Tango01 | 10 Sep 2014 9:56 p.m. PST |
"Its rare I say much on the hobby in general, I try not too to be honest as I cant be arsed with the online spats people seem to relish getting into. But over the last few weeks I have seen this concept that people are 'Lazy' when they don't do enough research and are in some way harming the hobby when they don't pour over books for the correct details for hours on end. The same people often point to games like 40K and Flames of War as being some bringer of doom by giving people a 'one stop shop' approach that doesn't require a library of books to find the answers… I'd say its more a sign of what makes them popular. Im not sure the people with this attitude have a grasp of the realities of life frankly. Its annoyed me enough that I will break my own vow not to get involved in such discussion and make a post on it. Thankfully all people will see it here so Im safe! Anyway, in response to those who think people who don't research their armies are lazy…" Full comment here link Are you Lazy to research? Amicalement Armand |
Pete Melvin | 11 Sep 2014 2:19 a.m. PST |
But…but doing the research is half the fun! Also: Thankfully bleep all people will see it here so Im safe!
Not when Tango is captaining the trawler. |
OSchmidt | 11 Sep 2014 4:06 a.m. PST |
Ya know, I HAVE HG Wells "Little Wars" in my collection and I've read it several times. I don't see any research, not one footnote, and very few quotes from "sources." Nor by the way are there any in "Shambattle" by Dowdal and Gleason. In fact we have Well's own testimony on how he and friend developed the game. I don't recall any in Featherstone beyond the parenthetical footnotes, nor in Peter Young Joe Moreschauser et all. Grant MIGHT have some in but I don't recall. I've gone through the academic mill to get advanced degrees, and I see almost NOTHING in any of the classic or more modern books on games that look like footnotes and attributions. Who gives a D**n about the research! We're in this for fun. |
Zardoz | 11 Sep 2014 4:30 a.m. PST |
Yep, not interested in, nor do I have the time for research. I might do a bit of 'googling' to get an overview or some details of uniforms etc. But that's it. I'm in this hobby for the painting and playing. Ian |
Pete Melvin | 11 Sep 2014 4:31 a.m. PST |
Hey I'd never give anyone beef for NOT researching, its just a hobby, why dole out grief? I just find a properly researched and accurate army more fun to play with than "these guys are paras" |
Zargon | 11 Sep 2014 6:18 a.m. PST |
I'm please to say, I do 'do' research and even if its hypothetical research for some far off game I'll never play or some bright and gaudy paint scheme for fantasy or a camo that would never work in reality for Sci-fi, I ponder the best rules for the game, I analyze the army/unit lists. Boy do I do it all. But most of all I enjoy myself as its so much part of the hobby that its a hobby unto its self. Each to their own cut Gents. Cheers and happy researching. |
Winston Smith | 11 Sep 2014 6:34 a.m. PST |
One stop shopping is a direct result of the quality of "research " done by many. Lists and codices and intelligence briefings have to limit things and/or give permission, or otherwise we see circus elephants and scythed chariots in all Roman armies. Do you want to see Rommel with Tiger tanks in 1940? Hey! It's a Germsn tank, isn't it? |
nazrat | 11 Sep 2014 7:01 a.m. PST |
Sometimes I give a carp about researching stuff and dive in with great relish (and slaw, too). Other times I make use of the Ubermind both here on TMP and on The Guild and let others help me help myself. I don't think either way is "right" and applaud the guys who are so knowledgeable about many of the eras we have available to us as gamers. But I, too, think it's idiotic to criticize people who don't make researching things for painting toy soldiers and gaming with them a life's work. Have fun the way that works for you! |
The G Dog | 11 Sep 2014 7:29 a.m. PST |
It all boils down to being told – "you're doing it wrong." In my cranky old man voice, I'd rail about how good kids have it today with full color sourcebooks, boxed sets that match game unit organizes and pre-packaged paint sets. It's really more a comment on how things have changed. But I still appreciate the gamers who have deep libraries who can provide obscure references to rare books. |
OSchmidt | 11 Sep 2014 7:33 a.m. PST |
Dear Winston. They're only markers. They are merely objects to which abstract and largely arbitrary values have been attached. So if the object that has the form of a tiger tank has Panzer Mark II stats attached to it, who cares. In my modern games there are only three types of tank, Light, medium, and heavy. Consider Suppose you wanted to make a very "Moreschauser Like Game" and wanted to pit the Russians against the Mongols. Suppose you used his ancient rules. In that Heavy Cavalry is a large part of each army. In the game the units all are actuated by abstract values attached tot he troops. You could therefore make a Mongol Army with the "Heavy Cavalry" of Moreschauser's rules represented on the table top by Mongol Horse Archers. You could have the Heavy Cavalry units on the side of the Russians represented by T-34 tanks. The other forces the same, Light Missile Infantry being Chinese Auxiary archers for the