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

Sorry, should explain, I play Finns…. :)

Not that blue on blue is unknown, where the rules I'm playing allow it….

Bangorstu wrote:

[…] Not that blue on blue is unknown, where the rules I'm playing allow it….

Of course. Any real wargame is going to require the occasional friendly fire, after all. Maybe.

- Bob

I have drunk beer with Don Featherstone on a number of occasions. I feel this qualifies me as a real wargamer.

I have drunk beer with Don Featherstone on a number of occasions. I feel this qualifies me as a real wargamer.

My grandad played bowls with him once and recived a signed copy of hi sikh wars book. Sadly I've never met the great man despite living in the Southampton area all my life. Does this qualify me as a real wargamer once removed? :)

I too have never met Don Featherstone, but I know someone who has. Phil Barker said he quite enjoyed one of my games once, does that count instead?

That depends. Did he make those "vrmm vrmm" noises?

- Bob

Don Featherstone was in the Historicon vendor area and was looking at my Osprey rack. He picked up a WW2 North Africa book and pointed to a tank in it. he stated that he was in it when it was blown up by a mine. He actually sat and talked to me and my staff for about an hour. Very nice stories. No sound effects!

You know, I don't think I'm a real Wargamer! Oh the shame of it. How will I ever show my face down the club again? And I've never even played FoW!

At least I can sell all that unpainted lead sitting in my cupboard now.

You're in good company. Board gamers don't count either. It's a very exclusive community.

Maybe.

- Bob

Aw geez. First they tell me that I'm not a real Star Trek fan because I don't know what room number Ensign Rand walked into in episode 12 of season 3.

Now I find out I'm not a real wargamer either?

Oh, the shame of it all. I'm so depressed I'm going to go write another ruleset.

Phil Barker said he quite enjoyed one of my games once, does that count instead?

Having tried to play some of Mr Barkers attempts at wargames rules. I think it's safe to say Mr Barker probably isn't a real wargamer. On the other hand long winded, soul destroying and practicaly unreadable. His rules are probably everything a real wargame should be…..

- First they tell me that I'm not a real Star Trek fan because I don't know what room number Ensign Rand walked into in episode 12 of season 3. -

Well, dah, obviously, any good Star Trek fan would know that Ensign Rand appears in episode 13, not 12. How do you sleep at night?

I've played Phil Barker at DBM. Quite endearingly he didn't know the rules that well…. :)

A quote from one game (in which I was not involved) had the Great Man saying 'that might be what the rules say, but that's not what they were meant to say!"

At some point in our lives, I think we've all been there…

So can you only be a real wargamer if you have met/played/ got drunk with a real wargames celebrity? If so how do we define wargames celebrities? Do we need another thread entitled 'What is a real wargames celebrity?'

My bits are bigger than your bits

You know you're a wargamer if, when your wife says she wants a divorce, you have to look for your dice to see what your moral is.

Rich

"So can you only be a real wargamer if you have met/played/ got drunk with a real wargames celebrity?"

I thought it was to do with making noises when you push the toys? Or wearing a silly hat.

"you have to look for your dice to see what your moral is."

I like this definition.

I play boardgames too.

[Well, dah, obviously, any good Star Trek fan would know that Ensign Rand appears in episode 13, not 12. How do you sleep at night?]

What a poser! A REAL fan knows that Rand's rank was "Yeoman," not Ensign.

So battleship is a wargame cause it has boats that "shoot" What a bunch of idiocy. Seeing as the "definition of wargaming" debate goes on. Stay with that. Would the card game war be a wargame? Quick somebody call Featherstone. You all know him,hey?

Mind this. I don't give a frenchmens leap who calls me a non wargamer. I dont give a frenchmens leap who doesn't like my game. Now, why do these kids like Iron Mike mike feel the need to have conniptions cause I don't like his silly little game?

Also what in the hell is wrong with a war themed game if you like it?

Boy I sure wish the only problem in my life was somebody not liking the rules I play. Must be nice to be devoid of anything more dramatic like paying bills and working.

