"What constitutes a 'real' wargame? Speak your mind!" Topic

Over on the WWII boards there's a debate that has been raging for over 250 posts now, and it's about whether Flames of War has had an impact on historical wargaming as a hobby. A certain loudmouth (I won't name names) spends a good portion of the thread repeating variations of the following statement:
"Insane ranting my arse. There as difference between war themed and a war game. Transplanting Space marines with US marines under the warhammer system and that's all this is, is NOT a wargame.

Thus insinuating that games liks the various flavors of warhammer and FOW are not REAL wargames. The interesting thing is that despite several requests/demands from the various folks involved in the thread, said internet loudmouth has yet to define what a REAL wargame is. As another poster pointed out further down the thread "It's like showing me an apple, an orange, a peach and a banana, telling us these aren't vegetables, and then refusing to show us a vegetable."

Since the only time that true intellectual discourse can take place is when all parties are clear on the terms that are being used, Let's sort this out once and for all by answering one basic question: What traits define a 'real' wargame?

You may fire when ready!

The childish and obnoxious fanboy shows there ugly face again.
Another good reason to stay away from this War themed miniatures game. This kind of childishness is exactly why the game is deservedly despised and associated with pimply face GW fanatics by so many. We have another two here. So sunk into some Cult that an opposing opinion has to be attacked. Silly.

I seem to recall a long running thread on the Game Design board where people can't even agree what a 'wargame' is (last time I looked it was mainly the usual simulation vs game discussion). I would suggest the chances of defining a 'real wargame' are slim. Wargmes are a broad church and span the full gamut from Risk via Empires in Arms to people pushing toys around to whole Corps of real soldiers shooting each other with blanks or HQ staffs sitting in their HQs while computers simulate what is happening on the virtual battlefield.

I think it comes largely down to the following:

- Real wargame: whatever game(s) that the person in question happens to be playing at the moment.

- Unreal wargame (opposite of the above): any game that the person in question has never played, or games that he has dropped with the intention to never play them again.

Griefbringer

Defining a real wargame is as impossible as defining a good wine. Too many different tastes ! The most one can do is defining his or her OWN real wargame, and after quite a number of those definitions perhaps one can have an indicátion of what a "real wargame" could be.
For me a "real wargame" teaches me to better understand how things work (or not work) during a conflict in a chosen time and/or place.
Incidentally: I am quite happy with the things that are offered by Battlefront. Whether or not I will use the FOW-rules has nothing to do with that.

Trying to define a wargame is like trying to nail down mist.

What I do find incredible however was Supergrovers' assertion that every one of the thousands of teenagers playing FoW is a loss to the wargames hobby…..

At it's most basic, chess is a wargame. A wargame is a game where the rules are meant to simulate combat and tactics and strategy have to be used to achieve one's goals.

Miniatures optional.

I would hazard to say that a wargame is any game that simulates strategy and tactics no matter how abstractly or incorrectly. But that is just my two cents……..

game that simulates strategy and tactics

I would think it a bit to require a game to simulate both strategy and tactics – simulating one of them should be well enough.

Griefbringer

True – a bit early in the morning… :)

Perhaps some evil manufacturer should try to register a trademark for "The Real Wargame", publish a set of rules under that name and then sneer down at anybody playing any other set of rules as "not being real wargamers".

Griefbringer

I gave up on the idea of realistic wargames years ago. Normally the whole real/realistic wargames thing comes from historical gamers who are to embarrased to admit they like playing with toy soldiers. So they try to dress it up to make out that their games are actually highly realistic simulations of military history which is in my IMHO crap.

The first thing that stops wargames being realistic is the table and miniatures add to that the players god like knowledge of everything that is happening in his force means that there is no such thing as a realistic wargame.

I'll play just about anything as long as its fun. Historical, Sci-fi, plup, fantasy even dinosaur hunting. As long as their is some vague element of military/para military activity I'm happy. They're all real wargames to me. To be a real wargame they have to contain a war element and a game element and thats it as far as I can see.

Jon

A real wargame??

How about any game that attempts to simulate or depict war.

