Home Forums General General Reasons NOT to refight historical battles

Viewing 23 posts - 41 through 63 (of 63 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #163188
    Avatar photoGuy Farrish
    Participant

    I think we’ve wandered from the original question (and possibly confused it quite significantly, such is the way of wargames discussions), but not I think in the way you suggest.

    Refighting a historical battle starts from an existing situation,  eg 1000hrs on 18 June 1815, and lets the player take the potential outcomes for a walk.

    ‘Historical’ games set in a period but not based on actual orbats or conflicts have less basis in reality but may be easier to set up and may make some players feel less constrained by real events and outcomes (because there weren’t any).

    This was what Chris I suspect was originally aiming at. ‘Refighting’ actual battle versus throw ’em down home grown scenarios.

    Neither of these in my definition of the word is ‘fantasy’. The outcomes will be fictional – but the means of achieving those fictional outcomes will be be bound by the laws of physics that shape our perception of reality.

    However,

    ‘Fantasy’ battles not only start from a fictional position but proceed to their imaginary outcomes via methods completely at odds with known possibilities. Eagles don’t fly wizards to Mount Doom, nor do they desist from that activity because of Nazgul. They don’t exist and eagles don’t carry people, magically inclined or not, on their backs.

    So the first move in the game set  on 18 June 1815 doesn’t propel us into the realm of fantasy, even though it will be fictional once we deviate from the orders of Wellington and whoever was actually controlling things on the French side. Events, will proceed via rules modelled on what could happen in reality. Whereas the whole point of Fantasy is to explore situations that do not and cannot exist except in our imagination.

    Neither is inherently ‘better’. But they certainly are different.

     

    #163189
    Avatar photojeffers
    Participant

    I thought Star Wars was ‘A Long Time Ago…’?

    I think I read that somewhere.

    More nonsense on my blog: http://battle77.blogspot.com/

    #163214
    Avatar photoRod Robertson
    Participant

    The only good reasons which I can think of for not playing historically-based wargames battles are as follows:

    1) You do not like refighting historically-based battles.

    2) You do not like fighting wargames battles historically-based on a certain period or group of periods out of personal taste.

    3) As someone above mentioned, you believe that making a game out of an historical conflict is disrespectful and somehow demeans those who fought, died, were wounded or survived the real conflict.

    4) Historically-based battles are just to0 big and too complicated to present in miniature form without distorting them somehow in order to make them gameable.

    5) You do not believe that any wargame can depict an historically-based battle, making the whole thread question moot.

    6) You are agnostic towards historically-based wargames but prefer what-if games, imaginary games, fantasy games and science fiction games instead.

    7) You dislike history and the historical constraints placed on historically-based wargames but like to wargame nonetheless.

    8) You dislike wargames in their entirety for some reason.

    Did I miss any valid reasons?

    Cheers and good gaming.

    Rod Robertson.

    #163217
    Avatar photoPaint it Pink
    Participant

    I think we’ve wandered from the original question (and possibly confused it quite significantly, such is the way of wargames discussions<noscript></noscript>), but not I think in the way you suggest.  [snip]

    Neither of these in my definition of the word is ‘fantasy’. The outcomes will be fictional – but the means of achieving those fictional outcomes will be be bound by the laws of physics that shape our perception of reality. However, ‘Fantasy’ battles not only start from a fictional position but proceed to their imaginary outcomes via methods completely at odds with known possibilities.  [snip]

    Whereas the whole point of Fantasy is to explore situations that do not and cannot exist except in our imagination. Neither is inherently ‘better’. But they certainly are different.

    I’m assuming you’re referring my contribution. If not, then not to worry.

    With regard to what is fantasy, playing with toy soldiers is by its very nature not real, and it is a fantasy of the player to think that the laws of physics are being replicated by the game mechanics. At best, it is a thought experiment, at worst the assumptions the rules extrapolate the game mechanics may well have no real connection to real world physics (by this I mean that cause and effect are modeled, not driven by physics).

    At that point we are arguing about playing games with toy soldiers. Paddy Griffiths would have a thing or two to say about that if he were still alive.

