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

@ Martin Penneck – but also all those of the opposite opinion: sorry, the 'quality' of rules has nothing to do with their 'Historical' or 'Fantasy / Sci-Fi' nature. Remove flyers and magicians from a *good* (however you define it) fantasy set and you have a good AncMed one. Add a few sound rules for Mongolfieres and steampowered warwagons to a *good* Lace Wars set and you get a good Lacepunk one. link

Possibly yes, possibly no. It depends on the assumptions behind the mechanics/scaling/C3/basing of the fantasy set as to whether they would also provide accurate or assumptive design parameters for the Anc/Med set. Whether the same tactics that work for the fantasy set and that would also work for the Anc/Med set may in fact be entirely different to those employed by the historical armies covered in the Anc/Med set. Indeed the game decisions a player has to concentrate on might be totally alien to those ideas and concerns an historical commander would focus on, and thus model some other things entirely.

Cheers,

Martin

Similarly the Lacepunk set may be good or bad depending on your ideas for such a setting and exactly what is different or the same from an historical Lace Wars setting.

Abdul- May I clarify? It's fantasy once you roll a die, if it was historical you could only do ecactly what happened on the day- did I understand you right?

If so I must disagree. What we do is create an alternate history. The die is cast because there is randomness in warfare, and a well written results table will accurately reflect the chances of a certain event happening. If there was no randomness or error then every shot would be the same as the last, patently not true.

Yes its a game, but it should reflect a historical possibility, while still being different to history.

Sometime ago I introduced an American Civil War re-enactor to ACW miniature wargaming. I had already played several games of A House Divided with him; a wargame which I have always found to be an excellent way to introduce someone to the hobby. He said he enjoyed this boardgame very much so I thought that once he gets a look a well laid out civil war miniatures wargame table with well-painted figures he will be hooked. After all, if he enjoys moving cardboard pieces around then his first civil war miniatures gaming experience will turn him into a drooling miniatures fanatic. It did me.

I got him into such a game with an experienced GM who was using a popular set of published ACW rules. The table and figures were great, the game was well GM'd and the other players seemed friendly, so I went off to play in another miniatures game confident my judgment was, as always, impeccable. On the drive home I asked him if he had enjoyed himself.

"Well, yes, I guess."

[Oh god, I thought, one of the other players must have turned into a belligerent, argumentative jerk and the GM wasn't able to control him.]

"I guess? What happened?"

"Nothing happened. I enjoyed the game. It's just that…well…I expected something more."

"Something more? You had fun didn't you?"

He responded,

"Yes I had fun. But. I have fun playing poker. I have fun playing golf. I have fun playing Monopoly with my 5 year-old. I have fun re-enacting. And I had fun playing that civil war board game of yours. But when I'm playing a game where I am given command of a brigade of magnificently painted Civil War infantry with battle flags flying and moving over terrain that is diorama quality, I expect something…more."

I could see he wasn't interested in pursuing the topic further (Why should he? He wasn't there to be interrogated) and our conversation turned to other topics.

Thinking about this conversation in the light of the postings on this thread, I think I have gained some insight on what he meant.

He wasn't interested in just having fun. He obviously could have achieved that any number of ways without sacrificing a Saturday on the road. I think that, in addition to enjoying himself, he wanted to – in fact, he expected to – achieve a sense of historical satisfaction from playing the ACW miniatures game. I wonder to what extent this desire – this expectation – can be found in other historical miniatures gamers. Or is it just a product of his already established interest in this particular historical period as shown by his civil war re-enactment interest.

I expect to gain tactical (or strategic) satisfaction from wargames. I want historical games to be accurate in the sense of portraying the proper relationship between troop types, weapons, command systems etc. That's because history provides a model we can assume is fairly accurate.

However I rarely play historical battles, preferring to set up scenarios and campaigns that use a particular genre as the basis of the rules, and making fictional battles. This is because it seems too limiting to recreate a historical battle where everyone knows the tactics and results.

What I like to do is take a historical battle or campaign, modify it a bit and use it in a completely different time period,. For instance, I could take Gettysburg and replay it using Imperial Romans vs Dacians.

This is an approach Ancients has always followed (hence the clashes of Sumerians against Medieval French and so on.) It can be considered a kind of fantasy.

