"What is the most Historically Accurate wargame?" Topic

People often proclaim the importance of historical accuracy in their games, but rarely name specific games as examples of what "historical accuracy" means to them.

So here's your chance to nominate your favorite "Most Historically-Accurate Game." You can nominate any number of games, but for each one, you have to provide at least one specific example of why it's so much more accurate than other games.

For example:

I love "Glorious Eagles of Thunder", because its command system requires that you write out your orders in long-hand and they are delivered by a little courier, just like an historical general had to do…

OR

I love "OCD Commander", because it keeps track of ammunition use for every weapon on the table, and has rules for slipping in horse poo.

OR

The most historically accurate is "Flog of War", because it has absolutely accurate ground and unit scale and line of sight, so I can finally use my two-foot-tall tree models.

* * *

You lose points if you use any vague war-game clichés, like: "It rewards period tactics…" or: "it models the decisions a commander would make."

Remember, now's your chance to be specific! So explain exactly HOW these game rules model a firefight in a way that's historically accurate, unlike some other game, and so on. (Exactly what kinds of steps, charts/tables, and dice rolling specifically make it more accurate than some other way?)

Contestants who quote from theoretical works on simulation theory, or who wander off into discussions of ACW drill manuals will be assumed to be confused and/or lost, and will be redirected to one of the other threads.

* * *

Winners will be announced when the thread reaches 100 (not counting the guy who posts 50 times on his own). Each winner will be rewarded with a gift certificate redeemable for either 50 Bob Dylan CDs, or an icepick.

Good luck!

500 posts, easy.

The Mission Rehearsal Exercise I did in Hohenfels, Germany before going to Bosnia in '02 to keep those knuckleheads from killing each other or me.

Best Wargames I ever participated in.

Eric

Hard to top that one, but many will try.

Rick

Eric Turner disqualified in round one for indulging in reality.

We have standards here, sorry!

I would think that the naval wargames are the easiest to "get right" in terms of numbers. So… Command at Sea?

…because…?

(By the way, I played that game for a few years, and my ship models – at game scale – were about three-quarters of a mile long. In order to play most naval games at accurate scale, you'd either need a gymnasium floor, or ships about 1mm long.)

I do think I'd have to say Crossfire.

The section and platoon focus, plus the lack of IGYG seems the best approach I've seen to this level and period.

Chef de Batallion.

Anything that mind-numbingly complicated has to be accurate.

Battleships.

I'd have to say Might & Reason because of the way it handles initiative. Commanders would regularly roll a d6 to see who would go first and apply a modifier to their roll if the other side went first last round. Plus it rewards those who build Prussian armies because it's very difficult to beat them – not impossible, just difficult. :)

Seriously though, I don't judge a rules set by historical accuracy per se but rather if it achieves what it's designed to do. I like M&R because it models characteristics of the armies of the time and the players have to use them to their advantage (or not).

I like the TFL products because their goal is to model friction on the battlefield, which I think they do very well.

I nominate "Fairy Meat"

because even A.C. Doyle said that Fairies are real (and he made up Sherlock Holmes and Brigadier Gerard),
and because you play it in God's own scale (1:1) just like it is Real Life (TM).

Likewise I nominate "Junta", because it produces results just like I see on TV and in Books.

Flames of Liberty, my unpublished AWI game that gives additional morale chits to Continental units that have more patches on their hunting shirts and more stubble on their chins.
Thus, one can automatically discern status by examining the painted figure.

On the Bad Guys side, the closer the British unit looks like the 1768 Warrant, the lower its abilities. Roundabouts give a +2 on everything.
And the motre a Hessian unit looks like a SYW Prussian, the lower its abilities.

I am working on an ACW version too. It is especially realistic because the Union cannot win any battles.
The Napoleonic version is still in development, but so far the French never lose, so it must be realistic.