    Of course, if you’re not playing with toy soldiers, and instead are playing with umpires using a form of Kriegsspiel then you may have a point that the game is no longer pure fantasy, but it is still a simulation and not real.

    The definition of fantasy while largely true, is not absolutely true.

    Pretty much any fiction is from the minds of creators and the narratives often bear little connection to the causal outcomes of real events. Arguably, even a lot of historical studies are pure supposition and mythology; a fantasy of order created by those who think they understand the cause and effects of historical events.

    Which is why we get revisions in our understanding of wars etc as new evidence is uncovered.

    One is good, more is better
    http://panther6actual.blogspot.co.uk/
    http://ashleyrpollard.blogspot.co.uk/

    #163229
    Avatar photoGuy Farrish
    Participant

    Hi Paint it Pink, yes, I was responding to your post. My post followed right after yours, but we went over a page – I should perhaps have made it clearer. I’m afraid I don’t t agree with most of what you say (except that Paddy would undoubtedly have had something to say!). I suspect we are going to have to agree to disagree. However…

    Fantasy (in respect of wargames); let’s do a thought experiment. Or try it for real if you fancy the idea.

    Advertise a ‘Fantasy game’ at a show, convention, club night, maybe even among friends. Then put on Waterloo and see their reaction.

    We went over some definitions of ‘fantasy’ earlier in the thread and whilst some suggested, like you, that any concept of pretence is fantasy I find that unconvincing.

    Online Oxford languages defines ‘fantasy’ thus: ‘the faculty or activity of imagining impossible or improbable things.’

    My 1975 printing of the Concise Oxford says: ‘Image making faculty, esp. when extravagant or visionary.’

    Neither supports the interpretation of fantasy as any fiction, and a whole genre of publishing lends popular support to that view as much any disappointed fantasy gamer being invited to play a ‘historical’ game.

    As for toy soldiers – well as Paddy said,they are an imperfect vehicle for testing battle history (being Paddy of course I have toned it down somewhat).

    I feel as did he that umpired Free Kriegsspiel gives the best experience to explore what might have happened in a conflict, albeit still falling short of ‘reality’. I don’t remember him ever being cavalier with what a battalion was likely to have been able to do, either as umpire or player.

    As for

    Arguably, even a lot of historical studies are pure supposition and mythology; a fantasy of order created by those who think they understand the cause and effects of historical events.

    Well of course, Whig historians, Marxists and just plain old narrative storytellers all  bring their own baggage. Unless, however we are going to adopt a postmodernist approach and embrace each reading of the text as a rewriting, there is an objective set of events somewhere. We may never find them but we keep trying.

    Which is why we get revisions in our understanding of wars etc as new evidence is uncovered.

    By research and analytic thinking, not by embracing ‘it’s all a fantasy’ and writing whatever feels okay at the time.

    Are games ‘real’? Well they aren’t a battle. Do they recreate the experience of one? Not even kriegsspiel or CPX or any version of talking game can achieve that, nor of course would we want the stress, danger and possible death even if it were possible. But even a toy soldier game, for all its problems of scale and time distortion and too much information, offers more insight into possible realities than a free kriegsspiel about fighting off the Bodachs and Palug cats around Errwood Hall could, however erudite and knowledgeable the umpire may be about the Weirdstone Trilogy of Alan Garner.

    One is an exploration of a possible reality that didn’t happen but may have occurred, the other is a makebelieve game whose only boundaries are the umpire’s imagination based on a novel about things that don’t and can’t exist.

    #163238
    Avatar photoMike Headden
    Participant

    So, we agree that we get a better understanding of history by research and analytical thinking than by playing games based in the imaginations of our forebears and contemporary authors. That’s something.

    Archaeology, original sources and perhaps things like re-enactment societies allow us to expand our knowledge of history and to come up with new models for understanding the past.

    However, my point is that playing a game where Napoleon wins Waterloo or Operation Seelowe sees the fall of Britain in 1940 tell us no more about history than a game on the Fall of Gondolin.

    It may tell us something about ourselves and about our friends, how we react, what interests us, how persistent (aka obsessive) we are, what floats our boats and what motivates us. But it tells us precious little about history.

