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

We use plastic 1/32nd the material holds up well. In this climate 3-4 months of acceptable weather is a good year so any way to stay outside is good one.

Id really love to have a indoor sandtable. I'm working on a way to get one this winter.

The childish and obnoxious fanboy shows there ugly face again.

Before you open that mouth of yours again Grover, do us a favor and look up the definition for 'ad hominem argument'. Wait, I'll do it for you:

Most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, which consists of criticizing or attacking the person who proposed the argument (personal attack) in an attempt to discredit the argument. It is also used when an opponent is unable to find fault with an argument, yet for various reasons, the opponent disagrees with it.

In other words, you attempt to shore up the faulty underpinnings of your argument by attacking the people who question your opinions. In one post alone you do this four times, using terms like 'childlike' 'obnoxious' 'cultist' and 'fanboy'. In my high-school debate class this was referred to as 'name calling', and was the first sign that you had lost.

This kind of childishness is exactly why the game is deservedly despised and associated with pimply face GW fanatics by so many.

Do me a favor Grover, and explain to my just how my original post is childish, besides perhaps liberal use of the term 'loudmouth'. You don't know me, you have no idea how old I am, and you have absolutely no idea what I play, and yet according to you I'm a a zit-faced teenager who's convinced that the lads in Nottingham can do no wrong. You have no reason to make these assumptions, other than the fact that I asked for a definition for a term that you base your entire argument on but simultaneously fail to define, despite being asked to do so repeatedly by better debaters than myself.

So you know what? Let's clear this up once and for all. SuperGrover, you base you entire tirade on the idea that games like FOW, 40k, etc. aren't 'wargames' but 'war themed games.' Explain to us what the difference is.

@ "supergrover"
The only "ego-driven rubbish" I see around here is the idea that your games are "real" while others are not.

I didn't say Grant and Featherstone are fonts of "unwavering truth", whatever that means. What I did say is that if your standard for what constitutes a "real" wargame would exclude games like FoW, then it would also exclude the games invented by those two worthies, not to mention H.G. Wells' "Little Wars".

To me, the idea that those guys weren't playing "real" wargames is patently ridiculous, but it is the inevitable logical corrollary to your position. If you disagree, and would include their games as "real", but would exclude FoW, please explain why, and how you would draw a distinction between them.

I happen to AGREE with you when you say that it is possible to achieve highly realistic simulations with miniatures. You just need sufficiently well designed and detailed rules.

But that doesn't mean faster, simpler sets of rules are not "real wargames". They are just simulations at a higher level of abstraction, or a decreased level of detail.

Life is too short to get angry at other people just becaue they prefer a different flavor of the hobby. You should take a moment and ask yourself: "Is there a good, worthwhile reason to get worked up over this?"

People who play FoW aren't stopping you from playing whatever constitutes a "real wargame on the beach", so stop being so hostile towards them. Its not like they are kicking sand in your face or something!

Please read my above post in full before responding.

The Monstrous Jake, you were right because you agree with me.

Anyone who argues that a game is not a real wargame does not know how to read a box. So there are games out there we dont like. Get over it. How many times have we played mini and board games that other people liked and we played just so they could have fun too. just play the games you like if it is too much.

If you want realism in a wargame go talk to Irishmarine. He can explain it best

FWIW:

[…] It is doubtful whether wargames will ever give one profound military insight, but the wargamer may gain an understanding of the problems of the commanders in the field and a glimpse of the military thinking of the time by refighting each battle in the correct tactical manner, using the formations and weapons of the day. The purpose of this book is to discuss these factors and to suggest practical methods of simulation that will produce an accurate, realistic and enjoyable facsimile of the original battle.

- Donald Featherstone in "Featherstone's Complete Wargaming", pg. 9

I'm sure there are several interpretations of this paragraph, but the thing that strikes me first and foremost is that he acknowledges that wargames aren't likely to give one any "profound military insight", but merely "understanding".

I also put the emphasis on facsimile in that last sentence. This doesn't mean that "realism" goes out the window, at least in my book, but that the facsimile of battle can be achieved without laborious levels of simulation. The "process versus outcome" debate. (Sam?)

