"Historical Accuracy" Topic

I strongly believe that the most accurate game is the most aesthetically pleasing game…however, we should always bear in mind that some of our fellow gamers may not have the knowledge or financial means to present rivet-counter accuracy with their figures and I believe we should make allowance for that if we are to grow our hobby…

Here are my thoughts on the matter…

I believe that a lot of people's judgement should be conditional…

If a gamemaster is a middle-aged gentleman with an air of superiority declaring absolute historical accuracy while presenting the battle of Marengo in 1800 with Austrians and French in shakos then that is unacceptable.

However if a younger player without much money or minis is presenting the battle of Marengo with shakos because they can't afford many figs and are trying to represent for the widest period possible and are upfront with "they brought what they could afford"…then I believe we should give them a pass and not make a big issue out of it.

If a gamer is new to the hobby, presents as above and freely admit that they are new to the period and are open to comments and suggestions to improve the accuracy of their games, then I believe that they too should get a pass.

I strongly believe in getting the most accurate depiction possible and enjoy an obviously researched depiction, but think it is wise and prudent to give newer and younger gamers a pass as they learn more about the period.

Remember…you attract more with honey than with vinegar. As fellow gamers we need to encourage our newer and younger members so that they will become enthusiastic members and help our hobby grow and thrive.

And in the end isn't that the whole purpose of the exercise? To meet fellow enthusiasts, have a great time gaming and perhaps learn a new thing or two about history?

Frank

Anyone declaring absolute accuracy is to be doubted. Even things that happened recently and with video, photographic and documentary evidence will be presented from a particular point of view. That's being human.

As you suggest, context is important. Specifically, whose truth is being presented? And how up-to-date is that truth?

I tend to collect figures dating back to when I started with metal figures – and I tend to go with the systems and attitudes of that time. It may not be everyone elses truth, but it gives me a fixed point. Going with the most up to date info doesn't always make things more accurate, just more fashionable.

After all, it's a game, everyone has their own way of playig and presenting it.

Everyone should get a pass regardless. People have different reasons and causes for not being wholly 'historically accurate' with their armies. True, some many not be passionate enough about the details and minutiae, but they still enjoy playing the game even if the details are lacking.

The other question is 'what type of accuracy?' Equipment is generally easy to research and get correct. Flags or lack thereof is another fairly easy step.

Honestly, if you're putting together the Battle of Fuentes de Onoro, your troops should be correctly equipped. Well, at 3mm, it's not really visible other than headgear. But at 10mm or larger, you should be able to buy the appropriate minis.

If you're a pain in the butt and generally calling people on their various inaccuracies, I am unlikely to give you much sympathy if your own troops are not correct for the battle you're putting on.

But if we're doing a non-historical encounter battle (say we're playing a Peninsular Campaign game), both of us should be able to be pretty close to the proper uniforms and equipment.

But if the 'proper' minis don't exist or don't match with the rest of your collection, I'm inclined to let it go. I have more important things to be getting bent out of shape over.

First of all, please define "accuracy". Then I'll tell you whether my games are accurate or not …

I myself am a stickler for historical accuracy I couldn't care less if my opponent is. Im there to play and enjoy the game. As long as you aren't using space marines in a historical fight them im ok

It's all just toy soldiers in the end.

Fatman

I'm not that fussed. "Funny hat and musket, with blue jacket" = French enough.

If it's a pet period for me, I try to get the kit right, but if we need a Panzer IV and all we got on hand is a III, then that's what it is.

If we are going to be historically accurate then everybody at Waterloo should be covered in mud and everybody retreating from Moscow should be wearing rugs, sables, table clothes etc etc. I play 1812 French in Bicornes on occasion and don't even feel mildly guilty……

I worry about getting things broadly right when it comes to uniforms and equipment.
I worry more about how good a scenario is.

I painted the majority of my Sudan campaign British in red jackets before I got deep enough into the period to realize they should have been khaki. However, I am not about to repaint them all and non-historians expect Colonial British to be wearing red.

I know the difference between various types of Romams, but for most purposes I don't mind if Polybian troops are pressed into service as Imperials. At least they are Romans. But trying to use Roman legions as stand ins for Gauls is a stretch too far.

