"A difference between Board and Table wargaming: A Question" Topic

I happened to be reading the rules to to a couple of wargames last night, GMT's new At Any Cost and an article about Avalon Hill's Russian Front. I was struck by what were written about the two games some 33 years apart:

AH's Russian Front:[1985] From an article in The General by S. Craig Taylor Jr., "The Russian Front Dissected."

Like every game, RUSSIAN FRONT has a number of "gaming tricks" or commonly used strategies that work well with the game's system. The measure of a game's strength or weakness as a simulation lies in how well the "tricks" and the actual play of the game represents actual events.

[Italic the author's]

Compared to:

GMT's At Any Cost: Metz 1870 [2018] "Rules Introduction" [assuming written by the designer Herman Luttmann or the developer Fred Manzo:

At Any Cost: Metz 1870 is a game simulating the situation west of the Metz fortress during those few days of August 1870. The game is designed to be a playable, two-player brigade-scale game that allows players to experience the unique tactical warfare matchups that characterized fighting during the Franco-Prussian War. Will YOU as the Prussian player be able to withstand an early severe numerical disadvantage and use the audacity of the Prussian soldier and artilleryman to win the day? Can YOU as the French player overcome the lethargic and uninspired command structure of the Army of the Rhine and allow your tough and well-equipped infantry to fight unhindered?

This consistency by board wargame designers in using the term 'simulation' to describe their designs over three decades is not seen among Table Top designers. Many designers of the rules we play actively avoid using the word 'simulation' at all. Some state that our wargames can't be simulations. Obviously, miniature gamers have similar and wide ranging opinions on the use and validity of the term.

Now, here is the question for me:

Regardless of what views you hold concerning our games and simulations, what do you all feel is the reason for this difference in views between the two groups of wargame designers, particularly when some like Craig did both?

I can only think of three possible reasons though there could be more:

*Basically different kinds of designers

*The difference in the wargame medium--board map and counters and miniatures on a table.

*The difference in the basic attractions of the two kinds of wargames.

What are you're thoughts on this?

I think it's simply the vocabulary of one hobby versus another.

Board game designers, for example, never talk about "period feel" as far as I can tell.

when you say table top, do you mean miniatures, or do you mean games like Puerto Rico, or Catan or Carcassonne?

If the later, I believe that is intentional. I know many table top designers of the latter camp, and simulation is not on their mind- but rather mechanic with the setting or subject either serving as window dressing or a way to give a game a set type of feel.

Go to a protospiel with a simulationist game, and they'll cut it apart because the simulation isn't fun. Go to a Wargame Design cabal with a gamist Design and they will likewise shred it for not being an accurate simulation, even if it is fun.

Neither is right or wrong- they are both valid approaches for different audiences (unless you only want games from one of those camps- in which case, the other camp is the devil).

The real geniuses in design are able to thread the needle and make a game that does both, but those are rarer gems.

If you meant miniatures games, I'd argue that you premise doesn't match my experience.

Hmpf. Some old-timer posted here maybe two-three weeks ago that miniatures players were primarily extroverts and map and counter gamers primarily introverts, but obviously some play both, some design both, and as an exclusive miniatures player and a Meyers-Briggs ISTJ I run counter to his generalization anyway.

EC may very well be right, but it's also worth considering that map and counter games tend to replicate a single historical event, which makes it (theoretically) possible to get it exactly right and feasible to get finicky, while miniatures rules tend to be applicable to a large number of historical or what-if events. Maybe "period feel" is the best we can do.

I'd also say I have known miniatures people to get seriously wrapped around the axle about "simulation." (The last owner/editor of MWAN comes to mind.) As a miniatures player, I try to avoid such people and the rules they recommend. There is a point at which the cumulative historical detail is an impediment to a realistic battle, and they never, ever recognize it.

@Extra C: Oh, the board game designers have. The one I love was for GMT's Alexander. The designer claimed his creation had 'accurate flavor' and 'extensive historical feel'.

