"The Difference . . . " Topic

between historical wargaming and non-historical wargaming and why some gamers don't see it, from the point of view of someone who does.

warartisan.com/essays

Good essay, bit heavy going for an Easter Sunday evening but good anyway. The final paragraph sums it up for me as well, fantasy can look pretty but I just don't see the point.

From the final paragraph:

I do not play wargames for the sake of gaming; it is one means among several to enhance and explore my understanding of history.

If that is truly his point of view I think he is fooling himself.

WarGAMING may give you a very limited view into the tactics of the military in the period you are playing but it gives you no in-depth understanding of history.

If, on the other hand, you are one of those people who do extensive reading into the period you are playing, studying the personalities and the international relationships of the countries involved then he is right. But the GAME itself does nothing to increase that understanding.

If all you are doing is setting up realistic terrain,using historically accurate TOEs and using a timetable to follow (as exactly as possible) what each unit did during the battle and arriving at the exact same outcome. Then seeing it laid out before you in 3D can give you a better understanding of what happened during the battle.

If you lay it out as above and then use rules, dice and allow the players to make the tactical decisions. Let's be honest…

You are playing Fantasy with historical figures.

> If that is truly his point of view I think he is fooling himself.

No, you who think you can't learn history from gaming are the ones fooling yourselves. A well designed game can teach a heck of a lot more about time, space, and force relationships than any book. A BAD game can teach bad lessons, but then again so will a bad book.

I'm with Dynaman on this one. I undertand Geyytsburg (for example) after playing it several times than I ever did from reading books.

Dynaman…no. Games are games. They have nothig to do with history beyond evoking a period.

You have a very narrow definition of history. Games can give you much better understanding of the why of things.

Well, he made a lot of effort to argue what "historical wargaming" isn't, but the author never defined what it is to him. Pretty poorly framed argument, he would benefit from a quick summary or description of what he thinks it should be.

Is it just me, or can you summarise the argument he's making as "I don't like sharing the hobby"?

> Dynaman…no. Games are games. They have nothig to do with history beyond evoking a period.

Let me rephrase that to show how silly it sounds.

"Books are books. They have nothing to do with history beyond evoking a period."

I'm puzzled where you got that impression, McWong. I spend most of my hobby time designing things for other wargamers, much of which I give away for free, and I run events for others much more often than I actually game myself.

I think the contents of my site and the 2000+ wargame photos on my Flickr page do an adequate job of summarizing what wargaming is to me; what it "should be" to others is, of course, up to them.

The purpose of the essay was not to define genres, but to offer some thoughts on why the differences that are so apparent to me seem to be invisible to others. Nothing more.

There are many gamers who continue to doubt the educational potential of games in the face of ample evidence to the contrary, and their bald statements are unconvincing to those who have actually seen it in action. I have no trouble accepting that the games they play are merely games that do nothing beyond evoking a period (especially considering the slipshod, frivolous and faulty ways in which many designers incorporate history in their games), but statements to the effect that nothing more is possible are simply laughable.

So… You wouldn't play chess because it's pointless and uninteresting? How about Poker? Checkers? Monopoly? Euchre? Bridge?

If you play any of these but not non historical war games, that would make you a grade a world class hypocrite and the entire article nothing more than a long winded way of saying, 'My gaming is better than yours, neener, neener, neener.'

My point of course being that Historical games are historical games while non historical games are just games- like any other game. So by your very own logic, you shouldn't play ANY game that isn't a historical war game since it is pointless and uninteresting.

Or you could see nonhistorical war games as just games and give them a go- and lighten up a little. Life's too short to be the stick in the mud.

It was inevitable that someone who thinks only in terms of better or worse, black or white, winning or losing would take it that way, Timothy, in spite of the fact that there is no objective way to rate one genre of game over another – only personal preferences. I don't think that way. There is nothing in that essay that would imply that I find historical games "better" in any objective sense of the word, merely different, and yet some people apparently feel compelled to resort to name calling and personal aspersions because they mistakenly feel I have slighted them in some way. Everyone plays the types of games they value more highly than other types, including you, but for reasons that are purely subjective and personal, not because they are in some objective way "better".

And, as a matter of fact, I did indeed used to play Poker, Checkers, Cribbage, Go and lots and lots of Chess, but I don't anymore, for exactly the reasons you have supposed . . . not because they are pointless and uninteresting, but because they seem that way to me, personally and subjectively.

I have never understood why reacting with insults to an opinion with which one disagrees seems like a better option than actually addressing the issues which were raised.

Yep….games do nothing to enhance an understanding of history, warfare, tactics or strategy. I suppose that is why so many militaries use wargames to train their officers and enlisted persons?

Ok, just thought that if it is an essay you'd have summarised your preferences in that piece and not required a reader to go through the entire site!

The reference to not wanting to share came from this part
"Even more obnoxious is the generalist gamers' insistence that the purely historical gamer must include other genres as being part of his hobby, and must welcome them at venues where historical gamers gather to partake of their mutual interest in military history."

So what is a purely historical gamer??

Plus the venn diagram really doesn't make any sense, though I get what you're trying to illustrate.

And the phraseology is pretty high handed. A casual read of that essay would make you think you don't approve of any type of gaming other than your own.

My position is rather strange on this topic.

