"When historical gaming, how important is history to you?" Topic

When I started the spectacle of painted miniatures drew me in, however I have always liked history and I strive to find rules that reflect the peculiarities of the eras I game and get enjoyment when the battlefield reflects history. So is this important to you?

Very. If the rules do not reflect reality, for their level of detail, I chuck them.

As for paint jobs, I'm just as happy playing with cardboard chits as actual miniatures so not a big deal for me.

What Dynaman8789 said; with the caveat that I also retire them if they are unfun.

I tend to go for simple games over historical accuracy. I play with my son and if it is too complex and slow, he soon loses interest.

I find I am usually in the minority wanting detailed rules that do a good job of representing the feel of the era. It seems like most gamers nowdays want a quick 2-3 hour game and can't be bothered with anything overly complex.

To me the visuals are important so figures and paintjobs should be as accurate as possible without resorting to extremes.

Scenario wise I prefer historical armies but perhaps in non-historical scenarios so that the players have the maximum amount of options and decisions to make, and do not just have to line up historically and advance.

I fail to see the point of not having at the very least a tenuous grasp on histoty.
If you can't get the color of the Tiger tanks right that Washington took out at Trenton with a bazooka, then go and play fantasy.

I quite like quick fun games, and will play them if that is what is on offer, But growing up on WRG 4th,5th and 6th, transitioning to shock of impact and then on to a set of rules by Lloyd (of triples fame) that does a much better job. I prefer rich, complex rule sets that do not depend on a good dice throw to tell me how many die, but rely on good positioning, utilisation of forces, momentum, ordering and managing of time.

I admit to liking DBMM because that simulates the next level above, and does not bog down in wounds and disrupted, and the outcomes modelled for a big battle seem appropriate.

If it was not for the history I would not play.

I sometimes wonder if Statistics training should be given to wargames rules writers so that they do not make unlikely events in history so common on the battlefield. A one in 36 chance for something critical happening when you roll twelve times in a turn that represents twenty minutes will have a "critical event" happen once per hour on average, and most history of battles has a critical event happen much less frequently than that!

History is imortant. I agree with leidang's view and would add that I love the challenge of trying to change the historical outcome…understanding that we can't replicate all the difficulties that the field commander faced…but we can but endeavor to try.

To me the visuals are important so figures and paintjobs should be as accurate as possible without resorting to extremes.

My thoughts exactly.

Regarding rules, I am firmly in the camp of "period flavor" and "non-generic". I don't mind a bit of complexity when it's called for, which should't be too often.

There is nothing that ruins a pulp game faster than having non-time traveling Nazis armed with MP38's before 1939. I mean: c'mon now, people!

Al | ravenfeastsmeadhall.blogspot.com

"If you can't get the color of the Tiger tanks right that Washington took out at Trenton with a bazooka, then go and play fantasy."

Damn it, John! There you go, shooting from the hip again!

If you'd done any research at all you'd know that "Washington's Bazooka" was an early 19th Century myth.

It was his vorpal sling blade with the M44 flash suppressor.

I know because WRG did all this original research.

TVAG

If I didn't feel I was modeling the history at some level I wouldn't play. As such I don't allow unpainted figures on my table. Though using desert camo tanks in Holland is acceptable.

I like to game historical battles. Getting the details right is extremely important to me. Where there are gaps in information I have no problem making a "best guess" as to what kind of troops were fielded, what they looked like or what terrain was present. If you strived to be 100% accurate on making historical battles you would never get anything done.

Finding rules that are period specific are not as important to me as finding rules that work for me.

Hope that answers your question.

I strive to find rules that reflect the peculiarities of the eras I game and get enjoyment when the battlefield reflects history. So is this important to you?

Not so much.
I play wargames as I like pretty toys.
I like the visual aspect of the game more than the realistic simulation angle.
For me the rules should hint at the period flavour not mimic it in detail.

I want rules that appropriately portray the nuances of a perior at the level of the game, ie skirmish level etc. While I want this an overriding issue for me is that the game must be playable within a 2-3 hour period and not require constant reference to the rules or bickering with the rules lawyers. No matter how good the rules I just dont have time/patience for multi evening games or discussing the intent of vauge rules mechanisms.

I'm with leidang and U.K. on this. The process is much more important than the outcome for me. finishing a game is not a high priority for me. Miniatures should be as accurate as possible and painted to the best of the gamer's ability. If I was content with cardboard I'd play boardgames.

Very. Even my fantasy/horror preferences are historical. Half the fun, for me anyway, is doing the research.

Now to be sure, there are fun and un-fun historical rulesets.

I'm with the "Lets have appropriate troops and period rules" group. I prefer historical battles and I don't mind if it takes longer than five hours to play a game.

