"Realism and Accuracy Dead in Historical Miniature Wargaming?" Topic

I recently got back from a local wargaming convention where two American Civil War miniature wargames were set up next to each other. Both gamemasters were spending 20 minutes or so explaining the basics of their game to prospective players. About an equal number of people were attending each presentation. One game was to be played using rules described as simple and playable. The other rules emphasized historical realism and accurate simulation.

About half way through the presentations I noticed about half of the crowd at the simulation presentation had gone over to listen to the other presentation. When the games actually started I noticed the playing atmosphere at each game was completely different. The simple game proceeded at a brisk pace and was marked by good-natured banter with the players obviously enjoying themselves. The other was rancorous, contentious, and slow. I suspected something interesting was happening here so I stayed to observe. Below, in no particular order, are my thoughts on what I saw.

· There's no doubt that the playability game had very little to do with the historical conflict that occurred in North America in the 1860's. Anyone with even a modest knowledge of the American Civil War could have easily picked holes in its depiction of actual civil war battlefield conduct and conditions.

And from what I observed of those playing the game, this didn't seem to matter one little bit.

· I saw several colleagues playing in the simple game, one a noted ACW scholar. When I asked him why he wasn't in the historically accurate game he replied, with a look of contempt on the noisy wrangling at the next table, "I can hear that sort of nonsense in any History Department faculty meeting. Why would I put up with it here?" The other colleague was an experienced wargamer, a lawyer, and professor of Accounting. He responded to the question, " And I can hear that kind of wrangling in any courtroom. But that's not why I'm not playing in that game. Did you see the record keeping and the charts? I see that in the classroom everyday. I don't need to see it here."

· If those playing the historically accurate game were enjoying themselves, it wasn't in any manner I would describe as healthy. Plus I closely noted the looks that table was getting from the players, many of them new to wargaming, at the other table. I don't pretend to read minds, but I'm fairly certain no one was thinking, "That looks like fun. I think I'll go over there and get patronized and yelled at." I doubt if historically accurate miniature gaming gained any coverts that afternoon.

· I remain an historical miniatures gamer, but I have friends that have entirely left 18th-20th century historical miniature gaming for fantasy, science fiction or ancient and medieval miniature gaming. I think I'm beginning to see why. In observing over the years non-historical miniatures games (fantastically painted figures and terrain) many of which seemed to me as complex as many historical games, but I never saw the level of childish squabbling I observed that afternoon.

· This incident increased in my mind the credibility of the statement I've heard voiced that the dominance historical miniature wargaming emphasizing historical accuracy over playability once had in the hobby wasn't destroyed by non-historical wargaming, it committed suicide.

· A hard-core historical "simulation" wargamer was once heard to say "We are real wargamers. We aren't interested in fun." I always thought that story was apocryphal. Now I'm not so sure.

The whole experience left me depressed. Are historically accurate miniature wargames fatally flawed? Are they condemned to be forever marginalized in wargaming in favor of non-historical or historically abstracted miniatures games?

[sigh]

Maybe I should bite the bullet, sell my historical miniatures, and send a ton of money to Games Workshop ( My Warhammer friends advise me that I'll need to send several tons of money. I just got a look at their web site and prices. Wow.) In any case, I think I can get into the Chaos Space Marine thing. Six arms, twelve eyes, tenticles ( help with my tennis game and catch up on my reading ). Allied with the universe's forces of darkness. Well, maybe there's a Chaos Presbyterian chapter. Increased physical abilities and the possibility of dramatically enhancing other..ah..appendages. My wife would like that.

We should hold out for games that are fun, playable, *and* accurate.

Your comments about how "fun" the simulation appears is one of the reasons I've shied from Napoleonics over the years. Too many guys wanting a precise game that requires crazy paperwork and endless charts and modifiers.

Yet I don't think fast-play historical gaming always means that giving up on the historical aspect of the game. Rather it means accepting some abstractions and, perhaps, accepting limitations on the degree to which we can control the battlefield.

Trying to be CnC, ADC, Col and Captain (which many rule sets require you to be) all at once will doubtlessly spawn a slew of rules designed to manage each level of operation and control for the helicopter God. Witness the AWI set Flint and Steel.

Limiting the levels at which a player operates at can eliminate many rules (and the game problems they try to solve) which still giving a fast-paced and historical game. Have a look at Worthington Games' rules called Clash for a Continent. These easily adapt to the tabletop and give you important decisions in an AWI game (attack or maneuver; advance or bring up reinforcements) without all of the fiddly detail of other sets.

I'm not saying "death to simulations!" (although I heartily support that sentiment), just that there are alternatives for those who like a brisker game grounded in history.

I shall now do the honorable thing and go throw myself on the burning pyre of my Squad Leader boards.