It uses D4, D6, D8, D10, D12, D20, D37.5 and D100.
There are also at least 5 charts needed to move, 7 charts to shoot, 18 for melee and 23 charts for morale. You can't get any more realistic than that.

I was once almost able to persuade a wargamer who came over for a Sudan game that the plate of beef stew I handed him was 'foundered camel'.

Alas, common sense kicked in, and Historical Accuracy was out the door.

Oh, units with red facings go faster.

The pre-20th Century wargame where most of the casualties are caused by disease.

I once played a realistic wargame called The First Gulf War. It was a bitch to play since it was basically 1/1 scale and gathering, prepping and painting all the figures took a lot of effort by a lot of folks in our club. The rules were pretty harsh for losing, too.

Despite the designer notes, which talked about how balanced it was going in, the game was horribly misbalanced, so our side easily won. I'm glad I picked the right side. The opposing side looked pretty peeved to have lost after all that work on his figures.

Overall, though, I'd have to say it was VERY realistic. The most realistic wargame I've ever seen.

My micron-scale 100 Days Campaign at 1:1 *

link

Ground and figure scale match perfectly;
Luck is important;
Each horse is rated for speed, endurance, and jumping;
All 276 charts fit on one side of a business card.

* Electron MicroScope not included.

G63 (Gettysburg 1863)

web.295.ca/danabbott/g63.html

The combat results table allows for all outcomes, and a "historic" result is a real possibility.

I am generally fairly relaxed about historical verity and play the most dreadfully abstract games if they have even just one iota of 'reality' in them.

A few examples.

i) 'Little Wars' by HG Wells. Yes, it is played with big toy soldiers and matchstick firing cannon. Firing actual projectiles is a far better simulation of enfilade fire, beaten zones, the use of cover and target density than all the templates and dice throwing in the world.

ii) Assemble a hundred of your pals, dress up in military uniforms, arm them with projectile firing weapons (BBs, paintball, frangible powder, lasers or whatever). Organise them into sections, platoons and companies under the command of serving or ex military officers and NCOs and then spend a weekend fighting over a military training ground. Ideally it will be freezing cold and pour with rain.

Takes some setting up, but is highly worth it for 'realism' on all sorts of levels. If forced to pick just one, the commanders problem of finding out both where the enemy are, but more important, where their own troops are and what they are doing and ensuring that their orders are both recieved and actually carried out.

Been there, done that.

iii) The 1956 British Army Tactical Wargame. This is a professional military wargame. Realism aspects? One of the few operational games I have come across which managed to recreate through simple mechanisms observed behaviour in actual operations – a reluctance to move in daylight in contact with the enemy, strategic movement taking place at night and a preference for attacks at dawn and dusk.

iv)Crossfire. While some/many aspects are highly abstract, the initiative driven activation system really does mean that you have to deploy in depth, worry about your flanks and just occasionally suffer from the 'oh crap' moment when a bunch of bad guys appear behind you.

v) Spearhead. Because you write orders on a map with arrows and goose-eggs (and unit boundaries and phase lines if you wish), just like real operations maps. Rewards the use of reserves and forward planning.

vi) Squad Leader. Because it captures the dilemma of bunching up vs dispersion and makes ALL small arms fire area fire.

vii) Operation Brevity. Because firepower is a function of target density as well as firer density (with a non linear relationship). This allows a cunning defender to build defensive positions which are literally impregnable to frontal attack.

viii) Quantified Judgement Model (Dupuy). Becase advance rates and casualty rates are a function of modified combat power ratios. Casualties are a function of combat outcomes, not the determinant.

ix) WRG 1925-50 and 50-80. Shoot then/or move. Brilliant mechanism captures the advantage of the defence in modern warfare. There is a reason many military tactical wargames are based on WRG.

IABSM – card activation reflects battlefield chaos very well.

Combat Commander – Same thing.

GCACW (great campaigns of the American Civil War) – activation rolls, assaults can go wrong, grand assaults doubly so.

