"What Makes a Game a Wargame?" Topic

What are the essential elements which make a game a Wargame? Is it armed conflict? Is it the juxtaposition of two armed forces?
Since the word "war" is part of the compound word "wargame", is a game featuring the Hatfields vs. the McCoys a wargame? Is a game featuring special forces units conducting a snatch and grab operation when no war has been declared a wargame? Is a miniature gladiatorial combat game a wargame? Is a game simulating political conflict like "Kremlin", "Junta" or "Machiavelli" a wargame? What about games which simulate economic conflict? Are games pitting rioters vs. police/ paramilitary/ military forces wargames? What about games which focus in on gathering intelligence rather than armed conflict but which are set in a military context?
What is the definition of a wargame in your mind and what are the characteristics which define a game as a wargame?
Cheers and good gaming.
Rod Robertson.

Are gladiators a wargame, or a sport? Are some sports, wargames?

I for one refuse to engage in the silliness of trying to define things. No good can come from that.

I agree with Winston Smith!

Gladiatorial combats were originally a funeral ritual stemming from the Romans' belief in their own martial culture. The casualties accompanied the dead to enhance their martial status with the gods.

Provided that the appropriate descriptor is added (e.g. Grand tactical, skirmish) any size of martial conflict is a 'war'game.

I tend to dispute non-martial conflict or combat as a 'true' 'war'game. Combat 'sports' or 'adventure' RPG games, while having many mechanisms the same, are not, to my mind, 'war'games.

We should propose a new board to discus this!

This always ends in great joy, such as wargamers trying to make the definition narrow enough to exclude RPGs and twisting themselves backwards to do so :-)

Okay, so I have a game: We roll dice to resolve combat, there's movement rates, we have miniatures representing the combatants and we have two opposing sides fighting each other.

Am I talking about D&D or Warhammer?

(of course, D&D was originally labelled as a miniatures game, while Laserburn was billed as an RPG so hey, they were confused back then too)

I prefer a narrow definition. We explore war through games. I don't need reminding that many enthusiasts explore other sorts of stories, challenges and adventures in a similar way and it suits them to expand the definition to cover those games too.

Phil

Well said Yesthatphil.

I always thought the RPG "Behind Enemy Lines" was a lot of fun. I don't remember it ever referring to itself as a "wargame"…but I suppose it was in the broadest sense of a definition. It lacked physical meeples just as any video wargame does.

I too prefer not to think to much about exactly where the lines should be drawn (pun).

Define "war."

I prefer AHGCs definition, "Bringing history to life".

It may be hard to define a war game, but I do know one when I see one. They do not necessarily involve figures or dice.

My definition today: Games that are inspired by military history.

But actually, it is not important. Such definitions are moving targets – it's only a word. As new game forms appear or disappear, game terms and words get new meanings.

At the mention of the term "wargame", I imagine a game where the intended purpose of the game is to simulate "war" or more properly, battle. There are no limitations with respect to realism, accuracy, history or imagination, simply to game battle at some level in some way.

I think the term is mis-applied to much of what "we" or at least what I do. While wargaming is a portion of my hobby, so is what I think of as adventure gaming, which may include war, but is not limited to that single purpose. When asked, I never refer to myself as a wargamer, and even go so far as to "correct" those that might label me as such. My hobby is miniatures gaming, with wargamin, being a subset of games associated with my hobby.

It's a catch all term, not a specific term. Think "vehicle" as opposed to "car." One covers any type of conveyance (land, water, air, space, anything else), the other a specific form of such device.
Thus, "wargaming" involves games that deal with the concept of violent conflict, even if somewhat abstracted. Risk is a wargame, Monopoly is not.
"Miniatures wargaming" is primarily what is discussed here, which is a subset of the overall realm of wargaming.
It's all about sets and subsets. Just as "cars" are a subset of "vehicles" and "coupes" are a subset of "cars," while "trucks" are a subset of "vehicles" but not of "cars," so to can wargaming have many subsets, some nested within others, some not. RPGs are therefore wargames, but are not necessarily the same as historical wargames or even miniatures wargames, which are subsets of their own. Some overlap, some don't.

If the concern is clarity, then the solution is simply to be clear. Don't try to redefine the overall set into a subset, but instead declare the subset itself. If you mean to make a statement about historical miniatures wargaming, then call it historical miniatures wargaming. Don't try to claim the overall term for the subterm. It's not a declaration of value or prestige, after all, it's just an effort to be clear. Two or three descriptive modifiers will not affect one negatively, and will certainly aid in making one's point.

If it deals with war as it's main focus and it is a game, then it is a wargame.

A lof of games that we call "wargames" do not actually attempt to model a war (strategic conflict between two or more political entities) but instead model battles (violent tactical conflict between two or more opposing sides). Those battles can be part of a war (say WWII skirmish) or they can exist outside it (gladiatorial combat, tournament or riot/police action).

Tabletop miniature gaming tends to pretty much concentrate on the battle level. It is possible to combine these with some sort of a campaign system to introduce higher level elements, but this tends to also involve some non-tabletop mechanisms. So in this sense most miniature gaming (of violent conflicts) tends to be battlegaming.

There are also strategic level games where a player finds himself in overall command of a political faction in war (such as country or alliance of countries), though these tend to be usually board or computer games. In this case, the scope of the game is on the war as a whole, rather than just individual tactical conflicts within the greater whole. These sort of games can be clearly defined as wargaming.

Of course to further confound the issues there is also long term conflict between rival parties (such as gangs or clans) that may be difficult to fit within the Clausewitzian concept of war (continuation of politics with other means).

A game is a safe mechanism to practice the basic principles of war. Daily life mimics war daily. Most do not really understand what "war" is.

"War is imposing your will upon your enemy by denying him the means to resist." In Monopoly, the goal is to be the last player standing. This is accomplished by buying and selling properties to where your opponents must pay YOU their wealth instead of developing more properties that could be taking more of your money away from you! Not really thought of as a "WARgame", it fits the definition just the same.

Done daily, politicians jocky to impose their wills upon others by making it harder for their opponents to gain resources to better their cause. Those of fellow gamers that remember, the revolutionary Wankle engine was purchased by a big car concern, NOT to improve their own vehicles (the original buyer never produced the efficient engine) but to deny the competition the ability to beat them in car sales.

So Otto, every game seems that it can claim to be a form of "WARgame" by definition. Just my two scheckles worth…..

Dye4minis, that sounds like a rather wide definition of war.

Then again, in the grim darkness of the 41st millennium there is ONLY WAR!

Well said, Ditto Tango 23!

"in the grim darkness of the 41st millennium there is ONLY WAR"

(and white people)