Bob in Edmonton

I don't see why simple, playable rules should not be historically accurate.

The old Historical rules from the 70s relied too heavily on process to achieve their results – recreate in detail the process undergone to aim and fire and hit with an anti-tank shell and you will achieve an accurate result.

The later, more simplified rules rely on effect to achieve their historical result and do it using a fun, simple to learn and simply to play mechanism, yet they produce a similar result to the record-keeping, chart based complex games.

The effect and result of an action is what you want to model, not the original process undertaken,

Mike

[I saw several colleagues playing in the simple game, one a noted ACW scholar. When I asked him why he wasn't in the historically accurate game he replied, with a look of contempt on the noisy wrangling at the next table, "I can hear that sort of nonsense in any History Department faculty meeting. Why would I put up with it here?"]

Well, I suppose I should first point out that I've never heard my colleagues arguing about *History*. We argue about money, about time-slots, about governance, about whom to hire, about how to do assessments or meet this or that state mandate… But we never argue about History.

That said, I am definitely like that guy you observed. I'm a professional historian, and in fact specialize in this era. Not coincidentally, as a wargamer, it's also one of my favorite eras to game, and I've published a few games.

But I can't stand highly-detailed, intricate games that purport to give me the REAL HISTORICAL SIMULATION. They usually seem very slow, contentious, and I almost always end up with a headache. The games I prefer are much simpler, faster, and can be completed in a few hours.

I DO recognize, however, that everybody's idea of "fun" is unique. That's why there are both Poets and Accountants in the world. One man's tedium is another man's fun. For me, playing those super-detailed games is like doing my taxes. But for other guys, it's "fun." Good for them. Everybody has a right to have his own kind of fun.

The only time it gets on my nerves is when somebody has read a few books and then decided to design a super-detailed game – err, sorry, SIMULATION – and then tries to tell me that my simple game is "Not Accurate" or "Ahistorical." That guy – and we all know one of those guys – has a lot of nerve to stand there playing with toy soldiers on a table, telling some other guy playing with toy soldiers that he's not doing it "right." There is no "right" way to play historical wargames any more than there is a right flavor of ice cream. It's all for fun, and it's all a matter of taste.

Oh, and one last thought: I think you're making a false dichotomy when you ask, " Are historically accurate miniature wargames fatally flawed?" It's not a "flaw." It's just that some people have managed to persuade you that their type of game – which you and I and many other people don't enjoy – is the "right way." It's not. It's just their way.

All wargaming is an exercise in imagination. Those figures aren't really soldiers, they aren't moving, and there's no battle. We're making all of this up in our heads. It's a fiction, from beginning to end. Whatever kinds of game rules and processes you need, to be convinced of the fiction, is totally your taste. But if you aren't having fun, then you need another hobby.

If anyone tries to kid themselves (or anyone else) that pushing toy soldiers around a table has even a passing resemblance to 'The Real Thing' then they need to seek professional help

Realisation came early to me, I was about 14. I'm not in denial, I don't try to justify my playing with toy soldiers with phrases like 'we're exploring historical alternatives'. If anyone attempts to get me to take it all seriously I tell them to have a word with themselves. If the squabbling starts, I leave

I do this for fun. It's not a paid job, it's not a military career (I had one of those), and if I'm not allowed to relax and enjoy myself then it's not me that's doing it all wrong. The serious minded can go riss up a pope

As Sage and Sam just said, how "historically accurate" can a game that involves painted little men advancing on a felt table be? No matter how many charts, seriousness, etc. involved, it's still about pushing little toy soldiers.

Those that think we are somewhat recreating war are deluded IMHO.

As such, I will try as hard as I can to have the most fun possible when I play. Because that's really all there is to it. So I embrace fast-paced-fun games over "simulations" every day.

As the above poster mentioned, often times rules are just an excuse to push toy soldiers around and enjoy looking at them.

And often it is the people involved with the rules more than the rules themselves which can be the turn-off.

You saw a bad game and a good game, and I think that's it. In the end, a good GM can overcome the complexity of some rules systems, while a bad GM will make the most "playable" game unplayable.

I used to play "From Valmy to Waterloo" (which rightly has a reputation for simulationst complexity) all day long at conventions, day after day. We usually played with people who knew the rules, but newbies were welcomed and coached along. The evening "grognard" games between the players who knew both the rules and each other very well were usually half-drunken, free-wheeling affairs. They were great games, and I miss being able to take part in them now that I have moved.

On the other hand, I'm also an avid Colonial player, and TSATF is so far from VtW as far as wargame design goes that they are often seen to represent somehow different and inherently incompatible approaches to the hobby. If that were so, why did I see see so many of my Napoleonic gamer friends in the Colonial Room, and vice versa?

