"What is 'Historical Wargaming' these Days? " Topic

Hi All,

I have been in "Historical Wargaming" for more than 37 years now. My friends and I have been having an off-line discussion over the last couple of days about "What actually constitutes 'Historical Wargaming' these days?"

It seems to me that over the last several years that this discriminating historical factor has been either blurred or ignored by latest batch of Game designers these days.

Help me out by chiming in with Your opinion on this subject.

I would do if I knew what you meant.

Ummmmm….
What I play?

I am into AWI and would be fascinated to see how the latest batch of games designers have turned it into something other than "historical".
Maybe if I field Gandalf instead of Greene…

What the hell are you talking about?

Piers & John,

Your two answers characterize exactly why I asked the question to begin with.

What does 'historical' actually mean in wargaming?

What 'historical' content are you getting out of it?

What are you suppose to gain by playing an Historical Wargame?

Historical wargaming has always been about bringing history alive through the mechanisms and visuals of the game.

If you are suggesting that the distinction between historical and fantasy elements in some contemporary games get blurred at times (I have heard this said of e.g. Saga*) then I think you have a point …

But I would always be wary of 'bought in product' i.e. it's your wargame … and you decide whether and how to use it. You can use a fantasy game to moderate a close and educational historical reconstruction, or, if you have a mind to, you can totally ruin the best of intended historical designs …

Although I could write you a prescription for what a historical wargame is, everyone's definition would be different.

However, it is worth saying that it starts with your intentions and ends in the eye of the beholder.

Phil
*some, of course, will point out that Saga isn't historical, whereas others take it to be so

"What does 'historical' actually mean in wargaming?"

It means recreating historical battles on the tabletop.

What 'historical' content are you getting out of it?

I'm not really getting any historical content out of it. I'm putting historical content into it. I guess if I'm getting anything out of it, it is the inspiration to read more about whatever it is. Although that is cyclical, the more I read the more I want to paint and play. The more I paint and play the more I want to read.

What are you suppose to gain by playing an Historical Wargame?

You are supposed to lose time and have fun.

Yesthatphil,

I'm asking the question, what exactly is the Historical distinction/content/connection that makes the determination between what is called a Game and what is labeled Historical Wargaming?

I thought I knew the answer: 'fidelity to historical processes'. But it seems, these days it's simply marketing hype.

You guys are the wargame customers and this is the Historical Wargaming Forum, right? So,…are we not suppose to know what we are talking about?

I play with toy soldiers for fun.

Thats what I get from it. I read books for history.

As the games are set in a historical setting… I guess thats historical wargaming.

I dont tend to over think these things.

But I still dont get exactly what you are trying to suggest has gone astray in the last 30 odd years. I dont remember any rules in 1985 being any more historical than they are now…

Perhaps give us an example of a game that is historical yet ahistorical in its inception?

Piersbrand,

I have about ~7,000 painted 15mm Napoleonic figures right now and about the same amount unpainted (I'll get to them some day,…maybe?).

I'd like to think that the effort I made in painting them all 'historically' actually served a purpose. Wouldn't you?

PiersBrand,

I'm guess I'm asking You, to tell me, "How do You make the Historical connection between your figures and their relevance too History?"

It seems to me that there had to be a historical motivation or desire to gain something from the effort of painting all those figures?

It can't be just to throw dice at them in some arbitrary 'game' fashion, can it?

What purpose is it you want their correctly painted uniforms to play in a game?

I have 500 WW2 tanks painted historically… but as they are historical models, how else would I paint them?

My figures have no relevance to history. They are toys.

Its always been about throwing dice. I suspect we like to think that we are some how refighting in a manner that allows us to become a miniature Napoleon, but we aint. It is a game, and its governed by a set of rules that in general are mechanics that can be used for any given period involving toy soldiers.

What is it that doesnt allow you to use your nappies in a historical manner?

…makes the determination between what is called a Game and what is labeled Historical Wargaming?

I don't see any sharp distinction. To me it's a matter of degree.

I prefer games with a historical military flavor, because I enjoy the spectacle of, not real warfare, but a certain view of warfare. My games with toy soldiers don't really look much like an actual battle. They look much better!

I wouldn't class myself as a 'wargame customer' – certainly not …

I'm sorry you didn't find my answer sufficient. Your request for exactitude in what is very much a loose and 'feely' sort of area is bound to derail the thread – which is why I believe intention is more important than mechanics.

Phil

Don't be coy, Jim. State exactly who and what you think is "blurring or ignoring historical factors" and exactly what those factors may be.

I suspect your feelings are very subjective.

The figures, by the way, are worth the effort in themselves, and are generally usable in any system.

Yesthatphil,

Your answer was sufficient.

It's this statement you made that I don't understand in the context of today's Historical Wargaming Hobby:

"what is very much a loose and 'feely' sort of area is bound to derail the thread"

Why is Historical 'a loose and 'feely' sort of area' in wargaming?

That's what I want to know.

I had no idea my hobby was me just being a victim of marketing. I guess I need to own thousands of correctly painted Napoleonic figs and pontificate deep questions about the pastime to be a historical wargamer.

Sorry if that is snarky, but the basic premise of the question seems to be more about posturing and less about developing an accurate definition of historical wargaming.

I paint miniatures of historical subjects and I play games with them. Let's not overthink it.

Bob,

You are absolutely CORRECT. The figures themselves justify their own existence!

I'm just trying to justify what I can expect to gain from moving them around on top of a terrain board? ;^)

Regards,

James

I see playing wargames with an historical flavor is an expression of my interest in that historical period. What separates a game from an historical game is that I use historical figures in a desire to express my interest or curiosity in that historical period -- both through gameplay but just as importantly through painting and modeling. As I came on the scene relatively recently (mid-90s, still 20 years!), I can't really comment on the old-old days, or what has changed.

Damon.

"I'm just trying to justify what I can expect to gain from moving them around on top of a terrain board?"

Only you can answer that for yourself.

Me: I like to paint figures and I then like to move them about in mock battles on nice scenic terrain. There's nothing very deep in that at all.

I think we are tiptoeing around … wait for it … Flames of War!
There! I said it!

I think it's fine, and I think it's "historical". Within reason, pf course, and how much we are willing to go "within reason" may be what he is getting at.
Or not.
He is rather vague about the whole thing. My Spidey senses detect elitist angst.

I fully embrace the market hype, but buy figures from somebody else.

Garand (aka: Damon),

Thank You very much! That's the kind of honest feedback I was actually hoping to get.

Yes, I have my own personal bias. Comes with age I guess. But for once I was trying to restrain myself and try listening to you guys for a change. ;^)

Regards,

James

"Historical Wargaming" is any wargame that is set in a historical period. That is, as opposed to either Fantasy or Science Fiction. As for a definition of "historical", that is easy – anything that has already happened.

The accuracy (or otherwise of any "historical wargame" is actually a separate issue.

For example, there are many who would say that Flames of War is not a historical wargame because the rules allow you to do things that didn't happen in history. I beg to differ. FOW is set in World War II and is ONE interpretation of it. Whether that interpretation bears any resemblance to historical reality is entirely another matter.

What did historical wargaming used to be? I'm curious.

IanKH…,

Again, thank you for the honest feedback.

And, I guess you are right. It all seems to come down to satisfying each person's own expectations of where they want to set their own 'historical' bar.

Too many years serving in the US Army has caused me to set that historical bar pretty high for myself. Which as you and other have stated, is really up to the individual to decide for themselves. Fair enough.

So, to address my original question, I'm hearing votes for 1) Figures alone and 2) the panorama of figures moving on historically significant terrain as possible answers.

Any more?

You guys are the wargame customers and this is the Historical Wargaming Forum, right?

Actually it's The Miniatures Page. Historical gaming is just one aspect of what is offered here. It's just as much a science fiction or fantasy forum. I know a lot of people who paint and display their wargame figures whether historical, fantasy or science fiction, no rules involved.

When I paint historical miniatures, I paint them, to the best of my ability, as accurate as possible. It gives me a sense of satisfaction and personal accomplishment. If someone else wants to paint one blue army and one red army, that's their business.

As far as rules go, at this point in my life, I want enjoyable, playable rules. If I'm playing an ancients game, I don't want historical anachronisms creeping in. That's it.

"What actually constitutes 'Historical Wargaming' these days?"

So, to address my original question, I'm hearing votes for 1) Figures alone and 2) the panorama of figures moving on historically significant terrain as possible answers.