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

There's nothing egotistical in understanding this entire thing is about me. Your comments were directed to nobody? Whatever. LMAO

There is no such thing as a "realistic" wargame.

Of course there is. Simply cause some people don't want it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Opinions are one thing. All are entitled. Regardless of people like the OP that want to stifle some. But your statement is an absolute that simply isn't true.

- What a poser! A REAL fan knows that Rand's rank was "Yeoman," not Ensign. -

My, my…we have a REAL Trekkie here. The fact you're actually right is slightly disturbing…

As far as input from other players for revision. that all depends on whether the input is valid and constructive.

He's BBBaaacckk! .

He makes a statement, but refuses to elaborate. Somebody poses it as a general question, and HE'S attacked? Meanwhile, still no definition from on-high.

Stay tuned.

- Bob

IronMike is 35, I'm 43.Neither of us play FOW.But were "kids" and "fanboy fanatics".I'm honestly trying to figure out if this guy is for real or just acting to get some kind of sick entertainment.On another thread about the Waffen SS he tries to compare the atrocities of the SS to the Allied bombing strategy.

Well I am 54 and no I have never played Flames of War nor have I ever carried BF miniatures in my store. Other 15mm WW2 companies yes.

What is a wargqame has definately been lost in the tangents. I have designed published miniature rules and board games since 1981. Many are played and enjoyed by many. Others are not so popular.

Many new young lions (people under 45) may not like many of the old style mechanics that I use. Instead they prefer new concepts many of which can be found in rules from the 1960s and 1970s. That is thier choice and not a point that needs debating. The systems that they prefer will be different from others who prefer a third type.

Guess what? WE ARE ALL WARGAMERS.

Wargamers are highly intelligent (which is one reason that I have enjoyed the people in the hobby for these 26+ years as a convention vendor), capable of making rational decisions and even producing decent house revisions and rules. I have played several games of my rules at conventions accross the country where the local groups used their own house rules. I have always enjoyed the fact that so many gamers were having a good time at conventions regardless of the rules that they were using.

Well throwing out your age. Reasons I brought up age is that maturity of these posts(or lack thereof more specifically) certainly don't coincide with some of the ages. I dont care what your playing. The original thread,(this thread was constricted for mudslinging at me.) was about the impact of a certain system on the industry. I am not convinced by any anecdotes that is a positive influence. The fact some have fun playing is not relevant to that impact.

The idea I was trying to change minds about the game is a construct of those that have come off with such rabid absurdity about my opinions. Nothing I said on any post has come remotely close to trying to change minds from playing the game at all.

Also It wasn't about who's a wargame it was simply the difference between wargame and war themed. That's actually the statement that made these dudes ridiculously spin into berserk mode.

Wait. Now I'm not a wargame either? *sniff*

- Bob

Fitterpete Sez:

IronMike is 35, I'm 43.Neither of us play FOW.But we're "kids" and "fanboy fanatics".

For the record I am not 35, I'm 41. And also for the record I have never played FOW in my life, although I have read the rules.

Supergrover piped up with:

'Also It wasn't about who's a wargame it was simply the difference between wargame and war themed.'

A difference that you have been repeatedly asked to explain, yet for some reason have refused to do. Either give us your definition or shut the hell up.

Its starting to sound like FOW annoymus around here

" Hi I'm Jon, I'm 35 and I've not being playing real wargames for 26 years"

I'd like to add in the interests of complete disclosure that although I have never played FOW in my life, this doesn't mean that I don't WANT to…

To borrow from Terry Pratchet "All wargames are realistic for a given value of 'Real'" Each game try's to model reality in it's own way. What's important for a small skirmish game is not so relevant for a game that represents multiple battalions.

And in the end ALL wargames, no matter how detailed, are approximations based on one persons reading of the data that they have available to them.

"You think your game's more realistic than mine? But you've not taken into account X, Y and Z"

"Yes, but you've not considered A, B and C"

There are some games that more people agree match their reading of how things happen but no game has yet been created that everyone likes, because different people want different things from their game.

