"Miniature Wargaming - Why does it bring you enjoyment?" Topic

-- sigh --

I deleted my post because I realised after I had posted it, that it would only fuel the absurd debate on calling Military Miniatures toy soldiers or not. It doesn't really matter what you call them just as you enjoy playing with them. Life's too short. Have fun everyone.

Maybe there was an absurd debate on calling toy soldiers "military miniatures" ;).

And to throw some gasoline on already blazing fire:

Definition of TOY

1 : obsolete a : flirtatious or seductive behavior b : pastime; also : a sportive or amusing act : antic
2a : something (as a preoccupation) that is paltry or trifling b : a literary or musical trifle or diversion c : trinket, bauble
3: something for a child to play with
4: something diminutive; especially : a diminutive animal (as of a small breed or variety)
5: something that can be toyed with

Dear List

OK, let's work with the dictionary definition.

Definition of TOY

1 : obsolete a : flirtatious or seductive behavior b : pastime; also : a sportive or amusing act : antic .

Don't think it's flirtatious? Get a good looking girl and any number of guys in the game. I also, yeas ago, was able to seduce a rather good looking woman with a game.

As for a "pasttime", a "sportive or amusing act"-- yup, yup, yup.

2a : something (as a preoccupation) that is paltry or trifling b : a literary or musical trifle or diversion c : trinket, bauble

"paltry or trifling?" Yup Yup Yup, no lives hang in the balance- no nations are at stake, great principles and truths are not arbitrated, proved or disproved, it is a trifle, a diversion.

3: something for a child to play with.

Yup yup yup. I'm 63 going on 22 and hoping to get to 17 in a few years. Playing Wargames and with my toy soldiers gives me more than childlike joy in a rotten miserable world whith absolutely awful people in it. In the souless, life-sucking, spirit destroying world of today, anything child-like is good.

4: something diminutive; especially : a diminutive animal (as of a small breed or variety)

Well they are small little soldiers.

5: something that can be toyed with

Yup.

Long ago I realized I was not a great military commander. Long ago I realized I couldn't have lead a corporals guard across a ditch. I play wargames for the color, the enjoyment, the fun, and the absurdity of it. I also realized that I don't particularly care to beat my friends brains out in a game. It's much more fun laughing and joking and having fun with them.

Got thousands of Surens and Staddens, Ral Partha and all the rest, military miniatures perhaps, but they are toys.

"I also realized that I don't particularly care to beat my friends brains out in a game. It's much more fun laughing and joking and having fun with them."

Oh no. Few things equal the look on your opponent's face when his squads are halfway thru paddling in their little rubber dinghies when suddenly they realize that the 2nd floor windows are being flung open to their immediate front ….

Unless one is one of these oddballs who insist they are conducting military simulations…

Do you mean folks like Bill Gray, Bob Jones, John Hill, Arty Conliffe, Dave Brown, etc. etc. etc.? Or are they even odder for claiming their designs allow folks to conduct military simulations?

Bill H.
-------------------------
surely you can only simulate military (i.e. combat) operations if you wear the same clothes for a week, sleep under the gaming table, use the garden for your sanitary needs and keep your eye on your opponent all the time in case he tries to brain you with the coal shovel. Its like re-enactment – all very well for simulating an exercise or the life of a peacetime army, but since you know you will be going at the end of the day with all body parts intact (well maybe the odd tooth missing) its not simulating war but simulating a drill parade

Actually thats rather like my comment above (though I used the word silly billy) re the WI Waterloo article of last year where the author was claiming that he was scientifically researching/simulating military history

Actually for anyone who wants to simulate military ops perhaps, on top of those little lights that WL do for replicating musket fire, someone could do a CD of men screaming for their mothers, begging for mercy and all the other sounds of the battlefield!

Go to your rooms children and play with whatever takes your fancy.

Yes, I agree. I don't play with toy soldiers, I play war GAMES. Two entirely different things. Throw in the actual study of military history to inform the GAME and the differences are clearly one of kind, rather than degree. In my limited 5 years or so of pursuing historical miniatures war gaming I've seen that it can be a vehicle which seriously pushes the envelope of military history and individual understanding in way unlike anything I've seen before… which I guess is a major part of the enjoyment :)

Now now. Toys aren't just for children.