A detailed, more complex game takes more preparation on the part of the GM, which is where things are usually lacking. Do people have less time for these games now? It may seem so from the internet chatter … but then again these guys (like me) have time to spend on internet forums – hmmm …

Just because there are more choices now doesn't make the old choices any less valid.

And … that's my lecture for the day! ;)

Cheers,

Christopher

A thought here – on the problem of "historically accurate" and the claim thereof. The "accurate" game rules are the author's interpretation of what actually happened viewed through imperfect mechanisms to replicate them on the table, plus the author's trade offs to simplify or make it playable to whatever extent it is.

The gamer seeking an "accurate" game comes to the table with his own interpretation of what "historically accurate" is, which is likely to differ from the author's (and the GM's as he interprets the author's rules) because he has read and understood, sometimes even the same sources, differently. The gamer is likely to be dissatisfied with at least some elements of the author's and GM's interpretations and so argue for more "accuracy" (matching his own understanding). Here come the house rules in every group. I know that my group (thankfully usually before or after the day's game) will discuss how well we think the rules reflect the reality of the period, and how to remedy the areas where they seem to fall down for us.

The gamer that approaches the "simple and playable" has different expectations. He expects imprecision (as to "accuracy") as the price of simplicity and speed of play and so is not as troubled that the author's interpretation does not match his own, and so rolls with it as "close enough" if it at least resembles a fight of the period (in this case Civil War). In this case the author's and GM's interpretations can't be "wrong" (again if it at least resembles what they're trying to portray).

For what it's worth,
Phil

Sam wrote: "That said, I am definitely like that guy you observed. I'm a professional historian, and in fact specialize in this era. Not coincidentally, as a wargamer, it's also one of my favorite eras to game, and I've published a few games."

This is actually something I've wondered about, as I have the exact opposite reaction – I steer away from my area of specialty. I'm absolutely not sure what that means (I guess we need to recruit some guys from Psych). ;)

Whether it is a board game or miniaures game the tendency has been for the rules to become more complex and less fun. Recently games like Flames of War, Victory at Sea, and GASLIGHT have put some fun back into historical miniatures. Everyone decries the ongoing shift to Fantasy games but I can see why the younger set have little interest in historical miniatures. The rules are abysmal, the figures drab compared to their Space Marines, and as you noted the rules lawyers abound. Outside of a few games like Flames of War I dont think you are going to get the younger people back and a lot of us older guys have given up too.

Lets face it. Quite a few games (if not all games) relfect the bias of the author. "Realism" is a reflection of the bias of the author.

All games are realistic to the extent that the model the bias of the author. Some authors have a bias that tries credulity -- these are often referred to as "unrealistic" -- which is really a comment on the author's bias.

Very few games are "simulations". Quite often games will model one or more concepts in an attempt to capture the "flavor" of the period.

All that being said, if the game doesn't move right along it will have a problem with its following. In the end, the vast majority of gamers want to have fun. This is a hobby, not a job. If the game is "unrealistic" that ain't fun for some. However, "realism" is, more often than not defined by the player. What a player will accept as "realistic" is the litimus test.

Games of great detail, and slow play, for the most part, will never find a large following. The Empire Rules are a good example. Empire I and II may not have been all that "realistic" but I'll bet they got more run than all of the subsequent, "more realistic", versions of Empire put together.

I have always been frustrated with the lack of "realism" associated with Napoleonic Artillery. I wrote a set of rules that did a very nice job with the artillery. Sadly, they are so technical and so cumbersom, I won't even play them.

"Realism" is not necessarily "good" nor "desireable" in the context of wargaming.

mjc

Black Hat Miniatures hit it right on the head. Over the years, many game designers have shifted from a process oriented approach to a more results oriented method. The results produced by the different style rule-systems are often the same – they're just arrived at via different routes.

Some people enjoy process oriented games, others prefer result oriented games. I don't know if it would be fair to to say that result oriented games have the upper hand as far as poularity goes, though. I know several Ambush Alley players (which is results oriented) who also are big fans of more process oriented games – they use the ruleset that will work best for the game they're in the mood to play.

"more simplified rules "

Personally, I would prefer the phrase "more sophisticated".

IMHO, YMMV, and anyway play what you enjoy: Constructing a model of the experience of a corps commander from the sum of the interactions at every level below him is a "simple" concept that dives a complicated implementation. Modelling just enough to convey the right experience to the level of the players, and no more, is a far more "complex" concept; the result just appears simple.

OTOH: There are lots of simple rules that are fun games and poor models. Good, simple-to-use models are hard to do.

Interesting discussion, but before it goes too far I have a question for some of you.

Given the question Erzherzog Karl just pointed out; "as Sage and Sam just said, how "historically accurate" can a game that involves painted little men advancing on a felt table be?" -- I would ask then why don't we just get some unpainted plastic army men out and shoot rubber bands across the table? That experience would be as "realistic" as one using painted miniatures and rules for movement and fire.

