Help support TMP


"How distant to be "fun"?" Topic


34 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the SF Discussion Message Board

Back to the Blogs of War Message Board

Back to the Modern Discussion (1946 to 2006) Message Board

Back to the Cold War (1946-1989) Message Board

Back to the Getting Started with Moderns Message Board

Back to the Ultramodern Gaming (2006-present) Message Board



1,175 hits since 6 Jun 2017
©1994-2017 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Queen Catherine06 Jun 2017 8:42 a.m. PST

My pal sat on his modern Afghanistan figs for a while, never seeming to get around to the promised project: Force on Force in an Afghan village / town, in 28mm, all premium figs and buildings. We were looking forward to it.

The other day I asked him about it, and he said that he decided it wasn't a fun gaming topic, so he decided to get rid of it all. Post is here:
link

Granted, all war is horrible to experience, albeit interesting to study [and essential to study] and enjoyable to set into game terms.

So this got me thinking…how long ago does a game period need to be to be "fun"? Or does it just need to be purely speculative and in the future like this:
link

Or is this all in bad taste? After all, killing sentient life forms is troubling in some way even if they don't exist?

DestoFante06 Jun 2017 9:01 a.m. PST

I can call it Absurdistan, and deploy some modern French Foreign Legion miniatures, and enjoy the same game that, with a different title and different figures, might end up making somebody uncomfortable. First of all, good taste and respect.

Titchmonster06 Jun 2017 9:07 a.m. PST

If after you decide to embark on a project you then lose interest, whatever the reason do as he is. Sell it and move on. We all game for our own reasons and to have a game become uncomfortable is understandable as it is still an ongoing conflict that may involve family and friends.

Norman D Landings06 Jun 2017 9:26 a.m. PST

Meh.

I can happily take a pawn with my bishop, without boo-hooing about the church's oppression of the peasantry.
I can call out co-ordinates until a battleship sinks, without sparing a thought for the helpless, frantic crew trapped in the flooding hull.
I have overloaded a poor, innocent mule with prospecting equipment until it bucked, with zero concern for animal welfare.

I must be some kind of monster.

ScottWashburn Sponsoring Member of TMP06 Jun 2017 9:34 a.m. PST

I have no idea what the reasoning might be in the depths of my mind, but I have no interest in gaming any conflict after World War II.

Guthroth06 Jun 2017 11:02 a.m. PST

I would game the Falklands, but after that, it's too recent. 30 years does it for me.

nnascati Supporting Member of TMP06 Jun 2017 11:47 a.m. PST

Interesting topic. I'm 66, so I've lived through the Viet Nam Wars, the Falklands, and the assorted Middle East and African wars. I've gamed all of them at least once, but eventually I get to feel self conscious aobut it and sell the figures. I am still very interested in reading aobut and watching such conflicts, but I don't think I'll game them any more.

Queen Catherine06 Jun 2017 12:44 p.m. PST

thx for thoughtful replies.

'Nam is tough – I still know people who fought there, and i've never seen them show up to a 'Nam game. OTOH, I wouldn't have a problem gaming the Falklands.

Perhaps distant is both time and cultural sphere. If you aren't British, then no big deal for Falklands?

I like the Imagi-nation approach, which somehow works great for colonials and some other periods.

I think that I'd be unconcerned about gaming anything from Korea and earlier. Even 'Nam I could probably get away with French involvement in the 50s, Dien Bien Phu, etc.

foxweasel Supporting Member of TMP06 Jun 2017 1:09 p.m. PST

I don't have issues playing any wars or periods. They're just toy soldiers. There's still plenty of men around from WW2 (but getting rapidly fewer), people don't seem to have problems playing that and it was a lot more horrific than Iraq or Afghanistan.

zoneofcontrol06 Jun 2017 1:21 p.m. PST

I don't have a problem gaming historical events of any era. I read books, websites, newspapers and magazines about them without a problem. I have listened to news radio broadcasts about them. I have watched news footage and video/films about them. Some of that that stuff is much, much more real than what I do on my gaming table.

If someone else has a problem gaming a particular historic or fictional genre, that is OK with me, I respect that. There are millions, perhaps billions of people on this planet that are not like me. Lucky them!

Ragbones Supporting Member of TMP06 Jun 2017 2:04 p.m. PST

I grew up at the knee of veterans of WW2, Korea and Vietnam. Then I spent 34 years working in the DoD, engaged in active support of combat operations and a wide variety of clandestine ops. I won't play anything after 1900.

