*
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 29, 2024, 01:49:10 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Donate

We Appreciate Your Support

Recent

Author Topic: Historical Gaming - style that doesn't fit the period  (Read 3748 times)

Offline FierceKitty

  • Mastermind
  • Posts: 1718
Re: Historical Gaming - style that doesn't fit the period
« Reply #15 on: November 16, 2019, 12:50:28 AM »
Maybe it's about time and money.  Big armies take a lot of both.  Skirmish games not so much.  For that matter the latter are easier on storage too.

I do 10mm, and can get a decent army of 500+ figures for what a fantasy nut I used to know would spend on one giant battle robot. About 50 such armies fit, with their terrain (including four castles) fairly easily in my storage cupboard, which is around the size of a deeper bedroom bookcase.
« Last Edit: November 16, 2019, 12:52:44 AM by FierceKitty »
The laws of probability do not apply to my dice in wargames or to my finesses in bridge.

Offline bong-67

  • Librarian
  • Posts: 143
Re: Historical Gaming - style that doesn't fit the period
« Reply #16 on: November 16, 2019, 12:58:44 PM »
I think wargaming is all in the eye of the beholder, you see what you want to see in a particular set of rules or size of game and every wargame has a degree of abstraction. 
Personally, I tend to not like games where it's obvious you are just shuffling counters around so games like DBA or a lot of other Ancients rules don't turn me on much.  For that level of abstraction the rules have to be very good as a game.  I like Blucher because it works very well as a game and fits my perception of a Napoleonic battle even though units are really just big counters.
However, I much prefer games where it feels like I'm playing with toy soldiers and where the narrative is clearer to see on a more personal level.  That's why my favourite ancients  rules are Warhammer Ancient Battle.  Likewise, although I like some big battle black powder rules I probably enjoy skirmish or crunchy skirmish rules like Muskets and Tomahawks or Sharpe Practice more.
I don't think there is anything wrong with having rules for (as Lardy Rich describes it) crunchy skirmish.  I went in on the Clash of Spears kickstarter because it might  be an an affordable way to do games involving Romans.   My Warhammer armies are Dark Age and I don't have the time to paint the new big classical Warhammer armies I'd like.  I don 't enjoy painting  figures smaller than 28mm any more and I don't like ancients rules with what I think have too much abstraction like DBA, despite their low figure count,  so I hope Clash of Spears will hit the sweet spot for me.  I don't plan on doing Clash of Spears with Macedonian Phalangites or elephants but rather Roman auxilia against celtic warbands but if some people want to do that it's up to them. 
To be succesful in today's gaming climate rules have to appeal to as many potential players as possible so they sometimes incorporate rules for things that some people think are inappropriate.  You can still play these games and they might still be very good, you just need to be selective in your army and scenario design.
« Last Edit: November 16, 2019, 04:51:33 PM by bong-67 »

Offline whiskey priest

  • Scientist
  • Posts: 496
    • the Leadpile
Re: Historical Gaming - style that doesn't fit the period
« Reply #17 on: November 16, 2019, 04:14:12 PM »
Most people don't want to limit themselves to one massive collection of a single battle. It's all very well having an interest in Napoleonic gaming but the vast majority of people don't want to spend the rest of their gaming/hobby life recreating Waterloo. By being able to play games at a smaller scale it allows you to dabble in a wider range of periods and types of models which in turn allows more variety in the miniatures that are manufactured which obviously allows more small companies to stay open. There is a place for both types of games but at least the modern 'large skirmish' game has a better aesthetic than say DBA/DBR which used fewer figures and managed to look awful while trying to recreate large scale battles.

Offline mcfonz

  • Mastermind
  • Posts: 1602
    • Poison Spurs - blog and reviews
Re: Historical Gaming - style that doesn't fit the period
« Reply #18 on: November 16, 2019, 04:41:42 PM »
I think there are two angles here.

One is about skirmish games.

The other is about what a historically accurate skirmish game should look like.

Now, I am already considering the rumoured Saga: Age of Hannibal. But rather than use 28mm, I will multibase a smaller scale on 25mm bases to be a better reflection on the size of units.

I think there are quite a lot of factors in regards to the popularity of skirmish games. A major one is time. Then you have the likes of 28mm becoming more popular over recent years, possibly due to size and the amount of scope in terms of model making you have with a 28mm compared to say 15mm as well as level of detail on the painting, but also possibly because of the number of hobbyists coming into the hobby via GW etc. The issue with 28mm is that if you play mass battle games with them, you need a lot of space. You need a table at least 6x4. You need to have several terrain set ups worth so the storage for all of that. Some folks are lucky enough to have this, others are not - especially from a UK perspective.

