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

I want to wargame, not do historically correct period staff work.

@Analsim

IMHO only one factor is a vital component in historical wargaming and that is only historical figures are being used. After that it all becomes subjective and personal preference as to what historical wargaming is.

I would be curious as to what rules you play with that you consider to be actual historical wargaming? If the answer is home grown then publish them and if they are superior to what is on the market then I'm sure it will be champagne in the lounge followed by a cigar in the parlour. If they already are published then great we can have discussion about them.

Personally I'm very satisfied with what is on the market and having a good time as there is quite a bit of choice out there to suit most tastes I think. I'm not 100% sure what you mean by dumbing down, but if you mean details are removed that are totally unnecessary to game play and would likely turn a huge amount of players off of historical wargaming leaving only a tiny amount of niche players left then I'm fine with that. Streamlining rather then dumbing down seems more appropriate. Of course amount of detail to remove is subjective. Many rule sets of the past were successful as they hit the right balance(many were not too) and I would argue the current set of rules designers are doing a very fine job of it as the hobby continues to grow even faster then it ever did imho.

Christopher

I think Pizzagrenadier has the attitude that the OP is referring to and that is reflected in the popularity of rulesets that cater for a 'gamer's approach' rather than an 'historian's approach'. Details they don't feel that are needed are just ignored – almost as if they don't exist.

My personal feeling is that a good number of the earlier sets of rules were just as lacking in some vital aspects of warfare as modern ones – just different aspects.

I actually like to consider the staff work needed to achieve what the commander is planning on – it is actually a vital part of the success of an army, particularly in Napoleonic times. I'm not saying that every game I play (or anything like) has that aspect in it but it is more interesting for me to have some aspects of logistics, recce, weather and such – often the bits that never get a mention.

Can't see why this bothers people though. Wargaming is a broad church and always has been, at least since I started playing in the mid 60's. We had guys then who wouldn't turn up on a night we were playing WW2 (which was called Modern warfare then) because the memories were still too strong.

I think Pizzagrenadier has the attitude that the OP is referring to

I am not familiar with the Pizzagrenadier rules??

You should get a copy MajorB – the Pastrami supplement is my favourite.

They have a real flavour of the period !!!

Delivered hot to your door in 30 minutes or less…

I always have a simple rule

Play the Scourge of War series with Headquarters in a Saddle.

Depending on how much you like the 30-50 minutes spent marching towards the battlefield one should be ab le to peg how much detail and realism they like. I thought I would like it, but got bored to death and gave up after 30 minutes of marching up and down roads looking for something to shoot with my brigade :p And I am a Victoria II and Europa Unibersallis Guy (i.e I am used to games with long spells of inactivity)

Real war, was 90% "boring training, marching, bivouacing, looking for the enemy" and 10% action. Logistics is fun, but is not something really for a miniature game (better represented in a board game). Most of our games focus on the 10% action. That is fine I believe.

All,

Thank you for the genuine feedback that the majority of you have provided thus far.

If it's "ALL just a Game", as many of you have suggested, then why do so many of the 'Historical' Generals and Admirals such as the ones I provided below suggest that it is otherwise?

Definition "Kriegspiel": A game for teaching or practicing military tactics by the use of small figures representing troops, tanks, etc., moved about on a large map or representation of the terrain. --- Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language, Second College Edition, pp. 783 & 1601.

A couple of historical anecdotes for you to consider regarding historical wargaming.

– REF: von Reisswitz's Kriegspiel -- "It's not a game at all--It's training for war!" Army Chief of Staff, Gen. Von Muffling

- Admiral Nelson, the British fleet commander during the Napoleonic Wars, liked to have his ship captains together with him to wargame fleet tactics. While he did this to educate his captains on how he wanted the battles to be fought, one result was that all began to understand how each other thought and acted. When Nelson took these men into battle, the fleet behaved very fluidly with little signaling—French and Spanish opponents were not able to discern Nelson's battle plans or react quickly enough to his movements. Despite the chaos of battle, the British fleet was able to effectively operate due to the cohesion between the captains.