A historical wargame does not have to use miniature figures. Moving blocks on a map (e.g. Reisswitz 1824 Kriegsspiel) is just as much historical wargaming as any using miniatures.

Sihon the Amorite,

From my own perspective, (which started in the late 1960s), Historical Wargaming back then, was about finding and connecting specific rules to documented historical references on the period of warfare of interest.

Back in the 60s & 70s, there wasn't very much primary source information to go on. We had mainly Chandler, Rothenburg and Espisito & Etling to work with. Lots of secondary source information was out there, but a good portion of that was found to be wrong by contemporary authors like Nafziger, Griffith and Peter Hofschreoder(?)

For me, I like Military History. Especially, Napoleonic Warfare, which represents to me as the 'Dawn of Modern Warfare'.

Thus, engaging in 'Historical Wargaming', it has always been my expectation that it should help aide me in exploring that Napoleonic world.

However, I can't say that the current list of commercially available products satisfy my own needs or desire. They definitely do not. Which is one of the reasons I was asking you for Your opinions.

It does make me wonder if this is a vanishing requirement?

1) Figures alone and 2) the panorama of figures moving on historically significant terrain as possible answers.

We discounting fun then?

Dunno about other people but I play wargames to have fun and relax, generally in the company of good friends. The fact that the study of history is another hobby of mine doesnt really have much bearing as no game will recreate war to anything other than an occasional feel for the period or perhaps a brief glimmer of a period tactic. I play fantasy and sci-fi games too as they too are a form of mindless escapism, like all games, where for a moment you can suspend reality and indulge your imagination.

Wargaming is a hobby that allows me to escape the rigours of reality and forget everything else just to concentrate on whether my Fallschirmjager will get their mortars on time or whether my Chaos Thugs will break into the Inn. Both are games.

By the way, do you mean that the current list of commercial products doesnt meet with your perception of what you feel Napoleonic history is. Cos thats different to a blanket statement that nothing does what its supposed to… whatever that is.

By the same token, im happy with my WW2 rules as they feel right for my perception of WW2 and what I want from a game (not from history, I still think thats what bokks are for). Im not sure a game of toy soldiers will ever teach you much about history or the study and practice of Napoleonic Warfare, as it is a game and does not have the all encompassing threads and issues of real warfare with the constant variables that occur in real life.

Playing the advocate, is it not just the desire to try and find some greater purpose in pushing toy soldiers around that leads to such topics? Perhaps that fun and social enjoyment is not a good enough excuse for playing games and they must be something far more serious and involved in order to give the participants a perceived experience that they think somehow informs their thinking on a historical experience.

Wargaming is a very personal hobby, only you can decide what you want from it and what you want it to be.

I still think you may want to offer us some insights into how things differ so much and what it was of previous rule generations that allowed them to aide historical study of your period…which also leads me to ask why not just play them?

No magicians. Works for me.

I don't think any of us would deny the profound influence of GW on the hobby generally in the last couple of decades. I think this comes from a combination of businesses attempting to emulate its commercial success by imitating its products and commercial strategies, and a desire to draw at least a portion of its relatively huge customer base into the historical fold.

Consequently I see a general commercial drift away from 'hard' historical towards 'soft' (if you prefer, easy) or non research-dependent Hollywood-mediated historical subjects and systems, and simultaneously away from mass battle games towards grand and pure skirmish games. As a generalisation, you could perhaps say that we now view the subject matter of the hobby through a Hollywood-tinted filter. I suspect that this is probably what James is trying to convey.

Major B,

Thanks for your response.

As, "Re-Pick-At-It One" has alluded to above, I definitely have my own opinions of what historical wargaming should represent and why. I won't burden you with much of that, other than to say, that it 'IS' possible to obtain allot more historical fidelity than you are seeing in any of the products hitting the street today.

Given the power of the internet and availability of historical information these day that has far exceeded any expectation I ever dreamed of to this day, how it is possible that 'Historical Wargaming' seems to be going in the opposite direction (i.e. dumbing down), instead of capitalizing on this windfall of information (which now is even being translated from several different source languages).

That's my motivation, I want to know why Historical Wargamers are not taking advantage of this information to create a better link to the past?

Oh please. Write your own magnum opus set of rules based on your oh so enlightened understanding of the period and publish it instead of bothering us with the tiresome navel gazing.

Sheesh.