I very much agree with the OP on attitudes to gaming that one sees on this and other forums. The inverted snobbery of the 'We only play with toy soldiers' brigade gets too much to put up with at times and I get close to being DH'ed with responses. Just because others do have the mental agility and desire to take a more intense and intelligent view of what they are doing as a hobby (and why !!) seems to be a threat to them and they respond with insults and feeble attempts at sarcasm.

I play mostly with gamers who wouldn't touch anything outside historical contexts with a barge-pole but who like simple rules and are less concerned with the results being non-historical then you might expect. They are all very knowledgeable in their own areas of interest and chat around the table is often quite academical (between the bad puns and typical all-male silliness).

I also like GAMES and will play a wide variety, up to and including some Fantasy and Sci-Fi 'wargames'. A game is a contest of wits and wills and I enjoy that interaction.

When my historical wargaming preferences meet my gaming ones there is no problem because I can happily compartmentalise – I'm either doing one or the other, trying to do both wouldn't make any sense to me at all.

I enjoy wargaming and will happily (OK, almost happily) play Bolt Action to get a game with friends who like it – that is a game with a wargame theme. When I'm working on my WW1 1914 rules then I'm entirely in historical mode and want a very different type of enjoyment from that.

WHY does the situation have to be Black and White ? Is it really so hard to understand another POV and even possibly benefit from it ?

I read the essay and quite agree with War Artisan. I also understand the various points made by other posters. May I suggest the following: the subject "wargames" can be seen bottom-up or top-down, but not both together. Gamers find another interesting way of passing the time (perhaps also using their particular interest in history), "historians" (of whom I claim to be one) like to visualize what they have read about (and perhaps also like to play games). Personally BTW is not so much the gaming interesting (I hardly game anymore), but the painting and collecting. But certainly GildasFacit also made my point…

It seems to attack WS&S; Onderdonk and Howe quite vigorously at the start of the essay.

McWong: It's an essay about why some gamers fail to perceive differences between genres, while others do; my preferences, although they unavoidably influence the discussion, are not the subject. As for a "purely historical gamer", I would have thought that term was pretty much self-explanatory.

GildasFacit: I don't find your position "strange" at all. Actually, I think your attitude, as well as Porthos', is much more typical than my own. You clearly understand the differences between the genres and have successfully incorporated them both into your wargame experience, to your benefit. Were the questions at the end of your post directed to me, or were they rhetorical? Could you elaborate a bit?

sumerandakkad: I have never said anything negative about WS&S, much less attacked it. It's brilliant.

Taking up an opposing viewpoint is not an "attack". Messrs. Howe and Onderdonk made statements that were, in my view, unsupportable, and I pointed that out. Their statements illustrated the thesis of the essay perfectly, Mr. Howe as an example of genre-blindness and Mr. Onderdonk as an example of how a narrow frame of reference will distort one's view of the larger hobby, and how inaccurate conclusions arise from extrapolating a local experience of wargaming to the hobby in general.

Perhaps one could look at how it seems from the other side. Without disagreeing at all on the possibility of gaining at least some historical insight from historical wargaming, however potentially (indeed, certainly) flawed*, can it not be seen that asserting this as superior to non-historical gaming could be seen by others as condescending and insulting to their own preferred entertainment? It's a bit like saying, "Well, reading non-fiction is certainly more significant to one's edification and education than reading fiction," which the fiction reader will rightly see as snobbery and ludicrous (as it thus casts aside the greatest works of human literature in every culture, beginning with the Epic of Gilgamesh, encompassing Homer, Virgil, Dante, Chaucer, Shakespeare, all of poetry and thousands of other works besides). Yes, the value may be different, but the status is actually equal. For even if one argues that one has gained a knowledge of a historical event from a historical wargaming, and thus is edified, one can ask, and what is the end purpose of that edification? Has one increased the wealth of the world? Has one secured greater peace or prosperity for one's community? Has one contributed to the sum of human knowledge, or brought solutions to a great ill? Has one actually increased the likelihood of any of these happening, or of one otherwise contributing to these? Well, let us be honest: no. So then, what has been the result of this "edification?" Well, merely self-satisfaction, that is, one's personal entertainment. And, all other factors being equal, entertainment is entertainment, nothing more and nothing less. How one derives it (assuming no ill is done to oneself or others) is of little consequence, and neither objectively nor subjectively superior or all that different n the end from someone else's choice. One is not "better" than someone else because one perceives that one knows "more" about, for example, Borodino, than someone else. (I daresay Albert Schwietzer knew nothing of Borodino, gamed or otherwise, and little much cared; is one thus "better" than him for knowing what he did not?) One is merely satisfied in a particular area of curiosity which another person may not share. I, for example, often read works about physics and cosmology, and know a great deal more about these, as a layman, than most other laymen probably do, potentially even some reading this thread. Am I "better" than them? Does this knowledge somehow mean I am separate from them? Does this knowledge mean I would be demeaned by knowing something they know which I do not, or by exploring a different preference in reading which they might have? I cannot see how.
Why, then, the desire to build virtual walls in the hobby? Why does it matter to you one whit what someone else is playing on another table while you play what you play on yours? Does it diminish you? Would it diminish you to discover what they enjoy through wild imagination, compared to what you enjoy through study and speculation? I say not. There is value in both, to me, and neither is superior to the other in any way. Different, yes. But that difference does not have to be divided out or demarked. Far better to embrace— share what you love, and welcome what they love. And if one walks away from your cup of tea, that is neither a diminishing of you nor a condemnation of them. There are many waves and many shores and many inlets, bays, and harbors. But in the end, it's all the same ocean.
Now, as to what I see as your *real* objection, which is to the article wherein someone (foolishly) lumped historical wargaming as being some sort of "spin-off" of Warhammer. Well, yes, that's goofy and wrong, but hardly the attitude or the opinion of most in the hobby, even among Warhammerheads (of which I am not one, having never played it in any form, though I do own WAB first ed. and WFB 5th ed. (I think)). But the same could be said of someone making any similar claim about DBA (or the various "big DB" gemes). And of course, you clearly don't like to hear that you are "playing with toy soldiers." Well, yes, that is sometimes offered dismissively, but also defensively, as when another feels their own form of entertainment being subjected to condescension. But, objectively, in fact you are "playing with toy soldiers," even if you are exploring real questions of history and military tactics within the limits of what can be done with cards, dice, and, well, toy soldiers (which IS how this all got started, with a thanks to Mr. Wells). If you dislike the term "play," well, that's the English language, not anything else; if one participates in a game, one "plays" it, whatever else one may be doing. And, unless you actually are in the military and actively "wargaming" both real and imaginary conflicts for the purpose of deriving strategic and tactical lessons for application on real potential battlefields, then I submit that the wargaming being done, whether educationally self-edifying or not, is, in the end, entertainment, and thus, at its core, "play." Which is nothing to be ashamed of or dismayed by or even to be defended against. I submit to you that play is important, and vitally so, at all ages. It is essential to the human spirit to engage in what might be labeled "frivolous," and honestly at somepoint we need to recognize that "frivolity" is not valueless at all. Indeed, I would hypothesize that times of "inconsequential" thought and action are absolutely necessary moments of release for the human mind and spirit— that deeply immersing oneself in something that in the end is of no real consequence at all is an opportunity to "reset" the brain, both emotionally and intellectually, so that when the consequential is picked up again, mind, spirit and body are renewed for the task of import, having been refreshed by the power of play.