So long as that facsimile is achieved, I personally don't think the manner in which it is achieved is all that important. This doesn't mean that the detailed approach is wrong. But if the same results can be achieved, I fail to see how one is more "realistic" than the other at this level.

Until the day that Herr Grover blesses us all with his divine revelation of what his definition of "real" wargaming is, we can only guess. But everything he has deigned to elaborate on, including ballistics, effects and movement can be boiled down to a set of results and probabilities. In the end, that "hyper accuracy" gets turned into less-than-hyper accurate probabilities. And these can all be modeled by any number of mechanisms to give a reasonable approximation of the same results. It sounds as if Grover thinks adding is more real that multiplying. I focus more on the result. A 10% probability is the same, regardless of whether I looked it up in a table or worked out the math by hand before rolling the dice.

I don't see anything in Featherstone's book that implies that one must perform all of the calculations by hand to achieve understanding. I only see an emphasis on the player (not the rules) adhering to the correct tactics, formations and weapons of the time. The most "realistic" rules in the world aren't going to give a "realistic" result if the players choose to do otherwise. Rules don't make the game realistic, players do.

Now, contrary to Herr Grover's assumption, I don't feel that complex rules are necessarily bad.I might play them if only I could find the time and an opponent. I don't think we need an Inquisition to ferret out the last of the complex games or gamers. I own a few sets, going back to Tractics, one of my first sets.

So my own definition of "wargame" (with all being "real") paraphrases Mr. Featherstone:

A set of rules and game mechanics that the wargamer may use to gain an understanding of the problems of the commanders in the field and a glimpse of the military thinking of the time through the use of the current best understanding of tactics, formations and weapons of the day.

I am emphasizing that current best understanding because our interpretation of history changes over time, but I don't think that invalidates the 'understanding' that playing an now-debunked interpretation of history that players might gain.

- Bob

I have been trying to decide if You Know Who is a complete ass, or simply committing satire unsuccessfully.
It is a puzzlement.

You're talking about me, aren't you? AREN'T YOU?

- Bob

[I also put the emphasis on facsimile in that last sentence. This doesn't mean that "realism" goes out the window, at least in my book, but that the facsimile of battle can be achieved without laborious levels of simulation. The "process versus outcome" debate. (Sam?)]

Uh, thank you, thank you, and now for one of my favorite little numbers…

[Rules don't make the game realistic, players do.]

Now that's some wisdom.

Ditto bird,
you're better placed than me to decided what is realistic after all you've done it in real life.

Hi Jon,

To be honest, no, I don't think I am better placed than anyone in particular just because of prior military service. I really believe anyone who is familiar enough with the historical period or sci fi milieu is more than qualified to judge how well a game fits their understanding of the reality. While I enjoy both GW's LOTR and 40K when my friends put on a game, as a Tolkien fan, I can relate to the LOTR really well and feel it captures the milieu well. On the other hand, with 40K, I really don't know anything about the background, so while I enjoy playing, I have no idea what I'm playing or if it is a good representation of the 40K background.

AFAIK, Arty Conliffe has no military experience and yet has written a very elegant and deceptively simple wargames rule set on Crossfire. I find this game to provide the most "representative" WWII wargaming experience of any rule set I've played, including anything wretched I've written in the past for my friends and I.

My thesis is that the joy of playing with nicley modeled and painted toys has a hard time going with realism.

I agree that if one wants something to be truly realistic, a computer game approach is probably better, but I also think that if one acknowledges the limitations of using miniatures, one can come up with some games that seem more "representative" than others.

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.

I wasn't offended – I just wanted to respond because you seemed like you had given up on getting a half decent representation of a historical or sci fi/fantasy situation.
--
Tim

Tim,
one can come up with some games that seem more "representative" than others.

Ahh representive I can handle, but I feel that's different from realistic.

I wasn't offended – I just wanted to respond because you seemed like you had given up on getting a half decent representation of a historical or sci fi/fantasy situation.

I suppose I have, I had an epiphany many years ago when I decided that what I liked most about my hobby was the visual side of nice figures and terrain. The holy grail of finding a realistic game dragged me down before that, numerous rules where tried and little fun was had. In the end I gave up on realism in favour of fun and pushing toy soldiers around on a nice looking wargames table.
While I think that wargames can be representive of history I really don't think they can capture war in any realistic way.