Children's toys are for children. Models are toys for grown ups.

Warhammer figures and perry miniatures are the same. If you paint them and leave them in a cabinet for admiring …. Then they aren't toys. Then they are not toys. If you PLAY with them then they are toys.

Figures, terrain, rules – all just a means to an end to pit one mind against another.

What I dislike is the white washing of history where the SS isn't quite so bad as they actually were and creating a firestorm over Tokyo is just a victory condition rather than the immolation of innocents. Apart from Nazi fetishism, I have nothing against portraying violent conflict on the table – just do it honestly.

And that is what I love about miniature war gaming – the ability to explore subjects and circumstances that are too horrific to look at in real life.

"If you paint them and leave them in a cabinet for admiring …. Then they aren't toys. Then they are not toys. If you PLAY with them then they are toys."

So, Edwulf, what you're saying is, it really depends on how we the war gamers treat our little guys. In that case, I've got historical miniatures sometimes also known as PLAYING pieces, but not toys.

To me, toy soldiers are either:
- those cheap soft plastic toys specifically designed for kids, usually manufactured in bulk in China; or
- those hellishly expensive pewter soldiers painted in glossy colours and aimed at the collectors' market, and certainly never to go anywhere near a gaming-table; or
- those large 1:12 (usually) scale dolls dressed in real cloth uniforms and carrying plastic weaponry. [Edit: actually, I'm umming and ahhing about that last one – are they actually "miniature figures" or "military dolls" – I'm not sure, now I come to think of it!]

And to me military miniatures are:
- those amazingly realistic and exquisitely painted metal, resin or plastic figures, usually 54mm or larger, that are specifically static display pieces, usually either singly, small groups or in dioramas.

So, what to call my wee guys then?

Well, if I'm not calling them 'my wee guys', I go for model soldiers. Not that I'm particularly fussed if someone does prefer to call them 'toy soldiers' or 'military miniatures' – it is just that the name 'model soldiers' is what naturally trips off my tongue, as it seems to with my mates.

But so far as I'm concerned, really, just call them what you want … they don't mind!

"those large 1:12 (usually) scale dolls dressed in real cloth uniforms and carrying plastic weaponry. [Edit: actually, I'm umming and ahhing about that last one – are they actually "miniature figures" or "military dolls" – I'm not sure, now I come to think of it!]"

- Dolls for boys:).

My final word is that toys don't require research and rule sets and I've yet to see a toy being sold with them. The same goes with Chess pieces which I see as Chess pieces not toys.

That does not, of course, mean that children can't play with Military Miniatures, should any adult wargamer be mad enough to let them do so, or Chess pieces – or adults play with toys, should they wish to do so. But give a child a Military Miniature or Chess Piece and then try to find it afterwards or rather, what might be left of it.

IMPORTANT NOTE: In terms of health and safety I'm not suggesting anyone give a child a metal Military Miniature – phew! But another good reason why they should not be termed as toys, in my opinion. But each to their own and we shouldn't be fighting with each other – there are enough hostile non-wargamers out there already!

wow all this for `playing a war games` with miniatures. I think the debate was lost when people take this sssooooo seriously it ceases to be fun to do. So why is it you spend money buying, (its big business now) so many figures, terrain etc if reading some comments it dose not bring you some enjoyment?

Collecting model solders dose not stop you enjoying `a life` outside this hobby.
Also when people call it nerdy names like intellectual & aesthetic we are all lost. Because if you are ashamed to say
I PLAY WITH MODEL SOLDIERS & hide them away you aren`t Man enough to play with model soldiers.
I see all the time how carefully people detail their models so why do we do that?

Intellectual and aesthetic are nerdy? Posting that in a discussion about wargaming (a nerdy pursuit) is hilarious:)).

As for not being Man enough to play with model soldiers, I will mention that to the young lady who plays at our club.

I guess that your post might have been ironic but…….