What is realistic in skirmish? Elephants could be stretching it. As are Phalanx successfully holding a formation with only a handful of men. But skirmishes did happen, and they were nearly always more common. Especially by the time you hit the roman era. Patrols, tribal battles. Even some large battles involved skirmishes upon their periphery.
RP Tabletop Blog:


RP vlog channel: https://www.youtube.com/@RandomPlatypus

Offline Ben Waterhouse

  • Librarian
  • Posts: 140
Re: Historical Gaming - style that doesn't fit the period
« Reply #19 on: November 16, 2019, 05:19:48 PM »
They're all just games. You're not doing any deep meaning scientific work, no matter how seriously you take your little dolls.


Dolls? Dolls !?! I’ll have you know they are Toy Soldiers!
« Last Edit: November 16, 2019, 05:24:38 PM by Ben Waterhouse »
Arma Pacis Fulcra

Offline Arrigo

  • Mastermind
  • Posts: 1074
  • errare humanum est, perseverare diabolicum est
    • Forward HQ my new blog where you can laugh at my crappy photos!
Re: Historical Gaming - style that doesn't fit the period
« Reply #20 on: November 17, 2019, 11:20:01 AM »
Fun...

there was a chap who raised hell here, on a SPQR discussion, on the Phalanx matter...  o_o

I tend to agree with Antonio J. Carrasco, there were more skirmishes than large scale battle in the ancient and medieval world. The large scale pitched battle is something that had been ingrained into us by the myth of the decisive battle coming from XIX century rather than sound scholarship.

Said that, skirmish gaming is one of those terms that are open to plenty of interpretations. It is worth noting that TFL (and despite the gratuitous and undeserved dig, Rich and Nick are some of the most talented rules designers around here...  gratuitous counter-dig :P ) in their original Sharp Practice supplement for the American Civil war recognized that and provided different level of gaming. I play both Sharp and Patriots and usually consider a single unit a company (so usually the player command a regiment more or less). Lion Rampant (yes it is partly  Hollywood but a far cry from historical-fantasy...) also works well with this approach. 

So no, there are no styles that does not fit the period if for style we consider gaming level. If for style we consider 25pdrs with ranges that are basically the same of rifle...
"Put Grant straight in"

for pretty tanks and troops: http://forwardhq.blogspot.com

Offline Antonio J Carrasco

  • Supporting Adventurer
  • Mad Scientist
  • *
  • Posts: 974
Re: Historical Gaming - style that doesn't fit the period
« Reply #21 on: November 17, 2019, 01:00:23 PM »
If for style we consider 25pdrs with ranges that are basically the same of rifle...

Be careful... you can open a whole can of worms here!  lol


Offline Red Sveta

  • Scientist
  • Posts: 232
Re: Historical Gaming - style that doesn't fit the period
« Reply #22 on: November 17, 2019, 01:42:55 PM »
I noticed a similar thing with wargames mags and the reason I stopped buying them. If you compare a magazine from the 80's or mid 90's with magazines now you can see a definite dumbing down. The articles are light weight with little to offer in the way of research and they a plastered with pictures taking up pages that used to include good articles. In general the hobby is dumbed down with little or no research carried out in ones army or as they are called (factions) of choice. A lack of depth in terms of period knowledge is just the general state of the hobby at the moment. Rules, Magazines the lot. Its better to write your own rules.

Offline levied troop

  • Mastermind
  • Posts: 1451
Re: Historical Gaming - style that doesn't fit the period
« Reply #23 on: November 17, 2019, 02:00:20 PM »
I’m quite sure I can’t write rules as good as any of the Lardies, or Fire and Fury or many other sets I can mention.  As for the idea that gaming is dumbing down since your (and possibly my) day, I think the only response is ‘ok boomer’ :)

I’m not sure I see what the original problem is. There are, historically, way more skirmish level engagements than set piece battles as McFonz says and the idea of gaming them or small isolated actions within bigger battles, say taking on an elephant with a handful of troops, seems perfectly ok to me.  As to the idea that 4 men represents a phalanx, well DBA went down that route and while it doesn’t have the spectacle of a thousand figures a side, it’s strength for me was in the campaign system, a campaign you could fight in a day and even collect all 6 armies for and get them painted in a year. 

Different strokes for different folks.
The League of Gentlemen Anti Alchemists
(We Turn Gold into Lead)

Offline Red Sveta

  • Scientist
  • Posts: 232
Re: Historical Gaming - style that doesn't fit the period
« Reply #24 on: November 17, 2019, 02:11:45 PM »
I would say that the lardies are one of the exceptions who take the history seriously, remind me when Fire and Fury was written? I don't know what a Boomer is. Its all toy soldiers at the end of the day but I think, with a few exceptions it is dumbed down these days.   