Cheers Jon

Ahh representive I can handle, but I feel that's different from realistic.

Yes, I'm more comfortable with using that term than "realistic". It tends to stop those who want to tell you your wargame is not realistic because you're not bleeding out (says the guy whose crosscut saw jumped the other night and just missed his dialysis graft which would have caused me to bleed out!) or smelling rotten bodies, ec.

I feel it's easier to talk about whether or not a game is "representative" – of decisions, of problems, of specific issues, of for of war, etc, etc than "realistic". I generally equate the two terms but I when I really think about it, I think I am in agreement with you.
--
Tim

Anyone who argues that a game is not a real wargame does not know how to read a box.

Idiotic statement. Beyond and argument for the rules the behavior of these s should be the most logical and apparent reason for the worthlessness of the system. Spare me your babbling retorts about generalizations.

And yet all of these attacks against your person would cease if you would do something that you have so far failed to do, which is explain to us what your definition of what a 'real' wargame is. Put up or shut up.

Cmomputer games have been some of the most unreal and ridiculous depiction of war ever produced. Laziness prevents comptuers from being an assist to Wargaming. They can help achive realism. But Eye candy is what sells in PC land. ITs just as untrue to say you cant get from realism from a minitures game as it is that your absoltuely going to get it from a computer. They can help but they rarely help in the format of a PC game. There is illusion of realism cause of the graphics. I am still of the mind that consumers saying they want a wargame but then talk of movies, novels and PC games are realy looking in the wrong place and that is why they are never satisfied.

Irregardless beyond the blather of 500 Fow Fanboy screen names with there behaves and butthead rambling and another stroll don't "realism vs playability" There is still a difference between a wargame and a war themed gamed. IT is apparent most are really looking for the latter. Why some raging hormonal boy is insulted by that is beyond me. I guess hormones are like whiskey in the matter, that trivial and irrelevant things will set a male adjusted boy off to the kind of tirades directed at me about this silly FoW game.

I grown up land. (I thought TMP was part of but the bewhavior of people like Iron mike and pals make me wonder about that). It doesnt matter what you play. But what would be nice is that the people that are not really in the wargame market stop trying up wargame design and products to achieve these PC and movie like war themed games. Lots seem to whine about a new category here, another mystery. But perhaps a separation of that suggested by some flippant Fow Fanatic be done. Let them run this place over with Fow and make a small section for anything even remotely trying to model anything in some ultra complex grognard section or something. The two are incompatible and regardless of what teenage angst is poured out over these silly posts, Not of the same hobby at all.

Rules don't make the game realistic, players do

With mouth made sound effects and firecrackers huh? Given the rantings of the majority of posters here. That statement is like something of bizzaro world.

achieved without laborious levels of simulation.

Some people aren't afraid of division and don't find a chart laborious. The EXTREME exaggerations of the complexity of any wargame are so blown out of proportion by some that its just to silly to take serious. Mcdonalds cash registers have little hamburger pictures cause alot of there employees couldn't do basic math in there head. I cant help but think of that when I hear people call reading a chart or doing elementary school math laborious. If a chart is tedious to a person then he or she si in the wrong place and should be looking for gaming fulfillment from there local computer.

Wow! Still not dawghoused I see?

Wow! Still not dawghoused I see?

Therese plenty of people that should be. But I imagine you wouldn't give a care in the least about any others assine remarks.

I would like to see you send just one post of a length comparable to some of your others, but WITHOUT any ad hominem personal attacks. I truly wonder if you are able to.

Try it. 8 lines minimum.

My money is on him actually being a poorly written script of some sort. He went through the exact same progressive meltdown on the FoW Lite list on Yahoo back in 2005-2006, except then it was written to at least pretend to be interested in the game.

The script seems to get stuck in some loop where it starts interjecting references to PC games. You'll notice the spelling and grammar deteriorate markedly when this happens. I suspect a memory leak.

Since he's kindly stifled several of us, we can "secretly" suggest diagnostics that can be run.

- Bob

And STILL no definition of what is a "real war game".

