But is it historical?
William McHarg
are not historical games.
What about Victorian-era games that are based in a made-up continent,
with conveniently-near tribes from various "native" contingents.
I have a map of Mafrica, whose source I cannot remember, that has just
such a thing.
If that is all right, then what if the game designer starts adding in
such things as land leviathons, steam-powered gyrocopters (not piloted
by WH dwarves, of course) and other such fanciful stuff.
I am not trying to start an argument, but a dialog. How far afield
can we get and still call this hobby Historical miniature gaming? The
Victorian era particularly seems to be a good place for this.
We have a local gamer who is trying out some rules by fighting battles
between the British and Ruritanian army around the turn of the
century. (1900, not 2000) Its all a lot of fun, but is it history?
Mac
Mike Monaco
Imaginary leaders and battles are still "historical" in my book;
imaginary lands and peoples are fantasy. By the same token, ahistorical
matchups (Aztecs vs. Hebrews, or Crusaders vs. Samurai, are fantasy as
well. I probably play 50-50 historical and fantasy, and maybe 1/4 of my
fantasy games involve one or two historical armies (as opposed to orcs
or elves etc.)
There has a been a good deal of discussion about whether ahistorical
matches are historical or fantasy and it is about as important to me as
the number of angels that can dance on a pinhead (but more interesting).
For me, the game's the thing. Labelling it historical or fantasy is a
footnote.
my 2 shekels,
Mike
Ty
news:q2t8409gcgqkrmacl...@4ax.com...
> There are some obvious lines. Games with pointy-eared elves and such
> are not historical games.
>
> What about Victorian-era games that are based in a made-up continent,
> with conveniently-near tribes from various "native" contingents.
>
> I have a map of Mafrica, whose source I cannot remember, that has just
> such a thing.
>
> If that is all right, then what if the game designer starts adding in
> such things as land leviathons, steam-powered gyrocopters (not piloted
> by WH dwarves, of course) and other such fanciful stuff.
>
> I am not trying to start an argument, but a dialog. How far afield
> can we get and still call this hobby Historical miniature gaming? The
> Victorian era particularly seems to be a good place for this.
Of course, I doubt that we could get a real consensus on an objective
definition of "historical gaming". I mean, ancients players seem unbothered
by battles between Aztecs and Romans, for instance, while I think a World
War 2 gamer wouldn't have much interest in a battle between Patton's Third
Army and Napoleon's Old Guard.
In my own mind, I see "historical gaming" as being composed of several
subsets -- and the common thread that binds them is that each features to
some degree historical armies, weapons, tactics, etc.
Here are my own ad hoc categories, which can be arranged more or less along
a continuum:
1. "Pure historical" -- Only battles that actually occured are played. A
mostly theoretical category in my experience.
2. "Mostly historical" -- Includes hypothetical battles, but only between
opponents who
plausibly could have fought and during actual wars. Typical of more
conservative historical
wargamers IMHO.
3. "Sorta historical" -- Like #2, except the main requirement is that the
armies be historical, without regard to whether they could actually have
fought. Most ancients fall into this category.
4. "Alternate historical" -- Like #2, except that certain significant
changes in history are postulated. Examples would include French vs.
Americans in Mexico in 1865, NATO vs. Warsaw Pact, etc. Note that this can
actually be more plausible and "historical" than #3 above. NATO/Warsaw Pact
is far more plausible than Romans vs Aztecs. I'd include in this the
peculiar modern genre of "hypothetical" -- wars that *could* happen, but
haven't happened yet.
5. "Fantasy historical" -- This category features ahistorical components
like alien invasions during WWII, fantasy races re-fighting the Napoleonic
Wars, my own Orc's Drift (Colonial Brits vs fantasy natives in the Centre of
the Earth), Space: 1889, etc. This would also include the Victorian Sci-Fi
genre. Obviously, this category can significantly overlap "fantasy" and
"sci-fi" gaming.
Then there's the "Mythical Continent historical" category. This is where
actual armies (or analogues) are placed in fictional settings to allow for
more variety. Examples are your Mafrica, and my Europa
http://www.tyler.net/tbeard/Index01.htm . It can encompass #3, #4 and #5
categories.
I think that a majority of people who self-identify as "historical
wargamers" would agree that categories 1 & 2 are "historical". A majority of
ancient gamers apparently feel that #3 is "historical" and as a modern
wargamer, I think that #4 is historical (much of modern wargaming is
hypothetical/alternate history).
Category #5 is the real rub for some. Since I play fantasy and sci-fi as
well as historical, I don't spend a lot of time worrying about it. If forced
to decide, I'd argue that #5 should be included, since it *does* have a very
significant historical component. My colonial Brits are still organized and
painted appropriately for the period, regardless of whether they fight Zulus
or Orcs. As a sop to those who want purity in historical gaming, I'd concede
that these games are "less" historical than (say) a refight of Waterloo.