    All wargames rules are works of fiction based on the stories we tell ourselves about how warfare works and that is no less true of historical sets than it is in ones that deal with elves, dwarves or even Paint it Pink’s rather snazzy Battlemechs!

    Based on real life? “These stories are true. Only the facts have been changed to protect the innocent?

    There are 100 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who can work from incomplete data

    #163244
    Avatar photoGuy Farrish
    Participant

    Mike, as we said before, we baffle each other!

    There are many professionals who would disagree with you about the value of ‘historical’ wargames as an aid to understanding war. They have used study of historical battles through gaming and some have played imaginary/imagined games of future possible combat, that thank God never happened. They learned real world things that no fantasy game could ever have imparted.

    Since we’ve already dragged poor old Paddy into this thread a couple of times already, he was one who used wargames to study the history of war and the future of war. He was by no means po faced or glum about gaming, quite the contrary, but he did see and use its serious applications for acquisition of knowledge.

    I’m not suggesting hobby gamers share the goals of professionals but if you don’t see the validity of such games in learning about history maybe you aren’t playing the right games? Or perhaps you aren’t interested in using them for that? That’s fine, each to their own, but don’t deny the existence of those insights for those who want to seek  and find such insights.  They are there and unlike mythological games they are no Chimera.

    #163249
    Avatar photoMartinR
    Participant

    Rather than add to a lengthy thread on the relationship between wargaming, history and real life (which has been had many times before), I’ll focus on one thing which does baffle me. Why does it matter what the counters we play with are made from? I don’t care if they are made of pixels, cardboard or toys, they are still all abstract representations of military units. So in what possible way does replacing a set of painted models of Napoleonic troops with counters or computer graphics suddenly turn the thing from a toy soldier into a serious military simulation? They are all just counters, and you can run kriegspiels, cpx etc just as well with toys as counters.

     

    "Mistakes in the initial deployment cannot be rectified" - Helmuth von Moltke

    #163274
    Avatar photoRuarigh
    Participant

    We went over some definitions of ‘fantasy’ earlier in the thread and whilst some suggested, like you, that any concept of pretence is fantasy I find that unconvincing. Online Oxford languages defines ‘fantasy’ thus: ‘the faculty or activity of imagining impossible or improbable things.’ My 1975 printing of the Concise Oxford says: ‘Image making faculty, esp. when extravagant or visionary.’

    The OED offers ‘A product of imagination, fiction, figment’ which was the basis of my original comment about definitions. By this definition, all wargames must be fantasy, if not Fantasy. I agree with you that most gamers, if asked, would think Elves and Dragons and Orks and Whatnots if asked what they mean by fantasy, but that is not an exclusive definition. I also agree with you that wargames can be used to model conflicts and to try to understand what happened or might happen and why. Your average game of DBA is not that though, and I generally do not believe that the average historical game that you might see at a show is that either, and in that I am in agreement with Paint it Pink. This is a direct result of limited knowledge, and perhaps choice of sources, when setting up a historical game and the compromises that get made to make a game fun to play. In the end though, it’s all about pushing lead, rolling dice and talking shite with your mates, and it is not important whether the game is fantasy or Fantasy, as long as you are having fun. Well, unless you intend to use your game to make a serious point about a historical battle in an academic journal, I guess. 🙂

    Never argue with an idiot. They'll only drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

    https://roderickdale.co.uk/
    https://emidsvikings.ac.uk/

    #163275
    Avatar photoRuarigh
    Participant

    Why does it matter what the counters we play with are made from? I don’t care if they are made of pixels, cardboard or toys, they are still all abstract representations of military units. So in what possible way does replacing a set of painted models of Napoleonic troops with counters or computer graphics suddenly turn the thing from a toy soldier into a serious military simulation? They are all just counters, and you can run kriegspiels, cpx etc just as well with toys as counters.

    I’m going to say emotional attachment to the figures we have spent ages painting and preparing for the game, and our preconceptions about what constitutes a simulation versus a game. I agree that it does not matter what you use as counters, yet I still find myself drawn to figures over kriegspiel blocks or cardboard counters for tabletop games, despite my liking for hex-and-counter games where I am perfectly happy to push cardboard all day long. There is probably also an element of fulfilling our expectations too. Do we expect simulations to be dryer? Maybe.

