted something that an
> aide took to be an order, and a whole division got sent off in the
> wrong direction before anyone could do anything about it. So, without
> a toe-stubbing rule, the game's not quite realistic.
Indeed the case that you have to draw lines somewhere, but it should be
possible (at least in theory) to go back to the design stages and see
where the designer drew lines, and why. He should have reasons why you
can reduce Borodino to tic tac toe, and be able to articulate and
substantiate them.
> Again, it just depends on how closely you want to zoom in. At one
> level, WWI warfare on the Western Front was "a static war of
> attrition" (no need to mention or think about trenches). At a
> somewhat closer level, it was "trench warfare." At an even closer
> level, it was all about barbed wire, trenchfoot, and heavily laden
> soldiers struggling through a shell-pocked no-man's-land in the face
> of machine-gun fire. All levels are historically accurate; it's a
> choice as to how closely one wants to zoom in.
But wherever that choice lies, the result should reflect the actuality.
If WW1 grand strategy looks like a game of The Russian Campaign,
something's wrong. If WW1 sub-tactical has men laughing in the face of
HMGs in no-man's land, something's wrong. Both levels should take
account of how trenches affected the battles, even though the grand
strategy may not portray them explicitly.
> I dare not say much about Stalingrad, since I've never played it and
> only saw it once, many years ago. But from the sound of it, I'd say
> that at some point in the game's design, the history may have been
> intact.
My experience with it mirrors yours, but the critiques I've read of it
were that it took the "classic wargame formula" of the 60s and glued
that to the Eastern front. But the classic wargame formula of the time
wasn't sophisticated enough to mirror the actual action, so even though
people liked it as a game it never did a good job of history: you just
couldn't get things fluid enough, problems which were quite well
addressed at least in part by The Russian Campaign.
> Then the designer "zoomed in" and incorporated some detail,
> but neglected to incorporate other detail that should show up at that
> level (e.g., the encirclements). That may be unforgivable; or it may
> be a case of simply highlighting some features while leaving others
> subdued (as in Third Reich, where land warfare is emphasized at the
> expense of naval warfare, for instance).
I think that design just hadn't progressed far enough from Charles S.
Roberts' originals. It's an *old* game now. Sequential move/fight
simple turn structures just don't do war much justice (though they do
make for excellent PBM possibilities!), which is why more complex turn
systems evolved over the subsequent years.
> Do we criticize Monet for
> his water lilies being so washed-out and fuzzy-looking?
Had the point of impressionism been to make the equivalent of
photographic studies, absolutely we would. But that isn't the point,
it's meant to be a fluid impression.
> I think that's what I said. But then I just sort of contradicted
> myself above, where I pointed out that in a design, some features are
> in the foreground while others fade into the background.
Yes, but what I'm saying is if the background to the abstraction level
is taking things into account which are rubbish, or just ignoring things
which shouldn't be, the result will likely be rubbish. Thus, if the
abstraction takes Napoleonic Infantry using circular formations into
account it'll probably give poor results higher up.
> So, he acknowledges
> formations in passing with a "best formation" remark, then gets on
> with other design factors. As long as infantry can defend handily
> against cavalry charges (but in doing so becomes vulnerable to
> artillery attack), formations don't necessarily need to be made
> explicit--or even mentioned.
Yes, absolutely.
> I wonder what makes a game believable.
That's easy, it's The Magic X Factor! ;-/
> The reason I think that's important is that I may someday read about
> the Battle of Marston Moor and learn some things I didn't know before.
> And when I do, I'll be very pleased if the wargame I've been playing
> jibes with what I just read. But if the wargame clashes with what
> I've read, I'll be so disappointed that I won't enjoy playing the game
> anymore.
I think it's simple trades descriptions. You want something that does
what it ways on the tin.
> Well, you experience whatever the game designs in, yes. And if you
> think the designer left out something important, you won't like the
> game. And probably the more history you read, the less realistic
> wargames will seem to you. That's what happened to me. I can hardly
> stand to play an ACW game anymore because I've read enough to see
> flaws in almost every game design.
