"How distant to be "fun"?" Topic

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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!

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.

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

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.

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" …

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 …

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

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

Depends on the person.

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.

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.

Yes, we play 1789-1815. ;)

I don't have much sympathy for either side.

Well I'll admit with Sci-fi I lean to the Human side.

, 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. !

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.

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.

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

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

I'll put it this way. I played a modern game that had my own tank in it. I nailed my tank with a T72 and found out in during the combat results that I killed the driver… that was me!

That was a sand table exercise back in '92 and I was playing OPFOR. It was weird, but It's a game. I have no problem with ultra modern gaming.

I like Cold War gaming that never happened, and pretty much stop at thh 80's. I just can't game the modern wars that actually did happen as I know people from quite a few of 'em and that's too "real"

My son just finished 5 years in the Marines with multiple deployments. He met with the president of a game publishing company who is interested in his design of a mission-oriented Special Ops game. He has no problem with what he did overseas. He said he thoroughly enjoyed his job. However, it's not like that for everyone.

Wolfhag

For me it's not the time factor, it's the frustration factor. WW1, Korea and Vietnam had high body counts and few successes for either side, so I don't want to play them. WW2, Napoleonics and Colonials had high body counts but massive successes for both sides, so more interesting to play. I didn't get any earlier, maybe if there'd been a steady group of ancients players nearby in my youth I would have been interested.

I should mention that one friend of mine doesn't play anything past about 1900, as charging horse-cavalry into MG fire isn't very fun (for either side). He was a Cav Scout in the 1980s, and still misses his horses… *eye roll*

But he will happily play the insurgents/Pathans for my colonials to kill my Brits, so it all works out.

For me it's not so much period as scale – I can happily game most periods at 'unit' level but don't do skirmish where it's down to 'individuals' getting killed…

I love modern miniatures. I don't own a single terrorist. I don't plan to play games where contemporary terrorists are on the table. For starters, they're boring. It's just a bunch of dinks wearing track pants with scarfs on their faces.

Battle of Gibraltar 2025? Sign me up.

I think you can wargame a scenario and still be respectful about it. Wargaming is not supposed to be getting your entertainment at the expense of others, it is supposed to be an education and an appreciation of something.

That said, if someone feels it hits too close to home for them, that is perfectly understandable.

I should admit that I don't have a problem playing modern naval, even 'hunt the boomer' where it's the Georgia or Kentucky and me personally onboard the target.

But I'm starting to develop an odd aversion to gaming the American Civil War. You see, my great-great grandfather fought in the 4th Maine. The only think he told his granddaughter (my grandma) was "that The War was too terrible to talk about."

And my introduction to historical gaming books/rules was Fire and Fury back in the 80s or 90s, with those big color photos of games in progress!