Of course, Spargel (or "Sam"), answered my question to a degree when he noted; "All wargaming is an exercise in imagination. Those figures aren't really soldiers, they aren't moving, and there's no battle. We're making all of this up in our heads. It's a fiction, from beginning to end. Whatever kinds of game rules and processes you need, to be convinced of the fiction, is totally your taste. But if you aren't having fun, then you need another hobby."

If someone watched a wargame where people were shooting rubber bands at army men and next to it was a Napoleonic wargame with painted miniatures what would they think? If we have painted, historically attired miniatures, and more detailed terrain--is the only difference the delusion that we are doing something more "mature" or historical (to fool ourselves into thinking that we are not playing with army men)?

Couldn't a person interested in history learn about line, column, square, and other things that at least have an historical basis from the Napoleonic wargame?

We all agree that a wargame cannot represent the lethal environment of a battle.

But, my field is also history. I also wargame for enjoyment. I can, however, state, that I have studied the historical development of wargaming and wargame systems. I can note how Guibert's father instructed his son in the practice of war by using colored blocks of wood to represent troops. Most people do not know that his father was able to help Guibert visualize and understand concepts (he couldn't start an actual battle to help educate the young Guibert) that eventually developed into the tracts read by Napoleon.

There are many other pertinent examples of valid learning resulting from wargaming, but I'll share a couple more. There are a variety of examples of German officers wargaming (sandtable and kriegsspiel) to test concepts, prepare for action, etc. These officers likely did not perceive what they were doing as "playing with toy soldiers."

I have actual pictures (U.S. WWII) of army armor officers learning concepts at the armor school (using a detailed 3D battlefield and small miniature models). The officers all stood around a railing of the large miniature battlefield while an officer explained details. Enlisted men where under the table (in the basement), and would even blow puffs of cigarette smoke through small holes in the table to give the illusion of smoke. The training sessions were used to help the officers visualize company and battalion level maneuvers at a level that map study alone could not portray.

Yes, I realize that most of us are not officers training for war, but my point is that if you think that all we are doing is "playing with toy soldiers" then you neglect that wargaming can be used to visualize and understand things in a way that a history text cannot convey as well. Our accoutrements are more expensive and better looking than the toy soldiers that we played with as children, but there is another difference, at least for some of us.

I noted in the Kriegspiel thread about developing a campaign system based on historical campaigns. I've learned more about history from studying about actual field command (map study, original source study, terrain study, etc.) and trying to represent it in a system than I ever could from mere reading alone. Representing a valid campaign system (not a "battle system" as the lethal environment cannot be represented) requires years of study and research. Using painted miniatures to "fight" a battle that develops from the campaign contributes to the overall aesthetics.

If you asked Rommel, when he was engaged in a sandtable wargame using miniatures, if he was "playing with toy soldiers," I'm sure he would correct you. I think that the "playing with toy soldier" analogy is overgeneralized and trivial.

I'd write more, but I must bandage the wound, err, I mean touch up the paint on the latest grenadier that has rubber band damage! :)

"Couldn't a person interested in history learn about line, column, square, and other things that at least have an historical basis from the Napoleonic wargame?"

Certainly how I learned about them. By should I worry about low levels formations in a game where I am Napoleon at Borodino? Are there not colonels who are paid to worry about such things?

Are there decent rules out there for Napoleonics that let a player command a battalion, and worry about what a battalion commander should worry about?

Yes, I realize that most of us are not officers training for war,

If you asked Rommel, when he was engaged in a sandtable wargame using miniatures, if he was "playing with toy soldiers," I'm sure he would correct you. I think that the "playing with toy soldier" analogy is overgeneralized and trivial.

You post is full of contradictions, I just picked one of the more obvious

If you want to play Valmy to Waterloo or Empire whatevernumberitisnow under the pretence that it's studying history that's your prerogative. Don't expect me to join in

I remember the super detailed rulesets of the 80s and 90s – Challenger 2000 anyone? – they weren't fun by any definition of the word

I'll happily settle for any amount (or lack of) realism and accuracy that does NOT interfere with my having fun!

I had no interest what-so-ever in Napoleonics until I started reading the "Sharpe's" saga by Cornwall and watching the very entertaining movies.

They lured me into pre-ordering Sharp Practise which I intend to have lots of fun playing with.

Lest We Forget

I do not dispute the fact that we learn a lot from our hobby. Agreed, I knew nothing about squares, column, etc. and Napoleonic warfare in general before starting this period. And I do agree that it somehows simulates some elements of tactics.

However, I still believe it is a game, and I do not agree that it "simulates" war in any way. An exercice in tactics? Yes. A simulation of war? No.