– Very much the same thing happened with the Prussians after the reforms following the disastrous defeats at Jena and Auerstadt in 1806. Kreigspiel, staff rides, and tactical decision games—while designed to educate officers—were effective in helping these officers understand each other. This created a flexibility in combat which would pay great dividends during the German Liberation campaigns in 1813, where there was a Prussian General Staff Officer in the Russian, Austrian, and Swedish Army staff. The familiarity of these officers was crucial in coordinating operations against Napoleon, leading to the Emperor's defeat and ejection from Germany. Similar effects can be seen at Waterloo in 1815 against Napoleon again, and against the Austrians in 1866 and the French in 1870.

Comments anyone?

Plan on commanding real armies soon general Analsim? I wargame to have fun and apparently you wargame in preparation of commanding real armies I guess or at least it sounds that way. Or are you wargaming to teach lessons at a military academy? Either way far to serious of a direction then I would care to go as wargaming is a hobby for me to enjoy.

Christopher

Yup, still a game to me as im not a general or an admiral.

Never knew Nelson played Man-o-War… was probably OOP back then.

So Napoleon lost cos he didnt wargame it first is the answer? To be a historical wargame it has to be a military planning exercise? Im more confused than ever by what the point is. I dont know what I play anymore, I feel all unworthy.

Someone better warn Poland though, we have been playing alot of 1939 games lately…

From the anecdotes you provided it doesn't seem like the rules would matter.

"one result was that all began to understand how each other thought and acted."

"were effective in helping these officers understand each other. "

So I guess you are saying it isn't really a game so much as a way to get the players to learn more about each other.

It really isn't about history at all then, it is about friendship and mutual understanding.

I can get behind that.

Leaving aside the obvious fact that none of us is actually training to lead a C19th army into battle, I'd mention a few things:

The Von Reiswitz Kriegsspiel rules are considerably simpler in terms of mechanics than almost any set of recreational wargame rules.

Even then, these rules were considered unwieldy. Prussian officers complained how slow it all was. Read that sentence again.

In 1876 Julius von Verdy du Vernois came up with a version that had almost no rules, relying on the umpire to run everything. This version was the one used by German staff officers down to 1914.

Austrian officers gave up on any sort of wargame after they found they couldn't easily bet on the results.

So, apparently we hobby gamers are actually rule-bound and serious compared with actual C19th officers.

– REF: von Reisswitz's Kriegspiel -- "It's not a game at all--It's training for war!" Army Chief of Staff, Gen. Von Muffling

These guys you quote seem to agree with me. Training for war is not a game. I play games. For entertainment. I am not training for war.

Training seriously for war using detailed terrain maps and more-or-less detailed models as tools doesn't entertain me. Too much work, for too little fun.

Like many others, I'm kind of confused by the question, so let me give you some answers.

Did I paint up Pan to support my Athenian hoplites when they tackle the Persians at Marathon? No, though some Athenians claim to have seen him there and adding him to the fight would reflect their (historical) world view.

Tango posted a link to a giant snake gobbling up a bunch of Romans TMP link Would I consider doing a game like this? Yeah, probably, partly as insight into their worldview and partly for the gaming reason that it would be different.

Do wargames reflect actual history/provide any insight into what really happened according to historical records? Yes. One of the first games I played was a refight of Mill Springs (ACW, Jan 1862). It quickly became clear that something must have happened to Zollicoffer's brigade of four regiments, which tackled a single Union regiment and failed to overwhelm it. Investigating the history, yeah, Zollicoffer tried to advance in line over very rough terrain in limited visibility. The resulting attack wasn't four regiments on one, it was more like 3-4 companies on one regiment, and when these companies were driven back, other companies would attack at a different point in the Union line. Rules should shed light on things like this.

Do I like my uniforms to be historical? Yes, and I repainted the stripes on my 1897 Greek sergeants and corporals when I realized I had them going diagonal the wrong way.

Is my T,O, & E totally historical? No. Going back to the Greeks, I have way too many evzones, first because they are cool, and second because I pestered Eureka to make them as part of the 100 Club and felt I should buy a bunch. The army also has a pharmacist for two very good reasons: first, my father-in-law was a pharmacist, and second, pharmacists have a different color of piping on their uniforms than anybody else.