I'm a miniatures gamer, and find that what makes the game is the passion for the game, not the definition.

Wargame = 'war' + 'game'. That is, a game about war.

Kids playing soldiers on the lawn is a wargame. Soldiers on exercise are wargaming. Warhammer and FoW afficiandoes are just as much wargamers as those stitch and rivet counters who like rules with 1000 charts.

'Simulation' or 'gameplay' are red herrings … they don't really matter so far as the definition is concerned. The only two ingredients of the definition are that a wargame 1) is a game (ie not real); and 2) is about war.

If you add the word 'miniature' to the definition, then you add one more ingredient – that they are played with miniatures.

I think if HG Wells, Donald Featherstone, Charles Grant and other fathers of the miniature wargaming hobby were to see this thread, they would shake their heads at the distortion of their invented hobby into a heirarchy of 'real' and 'not real' wargaming.

I also think those stalwarts would applaud companies like GW and FoW fostering their hobby, too.

What does it matter?

If you enjoy it then mission accomplished surely?

The question really is when does a 'game' become a 'wargame' and not a game about or involving war.

The whole 'realism' discussion has been done to death and people just continuously repeat their own opinions believing them to be valid arguments. I haven't seen anything new in these discussions in the last 20 years.

Chess may be considered a war-game in that it has a basis in conflict (but then so does draughts/checkers) but it makes no attempt at simulation. To my mind a wargame (no hyphen) must at least make an attempt to model/simulate some aspect(s) of 'real' warfare. I don't see that this cuts out Fantasy or Sci-Fi because they have a defined 'reality', rather than the 'observed' reality of actual warfare.

I don't see that it matters as much as people think how close that model is or how accurate the simulation for DEFINING a wargame. It matters to gamers for their personal enjoyment but not for a definition.

I do find it rather irksome that, without knowing me or my motivations, some people make the assumption that I'm embarassed by my hobby to the extent that I attempt some form of intellectual 'cover-up'.

I don't see what I do as 'playing with toy soldiers' any more than an amateur potter plays with mud pies. The 'toy' soldiers I paint and play with are well researched and carefully painted. It took many years to develop those skills and I'm proud of them and quite happy to admit to my hobby and even show off a bit to uninitiated friends.

Why people have to make such a big thing of this never ceases to amaze me and I have only personally met a very small number of such people in over 40 years in this hobby. Mostly they have been people with rather obvious personality faults and I suppose wargaming has to have their share of such people, just like any other walk of life.

What does it matter?

If you enjoy it then mission accomplished surely?

Perhaps there are too many wargamers in general out there, and some persons find it uncomfortable to be part of such a big crowd?

Thus by further segmenting it eg. into "real wargamers", "unreal wargamers", "alt gamers", "bi-gamers", "über-gamers" and "kriegspielers" they will find a smaller niche that they can identify with better.

Griefbringer

I'm afraid this kind of self -important attitude is not confinded to wargaming. I remember many a time someone would write into "Fine Scale Modeler" demanding that they stop printing articles on building StarTrek and Star Wars kits because it "wasn't real modeling".

To me a real wargame somewhere.lies between the real of toys and modeling, and there has to be an emotional investment. You have create something (build terrain, write the rules, paint the figures…)and do something with your product besides display it (not modeling). Anything within that criteria is a fair game.

"I'm afraid this kind of self -important attitude is not confinded to wargaming. I remember many a time someone would write into "Fine Scale Modeler" demanding that they stop printing articles on building StarTrek and Star Wars kits because it "wasn't real modeling".

Indeed and to hear a competition wargames chap complain about fantasy games as he was pitting his ancient army against a gang who, historically, did not exist for another couple of hundred years, raised an eyebrow!

Tally Ho!

I gave up on the idea of realistic wargames years ago. Normally the whole real/realistic wargames thing comes from historical gamers who are to embarrased to admit they like playing with toy soldiers. So they try to dress it up to make out that their games are actually highly realistic simulations of military history which is in my IMHO crap.

I like a man who thinks like me.

Bravo sir, you beat me to it.

