Weekender XLBS: Historical Wargaming & Will It Float?
July 29, 2018 by lloyd
For some website features, you will need a FREE account and for some others, you will need to join the Cult of Games.
Or if you have already joined the Cult of Games Log in now
What difference will having a FREE account make?
Setting up a Free account with OnTableTop unlocks a load of additional features and content (see below). You can then get involved with our Tabletop Gaming community, we are very helpful and keen to hear what you have to say. So Join Us Now!
Free Account Includes
- Creating your own project blogs.
- Rating and reviewing games using our innovative system.
- Commenting and ability to upvote.
- Posting in the forums.
- Unlocking of Achivments and collectin hobby xp
- Ability to add places like clubs and stores to our gaming database.
- Follow games, recommend games, use wishlist and mark what games you own.
- You will be able to add friends to your account.
What's the Cult of Games?
Once you have made a free account you can support the community by joing the Cult of Games. Joining the Cult allows you to use even more parts of the site and access to extra content. Check out some of the extra features below.
Cult of Games Membership Includes
- Reduced ads, for a better browsing experience (feature can be turned on or off in your profile).
- Access to The Cult of Games XLBS Sunday Show.
- Extra hobby videos about painting, terrain building etc.
- Exclusive interviews with the best game designers etc.
- Behind the scenes studio VLogs.
- Access to our live stream archives.
- Early access to our event tickets.
- Access to the CoG Greenroom.
- Access to the CoG Chamber of Commerce.
- Access the CoG Bazarr Trading Forum.
- Create and Edit Records for Games, Companies and Professionals.
Supported by (Turn Off)
Supported by (Turn Off)
Supported by (Turn Off)
Happy Sunday
Happy Sunday!!
Happy Sunday Beasts
Happy Sunday indeedy!
Re the accessibility of Historical, I think it comes down to one word – ‘Fidelity’. It’s then how obsessed the player/group are about being hi-fi vs what most of us are happy to play – i.e. lo-fi representations like Saga, FoW, Bolt-Action. The fidelity rating applies to different aspects:
* Rules – hi-fi rules and systems attempt to recreate a lot of specialised units, weapons, leaders that capture the subtle differences found in the real world; lo-fi have much more generalised rules. In this respect one might consider some non-historical systems like 40k as hi-fi.
* Situation – is this attempting to replay history accurately, adapt history with some what-ifs, or simply be some “let’s see what we’ve got to play with” situation.
* Setting – this can applies mainly to terrain. Is is attempting to be a hi-fi re-enactment of a well recorded historic setting, or a loose ‘what-if’ setting for a bit of fun.
* Models – how wysiwyg are you being? If you’re going hi-fi on the last three aspects then the models need to be identifiable as specialised, unique units/characters. Proxying is the lo-fi option but provided everyone’s happy, which brings us to the final point…
* Human players – the most important aspect. Gamers have different obsessions, interests and therefore buttons that they like to have pressed. For some the fun lies in hi-fi recreation, so the research and execution of historically accurate hobby and gaming is what it’s about for them. For others the gaming comes first, a collection of flexible models to enable that comes second and sod the historic accuracy.
I don’t think we should assume historical is automatically inaccessible. Sure there are some obsessive hi-fi types playing in their hi-fi communities… and that’s fantastic stuff. Most of us want some lo-fi fun. Consider the glorious variety visible on the tables at somewhere like Salute.
I could however repeat all the above about some 40k, or the emerging Star Wars Legion game groups and players; some of whom are equally obsessed with being true to the fictional cannon and lore.
Enjoy your version of our hobby, respect (and sometimes secretly admire) other people’s!
@lloyd – you forgot to mention that for much of the time, the Greeks fought the Greeks! Different city states with their own traits as different factions (Sparta, Athens, Mastodons etc.).
How dare you jusy generalise them all as ‘Greeks’… only kidding, hope I haven’t spoilt your new interest 😉
Yeah totaly! Turns out @avernos has greeks, so we can get some greek on greek action in the future 🙂
who would’ve thought that I’d have an army of something lying about the place 😉
we just have to discuss basing. I’d say base for Kings of War, you heard Rufus from Blood and Plunder saying how much fun he has with it ^^
What part of Greek history??
dunno mate it’s all greek to me. I think I’d like to refight the Greek economy against the EU bankers though
And of course you’ll never get anyone saying “but you can’t fight my Horus Heresy era army with that!”, or “but there’s no way that my Gondor army would ever encounter you’re flavour of Orcs”…
Joyous day of the Sun!
From me to you and everyone!
Happy Sunday, good debate guys but Justin is bang on. Fantasy and Science fiction even GW have so many different options. But my exception was LofR through the films and magazine which sparked the interest.
Happy Sunday everyone,
Its been a while since I have seen the team so polarised on a subject and I think we did far better in the forums this time than was on the XLBS hehe. Great to see the opinions of the community reflected by the team when taking on the same subject. I think Ben needs a special button that sends an electric shock to the team on camera. This would make for a great visual as well as allowing him to get their attention during strong opinion moments 🙂
I would suggest if you want to jump into this subject more you have a look at the thread that Commodorerob has started. It has been a really interesting discussion and I think it may carry into another week as I know we all love a good meaty forum thread.
@lloyd some really nice work on those minis buddy. I especially liked the Blood and Plunder ones and the fur trim really adds something to that miniature.
