"Exploring History in the Wargame" Topic

'Using the Wargame to Explore History' saw me presenting the Battle of Naseby at the Alfred East Gallery last week.

The presentation was well received and would go some way to demonstrating why I believe wargames have a role in helping people understand and enjoy history and military heritage.

A point I've occasionally argued on TMP :)

There's a report on my ECW blog
link
Although the game was moved through significant phases as a demonstration, rather than actually played, the non-wargamers attending the talk seemed usefully intrigued by the techniques wargames use to break the battles up into phases and to incorporate the uncertainties of battle.

It also got them talking and asking questions about the battle, Northamptonshire in the Civil War and the commanders (both famous and less famous) …

It's always good to show our stuff to the public (and as well as the wargames shows, Naseby now adds an art gallery to the English Heritage tent and the MK Shopping Centre in its battle honours!)

Phil Steele
ecwbattles.wordpress.com
naseby.com

Well said that man!

I know many serious students of military history who use wargaming as a means of furthering their understanding of events, both map kriegsspiel games and tabletop figure games. Despite what the "It's only a game" Nazis may try to tell us.

Keep up the good work.

Richard

While in college I tried to use my interest in wargaming to help explain the reasons why certain events occurred. Twenty plus years latter it is interesting to see business using similar studies to figure out why.

Not recently, but in the past I've used miniatures with a high school audience to ilustrate military concepts and try to dispell some myths like "American riflemen behind trees won the Revoltion." If was extremely effective in my biased opinion but became too much work for the returns.

I used to run an ECW game with my year 6 pupils: each was a regimental commander and had to choose orders from a list of roughly contemporary commands before each turn, with very simple movement, firing and combat rules administered by me.

I still remember one Horse commander who confused Left and Right Wheel and so charge off the table, and a Colonel of Foot who ordered his rear rank musketeers to fire, forgetting he had sent the front rank forward – shades of the LTB at Basing House…

Good fun, and the children certainly learned how difficult it was to coordinate different units and pull off flanking manoeuvres.

You are talking about the exact methodology Philip Sabin uses to break up and understand Ancient Battles.

Good to see Naseby getting Battle Honours, perhaps a Kings Colour needs to be made with them added (I know thats a slightly later thing but…)

Great stuff for a great cause. How does everybody feel about the current trends in the hobby on this issue? I often feel that the "its only a game guys" are winning.

I dont believe there is a side really, as I enjoy both aspects. Sometimes I love the recreation of a battle to see "what went wrong/right" and other times I just like playing a game with my friends and tossing back some cold adult beverages :-)

They may seem to have the upper hand at the moment but I don't think they are winning as such. Provided we don't ever reach a stage where there is only one set of recognised rules (e.g. like chess)per period, there will always be scope for wargamers with different priorities (game or simulation or history) to get what they want out of a game and coexist. I know this because I ignore competition gamers and they ignore me.

I dont believe there is a side really, as I enjoy both aspects.

I enjoy both types of game as well.

But there's a substantial group of people, who are very vocal here on TMP, who seem to believe that "it can only ever be a game" and that a game with toy soldiers cannot be representative of history in any way.

They are of course quite wrong.

And annoying.

Ah, lighten up.

It's only a game

Thanks for the good thoughts …

I particularly liked Richard's comment re 'it's only a game' – I'd never have dared put it so succinctly :)

However, I wouldn't want to come over too precious about this. In the work I have been doing with the Society of Ancients I have set up and participated in a number of tournaments (actually I think the extra stress game mechanisms get subjected to by the relentless rigour of competition can expose strengths and weaknesses that game and scenario designers can learn from).

I have found on TMP, however, that it can be quite hard work for anyone to sustain an intelligent approach to historically 'useful' games. See a recent discussion in which we were told quite curtly that it is either a massive pseudo-scientific professional simulation or 'just a game' … and we were 'naive and arrogant' if we thought otherwise.

Frankly, the general public can prove that wrong any day of the week, I think. Shrewdly pitched games that mix historical content with playability can be very instructive but at the same time sufficiently inspiring that people will stay with them.

'It's only a game' is a retreat from the debate, not a compelling argument (as much as it is self-evident it is devoid of useful content) …

Oops! There I go again!

Phil
ecwbattles.wordpress.com

A nod for Connard Sage …

You posted your comment while I was doing the same.

My summary re 'it's only a game' was in response to earlier thoughts, not a faliure to spot your smiley!