Mongols, Machine guns for the Russians. You could fight the game completely correctly because the mathematical abstractions that determine the values of the game are all that counts. The form of the tokens are immaterial. This was actually done in another way by my good friend "George." George is an Iron worker and one day at lunch when one of his fellow iron workers asked about war games, he actually set one up using the bolts, rivets, plates, washers and screws which were laying all around him and gauged combat with the toss of a coin. It worked perfectly well, and the game was satisfying to both. Objects on the table top are merely objects. They have no relationship to the prototype (the real thing) in any paradigmatic way. They are merely objects with abstract values. If a person wants elephants and scythed chariots in a Roman Army-- fine. No one says you have to play with him if he is taking unfair advantage. Besides He could simply say this is his Namor army, and you could have the Naihtrap army across the way with his regiments of Landsknechts and cannon. It's all objects with mathematical values attached to them, and these mathematical values are purely a subjective evaluation SOMETIMSE paralleling real life or more probably what someone thinks is real life. It's a game. Besides who cares? It's not like anyone thinks that if they win a game of Afrika Corps as the Germans it means they think they really could have won the real campaign? Or do they? |
John the Greater | 11 Sep 2014 8:57 a.m. PST |
If I see the wrong shade of green on a unit of dragoons I am overcome with the vapors and must lie down until the fit passes. OK, maybe not. I admire folks who dive deep into the research (and I have certainly done so myself on occasion), but that doesn't mean those who are in it for the game only are lazy. |
Dynaman8789 | 11 Sep 2014 9:49 a.m. PST |
This topic again? Note how it was started too, not a "I'm sick of people not doing research" but rather "I'm sick of people telling me they don't like my game". I may have bias blinders on but most of these threads seem to start that way. |
etotheipi | 11 Sep 2014 10:41 a.m. PST |
40K … approach that doesn't require a library of books to find the answers ? ---- To the OP, it is none of my business how much effort an individual puts into their hobby. The only part of that that is my business is how they behave during a game. The two things related to research that bother me during a game are: – Someone who lacks relevant research claiming expertise and – Someone with expertise (or maybe not so much) not relevant to what is going on in the game criticizing it from that viewpoint Honestly, I have found that people who don't have info on a topic are willing and actively interested in hearing a bit of the background for a game. |
mex10mm | 11 Sep 2014 11:16 a.m. PST |
I do a lot of research, a lot more research than painting and then much more painting than actual gaming. That is the way I enjoy this hobby. Do I think people who do little or no research are lazy? No, why should I. Researching a subject like correct uniforms or historical OOBs is quite boring for some people yet some others find a lot of fun in doing so; And, after all, gaming is all about having fun. On the other end of the spectrum, I am regarded as a little bit "lazy" by my fellow gamers for not playing as often as they think I should. : ) |
Martin Rapier | 12 Sep 2014 3:05 a.m. PST |
As I have said many times, it is a hobby not a job, and we all put as much or as little time into its various facets as we feel able to. Personally I enjoy reading books aka 'researching' ,I spend far more time doing that than painting, playing or designing rules. Other people may choose to spend their time differently, and good for them. |
ochoin | 12 Sep 2014 6:24 a.m. PST |
I have a sliding scale. In, say, Napoleonics, I can't research enough. It is my 'go-to' period & reading about it one of my chief pleasures. Other periods, not so much. I've started on SAGA Dark Age 'factions' & to be honest, I don't care that much whether my Saxon Huscarls should be allowed to carry long handled axes or not based on historical evidence. I would like to end by saying all historical material is more or less flawed. So those parameters you base an historical army on may well be as made up as those for any fantasy force. |
etotheipi | 12 Sep 2014 8:43 a.m. PST |
I would like to end by saying all historical material is more or less flawed. Concur. So those parameters you base an historical army on may well be as made up as those for any fantasy force. A step too far, perhaps. |
OSchmidt | 12 Sep 2014 9:47 a.m. PST |
I agree almost completely with Ochoin. All historical research is flawed and you might as well make it up because that's what you do anyway. It doesn't matter what's in the books, it's what's in your collection that you've paid your money for. Your "army" anywhere, anytime, any period, is what you've collected, and THAT is what you will use on the battlefield-- history be d****d. If a guy makes his French Napoleonic Army with all figures and units from the Imperial Guard, that's his army, and he'll want to use his figures AS the Guard. Whether he gets anyone else to play against him is another matter. Research away but whatever you research, when it comes to the table top, it's the figures you have that you'll play with. You buy what you like and that's what you want to play with, and that's what you WILL play with even if it's solo. |