The designers see them too, but they're trying to create something that
is playable as a game. Which takes us back to to JD and his disparaging
opinions of "mere" games...
> Sometimes it's easier to stick to f/sf wargames, where there are no
> facts that can be verified.
That's not the case: people expect most wargames to work according to
fairly conservative rules, so elves using bows and arrows will be able
to attack at a greater range than ogres with clubs. Nuclear warheads in
a space combat game will cause more blast damage than lasers. And so
on. In fact, one criticism I find myself levelling at many fantasy
wargames is they aren't actually very fantastic! Trees are still trees,
terrain effects charts and movement points work the same, and so on.
Titan is about the only fantasy wargame that springs to mind which uses
a truly original map and movement system, but even then that's only at
the strategic level: for tactics it's a *very* conventional game.
The Midnight Skulker
> > France 1940, the only historically accurate scenario was called "The
> > Idiot's Game." It had rules which forced the French player to
> > suffer historical limitations of command. Players were expected to
> > laugh at that scenario and avoid it because it was so unbalanced.
> > But it was more historically accurate!
>
> This is a design issue, really. In SOA the British will get whipped
> every time, practically guaranteed. But the *game* is very close
> because of the design of the victory conditions, and they don't upset
> the history angle at all. So why not have your cake and eat it too?
I would classify myself as one of those who, despite having a focus on
the game as opposed to the history, is bothered by victory point fixes.
Having never played nor even seen France 1940 I am at a disadvantage
discussing it. Nevertheless, I shunned the game when I learned it was
based on victory points; it seemed that such an objective could lead to
completely ahistorical strategies. The goal of the French was to hold
Paris, yet because of the victory conditions their best strategy might
well be to abandon their capitol at some point and simply run away. On
the other side, as the Germans I would have a problem with achieving my
historical objective, conquering France, but losing the game because I
did not do it fast enough.
1 2
| The Midnight Skulker
9 * 3 aka Van Lewis
aka cvl...@earthlink.net
6
The Midnight Skulker
> read of it were that it took the "classic wargame formula" of the 60s
> and glued that to the Eastern front. But the classic wargame formula
> of the time wasn't sophisticated enough to mirror the actual action,
> so even though people liked it as a game it never did a good job of
> history: you just couldn't get things fluid enough, problems which
> were quite well addressed at least in part by The Russian Campaign.
Specifically TRC added a second move-and-fight impulse to a player turn,
and an automatic victory capability, which allowed defenders to be
overrun. IMHO the major historical knock on Stalingrad is that an
otherwise insignificant Russian unit in clear terrain can hold off the
entire German army for a turn, and thanks to the Russian replacement
rate they have an endless supply of such units. Hence the blitzkrieg
is all krieg and no blitz. I still enjoy Stalingrad as a game, and as
you mentioned in another post its simple mechanics are ideally suited
for PB(e)M play, but it fails as an historical simulation.
Peter Clinch
> I would classify myself as one of those who, despite having a focus on
> the game as opposed to the history, is bothered by victory point fixes.
Again, really a design issue: they can work quite well, they can be
horrible botches. In SOA the British acquire VPs by hanging on to core
areas around the bridgehead for as long as possible: since the idea was
to wait as long as possible so XXX Corps would actually arrive and
relieve them, but in the meantime the Germans couldn't use the bridge,
this is a fairly realistic target. But I'd imagine that the bigger the
scope of the game, the harder it is to come up with a convincing VP
system...
The Midnight Skulker
> > on the game as opposed to the history, is bothered by victory point
> > fixes.
>
> Again, really a design issue: they can work quite well, they can be
> horrible botches. In SOA the British acquire VPs by hanging on to
> core areas around the bridgehead for as long as possible: since the
> idea was to wait as long as possible so XXX Corps would actually
> arrive and relieve them, but in the meantime the Germans couldn't use
> the bridge, this is a fairly realistic target. But I'd imagine that
> the bigger the scope of the game, the harder it is to come up with a
> convincing VP system...