@Arteis,

Yes, that is more or less the difference as far as the British Model Soldier Society is concerned, which welcomes people who collect model and toy soldiers in any scale or period.

I haven't played with toy soldiers since I bought a copy of Featherstone's 'War Games – Battles and Manoeuvres with Model Soldiers' in 1962.

As for you children, any more of this and it is a spanking and bed without supper. Go to your rooms, and don't forget to put your toys away.

HammerHead

I think the term aesthetic, in my opinion anyway, relates to the artistic side of wargaming, more than anything else. And I don't see anything wrong with admitting that the miniatures look good, if not beautiful (artistic wise) considering all the work wargamers put into researching and painting them up.

Wargamers could, in a sense, be considered as artists, since they are creating an artistic image or active diorama at the end of the day. And who could not praise those who paint the larger scale miniatures for their painting and aesthetic skills?

Most wargamers are MAN enough to say they PLAY with Military Miniatures, others are MAN enough to say they PLAY with toy soldiers or models. Both are MAN enough to say that they PLAY. We get enough abuse from non-wargamers for PLAYING, so lets all enjoy playing and to hell with those who do not.

I'll second that.

OK so lighten up an don`t go down the road marked serous w/gamers only I travelled 450 miles (11th March) w/end & had a great time just for a war game. I also met some very generous people who put me up for a couple of nights.
Don`t call what we do intellectual just re enforces the sterotype image. GAZZOLA good for you. Its only a hobby!!!

LOL. This thread has a Scripture verse for it. Acts 19:32.

link

;-)

God bless,
John

I am not convinced that calling it "intellectual" reinforces a stereotype.

The original comment was to make the point that there can be an intellectual beauty in a well written and well designed game system, that being something with which I would be in complete agreement.

Intellectual beauty in a games system does not equate to it being for serious wargamers only; some of the most intellectually beautiful systems are elegantly simple and provide for a fun game.

I made a list of all your names. None of you will be invited to my house to play miniatures wargames. I want to have fun

Hammerhead

I have never mentioned intellectual in my posts.

It might just be a hobby to you but it might be a lifetime's passion to others, or passionate hobby, whatever you want to call it.

A tale for ya:
I saw some kids playing with toy soldiers. One of them had a cannon. I said the enemy are in canister range – they said – what's canister? The parents overhead us and said, it's some kind of gas, isn't it? I educated them to what it was but had they been wargamers playing with Military Miniatures, they might have known what canister was. But they were only playing with Toy Soldiers and the parents had only ever played with Toy Soldiers.

Gazzola, I fear that you are totally missing the point, either on purpose or through an inability to grasp it.

If they had been playing with finely painted "military miniatures" (as you choose to call them), would that have automatically informed them as to the nature of canister? If it would have, I would love to know how!

The key point is that they were people (both adults and children) who had little or no understanding of black powder era military technology; a wargamer with a knowledge of such would have been aware of canister, regardless of viewing his or her little men as toys or whatever else.

By the way, I understand how you achieved your remarkable stifle ratio;).

My final word is that toys don't require research and rule sets and I've yet to see a toy being sold with them.

You'ld be surprised to see how much research does go into toy soldiers, such as those produced by Imperial Productions ( link ). Maybe not so much research into the battles etc, but certainly into the uniform details.

And here is that fount of all knowledge, Wikipedia!

A toy soldier is a miniature figurine that represents a soldier. The term applies to depictions of uniformed military personnel from all eras, and includes knights, cowboys, pirates, and other subjects that involve combat-related themes. Toy soldiers vary from simple playthings to highly realistic and detailed models. The latter are of more recent development and are sometimes called model figures to distinguish them from traditional toy soldiers. Larger scale toys such as dolls and action figures may come in military uniforms, but they are not generally considered toy soldiers.

colinjallen

I think it is you who has missed the point completely. They were children playing with Toy Soldiers. The parents had been children playing with Toy Soldiers. They didn't do research, read history, check out uniforms, paint and base up their armies, use rules – they PLAYED WITH TOYS – GET IT?