I stay away from wargamers who believe their hobby is a serious entreprise because, well, their vision of wargaming is the opposite of mine. To me it's a game, a magnificent game and a unique one, but still a game. To each their own.

"Well, I suppose I should first point out that I've never heard my colleagues arguing about *History*."…

Your experience in History Department faculty meetings is indeed different than mine. Since I hold advanced degrees in both History and Computer Science ( but I'm not schizoid…and neither am I) for a time in my academic career I taught classes and attended faculty meetings in both the Science and Liberal Arts colleges at a university where I witnessed a number of..ah..energetic discussions on historical topics in History department faculty meetings. One of the most interesting occurred several years ago over including the book Time On the Cross by Robert W. Fogel and Stanley L. Engerman in the reading list of an American Civil War class. As you know that book's views on American slavery is viewed by many academics as controversial. But since one of the authors is a Nobel Prize laureate it could not be easily dismissed as the product of a diseased mind – which nevertheless several of the more doctrinaire faculty members at the meeting strongly suggested. Arguments over historical points raged for several hours with the meeting ending with the leader of one faction standing on her chair screaming that the book should not only be excluded from the reading list but should be publicly burned. Of course, no one wanted to re-create a Third Reich spectacle on the campus green and calmer heads finally prevailed (the book was included accompained by readings in pro and con book reviews and articles).

As for me, I sat quietly wishing I was in a Computer Science faculty meeting where the discussions were indeed more mundane and routine; often the delightful topic of where we were going to spend all that lovely money flowing from a seemingly endless number of federal and state sources into a very popular area of study.

…conversation at a College of Liberal Arts cocktail party.

Slightly drunk liberal arts professor, sneeringly:

"And just why do think your Computer Science graduates will be superior to your History ones?"

Me: "I didn't say they will be superior. But they will be employed."

Hi

Curiously, I have DONE sims for the miltary. The essence of design is determining what is the important part of the sim.

It is simpler than everyone makes it. If your rules cannot casually replicate the known results, it is just a game. Most designers confuse detail complications with reality.

It would be like having a game about bicycle racing that focused on the color of the frame and the type of the chain and where the pedels were momement to moment. when, in fact, the bicycle racer, after years of training, is focused on when to spend energy, when to pass, where they are in the route, not the details of shoe sponsorship.

As gamers, we often confuse these facts.

So, sam is correct. They can accurately reflect the battle without a lot of complication.

Rocky

Interesting thread, over the years we've noticed the tend away from table ridden, 2 moves a night game to quicker more intutiave systems. An aspect of the games slowing significnatly was the gamers desire to put more and more figures on the table ( in all scales and periods).

Our house set of ww2 is a good example we've taken the best from what we like and successfully cobbled it together and to a large extent reduced all the superfulus modifiers. There were members who took a while to get used to this radical approach but now they can play with a company or two on the table and get a "realistic" conclusion in an evening, as opposed to 2 moves every bullet/shell accounted for.

To prove my point, we've loaned the large table ( permanent room) so a four player 28mm game could be played…. the ruleset was never designed for the sheer amount of figures/units deployed and the continous modifier claculation and rules lookup is dragging the whole thing down…..no fun, so whats the point?

The key i think, is getting the right historical result or feel to the game. Rules evolve as hobby time and space diminishes.

Complicated games aren't necessarily better simulations nor are simple games necessarily worse simulations. Neither are simple games necessarily more fun.

That said, the trend towards complication seems to have reach a climax in the late 1980s. Since then there has been a wave of very successful games in genres ranging from Ancients to SF, with simpler and more approachable rules.

Another point is that one should not confuse the rules with the players. I expect persnickety argumentifiers are attracted to complex rules because they offer more scope for having arguments. That doesn't make the rules bad.

As for realism, many military staffs have used wargames from Kriegspiel onwards to prepare for battle.

A single observation of two games can't make the case either way. I've played in all sorts of games, miniatures, boardgames, etc. I have hosted or co-hosted a number of historical battle recreations on the gaming table. The focus has to be fun and getting everybody into the flow of the game. It is the scenario design -- terrain, OoBs, miniatures, special rules, gimmicks -- that impart some measure of historicity and learning for the participants. Not struggling with the rules. Goodness, I don't like explaining the rules (I do what I have to to launch a game), and I don't like to listen to long explanations of rules. Let's learn by playing.

That is an EXCELLENT analogy, Rocky. I will be stealing it now. ;)

Humbug!

What do you mean, pushing toy solders around is not realism? Bah! I have a mind to storm out, and smoke my pipe!

Scoundrels!

Great topic and great discussion to all.

The entire reason I wrote Strike Force Commander was to quell this kind of argument. I tried some squad level skirmish games and found too much tedium bogging down the flow of battle.