This is about as useful as discussing what constitutes a "real" historical painting. Can it depict an impression of a historical event or setting and still be "real", or does it have to be a photorealistic portrayal of exactly what happened, exactly as it happened? If we use the more strict definition, then there are no "real" historical paintings (which is patently absurd). Does Benjamin West's excellent painting of the death of General Wolfe ( picture ) lose all value because it shows no blood and gore, contains uniform inaccuracies, and depicts people who were not present at the time? Hardly.

Wargame designs are works of art, not academic treatises (although some of them share characteristics of both). As such, like West's painting, they enlighten us and bring to life past events in a way that no dry, narrative history can. Though some are more elaborate and detailed (like the Gettysburg Cyclorama, for example) and others are more elementary and romanticized (like a "Combat" comic book), each can be appreciated by someone for what it is, and none is more "real" than any other.

Regards,

Jeff

Indeed and to hear a competition wargames chap complain about fantasy games as he was pitting his ancient army against a gang who, historically, did not exist for another couple of hundred years, raised an eyebrow!

Yes its a bit like playing 40k in a GW store when you're suddenly aware your disscussing things involving space marines and chaos and people are saying "that just wouldn't happen" or "thats so unrealistic" like there is some sort of real world data to compare against.

Real wargames are played by the military when they are not fighting a real war. The play whith real tanks and infantry, sometimes even real bullets!

We play games.

Both sides want to have an even chance to win.
This is often un-historical
We have hindsight
And more often than not, we want to be the chap leading the charge as well as the commander!

If you play an "accurate" historical game the it will be just a re-enactment of history on the tabletop!

We had an idiot running the previous club who did not think that a game where you did not keep score was a "serious" game. To him, a "serious" game was something like DBM, and you kept track of your wins and losses.
By his definition, the games we ran of St. Foy, Guilford Courthouse, Chitral, and so on were not "serious". So, for that, and other reasons, we left "his" club and sarted our own anarcho-syndicalist collective, and have been happy ever after.

Arguing over what is a "real" or "serious" wargame is as moronic as anything else that comes around, I guess. We all need something stupid to argue about.

Better to just leave the fools ranting, and go off on your own, ignore them and have fun.

I refuse to answer the question that is this topic's title. I would rather have fun, roll dice, kill immortal lead figures and drink beer and laugh about it.
Go ahead and name the loudmouth. Fools do not deserve anonymity.

Well said that man.

You're a wise man under all that moaning John :)

To me a real wargame is a game about war that has an existence, either in hardcopy or digital format. An unreal wargame doesn't exist in hardcopy or digital. Either that or an unreal wargame is one that involves the square root of -1.

I think the question is just slightly off the mark.

It probably shouldn't be if the game is a "real wargame", it should be if it is a "good wargame".

"To him, a "serious" game was something"

His definition of a 'serious game' sounds like our definition of a 'real wargame' – both perjorative and unrepresentative of what lots of wargamers spend their time doing. 'Real wargames' have army lists, points, tediously long rules, require a ton of lead to play and are generally a nit picking nerdy rules lawyers delight. Whether FOW falls into this category is a matter of opinion, but that style of game isn't really my cup of tea any more.

>>> Real wargames are played by the military when they are not fighting a real war. The play whith real tanks and infantry, sometimes even real bullets!

And frequently, they result in what are considered to be very unrealistic results!

Unreal wargames: unfortunately, I have played in a number that certainly felt like they were…

Go ahead and name the loudmouth. Fools do not deserve anonymity.

I would presume that anybody who wants to know the name can go to the WWII board, find the correct threat and read a few pages to find the person in question, as well as finding out exactly what he has written.

Griefbringer

'Real wargames… require a ton of lead to play'

The 'bang, you're dead' rules are terrific fun with lots of figures.

We once did the battle of Pilegiz with just about every Napoleonic figure we could muster, and some home-brewed Old School rules that owed much to the aforementioned Featherstone and Grant. Played over an entire Saturday, much beer was drunk, much hilarity ensued, much fun was had…and everyone went home happy.

That's a 'good' wargame.