@Tgerritsen:
I was thinking miniatures vs board games, which I see Catan, Puerto Rico and Carcassonne as such being played on printed boards of one kind or another with markers and meeples…

@robert P: I think categorizing hobbies by players' personalities usually goes off into some very strange generalizations. As useful as the Meyers-Briggs is [INTP], I doubt very much that you could determine designs and hobbies trends by 'grouping' character traits.

I'd also say I have known miniatures people to get seriously wrapped around the axle about "simulation." (The last owner/editor of MWAN comes to mind.) As a miniatures player, I try to avoid such people and the rules they recommend. There is a point at which the cumulative historical detail is an impediment to a realistic battle, and they never, ever recognize it.

Well, Hal T. wasn't alone in getting 'tangled with that axle', but neither are you. Your views about 'cumulative historical detail' are shared by many [Like me].

What I don't see is any board wargame community designers or players getting 'wrapped about that axle' to any degree, let alone actively avoiding those who do.

I am just wondering why.

When Frank Chadwicks four map monster or the Russian Campaign is being re-published by Victory Point or Command Decision's on-going publishing of similar old monster games, or even GMT's excursions in to 4+ map games harboring infinite detail, I see no axle wrapping going on…

I think that part of this is due to external perception and the designers' reactions thereto. The board wargame designers were (and remain) very sensitive to the reaction of self-important military and historical professionals. Miniature wargame designers on the other hand, are automatically dismissed by those sorts as "playing with toy soldiers", and can safely ignore them.

Art vs. Science,

Historical Miniature gaming is more as you said has a "historical feel." It is more about the visual aspects of a battle. The buildings, trees and other bits. Well painted miniatures, martial music playing in the background. What some call the period flavor. The rules need to represent the period but it is nothing without the 3D experience. Miniature gaming is more art.

Historical board wargaming is more science. It tries to simulate the battle. Think of each game as a non-fiction book about a battle or conflict. There is a reason that the Naval War College, Command Schools, service academies and ROTC units have used board games as a teaching tool.

One can go into great depth with board games than one can with miniatures. There are exceptions like the Harpoon series but in general that is how I differentiate between the two.

It seems to me that all three of your observed reasons contribute to the differences you've perceived. They're so tightly interrelated that I'd say it would be difficult to pry them apart.

At the most fundamental level, it's the different media that establish a conceptual divide between miniature wargames and board wargames. The very presence of miniature figures and terrain in the playing space creates distortions in the spatial relationships. This makes it necessary to devote significant portions of the ruleset to dealing with these distortions and greatly increases the difficulty of exploring, in any kind of detail, their interactions. Board wargames are less hampered in this way, and are thus a more suitable tool for illustrating complex interrelationships. On the other hand, board wargames are less effective at evoking in the players an emotional response to the material being presented.

Because of these differences, each medium tends to attract players whose expectations more closely match the strengths of the respective media. The difference in language may just be the perception of the designers that they are playing to two somewhat different audiences.

I avoid the use of the words "simulation" or "simulate" in any of my designer's notes or explanations (whether they apply to a board wargame or a miniature wargame, and in spite of the fact that they are all simulations) because the definitions assigned to those terms by wargamers cover ground so varied and contradictory as to make the communication of any kind of meaning through the use of them nearly impossible. Even experienced designers are not immune to this kind of inaccuracy, such as when Rick Priestley, in a recent interview, declared with an obvious (and misplaced) air of certainty that "To be an accurate simulation, in the true sense of the word, you have to have everything included."

Popcorn time.

Dynaman8789 for the win !

Art vs. Science,

Rally Now:
There is no 'versus' between the two. Art is simply the application of scientific knowledge in creation. That is why scientists such as DNA Crick or Einstein can say that their branch of science involves 'art' too. That is why there is an "Art and Science" of war.