Agree that there is a lot of very interesting information on the internet that we routinely ignore. I once used one of the weather sites to see when dawn was for a battle in the Western Desert. It turns out the Germans started their approach march at nautical twilight, when there was just enough light that they didn't run into each other. They deployed for their attack an hour or so before sunrise, when there was enough light to avoid falling into ditches, and actually attacked about sun-up when they could see their targets at range. Lots of good stuff like that out there, as well as some really bizarre stuff.

I had a friend whose research consisted of buying and reading one Osprey for each army. Not the way I do things, but he was happy and he was fun to play with or against.

Grelber

There is a misconception that games cannot be serious forms of training. All games for most of history were primarily focused on training people for more serious pursuits. Among them a social life.

Games are very very serious. They are one of the main mechanisms by which we become useful to society. To take umbridge at the word game, is to take umbridge at human civilization.

That games have been used to train for war, does not negate the fact that they are games.

I shall now go to the Dawghouse.

Analsim – you just have to get used to the fact that there is a segment of the hobby that not only does not care for historical accuracy but they are offended that anyone else might be.

*sigh* so war-gaming finally gets the wrongbadfun meme – thought role-players were only this deep.

Well,…Houston. I think we have a problem,…???

Based on several of the responses provided above, it would appear that many people may be confusing a few Apples with Oranges here and there.

Just work with me for a moment or two, if you would. This Message Board is titled: "Historical Wargaming",correct?

While I agree that there are many categories of 'wargames' in our hobby, the category identified as "Historical Wargaming", leaves little doubt as to its content or the intent and/or its relationship to History.

See for Yourselves below.

1. "WARGAMES": Are generally categorized as historical, hypothetical, fantasy, or science fiction.

Historical games are based upon real events and attempt to represent a reasonable approximation of the actual forces, terrain, and other material factors faced by the actual participants.

Hypothetical games are games grounded in historical fact but concern battles or conflicts that did not (or have yet to) actually happen.

2."HISTORICAL"

a. of, pertaining to, treating, or characteristic of history or past events: "historical records; historical research."

b. based on or reconstructed from an event, custom, style, etc., in the past: "a historical reenactment of the battle of Gettysburg."

c. having once existed or lived in the real world, as opposed to being part of legend or fiction or as distinguished from religious belief: "to doubt that a historical Camelot ever existed; a theologian's study of the historical Jesus."

d. narrated or mentioned in history; belonging to the past.

e. noting or pertaining to analysis based on a comparison among several periods of development of a phenomenon, as in language or economics.

So tell me something, in complete honesty. If this message board is in fact dedicated to discussing "HISTORICAL WARGAMING", why do so many people (as Dynaman8789 alluded to) make it so hard to discuss it?

But what is it that makes it hard to discuss?

Is any one way of indulging in historical based wargames superior to another? Because you seem to allude (as you wont give specifics) to the current stock of system not being up to the task. Again, its very difficult to ascertain what you want to discuss if you dont give the specific issues as you see them, versus the 'golden' age of previous rule generations.

What is it that was once there that is now in your opinion lost from historical simulations due to the current trends?

While there may be a cohort who dislike the historical stickler, perhaps its in response to the equally small cohort of of historical wargamers who like to denigrate those who dont conduct the hobby in the same manner. I think both sets of individuals are a small minority in the hobby but they like to argue over who is best… game versus simulation if you will.

The point is, neither is better. What is best, if purely whatever is best for you and the manner in which you wish to go about your hobby. One is not more serious than another, nor necessarily imbude with any greater degree of realism. They all play with toy soldiers in some manner.

For me, the need to seek justification of our hobby, through the need for it to somehow inform or validate historical study, is to me irrelevant. That does not mean that it cannot be done, but that my hobby is wargaming, not attempting to discern historical study via a tabletop simulation.