Dynaman878906 Jun 2017 2:07 p.m. PST

Earlier today is just fine. Something happening while we game it is fine too. Hard to get any relevant details for those however.

rvandusen06 Jun 2017 2:20 p.m. PST

I generally don't have a problem with gaming any period, including ultra modern, but in more recent conflicts I tend to use imaginary situations as opposed to straight historical re-fights. Another thing I like to do is take a historical scenario, but change up the participants to other nations.

Legion 406 Jun 2017 2:21 p.m. PST

I'm 60, I just play sci-fi … so no one is really upset if aliens get wasted by humans or vis versa, etc., etc. I used to do nothing but historical, since the '60s, even 1 to 1 scale war games for over a decade. So with sci-fi I have a "pass" … evil grin

killing sentient life forms is troubling in some way even if they don't exist?
Not if they are stink'n aliens that want to eat your face ! Even if they don't/never existed …
picture

Who would get upset with the sizzling sounds made when hitting these slimy "things" with incendiaries ?

picture

Stryderg06 Jun 2017 2:23 p.m. PST

You asked about "fun". I don't think distance from a conflict matters. Fun is usually found when we try to master a game or situation or try to learn from an activity. You remember singing the ABC song in first grade? That was fun, until you had it memorized. So I'll game any period (probably why I hop from rule set to rule set).

I think the problem comes in when the emotional connection to a conflict (because you were there or knew people involved) overwhelms any chance of learning and of having fun.

basileus6606 Jun 2017 2:26 p.m. PST

Perhaps distant is both time and cultural sphere.

Pretty much. It is not the same when you know real people that did suffer the war you are gaming. On the other hand, I had an acquaintance that fought in the SCW and never minded to play a game set in the war… actually, he did play with both sides without any problems whatsoever.

Oddly, outside of the game he never talked about the war. Maybe it was some kind of therapy for him… who knows?

robert piepenbrink Supporting Member of TMP06 Jun 2017 3:57 p.m. PST

Hmm. I'l do WWII, though I'm happier in the 18th and 19th Centuries. I haven't done anything later than 1945, but that's not a decision not to do so.

What I actually draw the line at is guerilla warfare at the point at which you don't know who the enemy is. I could see myself defending some outpost of Dien Bien Phu or some Green Beret base camp. Ambushing a convoy is fine. But going through some Viet hamlet or 1919 Irish village--or 1943 French village, some to that--trying to figure out whether some kid has a hand grenade behind his back just doesn't fit my definition of recreation.

Of course there are others. I know of a tanker who couldn't play anything involving tanks. He could too easily imagine himself inside.

badger2206 Jun 2017 4:40 p.m. PST

I have ran con games of charlie dont surf and had Vietnam vets play in it. And had a couple of friends who would not play but would discuss what happened to them there, giving me a lot more insight into what it was like.

I was in desert storm, and would play a game, but nobody seems to want to play the iraqis.

Our local con has perhaps 50% veterans and all sorts of stuff gets played. In fact last year I played in a game where the guy putting it on was making what seemed odd. I finally asked him about it and found out the scenario was his 1st day of desert storm as a what if. For him, as for me a game seems just that, a game. For many others it can be more than that.

Owen

Personal logo 28mm Fanatik Supporting Member of TMP06 Jun 2017 5:18 p.m. PST

For me it's not the timeframe or how recent but the type of conflict. I have little interest in insurgencies/asymmetrical wars and playing as or against ISIS or the Taliban hold no appeal to me at all.

If it's near peer I'm in, but they would be hypothetical what if scenarios.

advocate07 Jun 2017 2:28 a.m. PST

Yes, all war is hell but distance makes things acceptable as games.
Personally, I've never really wanted to play modern games, so it's not an issue. Except for AK47. But even although the Africa it's set in is usually fictional, it's somehow too close to the bone for me. I can't explain it (no close links or personal experience), and I have no trouble with other people playing it, but I find I can't.

Fatman07 Jun 2017 3:10 a.m. PST

I'm with 28mm Fanatik not the time but the type of conflict, I haven't found a set that I like which makes it playable. I might play it with the Lardies "Fighting Season when I get my dirty mitts on a set though.

Fatman

Lion in the Stars07 Jun 2017 4:24 a.m. PST

I know guys who were there that game Vietnam (or Afghanistan).

Depends on the person.