Upon reflection I think a game's theme to be more significant than its
scope when determining how appropriate a victory point system is. I can
see how VPs would work in Storm Over Arnhem because of the hold until
relieved aspect. I can see how VPs would work in an evacuation
scenario. I can see how VPs would fail in France 1940 if they allow
either side to win with other than a hold/take Paris at all costs
strategy. IIRC VPs fail in some of the Tobruk fire fights because they
allow an attacker to withdraw after inflicting a little damage on the
defender, or the defender to win or draw simply by running away. VPs
(or their equivalent: achieve some kill ratio) fail in at least one
Panzer Leader scenario because they allow an attacker to win by becoming
the defender.
Patrick Carroll
completely with, upon consideration, and then said:
> Yes, but what I'm saying is if the background to the abstraction level
> is taking things into account which are rubbish, or just ignoring things
> which shouldn't be, the result will likely be rubbish. Thus, if the
> abstraction takes Napoleonic Infantry using circular formations into
> account it'll probably give poor results higher up.
But it might not. It might even improve results "higher up." For instance,
in the designer's notes to Squad Leader, John Hill specifies at least a few
intentionally unrealistic low-level factors (e.g., the range of
submachineguns), and he justified this by saying the overall
"impressionistic" effect is accurate.
Basically, this is the same as a Napoleonic game which employs circles
instead of squares just because playtests showed that the circular
formations helped give a better higher-level "feel" to the game as well as
historical battle outcomes.
Well, the SMG ranges in SL/ASL always bugged me after I read the design
notes. And so would Napoleonic circles. I'd probably be more likely to
notice these low-level inaccuracies than any high-level ones. If the French
consistently won at Waterloo in my game, I'd probably chalk it up to good
play on the French player's part rather than any design defect. But if I
had to form my infantry into circles to defend against cavalry, I'd see that
as an obvious design defect.
> > I wonder what makes a game believable.
>
> That's easy, it's The Magic X Factor! ;-/
Oh, of course.
> > I can hardly
> > stand to play an ACW game anymore because I've read enough to see
> > flaws in almost every game design.
>
> The designers see them too, but they're trying to create something that
> is playable as a game. Which takes us back to to JD and his disparaging
> opinions of "mere" games...
If one buys, studies, and plays a wargame primarily because of the history
it's supposed to simulate--and then discovers it doesn't really simulate
history very well, though it happens to be well balanced and exciting as a
game--his response is apt to be, "Why, this is a mere game!"
That pretty well sums up the reaction I had after a couple decades of
chasing the illusion of realism and trying to find history in wargames.
Now it's an ongoing dilemma for me. If wargames were really "analytical
history," as JD calls it, I'd enjoy them as a semi-serious hobby (the way a
friend of mine has become a dedicated microscopist). It'd be a great
adjunct to my military-history hobby. But if they're just games with a
military theme, and there's more "gameyness" than valid military history in
them, then they're in the same category with El Grande or Elfenland--and I'm
not into "mere games" enough to be comfortable spending a lot of time on
them.
> > Sometimes it's easier to stick to f/sf wargames, where there are no
> > facts that can be verified.
>
> That's not the case: people expect most wargames to work according to
> fairly conservative rules, so elves using bows and arrows will be able
> to attack at a greater range than ogres with clubs. Nuclear warheads in
> a space combat game will cause more blast damage than lasers. And so
> on.
Yes--up to a point. But if elves and orcs both have a melee factor of 4,
it'd be hard to argue that the elves ought to be rated 3 and the orcs 5.
What sources would you cite to build a case for that? And how many gamers
would be convinced by those sources? One is free to choose his own favorite
sources of such "evidence" (unless the game is strictly based on a
particular work of fiction).