The "Mythical Continent Games" should be considered historical IMHO, since
(a) they have a long history in our hobby and (b) they are often no more
improbable than anything in categories 3 or 4.
> We have a local gamer who is trying out some rules by fighting battles
> between the British and Ruritanian army around the turn of the
> century. (1900, not 2000) Its all a lot of fun, but is it history?
Well, to some extent it is, and to some extent it isn't.
But one could make the same argument to some extent about *any* game that
(a) portrays a battle that did not actually happen; or (b) that has a
different outcome than a historical battle. Thus, it appears to me that
"historicalness" is a continuum, rather than a simple binary test.
Thus, I think that the best response would be that it is "less historical
than a refight of Gettysburg, but more historical than a refight of the
Battle of Five Armies."
--Ty
MltryHstrn
These are useful categories for a discussion of what we do in the hobby. Most
of the time my painting and interest lie comletely within the first two
categories. But how does this mesh with the fact that some of the most pleasant
gaming experiences I've had recently were playing GW's LOTR game? Fact is that
it doesn't really with the exception that many of the gaming rules can be slid
over into categories 1,2 &3 to allow skirmish gaming of a very simple sort.
fantasy games take much of their "world" from the world of history. Fantasy
writers use terms from the real world such as "keep, king, prince, warrior,
druid, cleric, etc. This must be done to take the reader across the boundary
which separates the real from the unreal, history from fantasy. So, my Vikings
become Northrons and my Celts, the men of Dunedin. But I will always come back
to my historical gaming as I attempt to faithfully adhere to history in
developing challenging but entertaining historical games.
Jerry
You Know
primarily in Napoleonics, but I have lopped the heads off of a few trolls in
my day.
The easiest way to classify this question is pure definition.
Historical would be any game or system that attempts to accurately represent
events from recorded history.
A-historical would suggest that the game is based on historical places or
people but the events themselves are not factual. Here falls the great many
"what if" scenarios and I beleive the greatest portion of historical gaming.
Any game that includes devices (steam tanks or gyrocopters or whatever) must
be considered fantasy. These items do not have basis in any actual item.
That being said, I would never suggest one type of game is superior to
another. All I can faithfully do is suggest that items should appear on
topic with the criteria listed above.
Of course, this is only my humble opinion.
Tom
"William McHarg" <wmc...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:q2t8409gcgqkrmacl...@4ax.com...
Irv Horowitz
> can we get and still call this hobby Historical miniature gaming? The
> Victorian era particularly seems to be a good place for this.
>
> We have a local gamer who is trying out some rules by fighting battles
> between the British and Ruritanian army around the turn of the
> century. (1900, not 2000) Its all a lot of fun, but is it history?
Bill, does it matter whether it's history, as long as it's fun?
It must matter to you, because you asked the question. But the subjective
truth is that I really don't care about the abstract question of historical
vs. ahistorical. I care much more about fun vs. no-fun.
Honestly, I doubt whether any game played with toy soldiers (toy boats, toy
airplanes, etc.) can be 'historical' in any meaningful sense. No matter how
realistically we sculpt and paint the toys, they're still toys. It is our
own suspension of disbelief that allows us to feel something of the thrill
and pageantry of war when we play our games, without any of the inconvenient
carnage, squalor, misery and pain.
Now the odd thing is that, even though I don't care about the abstract
question, I find that playing at historical game subjects is usually more
fun for me than ahistorical subjects. I'm not sure that I can accurately
analyze my own motives, but this may be because real history has more
texture and depth than most fiction.
The fiction writer sketches only as much of his fantasy, or science-fiction,
or alternate-historical world as his story requires. He doesn't define the
uniform of every military unit, a full system of rank insignia, a full,
working economy, the forms of worship and festivals of every god and goddess
in his pantheon. The world he creates is shallow, only a facade. And the
human story he tells is too often likewise false and vapid. There aren't
many really good writers of fiction, in my opinion, and damn few of them are
writing backstory for wargames.
Real history is fully developed. All the facts and details are there if we
dig far enough to find them. The human story history tells is true, and it
resonates with me. Real history is sometimes the story of my own family, or
of the particular place where I live. This tends to be what interests me the
most, and thrills me the most when I play at it.
But there can be exceptions. JRR Tolkien developed Middle Earth so
extensively, and I've read so much of his fiction, that it's almost real to
me, and I have fun playing at it. No other fantasy mileu compares. The
imagery in the trailer I saw for the upcoming movie "Sky Captain" is so
powerful that I'll probably have fun playing at that. So I'm not an
historical bigot, I'll accept exceptions when I find them.