I do not enjoy gaming with people who just consider it playing with "pretty toys" and who like to line 'em up, and plow ahead. It may be fun for some, but I prefer opponents who at least try to play using historical formations and tactics.

I think history is the most important aspect, that's why I usually use Wikipedia as my primary source.

If my opponent says that Washington did not have a bazooka team at Valley Forge, then I can always change the Wikipedia entry.

Remember history is written by the victors, and any schmo with a computer now-a-days.

Those Tigers were hot pink to match the regimental facings. Basic facts one simply must get right. Go back and read the original bazooka team memoirs!

very

I don't think we should conflate a love of history with a need to see every possible detail of it in a working set of rules.

I'm perfectly happy to accept that an Austrian dragoon is equivalent to a Russian, French or Sardinian dragoon as far as the rules go. If I want to see the difference, I'll look at the uniforms and flags.

Which, of course, is why they have uniforms and flags.

The history is a starting point. Given everything from an actual battle, the results will differ according to the way the troops are handled by the gamers.

History is of the utmost importance. When we gamed Hannibal taking his 300 Spartans across the Ganges I was appalled when Brass1 showed up with a peltast with a MAGENTA shield, when everyone knows salmon was in style that year!

OK. The real answer is I do historical gaming and history is important. But if we use late war Confederates for an 1862 game I don't lose any sleep.

Fantasy gaming with 'historical' miniatures does nothing for me.

I don't always care how successfully the game succeeds in exploring the history as long as there is some effort made.

Otherwise I'd just be an occasional old toy collector.

Phil

History is very important to me in the play of the game. Somewhat less in the look. My approach emphasizes modellingl the decision making of the leaders, not the appearance of the uniforms. In other words, it's important that troops act right, not look right.

Years ago I ordered some 1/72 minis for my 5 year old son, Romans and Carthaginians. I set up the Carthaginians on a small table and thinned the center, extended it toward the enemy and reinforced both flanks. My son set up his pretty red Romans in a large dense line and attacked. As he advanced I refused the center and retreated. He followed me farther in. I began to move my flank units and he jumped up from the table and shouted "That's not fair!" I said, "What's not fair?" He said,"You're going to surround me." and he started crying.
We used no rules or combat resolution system, he just saw the tactics. I calmed him down and told him that Cannae was a real battle and he shouldn't feel bad because 70,000 Romans got it wrong too, the first time. I said the thing about wargaming is that you live to do it again. Next time he went right for my flank and then turned and rolled up my line. Now he's a Lieutenant in the U.S. Army and is often commended by his superiors for his tactical skill. So I guess wargaming and the real military do have something in common.

What Shagnasty said!

it starts with the history, not with the game for me.

I look for period "feel" and the ability to use proper tactics in a set of rules. I also tend to shy away from "one Confederate is worth two Yankees" sort of rules. Minor national/unit differences work better for me.

I rarely do historical scenarios, but I do use historical units. I aim for more even matches, which, of course, any reasonable real-life commander would avoid if possible.

'bringing history to life' as AHGC used to say, was what appealed to me about wargaming in the first place.

It is also sheer laziness on my part, as with historical scenarios all the hard work is already done for you – terrain, OBs and objectives. None of that tricky scenario design stuff to do at all:)

It is not necessary to have complicated rules to achieve some level of historical verity, although the cost is a level of abstraction. I also like painting toy tanks and soldiers, but frankly, I could do the simulation stuff with bits of paper. The marriage of the two is however a thing of beauty.

Critical.
But don't tell me I can't do something because it's historically inaccurate.
If it's physically impossible I'm not going to try it.
But if I want to do something utterly contrary to what was known to be "doctrine" at the time, just stay the f%^$# out of my way and deal with it.
I am here to play a GAME and use the elements of the hitorical forces in the way ***I*** see fit. If I want history slavishly re-enacted, I will read a book.

But if I want to do something utterly contrary to what was known to be "doctrine" at the time, just stay the f%^$# out of my way and deal with it. I am here to play a GAME and use the elements of the hitorical forces in the way ***I*** see fit.

That would ruin the game for most of the guys in our group. We'd consider it cheating if you used out-of-period tactics.
Sure, there's a certain amount of leeway, but… really !?
That attitude would result in it being the last game you played with us.

Ehn. Close enough is good enough. I'm not the kind of gamer to worry about the exact shade of green something is painted. But I am only very rarely a historical gamer.

Wargaming is really two hobbies.

There are thhose who place the emphasis on the gaming aspect and really want to quote Doanld Featherstone to play "Chess with a thousand peices." A game that relys on equal points, values army lists et al would be the example.

The other where the emphasis is on the story within it's historical background; you are in essense writing an historical novel with figures. Such a game would be scenario driven and draw it's forces from say an historical order of battle.

Which is better, that is entirely a matter for you to decide.