Hope everyone has a great week ahead of gaming. Gutted there won’t be a Weekender or XLBS next weekend but I am sure I can find something to do to keep me entertained……Gen Con Vlog here we come.
You see if Wyches float
I thought only Wyches floated….
it depends, the original gary morley sculpts are metal, but the newer “citadel design team because sculptors can’t be people” are plastic so they float probably
As long as the figure weighs the same as a duck it will float
because they’re made of wood?
Exactly
Happy Sunday! Nice to see you back on the show Lloyd and the kind of madness of you bring with you – Will It Float? was beautiful! Some excellent kitbashing too, really helps make the army look interesting instead of just a wall of minis. Not a fan of the white stripes on Justin’s Knight but for only half a day’s work…
And thanks for getting Alexa to play me music and not listening to me to stop so I had to get up from the comfy sofa to turn it off (Twice) the second time was Sam’s Rick Astley ;-(
Success!
Damnit Sam, stop Rickrolling the Backstagers! ?
?
I think when it comes to accessibility it’s easier to do up to the 17th century. Firstly there is still a lot we don’t and maybe never will know about the periods. Take the bit at the start of Rome where there changing ranks by blowing a whistle. Nobody sure if that is the way they did it,the same way we can’t say with 100% certainty what colours they wore but we can have a good guess and so can the wargamer.Remember on the whole ancient historians tend to exaggerate and many weren’t born when describing various actions. I don’t think anyone truly believes the Persian army at Thermopylae was a million strong
Secondly if your careful you can buy and use the same troops to cover many different armies by just buying a few additions. Buy Gauls for example and you can cover about 10 different armies eg buy some chariots and you have British. Same in mediveal. Yes armour does change over time but not enough and a lot of the not so rich nobles were using armour from their grandfather’s day due to expense. So buying a few extra command models and changing a few flags you can cover most of Western Europe with the same basic troops
Thirdly remember Osprey. Some of the books are a bit weak but you will find something about the period your interested in to maybe give you that spark to get involved at an inexpensive cost
Rulesets and scales unfortunately are down to trial and error and personal choice respectively
Re historical wargaming, i’ve been a Warhammer/40k gamer with my lads for many years, but over the last 10yrs, since 40k changed and poor old Warhammer ended, a friend got me into historical gaming, ww2. I now play Flames of war, Bolt Action and Battlegroup and am looking at more modern stuff, like Force on Force and Spectre operations. My club is very historical and almost frown at the inaccuracy of modern gaming rules, they definitely need a more open outlook, as a game is a game, for the enjoyment of anyone, no matter the ruleset! My friends tend to take the whole gaming thing too seriously, needing it to be as accurate as possible, but it doesn’t need to be. That said, they try and encourage younger players, but maybe the sheer amount of models for an historical wargame intimidates them, especially Ancients. I found the transition from Sci Fi to Historical quite easy and would recommend it to anyone and as Justin said, the research can be quite enjoyable and it doesn’t matter whether your Romans have blue faces, who’s to say they didn’t, that’s all history, there’s alot we don’t know, just enjoy the game, playing as you like to play !
I dont like it when Mummy and Daddy fight…..
Surely Mummy and Daddy are Justin and Warren? So this would be more like…Mummy and Step-Mummy? ?
Happy sunday. When gaming wether it be fantasy,scfi or historical we are all just here to have fun. So just ere on the side of cool, we are all adults talk to each other and agree what is what and how you are going to play before you start. Get your group together and game around the same game/age/ setting etc.
Gaming is FUN????
Good morning, everyone.
Interesting topic in today’s show regarding historical wargaming. I don’t know if I should say too much because, well … I’ve been dipped into the thread in question and already been around and around on this.
I agree and disagree with a lot that’s been said, both in the thread and the episode. But many thanks to @brennon for the many mentions. 😀
Okay, now let’s get serious with the replies. I won’t address the topic in general because, again, I’ve already been in the thread (too much probably) … But I’ll try to address specific topics brought up in the show.
Working my way from left to right …
@dracs – I feel your pain, sir, when it comes to the Home Guard / Dad’s Army and not being able to play it on many tables. Honestly, that’s an “army” that never really fought ANY battle, strictly speaking you’d NEVER get to use it in a historical game unless it was some kind of “Sea Lion” alternate history campaign or something a little more pulpy. It’s kind of an extreme case.
That said, if you wanted to play a Home Army vs. Japanese, it’s technically possible, during Japanese invasions of Malaya down through Singapore, up through Burma and into what was then India (modern Bangladesh) … These were British holdings that could have had some kind of emergency militia or rear-services troops being overrun during Yamashita’s invasion of late 41-early 42. They wouldn’t look perfect (a British “militia” squad based on a Sussex cricket team would look different from the staff of a British rubber tree plantation in Malaya), but there’s always a way and the rules would work.
When it doubt, reach out to your friendly Beast of War Historical Editor. I’ve helped people find specific units they can play, battles they can feature, what campaigns work best for the armies they happen to have, I’ve published painting guides that takes the “grunt work” out of historical research for painting, any period or historical genre, even helped people find information on relatives who have served. I’ve worked with a lot of people on a 1-on-1 basis like this, and I’m just a PM away.
You could also use them for a hypothetical Japanese invasion of Australia. There were a lot of farmers in Darwin and the Northern Territory who were forbidden to join the military but who could have fought if it got that desperate.