"Empire – great game, many people love it. But why is a corps commander making decisions about battalion formations and deployment or recall of skirmisher companies?"--The Bandit

Answer: Because they did, sir!!!! Please read Pascal Bressonnet's work on the 1806 campaign (for just one example of many that detail such) and you're opinion, well-intentioned but misinformed that it is, will be changed.

Me ke aloha,

MJ

>"What I like to do is take a historical battle or campaign, modify it a bit and use it in a completely different time period."<

Yes. I think this is an excellent short-cut for designing "realistic" scenarios. That is, with "real" objectives, terrain, etc., but without the "Oh, it's Gettysburg, so he's going to charge Cemetery Ridge" syndrome.

I designed a Napoleonic scenario for Grande Armee, based on a real battle from a different war. I'd be curious to see if anyone here can recognize the real battle:

PDF link

What we do is create an alternate history.

Call it what you want. There's a reason Harry Turtledove's novels are in the fiction shelves.

MJ,

"Answer: Because they did, sir!!!! Please read Pascal Bressonnet's work on the 1806 campaign (for just one example of many that detail such) and you're opinion, well-intentioned but misinformed that it is, will be changed."
----------

There is a difference between what happened and what Empire (and similar games) represent in this example. Napy personally decided formations and deployment of Davout's divisions during river crossings during the 1806 portion of the Polish Campaign, Ney took a couple battalions and a couple squadrons into the center of the fight to Lannes's left at Jena, But in the first case (Napy) this was not typical *during* battle. In the second case (Ney) he lost control over the rest of his corps because he was separated and his attention diverted.

My point is that *every time* a battalion deploys voltigeurs the corps commander is not making that decision. Sure, he may do it on occasion, but generally speaking the lower level commanders are making those decisions, hence the doctrines armies train on and follow.

Cheers,

The Bandit

I think Maui Jim should be forced to back up his assertion by hosting a Napoleonic miniatures convention in his home in Hawaii. I see this as the only way to settle this issue. I, of course, will have to be there as a moderator and judge. Do I have to know something about Napoleonic warfare? I've got a swell pair of Bahama Ecrit swim shorts. That should be enough credentials.

Are historical wargames fatally flawed?

No, not any more than any other game as far as game mechanics are concerned. Rather, history being "real", although relative, is open to interpretation and discussion, whether amicable or not. As noted many times above, people have their own areas of interest and 'expertise' and aren't afraid to use it. Arguments ensue. Wargames are competitive, some folks gotta win, fairly or not, whether playing Lace Wars or Middle Earth. Historicity (?) isn't the driving force causing the dire games, it's the people who play them who make them a chore. Sure some games are easier to play than others, historical or not, and game mechanics can create the circumstances leading to the "un-fun" zone. Ultimately it's the gamers. Years back in our group, we almost came to blows over our games. Because they were historical simulations? No darn it we just disagreed about mechanics and results.

Are non-historical games more fun than historical games?

Depends. Are historical gamers less "fun" driven (as noted in the opening post) than the other guys. Maybe.

War is a compelling human experience, and while we all "know" as General Sherman quipped, 'war is hell', we are drawn to it and try to, yes, simulate it via a wargame. This compulsion to simulate may drive that 'non-fun' aspect of the hobby. Poker is fun. Fishing is fun. Wargaming is…..something. A game can be fun to play, a certain battle fought on the table can be dramatic and nail-biting and time well spent. As a historical gamer I want my little battles to 'feel' historical, and perhaps that's where the arguments start. Your feel for history is different from mine. We then argue about the rules. A non-historical game can lack this 'feel' and so there is less to argue about except mechanics.

I cannot imagine that historical games will ever be 'marginalized', because of the compulsion I noted about war.

Fantasy gaming is cool too: the first figures I ever bought were Minifigs 25mm Middle Earth figures from Panzerfaust magazine (I think!)

There have been a few mentions on this thread along the lines of "perhaps a certain kind of person likes a certain kind of game," basically implying that those who like complex ‘simulations' (and I only use the word in a general sense, as we all know what I mean when I say it) may well tend to be loud-mouthed, aggressive, pedantic, fat, know-it-all opinionated, blow-hards who make value judgements over all others involved in the sport. I think for the good of the hobby, we need to stay away from that kind generalised thinking when talking about the kind person who plays a certain type or kind of game.

