"Rules vs Wargamers" Topic

One cannot but observe the sheer amount of different rule systems across the broad historical period.

Surely there must be more rules than players.

No.

But only because there's a rule against it.

Well, looking at my hard drive I count at least 28 rules sets that I've written and inflicted at least once on my long-suffering club, and that's not even counting subsequent developments and expansions of them as well as variants and expansions to published rules. So my guess is David is probably right…

I'm pretty sure there are more Napoleonics rules than there are historical miniatures gamers.

Add in all the other periods, and we're probably talking in multiples.

3 Rules for the aerogamers up in the sky.
7 Rules for the Tank Drivers in their chariots of steel.
9 Rules for the Nappy players doomed to roll for morale.

1 Rules to unite them.
1 Rules to invite them.
1 Rules to incite them all,
and at the tourneys delight them.

In the stores of brick and Mordor, where the dice cups lie.

besides, they're more like guidelines anyway!

And most will fall into the same clunky mechanism traps!

Funny lot gamers, even the most tiny thing in a set of rules sets them off, especially if they perceive it to not be "historical".

Yeah, as a problem, it ranks with basing systems and scales as a way to have armies and be unable to play games. But I don't see any of them getting better soon.

Nicely done HMS Exeter.

I saw Zombieland Double Tap for the first time yesterday. One of the characters was wearing a t-shirt that read:

Law and Mordor.

I Googled it and got lead to another great one:

Sauron, Make Mordor Great Again.

No subtext intended.

I also saw "Make Gondor Great Again".

The funniest I came across was "Cthulhu 2020, why settle for a lesser evil". And it's predecessor "Cthulhu 2016, No Lives Matter". :-)

I saw an especially appropo one for us geezers.

It depicted a dog skeleton.

In dog years,
I'm already dead.

Wowwwww! I am impressed, such literary talent deserves to be rewarded. Present a reprint of this and $1.50 USD USD at your local coffee shop for a cup of you favorite brew.

I remember old Marvel comics with posters in the panel background reading "Vacation in Fun-filled Mordor.

And my bumper sticker reads "Cthulhu for President: don't settle for the lesser evil." (It's a silver-gray econobox: I couldn't find it on the parking lot without that bumper sticker.)

I drive a silver gray econobox. My R rear door is crumpled, so it's easy to spot.

Long story.

If we count our figures as miniature gamers, because they are miniatures and used in games, aren't the number of historical gamers quite abundant?

@USAFpilot:

I used to see "Cthulhu for President" posters in California at least as early as 1996-- I think he's been around for a long time.

I wonder what Cthulhu's campaign slogan was back in 1996.

"Vote for me and I'll eat you first!"

If your car is running, vote for it.

Could'nt resist reposting this by Ryan T

With apologies to Emo Phillips this account seems somewhat apropos…

I met a guy at a gathering and he said, "I'd rather be working on my hobbies." I said, "Me too." I asked, "What is your hobby?" He said, "War gaming." I said, "Me too!" I asked, "Boardgames or video games or miniatures?" He said, "Miniatures." I said, "Me too!" I asked, "Role playing or tabletop?" He said, "Tabletop." I said, "Me too!" I asked, "Fantasy or historical or sci-fi?" He said, "Historical." I said, "Me too!" I asked, "What period – ACW or American Revolution or WW2 or Colonial or Napoleonics or modern…?" He said, "Napoleonics." I said, "Me too!" I asked, "What figure scale 6mm, 10mm, 15mm, 20mm, 25mm?" He said, "15mm." I said, "Me too!" I asked, "True 15mm or 15/18mm?" He said, "15/18mm." I said, "Me too!" I asked, "What ground scale 1" = 50 meters or 1 cm = 1 meter or something else?" He said, "1" = 50 meters." I said, "Me too!" I asked, "What figure to man ratio – 1:20, 1:40, 1:60, 1:100?" He said, "1:60." I said, "Me too!" I asked, "Based in strips of 1x3 or 2x2?" He said, "1x3." I said, "Me too!" I asked, "What rule set?" He said, "Empire." I said, "Me too!" I asked, "What version of Empire, III or V?" He said, "V." I yelled, "EMPIRE V RUINED EVERYTHING!" and walked away to go join my wife. My wife said, "I saw you talking with Harold, his wife says that he war games, you guys might have something you could play together." I said, "No, we have nothing in common."

I'm trying to re steer this topic back to Rules disagreement as it wandered off

I doubt that there actually are more rules sets than gamers for any particular period, tho in any small game group that is entirely possible.

If, as the "graying of the hobby" doomsayers say, our numbers are dwindling, then whatever real world margin exists is narrowing steadily.

