- This topic has 62 replies, 19 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Ah! Wargames discussion/argument number 17!
All wargames are my children and I couldn’t possibly choose between them.
However…if forced at gunpoint…
I accept to a point some of your arguments but others are easily skipped over:
Prep time – yeah fair enough
Terrain – yeah (see weather/wargamers knowing to much as well here- Austerlitz?)
Troops – No – I use pretty much the same French for Marengo through Waterloo and have no concerns about Kiwer or Shako and I’m still flaky on Belgic or Stovepipe and frankly don’t care.
We’re doomed – a problem if you must ‘win’ but define ‘winning’. Putting aside historical inevitability for a mo, a good general is trying to engineer a walkover through strategy and operational manoeuvre (if operational art actually exists – I read journals that say it is a myth) which just needs finishing off at the tactical level. If you are playing the poor so and so left with this end of the stick, ‘winning’ may be simply doing better than your historical counterpart. You just need to recalibrate your criteria of ‘victory’ for the gamer (you’ll still lose the battle but…).
Super weapon/unit missing – When I was seventeen Dave Hay and I used to field entirely tank armies of mostly Tiger II, Tigers, Panthers, the odd Panzer IVH, T34-85, IS2 and SU152. It was great fun. I’m not sure it would work for me these days.
What if? – Not sure that, as you describe them, these are all ‘non-historical’. Ancients used to (and may well still) thrive on French Medieval Compagnies d’Ordonnance vs Carthaginians etc., which is speculative(?) at best (but enjoyable in context). Letting Rommel have the Panzers in June 44 however, pretending the Royal Navy drank all their rum ration at once in September 1940 and Sealion happened, or having Oberleutenant Herbay fire his carbine and retire so the Tabor bridge was destroyed meaning Austerlitz was a very different battle, are ‘potential history’ rather than non historical.
Button counting – yes annoying but not confined to or essential for historical games – cf certain popular SF games. (And see comments re shakos etc above).
Nice armies + fun – no problem (at some point for me it probably slides into ‘gaming’ vice ‘wargaming’ but as I seem to be in a pedantic minority of 1 on this classification I’ll have to live with it).
Limited imagination – all games limit what we do – that’s what makes them a game. At the point where there are no restraints on action it becomes something else. Otherwise my invisible flying wizards, my Alien space fleet using unheard of technologies, or my perfectly formed, average height for his era, Corsican Ogre, will simply declare victory on turn one and we can all go to the pub.
Of course it’s not a zero sum game. It’s horse for courses. Do both as the mood takes you
Willz – (while trying not to stray too far from Chris’ initial point) I think those problems – visible a/t guns and waiting 18th century musket – exhibit a problem of knowledge in wargaming – both too much and too little perhaps.
Too much because we see too much and realise the appalling position our troops will be in if we carry on with our course of action. Too little in that we do not (cannot?) share the mindset of the historical commander.
There are ways round both but generally they make for a removal of ‘fun’ for some people. – eg you use hidden set up for the a/t guns – you don’t know what’s going to happen until it happens – lots of dead tanks probably and eg someone (an umpire if you have no hierarchy of gaming command – most won’t have enough players for this- or enough gamers willing to be sat doing not a lot most of the time as the commanding general once he has set the plan in motion) to ride up and say, ‘Attack by God or I’ll have you in irons you snivelling wretch!’ (cue fist fight in wargame club!).
I confess a personal distaste for card driven games but can see what you are trying to achieve here.
I’d prefer (and this is where historical immersion – via reading, well written scenario and victory conditions, or excellent mechanisms – come into play) the player to embrace the period attitude even when their 21st century sensitivities militate against this. That’s not to say for example that the German Panzer leader would be a completely inhuman swine who cared nothing for the lives of his men and their tanks but he should be in no uncertain state about what the Fuhrer expects – advance and take the objective.
Which is why I like historical battles, or historically based battles at least, because there is a framework, not simply kit and equipment and tech, but doctrine and social attitudes and a cultural expectation that should dictate actions. I have no idea what Space Commandos (I know its Marine but I’m trying to move away from a criticism of a specific franchise) should be like (no matter how many Codices are written pontificating about them). History doesn’t just give a context – it is the context.
Other gaming approaches are available
Willz – (while trying not to stray too far from Chris’ initial point) I think those problems – visible a/t guns and waiting 18th century musket – exhibit a problem of knowledge in wargaming – both too much and too little perhaps. Too much because we see too much and realise the appalling position our troops will be in if we carry on with our course of action. Too little in that we do not (cannot?) share the mindset of the historical commander. There are ways round both but generally they make for a removal of ‘fun’ for some people. – eg you use hidden set up for the a/t guns – you don’t know what’s going to happen until it happens – lots of dead tanks probably and eg someone (an umpire if you have no hierarchy of gaming command – most won’t have enough players for this- or enough gamers willing to be sat doing not a lot most of the time as the commanding general once he has set the plan in motion) to ride up and say, ‘Attack by God or I’ll have you in irons you snivelling wretch!’ (cue fist fight in wargame club!). I confess a personal distaste for card driven games but can see what you are trying to achieve here. I’d prefer (and this is where historical immersion – via reading, well written scenario and victory conditions, or excellent mechanisms – come into play) the player to embrace the period attitude even when their 21st century sensitivities militate against this. That’s not to say for example that the German Panzer leader would be a completely inhuman swine who cared nothing for the lives of his men and their tanks but he should be in no uncertain state about what the Fuhrer expects – advance and take the objective.
You have hit the nail on the head Guy are we wargaming for fun or are we wargaming to recreate historical battles or objectives, me I like somewhere in-between but all said and done its all about personal taste. I can understand your dislike of card driven games but my idea for using them is to get a game playing and moving in a short time scale of 4 – 6 hours maximum. Also my ideas are more based on campaign games but also based on the precept that not everyone coming to the table has read the rules fully and may need a nudge in the direction of play. Ideas and thoughts about playability v historical knowledge.