I wouldn't like to make judgements on anyone else's historical accuracy.
I take liberties with mine. My reasons for doing so are usually…

I like a particular set of figures, so My Perry Brunswickers will fight in more actions than they have ever possibly been exposed to. And my 51st light Infanty have an officer in a pelisse, and my Burma war British are supported by an m3 Grant not an m3 Lee and they troops where their tin hats not slouch hats.
I prefer fighting fictional actions anyway as the knowledge we have of the battles usually means we don't get accurate results anyway. How many Napoleons fight Waterloo and don't know where and when the Prussians will arrive?

I remember years ago a gamer joined our group…He was only interested in trying to tell us what was historically wrong with our armies.
He was actually wrong it would seem and of course was never invited back.

Show me an issued uniform that remains parade perfect throughout and I will surrender my armies to an obviously technologically advanced species.

Think everyone had a shako at the start of a campaign?

Think they still had them during or after?

Try wearing one for an entire day.

Go stand in the rain for a couple hours and see how well your shoes hold up when you march 30 miles. And those are made out of modern nylon, leather, color-bonded synthetic rubbers, etc.

Think the color on their jackets held fast?

Think the jackets even held up at all?

Think all those Spartans trucked along war cloaks?

War is not friendly to uniforms. They are the first thing to suffer and change and the last thing to get any care.

As to the Napoleonic period, I generally prefer the Peninsular period, so I try and get minis that reflect that. However, I also like early French in Bicornes, so you'll find a lot of those in my armies as well. I'm rarely fighting historical actions from there, too, preferring to create my own scenarios to reflect what I feel is important.

Same thing with Ancients, and the American Civil War period. I have some very strong opinions on certain things, items of issued kit, clothing, etc. My troops will reflect that.

For example, my Romans are primarily late-republican, though I have a few units of early Imperial period troops too. I freely mix them within a Legion, though I do tend to keep like0troops within the same unit, rather than mix armour styles, etc.

American Civil War I have some specific things, but overall, not a whole lot changed within the material culture during this period, it spanning only 4.5 years. I don't use drummers in my unit, preferring to have buglers. I don't paint Confederate units with sky-blue trousers. Way too overdone.

All in all I'm in it for the fun and the socializing. I've reached the point where I prefer the building, painting and collecting part more than the actual gaming, though I still like a challenging game.

There's one thing where I am fairly stringent on, however, and that is unpainted minis on the gaming table. I will let some unpainted, partly painted, and such, units on the field if it's a younger player and he's making an effort to get his army painted up. I can live with that. But those guys (and I've seen a few) who buy and buildup an army and then want to play with it without ever making any more effort than, say, priming the models, don't get far with me.

I read a lot of excuses. Since we don't have mud on the uniforms, then we are not historically accurate and that gives me permission to bring the Orcs onto the battlefield.

It's a hypothetical battle so that gives me permission to substitute Space Marines for the Grenadiers.

I didn't bother to do enough research to know the British wore grey and khaki during the Sudan Campaign.

Those who choose not to make an attempt to get as close as you can, are the same gamers who ridicule those who put forth an effort and do their best to get it right. Makes them look bad in comparison.

You are never going to get 100% accuracy. But don't use that as an excuse for not putting forth an effort. Instead of ridiculing those who do their best. Just say I did my best with what I have and will try to do better. No shame in that.

Well, there was one occasion on DBM day at the club when I battled a 'Tibetan' army with my Palmyrans. The 'Tibetans' looked very late Medieval with a lot of plate.

My opponent noted that he was considering the investing in a Tibetan army and wanted to see how they handled prior to making the commitment in time and money.

Worked for me.

Have a BBDBA Early Bedouin army almost ready to go (need to sand the bases) and have mislaid some of the archers. Until I find and get them painted and based I will be using some Late Roman Archer bases (that some fellow slipped into a Anglo-Norman army I got on ebay) in their stead.

My nieces and nephew won't care and I doubt the fellows at the club will either.

Think all those Spartans trucked along war cloaks?

That one I actually do think really happened. A cloak is a very useful thing to have. Keeps the rain more-or-less off of you, keeps you warm when it's cold. And a big block of Spartans with red cloaks is really intimidating.

But otherwise, yes, I agree that very quickly things went weird. Been on too many deployments myself to try to think otherwise.