Analsim,

You forgot the 'in my opinion' bit again…;)

Rather than slightly vague terms, can you define what form exactly this better link to history will take and how it will aide in historical understanding of a period?

If its possible, why not write your own rules? If it will fill a glaring void as you see it, then it may do well commercially. Please tell us how it is possible to add more historical fidelity, as it may shed light on the point you are making.

I recall back in the early 1980s the group behind the excellent Napoleonic magazine 'Empires, Eagles and Lions' wrote about their own rules, which featured every possible aspect of Napoleonic warfare gathered together in one system. Once collected and edited, they'd be published. I was doubtful that they'd be playable by anyone but the most dedicated enthusiast.

By that point I'd become convinced that such a mass of unrelated aspects of battle would be unwieldy to the point of a stodgy mass of legislation. The group could play together, but writing those rules clearly would surely be a huge task. I'm pretty sure they were never published.

We didn't dumb down. We moved forward.

Everyone will have a different definition, but for me, historical wargaming is refighting a historical (or, at a stretch, a plausible what-if) action on the tabletop.

If I were to think about it deeply, I probably wouldn't normally consider, say, a standard DBA pick-up game to be a historical wargame. It would be just a wargame.

But I don't have anything against playing something that is 'only a wargame', so it's not a problematic definition. If I did want to position myself as a 100% historical wargamer however, I would simply redefine my terms so that whatever game I played could be squeezed into that category!

Cheers,
Aaron

I tend to find rules that try to take every detail into account, if not moderated by computer, break down very quickly, either the game takes days to complete, or results in a historical results.

It's also a fun factor for me. i don't want to spend hours and hours referencing charts and Quick reference sheets. I want a game that will give the the feel for the period, and also give reasonable interactions between the sides, and believable results. i want all that as streamlined as possible, so i can play a game in an afternoon.

not everyone can take lots of time to play such games. in the past people did have more time. but as economic trends move on, we find that generally, people are paid less now for longer hours.

as a result, people have moved to playing smaller skirmish periods in which they can play relatively short games, with a smaller required expenditure.

Eactly so Mexican Jack! Though the Historical gamers lost a lot of confidence when confronted with the juggernaught of Fantasy and sci-fi. They don't even have the confidence to demand that Historicon be an exclusively historical wargame convention. O tempora! O Mores!

Repiqueone, when was Historicon EVER "an exclusively historical wargame convention"?

Right from the start there were hypothetical NATO/Warsaw Pact games, not to mention the nonsense of chronologically asynchronous Ancients matchups.

Analsim, you should try Black Powder. It reproduces history on the tabletop pretty accurately in my experience. I've never tried it with Napoleonics but have tried it with all manner of things right around Napoleonics.

It is good, it is quick and it is fun.

Hi James – long time!

For me, the answer comes in the form of a "successful" game.

Which, of course, is only the end point of a long process of painting, terrain building, scenario design, lots of reading to get these as "correct" (reflecting the period in question) as one desires, choosing rules (and writing scenario-specific rules) that will allow that particular battle/game to be played successfully, and then finding a group that shares the same gaming goals and will have an enjoyable time doing it.

There's a broad spectrum involved in that process, just as there is a broad spectrum of how people understand and value all parts of history (this being my job I have a front row seat to this particular aspect). However, as it *is* a hobby, you should find a way that all those steps in between – as well as the game itself – is enjoyable! To my mind, we simply have more tools to do this today than we did 20-25 years ago. I don't think that any particular "school" of thought or style of play has died out, it's just that we have a much broader selection to choose from in virtually all aspects of the hobby. As a result, more people can enjoy more aspects of historical gaming – which is something that I'm certainly witnessing myself for gamers of all ages.

So, what is historical wargaming today? The same thing it always has been … except more. ;)

Cheers,

Christopher

- The past is dead, gone forever.
- History is the recreation of the past in our minds, usually fixed in culture (like books).
- You can aproach history with a serious approach or an unserious approach. A serious approach would be looking at the crisis of 1938 to learn how to deal with Putin. An unserious approach is reading a book about Waterloo for fun. (By reading books you can usually combine those two approaches.)
- Games are per definition unserious, because they are done for fun. Roger Callois: a game is "separate: it is circumscribed in time and place". You can learn by gaming, but thats not the goal of the game.
- History can be a good imaginary place to locate games.
- So historical wargaming is a fun orientated conflict simulation that recreates history in the mind of the players.
- If we prefer our history to be influenced by historiography, Hollywood or the own tradition of the wargaming hobby is a personal choice.
- So even a bad simulation of an historical conflict is a historical wargame.