Wilz. I don’t see ‘fun’ and recreation of historical battles or objectives as at all antithetical. Both are entirely possible in the same game. It depends on how you derive pleasure from a game.
As for all games are fantasy
The moment Jerome takes Hougoumont at the first attempt or the first wave at Sword Beach are wiped out in their landing craft by accurate German artillery fire or the Nervii kill Caesar and his bodyguard and his blood flows into the river Selle or whatever we are into fantasy territory as firmly as any game with dragons, unicorns and elves.
Nah!
Only if Jerome flew over the wall, the German artillery had radar guided terminal homing warheads or the Nervii achieved their kill with help from Cernnunos.
A historical battle set up allows the wargamer, within the bounds of historical possibility, to see what might have happened next. Walking through what happened in a battle is not a game. Game implies the interaction of different outcomes. That’s not fantasy. It’s an exploration of a ‘chaotic’ system with too many variables to accurately predict, to see what other outcomes there may have been.
That exploration may be more or less flawed depending on the way the rules reflect reality, or not. But it is not an abandonment of real world constraints on action simply because we want to be able to do whatever we want.
Wargames should be based on what the troops and generals on the ground could and would be likely to do on the ground in their period. Based on what actually happened and what might realistically have happened next.
When we set up a historical position and begin to play we know at various decision points there will be different outcomes from what actually happened. That makes what happens next different from history but, if we’ve written our rules well, within the bounds of possibility.
That doesn’t make the rules wrong – unless you think all history is predetermined – it makes them able to reflect possible outcomes that were not followed by events.
Whereas Fantasy is, by definition, outside reality.
Wilz. I don’t see ‘fun’ and recreation of historical battles or objectives as at all antithetical. Both are entirely possible in the same game. It depends on how you derive pleasure from a game. As for all games are fantasy<noscript>
</noscript>I am entirely with you Guy all games should be fun or at the very least the gamer/gamers should derive enjoyment out of the game/games
. I certainly do not perceive that historical or objectives are antithetical they can be mutually supporting but trying to game a historical battle without some form of control to put the game in historical context as you correctly point the game then becomes fantasy.As probably you and me would both agree all wargames are fantasy, however at times it is worth it to try and game something as near to the historical tactical situation as possible,, working within in the constants of ones ability, size of gaming area, time, space, money, scale and detail.
I think the greater population and some wargamers perceives wargamers as deep tactical thinkers with a profound knowledge of all military matters related to the historical period being gamed. Speaking for myself I liked to get the uniforms and equipment as near to correct as I can but I don’t sweat the small stuff as to my profound tactical knowledge I generally wing it
.I get what you are saying Mike.
I think:If you fight Waterloo and Napoleon wins, it is not historical as that is not happened in history.
If you fight Waterloo and Napoleon loses, but captures Hougoumont, it is not historical as that is not happened in history.Once something happens in your game that did not happen in real life history, you are saying it then becomes fantasy/sci-fi/imaginations, whatever you will, as it is no longer a reflection of actual history?
In the above they are historical settings but with a non factual (fantasy etc) outcome?
The games are both real.
What they represent isn’t.
I’m baffled why you don’t understand that.I get the impression he does?
Anywho, off for the night now, hopefully when I come back in the morning we are all still friends.
It’s all just a game.
Define ‘game’.
Define ‘just’
Define ‘all’
Ludo’s a game. Depends what sort of game you want to play.
Giving a new player the ***tty end of the stick in their first game isn’t about bad historical gaming, its a lack of empathy – could have happened with Orcs at the hands (hooves?) of the Rohirrim or any other badly thought through scenario. (It wasn’t Fredricksburg by any chance?).
As for the F-P War, not fantasy to think France could defeat Germany (highly unlikely given the C3 issues of the French, but not completely impossible) – Chris in his original article says:
I’ve seen that [being too one sided] offered on several occasions as a reason not to touch the Franco-Prussian War at all, for instance, because people have a prejudiced view of it as a walkover for the Germans.
As for being friends Mike – I’m sure Mike H and I will continue to disagree (and no doubt be baffled by each other!) but I’ll happily play a game with him – the discussion about the effective range of an Elvish bow vs that of a musket might delay the start however.
Never mind C3, the logistic failure I think is the icing on that turd-cake. Of course nothing is completely impossible, but they really really shouldn’t win. I wish they had, or at least made a proper struggle of it, but it never was.
Good point – well made.
I understand what he is saying too. I just don’t agree that it is fantasy. When did fantasy become something that didn’t happen as opposed to something that couldn’t happen? Are we just making up our own definitions now?
I can imagine having had an affair with a thirty year old Claudia Schiffer (I’m showing my age here aren’t I
). I’m real, she’s real. Does that make the affair real? Or fantasy?It could happen. QED Not Fantasy. You lucky lad.
I get what you are saying Mike. In the above they are historical settings but with a non factual (fantasy etc) outcome?
I understand what he is saying too. I just don’t agree that it is fantasy. When did fantasy become something that didn’t happen as opposed to something that couldn’t happen? Are we just making up our own definitions now?
But if historical is:
of or concerning history or past events.
Playing Waterloo where Napoleon won was not a past event, not historically correct.
It never happened.
The battle actually occurring is historical, but not the outcome above.So what is that game, fiction, fantasy?
It certainly does not represent the reality of the battle.I am content to call it historical BTW
I can imagine having had an affair with a thirty year old Claudia Schiffer (I’m showing my age here aren’t I
). I’m real, she’s real. Does that make the affair real? Or fantasy?If it becomes real could I have first dibs on the photo’s
.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