As you say in your own post, they had little or no knowledge of black powder era and military technology. Why is that – because they were not wargamers. They played with TOYS! They did not need that knowledge. Get it now? I'm really surprised you did not get the what I was saying – then again….

Stifle ratio? Oh yeah, you mean the people who are not used to those who disagree with them and can't stand losing debates. It's a learning process for some of them, and possibly yourself.

Gazzola,

You really are quite funny in a strange sort of way. Get over yourself; you remind me of so many people on the internet who think that they are stifled or ignored for always winning debates when, in fact, people just get fed up with their obtuseness.

Even your own post argues against you; what matters is the research and knowledge, not the name used for the little men!

As I said in my last post, if they had been playing with finely painted "military miniatures" (as you choose to call them), would that have automatically informed them as to the nature of canister? If it would have, I would love to know how!

Oh, and by the way, next time you want to SHOUT at me, please do it in person rather than on the internet.

Arteis

Good post and link but I think that description fits Military Miniatures, rather than general toys, no matter what they made of. After all, they were based on actual regiments, which most toys are not.

I think the last line in the link says it all, which suggests that little boys think of playing with them but the big boys place them in display cases. I doubt very much however, that many wargamers would allow children to play with their carefully researched, painted and based Military Miniatures, do you?

But as I keep saying, I personally do not see them as toy soldiers. Toy soldiers are for children to throw around, bend, break or lose – Military Miniatures are for playing wargames based around sets of rules and historical accuracy.

It is purely a personal point of view and if some wargamers, who perhaps should be termed Toygamers, want to see what they play with as toys, then who am I to argue. It is their choice and as long as they are happy playing with their toys, as I am playing with my Military Miniatures, then we can all have fun, which is, I think the main aim of playing with both Military Miniatures and Toys.

colinjallen

I doubt they would play with Military Miniatures, in the same way they were playing with the toys. As far as I'm aware, wargamers don't generally throw their minaitures around or stand on them! Perhaps you do?

And had they been playing with Military Miniatures and not toys, that could suggest they may have researched, painted and based the miniatures themselves. And people who do that usually have an interest in military matters and history and wargamning in general and may have known what canister was. So the answer to your dumb question is Automatically known no, possibly yes.

As for the name, please try reading my posts again or get someone else to do it for you. I have stated that I prefer to call them Military Miniatures while others see them as Toy Soldiers. I accept that, that's their choice, in the same way that my choice is my choice. Can you accept that?

As for SHOUTING at you. I suggest you get over yourself. You are not that important or irritating enough to want to shout at. You started throwing insults rather than discuss the matter, so I suggest you read your own posts.

We all have our differences and points of view but it seems you cannot cope with mine. The fact you sound angry says it all. You need to learn control. These debates are all about different points of view and accepting other people having them, which might not agree with yours. So calm down, it is nothing to get so uspet about. I suggest you go and have a wargame or play with some toy soldiers or something, or go for a run, a long one, to get rid of some of that agression. Then come back and talk.

Gazzola,

I suggest that you learn how to engage in civilised conversation with people, as well as learning not to make unsupportable assumptions to support your arguments

I am not going to lower myself to your level of "debate" so you may well consider this as another that you have "won"; well, you haven't!

Over and out.

colinjallen

What's with this won business? I've never ever thought of these discussions as losing or winning, but as sharing knowledge, and agreeing or disagreeing with other people's points of view etc.

For example, I've been really surprised, if not stunned at how many Wargamers are okay with their Military Miniatures being called Toy Soldiers. I would have bet on the opposite before this thread was discussed. I disagree completely, but that's their choice so I accept it.

Perhaps you have taken me too seriously and feel that I am insulting those who prefer the Toy Soldier term. But that is not the case. I was merely trying to place a good argument for them not being classed with that term. As long as everyone is playing happily with whatever they want to call them and the hobby/passion/pastimes continues, I don't see a problem with that.

But this topic has probably run its course, so happy wargaming to you and all wargamers everwhere.