    Never argue with an idiot. They'll only drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

    https://roderickdale.co.uk/
    https://emidsvikings.ac.uk/

    #163281
    Avatar photoGuy Farrish
    Participant

    I’m pretty much of the same opinion Martin, I don’t think replacing toys does suddenly impart serious military status (but it certainly used to be easier to sell the idea to some officers if you used a map, talc overlay and chinagraph) but I do accept some of the criticisms Paddy (and others) have of the deleterious effect the toy soldier can have on some aspects of wargaming. I’m sure you’ve read Paddy’s article “The Case Against Toy Soldiers” in Miniature Wargames No.13, and the long and occasionally acrimonious (sometimes ‘baffled’!) discussions which flowed from it where he put the problems more clearly than I could. I have never abandoned toy soldiers or cardboard counters (though Paddy I think preferred maps and overlay with chinagraph/erasable pen) but I did take his point about the space distortions and excess information carried by them. Perhaps the use of same size unit bases for all formations, so popular currently, removes one of these problems but it always strikes me that if they aren’t carrying size/morale/posture info in their number and organisation of bases what’s the point of them?

    I have found various non-toy soldier games and exercises great fun, and enlightening, though sitting in a cupboard in Paddy’s house trying emote my way into the role of a WWI officer in a bunker under attack from the Germans was a bit of a stretch for my acting abilities. I’m not sure how you’d use toy soldiers in a CPX though. Never saw a counter either in any of the ones I’ve done. Normally sat there marking up an OS map and waiting for umpire reports on what was happening while trying to work out whether that marshy valley I’d marked as inaccessible terrain on our flank was going to be my undoing.

    (on reflection I’m wrong – there was an Arnhem game at Sandhurst(? or possibly in the Staff College) where there were toy soldiers all over a large hall and the various commands were sat in surrounding rooms with umpire runners and telephones. So while it looked like a very big toy soldier game to me as an umpire, the various command cells were playing a CPX game. There no doubt others where I’ve blanked the toy soldier/counter element. Sorry – perfectly possible)

    #163284
    Avatar photoPaint it Pink
    Participant

    Hi Paint it Pink, yes, I was responding to your post. My post followed right after yours, but we went over a page – I should perhaps have made it clearer. I’m afraid I don’t t agree with most of what you say (except that Paddy would undoubtedly have had something to say!). I suspect we are going to have to agree to disagree.

    I’m afraid we will, but please excuse the indulgence of carrying on a conversation that is thought provoking, even if ultimately it is pointless, because life is often pointless, but it is still important to live one’s life (to paraphrase Gandhi).

    However… Fantasy (in respect of wargames); let’s do a thought experiment. Or try it for real if you fancy the idea. Advertise a ‘Fantasy game’ at a show, convention, club night, maybe even among friends. Then put on Waterloo and see their reaction. We went over some definitions of ‘fantasy’ earlier in the thread and whilst some suggested, like you, that any concept of pretence is fantasy I find that unconvincing.

    If I were to be provocative (arguably, people often find me provocative, especially those who find my way of thinking provocative [unconventional, out of the box]), I would ask you what you would need to be convinced? Thereby opening a Socratic dialogue to change the way you think.

    But who has the time?  But then if we never *take* time, how can we have time? (to quote the Merovingian from the second Martrix movie).

    So, let’s do a another thought experiment. You can try it for real to test the idea. 😉 (See what I did there?)

    Set up a historical battle of your choice, play with the rules of your choice for the period, but use elves and orcs for the figures. How does that affect the way the game plays? (It will, but the how is important.)

    Set up a fantasy battle (make some shit up, whatever: do what you want), and instead of elves and orcs, use historical figures with appropriate fantasy rules that allow for gunpowder (there are some). How does that affect the way the game plays?

    Online Oxford languages defines ‘fantasy’ thus: ‘the faculty or activity of imagining impossible or improbable things.’ My 1975 printing of the Concise Oxford says: ‘Image making faculty, esp. when extravagant or visionary.’ Neither supports the interpretation of fantasy as any fiction, and a whole genre of publishing lends popular support to that view as much any disappointed fantasy gamer being invited to play a ‘historical’ game.

