"Wargaming Representing History" Topic

Writing in Slingshot magazine (published by the Society of Ancients), Richard Taylor remarks that:

…wargames do a fair but not great job of representing history, and could do better…

On a scale of 0 (no interest) to 10 (I demand it now!), how interested are you in seeing game designers do a better job of representing history with their rule systems?

8

2

10

Bill, I think your scale supposes that the author of the article is correct. As has been argued before (numerous times) some rules do a better job of representing history than others. But there is also the question of is that what we want? Would it slow the game down too much to represent history completely accurately? And that brings the other point that typically we play games – few of us play -or are interested in – simulations, which attempt to model history better, but typically delve deeper into detail (Air War vs. pick a modern air combat miniatures game). OK, now that I've opened that can of worms, I would say about a 7 if it didn't take all night to play half a turn (Empire anyone?).

10. I want a fast, simple set of rules that illuminates the period. OK, that and world peace, an end to hunger, Scarlet Johansen's number, etc. etc.

But really, I like a game that teaches me something about the period. One board game that did an excellent teaching job for me was "A Mighty Fortress". It was so slow-playing it got dubbed "A Mighty Tortoise". I have very fond memeories of a game that we couldn't finish in the two times we managed to get 6 players together, because it made the period clear.

Yes I like a fun game. I also like a game that lights up my mind. Perhaps they can't be the same game. But I can hope.

I would say 8.
I do want a game that gives me a good feel of the period and tactics, etc.
But I want a game that can be played in an evening or day.
Good Gaming;
Joep

6

9. Simply because I'm not as demanding as vtsaogames, fast, simple rules? Yes. Scarlet Johnansen's number? Not really ;)

Cheers

Derek

"Representing history"? What does that mean? If it means "recreating the actual battles exactly as they happened," well, that's not a game; it's a scripted diorama. And if that's a "10" count me down for something much closer to 1.

If, on the other hand, it means "gives a feel for how the various troops maneuvered and responded to each other, the battlefield and battle events," hopefully a rules set will do a fair job of that. But that is also a very subjective standard for a game, as (particularly for pre-20th century periods) we can't truly claim to know exactly how warfare might progress— I would even suggest that the more finely a rules system tries to define the elements, the more likely the system is to fail to capture history at all.

For me, I want the feel, I want the flavor, but I also want the fun. Whatever number that is, I can't tell from the question.

I've never had a particular fondness for lice, trenchfoot or quite frankly, shellshock. I don't need my ears or other orifices to leak blood. Having done enough road marches in 100F plus heat, have no interest in anyone shooting me at the end of it. Never had to drink dirty parasite infested water or go hungry for days on end or eat maggot infested hard tack. Never been shot at by anyone, let alone a sniper. Despite having the training for this, have not had to tourniquet a thigh by a blasted off leg under fire.
I like 1 for an answer. I have no interest in simulating history on a personal level, I like games with toys on my free time. And, from experience, one would have to simulate mind numbing boredness for hours on end to truly be representative – wait, some rules do that really well.

8 but everyone will still have an opinion as to how well it succeeds

"Representing history"? What does that mean? If it means "recreating the actual battles exactly as they happened," well, that's not a game; it's a scripted diorama. And if that's a "10" count me down for something much closer to 1.

That is the real problem with the question. It isn't clear what it means in any practical design terms. So I would vote 10 simply because designers could do a much better job explaining how their games are 'historically accurate' Fire and Fury, 'representations of real battle' Black Powder or 'simulations' Piquet, AOE, Crossfire, Shako, LaSalle,Johnny Reb 'Providing the challenges faced by the real commanders' FOW, Volley & Bayonet, General de Brigade etc. etc. etc.

If, on the other hand, it means "gives a feel for how the various troops maneuvered and responded to each other, the battlefield and battle events,…"

How do you design for 'feel' unless it 'feels' like military history, which leads right back to the question of what it means to "represent history" with wargame rules…

And how would we know if they 'did it better?'
More feelings?

I've never had a particular fondness for lice, trenchfoot or quite frankly, shellshock…

So far, I have never heard of any wargame attempting to 'represent' that. I think was a question of represent history better not more or something different than what has always been the focus of all hobby wargames.

Bill H.

Well, in defense, the question was 'representing history' not commander's decision making, nor statistical results on the tabletop mirroring actual outcomes. So I stick to my 'everyman's' personal perspective of history as an unpalatable goal for any set of rules. And I do believe with the cries of 'realism' in gaming that is exactly what 'history'in this context represents and exactly what I wish to avoid. But I do see your point.

1. I think most rules do a decent enough job of representing history already, at least as much as it is possible to do so, and still have a fun game.