Washington's War – Lose every battle and win the war.

None of these are overly complex games, complexity is not needed for historical accuracy, the most complex game I know is NOT historically accurate for it's complexity level (that would be ASL). What is needed is a focus on what you want to portray and making sure you have the correct abstraction level to not over emphasize it.

Yay, I knew I'd think of ten.

x) Strategos/Lost Battles. Because the armies operate in great big chunks, tactical commanders primarily do resource management within their wings and the battle is frequently won or lost in the inital deployment. Written by a professional miitary historian who appears to know what he is talking about.

With enough alcohol,any game will seem reasonable…

Roshambo. The game presented in Southpark rather than Jean-Baptiste Donatien de Vimeur, comte de Rochambeau. Danger. Potential loss of life. Stupidity. Retaliation. Raw aggression.

The ones you make up yourself.

I nominate battleship because it has the most realistic game mechanic for detailing fog of war I have ever seen. It also does a really good job of modelling the incompetence of most commanders.

Checkers (draughts).
-Kle.

40k obviously…..

I would say "Birds of Prey"

link

You don't need to be an engineer to play, but it helps…..

I would say "Birds of Prey"

link

You don't need to be an engineer to play, but it helps…..

I didn't even understand the game description, and I am an engineer…

What's the game called where the players set the figures up on the table, and then try to bash each other's brains out with baseball bats? That always felt very realistic to me.

I'm going to nominate my game on the Battle of Hampton Roads. One player takes the USS Monitor, one takes the CSS Virginia, and both players can shout "Boom!" at each other as loud as they like for half an hour, at the end of which the game is declared a draw.

This is more realistic than any of the other games suggested, because it produces the historical result every time, regardless of stupid play, outrageous dice rolls, cats walking over the playing area or players leaving half-way through to go to the pub.

All the best,

John.

Bodycount – linking observation ability to moving slowly or not moving at all; dealt with the hidden enemy by making it an umpired game; treating small arms as area effect weapons (usually); has all the right bits and pieces (gunships, punji pits, different troop ratings) for the chrome.

Regards

I'm going to nominate my game on the Battle of Hampton Roads. One player takes the USS Monitor, one takes the CSS Virginia, and both players can shout "Boom!" at each other as loud as they like for half an hour, at the end of which the game is declared a draw.

This is more realistic than any of the other games suggested, because it produces the historical result every time, regardless of stupid play, outrageous dice rolls, cats walking over the playing area or players leaving half-way through to go to the pub.

All the best,

John.

John, as it goes, Yaquinto's "Ironclads" game produced, outrageously lucky dice aside, a similar result.

I vote Yaquinto Games "Ironclads"

> This is more realistic than any of the other games suggested,

Each player SHOULD have his head in a church bell, players proceed to pound the other's church bell with a hammer. I can't remember, but if you can get a couple of rivets in the bells it might be even better. Also – shouldn't one of them have a pencil they can try to jab the other with?

Well, I've just been informed by the Sweepstakes Coordinator that somebody made off with the fifty Bob Dylan CDs, so all that's left is the icepick.

The boardgame "Campaign for North Africa" which left you with counters of broke down equipment strewn all over the map that your maintenance units had to police up and fix so it could break down again. Just one of the many rules that made the game "realistic".

My vote is for NUCLEAR WAR by Flying Buffalo. I think it is the most historically accurate because the game frequently ends with everybody dead and no winner.

It has great period "flavor" by capturing the essence of cold war tensions. It does this by making it impossible to trust anyone and, furthermore, rewards period strategies such as covert operations, the first strike, limited nuclear war, and final retaliation.

The basic strategy is to "win" the cold war through covert means, if possible. It is virtually impossible to do this. Consequently, war becomes inevitable. The big decision is WHEN to launch a nuclear strike. Do you wait and hope to win by "peaceful" means first or try to get the drop on your enemies by launching a pre-emptive strike? This is historically accurate because it models the decisions a REAL cold war commander would make.