I had always thought that, over time, refinements to rules systems would progressively reduce the numbers of rules for any period which were commonly in use, as a consensus would evolve toward fewer better systems.

Silly me.

All,

Are we talking about Quantity or Quality here?

Under the current circumstances, to include the present lull in the wargame 'state of the art', anything including; "Candyland", "Shutes & Ladders" and/or even "Old Maid" (i.e. the original Card driven war game system) would all be considered Wargame Rules these days. Hell, if the casino game of 'Craps' had more than two (2) dice, it would have also been considered a wargame too! ;^)

The only saving grace I see here for me in this particular discussion, is that no one has really made a hard distinction or argued that "Historical Wargame rules" should fall within the same general category of 'Wargame Rules', which was my assumption in respects to this discussion.

So, let's ask David Grech the question: Does this thread include 'Historical Wargame Rules' too?

Since I listed this topic under the historical wargames I assumed it was aimed so. The point of question arose as the more battle reports I read if it's an unfamiliar author it's probably a different system or a variation of.And if a newcomer asks for advice to start a new period he's bound to be more confused by the sheer number of choices.

David,

Thanks for the clarification. I do agree with you that quantity of wargame rules appears to be on the rise.

However, I still feel that you have to make a qualitative discrimination relating to the purpose/focus of the designs, be it historical or just another wargame. Example: 1824 Prussian 'Kriegspiel' = Historical wargame AND 'Black Powder' = Wargame w/historical miniatures.

I also believe that this increase in the number of wargame designs is centered upon the latter group. Which caters to a younger and much broader/diverse wargaming market basket, than was the case, when "Dinosaurs" such as I, dominated the earth 40-50 years ago.

Thus, it doesn't come as much of a surprise that present day wargame design philosophy advocates in favor of FORMAT (i.e. playing experience) over FUNCTION (i.e. historical representation).

Coming back around to your original posting: Yes, I think there has been a significant increase in the quantity of wargame designs being offered, but firmly believe that this increase sacrificed quality & substance for simplicity, novelty & bling.

So, if this newcomer is looking for more than the just latest fads & gimmicks, he's going to find out that in today's wargame environment there are very few, if any real choices at all.

I have to agree with Analsim, I was not expecting to be Playing Maneouvre Group (our own rules) 11 years on. Then lots of folk were trying to improve speed of play and attempt to model reality better. This was a vain hope, the number of rule sets has increased dramatical at tyhe same time,as far as I am concerned they have moved backwards at an alarming rate. I would only add loss of credibility to Analsim's "sacrificed quality & substance for simplicity, novelty & bling".
Clearly collecting wargames rules simply for the sake of collection seems to be the market the publishers are aiming for, at any cost.

Then lots of folk were trying to improve speed of play and attempt to model reality better. This was a vain hope,…

UshCha:

This was only a 'vain hope' because no one seemed to know how to model reality better in any objective way, so you got:

the number of rule sets has increased dramatical at the same time,…

Because the best folks could do is create wargames that had a 'flavor' or 'feel' that a good number of others would 'like.' It was every designer blindly throwing 'ideas' out there hoping theirs was 'better' without any idea of what constituted better.

as far as I am concerned they have moved backwards at an alarming rate. I would only add loss of credibility to Analsim's "sacrificed quality & substance for simplicity, novelty & bling".

Which is what happens when you can't define 'quality' in modeling reality in any game design in an objective manner. Designers give up and goo for more identifiable objectives, simplicity, novelty and bling.

Thus, it doesn't come as much of a surprise that present day wargame design philosophy advocates in favor of FORMAT (i.e. playing experience) over FUNCTION (i.e. historical representation).

Hi Analsim:

Aren't we all talking about play experience? Historical representation is a play experience. As I said, if you can define what bad, good and better historical representation is in any objective manner, then what's left? By objective, I mean anyone and everyone would see the same thing in a game system or mechanic.

Ahem. That is:

As I said, if you CAN'T define what bad, good and better historical representation is in any objective manner, then what's left? By objective, I mean anyone and everyone would see the same thing in a game system or mechanic.

McLaddie I may be just a simple engineer but seems to me there are some very simple logical tests one can assess rules by. So simple you would expect that ANY systems would meet the requirements close enough, alas many fail even these simple unambiguous tests;_

1) last time I looked at reality, at short distances then it behaved in a linear way (Euclidean geometry) some new rules can't even match that. This is a simple logical an reasonable way to assess connection to reality.
2) If you take a modern period there are some very simple basics available in terms of optimum spacing and formations from Platoon to Company and above for most cold war nations. The rules must have some indication that formations and there density are somewhere near optimum. Again not that difficult to look at.