So when someone says you're playing with toy soldiers, embrace it! Say, "Yes, I am. And in my play, I have learned thus and so, which I find fascinating. Would you care to join me?" If the answer is no, well, no harm done. If the answer is yes, then you've found a friend.

*(As I have before noted, tongue in cheek, "A historian is someone who thinks they know more about what happened at an event than the people who were actually there." I hope it is recognized that, rather obviously, such would be a bad historian, but it is a cautionary reminder to recognize the impossibility of definitively knowing all the realities of a historical event, and at assuming that any tabletop simulation, regardless of how detailed, is anything other than a loose approximation of what is assumed about a historical event, rather than true history itself. Like a painting of battle, one can indeed learn some things from it, but it would be an error to assume that everything depicted was indeed "just so," or even really happened at all),

Parsival

I didn't come away with the feeling that War Artisan was claiming superiority for his POV; indeed he specifically states, very early in the essay, that he doesn't believe in that type of judgemental assessment.

In your erudite missive I think you are reading into the essay a tone that you FEEL is there, rather than the author's own words. I'd agree the language comes over a bit carping at times but the meaning is clearly of a narrow, but strongly held vision of historical wargaming – passion should not be read as an assumption of superiority.

As to Literature (capitalisation intentional) – I could live without the vast majority of it and not feel the slightest deprivation. Your passion for it is made clear from your words but not everyone feels the same and you'd probably be tossing 'philistine' out at those who made fun of that passion and told you that it was no different from Mills & Boon or TV soap.

War Artisan
The questions were for anyone who cares to attempt an answer.

I do get tired of the bidirectional 'discussions' that occur with monotonous frequency on wargaming forums and wonder what others think of the situation. Is it reasonable to only consider 2 opposing views or is it more constructive to find some alternative/fusion that will be acceptable to a fair majority ?

Point taken, Parzival, and well said. However . . .

1) It was never about superiority (although others have tried to make it so), but just differences, and the perception of differences.

2) I have no objection to the word "play" to describe what I do. What I object to is those who insist that it is "just play" and nothing more.

3) Delineating a boundary is not the same as building a wall, any more than painting a line down the middle of a highway is. It won't prevent vehicles from crossing the line at will, but it's helpful to know where the lanes are.

I thought it was an interesting read myself.

Now I see what you were asking, Tony.

I don't really see the larger hobby in either/or terms, more as a continuum with many gradations in between. Since I was trying to illuminate differences, it made sense in the context of this essay to focus on the polar ends of the spectrum. This may have caused some people to mistake this for yet another of those tiresome "bidirectional discussions".

I think that the fusion to which you allude already exists, exemplified by several broadly successful game systems that are at least marginally historical. I also think there are several very good designers who are creating work for that "fair majority" (although I'm not one of them).

> "A historian is someone who thinks they know more about what happened at an event than the people who were actually there."

I'll just throw this out there, in many cases a historian DOES know more about what happened then someone who was actually there.

"I'm sure you know more about it than I do. I was there of course, but there wasn't much time for me to study." – Ernst Kessler

The allure of historical gaming is that it illuminates events which actually happened, to people who actually existed. The broad sweep of history (military history
in particular) and the myriad details that unfold throughout, define who we are as humans and what we
are capable of, and therein lies its great weight, meaning, and irresistible attraction . . . and therein also
lies The Difference.