Well put, Decebalus.

An historical wargame is simply, IMHO, one set a period of history, rather than a fantasy or 'alternative' world, that attempts to portray whatever aspect of the warfare of the period the game designer/players want, be it army-level or skirmish, 'closed' rigid kriegsspiel or 'open' face to face game of 'Charge'.

Some wargames are more 'historical' in the sense of realism or detail than others, rather like historical novels. Dudley Pope's 'Ramage' series, for example, is not in the same literary class as the novels of Patrick O'Brian, but both ARE historical novels.

it 'IS' possible to obtain allot more historical fidelity

Isn't the 'historical fidelity' of warfare mainly confusion, tedium, hardship and misery? Why would anyone want more of that?

Having waded through the OP and the responses to the responses, I'm still a little unclear as to what the original question is.

'Historical wargaming' certainly isn't about painting figures, you can do that anyway, and that is exactly what I used to do before I started wargaming.

All I can really do is refer back good old AHGC 'Bringing history to life'. If a game (define as you will) can do that, even in the tiniest portion, then it is a historical wargame.

Exactly what constitutes historical verity will be in the eye of the beholder though.

To me, HG Wells shooting lead shot out of cannon at toy soldiers is an elegantly simply way of modelling beaten zones, the effects of enfilade fire, target dispersion and differentiating concealment and cover. Other people might view it as playing with toy soldiers.

Hmm

I would say that a historical miniatures war game strives to place you before some of the decision that specific historical commanders faced at a specific point with some of the visual elements of that distinction, in a reduced model of reality.

Thus "playing Hooker in a scenario based on Chancellorsville using models that represent the Union army in Chancellorsville"

is more historical than "playing Hooker in a scenario based on Chancellorsville using models that represent a generic Union Army"

is more historical than "Playing Chancellorsville using 1877 Russians vs. 1877 Ottomasn"

is more historical than "Playing a scenario with fantasy orcs and elves based on Chancellorsville"

is more historical than "Playing a random scenario with fantasy orcs and elvels"

That said, all of these games will expose you to some element of historical decision problems.Even the fantasy ones, but yes if you want to say it the first is the most historical of all.

the problem is when one assumes that is the only way to do historical.

I love Bruce Weigels stuff 1870/1866/1859.I believe they are some of the best rules for fostering a historical wargame. But essentially you need to approach each battle as a distinct project, and only focus on that battle. That is cool for those that work that way, but I think more flexibility means more players and more opportunities for doing fun.

Dear Analsim

Here's your answer.

Historical miniature gaming is a hobby where toy soldiers painted in a manner generally faithful to their historical counterparts are the tokens used to play the real or hypothetical battles of history with rules more or less attempting to faithfully mimic or invoke the sense of conditions and results of their prototypes."

For the -ants.

The meaning is "history" is that which we learn from books on military history. BUT it is also that reading within and surrounded by a sense of LOVE and VENERATION of history, though not a slavish orthodoxy of history.

"Faithful and Faithfully" means an honest effort to be as accurate as one can without enormously complicated effort to reproduce every detail. "Good enough or government work" is perhaps the best way to put it.

BEWARE! The above definition easily embraces a whole lot of things you may not care for, like Imagi-Nations, but it does not embrace tanks in the 18th century or Hoplites at D-Day.

I won't burden you with much of that, other than to say, that it 'IS' possible to obtain allot more historical fidelity than you are seeing in any of the products hitting the street today.

I think you are probably right.

how it is possible that 'Historical Wargaming' seems to be going in the opposite direction (i.e. dumbing down), instead of capitalizing on this windfall of information

From my point of view I am not seeing any evidence of this "dumbing down" you speak of. What I am seeing though is rules that successfully distil the current body of military knowledge into workable game systems that are also interesting to play and adequately illustrate the tactics of the specific period they are designed for. In many ways, "less is good".

Hear Hear MajorB!

Yes, less is certainly more.

It is really, really hard designing simple, fast rules which capture the historical essentials. Really makes you think, and the rules are better for it.