And incidentally I think that Battleships could be classed as a wargame if you wanted to, it just happens that it's 'reality' is more abstracted then most.

wow, I'd definitely put that in war themed. I think this never ending quest for a miniatures game that is a PC game causes this sort of thing. Hell I played with no real rules and airfix soldiers in a sand box throw a six die odds and evens the effective equivalent of a coin toss. according to that definition that's a war game?

American Heritage Dictionary.
war game
n.
1. An often physical or electronic simulation of a military operation involving two or more forces and using rules, data, and procedures designed to depict an actual or assumed situation.
2. A simulation of a proposed plan of action or a strategy, intended to test its validity when challenge.

That's my definition. I think that's a definition of the past and that this debate over definition has over analyzed things.

I think your a idiot.BTW Sorry Ironmike I thought he had quoted you earlier on the page.So there is another 35 that has never played FOW but Super says is a liar.

I am a real officer in the US Army, a Ranger and a combat vet. I have participated in Simulations involving real and simulated forces on three continents with forces ranging from platoon through army level. I have filled roles from rifleman thru Battalion Commander, staff planner and exercise coordinator.

We always try to have everything as realistic as possible as we train for real war. You know what….sometimes we might just as well have thrown buckets of dice for how close we get. There is no amount of rules, data or procedures that can truely depict what will actually happen.
That is actually OK one of the main goals is to exercise procedures and cause interaction with other units.

That being said what we do is a Real Wargame, but not always realistic.

What I do for fun is also a real wargame and I know it is not realistic --

I do it because I like to play with good looking (by my standard) toy soldiers.

SuperGrover drops a pearl of wisdom on us when he speaks:

American Heritage Dictionary.
war game
n.
1. An often physical or electronic simulation of a military operation involving two or more forces and using rules, data, and procedures designed to depict an actual or assumed situation.
2. A simulation of a proposed plan of action or a strategy, intended to test its validity when challenge.

That's my definition.

Ahhhh, now we're GETTING somewhere! If you had said this 100+ posts ago this thread wouldn't have turned as ugly as it has.

Of course, in the spirit if intellectual debate, I must challenge your position, and I will do so with the following question: DO any of the three scenarios below qualify as a 'real' wargame by your standards:

1) A scenario set in Poland in 1985 between Warsaw Pact and NATO forces using the 'Cold War Commander' ruleset.

2) A scenario covering one of the battles for St. Lo in WWII, using the Flames of War Rules, but ignoring the point system and instead using authentic TOEs.

3) An Ancients scenario, using DBM rules, featuring a clash between Egyptian and Ethiopian forces.

I look forward to seeing your response.

Herr Grover wrote:

American Heritage Dictionary.
war game
n.
1. An often physical or electronic simulation of a military operation involving two or more forces and using rules, data, and procedures designed to depict an actual or assumed situation.

And FoW doesn't fit which of these criteria? Board games fail this test how? The word "themed" appears where?

2. A simulation of a proposed plan of action or a strategy, intended to test its validity when challenge.

That's my definition.

Perhaps. But it's certainly not what he's been writing!

- Bob

How does the American Heritage Dictionary define the term "war themed game"?

Griefbringer

If the best form of defence is attack, then grover's winning by a mile

I'm 54, and I've never played FoW.

Patience gentlemen, it takes time to set up a good trap…

Mexican Jack Squint said:

I have drunk beer with Don Featherstone on a number of occasions. I feel this qualifies me as a real wargamer.

This, and the follow-ups to it, have led me to devise a scheme of inspired cunning that will settle, once and for all, who is a real wargamer, and who is more real than the next wargamer.

Just as mathematicians have an "Erdos number" and film actors have a "Bacon number", so wargamers should have a "Featherstone number". I'm going to suggest that wargaming is necessary trather than just drinking beer, though.

The scheme will be obvious for people familiar with the idea of an Erdos number, but for those who aren't, it works like this:

Don Featherstone's Featherstone number is zero.