However, I wanted something playable and yet capturing the historical 'feel' of how troops behaved historically was very important to me.

I even had to get out of my own way recently when the Historical Landsknecht Re-enactor in me clashed with the Playable game Designer over close combat interactions with halberd and pike. I had to remind myself that too much granularity wasn't keeping things playable.

My assessment after 20 years of this hobby is that playable games get played. Sure, maybe Monopoly isn't a true reflection of Capitalism, but it gets played a lot. My buddies and I whipped out 3 games of Mission Risk yesterday and weren't too bothered by the fact that my White colored Austro-Hungarian (that's what I called them) fusiliers were all over North America….

GDW had a concept that I have liked since the release of Traveller:2300. They called it 'Playable Realism'. It's a tough balance. I'm learning that as I finish SFC and get ready for wider playtesting.

I don't have the time, interest, or inclination to count biscuits and bullets in a wargame. Simulations are usally dry and boring. Not my thing. That being said, I get a little ed when a kid shows up with Tiger tanks painted in the hot pink colors of Slaanesh….

Faust

"Playable Realism". Now that's a noble and worthwhile goal. GDW was one of those happy confluences of wargaming talent whose work still echos in our hobby. But, as can be seem in the quality of responses in this thread as well as in the TMP site in general, the hobby still attracts an astonishing number of thoughtful and perceptive individuals.

Perhaps the question should be "Is enthusiasm for historical miniatures gaming dead?"

Based on the fad "periods" pushed over the last several years, I'd say that it is a very real possibility.

Pirates? Gunslingers? Pulp wars? Superheroes? Swashbucklers? 3 Musketeers? Gangsters?

Blch.

My question would be – do people who collect the above periods, actively participate in collecting/painting/playing ACW/Napoleonic/Ancients?

I'm just curious.

I guess I'm a fuddy duddy. History is fascinating by itself without the need to create a fictionalization of "periods" designed to push the latest figure release. The popularity of "convention rules" for historical period games at conventions is quite possibly just that they require no intellectual investment by the convention gamer.

"Powie". "Bang!" I'll roll a 6, don't have to look at any yucky rules, and play my Old Guard – they're something like a WH40K Whatzit, except that they can't…

Great for convention games, probably not so great for ongoing club or group games. Those are focused groups, and they're willing and interested in devoting the time and energy to understand a period and its tactics. Not that they're going through West Point, but at least they know their line from their square!

Brent

Hmmmm….lots of posts, and many of them long. Impressive given the short time since the original post.

Bottom line: there is no such thing as an accurate wargame. Every wargame involves trade offs in "realism." The author chooses what points he wants to make and compromises on others.

Don't give up…find an ACW game (or any other) that you enjoy and meets your personal threshold for realism.

To supplement Rocky's analogy, the late Redmond Simonson (who was the art director at SPI, for those too young to remember) once wrote in his column in Moves magazione that wargamers tend to confuse the concepts of "realism" and "naturalism". In essence, he said that realism is about producing realistic (or at least plausible) results, while naturalism is about exactly reproducing all the details, even if the end result is bogus. Thus a highly abstracted game can be realistic, while a very naturalistic game may not be.

IIRC, the game Red used as an example was SPI's Scrimmage – and American football similation that appeared in S&T. Everybody agreed that it was an excellent simulation AND very realistic. In fact, I knew coaches who used it to design plays. But nobody ever actually played it because a single play could take 10-20 minutes to work through. Since there are about 60-80 playes in the average football game, this means 10 – 25 hours to play a game, when the real thing lasts a couple of hours, even including half-time and time-outs.

Pirates? Gunslingers? Pulp wars? Superheroes? Swashbucklers? 3 Musketeers? Gangsters?

Blch.

My question would be – do people who collect the above periods, actively participate in collecting/painting/playing ACW/Napoleonic/Ancients?

Yes.

>>My question would be – do people who collect the above periods, actively participate in collecting/painting/playing ACW/Napoleonic/Ancients?

Some do, others don't. Fantasy/SF gaming grew out of historicals.

I expect there are youngsters playing fantasy, who will take up historical games too when their horizons broaden.

Warhammer is often mentioned as an entry point, since the fantasy version shares a lot of rule mechanisms with the historical variations.

Another yes.

Connard Sage:

Per you claim; "You post is full of contradictions, I just picked one of the more obvious."

Your statement is a mere assertion and not supported by facts. Where is the contradiction (I think it only exists in your mind)? Most of us are not officers in training for war is a fact. If Rommel thought he was playing with toy soldiers he would not have wasted his time. The connection with the example is that some type of learning was obviously occurring (which is not a contradiction as you claim). I may have different reasons for wanting to learn, but the point is that one can learn something.

