I think I should expand.
I never war game anything I don’t know about. I certainly never buy a war games figure until I’ve read at least a handful of books on the period to which they belong. Anyone going to my blog can see the list of books on my shelves associated with each of my collections. I love the history!
Nothing gives me more pleasure than re-fighting actual engagements of the past. I try, as best I can, to recreate the battles with correct OOB, deployments and terrain. I try to find or write rules that recreate the tactics of the period and its flavour. History slightly over ‘game’. Again, my blog has lots of them documented.
But, when it comes to imagination style campaigns and battles, set in one of my chosen historical periods, I become more interested in making the games as entertaining, within the possible bounds of the period, as I can. If more terrain than would be historically accurate makes for a better, fun giving game then I’m afraid that more terrain it is. It might be one of the reasons most of my campaigns make it through to completion – the players in my current Punic campaign are not complaining about always fighting on a flat featureless table. Nor are they complaining about the non-historical nature of the battlefields. Game and history in balance.
But as umpire, if I have to come down on the side of history or fun, in either the case of historical refight or imaginary set up, FUN WILL WIN. If the players cease to have fun, what’s the point of the game or the hobby?
- This reply was modified 7 years, 2 months ago by James (olicana) Roach.
My whoring and daubing: