D6 Junkie | 27 Jul 2019 5:30 p.m. PST |
So would you tolerate a 'Weak Historical Game' if it was successful in bringing new blood into the hobby? 'Weak' call it as you see it. By tolerate, I mean not bash it every chance you get perhaps get someone to run at your local club or event. |
Dn Jackson | 27 Jul 2019 5:45 p.m. PST |
I can tolerate just about anything. Doesn't mean I'd play it. I couldn't care less what other people play, so I guess you'd say 'yes' for me. |
jurgenation | 27 Jul 2019 5:55 p.m. PST |
Yes ,I have jumped on the preverbial Grenade many times. |
HMS Exeter | 27 Jul 2019 6:06 p.m. PST |
While I appreciate that starting newbs out in "soft" or "blended" or "crossover" semi-historical gaming is more likely to corral them into further gaming, doing so is also, in truth, most likely to recruit a soft or blended or crossover gamer. If you are a hardcore historical gamer, trying to grow that slice of the hobby, this is likely an ill fated approach. The leopard, once spotted, is likely to remain one. Such a gamer is more likely to slide into Leonid fantasy than King Tigers. That having been noted, I think a more fundamental question is the degree to which I feel like I have any business tolerating or disdaining anything anyone else decides to do with figs and dice. Who am I to judge? |
Dynaman8789 | 27 Jul 2019 6:22 p.m. PST |
I've not seen a weak historical game bring in anyone yet, mostly it takes them away. Flames of War being a case in point. |
Thresher01 | 27 Jul 2019 6:32 p.m. PST |
|
Narratio | 27 Jul 2019 7:09 p.m. PST |
Yes of course. But I don't think that 'weak historical' games, or any games, bring people in or drive them off. I think it's the enthusiasm of the players and their ability to transmit that enthusiasm to the newcomer that makes a difference. I used to enjoy doing scripted demo and audience participation games at exhibitions for that reason. We had a sort of script that we'd follow and we'd not worry too much about the technicalities. We'd slimmed down the rules, simplified as much as possible to two sides of paper and hand copies out so that the watchers could follow what we were doing. Then give them command of units or figures in the game. In the long term we found that that approach brought in new players. |
Rdfraf | 27 Jul 2019 9:21 p.m. PST |
What is a "weak" historical game? Weak in complexity? Weak in historicity? |
Texas Jack | 27 Jul 2019 10:56 p.m. PST |
By weak I would assume the OP meant on the historical accuracy side. Like Dn Jackson above, I could coexist with such a game but not play it. So if tolerate means not actively plotting the offending gameīs demise, then count me in. Here is a current tmp discussion of such a game: TMP link |
David Manley | 27 Jul 2019 11:11 p.m. PST |
Yes, to a certain extent, it is good if designers acknowledge the liberties they have taken with reality to bring about a fast and fun game. It's annoying seeing players transition from an entry level set to something more authentic and finding everything they "knew" about the period is seriously at odds with reality |
Fried Flintstone | 28 Jul 2019 1:25 a.m. PST |
Of course. No rules give a simulation of real war. Rather they strive to offer an enjoyable game experience that has some semblance of what might actually have happened in that period. You need to play different rule sets to see which you like. Starting with a weak historical game like Black Powder is fine if it is easy for kids to understand and brings them in to the hobby. If they have already played WH40K then Black Powder would be easy for them to pick up. |
warwell | 28 Jul 2019 3:05 a.m. PST |
This question just raises my hackles because it is wrong on so many levels. 1. You should ALWAYS tolerate another's game, regardless of how "weak" it is and even if it does not bring in new blood. I discussed this in a prior TMP topic TMP link Who are you to tell other people how to have fun?! (And except for military professionals we wargame to HAVE FUN). 2. What defines a "weak" historical game anyway? It's just too subjective. This seems to hearken to the age-old prejudice that more detailed and complicated = more accurate. I haven't found that necessarily so. How accurate can you call a game (e.g. Air War) where a 2 minute dogfight can take a couple of hours to play out? Does that accurately portray the rapid decision-making necessary in a modern dogfight? If you are concerned about learning historical lessons, a well-designed simple game can still do the trick. Memoir '44 has certainly taught me not to launch my armor against infantry in strong defensive positions without adequate infantry support. 