I sometimes think that historical wargaming is rather like a good historical film.
Consider films such as 'Waterloo', 'Gettysburg' or 'A Bridge Too Far'. Historians can point to numerous inaccuracies. Timelines are compressed. Personalities are simplified or amalgamated. Units are left out. Certain events are omitted altogether. Yet, despite these liberties, many viewers come away with a genuine sense of the battle's character.
'Waterloo' feels like Waterloo.
'Gettysburg' feels like Gettysburg.
'A Bridge Too Far' feels like Market Garden.
The films convey something deeper than mere factual accuracy: they capture the atmosphere, the dilemmas, the tension and, above all, the essence of the events.
Good wargames should aspire to do the same.
After all, every set of rules is a compromise. We distort ground scales, compress time, simplify command structures and reduce thousands of men to a handful of figures on a table. Absolute accuracy is impossible.
The question, therefore, is not:
"Is the game perfectly accurate?"
but rather:
"Does the game create an experience that feels historically authentic?"
When playing Waterloo, for example, do I feel the growing pressure of the Prussian approach? Does committing the Guard feel like a desperate gamble? Does the battlefield create the same command problems that Wellington and Napoleon faced?
If the answer is yes, then perhaps the game has succeeded, even if the artillery ranges are mathematically incorrect or the battalion frontages are distorted.
Likewise, a game may be perfectly scaled in every measurable respect and yet somehow fail to evoke the battle. It can become an exercise in geometry rather than history.
I would therefore suggest a "Cinematic History" principle:
A good historical wargame need not reproduce every detail with scientific precision; it should instead recreate the essential experience and command challenges of the historical event.
In other words, I'd rather play a game that feels like Waterloo than one that merely measures Waterloo.
Am I guilty of rank heresy, or do others think that the "feel" of a battle is ultimately more important than perfect technical accuracy?