I didn't bother to do enough research to know the British wore grey and khaki during the Sudan Campaign.

Except some of them DID wear red. I'll have to re-read The River War to chase down which units did and where.

Well, there was one occasion on DBM day at the club when I battled a 'Tibetan' army with my Palmyrans. The 'Tibetans' looked very late Medieval with a lot of plate.

My opponent noted that he was considering the investing in a Tibetan army and wanted to see how they handled prior to making the commitment in time and money.

Aren't DBWhatever armies about $50 USD from Corvus Belli? Seems awfully skinflint to not buy two movies worth of minis…

I admit to being an old GW player, so I vastly prefer WYSIWG forces. In fact, I hold myself to pretty firm standards for WYSIWYG, not least because I'm so used to having WYSIWYG forces that I assume that whatever model is armed as shown. Got me in trouble in my last game of Infinity, I forgot that one model was NOT packing the HMG.

Because of that firm hold for WYSIWYG, I turned into the 'is that the correct uniform' kind of person that I used to mock about historicals!

I will have a lot more sympathy for those people who make the effort to chase down the correct weapons and whatnot than those who don't seem to care.

Augustus has it right.
Really are we playing with toy armies or a representation of what we feel is a realistic looking army.
Fatman also has it: they are toy soldiers.

Most of us, who've been playing for awhile try to represent our armies as historically accurate. Sometimes not always as accurately as we would like, depending on the time period we are trying to represent.

Did the Prussian line of 1813-1815 carry brown colored scabbards for their short swords or black?
What was the color of the Landwehr backpacks? White canvas, grey linen or brown leather? Or all three depending on the unit?

Ultimately, on a table of a few hundred or few thousand figures, does it really matter. It is the spectacle of of the game that counts, not the minutiae of each figure.

I am collecting an Austrian Napoleonic army at the moment, it currently stands at 14x4o figure infantry battalions & that's about 50% of the infantry.
It is all in shako for the 1813-14 period, but should 1 day our group feel like refighting Austerlitz I won't be duplicating it with figures in helmets.
I'm all for historical accuracy, but tempered with financial reality as well

The Spartans didn't wear 'em on the battlefield, did they?

I'm all for historical accuracy, but tempered with financial reality as well

That sums it all up for me.

And really, I'm hardly going to "shirtfront" someone over their choices in assembling a game. If they get it "wrong" the world won't end. Probably.

As far as I can remember, the only Brits who wore red (in action) in the Sudan Campaign (1898) were the men of a Maxim battery who were attached to the Egyptians.

For the ACW I use the same figures to represent 1861 actions as I do for later war actions. I use the same figures to represent actions in Virginia that I use to represent actions in the west, or in lesser theaters. My regiment of Colored Troops has frequently been used to represent a white regiment, and rifled musket infantry has stood in for dismounted carbine armed cavalry. Yes I know it isn't historically accurate, but IMO it is close enough to give things the right flavor.

I have great respect for the guy who tries to accurately reproduce the armies at Waterloo. That respect is forfeited when that same person chooses to denigrate the efforts and choices of others. In my experience it does not significantly impact the enjoy ability of the game if someone is using mid-war Panzer IVs to represent early war Panzer IIIs.

I'm with Ochoin and gunnertog on this. That said, I'm quite certain that my X-Wings and TIE fighters are historically accurate for the battle of Yavin.;)

I'm with Fatman,

It is a game!

I started back in the 70's, we got what we could afford and got what we thought was correct, my Russian Infantry have Shakos which are sort of bell shaped and commonly called the Kiwer, since then, I have got older, I now find that the Russians may have called all shakos Kiwers; the shako my troops wear may not have been introduced until after the period. Do I mind? Not really, will I be adding units with the earlier pattern of "hat", probably.

Could I afford to start all over again, maybe but I am not going to. If the owner of the table doesn't like your troops as they have the wrong colour of button, he/she is probably afraid you are going to grind his/her troops into the mud!

As the late and great Bruce Quarrie once wrote, maybe they should consider going back to ludo.

rabbit

It does bother me that my Sudan troops are in the wrong uniforms, just not enough to repaint them all.

The patches on the Mahdists are historically based though. By the time I got round to,painting then I was deeper into the research.

