Help support TMP

POLL: Historical, Balanced, or Fantasy?

216 votes were cast.

Back to POLLS home page

Kevin in Albuquerque Supporting Member of TMP writes:

Thanks for all the comments people. TMPer's are the best.

As for why I used 'fantasy' instead of hypothetical or conjectural, it was a poke at one of our group who constantly harangues about the demise of good historical gaming to the 'fantasy guys.' He needs to give it a rest, hence the poke. Good gaming is good gaming, period. IMHO

Kevin in Albuquerque

Back to the Homepage

1,836 hits since 11 Aug 2008
©1994-2018 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

If you were a member of this website, you could participate in website polls. Would you like a free membership?

strict historical scenarios
bar of chart
balanced scenarios
bar of chart
fantasy scenarios
bar of chart
bar of chart
no preference
bar of chart
not an historical gamer
bar of chart

Kevin in Albuquerque Supporting Member of TMP writes:

So I've been taking some grief lately about the battles I've been designing for multi-player games. And I'm wondering why that is so.

Our group has played in the first six months of this year six games 1808 Napoleonic era in Spain using AofE rules. The battle/scenario designer is of the school of thought that we should play historical battles but adjust the forces for play balance to have a more fair fight, so that both sides will enjoy the battle. (Then is it really a ‘historical' battle, when the forces used are not a best match to the ones on the field?) I've put on, in addition, three multiplayer games; two ancients (using Armati) and one Napoleonic (using Napoleonette). The two Armati games used forces that, considering how the army build system works, probably are not historical (we used armies that would have fought in the Successor Wars; Antigonid, Ptolemaic, Seleucid and Lysachimid), and the Napoleonette used forces that were taken from historical sources (Greenhill's Data book), but never ever saw action together. 1809 Bavarians and 1805 French versus 1807 Turks and 1809 Austrians. Neat battle, and close, but honestly complete fantasy on my part.

The AofE games were well attended (4-6 players) and mine were less so (4 players each time). Aside from scurrilous opinions about my choice of neckware (none) or political opinions (none of your beeswax ), I'm thinking the real difference is that more, OK slightly more, people want to play historical set-ups adjusted for play balance. Me, I just like to push lead around, in the eras I enjoy, whether it's historical, balanced, or fantasy. Don't really care.

In your historical gaming, which do you prefer:

  • scenarios based strictly on history
  • historical scenarios, adjusted for play balance
  • conjectural ("fantasy") scenarios, that never happened but perhaps could have

(See original discussion here)