3. Maybe it's because I primarily solo game but I don't understand this obsession with proselytizing the hobby. Is it really imperative to grow the hobby? As long as you have some buddies who enjoy the games you like, what do you care what others play/do? I'm very skeptical of the notion that if we aren't always expanding our ranks then the hobby is going to do out. 4. Seems like you are implicitly defining the "hobby" as historical wargaming only. As a fan of fantasy and sci-fi games, I rather deplore the attitude that historical gaming is the only proper form of gaming. I guess this ties back to point 1. I personally think we should be celebrating the diversity of the hobby rather than cast aspersions on those with different interests. So, given my objections above, I guess I would respond to the poll with THIS IS RIDICULOUS |
robert piepenbrink | 28 Jul 2019 4:12 a.m. PST |
I tolerate all kinds of games, though I feel there are appropriate and inappropriate venues for some. But I would like to see this game with incorrect history which is going to recruit more historical miniatures players. Can you give us an example? |
Wackmole9 | 28 Jul 2019 4:42 a.m. PST |
|
The big e | 28 Jul 2019 6:06 a.m. PST |
|
D6 Junkie | 28 Jul 2019 6:47 a.m. PST |
Warwell check Texas Jacks link above. It was the spark for this post. |
etotheipi | 28 Jul 2019 7:46 a.m. PST |
bash it every chance you get Why would anyone do that? (Yes, I know this is the Internet.) check Texas Jacks link above. It was the spark for this post. We probably need to define "bash", then. I didn't see anything I would call bashing. Bozkashi Jones apparently doesn't like the game, but he also doesn't say it's worthless, no one should play it, it is poorly executed, etc.. In fact, several times he commends parts of the game, even though those things are not his preference. And he identifies things he does like, even if that is not enough to make him want to play it. I'm not sure if his using upgrading 12" to 14" guns is a retraction of his assumption about imagineering super dreadnoughts nor not. |
Texas Jack | 28 Jul 2019 8:32 a.m. PST |
I was certainly in the non-liking camp as well, but I am adult enough not to set myself up as some authority on what others should play. I find the game rather odd, especially the weird thing they did with the ships, but I donīt see how my or Bozkashi Jonesī comments can be construed as bashing. |
The Virtual Armchair General | 28 Jul 2019 9:54 a.m. PST |
|
A Lot of Gaul | 28 Jul 2019 10:17 a.m. PST |
+1 for "This is Ridiculous." |
etotheipi | 28 Jul 2019 12:19 p.m. PST |
I would like to see this game with incorrect history Look at any wargame listed as "historical". There it is. All games have incorrect history. Most history treatises have incorrect history. It's not a one-dimensional, absolute scale. It's at least: (1) What's important to be represented (which is subjective), and (2) How is it best represented (again, subjective). Wings of War might be a good example. Wings of War is fun. It presents at least some realistic operational and tactical issues to the player. If you play a historical scenario, it can present some strategic ones as well. Some people will play WoW forever. Some will saturate and look for something else at the same level of abstraction and play. Others will saturate and look for something in the same genre with "more" to it (They might even be inspired to read a book or two, especially about an "exotic" topic like air mines, photo reconnaissance, or zepplins. That is, the stuff they don't mention in school history classes but is in the game.). And some may keep playing WoW (maybe less frequently) and also move to one or the other of the above … or both. And some rare few will make a custom WoW dog flying a doghouse unit from that one Hot Wheels car out there … |
D6 Junkie | 28 Jul 2019 2:34 p.m. PST |
My apologizes Texas Jack.I never meant to imply that you bashed it. I had just come off the facebook and there had been a rant or two. |
Texas Jack | 28 Jul 2019 2:53 p.m. PST |
No problem, thanks very much for the clarification. |
D6 Junkie | 28 Jul 2019 3:46 p.m. PST |
Actually I commented to a friend who was supporting Leviathan, but a bit taken aback by some of the Facebook rants, that the TMPers were being more even handed. |
McKinstry | 28 Jul 2019 8:34 p.m. PST |
I believe there is no incorrect way to play a game with toy soldiers or ships or airplanes. There are games I might choose not to play but if any two others gamers get enjoyment out of those then more power to them. |