    Let me address your dictionary definitions of what is fantasy, which I think is the crux of your argument and the foundation of your opinions on this matter.

    Caveats: I was taught, during my training to be a mental health nurse that other peoples opinions are not my concern (nor should they be yours for that matter). Again to paraphrase Gandhi, your opinions are in the bigger scheme of things unimportant, but you will still have opinions because they’re important to you.

    I’m not interested in opinions in the bigger scheme of things. Everyone has them, so what? Who cares? (That’s should be read as sarcastic humour).

    What I’m interested in is the utility of the theory (model) and whether or not it can be used to produce games with useful results (I’m using a scientific mindset here).

    As such, and Phil Barker will attest, I have been known to break historical rules*, and not just because I ignored historical processes, but because I think about what it is like to be inside the head of my opponent (and I’ve read Sun Tzu and Musashi’s The Five Rings, and have a pausing knowledge of Clausewitz, and Machiavelli etc.).

    *Play-tested DBA at the CoW back when and my opponent and I played a game that broke the record for the longest game ever for reasons to do with caution and historical knowledge (we were both good commanders, in that we both knew that we needed to bring force to bear on the weakest part of the enemy – I think, I may be wrong – who knows, it was just a game of toy soldiers).

    *Also play-tested another Phil Barker rule-set for the Franco Prussian war, in a ‘mugger’ game (a scenario that has been set up to fix an end outcome). Bob Cordery played the Prussians, I won as the French; the scenario had been lost by the French 22 times before (this was mostly down to luck, as I didn’t have much of a clue, so I just deployed my forces in what I knew to be sensible formations, and as luck would have it, I broke the Prussian cavalry, and accidentally overran a Prussian HQ, miraculously regained control of my impetuous cavalry, and proceeded to destroy all the HQ and artillery units that I was now in the rear of.

    All of this was total fantasy, as it never happened, and most likely couldn’t have happened. Why? Because the games we play are governed by rules that are not reality.

    I agree, that this is an unusual definition of fantasy from the perspective of a dictionary, but science doesn’t care about dictionaries, but about measurements from experiments.

    As for toy soldiers – well as Paddy said,they are an imperfect vehicle for testing battle history (being Paddy of course I have toned it down somewhat). I feel as did he that umpired Free Kriegsspiel gives the best experience to explore what might have happened in a conflict, albeit still falling short of ‘reality’. I don’t remember him ever being cavalier with what a battalion was likely to have been able to do, either as umpire or player.

    Toned down Paddy. Thank you. That made me chuckle. Loved Paddy’s out of the box thinking, hated his vitriolic dislike of toy soldiers.

    As for

    Arguably, even a lot of historical studies are pure supposition and mythology; a fantasy of order created by those who think they understand the cause and effects of historical events.

    Well of course, Whig historians, Marxists and just plain old narrative storytellers all bring their own baggage. Unless, however we are going to adopt a postmodernist approach and embrace each reading of the text as a rewriting, there is an objective set of events somewhere. We may never find them but we keep trying.

    Wash your mouth out. I’m almost offended by the accusation of being a post modernist. ROFLOL

    By research and analytic thinking, not by embracing ‘it’s all a fantasy’ and writing whatever feels okay at the time. Are games ‘real’? Well they aren’t a battle. Do they recreate the experience of one? Not even kriegsspiel or CPX or any version of talking game can achieve that, nor of course would we want the stress, danger and possible death even if it were possible. But even a toy soldier game, for all its problems of scale and time distortion and too much information, offers more insight into possible realities than a free kriegsspiel about fighting off the Bodachs and Palug cats around Errwood Hall could, however erudite and knowledgeable the umpire may be about the Weirdstone Trilogy of Alan Garner. One is an exploration of a possible reality that didn’t happen but may have occurred, the other is a make believe game whose only boundaries are the umpire’s imagination based on a novel about things that don’t and can’t exist.

    I think I have addressed your summary, and agree we will have disagree (caveat: opinions are just opinions).

    One is good, more is better
    http://panther6actual.blogspot.co.uk/
    http://ashleyrpollard.blogspot.co.uk/

    #163290
    Avatar photoGuy Farrish
    Participant

    Hi,

    Let me address your dictionary definitions of what is fantasy, which I think is the crux of your argument and the foundation of your opinions on this matter.