Wargamers come to the table for all sorts of reasons, all good, and what you've described is certainly one of them.

However….

That historical wargame difference you speak of, "that it illuminates events which actually happened, to people who actually existed," is a benefit entirely dependent on the quality of the history used to design the game. Garbage in, garbage out. How do you tell the dim bulbs from the bright?

And if the consumer doesn't know what history went into designing the wargame, that is--the specific history used as a template for the abstract rules, then exactly how sure can they be of that 'illumination?'

I know any number of gamers that play wargames as games because they have given up trying to figure out what history was used, what is actually modeled. Or never seeing the history there conclude that such "illumination" is a pipe dream.

The most obvious examples of this is how many wargames rules are misinterpreted, gamers believing they represent X when the designer meant them to illuminate Y.

There is no rule that says historical wargames have to illuminate history, but if they don't, are they historical wargames? How do wargames 'evoke the period' but don't actually portray history?

The so-called difference between historical and fantasy wargaming has been going on for decades, and is, in my opinion, rather tiresome.

Drawing a line between historical and fantasy/scifi is missing the point, and confuses the whole debate, because the terms themselves are not defined at all.

For some, historical wargaming means playing with historical figures as opposed to playing with orcs and elves; for others, historical wargaming means playing with rules that mimic/simulate/evoke/are_inspired_by (a whole discussion by itself) actual historical events. Another group thinks historical wargaming only makes sense when using historical OOBs and scenarios, while others think some freedom and interpretation is allowed. Still another group thinks historical wargaming equates using properly painted figures according to historical uniforms. Some gamers think that you can learn valuable historical insights from playing a wargame, others disagree. Some think that by playing wargames you are making the same type of decisions as commanders made in the field, others think this is totally bogus and the only thing you are doing is pushing toy soldiers around. Some say studying history to design wargames is the same as reading Tolkien or Conan to design wargames. Some say fighting Romans vs Aztecs is totally ridiculous and is nothing better than fantasy wargaming. Etc. Etc. Etc.

There is a degree of truth to *all* these statements. They form a big amorphous continuous blob of opinions about our hobby. It is impossible to distill a binary subdivide out of this, and then label both factions with undefined and contested terms such as "historical" or "fantasy" wargaming.

I also think it misses the point entirely about various genres that exist in wargaming, or the goals that people set themselves for their own enjoyment of wargaming as a hobby, whether it is painting and modeling, the visuals, the rules, the history, the competition, the social aspect, etc. It's all wargaming.

I don't really see the larger hobby in either/or terms, more as a continuum with many gradations in between. Since I was trying to illuminate differences, it made sense in the context of this essay to focus on the polar ends of the spectrum.

I agree that there are many shades of gray in wargaming, but the polar ends of the spectrum are not historical and fantasy. I think that's an antiquated way of looking at various wargaming genres (*).

I would say a subdivision (if you want to discuss one) along the lines of scenarios+OOBs vs point-lists+encounter-battles is much more significant w.r.t. how wargamers approach their hobby.

Another significant distinction (in terms of rules) is whether you work bottom-up (using the individual soldier and his weaponry as a basic entity in your rules, and tightly connected to the visual representation using toy soldiers) vs top-down (which focuses more on outcome of decision processes, and subsequently, abstracts from the individual soldiers and hence toy figures).

Yet another is the difference in visuals. Some tables look visually splendid – on purpose, also during gameplay (and sometimes the games are designed starting from a desired visual effect), other have minimal visual appeal and have clutter all around.

Such subdivisions are – in my experience – much more meaningful to categorize different styles of play and subgroups within hobby wargaming rather than the confusing (and always controversial) dichotomy between historical and fantasy games.

(*) There is a technique in mathematics called Multi-dimensional Scaling (MDS). It takes a set of high-dimensional data points and their (perceived) distances, and tries to find a lower number of dimensional axes along which the differences (in high-dimensional space) amongst these data points are best expressed. If we would apply this to wargaming, I don;t think that history/fantasy would be discovered as a significant axis.

The so-called difference between historical and fantasy wargaming has been going on for decades, and is, in my opinion, rather tiresome.

Phil:

I can agree with that.

There is a degree of truth to *all* these statements. They form a big amorphous continuous blob of opinions about our hobby. It is impossible to distill a binary subdivide out of this, and then label both factions with undefined and contested terms such as "historical" or "fantasy" wargaming.

Let me as you this: Why in the world would it be difficult to describe the differences between a game designed to replicate historical events and those that are based on fantasy worlds?

Many people see both as types of games as fantasy, but nobody has ever seen both as historical. That suggests that the historical aspects of historical wargames are what remain in question, amorphous and ill-defined.

I also think it misses the point entirely about various genres that exist in wargaming, or the goals that people set themselves for their own enjoyment of wargaming as a hobby, whether it is painting and modeling, the visuals, the rules, the history, the competition, the social aspect, etc. It's all wargaming.

Attempting to define or describe those various genres, i.e. the differences, isn't missing the point. [Hence Artisan's article]

There is a degree of truth to *all* these statements. They form a big amorphous continuous blob of opinions about our hobby. It is impossible to distill a binary subdivide out of this, and then label both factions with undefined and contested terms such as "historical" or "fantasy" wargaming.