In contrast, in a French-and-Indian War skirmish game, if Mohawk braves and
Colonial militia both have a melee factor of 4, a study of actual battle
reports and historical data might strongly support the idea that the Mohawks
should be rated 5 and the Colonials 3.
> In fact, one criticism I find myself levelling at many fantasy
> wargames is they aren't actually very fantastic! Trees are still trees,
> terrain effects charts and movement points work the same, and so on.
That is odd, isn't it? I'm not a fantasy fan myself (though my wife is--or
used to be), but it seems to me that if I were writing a fantasy story, I'd
have to consciously steer clear of just decorating the ordinary world in
fantastic garb and hoping the reader doesn't notice. In a fantasy wargame,
it's all too easy for magic to be just a way of introducing modern,
high-tech weapons into a medieval setting.
--Patrick
David desJardins
> If one buys, studies, and plays a wargame primarily because of the
> history it's supposed to simulate--and then discovers it doesn't
> really simulate history very well, though it happens to be well
> balanced and exciting as a game--his response is apt to be, "Why, this
> is a mere game!"
Not "one". Only you.
> But if they're just games with a military theme, and there's more
> "gameyness" than valid military history in them, then they're in the
> same category with El Grande or Elfenland--and I'm not into "mere
> games" enough to be comfortable spending a lot of time on them.
How about:
If some wargames are just a military simulation with a game tacked on,
and have more "simulationism" than competitive balance and challenge,
then they're in the same category with dry historical records and
trivia---and I'm not into "mere simulations" enough to be comfortable
spending a lot of time on them.
Does it occur to you that in neither your quoted paragraph nor my
response does the dismissive and condescending tone, the insults and
putdowns, add any information or value? What would it cost you to leave
those things out?
David desJardins
David desJardins
>> Here Dunnigan seems to be claiming that non-historical wargames (those
>> with fantasy or SF themes) are actually more numerous than historical
>> wargames. I think that claim is, in fact, false.
>
> I don't follow. How is the suggestion that "many early wargamers"
> took to f/sf games a claim that f/sf games are "actually more
> numerous"?
I didn't quote clearly from the article, but here's what Dunnigan wrote:
>>> Some wargamers enjoy the game element more than the simulation and
>>> history aspects, but they are basically into the history angle,
>>> otherwise they would play the more numerous non-historical games.
>>> And that is what many early wargamers did when the fantasy and
>>> science fiction games came along.
The argument that people who play historical wargames must be primarily
interested in history is only valid if it's true that there are a
greater number and variety of other games that offer all of the same
elements that those gamers are looking for, except for the history. If
that were true, then it would certainly be reasonable to conclude that
people who play the historical games are doing so because of the
history. But in fact there are few other published games that have
similar game elements to historical wargames: there are some
nonhistorical wargames, and some non-wargames, but not very many
compared to the large number of historical wargames. So the argument
fails in actual fact: it's quite plausible (and in fact certainly true)
that many people play these games because they like the type of game,
and most games of that type are in fact historical wargames so that's
what they end up with.
David desJardins
Wayne Rasmussen
David desJardins wrote:
well said! I certainly am into the play over the history. Also, when
"wargames"
come along that aren't based on some history they often get labeled sci-fi,
fantasy,
or the like.
Patrick Carroll
> I didn't quote clearly from the article, but here's what Dunnigan wrote:
>
> >>> Some wargamers enjoy the game element more than the simulation and
> >>> history aspects, but they are basically into the history angle,
.
> The argument that people who play historical wargames must be primarily
> interested in history is only valid if it's true that there are a
> greater number and variety of other games that offer all of the same
> elements that those gamers are looking for, except for the history. If
> that were true, then it would certainly be reasonable to conclude that
> people who play the historical games are doing so because of the
> history. But in fact there are few other published games that have
> similar game elements to historical wargames: . . .
OK, I see. When I read Dunnigan's article, a thought like that flickered
through my mind ("Are non-historical games really more numerous?")--but I
quickly concluded it must be so. If wargaming is a niche hobby, wargames
must be a tiny minority of all the games around.