For a wargame to represent history better, it should be able to convey:

a) Fear. Not necessarily to death or maiming, but to failure, to political and social rejection, to suffer casualties, to the displeasure of your King/Queen/Dictator, ecc. You got the idea.

b) Ignorance. Both the ignorance resulting from lack of information on the dispositions and intentions of the enemy, as the one derived of the commander's own lack of skills (the last can be, and it's, simulated by the gamer's own failures, of course)

c) Social and cultural biases. These are very difficult to represent. It is not that we know what happened what put history away from our games, but also that the past is interpreted through our modern eyes. For us is really difficult, for example, to grasp the effect on their morale that had for, say, Alexander's Macedonians to find themselves fighting in what for them was the ends of the World. Or to understand that beyond linear warfare existed a cultural bias, besides the rationale of maximizing firepower.

I was planning for five points, but after three I realize that trying to insert history and realism in wargames is even a more hopeless proposition than I supposed at the beginning. Therefore my answer would be that I do not care for realism. I feel comfortable with those sets that managed to fit into my expectations and prejudices about how a battle should "feel". If they managed to do that, I will be perfectly happy.

0 – for me it's a game not a recreation.

10 would be nice but as I wrote don't know if I'm willing to wade through a 20,000 page rule book. So 5 will do

2

I concur with basileus66's point that we inevitably interpret history from our modern perspective, so our wargames will do the same. But then, why wouldn't we want them to reflect the current interpretations? Surely it is that which will determine whether or not a wargame seems realistic?

Of course, one could, if one wished, devise rules to recreate alternative interpretations of history, such as Napier or Oman's view of Peninsular War infantry combat, rather than Paddy Griffith's.

Arthur, the classic example of that is Pony Wars which unashamedly simulates Hollywood's west, not the real one.

I am a firm believer in AHGCs old maxim of wargaming 'bringing history to life'.

So 10 for me, however 'representing history' is so vague it could mean anything to anyone.

Someone once said (years ago): "The beste rules are those that represent one's own prejudices about the period on the table".
My own point of view is that one who does understand the period only needs the QRS. So whether or not the rulebook has 20.000 pages is not important. (;-))

I don't know why 'representing history' equates to rivet-counting. Detailed bottom-up rules can sometimes produce clunky games with little overall relation to the events being portrayed.

DBA can illuminate some periods, though it falls down on others. A game that helps explain why people fought as they did need not be Empire or Chef de Battalion.

9.

I wrote Brink of Battle: Skirmish Gaming through the Ages as a game, not a simulation.

Brucka brings up some great points about realism and historical accuracy.

That being said, I set out to put the onus of historical nit picking on the players. I was not about to insert myself as the arbiter in a historical accuracy argument. Nor did I want one guy buying my rules because he thinks I 'nailed it' on accuracy, while another guy doesn't buy it because he disagrees with my 'accuracy'. I gave them enough granularity to decide for themselves how accurate they want to be.

I agree though, that there does seem to be a real drift from history on the part of many players from younger generations. The day I walked into a game store and saw a kid playing FOW with his Slaanesh pink tiger tanks confirmed that for me….

10.

So 10 for me, however 'representing history' is so vague it could mean anything to anyone.

Quite right. It can mean anything to anyone. But the issue isn't what anyone thinks. The question is what the designers mean by it. They are the ones:

1. Picking the history to represent
2. Determining how the game system represents that history, and
3. Deciding whether the design has done it 'successfully.'

So you and I can believe anything we want to about the meaning, it's the Designers' meaning that is important here. They are the ones designing the wargame to 'represent history.' That means they are the ones deciding what it means, if only for their design.

Any vagueness about the meaning is directly attributable to the vague content of designers' explanations…that is when they actually attempt to explain how they are 'representing history,' which is rare.

So it begs the question. If they never explain how or where they are 'representing history', how in the hell can you tell if they did it better, let alone did it at all?

It's Rune's Rule: If you don't tell anyone your destination, then no one can say you're lost.

OR the hobby version: If the designer doesn't tell anyone how or where he "represented history" in his design, then no one can tell whether he did it well, better or not at all.

So only thing ANY discussion can express is someone's 'feelings' about the issue, someone's personal opinion about someone else's design.

And this thread is a good example of that 'expression of opinion,' with a multitude of meanings or questions of meaning in answering the thread question. A quite reasonable response when dealing with the explanation vaccuum provided by game designers.

Bill H.

Great post Bill. In Brink of Battle I explain the how's and why's of the historical periods I am representing. And I did that because you are correct, it is a rare thing.

When my website goes live March 19th, people will be able to read my designer's notes to understand where I'm coming from.

"On a scale of 0 (no interest) to 10 (I demand it now!), how interested are you in seeing game designers do a better job of representing history with their rule systems?"