I will happily admit that I don't know a Panther from a Panzer, but i don't game WW2 so it doesn't come up for me.

I did actually paint all the unit flash and vehicle markings correctly on an entire Chapter of epic Space Marines, just because I could. Once was quite enough of that foolishness.

I have found myself enjoying some periods less as I learn more about them. My standards of historical accuracy go up along with my knowledge, the availability of correctly sculpted minis does not always keep pace. Nor does the accuracy of painting in earlier troops. Sometimes I research myself right out of a period because I just know too many things are "wrong" in my game. Trojan War and Arthurian Britain are two of the periods where this has happened. Oh, how I wish I could just go back to pushing toy soldiers around the table top without worrying about all that silly history stuff.

I have basic generic armies – I don't think anyone will really make a ridiculous argument 'I can have orcs because…', that's just a strawman. Sometimes the painting is for the look of the thing. I may have too many CSA in blue trousers because all grey looks like I've only bothered with undercoating and detail – the blue breaks up a sea of grey.

All my WSS are individual regiments, because turn backs did differ between units, and the leggings are correct – might as well, doesn't make much difference if I have to use red instead of blue.

However if you criticise I am using unit 'a' as a stand in for unit 'b', or the hat is wrong for that battle you will get one of two responses.
1) If I don't know you, then a polite answer explaining my collection is limited.
2) If you are a friend you will be told to off, with an instruction to visit a proctologist, as your head appears to be stuck.

Aren't DBWhatever armies about $50 USD USD from Corvus Belli? Seems awfully skinflint to not buy two movies worth of minis…

Well, Lion in the Stare, I was speaking of DBM not DBA. My proposed 400 point Tibetan army was 33elements – about three times the size of a basic DBA army. And then Tibetans are not available from most manufacturers – certainly not Corvus Belli. Most of those manufacturers are also not in the US, which adds a significant shipping charge.

Even more importantly, I noted time and money. For myself, I have spent a month with a couple hours average a night painting and basing that BBDBA Early Bedouin army I mentioned, which is of comparable size. I am probably not the best painter out there, but if my fellow club member was of similar talent that is a fair bit of work to put in to find out you have an army you are not competitive with.

I have to say I been using my 15mm 7YW Brits for AWI for years. I have extras like AWI grenadiers and light infantry.
I also use Prussians as Hessians.

As this is not a core period in the club and I may only played a few times a year with them in this role.

I would not dream of taking them in this role out side the club or invite guest to play with them.

We have regularly used the wrong figures to test out a period or a set of rules we are thinking of starting.

We used Napoleonics to see if we would like Black Powder for Crimean War, we think they worked well.
I now have 10mm Brits, French and Russian Crimean armies.

I am not going to buy and base armies for rules I do not like.

As goragrad said: DBM armies are a huge investment of time and money. I would not begrudge someone playing a few proxy games before committing to an army.

There remains the awful possibility that whatever we may consider to be 'historically accurate' now will, at some unspecified time in the future, be proved to be 'wrong' by discovery of original artefacts, primary sources and further research…

Personally, I disagree with the OP's premise that 'the most accurate game is the most aesthetically pleasing game'. For example, a unit advancing in unison, clad in pristine parade dress with plumes &c., is far more attractive than one painted to reflect the reality of patched, stained, non-regulation issue campaign dress!

"Aestetcelly pleasing" is it not the reason we wargame with figures in the first place,and have moved away from using wooded blocks or cardboard counters?

Is there not in the minds eye of every wargamer a view of a battle/game he wishes the game to looks like.

Do we not strive for that ? with in the restraint of space, time and budget.

If that minds eye view is of troops in parade dress or soldiers covered in mud and dressed in rags, it is there vision, live with it.

Unless you are wargamming with 600 figure battalions you are already making compromises (scale).

Over the passed 40 years I have been wargaming "historically accurate" has changed I am with arther1815 on this.

Is there not in the minds eye of every wargamer a view of a battle/game he wishes the game to looks like.

Do we not strive for that ? with in the restraint of space, time and budget.

Aye, but there's the rub. In my mind's eye I'm cruising the Caribbean in my 350 foot yacht with a super model on each side, while the Perry Twins are down below busy setting up my 60 foot war game table.

Hmmm……………….sorry what was the topic again?