I was talking to a gamer friend recently (both of us 20 year ‘veterans' of Napoleonic wargaming and amateur naps historians) and we agreed that generally wargaming was a hobby saturated with loud-mouthed, aggressive, pedantic, fat, know-it-all, opinionated, blow-hards who make value judgements over all others involved in the sport; because they have nothing else. But I have been thinking on it since, and also thinking all about the guys I played ‘over 35s' football with, and people I have played poker with, and people I have worked with, gone to uni with etc, and realised that whenever you are involved in an endeavour with lots of other people brought together (into collision), necessarily you are going to get a certain percent who are s… it's the way of the world.. the knowledge of good and evil if you will!

Hmm, sorry I have digressed, getting back why we should not make any judgments about the kind of gamer a person is by what they play, I'll tell you a bit of a story: I was at an event recently and was having a pleasant conversation with a gamer who interestedly asked, "so what Napoleonic's rules to you play?".

My answer, "Empire V."

He sneered and walked off!

This is a kind of ‘reverse snobbery' I have noticed start to creep in, in recent years, where it now seems almost a crime to enjoy a game considered by some to be a little more complex.

I love Empire, for me it IS Napoleonic's (though I know and respect many of you disagree). I also find it simple to play, but I mainly play it because it is the most fun wargame I have ever played. I love the fact I can write my Corp orders, then take off my Corp commander hat, put on my Divisional commander hat, and then get involve in all the interest of the tactical machinations and decisions. So, getting back to the gamer who sneered and walked off. I wonder how he would feel about his assumption of me as an individual if he knew that the games of Empire I play with a few select mates (I understand it's not for everyone) are usually challenging but hilarious fun-filled occasions over a slab of beer with disputes quickly resolved (usually by a 50/50 if it comes to it) and games all over in a day? Bucket loads of fun had all-around.

Apologies everyone, they never did really teach me to write with brevity at uni. What I am trying to say is, we all get different things from different types of games. Going forward (in a hobby that is, after all, rapidly growing) I think it can only be a good thing to try and avoid judging gamers simply over what game/games they play…

As in every endeavour in life the pendulum continues to swing back and forth. Trends come and go, fashions come and go and innovations come and go as they are replaced by more modern ideas.

War gaming is no different, just like anything we do in life trends force us all to conform to a point where people begin to fight against the general feeling and soon the ideas and opinions of a few take on a greater aspect, soon they gather a following and before you know it conformity falls away as more and more people not only question the "way it is done" to the point where new directions are taken.

Back in the 70's and 80's war gaming was all about complexity and detail, sure there were some simpler systems out there but the general consensus was for realism and simulation. Empire is probably the crux or peak of that way of thinking. But soon enough people challenged that concept and or got bored with complexity and before long rules designers were turning away from this kind of system and looking to find and or design a system that kept the flavour but without the complex plethora of charts and tables.

This led to a war gaming revolution in the 90's where people turned away gradually over time from Empire / Quarrie style systems to systems like Napoleon's battles and so on. Not everyone was prepared to change and many (including me) refused to switch. But many did and in those cases not all were totally happy with that switch while many more were all too happy with their decision to switch.

If you were to take a line from "zero" complexity and grade it all the way up to "100%" complexity you would find all of us who war game have our comfortable grade we are most happy with. Me personally I prefer complexity over simplicity probably at around 90% but there are others out there even higher than I am. But then again there are many among us who would prefer a complexity rating around 20-30% or so.

Basically it is all about "BALANCE" what each of us personally prefer between Complexity or Simplicity, Detail vs. fun and so on. Even within the same group of gamers you will not have everyone at the same level and this causes friction at times between players. If you don't like the level of complexity/simplicity of the system you play or your group or club plays this itself will cause unhappiness between players who become frustrated one way or another.

What our group does is this, we each get a turn as group leader to decide the scenario we are going to play, the level of complexity to be used and the system parameters we are going to include or exclude. The leader becomes the controller and all others must conform through respect and friendliness. This works well for us as each person is placed in charge and what he says goes.

As the old saying goes down here, "we are not playing for sheep stations!, they are little tin men for gods sake", remember that.

Regards,
Shane

Well, we might not play for sheep stations down here mate, but I know a few people who play for good bottles of red!

Mind you, a decent bloke will share any bottle won in victory with the vanquished!

omg, not another maroon!

go Queenslander!! NSW will get crushed next game /snigger

heh funny enough, though I am a Queenslander I hate rugby league! (which some would say means I'm not really a Queenslander at all)

I'm a huge fan of the round ball game myself…

Shane i would really like to see your rules they sound interesting

thank you mate,

I developed a system which is full of national characteristics and depth that is scaled to individual btlns and squadrons. The system runs around the idea of complex command control and morale as central to the theme of the rules. It is fairly complex and not every one's cup of tea. It is set at btln level as I said but emphasis is placed on command and formations such as brigades and divisions etc.