This is a rather pejorative assumption! Better compared to what?

And which author?

And how do you define representing history? Grande Armee and Empire both represent history, but not in the same way, and personal opinion might vary as to which of them represents it best.

Nope, Not playing on that one. Define your terms of reference if you want me to comment!

A game should represent history as well as it can without ceasing to be fun.

I get to decide what constitutes fun; and it's a moving target.

Lentulus:

Yeah, 'Fun' is a moving target, and everyone has a difference sense of what that is in our hobby… which is just fine with me.

Some love the history and its dynamic representation on the table, some just want the challenge of facing some of the same tactical puzzles as the original commanders, and some could care less and just like playing with toy soldiers.

Of course, others do tournaments almost exclusively, while others love painting and researching armies and rarely play.

Wouldn't it be boring if there was only one definition of 'Fun' or how it could be met with our wargames? More power to each of those preferences… and there are more.

The representation of history is a far different issue. All we know of history is the evidence left from the past. That can be interpreted, but the historical evidence exists outside of anyone's opinion. So, representing history HAS TO include that evidence. That is something quite different from simply expressing an opinion or having a favorite game mechanic….

Bill H.

Bill H. I appreciate the rational and incisive responses; however,your argument is possibly too clearly laid out and presented for me to fully comprehend, hence I must respond with a dismissive 'be that as it may…'.
Though I would point out that the original premise is actually simply one person's opinion about how well rules authors represent history, not a studied or empirical survey of any particular rule set the author is actually referencing – 'where does this opinion stem?' would be my first reaction -after, of course, I thought about it for a bit – which I certainly did not.

Brucka wrote:

the original premise is actually simply one person's opinion about how well rules authors represent history, not a studied or empirical survey of any particular rule set the author is actually referencing

Brucka:
:-7 The original question was

"How interested are you in seeing game designers do a better job of representing history with their rule systems?"

And of course, the problems with answering the question are no one seems to know or agree on:

1. how the wargames 'represent history'?
2. What constitutes a 'better job'? and
3. And if you can't answer the first two questions with any general agreement, how could you possibly answer the orginal one?

All that is left is individual 'opinions.'

– 'where does this opinion stem?' would be my first reaction -after, of course, I thought about it for a bit – which I certainly did not.

I would imagine it would stem from the folks:
1. Most involved in the wargame designs: the designers
2. The ones who are most willing to think about it for a bit
The designers.
3. The ones who first made the claim that wargames do represent history, the designers.

Bill H.

Isn't it the players who decide whether it's done successfully or not?

Ditto: If I can use an analogy: IF it is a matter of whether you like a particular car or not, it is the buyer's decision and personal preferences. If it is a matter of the designer claiming his vehicle can go zero to sixty in sixty seconds, no, it isn't each buyer's decision. The same is true of liking the 'feel of the game' and it actually 'representing history' in some manner.

Anyway, in my view, this is all thinking too much. Play the game and if it gives you a flavour of history that satisfies what you know of military operations of the period and level (what the stands/models represent) then that's fine.

It is thinking too much if you are simply looking to play a game you enjoy and are content to talk in vague game design terms like 'flavors' and 'satisfaction'.

However, it isn't thinking too much if you are actually considering how to design a wargame that represents actual historical evidence and portrays something of the military operations of the period in a meaningful manner.

Why on earth should anyone care about what the designer talks about? It is interesting to understand where the designer is coming from, but if your rules don't meet your expectations, either: 1) try another; 2) write your own; or 3) write house rules to a set that comes close.

? He's telling you what his design does and how…hopefully… so if you are thinking of designing wargames, you might care.

And though it may have escaped your notice, this board is about game design… how to design wargames, not how to comb the market for one you like to play. And obviously, you don't care about whatever the designer is saying,so it won't help you do that…

Different issues. Designing wargames to do what they are design to do and buying one you like.

Except, when you start writing house rules, you are trying to design a wargame in some fashion, so how to effectively do that might be of interest.

<shrug> It seems pretty easy to me and that this topic is a classic case, again in my opinion, of over thinking an issue. If my friends were going into such detail, I'd just say shut up and play, ie, do the above 3 part exercise.

It is a classic case of something.

Again, the above is just my opinion, but I see in non-wargaming life people dropping the ball and wallowing in nothingness because they want to stop and think too much about an issue (aka working in a publicly funded university) when they could be moving ahead and saying, OK, we'll try "this".

Of course it is just your opinion. What else is there if you don't want to over-think it too much? And I am all for the experimental method of trying something else to find something 'better', but that only works for a wargame designer if the process is more than someone's personal opinion about it. Wargame design involves concrete game mechanics and procedures in play, not flavors and feelings.

Bill H.