Well Warlord bought out an entire “campaign” book for BA to allow you to use the Home Guard in a “what if” timeline (with Germany invading the UK after Dunkirk). There’s army lists, scenarios etc, so you can fight with Dad’s army vs German Paratroops and German army units.
https://store.warlordgames.com/collections/british-army/products/operation-sea-lion
https://store.warlordgames.com/collections/british-army/products/sea-lion-part-2-operation-gigant
So perhaps Sam could take a look at these to play a game of BA against Justin and John in the studio (hey might be a good “Lets Play” video as I don’t think they did anything for this campaign?
Granted the home guard is a unusual choice for someone’s first historical army (but if the muse takes you that way, then that’s the way you go). So a “pulp” game is still a game, that could lead to more historical gaming (perhaps Sam might get some regular British army to fight along the home guard), it’s all a gateway to more games 🙂
Well Warlord bought out an entire “campaign” book for BA to allow you to use the Home Guard in a “what if” timeline (with Germany invading the UK after Dunkirk).
Yes, this is Sea Lion, to which I was referring when I posted: “…some kind of “Sea Lion” alternate history campaign.”
We’ve presented material on this before.
https://www.beastsofwar.com/battlegroup/operation-sea-lion-invading-england-part-one/
The question Sam seemed to be posing, however, was playing his Home Guards against Japanese. Impossible, historically, or even alternate-historically? Not really, is what elessar2590 and I were suggesting.
The “gap” between hard-core historical players and more casual gamers doesn’t have to be that wide, is what I’m saying. Knowing more history doesn’t close possibilities, it opens them.
If you play those Home Guard as British in Malaya against Japanese, not only does it become “possible” for your hard-core historical players, but actually MORE accurate than their original purpose – irregardless of Warlord’s publications … or mine, for that matter.
Next, we have @dignity –
Totally agree that getting the research done is a big part of the hobby for historical wargaming. And I absolutely agree that fantasy and sci-fi have their own major hurdles when it comes to accessibility. I’ve done lots of fantasy wargaming in the distant past (TSR’s Battlesystem) and wrote the article series on the topic with @cpauls1 last year.
It can be a little frustrating when your tactics are stymied and fail because there’s a spell you didn’t know about of your dragon is painted the wrong color or whatever needling little minutia in a bewildering morass of complete make-believe you didn’t grasp from 3,000 page tomes of, well … the word is fluff? Perfect word for it, honestly.
Historical gaming certainly has its share of “rivet” and “button counters,” but so do the other genres, to be fair. So would we call these people “dragonscale counters?” 😀 “Wand wavers?”
And sci-fi can be just as tough. I’ll b e honest, the most “successful” article series I’ve written so far (in terms of comment count, anyway) has been for sci-fi, specifically BattleTech, and I’m always asked when I’m doing another one. The truth … is I’m half-afraid to. I don’t want to pour five weeks of work into an article series just so I can be corrected in 20 pages of comments by fans who’ve read the 219 BattleTech novels, have 200 hours in the new BattleTech game, have been playing Mechwarrior since the MW2 release in 1992 and own the original TV series on DVD. There are BattleTech fans out there that have made it “inaccessible” for me and I wrote the friggin’ article series!
I also agree with what you say about sitting down with your friends ahead of time and deciding what period / genre you’d like to play before people start building armies. This would prevent people from building armies that don’t “match.” Although really, so long as the army RULES match up (early war British vs. early war German … even if the actual British figures may be late war and the Germans early war) … I don’t think that matters.
@brennon – again, thanks for the many mentions and I really hope we can find even more ways to make historical wargaming even more accessible to more wargamers who are interested.
And man, you have the patience of a saint when it comes to getting a word in edgewise during those interviews!
Okay, last one, I promise –
@lloyd – while I would agree that finding a starting point in historical wargaming can be tough with “thousands of years” of history to choose from, I would propose that most people who are even asking themselves this question already have a starting point in mind. Maybe they just saw Band of Brothers or binge-watched Vikings or some such. 😀 The trick is finding a group that has the same interest, at the same time (because we’re all floating around from one project to the next).
I totally feel your angst when it comes to “sure, I want to build/paint a Roman army, but WHICH Roman army?” For my American Revolution British and Crown German (i.e., Hessians), I was confronted with the problem that each regiment has its own uniforms, its own regimental flags, etc. But I certainly didn’t want to paint up new regiments (i.e., whole armies) for each individual battle. So I just picked something in the middle and generalized. They look reasonably accurate from a distance.
Once you settle between Republic or Imperial Romans, a player would probably be able to do something similar (rather than all the sub-divisions, like pre- or post-Marian reforms for the Republic, Julio-Claudian Imperial, mid-Imperial, late Imperial/Christian, etc.). I mean, who cares? Sooner or later you reach a point of “close enough.”
Another example would be WW2. I keep tactical markings to a generic minimum (i.e., few divisional / regimental markings) so I don’t “pigeon-hole” into too specific a campaign or battle.
That said, I look forward to seeing how those Greek cavalry turn out!
I also agree with what I think was you main point … I really do feel that Historical does have a few extra steps involved in getting started, whether it’s for a specific army / battle / campaign or the genre in general. Fortunately there are tons of people and resources and starter kits to help, but it doesn’t change the fact that those steps DO STILL exist. Then again, it’s exactly those steps that those of us who enjoy Historical incorporate into the hobby … and they’re what makes Historical “the best” genre (at least in our view). They’re what set Historical apart from sci-fi or fantasy, and make the genre great.
That said, of course others enjoy different aspects of the hobby and that would be what draws them to different genres. 😀
Thanks for the input 🙂
I like the research side of things but like u say you just need to get yourself to that point of saying “that will do rightly, it’s close enough”.
In regards to the Bronze vs iron sword, an iron wouldn’t cut through a bronze sword. A modern day composite steel sword, may, but still unlikely, though it would damage the bronze blade. A bronze blade may bend on impact, but this could easily be bent back. The reason why armies switched to iron wasn’t because bronze was inferior, it was availability. The components to make bronze such as tin was hard to come by. Cornwall was a major trading centre in tin even back in the Bronze Age, and many countries from the Med traded in tin from Cornwall. So if Cornwall was one of the major resources for raw tin, it was an expensive item, traveling from the Med was a long trip and expensive. Iron ore was more freely available which made it easier and cheaper to source.
A second note no warrior/soldier worth his salt would be going for blade to blade contact, that’s what a shield is for. Most would avoid blade to blade contact as this tended to damage a sword regardless of metal type. Iron was also quite a brittle metal, especially early iron blades.
https://youtu.be/C4qLhq5V2-o
Ok, on to to topic in question is historical gaming perceived as inexcessible, the short answer is yes, and I’m an historical gamer. Justin keeps talking about Bolt Action, which is probably the most accessible period in history, and very easy to get into. Warlord has made jumping into WW2 gaming really easy, plus there are a plethora of WW2 videos about the subject online, so I don’t think it’s a very good example to use.
There has always been a perception that historical gamers ar sticklers for correct unit type, color etc and I’ve found that whilst there are some like that but most aren’t. There are also a plethora of rules for varying different periods, and even several within a period, so it’s like which one do I use. Then there is a perception that historical miniatures are of poor quality, and whilst this was the case back in the 70-80’s things have changed drastically, you only have to look at Perry’s as an example.
The other factor that puts people off from historical, is the word history, which period in time, and they assume they need to research heavily in that time period once they start. Yes, it’s probably handy to know some background to the time period you’re gaming in, but it’s not essential. It can get a bit daunting to many gamers when they take a first dip into historicals, and this tends to put many gamers off.
I would probably recommend many first time historical gamers to maybe look at games such as Bolt Action, Gangs of Rome or Saga, as these are more accessible to begin with.
Great show, you had my Alexa interrupting all the time 🙂
As to the perceived accessibility of historical wargames I actually think you are all right. Historical is accessible to those that are already very interested and clued up on the specific era they want but very daunting to those that aren’t, but the same is true for fantasy or Lord of the Rings or 40K etc. The nature of our hobby attracts people that love the minutiae, be it the rules or the history or the made up background or even the hobby aspects. I mean let’s be honest some of us can find the games inaccessible because we are scared someone will think our painting isn’t up to scratch. Maybe this comes down to the fact that a lot of us might not be confident or awkward anyway.
Historical gaming.
40k was the most off putting game I had ever come across. I felt completely alienated on my first visits to a GW store. They all talked about rules and black library references that were beyond me. I was made to feel unwelcome and the pricing was horrid and the requirement to learn the sci-fi history from expensive codex books was an insurmountable barrier. It has taken years of exposure from YouTube, BoW and my gaming group, and the latest stream lined ruleset for me to finally start playing.
Accessibility has got to be on the side of historical. Movies are not better than books, but they are considered more accessible. There is no Hollywood movie for 40k.
Picking an era of history is no more difficult than selecting a fantasy world. You can be just as invested in getting your fantasy minis to match the fluff of your game as you are to pick the most accurate / likely camo pattern for your WW2 minis.
I really think that you are over emphasising the negative impact of variety. Value for money has massive impact on gaming choices, so one set of ww2 soldiers having multiple games to play them with is a bonus not the road block you are saying it is.
I played tons of board games every school holiday. Hero Quest and Space Crusade were my first steps into hobby gaming, but airfix kits and 1/72 scale soldiers were an influence and source huge of fun. I think people that started their hobby with trips to GW stores and with active D&D groups in their youth have a slightly different outlook on historical gaming than those that came from airfix kits and Brittain toy soldiers starting point. Thankfully Justin mentioned that the research into a history is actually a fun side of historical gaming not a barrier.
I feel if I turn up with a bright green painted Blood Angels force I am twice as likely to face criticism, to the point of refusal to playing against them, than if I turn up with miniatures from early WW2 to play an army from late WW2.
The perception of things is a weird world to live in. It’s like perception of crime figures. If they don’t reflect the facts we shouldn’t put all our efforts into changing much on the basis of them. My fear of Zombies is at a 5 year high recently after seeing new Resident Evil game trailer. But being as there is no such thing as a zombie do need to actually need to change anything? (apart from my shorts, don’t judge, it was a scary trailer.)
I only started gaming again since my teenage years in my mid 30’s and the game that attracted me to war gaming and Beasts of War was Bolt Action.
It was a game I could play with my son because history was a hook not road block. “Did you know your great grandads were soldiers in the war. Would you like to play a war game with toy soldiers with daddy?”