Phil

theres a LOT of room for both really. I love 'old school' working on 30mm Spencers for 'all the kings men' rules (double unit size) the game is wonderful, it is what it is. But I am also working on WSS with a kit busted 'hearts of tin' and soon will follow with 'Grande Armee' 1807 Russians and French. jeeeez, I have a lot of dude'z to paint.

I agree that there is alot of room for both, and fantasy/sci-fi gaming proves it. But if "historicals" players completely give up on historicity, how can we call it historicals?

As a wargamer I aspire to the TooFatLardies motto of 'play the period, not the rules'. There is nothing worse to me than Napoleonic rules that could easily be SYW or ACW by their feel. When I am being Napoleon I want the rules to feel right for that period with its intricacies.

I have taught classes from middle school to adults in a Civil War Round Table (ACW) using miniatures, always with rave reviews. I would LOVE a chance like that.

The games we play are based on history, and therefore there is history to be learned in them. The key, as with "serious history", is to get the RIGHT lesson.

One of my favorite things to watch gamers do is play an operational Great War Western Front game. They tend to go through the same thought processes as commanders at the time, certain that there MUST be a way to break through.

Fredd-
Indeed. One of the problems with BP until more "period supplements" are released.

I think you tend to get out of games what you put into them: a scenario chucked together over a coffee break can sometimes show its pedigree unless the designer really knows his stuff.

Same time, when someone has taken a lot of trouble over the details and has adapted the given rules to suit a particular battle or event, the effort is usually well worth it.

Phil
ecwbattles.wordpress.com

The 'its only a game' crowd seem to forget that the rule writers wrote them to represent something that wasnt just a game.

If someone said, After I set up a wargame that it was
'only a game'…they wouldnt be playing. I would throw them a box of monopoly for solo play in the corner if thats their entry level.

It is very true that what you put in is what you get out…and that includes the quality of the game rules representation of the combat.

Good rules, representative terrain and representative forces can be 'thrown together' without too much thought because the rules help make the game.

poor rules, lack of terrain and non reperesentative forces (whether by using poor rules or ahistorical match ups) take wholesale butchery for scenario design to give anything close to sensible gameplay.

Its a tad galling to hear pompous defence of the latter by dismissing the former. It also comes across as just pure lazyness

There needs to be a game in there somewhere, though, otherwise what's the point of turning up?

The simulation crowd are fairly self-defeating, if indeed there is a conflict at all. Anyone who claims that their scenario/ruleset/AAR reflects the historical circumstances will be shouted down, tarred and then feathered. Most likely on this website, by other simulation types. Amongst all this button-counting, it's often forgotten that there's supposed to be the possiblity of fun.

Personally, I think that there will always have to be a compromise between historical accuracy and providing a game. That compromise needn't spoil an otherwise delightful waste of time. After all, if I didn't care about the feel of the period, I wouldn't bother to paint the models.

Incidentally, Phil, your blog is great and exactly the sort of thing that helps people to learn. I will be looking at it further, for sure.

Leigh

Teh only thing that a wargame can tell us about history is how the designers' prejudices affect how you move your toys around.
Arguments about rules boil down to "My prejudices are better than your prejudices!"

But there's a substantial group of people, who are very vocal here on TMP, who seem to believe that "it can only ever be a game" and that a game with toy soldiers cannot be representative of history in any way.

They are of course quite wrong.

And annoying.

Pot. Kettle.

Monopoly…Corner …Now!

> Teh only thing that a wargame can tell us about history is how the designers' prejudices affect how you move your toys around.

Depends on the game, the designer, how (if) you adapt the mechanisms, and on your relationship with the other players. Sounds like you haven't fared particularly well on any of those counts.

> Arguments about rules boil down to "My prejudices are better than your prejudices!"

Only if you are incapable of applying rational argument to the case, John. However, historical games seldom come down to arguments about rules in my experience.

Thankfully more people than the TMP thread bullies believe are able to interact intelligently and constructively with game content (if the content is there).

Phil
ecwbattles.wordpress.com
PS … thanks Leigh for the kind words about my blog …

Depends on the game, the designer, how (if) you adapt the mechanisms, and on your relationship with the other players. Sounds like you haven't fared particularly well on any of those counts.

Why are so willing to condemn real book-writing historians for their prejudices, but unwilling to admit that a GAME has prejudices?

Just as one example, Flames of War gets torn to ribbons because of the "lack" of an overwatch rule. I say that it's there, but it shows up only with a familiarity with the rules. For example, , Germans failing the Stormtrooper move, and getting shot in the flank. Defensive fire in assaults.
The designers of FoW have a PREJUDICE that it is not that important.
Another famous WW2 game at the same scale brag that they DO have an overwatch rule. That is their prejudice.