This thread is inspiring me to start playing Flames of War. Its sounding cooler by the minute! I don't even know, are early war French(themed) an available army yet?

But I'll probably just keep playing my other war-themed games. Anyone up for a round of Little Wars? I've got the spring-loaded cannons all ready! Who needs charts or long-division when you can just knock the miniatures over! Bang! Bang!

Sweet. Thanks to the bug, this thread has been bumped up on the page . . .

Dice … lots of dice …

Oh and just for the record super I'm 35 years old and never played FOW in my life. Also none of my comments have been directed at you (deswpite what your ego may think)becuase

a) I don't now you (for which I'm truly thankful).

b) Having a meaningful conversation with you is about as likely as me having fun playing WGR 6th edition anicients.

c) You've been stifled for being an arse.

Cheers Jon

I WISH I was a pimply pre-pubescent, but at the other side of 50, I'm afraid that's a lost cause.

I've never played FoW, either (though am proud of the fact that it originates in my home country, and I often marvel at the incredible modelling and painting skill that seems to be a FoW staple, where I live, anyway).

A 'war-themed game' (an expression I've never heard till now) is still 'war' + 'game', but I guess what our fellow wargamer seems to be saying is that the added word 'themed' waters down the so-called realism, and so makes the game of a lesser quality.

But I say a wargame is still a wargame, whether you add the word 'themed' to it or not. The word 'themed' only refers (I think) to the level of realism, but adds or subtracts nothing from the definition of a wargame.

++++

I just had a thought, though … by 'real wargame', does our fellow wargamer friend mean a 'real' wargame, or a 'realistic' wargame'?

If he meant the former (ie that 'real' means something like 'genuine' or 'befitting of the definition'), I disagree. FoW is as real (or genuine) a wargame as any other wargame around.

But if he meant the latter, then I would maybe agree that from what I've heard, FoW isn't the most realistic set of WW2 rules around. But to me that is no denigration at all, as I don't see *extreme* realism as a necessity in a wargame.

Just for those who have stifled him, Grover on the FoW thread has said that officer ability is irrelevant to unit performance…..

There is no such thing as a "realistic" wargame. No wargame can account for all the variables and those things that make up the the environment in which war is fought.

EVERY wargame designer has to make decisions on what is "real" based on his interpretation of events, and he has to make decisions (compromises) on what to include in the game at the expense of other factors.

In the end, individual players decide what's "fun" for them to play. And the issue is "fun."

Even if you play the most "realistic" game possible (based on your definition) you do it because it's fun. None of us is going to subject ourselves to playing a wargame for hours, or days, if we don't enjoy it!

Good point, Raylev … no-one takes up wargaming as a hobby because they have to. They take up wargaming because they want to. Therefore, fun is the important decider.

But how that fun is derived differs from person to person. For me it is the visual sight of lots of beautifully painted miniatures on attractive terrain; for someone else it might be the game-play; and for yet another (like our friend Grover) it might be a degree of perceived realism.

But for us all, it is the fun, however it is derived, that keeps us in this wonderful hobby.

If a wargame is "real" because it is accurate then most games are unreal!

Few sets of rules penalise players for not using the tactics of the period

I think it is not just for playability but also the tactics used are not fully understood

Just look at the column v line debate
Or the many periods that whole rule books are based on a few lines in an ancient text!

Even Morale based games tend to base themselves on modern mans experience, but do not acknowledge the stoicism or fanaticism inspired by the belief systems of historical humans.

Supergrover wrote:

Rules don't make the game realistic, players do

With mouth made sound effects and firecrackers huh?

Paging Martin Rapier -- Urgent Message for Martin Rapier --

OK, Martin, you don't tell him that I go "Whoompatah" when my artillery lands, I won't tell him that you go "Brrrm brrm" when you move your panzers.

All the best,

John.

raylev3 wrote:

There is no such thing as a "realistic" wargame. No wargame can account for all the variables and those things that make up the the environment in which war is fought.

If that's what you mean by "realistic", then exactly right.

However, I observe that "realism" is a term that comes from art and theatre, not from mathematics or simulation modelling (as properly understood).