Offline petercooman123

  • Scientist
  • Posts: 363
Re: Historical Gaming - style that doesn't fit the period
« Reply #25 on: November 17, 2019, 03:20:37 PM »
I'll chime in here and say that what everybody calls dumbed down, might also be seen as 'abstracted' or 'streamlined'. It's a common word in games design lately, with new editions being streamlined, but basically made simpler to play faster in these hectic times.

I myself welcome lots of skirmish games as it ipens the possibility to play all sorts of periods, but could not go on without my big battle games as well. There is nothing more satisfying as a table filled with 20-30 napoleonic batallions! But being realistic, i have big armies for said napoleonics, quite big forces for the ACW, a big wwII collection and quite recently made reasonable size forces for the punic wars. I cannot do that for every period.

So skirmish games allow me to look at things that interest me historically, without taking away lots of precious time (and money) from my main projects.

You just have to find the rules that you think get it right!

Offline Arrigo

  • Mastermind
  • Posts: 1074
  • errare humanum est, perseverare diabolicum est
    • Forward HQ my new blog where you can laugh at my crappy photos!
Re: Historical Gaming - style that doesn't fit the period
« Reply #26 on: November 17, 2019, 03:34:52 PM »
Defintiely there is an element of dumbing down, but is not something new. Streamlining and abstraction have always been with us. Just yelling 'they are all toy soldiers' or 'the hobby is dumbing down' is not helpful.

Magazine 'kay there is some dumbing down here and there. I think wargames illustrated is a good example, but sometime you also found really good articles. WSS is a clear cut example of mixed articles. In every issue there are good ones, and crappy ones... but it is something I have seen not just in miniature wargamign magazines. Academic journals have also experienced a lot of this... as everything. But there is a downside of the coin. Often is not the writers dumbing down... is us getting more and more acquainted with a topic (or being perverse, some writers assuming the readers are dumb and know nothing of the topic...).  Bascially you must accept that in a magazine not all the article will be up to your standard by default. Then you decide if the editorial line and the overall content are for you (I did balancing WSS and WI, WSS won).

Rules and games... of course there are dumbing down. My favorite pet-peeve. Dan Verssen and his new edition of Thunderborlt Apache Leader. I love the the original fro GMT I gave the new shiny edition from DVG away for free (okay I gave it to Phil Sabin, who gave me some books and treated me to dinner more than once... and his wife is a great cook...!). I saw the same with Down in Flames, DVG dumbing it down to ridiculousness (and crap art) but GMT keeping it a decent game and building on it.  But there is a difference between abstraction and dumbing down. In the word of Dr. Velicogna (me) to the students 'abstraction is when you take something and subsume it in the system, omission is when you just remove it.' Abstractions are necessary even for accurate simulations and I am not against them.  Oversimplification and omissions... well beside being hallmark of a bad design, sometime they crop up.

There is a strong argument against directly representing every single rivet... (you get ASL, and then you abstract basically C3I...). On the other hand abstracting too much is not a solution. On top of it, usually if the abstraction involves something we think is important we tend to react unfavorably. Maybe we are seeing a bit of the latter in this discussion... just maybe...


Offline WuZhuiQiu

  • Mastermind
  • Posts: 1198
Re: Historical Gaming - style that doesn't fit the period
« Reply #27 on: November 17, 2019, 04:48:43 PM »
I have my doubts about "combined arms" ancient skirmishes, but would still game them. More historical ancient skirmishes with only one or two troop types on each side could become boring rather quickly...

Offline S_P

  • Mad Scientist
  • Posts: 527
Re: Historical Gaming - style that doesn't fit the period
« Reply #28 on: November 17, 2019, 05:00:46 PM »
They're all just games. You're not doing any deep meaning scientific work, no matter how seriously you take your little dolls.

As a counterpoint:

http://www.wargaming.co/professional/details/professionalhandbook.htm

Offline FierceKitty

  • Mastermind
  • Posts: 1718
Re: Historical Gaming - style that doesn't fit the period
« Reply #29 on: November 17, 2019, 05:13:16 PM »
Bridge is just a game; but there have been murders of partners over errors in bidding (and quite rightly so - passing an opening two-club, by God). Chess is just a game, but playing it blindfolded has been illegal in Russia for decades, the mental stress is so dangerously intense. And the body count in Game of Thrones was exponential at the end.

Games are serious things, I tell you.