Historical Miniature gaming is more as you said has a "historical feel." It is more about the visual aspects of a battle. The buildings, trees and other bits. Well painted miniatures, martial music playing in the background. What some call the period flavor. The rules need to represent the period but it is nothing without the 3D experience. Miniature gaming is more art.

I agree about the 3D experience, but does that made the rules different?

Historical board wargaming is more science. It tries to simulate the battle. Think of each game as a non-fiction book about a battle or conflict. There is a reason that the Naval War College, Command Schools, service academies and ROTC units have used board games as a teaching tool.

That 'science' is not the reason--I can't see any more science in cardboard counters and strength numbers than with miniatures stands and cohesion factors. Phil Sabin in his book Simulating War states that it is the convenience that has the military using board games. They require less space and particularly Sabin's designs, less time in setup and play time. Miniatures have been used. They were in a number of present day exercises and certainly were with the WATU WWII exercises:

TMP link

One can go into great depth with board games than one can with miniatures. There are exceptions like the Harpoon series but in general that is how I differentiate between the two.

I think your observation is shared by other gamers. The scale representation with board games can go up higher than miniatures, but I am not sure about more depth… more detail? I don't think so, either attempted or needed. The goals of both miniature rules and board game designers appear to be similar in representing history regardless of the different mediums.

War Artisan,

I said:

It TRYS to simulate a battle. Didn't say any actually succeeded, but sometimes they get damn close. But that doesn't necessarily result in a good game.

Popcorn time.

Dynaman8789 for the win !

While these are fairly common observations among miniature gamers here on TMP, I haven't seen similar responses on board wargame sites such as ConsimWorld when wargame and simulation design are discussed.

Even experienced designers are not immune to this kind of inaccuracy, such as when Rick Priestley, in a recent interview, declared with an obvious (and misplaced) air of certainty that "To be an accurate simulation, in the true sense of the word, you have to have everything included."

War Artisan:

Yeah, there is that ignorance, like saying that a V8 engine has to run on 150 octane fuel to be a V8 engine. But why with successful miniature designers and not on ConsimWorld and board wargame designers?

Rallynow hit the nail.

Jervis Johnson once said in an interview, that WAB was designed around the models. That is why WAB has rules for musicians and standard bearers. This argument wouldnt make any sense in a board game.

> I haven't seen similar responses on board wargame sites such as ConsimWorld when wargame and simulation design are discussed.

I've only been to the Consimworld folders for individual games and series, in those that I have been to the very idea that a game should not try to be a simulation is not even entertained – though I have heard they do exist. Here is where the very idea that a wargame should strive to be simulation is scoffed at by a loud (active? somebody is going to object to the word I use to describe it no matter which one I choose so the hell with it) segment of the membership exists – Also on the wargames groups on Facebook.

As always I beg to differ. The 3D effect of miniatures at the lesser ground scales (where the map represents 2 or 3 Km scale) makes it easier to visualize the terrain at that scale. The military often use models at the tactical level. The St Nazaire raid was planned on a model (this can be viewed at the Imperial War Museum in London, I have done so).
Visualizing terrain on the basis of maps with contours which is in effect a board game, I certainly find a much more difficult task. Of course sometimes the military overlook this issue as well. Hill 112 was not recognized in time as a key piece of terrain on the basis of the maps.

For some not all the needs of art override the game requirements and that can slew the system to abandon plausibility for more models on table.

Simulation vs game, there is no real middle ground really in the TMP environment, views are very polarized and hampered in many cases by a lack of understanding that actual death of the player does not need to be a part of a realistic simulation.

Jervis Johnson once said in an interview, that WAB was designed around the models. That is why WAB has rules for musicians and standard bearers. This argument wouldnt make any sense in a board game.This argument wouldn't make any sense in a board game.

@ Decebalus:

So board games have never been designed around cardboard counter designs nor been done at scales where including standard bearers and musicians make 'sense'?

I name cases where board wargame designers did both in one design. [Several of Steve Peak's Yaquinto designs did, for instance.]