It is the element of performance that goes a long way towards making a wargame convincing to its audience, and hence helps them find it "realistic" -- and this is what gives truth to Bob's observation that it is the players, not the rules, that furnish "realism" (though strictly I'd say it's the interaction between the two).

John Bassett has been fiercely interesting on this topic in recent editions of "The Nugget", by the way.

All the best,

John.

SuperGrover, you base you entire tirade on the idea that games like FOW, 40k, etc. aren't 'wargames' but 'war themed games.' Explain to us what the difference is.

I was going to call him for the same, until I realised that he had already apparently explained the difference in an earlier post:

War Themed and Wargame big difference, period.

So apparently the difference is "big".

Griefbringer

"Supergrover wrote:

Rules don't make the game realistic, players do

With mouth made sound effects and firecrackers huh?

Paging Martin Rapier -- Urgent Message for Martin Rapier --

OK, Martin, you don't tell him that I go "Whoompatah" when my artillery lands, I won't tell him that you go "Brrrm brrm" when you move your panzers.

All the best,

John."

So Martin is a real wargamer then!

John D. Salt freely admits:

OK, Martin, you don't tell him that I go "Whoompatah" when my artillery lands, I won't tell him that you go "Brrrm brrm" when you move your panzers.

You go "Whoompatah"?!?

Oh, come on now. That's highly unrealistic. You should be ashamed. It's more of a "Whoompatah-foom-foom-foom" sort of sound.

Unless it's a 25-Pounder firing HE, then it's more accurately a kind of "Whoom-patta-patta" sound. But only after 1943.

Griefbringer adds:

So apparently the difference is "big".

It's a well-known fact that in debate, you can prove your point beyond a shadow of a doubt by thumping the table, loudly declaring your view, and putting phrases like ", period." at the end of your statement. Nobody can fight that.

The Monstrous Jake wrote:

You go "Whoompatah"?!?

Oh, come on now. That's highly unrealistic. You should be ashamed. It's more of a "Whoompatah-foom-foom-foom" sort of sound.

Unless it's a 25-Pounder firing HE, then it's more accurately a kind of "Whoom-patta-patta" sound. But only after 1943.

I see a great need. Someone should launch a series of overpriced battlefield sound effects, suitably annotated with the kind of absurd detail calculated to appeal to, well, people who like that sort of thing.

Track 37: The authentic sound of 25-pdr HE Streamlined Mk 1D, Ford steel, filled Amatol 60/40, fuze 118 (cap off)
Track 38: As track 37, but cap on.
Track 39: As track 37, but filled 70/30 Amatol.
[…]
Track 41231: The authentic sound of Leeloo saying "Big badaboom".

If we had had this sort of aural Osprey available, I would never have needed to have that discussion with John Armatys about whether you could tell friendly from enemy field artillery fire if (as had unfortunately happened in a game of his I was playing in) both were falling near you at the same time.

We came to the conclusion that British artillery made a comforting, woody sort of crump, whereas German artillery made a nasty, tinny, foreign-sounding bang (based on intensive research of a half-remembered Jonathan Miller monologue from "Beyond the Fringe").

It's a well-known fact that in debate, you can prove your point beyond a shadow of a doubt by thumping the table, loudly declaring your view, and putting phrases like ", period." at the end of your statement. Nobody can fight that.

Oh, I dunno. I suspect you could demonstrate your point with even greater rhetorical force using, say, HE Streamlined Mk 1D, Ford steel, filled Amatol 60/40, fuze 118 (cap off).

All the best,

John.

I have been trying to decide if You Know Who is a complete ass, or simply committing satire unsuccessfully.
It is a puzzlement.

Tut tut John. That's an ad hominem

Probably.

Anyway, I know where the smart money is :)

I can't believe the number of posts. Mr. SuperGrover is obviously ing and so many have taken the bait. He must be ROTFL every evening when he checks this thread.

Just for those who have stifled him, Grover on the FoW thread has said that officer ability is irrelevant to unit performance…..

Damn you, Bangorstu! You made me look!