But I guess you're right. If someone plays a wargame and likes the "feel"
of that kind of game (even though he may not care about its historical
simulation qualities), he'll probably continue playing such games.
Similarly, someone who likes Dune might buy Cosmic Encounter or enjoy the
PBM game Starweb (Flying Buffalo), both of which have key game features in
common with Dune. A Dune enthusiast might actually turn up his nose at
Dune-opoly or some other game based on the Frank Herbert novels.
I've certainly experienced that myself. While learning how to play go, I
ended up feeling, "Great game; but I sure wish I could move the pieces and
roll dice too." In chess, I sometimes wish some of the pieces could fire
over distance, and that there were combat factors, movement factors, terrain
effects, and so forth. And Up Front at first seemed weird and silly to me
(later I learned to like it). In other words, I learned to like the "feel"
of hex-grid board wargames. And I find myself satisfied whenever I come
across such a game, even if it has a sci-fi or fantasy theme, or is set in
a period of history that doesn't interest me much. (Come to think of it,
WW2 never interested me much; I always thought of it as boring. Yet the
vast majority of wargames I've played have been WW2 games.)
In my own case, I guess wargaming and military history got all jumbled
together, to the point where I can hardly untangle them anymore. I played
my first game of Waterloo long before I knew anything substantial about
military history, so I just took for granted that the game was true-to-life.
By the time I started reading military history, I'd already been wargaming
so long that the wargaming experience colored everything I read. So, to be
honest, I'm not sure which is stronger: the enjoyment of wargame-like
games, or the enjoyment of vicariously experiencing military history (via
reading, gaming, or whatever). Anytime I read about a battle, I want to
wargame it; and anytime I'm wargaming a battle, I want to read more about
it. It's all mixed together.
But I remember playing the computer game Master of Orion years ago; and
during a tactical space battle, I sat back and said to myself, "Y'know--this
is all I really care about when it comes to wargaming. I just like a game
where there's conflict between different types of units on some kind of grid
or map, and where the differing movement rates, combat values, and other
qualities of the units all come into play, and where there's also a
randomizer to make battle outcomes iffy." What I was realizing at that
moment is that the type of game actually meant more to me than any
connection to historical events.
While chasing the illusion of realism--going for ever-more-complex
wargames--I did get to a point (repeatedly) where I'd throw up my hands and
say, "This is silly. No wargame is ever going to be all that true to
history anyway. Why don't I just lighten up and enjoy the game for what it
is, or put the game away and be done with it?"
But again, quite often a history-based wargame will inspire me to read more
about the events portrayed. And my reading inevitably makes me want to
wargame the events in the book. And of course I want the two to jibe. And
that makes me think there must be something to what Dunnigan says.
--Patrick
Patrick Carroll
> Does it occur to you that in neither your quoted paragraph nor my
> response does the dismissive and condescending tone, the insults and
> putdowns, add any information or value? What would it cost you to leave
> those things out?
The ability to put a measure of passion behind my post, I guess.
Your response paragraph makes perfect sense to me too--and you're right:
each stands in opposition to the other, and since there's no accounting for
taste, it's impossible to prove that either viewpoint is better than the
other.
And yet, being human, I find I have some strong feelings about the two
points of view--feelings I like to vent now & then, even if it means
bringing on a well-deserved backlash from someone with a contrary POV. If
nothing else, the resultant spat will burn up some energy and maybe leave me
with a more balanced view of things.
I admit that much of what I say does not "add any information or value."
But I think that's true of most conversations I have in day-to-day life--and
true of others as well as myself. More often than not, we're just shooting
the breeze, expressing preferences, sometimes jockeying to find common
ground, other times taking a proud (though indefensible) stand on favorite
ground of our own. In the end, I guess conversation itself is just a sort
of game. I doubt that it adds much to the progressive body of human
knowledge, or anything half as lofty as that.