That however does not mean thats its not historical. My 'favourite' is WW2, because this is where my historical study is strongest, where I did my academic study and the period of history I lectured on. I strive to make my armies as reflective of the period as I can. I do it because that element entrances me, from research to employment on the table, and because I have a deep respect for those who did it for real. I like mine to be correct fornothing more than out of recognition for those who did it for real. I also hope that history in books is correctly portrayed and not littered with myth and bunkum.

But I dont see all that as being some sort of qualifying level to call yourself a historical wargamer, and to do so would do nothing more than to try and add a veneer of elitism to the hobby, which really isnt a good thing.

For most people, and I say this based only on those I know, most have lives outside their hobby. Many people find it hard to fit in the time to play a game, let alone the time to research who wore what at which month, and topics like this always make me feel like people want to look down on those who have busy normal lives. So for many these 'commercial' games, that allow people to quicklyand easily set up and get playing, often to a result within a couple of hours are exactly what has driven the historical scene to thrive in the last few decades as concepts like points based games and fixed scenarios have allowed far more people to be included in the hobby in a way similar to the likes of 40k or Warhammer. Knowing my mate can pop over and play a game at the drop of a hat when I have free time from work/kids/wife/delete as appropriate is key to many and current game development reflects this and has profited from it.

I guess what worries me with topics like this is that it seems to imply that one persons way is more superior, or more refined and serious than someone playing with his toys. That to me is a dangerous thing to wish for in a small community like wargaming. It would be far better if everyone respected other peoples way of doing their own hobby, but I guess its human nature.

But anyway… I have djgressed and rambled far from the point. I shall ask once more for some details and specifics of how todays rules differ from previous ones with regards their historical fidelity…

So tell me something, in complete honesty. If this message board is in fact dedicated to discussing "HISTORICAL WARGAMING", why do so many people (as Dynaman8789 alluded to) make it so hard to discuss it?

Ok, in complete honesty:

I don't believe that the people Dynaman8789 alluded to are anywhere on this thread. Therefore his comment, while perhaps accurate, is extraneous to this discussion.

Secondly, much of the problem is with your original question. Perhaps you could rephrase it in a more concise and coherent manner? As it stands now, I believe we can be excused if it does seem to have a "rule bashing" subtext.

Finally, you could further advance this conversation by addressing some of the excellent points brought up by Piersbrand, Grelber and Mexican Jack Squint, just to name a few.

I still don't understand (after 73 posts!) what all the fuss is about.

"Historical Wargaming" is wargames that are set in a historical context. They may be recreations of actual battles or "what-if"s or purely fictional battles set in a particular historical period.

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

If you don't get your nappies in a knot that is unhistorical.

@PiersBrand: Your 13 Mar 2015 6:12 p.m. response is the +1 response to the OP. (I saved a copy of it years ago on TMP.)

Nevertheless, I will make a brief response of my own:

As a kid, miniatures, especially expertly crafted dioramas, held my interest above all other things in museums or visitor centers, etc. They still do. Also as a kid, my games had to be "realistic". Magic was for Walt Disney cartoons. I didn't use the word "historical" until I was an adult. But love of hefty miniatures and realistic games naturally led me to "historical wargaming". The rest is history….

Piersbrand – Major B & Bowman,

Per Your comments. I have re-phrased the Question and identify some of the implications.

*** Revised Question***:
"What makes a Wargame Historical?"

Implications:
1. If a wargame is Historical, then shouldn't it indicate how it complies with the definition of Historical (below)?
– of, pertaining to, treating, or characteristic of history or past events: "historical records; historical research."

2. If called "Historical", are the wargame designers under any obligation to identify and/or demonstrate which wargame characteristics (per the definition above) are supported by "historical records; historical research."

3. If it is just a "Game", (as many have suggested above), then why aren't any of the wargame designers of these "games" willing to subscribe to this assertion that History doesn't matter in their designs?

Back to You all,…

Dear Analsim

Implications:
1. If a wargame is Historical, then shouldn't it indicate how it complies with the definition of Historical (below)?
– of, pertaining to, treating, or characteristic of history or past events: "historical records; historical research."

Answer- It's affiliation with history should be self-evident within the boundries of "the period." Ancients, Medieval, Musket period, modern.

