Help support TMP


POLL: Historical, Balanced, or Fantasy?


216 votes were cast.


Back to POLLS home page


unknown member 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



1,711 hits since 10 Aug 2008
©1994-2017 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

The Membership System is temporarily offline for maintenance. It should be restored shortly.

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

VOTING RESULTS
AnswerVotes%Chart
strict historical scenarios
25
12%
bar of chart
balanced scenarios
32
15%
bar of chart
fantasy scenarios
43
20%
bar of chart
other
12
6%
bar of chart
no preference
99
46%
bar of chart
not an historical gamer
5
2%
bar of chart
POLL IS CLOSED
POLL DESCRIPTION

unknown member 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)