Anyone who has played a wargame with Don Featherstone has a Featherstone number of 1.

Anyone who has played a wargame with someone who has a Featherstone number of 1 has a Feathersone number of 2.

Generally, anyone who has played a wargame with someone who has a Featherstone number of N can claim a Featherstone number of N+1.

I believe that my Featherstone number is 2, but I'm not sure.

Of course, as SuperGrover is without doubt one of the most, aaah, original thinkers that I have encountered, it is possible that he has already devised such a scheme, and that his Featherstone number is 6868.

SPECIAL RULE: Anyone who pronounces it "Feston number" is penalised by the addition of 0.5 to their Featherstone number. This is to ensure that we can have some real wargamers, rather than all integers.

All the best,

John.

MILES is not realistic huh? link

link

Lots of the Armys simulations have decreased due to budget. And the marketing ply that is the PC game "Americas Army" Even at my age actually were forced to resort to paintball in Early Basic training due to budget. Nonetheless having participated in MILES engagements numerous times, They are far from unrealistic. Dunn Kempf was at least equal to the kind of wargames that strive for realism and are so unrealistically called unplayable by most here. Jim Dunnigans strategy page is filled with discussion on militray simulation. Simulators used to train pilots Submariners and Tankers are far from unrealistic. I cant think of anybody who wasn't happy to have that simulator time when we went to combat. I am surprised at negativity towrds military simulation credibilty from a forum supposedly filled with wargamers. It just doesn't scan.

Either way it doesn't change the difference between war themed game and wargame. There is a difference. This nonsense from FoW fanatics continues due to other poster's immaturity, and absurd oversensitivity about a mere statement. Time for these kids to grow a pair, IMHO. I couldn't give a frogs leap whos convinced this war themed FOw is wargame and I could care even less how many of this Iron mikes little chums rant there BS about it. There still all wrong whether it be one of em or million of em.

it wasn't about who's a wargamer it was about what is a war game.

Who exactly said any of those things aren't wargames? I'm only seeing one party here say that a set of wargame rules doesn't qualify.

- Bob

Ho hum…

Presumably any form of SF or Fantasy gaming is only a war 'themed' game then, as it can hardy be described as real.

But then can it even be described as 'war' themed. Maybe we need some new description? How about 'non-specific oppositional conflict related random-factor influenced leisure past time'?

Or maybe we could pay attention to the 'game' part of wargaming and just get on with it.

TTFN!

BTW, while we're being confessional…

My name is Alan, I'm 34, I've also never played FoW, but do play WFB, Epic, and Aeronautica Imperialis.

Apparently, despite thinking I was all these years, I'm not a wargamer, I'm a war 'themed' gamer. I feel at peace with myself now, thanks.

But I do still get spots sometimes…

For the what? 4th time now? Its not about Whos a wargmer the iron mike dude posted about WHAT IS A WAR GAME That difference isn't that hard to grasp. See the subject is at the thread top Ya know the big blue words you clikced to post here. You can read it and everything.

So back to what is a WAR GAME…

Posted a definition. Battleship FoW Axis and Allies Stratego and many others dont fit it. War themed. Easy difference. The rampant oversensitivity and hissy fits its called are the problem of those Like ron mike that pitch these hissy fits not me.

As far as Featherstone. I did not bring him up. Somebody else did with some silly invocation of what that person felt was Featherstone's attitudes. I simply made the remark that was, what it is..stupid. 6868 is cause I couldn't have 6969.

Original thinker huh? SO ranting and name calling like Iron mike started would be more sane, huh? I cant believe this whole forum is that loopy? ? well the hell the matter with you people? I mean I know gamers are little off kilt compered to others but this is insane frothing mob stupidity. Your all on about this what cause e of some bizarre xenophobic hysteria about a newcomer doing the unthinkable speaking his mind. ITs really that normal for people to get this insane cause somebody doesn't like there cheezy little game? again I ask ?

…and, he's gone to the naughty step

It's like BME all over again. Car crash posting

I mean I know gamers are little off kilt[er] compered to others

Amen brother grover