The value that's likely to come of it is experience/knowledge of human
nature. I love it when someone posts something like, "Bidding games are
definitely the coolest kind of all! They're the only games really worth
playing." I love it because that expresses a real passion for something and
tells me how different some other people are from me (I hate bidding games
myself). And if I reply with an equal measure of passion--even without
"add[ing] any information or value"--others get to know how different some
people are from them (or how similar, if they share my feelings about the
thing).
To me, that kind of interaction is at least as important as any information
that might be shared.
--Patrick
Josh Adelson
news:CX5G9.19987$ry.1...@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> And yet, being human, I find I have some strong feelings about the two
> points of view--feelings I like to vent now & then, even if it means
> bringing on a well-deserved backlash from someone with a contrary POV. If
> nothing else, the resultant spat will burn up some energy and maybe leave
me
> with a more balanced view of things.
Shut up, shut up, shut up!!! Wargames SUCK! WargamERS SUCK! THE WHOLE
WORLD SUCKS.
Oh, I feel better now. I've done it! I've achieved harmony. A nightingale
just landed on my shoulder and whispered in my ear that the little prince
got his heart's desire, and four thousand honeyed maidens are rolling grape
leaves around walnuts and chicken livers in Valhalla.
On that note, I will go back to waiting for the next 200 people to order
Europe Engulfed so I can get my gamey-wargamey-who-really-cares-game faster.
Warren J. Dew
If a patch of woods was present on the field but is not
mentioned in any account of the battle as having any
importance, I don't care if the woods are left off the
game map. There's some chance that the woods *might*
have become important--but they evidently weren't, so
I'm content if the designer decides to just leave the
woods out.
Interesting - I feel the opposite. It's often the case that things that are
important are not identified as such in the accounts which historians piece
together. To me, if you only take into account things that are mentioned in
the histories, your chances are slim of gaining a better understanding of what
happened than you would from reading the histories.
And probably the more history you read, the less realistic
wargames will seem to you. That's what happened to me.
Again, exactly the opposite happened to me. I was so spoiled by the true
simulation games - which don't include Stalingrad, in my opinion - that I keep
finding obvious holes in historical accounts of battles, to the point that I
regard most of them as more 'story' than documentary.
Warren J. Dew
Powderhouse Software
Warren J. Dew
Now it's an ongoing dilemma for me. If wargames were really
"analytical history," as JD calls it, I'd enjoy them as a
semi-serious hobby ... But if they're just games with a
military theme, and there's more "gameyness" than valid
military history in them, then ... I'm not into "mere games"
enough to be comfortable spending a lot of time on them.
Perhaps not all wargames are the same.
My experience is that Jim Dunnigan's game designs tend to be serious analytical
history, just as Dunnigan describes them. However, many other games, including
some that you feel disillusioned with, are more games than valid military
history - just as there are many books that are fictionalized history, history
with many fictional details filled in, and further to that extreme, many that
are historical fiction - fiction set in a historical context.
Warren J. Dew
I can see how VPs would fail in France 1940 if they allow
either side to win with other than a hold/take Paris at all
costs strategy.
Really? Do you think the allies would have been better off if the Dunkirk
evacuation had not occurred, and those British units had instead attacked
towards Paris in the faint hope that they could do some good?
Many military historians, including the designer of France 1940, would
disagree.
Christopher Dearlove
<psych...@aol.com> writes
>The Midnight Skulker posts, in part:
>
> I can see how VPs would fail in France 1940 if they allow
> either side to win with other than a hold/take Paris at all
> costs strategy.
>
>Really? Do you think the allies would have been better off if the Dunkirk
>evacuation had not occurred, and those British units had instead attacked
>towards Paris in the faint hope that they could do some good?
The point of course is that although the British and the French were
allies, their national self interests weren't identical. Defend Paris
at all costs may have made some sense for the French, but pretty little
for the British. A historically accurate game would take this into
account, in one of several ways (separate British/French players,
constraints on moving British pieces and VPs for evacuating British
troops spring to mind). Of course we shouldn't forget the French
troops who made the Dunkirk evacuation possible, not enough of whom
were themselves evacuated.