- I expect there are youngsters playing fantasy, who will take up historical games too when their horizons broaden.

Warhammer is often mentioned as an entry point, since the fantasy version shares a lot of rule mechanisms with the historical variations. –

Case in point, me. I started with Warhammer fantasy when I was around 13 year old. At 25, I got fed up with Fantasy, and realized that they were great 28mm Historicals outhere.
Switched to ancients with WAB, and then a year later to Naps. Haven't played fantasy since. It's been 4 years now.

I don't understand the suggestion that historical gaming is dying. TAG, Perrys and co.; there's new ranges everyday it seems. Naps is certainly doing very well.

Archduke Charles:

I agree. I think that the "playing with toy soldiers" analogy is overgeneralized. One can learn from a game (which is not the same thing as claiming that it accurately simulates warfare).

Conrad's statement "If you want to play Valmy to Waterloo or Empire whatevernumberitisnow under the pretence that it's studying history that's your prerogative. Don't expect me to join in" demonstrates only that he superficially read my post. I did not make that claim. I will simplify my point: you can learn some things about command and history from wargaming. In fact, if you wargame with a set of rules such as Empire Version X and can identify those aspects of the simulation that tend to diverge from historical examples that you studied--you are learning something. So, I do not claim that you are "studying history" by playing wargame rules (that is Conrad's claim), but I did note that you can learn more about history by wargaming. You can learn something about history by painting miniature figures (uniform details and more). Wargaming ties in well with the study of history. I used Johnny Reb Civil War rules to teach a junior high class (during a summer camp) about the American Civil War. We had a reenactor come in (in uniform) and demonstrate how to load and fire a musket. We showed pictures of various battlefields (and discussed how the terrain impacted developments). Each student was given a command (and had to communicate via "courier"). One student quickly learned that poorly written orders can quickly be misinterpreted. They learned much! What rules were used was not important. They enjoyed learning much more than reading from a history book. I could point out many things that they learned/understood better, but I think that those who are not superficial readers will get the point.

And Conrad, yes you can learn something about history from wargaming Empire "whatevernumberitisnow" rules (and note that I did not type "studying history"). I must also note that Empire III games bored me.

There is a difference between convention games and home games too. Playing at home I'm more relaxed, have more energy and can devote more brain power to a more complex game (although Empire still makes my eyes bleed…). At a convention I want something faster, simpler and maybe a bit more silly.

But when raising the dreaded 'S' word, we have to remember what is being simulated. One game cannot simulate everything from the individual rifleman's POV to the Corps Commander's.

The main litmus test I use is does the game encourage and reward historical tactics appropriate to the level of play? If cheesie ahistorical tactics become the game winners then the game fails.

The group I've gamed with for the past several years tries to walk the middle path. When the "baby" of the group is 55, we haven't got the patience to wade through a 200 page rule book, but also know enough not to play a game until one side is down to their last figure.
We've tried hidden deployment, limited visibility, counters to represent units, etc to try and recreate the "fog of war", but it only lasts a few turns. Our more "realistic" games" aren't much fun: losing half a company of infantry trying to get to the next hedgerow in Normandy or being routed by a enemy you can't hit, as in Braddock's defeat, may play to a historical outcome, but are depressing simulations.
When we think of what the figures really represent, I think that most of us would rather have a playable game than one of realistic carnage.

Conrad's statement "If you want to play Valmy to Waterloo or Empire whatevernumberitisnow under the pretence that it's studying history that's your prerogative. Don't expect me to join in" demonstrates only that he superficially read my post. I did not make that claim.

Demonstrates that you only superficially read my username. It probably also demonstrates that you don't have a working knowledge of French either, but I'm not the one trying to demonstrate my superiority

I play with toy soldiers because I enjoy playing with toy soldiers. I have no need to intellectualise my hobby, and I don't expect it, nor ask it to, 'teach' me anything about real warfare. I gave up proper soldiering long ago, wargaming isn't a substitute.

I see Kriegsspiel mentioned here. I have asked about this on another thread. Surely if we are looking for realism that must be a place to start. As has been said the officers playing the game must have thought they were getting something out of it.

Anyone got any experience of Kriegsspiel and realism?

"As has been said the officers playing the game must have thought they were getting something out of it."

Yep: learning to make decisions. That's the general overall purpose of military training simulations. But speaking from some experience with them, both on the development side and as a user, that's no guarantee of "realism" (whatever that is…).

Same for combat developments simulations which drive procurement decisions. They're analytical tools. It would be a serious mistake to consider them representative of actual combat.

After many years of watching the GIGO princile at work in military simulations, I am very leery of anyone who starts tossing the word "simulation" about!

