Okay, time to chime in... (even if I had bad vibes about the original poster the discussion turned our rather well!).
It think there are two elements in play. What wargames are, what wargaming is about.
Well, defining wargames is easy:
'Wargame is a warfare model or simulation whose operation does not involve the activities of actual military forces, and whose sequence of events affects and is, in turn, affected by the decisions made by players representing the opposing sides.' [ Perla,
The Art of Wargaming]'they are based on the military capabilities of some past or present antagonists, and entail a degree of research to ascertain the key characteristic involved. They attempt to simulate aspects of a real or imaginary armed conflict involving such military forces, and this in the form of a game, which players can win or lose by making decisions which need not be the same as those of actual commanders.' [Sabin,
Simulating War]
first definition is more theoretical, second bring forward the game aspect. Important to note none of the two specifies the medium. Miniatures are not necessary (I have more than 1k map and counters wargames do not argue on this with me
). From an historical standpoint almost every game we play derives from Reisswitz Kriegspiel, either map based, miniature, or computer. Diplomacy is not a wargame by any stretch, but Junta is.
The hardest part is deciding what wargaming is about. Wargaming is an hobby, and each of us has different reasons to participate in a given hobby. In my case I enjoy the historical and learning aspect first. Wargames are paper time machines that allow, within boundaries, to explore military history and military operations in general. Second I like the modelling aspect of miniature wargames too. What I search in wargaming is more understanding of a given military event. I think on the hobby as a whole, historical curiosity is more or less the primary motivator, in the miniature wargaming sub-area I think the modeling aspect is equally if not more important. This explains why there is much more tolerance for simplistic or gamey mechanics in miniatures. But I also reckon that everyone is different and had different motivators.
Matrix games... I have seen them, and I know some people who swore by them... I am utterly unconvinced by them. More often than not they ended up in being reliant on the adjudicator/master/referee/whatever he or she want to be called. They are quite popular with political science people and some military personnel. Too often ended up in a form of 'you are my referee so I order you to...' (no this is not happening only with Clint Eastwood!). You really need extremely competent adjudicators and extremely balanced ones. Too often the adjudicator let his or her own bias. It is a form of soft or open gaming, where results of action could be adjusted to the audience. for those experienced in the original IASBM from TFL it is similar to adjudicating the difficult of a shot in these rules. I prefer rigid gaming because you have to follow rules rather than the whim of the adjudicator. I can disagree with the results but at least these results are part of a system rather than fudges. In the end even if the system is wrong it is still better than continuous fudges. Rigid systems are also less obscure to understand and it is easier to see potential bias and assumptions.
As a side note Paddy Griffith was fond of using similar system, he used them in his big Sea Lion game (the one with Dolfo Galland...) but again there was a bias in that game and a lot of results were in the end decided to follow accepted notions in turn reducing the value of the game as an analysis of a what if.
Welcome, Guest. Please 
April 19, 2024, 05:26:58 PM