2. If called "Historical", are the wargame designers under any obligation to identify and/or demonstrate which wargame characteristics (per the definition above) are supported by "historical records; historical research."

None whatsoever. Again, it should be self-evident on playing the game. The War Game Designers are under no obligation to provide footnotes.

The defense of their designs is if people enjoy the game not take a graduate seminar in history.

3. If it is just a "Game", (as many have suggested above), then why aren't any of the wargame designers of these "games" willing to subscribe to this assertion that History doesn't matter in their designs?

Not the same thing. You have a dichotomy that is false.

But I am willing to assert for the argument, that for my games "Hey Honey! I Sacraficed the Kids" (Ancient) "Chiaroscuro" (Early Renaissance) the Ogabas family (17th and 18th century, Napoleonics) "Magnolia's Mint Juleps N' Gritz" (American Civil War,) and "The Shattered Century." History is necessary only as a "nodding acquaintance" with the game and that-- no History doesn't matter beyond that. There are no Bazookas at Thermopylae or Hoplites on Omaha Beach, but … the game is emphasized more than detailed history.
The reason is simple. The fun of the game comes first.

Otto

Analism,

' Are the wargame designers under any obligation to identify and/or demonstrate which wargame characteristics (per the definition above) are supported by "historical records; historical research." ‘

I'd be loath to impose some general obligation on other game designers, with the one proviso that people be honest: if you actually did historical research and accessed historical records, it's fine to say so even if you don't identify the sources. If you used commonly accepted beliefs without researching them, or if you invented a rule with no historical basis but that you thought was a great game mechanic, you should be clear about that.

On the other hand, I do feel a PERSONAL obligation as a game designer to identify the historical sources and evidence I used in developing my rules and scenarios. I would feel this personal obligation for any historically derived game, but I feel it especially strongly because of the nature of my most recently completed project.

Last year my friend Eric Alvarado and I put out a rules and scenario book on the Herero War of 1904. The war was fought in what is now the independent nation of Namibia, but in 1904 was a German colony: Deutsch-Südwestafrika, i.e., German South-West Africa. The rules and scenarios are historically derived, from the original German sources: official histories, first-person accounts, and original maps. The rules and scenarios were thoroughly playtested over several years and dozens of games to ensure play balance.

Gamers who do not read German are putting their trust in me to be as honest and accurate as I can in my translations, my interpretations and even in the basic historical data that I report (dates, places, orders of battle, etc.). Because of this, I feel the need to be as transparent as possible regarding the historical basis for the rules and scenarios.

Thus each rules chapter contains not only the rules for a specific topic but also historical examples. These quotes from the German sources (including first-person accounts from battles) show the historical basis for the rules, demonstrate the rules in action and try to give the reader a "you were there" snapshot view of the fighting.

So when I have in the Spotting & Suppression chapter a "Concealed Hereros" rule that says:

"As was the case historically, Herero units remain concealed even after they begin firing. Thus a concealed Herero unit that shoots is still NOT PUT OUT ON THE BOARD – and its location still remains unrevealed to the Germans."
(so the Hereros are not automatically revealed no matter how furiously or how long they shoot; the Germans still have to spot them)

that rule is supported by the following historical examples in that chapter:

CONCEALED HEREROS

(1) A description of concealed Hereros shooting at the Germans from boulder fighting positions:

Although the 5th Company during its advance had been continuously and vigorously fired upon by the enemy, it could see nothing of them, so well had the smokeless-powder firing Hereros concealed themselves in the rocky and cover-rich terrain. (Translation by Roy Jones)

Obwohl die 5. Kompagnie während ihres Vorgehens dauernd lebhaft vom Feinde beschossen worden war, konnte sie nichts von diesem sehen, so gut hatten die mit rauchschwachem Pulver schießenden Hereros sich in dem felsigen und deckungsreichen Gelände versteckt. (Generalstab, pg. 85)

(2) A description of concealed Hereros shooting at the Germans from dense thorn bushes:

One did not see the [enemy] at all; from this morning on I lie in the skirmishing line; I have seen bushes and trees, and I have roasted in the sun; bullets have whistled around me the entire day, but I have not set eyes upon a single Herero. (Translation by Roy Jones)