Let us not fall prey to Publishers who waffle "Feel" for even simple geometric requirements. I have no objection to folk playing fantasy I do, I play Back Gammon but I don't pretend its reality or even some connection to it. Games can be analyzed very simply but publishers don't want that as it gets in the way of there pedaling fantasy as simulation.

McLaddie I may be just a simple engineer but seems to me there are some very simple logical tests one can assess rules by. So simple you would expect that ANY systems would meet the requirements close enough, alas many fail even these simple unambiguous tests;

UshCha:
I didn't say there weren't any number of objective tests for how well and where a game system represents history and/or reality. I was simply saying that no one [meaning game designers with few exceptions] are using them, so they just throw stuff out that is 'their opinion.' You like it or you don't. Thus, simplicity, novelty and bling.

As Historical wargames claim to represent history, are built on historical content, I would think it would beholden designers to state what that content is… it is one thing many gamers are buying if you believe the game promotionals--what they are selling.

As Historical wargames claim to represent history, are built on historical content, I would think it would beholden designers to state what that content is… it is one thing many gamers are buying if you believe the game promotionals--what they are selling.

Designing a game around the number and type of dice does not contain very much historical content. It can simulate a historical action, confront players with the same problems, and give the right "feel" and be fun. That can make it very popular. Balanced scenarios are not very historical either. Neither is being "fair".

Wolfhag

Designing a game around the number and type of dice does not contain very much historical content.That can make it very popular.

Wolfhag:

1. Dice simply represent the probability of an event…regardless of the number of dice, if the probability matches that of reality/history, then what's the problem?

It can simulate a historical action, confront players with the same problems, and give the right "feel" and be fun.

2. So, is that a 'dice can help simulate an historical action, or it can't? I have yet to hear a game design definition of 'feel' that doesn't simply mean "I like".

Balanced scenarios are not very historical either. Neither is being "fair".

3. It depends on how they are 'balanced'. It all depends on the victory conditions. For instance, at Antietam, the Confederates simply have to survive, the Union must go a long way to destroying the ANV. Those could be 'fair','balanced' and historically meaningful goals.

It all depends on the historical situation and how the designer defines a 'win' for each side.

McLad & Co.,

In respects to Historical wargaming (miniatures in particular), the historical fidelity of this representation is tied to how the Player's decision making process and any resulting actions, are tied to the overall 'time-space' (i.e. in terms of movement & results) relationship being portrayed on the tabletop.

Hmmm! Let me see if I can simplify that notion a bit more.

So, what I am really suggesting here is that a historical wargame should be able to create a 'playing experience' that parallels the same type and amount of historical activity in a given battle.

Moreover, a true historical wargame should support and enable the Historical Wargamer to perform his own quality checks, against the known historical record to satisfy this condition.

We are NOT talking about generating the same historical results/outcomes, we are talking about generating an historical amount of battlefield activity, using the same tactical resources "within the same" (i.e. Wargame & Historical) 'time-space' relationship.

It is this "Apples to Apples" relationship that should be at the heart of creating the historical (and symbiotic) 'playing experience'.

As UshCha suggested above, none of this is really that hard or requiring an advanced degree in Rocket Science. ;^)

someone posted a list of wargame rules

it has 2024 titles

link

That there is a lot of wargames is not supprising. Even us Simulatoers have different slants on what are key parameters given the limted Computing "source" (us).
Advances Squad Leader being for instance. Extreemly comprehensive with many additional fators I thing are well thought out. However the wealth of factors makes it beyongd my capability to do get through fast enough to meet my simulation requirements.

Wolfhags and my approaches are wildly diffren, concentrating of diffrent aspects in differing details. Neither is incorrcet they are just concentrate on diffrent aspects.

What would be interesting is to know which of those 2024 were Historical and complied to the very basic creiteria of my 1 Feb post as to credibility. I suspect the number would drop dramaticaly.

someone posted a list of wargame rules

it has 2024 titles

And it's still not exhaustive. A glance at the list sorted by publisher shows it's missing most of the titles from A&A Game Engineering and Long Face Games. I'd bet a good 20ish% of the rules I own are missing.

It's still a good find, though. Thanks for posting that.

- Ix

And that doesn't include all those home brew unpublished sets. Many authors introduced innovative ideas which would if combined together could be ultimate base set but that's a what if.

We are NOT talking about generating the same historical results/outcomes, we are talking about generating an historical amount of battlefield activity, using the same tactical resources "within the same" (i.e. Wargame & Historical) 'time-space' relationship.

Hi Analsim:

Yes, in generating an historical amount of battlefield activity, any dice rolling/card play will have to match the historical probabilities of different results. That is the only way to achieve an "historical amount of battlefield activity."