The game mechanism of placing two cards down commits one to a course of action, so pre-planning is a must! Once the first missile or bomber is launched with a warhead there is no turning back, no "fail-safe" mechanism as it were. Although we don't have any full scale nuclear wars to judge it against, this game mechanic must be realistic because that's how it is in all the Hollywood movies!

Another game feature that further shows the genius of the game is the use of the spinner for random attack resolution over a traditional die-rolling mechanic. The whirling spinner mesmerizes players as they await the outcome of the attack and serves to build tension in a way that a die roll cannot. Also, the use of a spinner tricks players into feeling that they are IN CONTROL and that they can actually influence the results of their attack, and thus the outcome of the war, but in REALITY a mere millimeter difference can spell the difference between a dud warhead and a "successful" attack or possibly even the END OF THE WORLD!

Doesn't get more realistic than that, eh? Besides, I could really use an ice pick!

Rock, Paper, Scissors?

Hmmm. I would think that as the wargame designers are the ones making the claims to 'historical accuracy', they should be the ones fighting over those Bob Dylan CDs.

However, I chose Grande Armee and here is an example that the designer gives, even though he says that 'Fun' was his design priority:

Page 38 of the rules:

Why are the Contact Rules So Restrictive?
Wargamers traditionally try to 'gang up' several attacking units against one defender, but this rarely happened in battles… The attacker simply can't bring any more forces to bear than 2-1 odds if the defender's flank or rear is completely exposed. In other words, if the defender is doing what he is supposed to be doing, and deploying his units with supported flanks, then all combats will be grueling 1:1 slugfests. That may not be as much fun as the way other games let you do it, but that's the way it was in the Napoleonic Wars.

This designer sacrificed the fun for 'the way it was', which I think is a pretty specific claim to historical accuracy. And obviously he claims that his game mechanics are more the way it was than 'other games'.

If this is the winning entry, send all those CDs to the designer. It's his claim, not mine.

Bill H.

No, wait. If the criteria is You can nominate any number of games, but for each one, you have to provide at least one specific example of why it's so much more accurate than other games, then I have another nominee based on designer claims:

Piquet

The designer says in the Piquet Website designer's Notes:

My first goal with Piquet was to allow a more fluid and realistic treatment of time in the battlefield environment. In most Wargames to date, time is fragmented into finite and equal units called turns. Within those turns each army has an equal opportunity to use time by moving, firing, or maneuvering. Not only do wargame generals have a helicopter view, and omniscient knowledge of the enemy, but complete control of time and unit movement! The grandest fantasy of them all may be this equal apportioning of time with a highly structured sequence of events. No surprises here, eh?

But not one, but two claims of more accuracy than other games:

Another goal with Piquet was to reduce the unrealistic "sure things" that Wargames have previously provided. I wanted to take away the wargamer's "Na-Na" blanket. By allowing time to flow in a free (and unequal) fashion one can allow for the gutsy surprise maneuver, the gallant attack, and the overly hesitant advance. Planning is even more strongly rewarded than in typical Wargames.

He also says in the Designer's Notes in the second edition of Piquet page 76:

In these notes I hope I can mke it clear to critics and fans alike what I was attempting to do with PIQUET: Why I believe it provides a new and refreshing approach to gaming, and why it is both a game and a simulation of various means of warfare through the ages.

First, let me state what I dislike about most present wargames, and what PIQUET was written to adjust or change. In current wagames, all players have total knowledge as to wthe forces arrayed, their combat values and exact movement capabilities, and these 'gnereals' are guaranteed an immediate, unvarying, and predictable, response by their troops. They are in total control.

This NEVER happened on any battlefield throughout history! It happens every week on wargame tables from New York to San Jose!