Empire is famous for "+2 for being French". That is their prejudice.
All I am saying is that we can learn from a published set of wargaming rules only if we acknowledge what these prejudices are.
Psychoanalyzing the history of my gaming never having met me is just another example of prejudice.
I am convinced that my gaming history has been quite pleasant, but I guess I must be in denial.

Now, now … such exaggeration is quite unbecoming.

Phil

John-
So that's it? Since there are inevitable gray areas, imperfection, differing opinions and, of course, we're not actually in trenches shooting real weapons at each other, we should just regard all historical gaming as what, an excercise in futility?
So if wargaming tells us nothing about history, why did the Prussians invent it, and why do modern armies still use it?
Maybe we should just go back to unpainted army men and dirt clods. Or stick to chess.

John-
My last post done before your last post was posted. Nevertheless, given your long historical gaming experience, I thought you might have felt you got more "historical insight" out of your games. But like you just said, I don't know you.

Inspiring work – well done! I'm very glad to see a wargame used for educational purposes.

I remember I had a High School history teacher who used wargames to illustrate lessons. He used a (very modified) version of Avalon Hill's Diplomacy to teach about WWI, both the lead-up to the war and the Versailles treaty, and a modified version of the old Avalon Hill "Gettysburg" to teach about the battle. It made a big impression on me, and I ended up going to grad school for history myself.

So if wargaming tells us nothing about history, why did the Prussians invent it, and why do modern armies still use it?

The last time I looked in my German-English dictionary, "spiel", as in "kriegspiel", translated as "game".
It did not tranlsate as "heightened sense of educational reality".

Perhaps my German-English dictionary is defective?

BTW, the teasers about Sam Mustafa's "Maurice" sound intriguing.
It unabashedly allows you to insert your own prejudices. I like that. In fact, "paying" for your prejudices seems to be just what the doctor ordered. We can never agree on them, so why not pay the points for them? If you want "+2 for being French", then put up or shut up. Don't just claim them as if by divine right.

John-
Semantics. We all know why the Prussians and modern militaries play(ed) such games. They could've called it Kriegwurst, but the purpose is what counts.

"War Sausage"? I keep thinking of Pepperami…

YouTube link

Leigh

The last time I looked in my German-English dictionary, "spiel", as in "kriegspiel", translated as "game".
It did not tranlsate as "heightened sense of educational reality".

Perhaps my German-English dictionary is defective?"

….Does it translate kreig as 'irrelevant'?

I think that what we have seen here is precisely the issue that Phil (Yestahtphil) and I are kicking against. Let me elucidate.

John (the OFM) says to me, (and I theoretically quote) "Richard, I want to play a game that is just that; a game. It's historical content is minimal as it merely represents the prejudices of the rule writers." I say, "Good on you, old chap, I really hope you enjoy it". And I mean that sincerely. Folks.

I say to a chap, be that John (the OFM) or another who has decided to adopt the stance of an "It's only a game" Nazi, that I am looking to play a game that I hope will allow me to gain some historical perspective about a particular engagement. What does he say to me? He tells me that I am a complete blooming idiot for attempting any such thing as it can't work. It's "just a game".

Let us dwell for a moment on the two different responses.

Still dwelling?

Okay, you've had enough time. Have you decided who is being unfair?

There IS enough space for both camps to exist, and it is entirely possible to produce rules that provide an historically plausible outcome, based on real ground scales, based on real time scales, based on real historical accounts. But WHY when I attempt that do the "It's ony a game" Nazis strut their Nuremburg-like stuff when I say I want something different to them? Not less fun, just more historical.

Come on you GAME fascists, tell me why I can't have a WARgame that doesn't conform to your specified paramaters?

Or am I right? Is there room for both of us, but you just don't like it?

Aye Lardie, there's the rub.

Me, I find my "fun" (such as it is) in a Wargame that panders to my sense of history, that compliments the time and effort put into the figs, AFVs and terrain, and hopefully provides some insight into what went on years ago.
The sense of "play" being partially about putting oneself in the shoes of a commander of "X" time period. Does it always happen? No. And yes, a balance must be struck between playablility and simulation. Fact simply is that I view historicals as a journey. Otherwise, its kind of like saying you like mountain climbing except for the, well, climbing part.

Pan Marek

Indeed. It seems we both accept that there is no straight line with "playability" or "FUN" at one end and "History" at the other. Yet the "Only a Game" Nazis are not happy for us to believe that. We MUST comply with their belief that Fun is fun and History is history and never the twain shall meet.