GNREP8 wrote:

…surely you can only simulate military (i.e. combat) operations if you wear the same clothes for a week,…"

GNREP8:

Surely not. I can't think of a simulation designer past or present that felt the need to simulate the things you detail… Certainly not the the game designers I listed, and not even the the many, many military simulation designers. They had other aspects of battle and combat operations in mind. Your list wouldn't be any fun or much of a game for that matter.

Bill H.

By seriousness I mean different war games require different levels of thought and concentration. A person can have a lot of fun chumming around with friends, drinking beers, whatever, but when it comes to the game portion or their turn they take that seriously even if only for a moment while they complete their turn what have you. Which is why games which require less concentration are better when a more social "relaxed" "talkative" "hanging out" atmosphere is desired in combination with a less dense, lighter war game type of thing.

That's a good point, BD.

I play different rules for different reasons. I might pull out Napoleonic Command and Colors for a couple miniatures games in an afternoon with friends and a lot of beer, but if it is Age of Eagles, LFS III, Shako II or or something similar, I am not only gaming for different experience, but I might even cut back on the beer. The atmosphere will be just as convivial, but the play is focused on a different game experience.

Bill H.

…and depending on the experience that may affect the definition of the pieces in play.

Jim

PS In general when I "war game" beer comes after the game, if at all. Beers go best with shooting pool and throwing darts :)

PS In general when I "war game" beer comes after the game, if at all.

Yer what!!!!! Having to wait till after??!! Or not at all??!!

;-)

Toy soldiers are for children to throw around, bend, break or lose

Try that with these toy soldiers, and see what happens!

link

traditionoflondon.com

Suppose it depends on your view of toys. I don't think of toys as being only for kids, I think CHILDREN'S TOYS are for kids. Some cheap plastic green army men are toy soldiers for kids. My finely detailed perry figures are toys, but not for kids.

That's actually a really good way of putting it, Edwulf. Tradition of London's toy soldiers are definitely a different kettle of fish from a bag of Chinese plastic toy soldiers. Yet both quite correctly call themselves "toy soldiers".

So it is the intention or audience that differentiates them (ie children's toy soldiers, collectors' toy soldiers, even wargamers' toy soldiers).

And even those boundaries can blur, because some collectors definitely collect children's toy soldiers, and many children's toy soldiers are perfectly suitable for wargaming with.

Still, this linguistic nitpicking on what we call our model soldiers is all a storm in a tea-cup anyway!

Yes, Arteis. Much the same when I play chess. Anything with playing PIECES and more than your average amount of gaming concentration equals beers to the side. Also, I've never seen anyone swigging a beer while play Advanced Squad Leader and if they were I'd bet money they were either losing or about to lose :)

Arteis

Some toys certainly are tough, like Tonka trucks, and intended to be tough because they get rough treatment by children. Not sure if they still make them.

Just a thought on the question on what we should or could call what we play with.

A group of kids kicking a ball around, can use any size ball, have as many as players as they want on either side, play as long as they want, have any size pitch they want, don't have referees or linesmen and can wear what they like.

Footballers however, have to wear a certain set of clothing, play on certain sized pitches for set a amount of time with set breaks, with a referee and linesmen. They also have rules such as offside etc.

They both are considered as playing Football (or Soccer if you prefer) with a ball, but the latter is considered professional. So perhaps Military Miniatures could be seen as Professional Toys? Just a thought. Nice if we got paid for playing as well, wouldn't it? But would that mean it could no longer be considered as a hobby?

Dear List

I am amazed at the depth of rancor and animosity that has been engendered by this argument as to wether "the lads" are called military miniatures or toy soldiers. What does it matter? They're the same thing and their function is undiminished.

Those who feel that "toy soldiers" as a term for the things we use in games implies that critics will have a point to beat us with as being a silly hobby for kids would do so if we called the "Rubber Baby Buggy Bumpers" or "Imgaia Militaris" regardless. Those who feel "Military Miniatures" is too stuffy will not change either.

