"Just thinkin'..." Topic

…That the reason I'm not really drawn to modern wargaming is because much like Fantasy or Sci-Fi, the part I'm interested in hasn't happened. Sure I know that plenty of modern conflict is happening all around us(I've even been involved a bit) but the big interest for me would be the whole NATO-Warsaw Pact Fulda Gap scenario. And that never played out. So to game it seems more like fantasy to me(not knocking Fantasy or Sci-Fi fans).

Now I'm no fanatic about historical re-fights with exact OOB's and historically perfect scaled terrain and such(I create my own scenarios), but I do kinda like to know how I did(broadly) in a game vs. how things went historically. Just as a frame of reference.

So to be clear, I'm not saying there's no modern warfare to choose from where we have historical results(Desert Storm, OIF/OEF, etc.) to judge things, I'm just saying that I prefer concrete history as opposed to speculation.

What say you?

Blackhorse MP:
I agree with you that it is more satisfying to play wargames firmly rooted in a well understood historical context. However, I have also decided to use very recent conflicts as a springboard into speculative warfare too. I am in the process of building and painting 15mm US Marines, US Infantry, Canadian Infantry and associated vehicles to fight Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan between 2002-2013. These will be platoon and company sized Taliban mob games. When I get that historical project up and running I will also be running in parallel a speculative campaign set in Afghanistan in about AD 2020 between Western troops and modern Chinese forces over control of Afghan Lithium resources. Of course the Taliban mobs will be hostile to every foreign group to some extent.
I hope that both the historical and the speculative battles will be equally interesting and rewarding.
Following Afghanistan I will be doing an ultramodern African campaign between insurgents, local military forces and French Foreign Legionaires trying to run a counterinsurgency programme to suppress an indigenous terrorist organization of appalling brutality and distant reach. This will be run as two parallel campaigns as well. One will be an historical examination of the French involvement in Mali and Tchad (Chad) and the other will be speculative. Thus, I hope both historical and speculative scenarios are satisfying and workout we'll.
Cheers and good gaming.
Rod Robertson.

Post it on Modern What-If or request an Alternate Modern History Board or, better yet, request a Near Future Board for everything from 2016-2036, or even from 2016-2066!

Dan

I used to do pretty much only historical gaming, '60-'79. And still study military history and current military subjects, etc. … But I guess after doing 1 to 1 scale wargaming '79-'90 in my distant youth. Sci-fi is all I now do … Yes, I've always been a sci-fi fan. And of course, Mil Sci-fi like Hammer's Slammers is always a favorite type of reading, modelling, gaming, etc., for me at least.

I'm with Terrement, I like ultra modern (and anything 1960-present) because of the hypothetical battles. I would say "historical -" (based on actual/historical events/forces/etc but not actual battles). The equipment and gear interest me more than other periods (outside of dark age & early medieval) and it's what I like to read about. Some re-fights of historical battles, to me, could just be done by reading the book. The intangibles can't be recreated well in games.

I tend to agree with you and confine my wargaming to wars actually fought.

Having said that, I do play the occasional NATO v. WP game, but I look at it more along the lines ofa tactical exercise in the sense a modern army would "wargame" in order to get some insight into possible tactics and organizations.

I was in the Army throughout the 80s and 90s and was involved in a variety of "wargaming" training events.