If Flames of War and Warhammer 40k are not "real wargames", then Donald Featherstone and Charles Grant weren't playing "real wargames" either. Their games were of a similar style and level of complexity.

I don't happen to play FoW or 40K myself, they aren't my cup of tea, but I can at least acknowledge that they are actual wargames!!!

Miantures, secenry even if its a just a blue or black cloth and having fun. That is a real wargme in my book. The best part of theis hobby is that it is encompasses so many genres, styles and ideas. Enjoy the variety and chill out with your friends.

Ah, Griefbringer.
I recognize the type; the ones who give you a quiz before they let you play.

if its a game where resources of one player are eliminated from play by another player, its a wargame.

IronMike
He's never going to answer the question.I do beleive he's insane.
BTW I think you joined the supergrover stifle club,Welcome.

War Artisan wrote:

[…]Wargame designs are works of art, not academic treatises (although some of them share characteristics of both). […] Though some are more elaborate and detailed […] and others are more elementary and romanticized […], each can be appreciated by someone for what it is, and none is more "real" than any other.

Now that is very well put. Mind if I steal it for a signature? Most quote-worthy. I hadn't really thought about the "works of art" aspect before, but that's a great point!

And like art, there is certainly no universally-accepted definition.

There are some smart folks on here at TMP. Not all of yas, so don't get getting all puffy. But definitely some. :)

- Bob

Mind if I steal it for a signature?

Be my guest. Don't forget the attribution ; )

Poker is a war game, possibly the most raw.

Think about it.

Mind vs mind.

Elements of chance.

The need to work out what the other players have in their hands (what resources do they have, how they are deployed, when most are hidden).

The ability to bluff, appear strong where they are weak.

Highly Abstract? Yes. Looks like the stuff is all there for a game of conflict. Sounds a game of war to me.

Me? Figures are a must, the research, collecting, painting, all satisfies a need (a very anorak need I freely admit). It has to be a social experience (i'm a role player that does a bit of war gaming), so computer games do not quite cut it for me! But is it needed for the contest between 2 minds? No, it just window dressing.

We all have a bunch of subjective notions what makes a decent game. If it doesn't pass the test it's nearly automatically relegated to the rubbish bin.

Same applies from anything from football teams to favourite movies : "How can you like Star Trek, it's like, for complete retards ? Star Wars Rulez !"
"Dude, Star Wars is like old and stupid, Star Trek just came out !"

Ad nauseam.

Normally the whole real/realistic wargames thing comes from historical gamers who are to embarrased to admit they like playing with toy soldiers.

I play with toy soldiers and model tanks. I like them to look "realistic". Here, by realistic, I mean as accurately as possible represent the soldiers and tanks as they appeared.

I tell all my co-workers and subordinates that I play with toy soldiers and have this pic, very much lightened, from my web site as my wall paper at work: picture . 100s of people come into my office as I explain database concepts and how our software works. Sometimes people ask and I just grin and say "I play with toy soldiers".

I play historical wargames with said toy soldiers and model tanks and cannons. I like the game to be as "realistic" as possible. In this case, "realistic" means the game plays such that the decisions I make and the look of the game closely resembles, in miniature, the accounts of battles of the period in which I am playing – for WWII and later, I also like to be able to relate to platoon and company level decisions that I can relate to from my own service in the armour corps.

I don't think there's really anything wrong with wanting realism, and I don't think people's desire for such should be dismissed. Of course, some folks might take the quest to eye rolling levels in what they define as realism, but that's all in the eye of the beholder.

Back to the topic: A miniature wargame is a GAME played with scale model miniatures that depict historical, fantasy, or sci fi soldiers and equipment in such a way that decisions a player makes have some resemblance to the decisions a commander of one or various levels might have to make if they were in a situation reflected by the situation on the table. There's loads and loads of limitations associated with miniature wargaming with respect to how well decision making can be represented; computer gaming is probably a superior alternative if making the experience as "realistic" as possible is the goal. However, the other goal of miniature wargaming is the means by which one can play with the lovely looking miniatures you've taken a great deal of time to craft.
--
Tim

A wargame is any game not involving GW or FOW.