Legion 407 Jun 2017 5:44 a.m. PST

Depends on the person.
That is truly the bottom line … in gaming as well as in many things in life. Not just on the gaming table playing with toys. laugh

Okiegamer07 Jun 2017 8:52 a.m. PST

Uh, you mean to tell me that people actually game outside of the period 1861-1865? Why?! Just kidding, but ACW is more than enough to keep me occupied.

ScottS07 Jun 2017 12:19 p.m. PST

Yes, we play 1789-1815. ;)

Queen Catherine08 Jun 2017 7:04 p.m. PST

what happened in 1789-1815?

Queen Catherine08 Jun 2017 7:09 p.m. PST

OK, so it does seem varied, and I guess it is personal.

Interestingly, modern gaming is played a lot less than ancient and horse and musket, so this hasn't come up a lot. The sole exception is WWII, which is wildly popular. OTOH, I have trouble playing the eastern front b/c I don't have much sympathy for either side. This should also mean that I could play either side and not care how many little lead figs die, since they are eithe commies or fascists, anyway. But overall, I like to play the Western Desert, 1941-2, even into 43 and Tunisia.

It's a pretty interesting issue, b/c we usually game to have fun. Obviously, military people game to learn something, so their whole impetus is to ONLY play games that are directly related to their work, even if it is Afghanistan and they were there two years ago.

Maybe they'd think that the 7YW was just, well, almost irrelevent? And Alexander the Great was not worth checking out.

Legion 409 Jun 2017 6:20 a.m. PST

I don't have much sympathy for either side.
Well I'll admit with Sci-fi I lean to the Human side. huh?

, I like to play the Western Desert, 1941-2,
I too like the NA and France '40 Campaigns. And gamed them frequently when I did a lot of historical gaming. I still study military history, always have, even thought now that I moved into sci-fi modeling/gaming as my primary focus.

Like I said, who really cares is toy aliens get "toasted", "fried", etc. ! wink

chromedog09 Jun 2017 8:26 p.m. PST

I started my gaming with "moderns" and "cold war gone hot" but this was back in the mid/late 80s, when they were more topical.

I've never had any interest in Vietnam or earlier.

It's easier to game the speculative future because it's further away than history and no-one has memories of it yet.

Queen Catherine09 Jun 2017 9:19 p.m. PST

nice point, chromedog!

While we can project [imagine] into the future, we can't really get close to it unless the speculation is so close to something else. That is of course what makes some sci-fi shows effective, is that they are "so close" but not identical and therefore not burdened with the reality baggage of the past.

Legion 410 Jun 2017 5:53 a.m. PST

As I said, I/we've gamed all eras from pre-history, like Caveman vs. Caveman/Mammoth/Dinos[yes I know Cromags, Neananers, etc. came along after the Dinos(AFAIK ?!)]… All the way thru Ancients to Moderns. And even a little Sci-fi added to the mix, i.e. Star Trek, SST, etc. Though most were board games with chits, etc., from AH, SPI, GDW, etc.

However, from about '90 on I got into Sci-fi with GW's 40K and Epic being a "gateway drug(s)". And I always liked Sci-fi along with military history. I feel Sci-fi can be basically divided into a two genres'. Hard Sci-fi like Hammer's Slammers vs. Sci-fantasy like GW 40K.

Even though we use a lot of GW Epic in our 6mm Sci-fi. We dismiss, cherry pick, etc., some from GW Epic and other Sci-fi out there as well.

It's Big Galaxy and even a BIGGER Universe. So mixing in GW/FW Epic, with Hammer's Slammers, etc., etc., into our take on hard sci-fi. Is our predilection. Especially with all the new good options for sci-fi models and rules available today.

Queen Catherine10 Jun 2017 8:05 p.m. PST

I think Sci-fi can definitely be the perfect imagi-nation. Heck, most of it is, anyway.

It seems to me that the good thing about sci-fi is that you can *manage* the distance, while with real life historical gaming, it is set for you by outside factors.

Legion 411 Jun 2017 6:37 a.m. PST

And again, no one really can get [too !?]upset when you "terminate" aliens "with extreme prejudice" ! wink Save for the alien allies of the "Humies". They are our "Galactic Bros" ! evil grin

Billy Yank11 Jun 2017 7:53 a.m. PST

I think it's entirely personal for vets. I spent a good deal of time getting blown up and shot at in Baghdad during the surge and I have no problem playing modern games set in Iraq or Afghanistan. I've even played insurgents at times. It all depends on how well someone can compartmentalise their experiences.

BY

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.