When I have tried to introduce him to worlds like Infinity and 40k the response has been luke warm at best because it requires extra reading and imagination to understand. I am imaginative and would like to encourage my son to be more of that mind, but a game based on real history and facts is sometimes only off putting to those where the freedom of imagination and telling your own story is more important to them.
Happy? Sunday. Phew. Saturday was pretty edgy too. That’ll teach Ben to put salt in Justin’s tea 😀
Perception is reality for people, so it’s not really possible to argue there is no perception issue if people are saying that there is.
In terms of actual inaccessibility, any game ‘with history’ (not just ‘historical’) is going to have a steeper entry than others. Warhammer Fantasy died a death partly due to accessibility, and 40k was going down the same path until 8th Ed came out to specifically address this issue. For some (me included) this depth is a draw rather than a barrier, but we have to accept that in this day and age this mentality is always going to be in the minority. You have to find like minded people.
Also there is always going to be the odd person that makes a game more inaccessible whatever the genre – “You haven’t painted the squad markings right on your Space Marine tactical squad” or “The Tau never fought the Blood Angels on Terra” or whatever. It’s probably more common in historical because by definition, people love to recreate specific battles from history, so if historical gamers want to attract more historical gamers, they may need to accept an element of humouring new players while getting their accuracy kicks with like minded folks as well. Same with any game. Things like allowing an opponent to play with unpainted models – it grates on me a bit but it’s worth it to encourage a new player into the game, for the sake of the overall health and longevity of the game.
In my opinion no game,period,system, rules are inaccessible if you really want to get into it.
There is now such a plethora of choice in all areas of gaming, that inaccessibility isn’t an excuse for me when people are saying this and that about any given area of gaming.
The only limitations I see are your own willingness to go for it in the first place, and maybe finding opponents, but even that can be offset by the amount of solo player variants these days for many periods of history and indeed other genres.
Couple this with the variety of scales available and you can even game periods which require a lot of models, like Napoleonics, in smaller scales if you are on a budget or want to buy both forces so you can introduce friends into the game, but they don’t have to buy models themselves
You all brought up valid points and it’s all down to personal perceptions in the end
We do have a luxury of choice when it comes to gaming nowadays yes – I think it’s just interesting that there is still this perception issue with Historical gaming when in reality there is no real reason to be overwhelmed by it.
Happy Sunday folks
I think the historical issue has been covered in the original thread enough 🙂
Maybe so but I thought it was interesting to hear our thoughts on this as well
@brennon – Sorry, badly worded, meant my views are covered already in the original thread 🙂
I don’t understand why you can’t play your early war vs a late war army. Surely any game worth looking at is points costed so your better equiped late war veterans cost a lot more than your early war noobs armed with pop guns and butter knives. Why can’t we just play the game, not the period or a certain battle. Can’t we just assemble a nations force, from across the war and play what we want vs what your opponent wants? I’d be intersted to see a game that effectively lets you mix time periods in a fun balanced way. Have 20 nazis vs 200 of Arthurs knights. Thats a little extreme perhaps, so perhaps stick within technological brackets.
One of the things that puts me off historicals is that for the games I’ve tried everything feels more or less the same. I like character and difference between what my models can do. When it feels like the different units are pretty much the same but just look different it takes some of the interest out of it for me. Having special abilities like spells means you can build lists that play very differently within one faction. Historicals can adopt this and call them talents or traits or calling in favours from the artillery or something. I was once shown a game where it was indians vs settlers or something. I forget what it was called. The game played fun, but then I was shown the army lists available for all the factions and there was no real diversity for anyone and it sucked the joy out of it as I knew every game I played would always be more or less the same. Variation and character are key to making a game interesting and fun.
Well ancients sets tend to cover around 3000 years of history from Sumerians to war of the roses. But a war of the Roses army would tear through a Sumerian army like a hot knife through butter. So people tend to game within individual periods like biblical, Alexandrian Successor etc. WW2 is the same except it’s compressed into 6 years with a late war army Vs an early war the late war army should tear through the early war army and probably not much fun for the early war player
Mispost
Well one of the BIG realisations we found with WW2 was that fact that something that’s impervious to bullets gives infantry the same challenge. So trying to shoot at an armoured car vs a heavy tank is the same end result (ie nada if armed with rifles). We soon realised that the “arms race” occurs within the “period” (or gamers go out and buy the heaviest tank they can).
So we actually “nerfed” our own armies, dumped the tanks and started using more Armoured Cars/APCs. And the game ran a lot better (as everything was more matched), we didn’t have the “uber” German tanks vs the more mediocre Allied stuff. But what’s more the games were actually MORE “historical” (or you were more likely to see a armoured personnel carrier supporting infantry, than you would a Tiger II).
So it just take a bit of self control and stopping treating the game as a touney (where it’s all about building your lists). I’ve played early war vs late war (you just bring late war armoured cars along instead of the tanks, and the early war player brings his tanks (and his anti-tank rifles can still pen APCs/ACs pretty well).
HOWEVER, if you do got for things like Ancients, it doesn’t work that way. You really need to try to fight armies against their historical opponents. For example try playing Imperial Roman against a Mongul Army and you’ll find its a very lop sided game (Romans can’t close with a whole army of fast moving horse archers). You can’t really nerf armies down in the same way as you could in WW2.
But I do find the historical side of things more fun perhaps than the fantasy side of things. But you’ll probably be spending half your time reading the books, learning about the period, nations and politics. But for me that’s half the fun, it’s interesting to learn all about this aspect.