We are Geeks, and geeks we have always been and geeks we will remain and we will continue till crack of doom to be ridiculed and pointed at with scorn and derision by those outside the hobby who are hostile to us. We must learn to live with it. My rejoinder to such people is not trying to, by high-falutin' terms or arcane definitions to justify the hobby, but rather the opposite. I agree with them. I don't want such rude and unpleasant people in my hobby. The way to counter that, is for the baseball or football fanatic who twits you with it being a silly hobby, is to twit back to the twit that unlike HIS interest, we don't pay hundreds of dollars for tickets to a game we can't play, and we have our tailgate parties DURING the game, and that in the end, the people they are cheering for have no connection to them, don't are about them, don't live among them, don't come from there, and ony play for the money and would drop them in an instant if someone was to pay them a few grand more, so that, as Jerry Seinfeld once said, all you're cheering for is laundry-- sweaty- filthy, dirty laundry.
Oh- and by the way, please tell when your spouting of completely worthless arcanes statistics of who lost the world whatevers in 1923, will help you get a PhD as my hobby did.

But trashing other peoples past times is not the point or the aim here.

The point is that those of you on both sides are trashing your own hobby by this argumentative over essentially -- semantics-- synonyms.

It doesn't matter what you call it, and by extension it doesn't matter if you play simple "beer and pretzels" games or highly complex thousand page rule-book games, all of us share a common mental disorder- OCD- which is "Obsessive Creative Disorder." We are compelled to build terrain, paint figures, scheme scenarious, and play games. That's what we do. Doesn't matter what you call it. The essential remains the same. All this quibbling over a word or a term seems quite odd, especially when the term refers to EXACTLY the same thing.

From reading your posts it is clear that you are no long er arguing about the subject but the argument has become self-perpetuating and you are arguing about arguing, and one might think, arguing for the sake of arguing.

In the end "the lads" remain the lads wether they are "toy soldiers" or "military miniatures" and all you've done is succeeded in making yourselves upset and taking a little bit more fun out of the hobby.

And-- I might add-- proven our criticis right-- that we are just superannuated little boys.

Otto

Toys to me, but then I don't get worked up if you want to call them anything else. I am happy playing with my toy soldiers. Yes, I have made it more complicated with rules, rather than firing matchsticks at them, but personally I still feel I am playing.

Work is serious, playing is fun.

But TMP debates are sometimes work :-)

OSchmit I think you have summed things up very well the title of this post is why does it bring you enjoyment…….seems to have gotten lost in translation somewhere. all these arguments about it being intellectual was banded about when video games first became popular.
The demo game I helped with all the guys were regular blokes.
I also think the amount of people that create anything for your units or game raises the practical ideas for the hobby we do ….I like when I hear junior gamers make something they are proud of instead of buying it.

The parents had been children playing with Toy Soldiers. They didn't do research, read history, check out uniforms, paint and base up their armies, use rules – they PLAYED WITH TOYS – GET IT?
-----------------
no – not likely really to do with whether they played wargames or not – i work with people who are not wargamers but know about Greek poets, obscure geography, can answer a good 50% of the miliatry history questions I put to them etc. Fact is a lot of people are just thick and the culture in the UK increasingly celebrates being stupid and views knowledge as being geeky, nerdy and definitely not sexy (though knowledge of the most bizarre and odd sexual practices is regarded as natural and healthy)

Or, to paraphrase Lord Tennyson's verse from "The Charge of the Light Brigade":

Ours is not to reason why.
Ours is but to whine and cry!

;-)

God bless,
John

GNREP8:

Surely not. I can't think of a simulation designer past or present that felt the need to simulate the things you detail… Certainly not the the game designers I listed, and not even the the many, many military simulation designers. They had other aspects of battle and combat operations in mind. Your list wouldn't be any fun or much of a game for that matter.

Bill H.
------------------
surely the main aspect of being a soldier in war is that someone is trying to kill you. I'm not of course proposing that people do any of the things on my list but then I don't think that in wargaming I am really simulating military operations – I am wargaming. Otherwise we risk sounding like the Lt. in Aliens 2
Ripley: How many drops is this for you Lieutenant?

Gorman: Thirty eight… simulated.

Vasquez: How many combat drops?

Gorman: Uh, two. Including this one
(and maybe that was a slight bit of exagerration too)