"Historical or Hypothetical or Fictional?" Topic

One of my favorite modern-ish game systems is Peter Pig's "AK-47 Republic". It brings that happy-go-lucky-colonials vibe to modern gaming. IMO we modern/near future gamers often take things way too seriously. Meanwhile our colonial brethren seem to keep gaming in perspective much better. A great example of that "colonial's approach" to gaming is the now defunct Major General Tremodren Reddering's Colonial Wargaming site.

link

Anyway, here's the question: do you prefer historical, hypothetical, or fictional settings for your modern gaming?

Here are the definitions:

HISTORICAL: the conflict actually happened and the gaming scenario is either based on an actual event or one representative of the conflict. For example, the game scenario might be based on an actual fire fight in Vietnam or might be representative of such fights.

HYPOTHETICAL: the conflict never happened but could have and the forces involved actually existed. The best example here would be a Warsaw Pact invasion of western Europe with NATO forces holding the line a la "Team Yankee". Another example might be a Chinese invasion of Taiwan in the near future.

FICTIONAL: the conflict never happened and the forces generally don't exist, or at least one side never existed but they're based on real-world prototypes. A perfect example would be AK-47 Republic which includes prototypical real world western forces and fictional African forces. You also see this a lot in video games with one side usually being an elite but fictional western force and the OpFor being a fictional, yet representative, third world force.

So what's your preference, strictly historical, hypothetical, or fictional? Or all of the above?

I've played all of the above but prefer fictional for a variety of reasons the primary one being that folks don't take things quite as seriously and one avoids the nastiness of current affairs/politics with fictional gaming.

Bizarrely, I tend to view WW3 as 'historical' because we spent so mch time getting ready to fight it, whereas 'Nu-China' or whatever is just Sci-Fi.

So, from that pov, I generally prefer 'historical', just as in other periods, even if my definiton does include Space Invaders on the Rhine. So, AiW, Suez, Korea, India-Pakistan, Vietnam, GW1 and GW2, Afghanistan, WW3, all the same to me.

Not sure where I'd put AK, I've played it a lot but don't really think of it as fictional, just a way of presenting grim reality in a slightly less grim way. My AK forces are based on real armies.

I don't do much modern gaming myself. I have modern aircraft but do mostly historical (Arab-Israeli Wars – want to do the Iran-Iraq War also). I have an imagination so I guess I qualify for modern fictional as well, though I haven't done anything with it in a while.

I have a long-held dream that might seem a combination of at least two of the above.

My idea was to take the historical situation provided by the 1900 Boxer Rebellion and transport it to modern times as an excuse to use modern nationalities in the same campaign that have not fought together.

First I would move the rebellion to a failed state somewhere or other: Africa is most convenient, but other areas might also work.
The country would have a coastline with a capital some distance inland. The capital would have an area of Western consulates and several NGOs. The leader of the country is secretly hostile toward the hated Western busy-bodies and schemes to use a local rebellion of fanatics to carry out their destruction. The rebels could be Muslim Jihadis, African tribal warriors under the influence of witchcraft, etc. The regular army of the failed state would be generally lousy but possible an 'elite'(regular) guard force might occupy the capital.

For 'Western' forces you can use whatever you can come up with. My scenario would have the major powers caught completely by surprise by the wily dictator. There are no heavy forces nearby and only a scattering of various warships with some SF or similar available. In country the consulates have a few CIA and other intelligence operatives plus a few contractors to defend the NGOs. One country-France or Belgium or Poland or whoever-will have a UN Peacekeeping force already deployed with light APCs to keep the rebels and government troops apart (but the UN has no idea these factions are cooperating).

For the international forces coming to the rescue I would want to use US, UK, Russia, China, and whoever else someone makes figures for. One thing is that there should not be enough helicopters to fly the entire relief force and no heavy armor available. Air support would have to have limitations to keep things balanced.

I would rank AK47 as only 'semi-'fictional. All the equipment is based on real kit, the armies are very stylised prototypes and the concept is rooted in conflicts that actually happened. A distant cousin to historical but not entirely fiction.

Semi-historical, in my terminology.

I only play historical wargames, but for recent times I water that down to semi-historical (like AK47) because it helps abstract the game from political overtones which some find uncomfortable to 'wargame'.

The definition of 'recent times' is moot, of course … the 1960s is now further back in history than was WWII when I started wargaming in the late 1960s!

Phil

60% Fictional / 40% Historical

Fictional. As in my 6mm Republics of Prussia, Karakistan and Mafeking.

Fictional.

Historical/Hypothetical. Fictional holds zero interest.

non-historical-I want to see if a TriCap or Pentomic TO&E would work.

Historical

All three.

I've played all three, though "hypothetical" was limited to WW3 gaming when I was younger -- and when I decided that it wasn't much fun winning as the bad guys.

Pretty even split between historical and hypothetical, with fictional way, way down the list.

Although, I'm still a big fan of AK-47. But even with that, I like to model my forces after existing forces as much as possible.

Historical I am lucky I often get to access AARs from US operations world wide. The access at the JFK Center is fantastic.

VR
James Mattes

I would say all of the above. I have played a number of the Ambush Alley scenarios set in Iraq as well as plenty of Ambush Valley (Vietnam) scenarios. I have no trouble stepping outside the politics and just enjoying the tactical challenge of the scenario.

I do find 19th Colonial gaming and VSF very enjoyable and every game I have ever played or run was pure fun.

At some point and time I do plan to collect either in 15 mm or 20mm Modern forces for the hypothetical war that never happened of NATO vs the Warsaw Pact. As Martin stated so well both NATO and the Soviets spent a great deal of time, money, and energy to prepare for such a conflict. Therefore, we have a good idea of the forces, tactics, and equipment that would be in play.

For what my preferences mean to anyone, I am squarely in the Hypothetical realm. I enjoy dabbling in actual combat units but shy away from playing wargames from events which took place in my lifetime. Having said that, I let my imagination meander over to the Fictioal side also.

Mixed bag of Historical, Hypothetical, and Fictional.

My WW2 stuff is 'representative of the period', not specific battles for the most part. (D-Day isn't particularly fun to game.)

I'm working on some colonials, which will be closer to Hypothetical than representative of the period. Heavily inspired by General Pettygree's reports.

Since I play scifi, there's no small chunk of outright fictional gaming going on.

For Modern – Hypothetical – Cold War gone Hot type scenarios.

Although I struggle to find the best year for my favourite and eclectic mix of gear – NATO with Stillbrews, Chally 1's, and Abrams 120mm; and Bradleys and FV432s. Brits armed with SLR's, Yeomanry with Saracens and Saladins, but Warpac with a curious mixture of T55's, T72s and T80s but with BTR80s APCs! I usually fudge it around 1983-85…

Historical and/or hypothetical, but rarely fictional. One of the drawbacks to teaching history, I guess. Fantasy and pure fiction have no appeal for me

I have played all three. For example in the Historical Gaming , I have played Gettysburg, Franklin and the Indian Wars of the 1860s, Post ACW. Regarding Hypothetical, my group played WWIII scenarios, both Land and Sea. As for fictional , I have an interest in Alternate History based on SM Stirling's, Draka or Harry Turtledove's Alternate Earths.

Mostly hypothetical, with the occasional historical for some flavor.

I prefer "representative of the conflict". Not strictly a historical battle, but the kind of battle that would have been fought.

As for hypothetical, I have longed wanted to do a WW3 game set in either 1965 or 1985. I have the old boardgames Air War, Firepower and Task Force and like to pit two real countries of the Cold War era up against each other, whether they actually fought a war or not.