The reason the topic keeps coming up is because the issue is a big amorphous blob of opinions which continually demands clarification simply because it exists at such a basic level of the wargame hobby.

I also think it misses the point entirely about various genres that exist in wargaming, or the goals that people set themselves for their own enjoyment of wargaming as a hobby.

Most all hobbies have the same wide variety of personal goals and multiple genres. Most all hobbies do a far better job of sorting out that big amorphous blob of opinion than we do--hence the tiresome perseverating.

So yes, as you suggest, those genres and subdivisions are done along the lines of how wargamers approach their hobby and how the elements of the hobby support them.

Most hobbies do it along technical lines, describing how hobby elements meet those various goals that the hobbyist sets for themselves. Why do they do this? Because it aids everyone in getting what they want from the hobby.

Such subdivisions are – in my experience – much more meaningful to categorize different styles of play and subgroups within hobby wargaming rather than the confusing (and always controversial) dichotomy between historical and fantasy games.

Categorizing 'styles of play' will run into the very same confusing attempts at multiple levels as opposed to a simple dichotomy between historical and fantasy games. And as wargame designers always attempt to provide everything for everyone, designs will obviously claim to provide for all 'styles of play.' Just as obviously, wargame designers will benefit if the definitions remain amorphous. I can also see such definitions morphing quickly into 'levels of play' which would be far more controversial.

I have been involved in a number of hobbies and past times, all of which have solved the problems of defining the various genres and 'different' types of enjoyment provided. After thirty+ years in the wargaming hobby, I have come to the conclusion that the reason the hobby still hasn't succeeded in establishing that most basic of hobby structures is:

We don't want to and actively resist any efforts to clarify the amorphous.

Let me as you this: Why in the world would it be difficult to describe the differences between a game designed to replicate historical events and those that are based on fantasy worlds?

That would not be difficult, actually, it's a well-defined starting point for designing a game.
However, the question is whether this distinction is the most meaningful to describe different subgenres of wargaming?

In my view, the names "historical wargaming" and "fantasy wargaming" are not very useful descriptors to distinguish between different styles of games. Some people use them to refer to the game design, as in your quote. Others use it to describe differences in period. Still others use them to describe the figures used. Hence the continuous confusion of what constitutes historical or fantasy wargaming.

Tony Bath is widely considered as the founder of ancients wargaming, rightly so. Nevertheless, his games and setting had a strong link to fantasy literature. You might say his rules were firmly rooted in the study of ancient warfare, and he only used fantasy elements for the names of his armies, countries etc. Correct. But still, the way he describes his armies, writes about his campaigns etc. is more akin to what we would call fantasy wargaming today.

Some commercial WW2 rulesets are more like popular commercial Scifi rulesets, although people would call them historical wargaming since the table visually looks like a WW2 battlefield.

"Historical" and "Fantasy" have so many connotations in wargaming, coloured by the history of our hobby, commercial products, positioning of certain rulesets, etc., that it is very hard to use them to label different approaches of the hobby.

Back in the 70s, it might have been easy. You used Orcs and a Tolkien scenario, so you played a fantasy wargame, although the only thing you did ruleswise was use a one-page supplement to the WRG rules.

I am not saying there are not differences in how rules are designed, or how scenarios are set up, or how history is included in the game. I am only saying the historical/fantasy division is not the best way to describe the various approaches people use in their games. As I said before, I would consider the scenario vs army-list mindset towards setting up a game much more fundamental.

Phil,

Your reference to Multi-dimensional Scaling is very apt. At least we agree that there are many axes along which various aspects of the hobby can be traced. Surely, though, how fundamental or significant a particular axis is to different gamers would be as varied and subjective as the choice of what types of games to play, and for the same reasons.

You have correctly observed that the differences along the history/fantasy axis are more subtle and finely graduated than many of the others; this is precisely why they generate so much discussion. Choose any axis (scenario/army list, painted/unpainted figures, diorama/simple terrain) and you will find that any gamer who has no strong preference among the aspects that lie along that axis will find discussions of those aspects tiresome and meaningless, as you do with history/fantasy.

War Artisan,

I do not find the discussion about historical vs fantasy entirely meaningless – but I do think it's not entirely relevant anymore.

I can understand there was wide discussion when fantasy wargaming first entered our hobby in the early seventies. It broke from tradition by using fantasy literature as its foundation rather than history, and hence, it required a different mindset to approach or validate games and rulesets.

However, what we can see during the past 4 decades, is that history and fantasy wargaming have exchanged ideas, mechanics, visuals, approaches to the game, etc. Hence, I do not think that the duality between history and fantasy is still as meaningful.

I concur that there are gamers who prefer rulesets that produce games that are rooted in historic reality. I also concur that there are rulesets that are just simple games aimed at something quick and fun without having some underlying model of historical warfare. And those two are at the extremes of a spectrum – but they do not necesarily coincide with historical or fantasy wargaming. There are today fantasy wargamers who are much more serious about the validity of their rules than some history wargamers.

That's why I mentioned the scenario vs pointlist style games. I think that an historical wargamer that enjoys scenarios would feel more related to a fantasy gamer who does the same, than to a historical wargamer who plays in the point lists/competition scene, and vice-versa. The number of wargamers who play both historical and fantasy periods is significant, which, IMO, is further proof that the distinction is not so strict as it perhaps once was.

