"Could BattleTech be considered Historical Gaming?" Topic

Bear with me for a minute here, guys…

The great appeal to historical gaming is the ability to immerse oneself in a particular period in history. By doing so, we can either re-enact specific historical battles or create our own fictional battles within that specific period, be it Napoleonic, Civil War, WWI, WWII, etc.

My crazy thought is this: BattleTech has been around for nearly 30 years now and we've seen the timeline advance rather significantly during that period. From the beginning of the Succession Wars to the current "official" year of 3090 (or whatever it is), we have roughly 3 or 4 centuries of fairly well documented (if fictional) history to game in, complete with unit names, colours, famous personages, etc.

Now, there are many people who have zero interest in the post-Succession Wars timeline, much like there are many people who have zero interest in modern/sci-fi/fantasy gaming and are only interested in true historical. Personally, I think that's awesome… to each their own and all that. We're all wargamers regardless of preferred genre, which means we're all on the same team, in my opinion.

But I just had this crazy thought that BattleTech could almost be considered an historical game of its own, given the breadth and depth of its fictional history. Given how much the shape and nature of the BT has changed during the course of said history. I think that's kind of cool.

What do the rest of you think? Feel free to throw stones if you must, just try to avoid my face. That's my money maker. :P

I don't think it's historical in the strict sense, but yes, there's enough material in Battletech (amongst other sci-fi or fantasy games) to game the fictional history quite well. And yes, there's definitely camps of players who ONLY play pre-Clan Invasion, or pre-Jihad, or what have you, and so there's multiple historical eras in Battletech as well. So I think the analogy works quite well.

-Will

Historical perhaps, from a gaming era perspective, but not really in the true sense of "historical" combat/warfare.

I think you are "stretching the blanket" a little here.

No
Historical to me invokes thousands of flesh and blood human beings who sacrificed all they had for what they believed in . It means hundreds of thousands of scared hungry men who risked death and injury but still went forward when every fiber of their being screamed to run away. It Invokes thousands upon thousands of veterans who continue to struggle everyday . Historical games Honor thier struggles victories as well as defeats,So the suggestion of games like Battletech being considered to historical seems a little offensive to me ….

I'm not sure if I'd use the term, but I definitely think that the history and background of BT is so rich and deep that it can be explored, researched, and mined for gaming in much the same way as "real" history.

Reading through the Battletech Forums at Catalyst games and you see the same type of arguments that erupt amongst history buffs regarding, politics, uniforms, history , paint schemes, and traditions. The only difference is that the BT universe is fictional.

I don't like the BT game, but the BT universe is my favorite fictional universe. I've got 80+ game books 60+ novels and when/if I ever finish reading them all, I will still want to know more!

NO … It's Sci-fi … period …

No, not to me.

I love Battletech. It was one of the first non historical universes I delved into as a kid. That being said it is sci-fi plain and simple.

Only if you wish to apply the same thinking to Lord of the Rings or Game of Thrones. Or 40K…

Interesting point. Way back in the 90's we did a big Buck Rogers game at a Historicon ( when HMGS was much stricter about the number of Fantasy/Sci-Fi games they scheduled), and did the game from a totally historical perspective. We used figures cast from the actual 1930s homecast molds, had a display case of assorted 1930's/40's Buck Rogers collectibles on display, and even did up a hand-out that outlined Buck Rogers' historical influence on Sci-Fi and culture.

Begs the question – is SF gaming within a solid and well-covered background with much written about it as valid as gaming in a period with equally as much written about it, if no-one alive has ever been in either situation?

Well said whoa M.

I've had the same thought – the Battletech universe has so many layers that it comes close to 'pseudohistory.' You could even make the case we have more detail available for it than say, the Peloponnesian wars. They even have revisionist periods where new 'facts' come to light.

On the downside, that depth and breadth of background makes it a little hard to (re)jump into. As with Napoleonics, there's an intimidation factor!

By this measure, 40K and Epic are "historical" games too. They collectively cover 10,000 years of history, and that's not counting the 28,000 years between now and the Horus Heresy.

If Baatletech is historical, then so are Star Wars, Star Trek, and Star Blazers, all of which had distinct time periods with significant differences in force org and technology used. Any sci-fi that has its own background history could be historical, if that is the case.

So, no, Battletech is not a candidate for historical consideration.

I would not consider it so. Your twisting the definition does not convince me.

No. It is well established science fiction.

History (I think) is the collected knowledge of our past. BT is not only fictional, but also futuristic. In that sense it cannot be a historical game. I think the concept you are looking for here is canonical, a game consistent with a collection of ideas and stories that do not have to be proven or based in reality.

I am inclined to agree with Pijlie here.

However, I do reserve the right to laugh at Ancients players who continue with outmoded theories, or even the Napoleonics who insist on certain "facts" about the forces involved. As a biologist, I reject Doctor Pangloss's theories and especially so when applied to history, but that's merely an aside.

No
Historical to me invokes thousands of flesh and blood human beings who sacrificed all they had for what they believed in . It means hundreds of thousands of scared hungry men who risked death and injury but still went forward when every fiber of their being screamed to run away. It Invokes thousands upon thousands of veterans who continue to struggle everyday . Historical games Honor thier struggles victories as well as defeats,So the suggestion of games like Battletech being considered to historical seems a little offensive to me ….

By this standard all gaming would be extremely offensive.

-Will

As noted if you call BT "historical", then you may have to lump GW's 40K nonsense, Epic, etc. into the mix … If so … I think we need to blame the educational system … If anyone can't tell the difference between the War of 1812 vs. the Armageddon Campaign 40'000 … that is just pretty darn sad …

I know several people who know Battletech's fictional history better than they know the history of their own country! :O

-Will

Same with 40K !!!!! Frightening … very scary … And many of them can vote, drive cars and reproduce !!!!

Vintage gaming, yes. Historical gaming, no.

Empire of the Petal Throne, on the other hand . . .

Well, we all know Lord of the Rings is historical.

The difference between "historical" and "canonical".

I don't think I would call it historical. Influential, yes. Iconic, probably. Historical, no.

BattleTech does have a great history and I love the progression of time that is built into the system. But the Middle-Earth universe has several hundreds of years of story as well. And GW has fluff for 10,000 years.

Its a silly giant stompy robot game.

Beer and pretzels, yes.

"Historical"….um…no.

No.