We differentiate the armies between two main systems, that of:

Revolutionary (Columnar) and
Traditional (Linear)

All nations conform at one period or another to one of these systems and both have their advantages and disadvantages, it is up to the players how they cope with the restrictions both entail. Also, national doctrine comes into play and players are forced to use their troops in the way they were used by that particular army of the day.

much more to it of course but you get the drift I think.

Regards,
Shane

[As in every endeavour in life the pendulum continues to swing back and forth.]

…are you saying that the Empire will Strike Back?

Australians? We have Australians on this thread? There goes the neighborhood. In my student days at Kings College my room mates were Australians. Degenerate, skirt-chasing, drunks all – and the best mates a man could have. Plus relentless and skilled wargamers.

…are you saying that the Empire will Strike Back?

I thought it had already done so….

In a place, far, far away, in a time, long, long ago…

>>>>Degenerate, skirt-chasing, drunks all<<<<

much has changed,

totally degenerated now,

gave up skirt chasing when dexterity reduced due to age,

reverted to drinking more once I came to terms with receding hairline and blocking more of the sun with own silhouette…

oohh and wife now nags me no end while kids scream their way around the house.

No wonder I enjoy war gaming even now.

Shane

p.s. wouldn't have it any other way to be honest.

Talking of degenerate drunken Aussies, just a quick shout to Thomo the Lost.

"Degenerate, skirt-chasing, drunks all…Plus relentless and skilled wargamers."

LOL, can't blame a man for enjoying the finer things in life can you?

Now, if I could just rate them in order…women, booze, wargaming… nope, its just too hard! Best to settle for all three… not necessarily in moderation…

Roll 3D20 and assign each to one of them. Highest wins.

Cheers,

The Bandit

women, booze, wargaming… Best to settle for all three</q) You'll bend the pikes!

I've smashed a few $300 USD fishing rods, and maybe $1,500 USD worth of tennis racquets in my life. (one match two years ago cost me $400 USD in racquets, then I won the match and felt really stupid)

I have never done anything but maybe muttter an (f word) during a wargame. Gaming is fun!!!

Check that. The Wilson pro Staff graphite racquet I used in college, I estimate two dozen didn't survive in four years of tennis. That alone was $1,500. USD :O

funny how we aussies have such reputations around the world, you should try living here, the lifestyle here if you live on the coast is as follows not in any particular order:

Sun
sand
surf
women
bikini's
beer
B-B-Q's
cars

I would dearly love to travel the world right now but would not live in any other place on earth. To live in Oz and have this lifestyle is just too good. I do feel guilty for our farmers inland though, they suffer from drought and poor or failing crops and this makes you wonder sometimes how they do it.

If you have never been to Oz I suggest you do it while you can, it will open your eyes. But I digress…

Shane

Depends where you live in OZ and on the life you lead Shane. For many in Oz I'm affraid it's the same as everywhere else (in the western world)…

Highrises
Concrete
Traffic
Paperwork
Bills
Polution
Noise
Construction
Overwork
Underpaid
Interest rates: morgage/rents rising

One of the reasons I am getting out of the city and moving to the coast! (trying to to least)

of course it is but it depends on how you view the world and everything around you. I don't think about those things, its the weekend and the lifestyle I think about, where I can go and how I can socialize..

Living in Oklahoma gives one pretty much the same list, Shane!

Well, pared down to just the sand (well, dust), sun (too much), barbecue, beer (but no Fat Tire), and cars (well, pick-ups).

Okay, maybe Oz is looking better than Ok. ;)

I say all war gamers from all over the world should move to Brisbane Australia with their families from all over the world. We can all split our time between drinking beer, chasing women, surfing the waves of our sandy white beaches then later in the day have BBQ's and settle down for a good war game!! oohh what bliss.

Remember, I live with Noosa and the sunshine coast just to my north and the Gold Coast just to the south of where I live. I do feel like I live in paradise sometimes.

Shane

If only all the people moving to Brisbane were just wargamers… happy days they would be! I my view, wargamers tread pretty lightly on the earth and are a harmles lot in ganeral.