--
Christopher Dearlove
Patrick Carroll
> Interesting - I feel the opposite. It's often the case that things that
are
> important are not identified as such in the accounts which historians
piece
> together. To me, if you only take into account things that are mentioned
in
> the histories, your chances are slim of gaining a better understanding of
what
> happened than you would from reading the histories.
>
>> And probably the more history you read, the less realistic
>> wargames will seem to you. That's what happened to me.
>
> Again, exactly the opposite happened to me. I was so spoiled by the true
> simulation games - which don't include Stalingrad, in my opinion - that I
keep
> finding obvious holes in historical accounts of battles, to the point that
I
> regard most of them as more 'story' than documentary.
That is interesting indeed. You've given me a lot to cogitate and
contemplate on.
But for now, off the top of my head: I guess I want real battles/campaigns,
historical accounts of those battles/campaigns, and wargames about those
battles/campaigns to all be in perfect sync--and to all be meaningful and
worthwhile. And yet, I don't want to have to put forth any more effort than
it takes to curl up in my recliner with a popular, readable history book
(like Bruce Catton's "Terrible Swift Sword," which I just finished
re-reading today); because after all, it's supposed to just be a hobby.
There's always tension between the three things: the actual battle, a book
about the battle, and a wargame about the battle. The actual battle is
real, but it's always something I don't want to get too close to, even in my
imagination; I want to keep a comfortable distance from it and examine only
certain aspects, such as the strategic and tactical maneuvers. The book is
something I tend to revere (I was an English major, so I was trained to
worship Shakespeare and academic-level literature and such), so a
well-written book always impresses me; yet the linearity of it--the
narrative story line--always makes it seem too pat and restrictive. The
wargame breaks down the linear narrative and leaves me free to get some
hands-on experience with the battle, without having to get too close to it;
but once the narrative is broken up into "modules" and linked together with
artificial game rules, my trust in the historical accuracy goes out the
window. The wargame takes me closer to the fluidity of the actual battle,
but further from the clarity (and supposed reliability) of the narrative.
So, all three things together might be fine--except that the combination
ends up taking more effort than I'm willing to put into it. I want to
understand the actual battle but not get too close to it, so I'm content
with "reliable abstraction." I like the feel of the wargame, but if it's so
complicated or time-consuming that it requires much more effort than reading
a history book, I'm not interested.
And yet, above all, the whole thing has to somehow be meaningful and
worthwhile. Because I don't want to waste even a moderate amount of time on
something that's merely entertaining or superficial. If a given wargame is
*just* an entertaining fiction, then it's not even worth the amount of
effort it'd take to read a popular history book or watch a documentary. In
that case, I'd only play the wargame if it was about as simple as cribbage
or backgammon--and I'd probably opt to play cribbage or backgammon instead.
--Patrick
The Midnight Skulker
> > side to win with other than a hold/take Paris at all costs strategy.
>
> Really? Do you think the allies would have been better off if the
> Dunkirk evacuation had not occurred, and those British units had
> instead attacked towards Paris in the faint hope that they could do
> some good?
Well, in a prior post to this thread I admitted to never having even
seen France 1940 and therefore being at a disadvantage discussing it.
If France 1940 encompasses the Dunkirk withdrawal then my giving Paris
supreme significance may well be in error. Nevertheless, I defend the
point I was trying to make, and hence my aversion to victory points:
they have a tendency to encourage antithematic strategies.
The VP systems with which I am most familiar attempt to balance some
territorial objective with the cost of taking and defending it. This
can occasionally encourage a side to concentrate on inflicting or
avoiding casualties without regard to the territorial objective, which
may have been of primary importance historically. I'm not saying that
VP systems can't work, only that constructing a VP schedule is very
tricky lest antithematic strategies be encouraged.