But generally, playing at history is what's fun for me.
Andrea Novin
Ruritanian army is OK. it DOES NOT extend into the realm of what never
was. Leviatons are out!
Quid Veritas
mjc
OmanBT
No.
But - who cares? Have fun - its a hobby.
Brent
MJB
"OmanBT" <oma...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20040303214423...@mb-m15.news.cs.com...
> >Its all a lot of fun, but is it history?
>
> No.
>
> But - who cares? Have fun - its a hobby.
>
Got to agree with the sentiment. I started-out in historical miniatures 25
years ago (thank you Mikey - I think...) but now find myself playing sci-fi
and fantasy probably 50% of the time. For two reasons.
1) Better than half my painting business is in the sci-fi and fantasy
market. So I stay where the money is.
2) Better than half my friends (and consequently available opponents) are
non-historical miniature gamers. While they might agree to push napoleonic
lead around or command the occasional sailing ship, they aren't interested
in collecting it. So I stay where the people are.
There are advantages to be a historical minded player in a non-historical
game setting, however. Most notably tactics. Once played some samurai -
fantasy game (five rings? Can't recall) and had all these magical abilities
/ creatures I couldn't understand. What I did understand was my opponent,
so busy trying to cast spells he neglected to protect his flanks, was
vulnerable. So I pinned him to the front and sent my cavalry riding down
his flanks... just like the vistula lancers at Albuera!
LOL!
I'm 45 years old and I figure I've only got twenty good years left. I'm
content to play games with people, who if they don't share my interest in
history, do keep me involved and amused. What I'm NOT going to do is become
dogmatic about what I'll do and how I'll do it... and I'm certainly not
going to cut myself off from the vast majority of people who aren't
interested in of napoleonic or ancient miniature wargaming. I'd much rather
play fantasy and sci-fi with people who's company I enjoy than play
historicals with people who's company I don't enjoy.
The type of game being played is NOT important. The type of people playing
the game most certainly is.
--
MJB
Mr. Tin's Painting Workshop:
http://web.newsguy.com/Mrtinsworkshop/
Jeff Knudsen
> "OmanBT" <oma...@cs.com> wrote in message
> news:20040303214423...@mb-m15.news.cs.com...
> > >Its all a lot of fun, but is it history?
> >
> > No.
> >
> > But - who cares? Have fun - its a hobby.
> >
>
> Got to agree with the sentiment.
On the flip side of that coin, it is possible to care, and also to
have fun, and to do it without becoming pedantic. I have been fortunate
in my 30+ years of wargaming to have known dozens of gamers who were
both knowledgeable and unpretentious, and whose company during my many
gaming days was what made all the time spent painting miniatures and
building terrain worth every minute.
>
> There are advantages to be a historical minded player in a non-historical
> game setting, however. Most notably tactics. Once played some samurai -
> fantasy game (five rings? Can't recall) and had all these magical abilities
> / creatures I couldn't understand. What I did understand was my opponent,
> so busy trying to cast spells he neglected to protect his flanks, was
> vulnerable. So I pinned him to the front and sent my cavalry riding down
> his flanks... just like the vistula lancers at Albuera!
>
> LOL!
Nice move. I would have loved to see that one. However, the
French failed at Albuera; I'm assuming you won with that tactic,
or you wouldn't be laughing.
> I'm 45 years old and I figure I've only got twenty good years left. I'm
> content to play games with people, who if they don't share my interest in
> history, do keep me involved and amused. I'd much rather
> play fantasy and sci-fi with people who's company I enjoy than play
> historicals with people who's company I don't enjoy.
> The type of game being played is NOT important. The type of people playing
> the game most certainly is.
Both are important, although I can understand differing
the emphasis according to your personal tastes. I happen to
love history, and it's that aspect of wargaming that makes it
fascinating to me. I'm 49 years old (and I'm not making any
assumptions about how many good years I've got left) and I just
don't have the time to waste on something I don't enjoy, simply
because of who is doing it.
"If it doesn't absorb you, if it isn't any fun, don't do it."
- D. H. Lawrence
Regards,
Jeff
John Secker
writes
>
>I'm 45 years old and I figure I've only got twenty good years left.
pessimistic. I'm 48, and I would reasonably expect to have at least
thirty good wargaming years left - though I could be hit by a bus
tomorrow, of course. I don't suppose I will be running or playing
football any more by then, but I hope to be getting pleasure out of
wargaming virtually until they nail the lid down on me.
--
John Secker
MJB
"John Secker" <jo...@secker.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cfhXEXUt...@secker.demon.co.uk...