There are today fantasy wargamers who are much more serious about the validity of their rules than some history wargamers.

If you mean those who game in a fictional universe that has developed a literary or cinematic canon, then yes, I have also seen that. They can get quite testy about things that depart from or add "unauthorized" details to their chosen canon. But strict/lax about details is a different axis than real/imaginary, and being serious about something doesn't make it more real.

The number of wargamers who play both historical and fantasy periods is significant, which, IMO, is further proof that the distinction is not so strict as it perhaps once was.

Or, it might be proof that a large and growing number of wargamers fail to perceive (or are indifferent to) a distinction that is still as strict and relevant as ever to others. Hence, the essay.

In my view, the names "historical wargaming" and "fantasy wargaming" are not very useful descriptors to distinguish between different styles of games. Some people use them to refer to the game design, as in your quote. Others use it to describe differences in period. Still others use them to describe the figures used. Hence the continuous confusion of what constitutes historical or fantasy wargaming.

Tony Bath is widely considered as the founder of ancients wargaming, rightly so. Nevertheless, his games and setting had a strong link to fantasy literature. You might say his rules were firmly rooted in the study of ancient warfare, and he only used fantasy elements for the names of his armies, countries etc. Correct. But still, the way he describes his armies, writes about his campaigns etc. is more akin to what we would call fantasy wargaming today.

Phil:
I agree that is a basic problem with our hobby, but not one for most all hobbies. Simply because the medium, game rules, miniatures etc. are shared between a variety of genres, doesn't make it difficult to distinguish the differences in use. There are clear differences between representational paintings and abstract oils even though they both use the same medium, paints on canvases.

Hobbies make the same kinds of distinctions. The radio controlled airplane hobby has free scale, semi-scale, scale and true scale models with very specific, technical differences, which do or do not include historical evidence. They all still use the same balsa wood, glue and paint, with much the same modeling methods and radio equipment. But no RC modeler is going to say the distinctions between semi-scale and true scale modeling are amorphous and ill-defined.

I concur that there are gamers who prefer rulesets that produce games that are rooted in historic reality. I also concur that there are rulesets that are just simple games aimed at something quick and fun without having some underlying model of historical warfare. And those two are at the extremes of a spectrum – but they do not necesarily coincide with historical or fantasy wargaming. There are today fantasy wargamers who are much more serious about the validity of their rules than some history wargamers.

And some RC modelers are more serious about their free scale planes than those who build true scale planes.

So what?

How seriously a hobbyist takes his particular fun in the hobby doesn't dictate [or confuse] how different genres are divided up.

The purposes of the designs, what the design goals and effort required are the basis for those distinctions. This is true for most all hobbies. The reason hobbies go to the trouble to make those distinctions is the real benefits they provide the hobby and subsequent fun.

The issue isn't all that amorphous, unless folks make that way… which the wargaming hobby seems to practice unrelentingly.

I'm with Dynaman and Rich. Some games are indeed just a game, with a passing nod to history, but a well-designed game can be enlightening. I enjoy, large, multi-player operational games and learned far more about logistics as a result. That's something even the history books tend to neglect, but is crucial.

I actually played a game designed for the MOD a couple of times last year. The second time was a Falklands scenario which, whilst dull to play as the Argentinians, was instructive in how the campaign unfolding. Apparently they had play-tested the scenario with two of the British senior commanders from the campaign and they felt that playing the game was the first time they'd had a proper debrief in 30 years.

Some games are indeed just a game, with a passing nod to history, but a well-designed game can be enlightening. I enjoy, large, multi-player operational games and learned far more about logistics as a result. That's something even the history books tend to neglect, but is crucial.

So some games are designed with little effort to mimic history and some involve a lot of effort. Those are two different design purposes with two different goals for the participants. Nothing wrong with either, unless

1. Consumers are never told that difference
2. Consumers are told that both designs 'capture history' equally well and it is only someone's opinion if they see a difference.
3. Consumers have no specifics in those basic differences so they don't really know what they are buying other than 'a game.'

Content and purpose is what defines them and their differences--not the medium used to create them and not whether customers play them for those reasons… or even care.

I play fantasy and historical games. I don't expect the same experience from both unless I really don't care about the history… if I do, then whether the historical wargame succeeds or fails, I do experience the difference.

What point are you trying to argue McLaddie? False advertising? Some wargamers don't know their history? It's hardly breaking news.

I was simply addressing a different point – the idea that games cannot aid an understanding of history.

As for the original post, I'd say that some historical wargames aren't that far from fantasy, but others are poles apart. and I'd agree with War Artisan that simple statements such as 'it's all fantasy anyway' are somewhat naïve.

Some games are indeed just a game, with a passing nod to history, but a well-designed game can be enlightening. I enjoy, large, multi-player operational games and learned far more about logistics as a result.

I tend to agree. OTOH, the game you are describing is not very typical for what most hobbyists understand as "miniature wargaming".

To be frank, it's an element in discussions like these that always irritates me a bit. Hobby wargaming with toy soldiers is in 99% of the cases NOT a training tool for officers, nor is it an exercise in operational planning or logistics. Sure, there are games like that, and they're also called "wargames", but they are so far removed from what is actually played on gaming tables, that I am always surprised that people bring up these examples to prove a point. It's not because hobby wargaming and professional wargaming share a common heritage over 100 years ago, that it is still relevant today.