I've only been to the Consimworld folders for individual games and series, in those that I have been to the very idea that a game should not try to be a simulation is not even entertained – though I have heard they do exist. Here is where the very idea that a wargame should strive to be simulation is scoffed at by a loud (active? somebody is going to object to the word I use to describe it no matter which one I choose so the hell with it) segment of the membership exists – Also on the wargames groups on Facebook.

@Dynaman8789:
Yes, that has been my experience much of the time.

It just isn't clear to me why that is, being enamored of both board and miniature wargaming. The game mechanics for the rules used are basically the same.

I do know of several historical board wargame designers who are very open about design[s] of theirs not being simulations[1942, Battleline and Battle Cry for instance]. That 'should be' attached to the term simulation really becomes an issue…because there is no reason a wargame 'should be' a simulation. There are cases, depending on the goals of the designer, where a wargame needs to be a simulation to achieve those chosen goals in representing history/combat, but that is a technical issue, not some 'should be.'

The main difference is that stacking is not allowed in miniature wargames.

Winston, stacking but wheel to wheel tanks is, which is almost the same thing.

The main difference is that stacking is not allowed in miniature wargames.

I have never read that a miniature rulebook with that restriction on stacking…. I wonder why?

Did you ever try stacking elephants or chariots?

"tried" is the operative word…and least for my elephants and chariots.

With miniatures all the stacking takes place off-table in their transportation containers when braking suddenly on the way to the wargame club

The main difference is that stacking is not allowed in miniature wargames.

That too!

Some of you guys are trying to make this thread, board gaming vs. miniature gaming. That's not what this thread is about. It is about the differences between the two.

I really like both. They each have their place. My board game collection is huge. I rarely get to play any now a days. But I have started playing solitaire. I learn quite a bit playing them.

I plan to add playing a board game to my scenario research routine. You learn so much about a conflict, playing board games.

For me the big advantage board games has is that the entire game comes in a box ready to play. No painting, no basing, no terrain pieces. But I really like the 3D effect of a miniatures game. When done right, miniatures are hard to beat.

A friend of mine created a 3D classic "Third Reich" game. It was a huge board that looked just like the game map. Instead of counters there where 28mm figures. It was visually stunning.

But in the end it was a "Third Reich" game. A board game with miniatures instead of counters. I'm not sure what this is has to do with this subject, but I think it says something.

For me the big advantage board games has is that the entire game comes in a box ready to play. No painting, no basing, no terrain pieces. But I really like the 3D effect of a miniatures game. When done right, miniatures are hard to beat.

Rallynow:

You are right, this thread isn't about miniatures vs board wargames other than the differences in designer views between the two. War Artisan has expressed several personal beliefs of my too.

By starting the thread, I was just wondering about how the designers for board wargames differ from miniature rules designers concerning
what both believe they are designing. I am in your camp. I have a number of board games, recently a few 'solitaire' designs along with miniatures. I enjoy both.

A friend of mine created a 3D classic "Third Reich" game. It was a huge board that looked just like the game map. Instead of counters there where 28mm figures. It was visually stunning.But in the end it was a "Third Reich" game. A board game with miniatures instead of counters. I'm not sure what this is has to do with this subject, but I think it says something. But in the end it was a "Third Reich" game. A board game with miniatures instead of counters. I'm not sure what this is has to do with this subject, but I think it says something.

Yes, it says that the medium used to represent the wargame doesn't change what the rules do or attempt to do with different counters or 'tables'. Obviously, rules for board games have to address the physical differences in the counters, maps and scale from miniature wargames, yet many of the same methods [such as hexes and measuring sticks] are used by both types of wargames. Are there really a significant difference in the game systems, mechanics used or design goals?

So far, the suggestions have been to suggest that the differences in attitude towards designing 'simulations' has been the physical components…as though computer chess is a different game than a physical chessmen and board, or board wargames are more 'scientific' than miniatures.