I can assure them that I have spent the last ten years writing rules for a living and I use fun game mechanisms to represent historically plausible outcomes.

"I use fun game mechanisms to represent historically plausible outcomes."

Ah. but that isnt possible….you cannot do that. Game mechanisms make it 'only a game' and you must be "niave and arrogant" to think otherwise.

Of course the 'only a game' nazi can use this almost exact statement to defend rules having whacky outcomes.
"It uses fun game mechanisms and it gives reasonably historical outcomes."

If for example, you had included a "zombie dinosaur appears to attack the nearest enemy infantryman" card in your ww2 rules, all you would have tweaked in it is the "fun"….you havent made it less historical….and if you then took it out, you would only be expressing your prejudices on dinosaurs in ww2….nothing to do with historical outcomes don't cha know!

I like to play games. I also recognize the inherent limitations of games as representations of history, and adjust my expectations accordingly. If they have a passing resemblance to real events, that's a nice bonus.

If that gets me labeled as a "nazi," so be it, but I really don't appreciate that term.

For your homework tonight: Read Chapters 3 and 4 of Featherstone's "Advanced Wargaming". Only kidding, of course, but reading his works and those of Morchauser and Grant, and you come away with their dedication to wargaming because it wasn't "just a game", but a stab at reliving history. How naive that seems now. If all we want to do is game, why use miniatures? Why all the "correct colors" questions? Why not parcheezi? Or dominoes?

Because the resemblance to history is an enjoyable aspect of the game.

That said, I'd prefer not to "relive history." I'm a combat veteran, and I've been shot at enough for the time being. ;)

I am also a vet, but not of vietmnam, or WWII, or anything earlier. So I play those rules. I would like to find a set for the war that was not fought in central europe that I would have been a part of.

But I am not interested in refighting 73 easting. Once was enough for me. But I dont begrudge those that want to.

My big problem lies in all the time I spent training soldiers with game like materieals, and in more than a few cases straight out gaming, only now to be told those things where of no value, and we learned nothing real.

I have a job, and dont need my hobby to become another one. Yet, facing the decisions that a real commander did, and trying to get them right is fun. What is not fun for me was sitting weith my marders in ambush position, and watching a Priest battery move into the open and blast me, without any chance to respond. guess my guys where all in thier tiny little cots that day. That must have happened a lot because I always hear that is a better mechanic than some cluncky old overwatch thing that slows down game play and isnt as fun and besides why should the defender get first shot anyway?

I dontr care what others do in thier games. I just get annoyed when they tell me I am wasting my time.

owen

All I ask of a game is that it does not insult my prejudices of how it "really would happen".

We all have our own ideas of what normal movement rates should be, how much damage musketry and artillery should do, how a unit hould react to that, etc.
It's not rocket surgery. I am perfectly willing to let D6 resolve it.

I have sen everything from green plastic army men to some really good models used.They all work, some better than others.

One of the things I did that went over very well involved official Amy miniatures. The US Army owns metal and rubber models of US ans USSR vehicles, as I recall in 1/32nd scale. Really well done, probably cost a fortune.

I took them and my troops out to a big field that I had pre-measured and set them up at different ranges to give the guys an idea of just how hard vehicle recognition is out in the field.At a scalee 1000 meters most of the things the manuel lists as recognition features are not really visible. A set of binos helped, but didnt solve all the problems.

The Army has a full time simulation center here on Ft Lewis, ran surprise by a bunch of retired officers and NCOs almost all of whom are also wargamers. And much of what they put into the system came from what they have learned from the wargames they have played over the years. i dont think they are going to like to find out that what they do is pointless and worthles as it is only a game..

Owen

The US Army owns metal and rubber models of US ans USSR vehicles, as I recall in 1/32nd scale.

Back in the Stone Ages (the 1990s) the USMC used to have a wargame called "Tacwar." It was played on big, modular tables with 1:285 scale minis. It was played pretty regularly; my first exposure was in Tank School, and I got to play several times after that.

It was fun, and a very useful training tool. When I myself became an Instructor I used it regular to teach some basic tank tactics to new-guys.

But like any game, it had limitations – and those are worth remembering when we start to take our wargames too seriously.

So John, your prejudice of WW2 is that the 2 forces would meet at a preplanned location using an arbitrary points list to come up with equal sized forces and then fight with each side taking its turn without the other interfearing?