Die schwarzen Satanskerle sieht man ja nicht; von heute früh an liege ich in der Schützenlinie, Büsche und Bäume habe ich gesehen, und gebraten habe ich in der Sonne, die Kugeln haben den ganzen Tag um mich herumgepfiffen, aber einen Herero habe ich nicht zu Gesicht bekommen. (Bayer, pg. 61)

(3) A description of concealed Hereros shooting at the Germans, and yet remaining undetectable by eagle-eyed Native Infantry or German field glasses:


…now however [enemy fire] also began to arise on the right, [from] across the river. I therefore threw myself into the skirmishing line of the Bastards…and observed the bushes on the opposite bank with field glasses. Yet I saw nothing of the enemy, and even the Bastard soldiers, with their sharp eyes that were accustomed to these surroundings, could detect none of the enemy riflemen. (Translation by Roy Jones)

…nun begann es sich aber auch rechts über dem Rivier zu regen. Ich warf mich daher in die Schützenlinie der Bastards…und beobachtete mit dem Glase die Büsche am jenseitigen Ufer. Doch sah ich nichts vom Gegner, und selbst die Bastardsoldaten mit ihren an diese Umgebung gewöhnten, scharfen Augen konnten keinen der feindlichen Schützen entdecken. (Bayer, pp. 57-58)

("Generalstab" refers to the German General Staff official history of the Herero War, and "Bayer" to Maximilian Bayer's first-person account of several of the battles; those sources are described more fully in the annotated bibliography in the book).

The historical examples, by the way, are in the back of each rules chapter, separate from the rules themselves (but clearly identified as to which rules they describe, e.g., "Concealed Hereros"). So people who don't care about the historical basis for a rule, or who want to quickly reference the rule can do so, while those who want to see the historical basis for a rule can go to the historical examples section.

Similarly, each scenario has one or two historical quotes from the German sources explaining some key aspects of the scenario.

And of course, there's no conflict between doing historical research and citing one's sources and having fun. My games are well attended, people enjoy them and laugh (and despair, when things go awry), and they learn some history too. And people buy the book.

So historical research and fun are not in conflict, they're complementary. Now as I've made clear, this is my own personal approach to historical wargame design. I do not assert that every game designer has to do as I do. I enjoyed doing the historical research on the Herero War and using that history to develop games, I continue to do more research, my players have fun and are very explicit that they enjoy learning this history, and a good time is had by all.

Roy Jones

Roy,

Right on Target!

In fact, You have given me new hope that there still 'IS' a chance that one can discuss "Historical" wargaming on this message board. Thank you again for that prospect alone.

I always thought that it was readily apparent to the majority of wargamers that the hobby itself could only benefit by such historical rooted discussions. Because it lends credibility to the hobby and helps dispel the "Grown Boys, with their Little Toys" image that comes from our lack of historical accountability.

My compliments Sir!

James

OSchmidt,

I single out your reply as being endemic of very "Non-Historical" aspect of Wargaming that I am addressing in this discussion.

Which is playing a "Game" vs. having fun participating in Historical Wargaming.

If you haven't figured it out yet, the qualifying as "Historical" comes as a result of using "historical records; and conducting historical research."

Historical credibility/fidelity comes with opening the Historical Wargame design up to criticism and critique by all in the light of day.

It's called PROFESSIONALISM. And sadly, that is exactly what is missing in your arguement too. Because it easier to 'tap dance' with baseless superlatives than be accountable to FACT.

The reason for dodging this obligation is readily apparent. Historical Professionalism takes a little more intestinal fortitude then any of the current designers are willing to undertake themselves or provide with their products.

Neverless it's a personal choice you are making. So, have FUN! playing your "Games".

Which is playing a "Game" vs. having fun participating in Historical Wargaming.

I see. I think. So you are suggesting that Historical Wargaming must be a serious undertaking akin to writing a PhD thesis, backed up by numerous references and primary evidence. If that's what YOU want then fine, go ahead.

But whatever happened to a hobby indulged in for enjoyment?

It's called PROFESSIONALISM.