Fantasy/Sci-fi usually has LESS background (in volume) and it’s easier to get up to speed (providing you are willing to buy all the books). But then there’s games like SAGA that are very like most fantasy offerings, in that if you but 2-3 books then that’s all you need. So Historicals is what you make of it, it can be as deep or a light as you want to make it. But I must admit, once you start researching stuff for historical gaming, you do get “drawn in” to a background that’s actually deeper than most sci-fi/fantasy fluff.
The real problem is “historicals” covers such a wide period, that just saying you are an historical gamer doesn’t actually describe anything.
I think more than anything Historical gaming encourages you to create your own characters and drop them into your games.
For example, my friend played Americans in Bolt Action and of course, there are no ‘named characters’ really but he had a Medic we called Simmons and seriously…Simmons had more character than most of our Lords and Heroes from Fantasy ever had haha.
There’s still plenty of room for storytelling and character development in Historical Wargaming I think.
Its not the storytelling character I was referring to. I was thinking about character in terms of gameplay. In fantasy your general may have a spell to make his troops move faster, or might be able to call in an AoE and soften up the front line, for example. Picking characters based on these abilities allows you to chose how your list feels and plays. My minimal experience with historical games has shown a lack of options like this, even though there’s no reason why they couldn’t be rebranded to be non-magical and included anyway.
As for research and story telling and such, I don’t need any of that. Warmachine is my primary game and I don’t follow the fluff. I don’t feel the need to. Its nice to know its there and peek in occasionally but I don’t need it. I just want to play a fair and balanced game. Games that require me to know, and especially tell a story to play, whether historical or otherwise are providing an obstacle to play. Any game that expects me to know these early war tanks can’t hurt those late wars and doesn’t provide some in built mechanic to either balance this, or prevent me from playing that match up is setting its new players up for a fall and creating a new obstacle to getting in to the game. It can be massively off-putting.
Not that I’m anti-historical. I’ve bought some Bolt Action, and I’d buy more if I thought I’d get games in occasionally. I’ve painted up a FoW starter in hopes of trying it out one day. I’m just adding my thoughts to the conversation. BoW often feels like they play purely from the narrative gaming side of things. While that sounds fun, there are other approaches to gaming.
Very true – plenty of great ways to play games and would never say that you’re doing it wrong. I think SAGA is a pretty good example of having characters influence your troops and there being a big degree of flavour between forces.
Vikings play very differently from Anglo-Saxons for example and your Warlord can have a real influence on the movement of your troops and tying tactics together between units and your force as a whole. It might be a game you should look at when it comes to trying to unlock that side of the genre.
I will admit that in my case anyway, I am very much on the narrative side of things. I like a game to be balanced sure, but I’m more interested in the story I can tell rather than if I win or not most of the time.
…not sure you’d ever see me at a proper tournament day for any wargame haha.
With all your talking about it I am very tempted to try Saga. I’ve been thinking for a while that once I catch up on my painting (The end is in sight) I might pick up and paint 2 war bands and see if I can convince someone to try it with me.
In my personal experience, the Historical Wargaming Inaccessible often comes from other Historical Wargamers. This is some years past but I watched as some poor fellow who just wanted to play was berated about the color of the uniforms he had painted. His opponent was so stuck on being accurate that the other guy had no fun. I have seen the late war versus early war arguments and how this person cannot play because this or that he has is not accurate. I believe a lot of people do wish to simply play and not be totally precise with their armies. “Well it matter who play with” some will say. However, given that historical is a niche within the wargaming niche, often you have no choice. I find that the fantasy guys are more forgiving (except some 40K players). The Inaccessible is that many are simply just turned off. I am in that camp. I cannot be bothered to research the exact camo pattern used by the Germans at a particular campaign nor am I going to go out a purchase 10 units of tanks so I can have the correct camo pattern for each campaign. If you are going to yell at me because the color blue of my French uniforms happen to be, then no I am not playing. If I cannot play because the type of French 75 is not correct because the wheels are different or whatever, then I do not want to play. Now, if the tournament rules are such that every piece must be scrutinized, then that is another story. However, if I am coming to play a few hours on the weekend, that is just too much drama for me.
I think if you’re able to find like-minded people who don’t give a hoot about those problems (like me for example) you could very much get into Historical.
Heck, I painted a Panther GREY! I got a lot of stick for that, but I didn’t mind too much…it just looked like I’d seen German tanks in films so I was happy with it.
could be worse, the first ever napoleonics game I played in the guys showing us the rules supplied the armies. Two other club players wandered over and pointed out the grey trousers on the british where wrong for the penninsula campaign.
Historical vs Fantasy/SF: there’s little difference. Yes you’ll risk someone who’s going to moan about the camo patterns on your tanks, or the colour scheme of your regimental drummer. You’ll also risk someone who’ll moan that the shoulder pad trim is incorrect for the Ultramarines 3rd company.
I’d have no problem fighting against Sam’s Home Guard on a Pacific table (not least as I’d be putting down some Late-WW2 Brits on my side of the table). OK I’d find the idea of collecting a Home Guard army specifically to fight in the Pacific a little odd, but it’s a free hobby.
Some of the properties with very well fleshed-out fluff are just as restrictive as history is. If you’re going to be completely shackled with it, why would anyone collect 30k Thousand Sons? They fought one battle in the Horus Heresy, against the Space Wolves. So that’s sixteen other legions that ought to refuse to play them. I’m not a 30k player but I imagine people don’t do this.