I beleive rules that function this way can only be games. Any 'simulation' with pretensions to realism must address each of the following topics before any historical citations have a role in the design other than curiosities:

Here the designer gives SIX specific reasons why his game is more historically accurate and a 'realistic simulation' than other 'games':

Fog of war, an imperfect utilization fo time, asymmetrical events, unpredictable future events, Unique events, Avoidance of attritional and protracted combat.

So, where is another designer stating his design is historically accurate in specific ways, and more accurate than other wargames.

Who will win? Inquiring minds want to know….

Bill H.

I must apologize to all the reasonably intelligent folks reading this thread.

I forgot that 95% of what designers say is hype, delusion and fudge, particularly when it relates to 'historical accuracy', simulations, and portraying 'the way it was'.

However, if the 5% left of my two nominees' claims still count [whatever that might be], please consider them for the contest, even if an icepick is the only prize.

Bill H.

Historical accuracy is a matter of knowledge and personal preference. It can either be seemlessly integrated with the game mechanics producing a playable and hopefully entertaining game or it can be so oppressive as to overwhelm the game producing something akin to a snail.

To each his own, but those rules which attempt to simulate everything, in their complexity, most often wind up simulating nothing. Some, however, enjoy this type of game, many others do not.

Bob Coggins

Historical accuracy is a matter of knowledge and personal preference.

No, it isn't. The type of wine you like is a matter of knowledge and personal preference.

Accuracy, if the word is to have any meaning at all requires

1. A target [the particular history to be represented

2. A means of hitting the target [the game mechanics used to represent that history.

3. A means of measuring/confirming that the target was actually hit…

It can be a personal preference in choosing WHAT target is selected to be hit, but any accuracy in hitting it is not a matter of personal preference…not if the word 'accuracy' is to have any concrete meaning other than 'I like'…

Bill H.

Bill H.,

Perhaps I can clarify. It has noting to do with the theoretical accuracy of any one rule or of the rules as a whole and everything to do with the individual's perception of the accuracy of a set of rules. And therein lies the problem, for the determination of historically accurate is a highly personal judgement. So many rules which you may find laughable in their "inaccuracy" are in the perception of others accurate.

Thus, all gamers bring their knowledge of an era combined with their personal prejudices to all rules. Some have read 3 books on the era and some 3000. So what is historically accurate to one gamer is not necessarily historically accurate to another.

Bob Coggins

"…to do with the individual's perception of the accuracy of a set of rules."

A subjective evaluation/rating like that only has value for the individual – it means nothing as soon as another person enters the picture and wishes to learn something concerning the game in regard to its historical accuracy (concerning a specific, facet/subject).

"…the determination of historically accurate is a highly personal judgement."

If defined/confined to each individual's subjective abilities, yes – but then (as Bill pointed out) the term 'accuracy' has no value in public discussion/communication.

Dunno, if I had to choose between them, I consider the "3-step target" definition to be -if not "better"- more useful than the "everyone gets to decide their own truth" version.

@Sam,

What is your own nomination?

And also, which of your own games would you nominate?

Regards

@Whirlwind

I believe that historical accuracy in wargaming is totally subjective, so I don't have any nominees. Games really come down to just a few possible mechanics: little figures, bits of terrain, some chance-creating device like dice or cards, and some sort of sequence of play with charts or tables. That's all we have to work with. In order to believe in accuracy in games, you've got to be able to make an argument that X-Method of arranging figures, dice, and charts, is the "right" way, and Y-Method is not. That's something you'll rarely hear people admit. They love to talk about the importance of historical accuracy in games, but when it comes down to the nitty-gritty and they have to explain exactly which game mechanics are accurate and which ones aren't… then they tend to get rather quiet or evasive.

As for me, I design games that are inspired by history, and to a certain degree "about" history. But my process of design is guided first and foremost by creating a good, fun game that meets my design parameters for time, space, cost, simplicity, etc.

History is something I do for a living. It has a very different set of procedures and totally different goals. Accuracy is pretty important, in the sense that if I mis-translate some old document, or mistake one person for another, or get a date wrong, then there are consequences.