I like games, but I also wargame to learn, with good rules for a period you learn why a thing was done a certain way.

A couple of years ago I ran a thought experiment (where you postulate a question and discuss answers, Physicists in the Quantum Field used to use them a lot as a tool of understanding. Schroedingers Cat is a thought experiment) on why the battle of the Somme in 1916 opened up as it did.

I gave them a list of all the factors (most real, some spurious to keep anyone with some knowledge of it honest) that faced the planners, and then worked through the answer they as a group gave. Then contrasted it with the intentions of the real planners. Strangely enough they come up with pretty much the same solutions that were used in real life…

It certainly opened a few eyes from the propaganda school of WW1 History and I gained 3 new Wargamers out of it…

Very interesting discussion.

Although think the most interesting thing that I've learned is the OFM has a real talent for ignoring a rather large amount of evidence that is contrary to is opinion and a almost amazing ability to overlook post that take apart his posts.

It would be a great pity if discussion of Phil's research and presentation of Naseby became another of the Game versus Simulation debates that are appearing on TMP these days… At this rate, Harry Hill will be umpiring a Game versus Simulation Fight on his television show! And that might be the best place for it…

I think historical rules/wargames are not unlike historical novels, in that they are fundamentally imaginative attempts to enable the readers/players to enjoy an historically-themed entertainment. Some are the product of much research and thought; others less so. Some have more sense of period than others, recreating the attitudes and speech patterns of the period – Patrick O.Brian's Jack Aubrey novels are good examples; some simply focus on action – Sven Hassel?; the characters are either stereotypes or modern people in fancy dress. A very few – Flashman springs to mind – combine an original take on the genre with real depth of historical background and period atmosphere.

In one sense, they are all 'only works of fiction'; but there is a wide range of quality.

Similarly, all recreational, face to face, toy soldier wargames are 'only a game' because of their 'open' structure – unlike the Prussian kriegsspiel, whose 'closed', umpire-controlled structure led von Muffling to comment: 'This is not a game; it is a training for war.' – but some are better portrayals of their chosen period of history than others, and some are better (in the sense of more playable) games than others.

Interpretations of history change, either because new evidence is discovered, or because existing evidence is reinterpreted. When I started wargaming, books such as Jac Weller's Wellington at Waterloo stressed the importance of firepower in the resolution of Napoleonic infantry combat, and this was reflected in wargame rules. More recently, Paddy Griffith's Forward Into Battle has emphasised morale and the delivery of a controlled bayonet charge, and one might expect to see this in today's rules.

Wargame rules will surely tend to influenced by the historical orthodoxy or currently fashionable interpretation of the time. It would be an interesting exercise to devise separate sets rules to portray different historical interpretations/theories, such as von Clausewitz, William Napier, Charles Oman/Jac Weller and Paddy Griffith, and then compare the results when refighting the same scenario. Perhaps this ccould be an entertaining way to present contrasting historical interpretations to students?

I think wargames can be a great way of arousing interest in, and helping people understand history – provided they are carefully designed for that purpose; I once purchased a Spanish Armada game from an educational publisher, only to discover that the English 'won' by sinking Spanish ships, not by preventing them anchoring off Flanders to rendezvous with Parma's army and driving them up the Channel so they would have to sail around Scotland to return. Many hobby wargames, however, are primarily intended to provide an enjoyable toy soldier game for those who are already familiar with the history – nothing wrong with that, it's in the tradition of HG Wells, whose Little Wars made no claim to recreate historical warfare.

Excellent post, Arthur!

Arthur

I don't think we can be accused of hi-jacking the thread; Phil weighed in with some style as well.

My point was that we seem to always get to the point where the accepted myth, namely that wargames with any historical basis are somehow less fun than those without, is accepted without argument. This is patent rubbish.

John the OFM is right when he says that any game will be a reflection of the designer's opinions. I am at a loss to know why that is a bad thing. Surely this will allow the gamer to choose which interpretation of history he feels most comfortable with and find a set of rules that conform to that?

Clearly I agree with you about the general premise that some games are closed whilst others are open. However I would suggest that this is not totally black and white. I believe that one can find points in between where you combine aspects of both; where commanders in a tabletop game are still not provided with all of the information that they would ideally like to have. If we are to achieve this then the game can serve as a legitimate model of historical reality that we can use to gain some appreciation of reality.

Does that need to be presented as a dry simulation? No. I cannot over emphasise how it is entirely possible to simulate aspects of warfare whilst using mechanisms that are fun and enjoyable. History and fun are not, and should not be, mutually exclusive.

Richard