    Really not (See above)*

    As for thought experiment –

    1. Not much if the scenario and rules work and reflect what might happen in such circumstances. It will affect my engagement with the game (mostly at an emotional level, because the figures will prove something of a barrier to full immersion for me.) but not too much because I can suspend my disbelief through the medium of cardboard, mdf, chinagraph or washable pen squiggles and alternative toys as well as period specific lead and plastic figures. It will be the fact the figures are recognisably from a genre I don’t play that will be the difficulty. But not an insurmountable one.

    No.2 Not much. I’ll have slightly less difficulty than I might if using elves etc because the visual Valium will sooth me but the basic game will probably fail to engage me.

    I wonder if we’ve met?

    I was at the CoW where Phil ran his early DBA (and I played a couple of games there) I immediately thought it was the best Ancients game I’d ever played, but I remember saying I didn’t think it had a lot to do with history. (still doesn’t make it a Fantasy game).

    Mugger games shouldn’t have a lot (any?) rules should they? I thought they were a guided discussion/exploration of a military(or other) situation where the players talked through the battle/confrontation in stages being ‘mugged’ by the umpire. Much preferable in my opinion to the over straitjacketed Matrix game (early version at any rate) where three arguments deliver the game to the glib if you’re not careful (and has a slight postmodern feel to it for me – sincere apologies if I tarnished you with that brush!).

    As for what would change my mind…rewire my brain? Not as flippant as it may sound.

    Failing that – devise a fantasy game where the physics/magic underpinnings of the world were logically internally consistent, nothing was too whimsical (no Uchtred the Flatulent or Fibrillator the Uncoordinated as Dwarf or Hero) and I could suspend my disbelief for a few hours. I have a horrible suspicion it would end up as a historical game with Dragon and Goblin figures.

    I suppose I do see the coming together of the genres at the point of say DBA in its tournament guise and some fantasy games but before we celebrate…only because they both veer towards not being wargames at all. They are competitive games that in the case of DBA abstract the battle into an equal point, equal sized (12 bases) opponent face off. In the case of fantasy it puts an imaginary conflict from a genre that has its roots in morality folk tales into the garb of a historical wargame. In so doing it loses the purpose of the  genre – all those reasons people sat and listened round a fire to Beowulf or the Odyssey on one hand and on the other doesn’t tell me anything about a historical past reality.

    If you want a game to pass a pleasant evening they both work better than monopoly.

     

    Edit: PS. Opinions. I love opinions. Fascinating to collect. What they are worth depends on the background and analysis they come from, but people often (as I’m sure you are aware given your MH background) adopt them and act on them with no evidence gathering, no analysis and no logical construction involved at all.  But, sometimes, their opinions are all we see of people.

    *Edit 2: Ignore me, it looks as if I never posted my comment in response to Ruarigh and the OED. Short version – there are lots of definitions and whether they support my view or not I wouldn’t want to reduce this discussion to a narrow battle of how many dictionary definitions we can muster.

     

    #163312
    Avatar photoMike Headden
    Participant

    I have a horrible suspicion it would end up as a historical game with Dragon and Goblin figures.

    I am as happy to rail against fantasy rules that are “Ancients with Dragons” as I am against games where James wins at Flodden by halting the English with cannon fire and flanking them with a portion of the pike phalanx being considered historical.

    I am yet to encounter a fantasy author who understands how skirmishers work or who understand that there are differences between javelins, spears and pikes and that they don’t all count as “a pointy stick.” Since those authors are the source texts for my occasional forays into sword & sorcery gaming I expect my rules to reflect that.

    Internal consistency matters.

     

    There are 100 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who can work from incomplete data

    #163313
    Avatar photoMike
    Keymaster

    I am yet to encounter a fantasy author who understands how skirmishers work or who understand that there are differences between javelins, spears and pikes and that they don’t all count as “a pointy stick.”

    Drop me a PM?