Bad matchups are just as common in historical gaming as fantasy/SF. How many Khador vs Khador battle reports can you watch on Youtube? How many WW2 Yanks vs Soviets? How many Blood Angels vs Dark Angels? There’s no difference!
*No one is required to take one form any more seriously than the other.*
Another great XLBS – thanks guys 🙂 And thanks @brennon You were spot on with your observations in the ‘historical gaming’ discussion.
Ack! Posted as a reply by mistake. Edited and reposted!
Happy Sunday all 😀 .
Sam, if you wanna play the Home Guard, build your Home Guard and throw it up against my Japanese in a game of Bolt Action. There is zero wrong with that. Did it happen historically? No. But part of historical gaming is to see the what ifs of history. In that scenario, we’re comparing organization and training versus experience levels and seeing what happens.
Would your army be outclassed? Depends on the rules system used. And this is a point Justin missed. Bolt Action has two flavors. Generic and Theater. Generic platoons in Bolt Action just uses a simple points costing system so early war and late war armies are identical in terms of construction. Wanna take that King Tiger? Go for it. It’ll be a huge chunk of your points but eh, I’ll have more troops. If you want to go more historic, then you get into theater selectors that restricts what you can take.
So build your Home Guard and play it. If you want to fight late war and use your Home Guard, just call them something else because in this game system, a dude with a rifle is a dude with a rifle. The uniform changed slightly, but not enough to make any real difference. And if John or Justin want to slap down that King Tiger, get yourself a single late war British tank and surprise them. Better yet, use the special rules of the Dad’s Army characters. They’re way over the top and a hoot and a half!
Chain of Command uses a different system but has a similar effect.
Lloyd,Justin, take a look at the Saga system. If currently covers a time frame of about 300AD to about 1200AD going from the Late Roman era to the Late Crusades. In game terms, you can play those Late Romans vs. the Teutonic Order. Didn’t happen historically but in Saga terms, it works. Now the authors do admit they don’t balance one era vs. another era but in game terms, it works.
And that may be the hang up. What rule set are you using? And what’s the goal? If you want a super detailed historical recreation, neither of those two rule sets will serve. These two specific rules, Bolt Action and Saga, are a game mechanic with a historical skin.
Change the weapons in Bolt Action from rifles to Ray Guns and you get Gates of Antares. Change the Romans in Saga to Dwarves and know you have Saga Fantasy (which is probably going to be a thing based on hints that Studio Thomahawk have given.)
Wanna talk about rivet counters? How about 40k? WYSIWG (What You See Is What you Get) is an official rule for a game that has official models. No secondary source models allowed. No “count as.” Does it happen in casual games? Sure, because your opponent is being reasonable. Find a historical gamer that won’t let you play your Home Guard as Late War? Find another opponent.
I play saga most weekends, and I
would just mix the books/boards 🙂
Infact I’m playing it now!
And kicking my arse 🙁 poxy archers!!!! And @avernos pulled a sticky big jessy
Ahhhhhh bloody Frenzy!!!!!! God I had it. Great game though
you need a priest, and if it makes you feel any better @buggeroff I’m considering having my jaw removed
what you need is to forget some rules and then remember them later lol @buggeroff
Same with our group. We really don’t care what minis you use or whether it’s historically accurate.
On the whole inaccessibility thing, I do think historical is not easy for any casual gamer. If I do an ork army, I can take it into almost any fantasy game with no problem. I can even throw them into sci-fi if I want. Orks are orks. If I find a cool historical army I like, I can only play it in one place and one time period, and more than likely get complained to for the inaccuracy of the colors or any markers. To be fair, it has been over a decade from having any interaction with historical gamers, but back in the day, most of the ones I had dealings with, if it wasn’t just right, with markings, colors, weapons, You were going to get an ear full and you were going away with your cool looking minis without them ever hitting the board. I have never in my life heard any gamer say that fantasy or sci-fi minis were not painted or modeled in the wrong way so they can’t play.
I removed myself from any tournament players of any type a long time ago, as I like to play to have fun and tell a story, not play a rule sets meta only to crush people. The historical people were so anal that I wouldn’t want to play their game anyway. This was way before flames of war or bolt action, so again a long time ago and the people have probably changed a lot. My impression of the inaccessibility was always the people and the staunchness of the accuracy, and inability to float armies from game to game.
@nsogre my friend regularly uses his Goblin army as a stand in for Spanish in Saga and I am building a Dwarf army to use as Vikings in Saga.
@blipvertus That is cool to hear. I hope that is becoming more the norm that players are more interested in having a good time.
On a side note, When I got looking at my timeline, It has been about 15 years from when I stopped helping out at some local gaming stores, so I hope the whole scene has changed everywhere.
Who knew that all Lloyd needed to achieve bliss was a tub of water and some model boats. Such a fun segment.
Bath time in my house is great fun.
I wonder if the inaccessibility, perceived or otherwise, of historical comes in large part from using the word historical itself. History is always getting bigger. If I’m really into romans and the only “historical” gamers in my area are into napoleonics I’m kinda hosed, especially if I’m just not into black powder. Now if I’m looking to get into ww2 or bronze age or whatever that’s pretty accessible as opposed to historical because you’re not rocking up with ideas of a zulu army to find everyone playing late war Germans or something. Saying I want to get into ww2 is similar in accessibility to sci-fi or fantasy in that you can find something you’re interested in likely based on whatever system is popular in your area, GCPS-Imperial Guard-Concord or early German vs late German; they’re similar enough to satisfy in most cases.