The games I like are more like historical novels or movies: they're set in a period, and reference that period, but they're not an attempt to get to some sort of indisputable scholarly bottom-line on that period. You can have hundreds of people think that a particular game process isn't very "historical," but if it's still fun and challenging, they'll be happy. Meanwhile, if you have 1000 customers for your game, you'll have 1000 different ideas of what "historical accuracy" is and should be, in game terms. There are too many variables to ever create a game mechanism that everybody would recognize as "accurate." [Refer back to the question about what specific game mechanisms are historically accurate, and why. Good luck ever getting somebody to tackle that one in any sort of definitive, documentable way.]

"Historical accuracy" is generally not a very strong selling point from a marketing perspective, since most gamers are so accustomed to hearing it, and everybody goes through the motions and includes that boilerplate as part of their hype for their game, the way that all politicians are going to give our government back to the people, and all cars are reliable and perform well…. Most gamers are smart enough to filter the hype, and practical enough to know that what matters is a game that is fun and within the reach of their time, space, and money limitations. Those are the things that are worth focusing on, in my opinion.

From a purely marketing perspective, also, it makes little sense to try to use "historical accuracy" as a selling point.

Or does it seem "the way it was" or "feel" or any other qualification of what a game does visa vie history.

That's all we have to work with. In order to believe in accuracy in games, you've got to be able to make an argument that X-Method of arranging figures, dice, and charts, is the "right" way, and Y-Method is not.

Absolute nonsense. There can be many 'right ways' to do it as long as the military history is known so one can tell whether it actually is the way it was.

That's something you'll rarely hear people admit. They love to talk about the importance of historical accuracy in games, but when it comes down to the nitty-gritty and they have to explain exactly which game mechanics are accurate and which ones aren't… then they tend to get rather quiet or evasive.

More nonsense. I and others have provided specific examples and means for doing just that several times on the TMP. Do you want an example of how it's done…nitty gritty…again?

There is no rule that says you have to have historical accuracy, but if you claim to have represented 'the way it is', you are under an obligation to establish what historical evidence led you to that conclusion--if that is a selling point of the design.

It is done all the time in very nitty-gritty fashion by thousands of simulation game designers. A problem in our hobby is that if a designer attempted to actually establish 'historical accuracy', it would mean the success of their design in that respect would be obvious to all. And many don't, as you point out, know how to do it, though it isn't all that complicated.

Many wargame designers follow Rune's Rule. If you don't tell them where you are, they can't tell if you're lost.

So, "historical accuracy in wargaming is totally subjective", which translated means it has no meaning other than personal opinion--there is no 'accuracy' involved. Whether Hasenuer's Fire and Fury or Grande Armee.

From a purely marketing perspective, also, it makes little sense to try to use "historical accuracy" as a selling point. I realize that everybody goes through the motions and includes that boilerplate as part of their hype for their game, the way that all politicians are going to give our government back to the people, and all cars are reliable and perform well…. Most gamers are smart enough to filter the hype, and practical enough to know that what matters is a game that is fun and within the reach of their time, space, and money limitations.

Which begs the questions: IF 'most gamers' are smart enough to filter the hype and practical to know what matters, why do game designers continue to dish out the junk promotions about simulations and 'the way it was' hype and not simply deal with what is important in their descriptions of their games? No one is forcing them to do it…unless it is the market demanding such hype?

Is all that hype [see nominee examples above] in my previous posts just for those stupid gamers, or are those designers unaware that they are shelling out promotional junk that most gamers filter anyway?

From a purely marketing perspective, sellers don't bother telling customers things about their products they don't hear or believe, and customers don't care [or pay attention to] products that do things they don't want, believe and filter out anyway.

So what would a 'smart game creator' be telling customers about their game?

As I pointed out, lots of hobby efforts have meaningful 'historical accuracy' as part of their products and services, in stark contrast to the wargame hobby.

Bill H.