Snakes and Ladders then?

Clearly, the answer is obvious:

Any game I like is a "true" wargame.

Any game I don't like is not a "true" wargame.

Any game that is more popular than the one I like is the work of the devil.

I think if HG Wells, Donald Featherstone, Charles Grant and other fathers of the miniature wargaming hobby were to see this thread, they would shake their heads at the distortion of their invented hobby into a heirarchy of 'real' and 'not real' wargaming.

how utterly asinine. I know some wargamers have absurd egos but you really spanky. You speak for who else now? What utter garbage.

War Themed and Wargame big difference, period.

Ditto bird,
you're better placed than me to decided what is realistic after all you've done it in real life. Your right people have the right to search for realistic wargames.
My thesis is that the joy of playing with nicley modeled and painted toys has a hard time going with realism.

Players are just to aware of whats going on for it to be realistic. If I were to re-fight waterloo for instance. I will have far more knowledge than Wellington ever had. I'll know where ever unit is, both mine and my enemies. I'll know the morale status of every unit, it's supply status even how many dead and wounded a unit has taken. That to my mind just can't be realistic.

I also notice that both you and Gildas felt the need to defend yourself against my comment. Even though I don't know either of you and my comment wasn't directed at either of you. It was merely a comment about certain historical gamers I've met who play historical simulations rather than games. That you feel it was directed at you is intresting…

By the way nice panzer I've got a stack of WW2 thats on the to do pile hope they come out as nice as yours. Oh and I agree with you and Gildas I like my historicals to be painted accurately and be well researched. But I don't think that has anything to do with rules being realistic. You could have perfect historical OOBs, accuratley modelled terrain and models but it still won't make a game realistic IMO.

Cheers Jon

Ive been surprised by having three professed wargamers attack discussing realism as somehow wanting to see blood and guts on a board game.

Ballistics can be modeled. There effects on targets can be modeled. Vehicle movement can be modeled. There is no technical aspect of war that can not be modeled with hyper accuracy. Obviously with miniatures there has to be compromises to that. That doesn't take miniatures out of the realm of realism. You can still model physics on a miniatures board to a pretty fine degree.

It should be understood by now that the human psyche is very complex and to diverse to simulate. So Morale has to be a representation of basic human desire to get the hell out of a situation that as triggered flight responses like large quantities of bullets being very close to ones ears or some such thing.. and to represent the resistance to that flight response. That's a nutshell of that.

Time can be modeled to a pretty fine degree. Some of that may have to be tempered but yet some can be achieved.

Fog of war as well. usually with much less effort then the seekers of ultimate simplicity would agree with.

The idea they cant be realistic is rubbish "IMHO". I play my wargames on a crowded public beach. The only time Ive been embarrassed is when some do lost his skivys coming out of the water. Simply cause you either cant play the more complex games or don't want to play them does not by an stretch invalidate them. The amateur psychology stuff is also a bunch of rubbish "IMHO"

Oh ya you can achive all this realism all with toy soldiers.

If Flames of War and Warhammer 40k are not "real wargames", then Donald Featherstone and Charles Grant weren't playing "real wargames" either.

Total Nonsense!! It is absolutely beyond the pale of absurdity to invoke these names as some decree of un wavering truth. None of you speak for those men stop trying. What a bunch of ego driven rubbish.

I do find it rather irksome that, without knowing me or my motivations, some people make the assumption that I'm embarassed by my hobby to the extent that I attempt some form of intellectual 'cover-up'.

Don't he explains hes just another in the parade of cultists attacking me directly for a differing opinion. Though your response is well written and I agree totaly.

Supergover wrote:

I play my wargames on a crowded public beach.

A brilliant solution to the inconvenience of having a sandtable indoors.

Although I would worry about having to overcoat miniatures with Factor 40 sunblock to stop the paint fading in all that UV.

I have now decided that "Beach Wargaming" is the only "real" form of wargaming, on condition that it involves the same sort of scantily-clad beach bunnies one sees in beach volleyball.

All the best,

John.