It's as if a hobby chemists claims that by doing some experiment in his basement he knows how a chemical plant is operating. That's what chemical engineers are trained to do. Or a sunday-afternoon-hobby-fishing enthusiast claiming he knows something about large scale commercial fishing because it's both about catching fish.

I do understand the sentiment, but usually the examples are irrelevant. Sure, there might the gem of a well designed hobby wargame out there that can also double as a tool for training officers, or a game that gives a deep insight in some aspect of history, but those are the exceptions, not the rule. It's usually not how most wargamers experience or live their hobby (disclaimer: based on my observations during cons and gaming nights :-)).

Some honest questions:
- Are *miniature* wargames actually used as training tools for military officers *today*?
- Are *miniature* wargames used by historians to study or to discover new insights?
- Are there academic papers about military history that reference miniature wargames?

I do think miniature hobby wargaming can help people to become more aware of history, or provide a nice passtime to learn something more about history, as a museum could do, or a book. However, that is still something different from a game providing new knowledge. Perhaps to the person playing the game? But do games really add knowledge to the body of military history? It's probably the other way around … But perhaps I am too much focused on history as a discipline vs the historic knowledge of an individual.

I would even say that games themselves offer very little in terms of military history, and are somewhat meaningless (in terms of learning something about history) if you do not know the historic framework surrounding the particular conflict. Sure, they might offer some things in terms of tactical doctrine, or how to solve a tactical problem, or the uniforms of a given period. But that's such a thin slice of military history in general …

Phil – the thread didn't specify miniatures-only wargaming, although I was recently talking to someone in the MOD who's started using miniatures for training with lower-level commanders. I'll not mention the system for fear of side-tracking.

It was interesting to see the number of recent games being developed for training at the Connections UK conference last year, as well as some of the cross-over between hobby gamers and professionals and presentations on the increasing use of wargaming in the military. The vast majority of people I play the operational games with are hobby gamers though. We may be a minority but there are increasing numbers of people getting involved.

I would agree that in my experience most hobby gamers aren't too worried about deepening their understanding through the game itself (rather than perhaps associated activities) but I think now introducing the idea of 'new historical insights for historians' is adding another qualifier which wasn't there in initial statements. Sometimes a game designer wants people to understand currently accepted key concepts of warfare at a specific point. The audience for wargames is rarely professional historians.

The statements I was responding to included 'Games are games. They have nothig to do with history beyond evoking a period.' and 'WarGAMING may give you a very limited view into the tactics of the military in the period you are playing but it gives you no in-depth understanding of history.'

Those are absolute statements and I dispute them as they suggest a limited experience of wargaming per se, (which, I grant you, is not atypical).

Perhaps a more inclusive and less absolute statement could be:

Wargames may, or may not teach us much about history; depending on the game design and intent, as well as the inclination, knowledge and experience of those playing. :)

Personally, I think Wargaming is still too niche a hobby to go around discounting different types as not 'proper' or really wargaming, especially given cross-fertilization that can take place.

Personally, I think Wargaming is still too niche a hobby to go around discounting different types as not 'proper' or really wargaming, especially given cross-fertilization that can take place.

Second that.

Phil-

The answers to your three questions ar yes, yes, and yes.

- Are *miniature* wargames actually used as training tools for military officers *today*?
- Are *miniature* wargames used by historians to study or to discover new insights?
- Are there academic papers about military history that reference miniature wargames?

Rich answered those questions, but yes. The Military, both land and sea never stopped using miniatures.
Yes, for instance, Phil Sabin, military historian, wrote a book on Ancient Warfare referencing insights gleaned from miniature and board wargames, but wargames have been used by academics to teach off and on for quite some time. It certainly isn't common, but it is done. I did in high school and universities. I even taught courses to college professors in the use of wargames and simulations.

I would even say that games themselves offer very little in terms of military history, and are somewhat meaningless (in terms of learning something about history) if you do not know the historic framework surrounding the particular conflict. Sure, they might offer some things in terms of tactical doctrine, or how to solve a tactical problem, or the uniforms of a given period. But that's such a thin slice of military history in general …

That is only true if the designer never tells the customer/player the history used to designed the game. That is a necessary component of any participatory simulation, if it is going to work as a simulation: The players have to know what is and isn't represented. Even knowing some history can actually confuse the situation because there is a lot of history out there. The question is what specific history is being modeled.

It's as if a hobby chemists claims that by doing some experiment in his basement he knows how a chemical plant is operating. That's what chemical engineers are trained to do. Or a sunday-afternoon-hobby-fishing enthusiast claiming he knows something about large scale commercial fishing because it's both about catching fish.

What do you say when those hobby fishermen are actively recruited by the commercial outfits and many of the commercial fishermen provide their 'large scale' operations to weekend enthusiasts? The Connections conferences mentioned are just that mix of professional and hobby designers. Any number of long-time hobby wargame designers, say like Peter Perla can also be a high level Wargame designer for the Navy. Any number of hobby wargames have been picked up by the military for training purposes, and the reverse is just as true for board, miniature and computer wargames.

I do understand the sentiment, but usually the examples are irrelevant. Sure, there might the gem of a well designed hobby wargame out there that can also double as a tool for training officers, or a game that gives a deep insight in some aspect of history, but those are the exceptions, not the rule. It's usually not how most wargamers experience or live their hobby (disclaimer: based on my observations during cons and gaming nights :-)).

