"What do you mean ... "historical"?" Topic

A lot of people talk about outcomes. I'm not that focused on the outcomes. If something happened, it must have been possible. But if something was possible, that doesn't mean it was likely.

I married a hottie. Three plus decades later, she is still cute a a button and fun to be with. Those two sentences are historically accurate. But I frequently wonder about exactly how likely that outcome was.

Take that same principle and apply it to wargaming. The Normans won the battle of Hastings. Historically accurate statement.

We should expect the Old Bill to win Hastings in a TTWG 9 of 10 times. Different things. That assertion (or 8 of 10, or 2 of 10) could be bolstered by historical facts, but you have to bring in a lot of stuff other than history to make it.

I consider it to mean "most of the descision challenges you faced were similar in form to ones faced by historical decision makers".

I would not object to "William the Conqueror has blue winged monkeys wearing red fezzes" as much as "the Norman OOB has units that can take to the sky, ignore terrain, become harder to hit, and can swoop down on opponents at well putting the players well outside the Norman decision space".

Same objection. Different bases.

A uniform, battle, or army that can be linked to a historical era or war.

To go with your example, sometimes even historical generals roll a one.

For me "historical" gaming means did, or plausibly could have, happened in history.

Romans vs Chinese, Victorians vs Lakota, Cold War gone Hot, these are possible, even if only the last is really plausible.

Vikings vs Samurai, Wehrmacht vs Zulus? These are fantasy as much as Orcs vs Elves. The armies may be historical, but the match ups are impossible. Orcs vs Elves the match up is "historical" but the armies are impossible.

Historical games need not always produce historical results. In a game the Normandy landings could fail or Napoleon with at Waterloo.

Dave Crowell +1. I'm not slavishly tied to historical outcomes but it is nice if they are feasible in the context of the rules and scenario.

My great preference is to fight 'historical' battles – ie something which bears a resemblance to something which actually happened in terms of terrain, OOBs, either sides aims etc even if some of that stuff might be based on pure conjecture like many Ancient battles.

As Napoleon said at Waterloo as the Prussians arrived, "our chances are 60 in our favour and 40 not" (I paraphrase). Based on my experience of innumerable Waterloo games, I'd say he was right. Well, he was Napoleon.

It ain't a historical game of Chancellorsville if the Union player doesn't get smacked over the head with a 2x4 at the end of turn 2. Then see how the outcome goes for the rest of the game.
~ , ~

Generally, taking place during a historical time period.