etotheipi | 12 Sep 2014 10:32 a.m. PST |
You buy what you like and that's what you want to play with, and that's what you WILL play with even if it's solo. So, you think whatever motivates you to research the Hell out of Russian cavalry for the Crimean War would not influence you to also buy said troops? Also, I'm not particularly sure what substituting figures on the board has to do with the validity of the research. |
OSchmidt | 12 Sep 2014 12:04 p.m. PST |
Our needs our few, our wants are legion. People will buy what they like and research can fend for itself. If you like the figures of Cuirassiers, that's what you'll buy. If you like figures of Chasseurs a cheval, you will buy them. Considering there's more punch on the battlefield to Cuirassiers, people tend to buy cuirassiers. One of the chief needs is to trim our wants to our purse. |
ochoin | 12 Sep 2014 10:02 p.m. PST |
I don't agree almost completely with OSchmidt. If it sounded like I wrote all research is bogus, I'm sorry but I didn't mean that. What I meant was even the best research has the POTENTIAL to be flawed so don't get too obsessed. |
etotheipi | 12 Sep 2014 11:08 p.m. PST |
What I meant was even the best research has the POTENTIAL to be flawed so don't get too obsessed. That I completely agree with. I think one should always be the most skeptical of one's own research. Believe half of whatcha see And none of whatcha hear Also 11% of what is in the news; every other word your mother-in-law says but not in that order; the opposite of anything you are told by anyone who earns a living when you spend money; everything on WikiLeaks because everyone is lying to you except them and obviously nothing they post which by its very nature of being stolen by people with a chip on their shoulder against the information owners could not possibly have been redacted, taken out of context (intentionally or through incompetence), or just made up; 2/3 of the second half any scripture you read translated from a language you don't speak; and every single ing word ever sung by Chrissie Hynde or Grace Slick because White Rabbit is following Cash in Pocket in a rock block on the radio as I type this… … oh, yeah, listen to your mother. |
Ottoathome | 13 Sep 2014 5:18 a.m. PST |
I am not saying all research is bogus EITHER. It is not bogus when it is done with proper research methodology as taught in the better sort of academia in the sciences. There the factors we deal with are measurable, verifiable, predictale. In the arts it is almost as good, provided we realize that we cannot prove or disporve a hypothesis by experimentation and repetition. However, in the arts, and especially in history there is always a tentativeness and a caveat because we are not dealing with measurable verifiable things, but with perception, point of view, and quite possible mistakes, and then comes self-interestedness and the rest and good ol' "I heard it from a friend of a frined of a friend." That's in real life history. In Wargames, which has nothing to do with war, and which is engaged in purely for our own pleasure and amusement-- and where NOTHING is to scale and nothing can be reprorudced exactly- It's no different from Fantasy. Make up what you want. It's a game. |
Great War Ace | 13 Sep 2014 9:02 a.m. PST |
Research should only go as far as interest takes it. Doing research because of somebody else is counterproductive to enjoyment. It smacks of insecurity: I must make sure that my statements are factual, or else "somebody" is going to call me on what I assert. How much fun is that? This hobby is about having fun. Research is for personal benefit. Anyone who carries research into the halls of academia has a different hobby from mine…. |
etotheipi | 13 Sep 2014 10:33 a.m. PST |
In Wargames, which has nothing to do with war, Not true. Nothing to do with war? and which is engaged in purely for our own pleasure and amusement No problem with you having your reasons, however, unless you have data, you really shouldn't assume everyone else thinks like you. and where NOTHING is to scale and nothing can be reprorudced exactly Screaming "nothing" doesn't make it more valid. |
Marc the plastics fan | 15 Sep 2014 5:51 a.m. PST |
I just can't believe Piers is no longer doing Kursk – and it was my entry level drug, oops, book to his great set of rules. Ah, the tragedy |
Weasel | 15 Sep 2014 9:06 a.m. PST |
The people i game with all generally have an interest in history, so we like talking about "how things work" but that doesn't always translate to the tabletop. It's a nice touch when it does. If someone doesn't care about that stuff, no skin off my nose. |
AussieAndy | 22 Sep 2014 8:51 p.m. PST |
For uniforms, I look at the available secondary sources and don't lose any sleep over whether they are right or wrong. My rule of thumb is that, if two sources conflict, I go with the gaudier alternative. I accumulated a stack of uniform material before I painted my SYW armies, but I hardly referred to it once I discovered the Seven Years War Project Kronoskaf. If only there were websites likel that for every period. I would rather read accounts of battles and campaigns than worry over button counts. |