Phil, I think it is a matter of what wargames CAN do, if desired and what hobby designers CLAIM their designs provide, not what they *should* do or what gamers generally experience.

Personally, I think Wargaming is still too niche a hobby to go around discounting different types as not 'proper' or really wargaming, especially given cross-fertilization that can take place.

I agree wholeheartedly, though that is equally true for much larger hobbies. Unfortunately, many statements about what wargames can do visa vie history and reality are translated as discounting somebody's favorite rules set.

The question would be why that is? Few if any RC modelers discount the Sunday flyer or his off-the-shelf RC airplane as wrong or not part of the hobby simply because they happen to be enamored with True Scale modeling.

But lets talk about what gamers want and what they are sold, particularly in light of what the military or historians might want.

The designers of Flames of War state that players will face the same challenges as the actual WWII commanders. Why make the statement if customers don't care? And if true, the Military might find that rules set useful.

OR How about Fire & Fury or Regimental Fire & Fury? The designer claims that both are "historically accurate". In fact, he states that is what players have come to expect from F&F rules sets. It would seem that is something players want and certainly if true, would be of some interest to historians.

Now, any number of players don't care, but obviously many do to have designers make such claims for a hobby product. And many players have little idea how that might be true and certainly don't play those games for that reason. That's fine. Still part of the hobby.

The problem is that there are no discernable genres in wargaming. All wargames are judged as providing the same thing in the same way. So, the Designer of Warmaster states that the basic movement and command system is 'like' real ones even though the rules are for fantasy gaming. And of course, gamers themselves then take the rules and apply them to Napoleonics and the Civil War, which further confuses the issue.

The designer of Bolt Action on one Youtube explanation of the rules admitted that he didn't know much about WWII and he just wanted to design a good game. Apparently he has, even though the most basic small unit tactics can't be used with the rules. That isn't a criticism. It is simply a fact. On the other hand the designer of Chain of Command designed it at a similar scale to specifically model small unit tactics.

Now, why should those two games be judged on the same criteria when they weren't designed for the same reasons, even though both use the same scale/unit size and their scenarios are interchangeable?

And in just stating those obvious differences will make Bolt Action enthusiasts defensive and Chain of Command aficionados feeling their favorite rules are 'better' because of that difference.

I would suggest that the two games are different genres because of the different design purposes, just as Semi-Scale and True Scale are planes built with the same materials for two different goals.

There are a wide range of miniature wargames, with a variety of goals for playing enjoyment. All are part of the hobby. They shouldn't all be judged on the same criteria, but rather whether they are successful in providing the kind of gaming fun they were designed to provide.

The answers to your three questions ar yes, yes, and yes.

Ok, so I started digging around on Google Scholar… have some reading to do tonight …

To be honest, I was not aware of Connections. Some interesting stuff there. professionalwargaming.co.uk

However, I don't see miniature wargaming using toy soldiers mentioned there (yet), which was primarily what I was talking about in my remarks during this thread ;-)

The Military, both land and sea never stopped using miniatures.

Can you give a reference? Did the military ever use miniatures in the way we nowadays do in miniature wargaming? Even von Reissewitz used simple blocks to denote troops and troop types.

Sorry Phil, I thought you were aware of Connections. I've only been to last year's but found it very useful. One thing I noted was was looking at some of the games and thinking they seemed a little old-fashioned when compared with some hobby games.

Did the military ever use miniatures in the way we nowadays do in miniature wargaming?

I'm not up on current practices, but back around the 1970s and 80s junior officers and ROTC units used a system called Dunn Kempf for training purposes. It used a large, molded plastic terrain board representing a piece of Germany, and the same micro-armor miniatures that my wargame club was using at the time. The rules were detailed and, as far as I could tell from what I knew at the time, not inaccurate, but they were not significantly different from the various other modern warfare rules the club had tried.

I know this firsthand because our club, after putting on a demo game of the Battle of Cowpens for the benefit of the ROTC class, was invited to play against them in a Dunn Kempf game. In spite of the fact that the cadets were already familiar with the system, and our club members were just seeing it for the first time, the cadets lost. Badly.

I'd just like to say thanks to the OP for starting an interesting discussion.

You're welcome, Caliban. And I'd like to thank the participants (well, most of them, anyway) for keeping the discussion civilized and relevant.

Certainly, just like the wargaming hobby, military wargaming has become dominated by computers, but one thing that tabletop wargaming provides, both board and miniatures is a far more accessable way to provide a training program. Writing the code, imputing the programs and having the equipment available to run a computer wargame is far more expensive.

Anyway, there are several low level command wargames currently using miniatures, particularly in the navy, but also the army and airforce. The military tends to be fairly secretive about the details of any military program, particularly currently. Even so, the army in 2011 and 2012 had an service-wide wargame:

Unified Quest 2011 Combined Arms Maneuver and Wide Area Security Tabletop Wargame as well as 2012. From what I understand both board and miniatures were used [obviously, board much more than miniatures]

One thing I have heard about is military bases using hobby miniature wargames as activities/therapy for veterans, including PTSD sufferers.

I used to have any number of pictures of military miniature exercises, particularly urban setting to provide model LOS exercises… yes, in competitive game form.