I'm doing a masters in Envirnmental management, and I can fairly say we in Brisbane are cashing-in our last remainig key habitat areas just to cope with the current enormous influx from the southern states of Australia, let alone elseware.

That's fine as long as people understand what they are losing. But you haven't lived until you have seen the product of one lost court case, that results in a 1000 house housing-development being built in south Brisbane over one of the last remaining Koala habitats in Queensland. It changes you forever when you see some of that stuff..

Sorry, gotten very off the track! Wargamers prerogative…

hey mate,

If you are doing Envirnmental management then you must know Jonathan Evers ?

Hi Shane. I must say I don't. Mind you it is an enormous field with hundreds of students (at UQ alone) more than half of them foreign, which I find tremendously encouraging I must say. Loads of African, Asian, American, South American etc, students coming all the way here to learn the things they need to know to join the struggle (though to be fair, some are here on Oz Aid programs, and so we are funding em, so there's no reason for them not to come!). Myself, I got into the whole environmental thing because I really admired the generation who lived and fought through the second world war and who all worked together and sacrificed their chance for an easy life, and through that showed some of the best humanity has to offer so we can all be free (not least our own nation who paid such an appalling price on foreign soils). I realised that the environment IS the third world war, the one we must win if humanity is going to survive AT ALL (when you study it, the science is truely terrifying I'm afraid, and in some ways I'm glad the average person in the street is not aware of it. Very, very scary). Like WWII veterans, I want to be able to say in 50 years that I was part of that fight for survival, and hopefully part of the solution. A bit like the Allied situation in 1941… I have no real hope for success, but the only thing to do is keep on trying…

Getting back to the question, is Jonathan Evers an academic in the field I should know about (and don't!) or a fellow wargamer?

If so, we had best not play! Can you imagine… NO SHOOTING INTO FORESTS… aren't you aware of the sensitive biodiversity values in this region!!!! heheh

LOL… even deployment would be a disaster! What? You can't put those forests on the table without linked and buffered habitat-corridors for species migration!!

G'day mate,

Jonathan has his masters in that field and now works for Woelley Parsens, (however you spell it) he is now their foremost knowledgeable person for the Environment and doing very well, also a teacher in the field and doing his phd.

No, he is not a war gamer as such but does role-play with my group where I live in Durack. Great guy, as are all of them, we meet every Friday night, as we just did last night.

Regards,
Shane

Great stuff mate. Hope you had a good one last night. Good to see you all getting in a regular Friday night game!

Game on.

I'm not sure where all this thread has wandered, but my own impression is that detailed historical rules are not always best in a convention setting with a bunch of new and players unknown to each other. Usually simpler is better at a convention, for both the game master and the players.

In a club setting, historical rules of greater detail can be more appropriate. My take anyway.

historygamer

Yea, it did kind of drift off topic. These University of Queensland blokes just have no sense of restraint. At least, that's what my friends at the University of Adelaide say.

You are no doubt correct about playing the full historical realism emphasising set of rules at a convention. But it's been my impression that most experienced GM's simplify such rules for conventions. In fact, I know of several rules whose original edition emphasized historical accuracy but whose trimmed down "convention" set was so much more popular that the convention set was released as the 2nd edition.

A lot of people want rules where you can reasonably complete a game in an afternoon.

Though as mentioned earlier, simplicity and good historical results are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

aye, balance is the key here and maintaining a level of both simplicity and detail that all can be comfortable with.

No two groups are really that much alike, you can get many levels of comfortability in different groups and individual players for that matter and pleasing everybody at the same time to the same level is impossible. Some will cringe at complexity while others will show disdain at too much simplicity.

I know of different groups of Empire players, one group which simplified the standing rules while another group actually added more complexity, both groups do not play together but both groups separately enjoy the balance they achieved as single groups. I don't play Empire myself but I could see easily how both styles of play enhanced the group's enjoyment of the system.

The difference I think with groups is whether they play games at conventions and clubs or play privately in their own homes. Those that play in public domains need systems which can push a battle to it's conclusion in one single session (day) simply because packing up a a battle is a big job and players need to know the battle will be fought to a conclusion and not a waste of time if it hits 4pm and the venue is going to close soon…

Groups that play at private homes where a battle can be left set up for multiple sessions tend to use rules systems which are more complex because, one, they have more time to play the battle and two, because I feel most players do want the detail and realism that many board game style systems cannot deliver. Yes, many players even in private homes play simpler more playable systems and prefer them but many I have met at least down here prefer realism if the time is available to them.