OK, I have made up my mind. No one who has opened up ONE book on WWII can possibly believe the things he has been writing.
I have therefore decided that he is committing satire unsuccessfully. So, I agree with everything he has written, and then some. Type some more, and I will agree with that too. He may not be a genius, but if I am going to deliberately take stands contrary to the facts and sanity, his is the way to go.
I shall also take more seriously Atlantis, Big Foot, the Prieure de Sion, Velikovskiy, van Daanniken, Mu…

[I see a great need. Someone should launch a series of overpriced battlefield sound effects, suitably annotated with the kind of absurd detail calculated to appeal to, well, people who like that sort of thing.]

Ah, we laugh, but…

A few years ago Bob Jones (the game designer – no the evangelist) developed a system called "Battage," in which game phases and activities were to be tracked by a computer and each had an accompanying soundtrack. He'd gotten as far as the manual stage: the sounds were on his i-Pod. (So you'd say, "I'm shooting," and Bob would push the button, and KA-BLAW!)*

He lost interest, and the project died. I never "got it," myself, but then I was one of those guys who used to turn off most of the sound and video effects of a computer game, so that I could concentrate on the important stuff….

* Here in the States, we don't do "Whoompatah." The very thought is hateful.

having a degree in Military Science, though many years ago, one of the joint classes taught by several departments was on the development of the military 'wargame'.

From the military prespective it was mainly a training tool based on what has been called on TMP, a simulation. Some of the math guys had a point of view that it was more cost and return analysis (rounds vs casulaties inflicted OR actions taken vs losses suffered by the unit. Like everything good there was not was not enough time to enjoy it before the course was over. So much good information.

Currently the waters of wargame design waters are muddied by many homegrown sets of rules and those put out by less than qualified designers. Of course qualifications to design will vary in opinion from wargamer to wargamer. However regardless of your position on the topic, if a designer lacks the ability to conduct proper and extensive playtesting and must also be willing to consider revisions due to good input from the playtesters, then most of their work will not pan out.

I tend to agree with bangorstu. Many of the great wargames are not based on miniature play. Virtually all systems can be converted wither way.

Quoth the OFM:

I shall also take more seriously Atlantis, Big Foot, the Prieure de Sion, Velikovskiy, van Daanniken, Mu…

This from the guy who won the last game of Red Chicken Rising, running the Dweasel fleet no less.

John, next time we're at your house, remind me to explain who the Dweasels are based on. You'll get a chuckle out of that.

This is what you need

link

link

I think I will be entirely happy on keeping on making my ka-BOOM sounds on my own in the future, even at the risk of making all my wargames unreal.

Griefbringer

This would have been a very useful topic if it hadn't been set up in the initial and following posts as a pile on against supergrover. As much fun as that is, mind you!

It would be somewhat related to the poll topic on whether a board game with "sculpted" pieces constitutes a wargame.
--
Tim

Little Wars? I've got the spring-loaded cannons all ready! Who needs charts or long-division when you can just knock the miniatures over! Bang! Bang!

Where do I sign up? I'll bring my Space Orks and my spring-loaded robots from Russia and we'll have a grand ol' time!

Guys, this is one entertaining thread!

Now, I'll get myself some more , while waiting for the action to resume.

Conrad sage
Love those action man sound effects just the thing to play in the background while I play a game a about war that is not a wargame.

Jon

" I won't tell him that you go "Brrrm brrm" when you move your panzers."

Oh dear, outed again. My involuntary sound effects are an endless source of amusement to my gaming friends. Tanks, artillery, machineguns, MLRS, bombers whatever, they all get my 'special' sound effects. I've even gone 'clip clop' sometimes when manouvering horse carts.

So, are sound effects synonymous with 'real' wargames? If it doesn't move you sufficiently to make the noises, maybe it is a failure as a game.

I also wear silly hats from time to time.

I feel shamed. I don't make silly noises.

When I open up with a platoon of T28s on Soviet infantry with no cover I do wince and say things like 'Ouch. That's going to require an aspirin or two….'.

Am I still a proper wargamer?

Guys?

Am I still a proper wargamer?

Well you could be but maybe your just a war inspired gamer rather than a wargamer.

When I open up with a platoon of T28s on Soviet infantry with no cover I do wince and say things like 'Ouch. That's going to require an aspirin or two….'.

I also applaud your attempts to make your opponent enjoy the game more buy shooting up your own troops;)