> In message <c27qv...@enews3.newsguy.com>, MJB <mrt...@OLDSguy.com>
> writes
> >
> >I'm 45 years old and I figure I've only got twenty good years left.
> What! Unless you have some medical problem, you are being very
> pessimistic.
Not according to the acuarial (sic) tables - plus I emphasis the word 'good'
in the description. It's rather like the old joke about the doctor telling
the patient that unless he quit smoking, drinking and eating rich food, his
lifestyle would cut ten years off his life. Patient replied "but doctor,
they're at the end of life and they aren't very good years."
<smile>
I was just trying to make a point about the shortness of our time - twenty,
thirty years - it's still not very long. So arguing about dogma is reserved
for religion - not wargaming. Unless, of course, wargaming is your
religion.
> I'm 48, and I would reasonably expect to have at least
> thirty good wargaming years left - though I could be hit by a bus
> tomorrow, of course.
Hope you're right. But time will tell.
> I don't suppose I will be running or playing
> football any more by then, but I hope to be getting pleasure out of
> wargaming virtually until they nail the lid down on me.
Not me. I want a viking funeral.
<grin>
John D Salt
news:fbdfc43c.04030...@posting.google.com:
[Big snips of good points]
> I just don't have the time to waste on something I don't
> enjoy, simply because of who is doing it.
>
> "If it doesn't absorb you, if it isn't any fun, don't do
> it." - D. H. Lawrence
Well said indeed, the both of you.
I'm reminded of the late Willy Rushton's determination, after he
was knocked down by a bus and nearly killed, never again to spend
a day of his life doing something he didn't enjoy.
All the best,
John.
John Secker
writes
>
>"John Secker" <jo...@secker.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:cfhXEXUt...@secker.demon.co.uk...
>> In message <c27qv...@enews3.newsguy.com>, MJB <mrt...@OLDSguy.com>
>> writes
>> >
>> >I'm 45 years old and I figure I've only got twenty good years left.
>> What! Unless you have some medical problem, you are being very
>> pessimistic.
>
>Not according to the acuarial (sic) tables - plus I emphasis the word 'good'
>in the description. It's rather like the old joke about the doctor telling
>the patient that unless he quit smoking, drinking and eating rich food, his
>lifestyle would cut ten years off his life. Patient replied "but doctor,
>they're at the end of life and they aren't very good years."
>
is now into my eighties. If you don't have any known medical problems,
and assuming that you are in a Western country, yours should be about
the same. And my mother, who is in her late seventies, is still fit and
active and would still be perfectly capable of enjoying wargames, if she
enjoyed them at all. Indeed, given the limited amount of time that work
leaves me, I am expecting the years after retirement to be much better,
in wargaming terms. It would be very depressing if I felt I was going to
have to hang up my dice at sixty five.
--
John Secker
Laurentwes
or so where the GM was very upset when I didn't attack the way the troops did
historically. Really threw me for a loop since it was a game, not a
"simulation", at least the way I saw it...so there is at least one person out
there who I imagine would say if it doesn't reproduce history EXACTLY it's not
historical.
My own idea of whether a game/scenario is "historical" is if I think it might
have been or be gamed by a military staff planning group. Would Napoleon have
played out a plan for if the Americans came to his aid in Spain? Possibly...so
I see it as historical. Would he have planned for American Indians? No...so not
historical. Would he have planned for aliens or Roman auxiliiaries or
flamethrowing DaVinci land leviathans? Definately not. Anyway that's how I try
to judge whether what I'm doing is historical. Not perfect but a good guide.
It also means that I see a fictional world with real troop types as fantasy.
This doesn't mean the game can't be fun, and just because it's historical
doesn't guarantee it will be fun, at least for me.
Laurent
John Secker
<laure...@aol.com> writes
games, except the strictly historical match-ups. Egyptians vs Vikings
may logically be far more "unhistorical" than Panzers vs Old Guard, but
I would guess the majority of people would regard it as part of the
Historical Wargaming community - I certainly would. Like a lot of people
I have my own continent with various lightly disguised historical
nations, and I would see this as historical gaming. I have a separate,
different continent which I have been using for 25 years for D&D games,
and this is clearly different (in my mind) - that one is fantasy.
I suspect that this is one of those things, like pornography, which is
hard to define but which everyone recognises when they see it. And as in
that case, different people will make different judgements. The
important thing is to ensure that it does not matter - don't refuse to
allow someone in your club or on your newsgroup because you don't agree
with their definition. As long as everyone lives and lets live, there is
no real problem
--
John Secker
GM
ultimately its if its a good game with good mental exersise with people
whom remember its a GAME and the ultimate purpose is to have some fun
with friends.