I know of several groups (like my own) who will leave a battle set up for weeks on end and happily come back to it each week on a set date to continue the conflict. A few more turns are clocked over and a few more casualties inflicted with some brilliant moves or counter-moves conducted. The guys happily walk away from the session eye balling the scene taking it all in thinking of their next move. All the time talking across the table about the progress and what might happen next.

I personally prefer groups like this that are dedicated to a battle no matter how long it takes, I am not a fan of the idea that a 10 hour battle in real life must be fought over a 10 hour period on the table top, great battles on the table top should take as long as it takes to finish them providing the players are happy to do so.

Shane

Agreed on all points Shane.

I have been wondering more specifically, what actual changes players and modern rules creators have made to simplify things but also to retain a sense of period feel (or realism if you like). I am happy with my rules set so I have not played too many others (though I have played a few of the more common)

I'm talking specifics, so… "in the old days we used to do X… now we fo Y," for example.

Is it a case of simplifying comand control, or how fire-fights and shooting is resolved. Is it simplifying how melee or moral is resolved? Or at another level, have battalion level games given way to brigade sized units that move as a whole? I'd be very keen know more about the new approaches.

"Yea, it did kind of drift off topic. These University of Queensland blokes just have no sense of restraint."

LOL my apologies, my fault entirely… I was having a very strange week that week!

People remember Empire -- which was very detailed -- and take that as the representative of all 1970s to 1980s game design. However, all rules didn't always used to be highly complex in the "olden days".

What did happen is that in the late 80s there were a few sets that were leading in the main genres (ancients, Naps, ACW) and they tended to be fairly complex (WRG, Empire, Napoleons Battles.)

Then there was a wave of much simpler rules that used innovative mechanisms. De Bellis Antiquitatis, Fire and Fury -- not sure what for Naps (Volley and Bayonet?)

Everything got simpler. Set orders and written orders were replaced by PIPs and manoeuvre tables. Detailed combat resolution was replaced by dice matching, or "handfuls of dice" and a simple lookup table. Casualties were largely replaced by declining effectiveness/morale status followed by total removal.

More recently, designers have built on this renewed foundation and introduced flexible time concepts – Sam Mustapha's Grande Armee is particularly notable in this respect. This is the final attack the structured, mathematical approach of early generation rules. No longer does a turn represent 10 minutes or an hour, it represents the time taken to do some significant actions. In other words time has become abstracted as well as command and combat.

There are still plenty of older style rules around and lots of players are having fun with them.

That's really interesting Kilkrazy, good info mate.

What you describe sounds like the approach taken by a lot of games I play for other era's (other than napoleonics). The trend obviously extends throughout the hobby. I wonder if my continued love of Empire is partly because I enjoy playing at least ONE game that doesn't involve throwing "handfuls of dice."

People say assigning a % value per figure (for shooting, for example) is somehow complex (?) but when you have played long enough you know by heart that a conscript fires at 8% and if you have 11 of them its 88% and a quick throw of the percentile dice… and bob's yer uncle…

It goes back to what Shane was saying. Sometimes players want to play a game that you can set up and leave and delve into over an extended time…even if you have to leave it set up for 3 months! An extended game players can really get their teeth into.

I find that the older I get, the shorter game is more enjoyable. Thought I still want a feel or flavor of historical rules.

I find games like Nuts and Crossfire to be the most realistic wargames I've played in a very long time, and neither is very complex at all

I find all the above problems are just as present in fantasy/sci-fi gaming. Process-oriented rules that take ages to do anything, with players that constantly bicker and argue, with rules lawyers everywhere? Pick a GW game, any GW game. They just have a decent marketing department.

I for one can see the attraction of 'realistic' games, but prefer fast-play games like CrossFire, Song of Blades and Heroes, SG2 (sort of) and IABSM. I find gaming experience is more to do with who you paly with than the game you play, at least in my experience, although I've yet to play an enjoyable game of something GW made.

I once played a simple game at a con where the GM was the WORST I ever saw in any game at a con. It was a foreign legion game, very simple. Yet the GM killed it for my friends who I brining into minatures, they were both 40kers and did not think much of historical after that. I think it all comes down to players and a GM. not the scope of the rules. sometime you want a complex game other times you want a simple game. see people after tax season and see who wants a complex game.

sometimes you just want to beer and pretzels and if most people have not played the game thats the best way to play.