Hi Roy, I think it was one of your games that I played in at Historicon a few years back.

Good to hear from you! Was this at Fredericksburg or at the Host? I have a list and description of each of the convention games that I've run, so we might be able to narrow it down. Heck, you might be in some of the photos of my games on the web.

Roy it was at the FCC. It was a fun game and out of the ordinary, being in Sudwestafrika.. Where can I find your rule set?

Edit: oh, found it!

link

You can purchase the rules from Recreational Conflict ( recreationalconflict.com ) or from On Military Matters ( onmilitarymatters.com ).

All,

The simple issue that I'm trying to entertain in this open discussion is what establishes the basis for "Historical".

I'm attempting to point out to you that a Wargame on its own 'IS NOT' automatically considered "Historical", unless the Game Designer is willing to Quantify and/or Qualify the connection. That explanation comes with the territory when they allude to "Historical". It's NOT a freebie.

Without any doubt, the majority of the current Game Designers would prefer to allude to a connection, then demonstrate there is one with their products.

Many of you have stated that it makes no difference to you. Fine and well, have Fun playing the Games you enjoy.

However, that answer simply indicates to me that You are 'NOT' Historical Wargamers. If You were than the History would matter and make a difference to you,…Clear enough?

For the real Historical Wargamers out there, I go back to my original question:

What is Historical Wargaming these days?

And after some of this present discussion, I have to wonder what has happened to the standards & professionalism in our Hobby too?

Many of you have stated that it makes no difference to you. Fine and well, have Fun playing the Games you enjoy.

However, that answer simply indicates to me that You are 'NOT' Historical Wargamers. If You were than the History would matter and make a difference to you,…Clear enough?

What is painfully clear is that what you want out of wargaming is something that you insist upon all of us emulating. It doesn't work that way. This is a large hobby and it is stupid to think that all our expectations should be the same, let alone identical to yours.

I couldn't care less what your narrow opinion of a "Real historical wargamer" is, quite frankly. In fact I can't even understand why anyone would want to pigeon-hole their fellow hobbyists in such a way.

For your information, I enjoy history. I enjoy researching the background of battles that I put on for my friends. I try to make sure that the proper troops are present in the proper proportions and in the proper places. Sometimes concessions have to be made due to figure availability, size of the table and the number of players. But that is part of the skill in being a GM.

Unfortunately, due to illness and the weather, I couldn't run a 8 player Battle of Alarcos 1195 at Cold Wars this past March. All 8 players were going to represent the main commanders of the battle. I had prepared a small history of the events leading up to the battle (with maps) and an explanation of how and why the sides deployed as they did. The Christian center under King Alfonso of Castile was to charge the Arab center as the first action of the game (as was the case in real life), and then the 8 players would continue as they felt the best. There were about 56 individual 28mm units involved. I was off work all January and I spent every day painting the last units and going over troop types and special abilities or qualities of the troops. A lot of reading and research. That is how I approach all my games.

However, once the game is finished I don't actually care if the players come up and tell me what a well researched game I provided. I don't care if they tell me that I had the correct Order of Calatrava Knights and not the typical Templar Knights. They don't really care that I place many Almohad archer units and Zenata tribesmen in front of Yaqub Al-Mansur as actually happened. What I do care about is that the players come to me and say they had fun playing my scenario and that they had a good time in each others company.

So it is "fine and well" and we do have fun playing the games we enjoy. Why else do it? I can enjoy history without all the painting and collecting and buying and terrain making….

As far as your unsubstantiated opinion of the decline of professionalism in our hobby……..give your head a shake. I am very professional…..in my profession. This is my hobby, and I am a proud amateur. As to your question, I'll respectfully decline an answer. Given that you believe your prejudices should apply to everyone else, I doubt that you would comprehend it anyways.

For the real Historical Wargamers out there, I go back to my original question:
What is Historical Wargaming these days?

I suggest you go and read "Lost Battles" and "Simulating War" both by Prof. Phil Sabin. He wil give you the standards and professionalism you are looking for.

And if you really want to take things that seriously, you could always sign up to take his Masters course on Conflict Simulation!
link