But back to Kriegspiel: the point of the exercise is to teach the planning and decisionmaking process. Any (lord help me) "simulation" whose database resides in the collective opinions of the umpires is no more realistic than one of Paddy Griffith's muggergame. And you can take that either as a faint condemnation or high praise of muggergames, as you like.

***See "Muggergame", on p.8:

PDF link

Allen

I'll start at the end…

The reason why I try to avoid playing 40k with my 12 yo (I will play WHFB) is that it is inaccurate and not historical. (Pause while the storm gathers).

Yes I know its SF. BUT No reactive fire. The heaviest firepower ever known is unable to react to people rushing across the open at them. What we want from games are a believable outcome.

It is possible to write a 'good enough' simulation that is also simple. I think the problem is in the 60s-90s games got more and more complex as people recognised the shortcomings of their process driven mechanisms and tried to correct them, and tried to cover the once in a campaign happenings. We ended up with Challenger II.

Then we took a step back (at least I did) and though 'hold on- what is the outcome we are trying to model? In my thread "Rules you don't want to see" I suggested working out the hit % for every musket, and rolling for it seperately. Highly realistic, but stupid for a game. On the other hand Fire and Fury has 1 die roll for the fire of 1000-2000 men, yet it feels like an ACW battle.

Simple result driven rules can still give 'realistic' results as long as the rule writers understand the processes. In the end Rules should be like Macros- you don't need to know how the computer got there, you just need to know the result is right.

Just out of interest- how many 'fun not complex' agreements have been made by people who say the only OrBats you should use are historical, and you shouldn't worry about balance (as seen on many 'points' threads)?

I Lean trowards "fun not complex". I like using historical orders of battle (if you use that term to mean what I think it dees), and I like unbalanced games.

I like a game to tell a good story, too.

Allen

In some sense even the most rudimentary "simulation" must have at least a loose conformity to reality -- for example, that flank attacks are more effective than head-on -- or it would be completely pointless. The precise degree of accurate simulation is another matter…

In Kriegspiel the march rates were based on historical experience and were probably reasonably accurate, however the point of the game was to model the problems of command and control.

I've never played a muggergame, though I did play in one of the largest ever Megagames, which was a Battle of Britain game done in 1990 if I remember correctly. One striking memory was that standing orders were given that personnel at any airfield which got bombed, must go into the shelters (simulated by hiding under their table.) Those of us who did so suffered less from raids than the airfields who ignored this precaution. No-one ignored this order twice.

6 of us played Buena Vista on Saturday with fairly accurate terrain, very accurate OOB's and what we felt are a fairly good set of 19th century rules. The game played to conclusion with the Mexicans doing slightly better than history but a very reasonable outcome. No one was patronized, all the charts were on one sheet of paper and the game moved right along. I'd say the issue with historical gaming is simply one of who is playing and would hazard a guess that anal compulsive idiots can ruin anything, even a fanatsy or 40K game.

I strongly agree with views which say that playing a division commander, be it in Napoleonics, ACW, or WW2,
and deal with how platoon X or Z is doing is
sheer nonsense.

The main issue with over complex rules IMHO is that
they confuse various scales of involvement,
hence their lack of playability and eventually lack
of realism, despite initial designers intentions.

One of the most interesting books I've read in
the last months with regards to wargame design is
a French tactical exercices srapbook from the early
30's.

Tactical situations are discussed over a detailed
sand box model of a given location, and deal
with platoon, company, and battalion level,
each one at a time but for the very same place
and time.

There were no dices involved, simply, the exercice
director, obviously a man with serious Great War
infantry combat background, presented trainees with
'tactical incidents' like :

"Your platoon is under fire from a LMG located on
the 2nd floor on the house on the left side of the
road, you have two killed and one wounded in your
first combat group, what do you do next ?"

"Your company shall loose some time clearing
this crossroad and you can't support the other
battalion company as much as you're supposed too,
what do you do next ?"

Etc…

The goal was to confront platoon, coy, and battalion
leaders with simple situations occuring on the
battlefield and have them find simple, workable,
solutions.

IMHO, a ruleset which can simulate simple tactical
problems like these with realistic 'average'
outcomes is a success and can be fun to play along.

Beside, as a modelrailroading saying goes, you better
'model the usual than the exception' if realism
is seeked after.
IMHO, this could be a decent rule of thumb in wargame designing too.

Some of the responses in this thread have shown me that the assumption in my original post that you either play historical miniatures or non-historical miniatures was entirely wrong. It is obviously not an either/or proposition and I see a number of you play both. Also, you are not somehow betraying one side of the hobby by playing in the other. However, there is the matter of expense but I feel certain some of you Warhammer players will be eager to send me the £750,000,000 or so I'm told I need to get started.
Boy, this stuff is expensive. And I understand it's plastic?

To paraphrase a certain Kyote: Maybe you could play it in 15mm?