Old Contemptible | 28 Jul 2019 10:49 p.m. PST |
Why is it that if one says anything negative about a set of rules, a angry mob comes at them brandishing pitchforks and torches? Can we not have a discussion about the merits and demerits of a set of rules without the tired old chestnut "I don't care what anyone plays and you shouldn't either?" Just because you have criticisms concerning a game that other people play does not mean one is "bashing" anything or anyone. Isn't TMP the best place to review and discuss games? What you like about them and what you don't like about them. That is one of the reasons I am on TMP. |
Old Contemptible | 28 Jul 2019 11:01 p.m. PST |
I actually find this WWI Naval game interesting. But much too comical in appearance. I would like to see if they can be modified to use actual miniatures on a larger map. With a little work they maybe more in line with other more advanced historical rules. I agree this is not the magical spell that will lead kids to advance historical gaming. But it may spark their interest in history and that is always a good thing. |
Old Contemptible | 28 Jul 2019 11:22 p.m. PST |
Oh yes, another old chestnut "no game is historical." Yes "Seekrieg" does not have real ships or real guns. It does not come with an actual admiral's uniform, etc, etc. Let perfection be the enemy of good. Naval wargaming has been used as a teaching tool at Annapolis and the Naval War College for decades. I am sure most have seen photos of Naval Officers and Midshipmen on the floor pushing model ships around in the 1920s and 30s. My guess most of the advance rules today are more complicated than anything gamed back then. The point is that it was used and still used as a teaching tool. You can get as detailed as you want. There are rules which do a better job of replicating actual naval warfare than others. We can't play a live recreation of Jutland but we can do the next best thing. Excuse me if I call it HISTORICAL WARGAMING! |
Old Contemptible | 28 Jul 2019 11:46 p.m. PST |
Warwell, Two related but different hobbies. I have absolutely nothing against the Sci-Fi and Fantasy gaming. I am a fan of both. Historical gaming is so much more. I just put on a 15mm ACW battle of Turner's Gap game. I conducted the research, wrote a scenario. Built the terrain. Went over several maps from the period. Researched the OB and made sure I had most of the correct units. It is part of an ongoing Antietam Campaign I am putting on for my historical gaming club. I visit battlefields take photographs and do a tremendous amount of reading. I have over years built up a huge library. Like I said related but different hobbies. |
Texas Jack | 29 Jul 2019 12:09 a.m. PST |
@D6 Junkie I can imagine the fiasco that is facebook. :) @Old Contemptible I think if you read D6 Junkieīs further posts you will see the bashing comment was not aimed at the folks here at TMP. I totally agree with the comical appearance, I think a better solution was simply to use a size that fits what the developers had in mind. |
David Manley | 29 Jul 2019 9:37 a.m. PST |
So now we know the game that started this line of thinking, and in familiar with the Facebook discussion assuming it is that which has taken place in the Naval Wargaming forum. Far from being a "fiasco" it is a pretty even handed chat, some like the models, some don't, others not really seeing why they are shortened. Mal Wright doesn't like them at all, perhaps it is his contributions that are being seen as "bashing"? |
Texas Jack | 29 Jul 2019 12:06 p.m. PST |
Mal definitely has a way with words, bless his heart, but having not seen the discussion I will take your word for its even handedness. A pity though they distorted the ships, as from what I saw they were quite lovely models. |
robert piepenbrink | 29 Jul 2019 1:38 p.m. PST |
D6 junkie, pleased to hear you're coming off Facebook. Is there a support group? A 12-step program? Anything we can do to help you through the worst phases of the withdrawal pains? |
rmaker | 29 Jul 2019 2:14 p.m. PST |
Well, it seems to me that people have tolerated WRG Ancients for decades, despite glaring historical inaccuracies, so what are we arguing about? |
D6 Junkie | 30 Jul 2019 11:07 a.m. PST |
Yep it was Mal's continuous comment of 'why would anyone'. Just rubbed me the wrong way. Say it and move on. But it reminded me of other games like FoW that some people dont care for and feel the need to point it out in every post. |