    #163315
    Avatar photoPaint it Pink
    Participant

    Edit: PS. Opinions. I love opinions. Fascinating to collect. What they are worth depends on the background and analysis they come from, but people often (as I’m sure you are aware given your MH background) adopt them and act on them with no evidence gathering, no analysis and no logical construction involved at all. But, sometimes, their opinions are all we see of people.

    *Edit 2: Ignore me, it looks as if I never posted my comment in response to Ruarigh and the OED. Short version – there are lots of definitions and whether they support my view or not I wouldn’t want to reduce this discussion to a narrow battle of how many dictionary definitions we can muster.

    Just to add about the CoW FP game: I was using ‘mugger’ more loosely, as in the scenario was designed so the French would always lose. Bob Cordery said, “Ashley you have set back wargaming 20 years.” Okay, funnier at the time. I guess you had to be there.

    We may have met, but I can’t remember if we did. It was long ago, and times were different then. No selfies and or the ability to Tweet the day’s events as they happened etc. It was the best of times, and the worst of times.

    More than happy to expound opinions with a fellow wargaming enthusiast like you good-self. I was entertained and amused by the exchange of opinions. I should add, opinions are just opinions; everybody has them… and you can complete the old adage if you feel so inclined. I had fun.

    One is good, more is better
    http://panther6actual.blogspot.co.uk/
    http://ashleyrpollard.blogspot.co.uk/

    #163316
    Avatar photoPaint it Pink
    Participant

    I am as happy to rail against fantasy rules that are “Ancients with Dragons” as I am against games where James wins at Flodden by halting the English with cannon fire and flanking them with a portion of the pike phalanx being considered historical. I am yet to encounter a fantasy author who understands how skirmishers work or who understand that there are differences between javelins, spears and pikes and that they don’t all count as “a pointy stick.” Since those authors are the source texts for my occasional forays into sword & sorcery gaming I expect my rules to reflect that. Internal consistency matters.<noscript></noscript>

    I don’t really read much fantasy genre as such, and what I remember of what I have read would not fill the back of a postage stamp.

    However, even Bernard Cornwell? Surely he writes reasonably plausible fantasy historical battles? I don’t know.

    I will add that when I write Mil-SF, I try to be plausible for definitions of plausible that some might consider flexible. But I do try. There again my other half says I’m very trying. 😉

    One is good, more is better
    http://panther6actual.blogspot.co.uk/
    http://ashleyrpollard.blogspot.co.uk/

    #163318
    Avatar photoGuy Farrish
    Participant

    I had fun

    Me too.

    I don’t know if we ever met but ‘We sure as hell chewed some of the same dirt.’ (CoW food was pretty good actually whatever Gunny Highway may have thought).

    #163408
    Avatar photoChris Pringle
    Participant

    Thanks for all the great replies! I’ve responded in an update to the original blog post.

    #163441
    Avatar photoGuy Farrish
    Participant

    Thanks for the discussion prompt Chris!

    Good summary of the discussion.

    Did it change anything for me?

    I think so. I think I have a better feel for why some people feel all wargaming of any and all genres are simply games and none has any claim to a relationship with reality. I don’t think I am likely to swap camps but I understand the point of view better. Do I respect it more? Well I never disrespected anyone’s views about how to play their games or what they mean to them in the first place.

    I think it a really positive thing that people think about the motivation for the type of games they and others play and what they want and get from playing them. Even if their end result is slight bemusement at why people expend so much keyboard time pontificating about a game of toy soldiers (or cardboard or map and overlay or committee games). And if they don’t; that’s fine too.

    Thanks Chris.

    #163468
    Avatar photoNot Connard Sage
    Participant

    I think you’re all overthinking it.

     

    Just roll the f***ing dice 🙂

    Obvious contrarian and passive aggressive old prat, who is taken far too seriously by some and not seriously enough by others.

    #163470
    Avatar photoGuy Farrish
    Participant

    I’d wondered where you were

    #163471
    Avatar photoNot Connard Sage
    Participant

    I’d wondered where you were<noscript></noscript>

    I’ve been suffering from the worst cold ever ( https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-58624295 ). It’s proper buggered me up 🙂

    Obvious contrarian and passive aggressive old prat, who is taken far too seriously by some and not seriously enough by others.

Viewing 23 posts - 41 through 63 (of 63 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.