Also I’d totally include this topic on a powergamer voight-kampff test 🙂
Re: Historical gaming access.
Overall i think it is easier.
1.) Lore:…Most of the research required is free on the internet. If i want to do 40k i have to buy a library of books. Infinity….gotta buy into the book. (for the most part…yes there is Wiki stuff for free but not as detailed as the books).
2.) Mini’s/terrain…i can use the same historical minis across every rule set (you can even re-scale 15mm to 24mm etc). A Sherman is a Sherman regardless of system. Therefore i don’t need specific minis for each system. Imagine bringing proxy mini’s from SW or Infinity into 40k….you will get shot on the spot. I can use the same terrain across all WWII systems. Where as Infinity terrain doesn’t work (aesthetics) in 40k which doesn’t work in Star Wars and vice versa. So, to play multiple sci-fi systems i need to now buy system specific terrain.
3.) Play:…As a military guy i have bought so many game systems (non-historical) because the locals played a certain fantasy game. I would then move 3 years later and then no one in my new area played that system….off to buying yet another new system. If i have historical…the same minis work for all the systems. I cant recall any Sci-fi games where you can use mini’s from other systems and have it work.
4.) Price:…If i want 40k i have to buy GW/Forge World. If i want WWII there are tons of companies that make only minis. Because of this it is much cheaper to historical wargame. There is no IP that drives the cost up of the minis and terrain for historical…it is easy access for anyone to make. A Sherman tank is made and produced by probably a dozen companies. Getting Space Marines is made buy one company and the price is jacked up so high it makes it cost prohibitive (for some) to get into it.
Re the accessibility thing, I suspect the perception of inaccessibility of historical gaming is down to the prejudices of the fantasy/sci-fi gamer who doesn’t see historical gamers around a lot and assumes they will behave in a certain way, maybe in the same way that *they* would obsess about getting the right colour of shoulder pad trim for their Space Marine army. As always with prejudices, they are usually based in an element of fact but misunderstood and exaggerated.
BoW started as a 40k-focused website and has gradually moved to include more historical gaming over time. Naturally, the focus is often therefore from the perspective of fantasy/sci-fi gamers. Had this started as a historically focused site, then I fully expect that the prejudice would have been in the other direction – i.e. that 40k/fantasy/infinity was inaccessible because of having to find a specific book and read all the codexes and stuff, which is a lot harder than just watching a couple of Youtube videos about the Battle of the Bulge.
I am really glad, and also really proud that BoW is breaking down those prejudices and bringing all elements of gaming together and really breaking down those walls.
I think @dignity really hit something on the head there when he mentioned that what we perceive as fun is what we consider more accessible ourselves. So if you love historical research, doing it isn’t inaccessibility, but a benefit. And vice versa with Fantasy or SF. So there is a hugely subjective element to our perceiptions of accessibility.
And as @lloyd says so much of the “inaccessibility” issues lie in our own heads. I think the reality is that we choose often to call something inaccessible because we are actually afraid to try something different, and make up excuses about why we shouldn’t do something when really we need to just man up and get on with it and stop being such a wuss.
The real barriers to accessibility are around finding other people who want to do the same things we want to, and aside from GW gaming in GW stores, that is common across all genres of gaming. And the reality is that no matter what we want to get into, we will probably end up just playing what we realistically think we can get a game of!
Of course, there are douchebags and fethheads who are unkind or ignorant and don’t have a clue how to see something from the new player’s perspective and assume their definition of fun is the only one that counts. I see them in all forms of gaming, but I don’t see them any more frequently in historical gaming than in fantasy/sf and I have been around a long time and played in several different clubs and stores over the years.
Social inadequacy abounds in our hobby, and we can all learn to improve and share better. The more self-aware and emotionally intelligent we are and become, the better for everyone. Great programme guys.
I like your points 🙂
“40k/fantasy/infinity was inaccessible because of having to find a specific book and read all the codexes and stuff, which is a lot harder than just watching a couple of Youtube videos about the Battle of the Bulge.”
I’m not sure I agree totaly with what I quoted above. I love watching the docs etc. on YouTube and the info about historical gaming is easyer to get (not the rules you still need to buy them) but when I returned to 40k a few years back all I did was read the one Tau codex and have friends show me the rules. And i didn’t care much about how i painted them. But the wysiwyg was a total pain in the backside, i hate it with a passion.
Agree completely with your view on wysiwyg
Yeah. I think my point is perhaps that all genres of gaming can be offputting to those not in the know to begin with. It also isn’t just the unfamiliar genre that can be intimidating or inaccessible too – perceived painting requirements, level of competitiveness, WYSIWYG etc can all be offputting things in our own heads for the main these days.
There can be an inaccessibility to any game. For instance, I’m curious about Star Wars: Legion. But I have the big “speed bumps” of being bored by the color schemes of the armies. I have no interest in painting squads and squads of white stormtroopers or loads and loads of rebels troopers in the same brown and green drab colors. **yawn** talk about grinding through the chore of making an army.
I would rather tweak my opponent’s nose by painting bright purple stormtroopers or giving my snowspeeder a really nice chrome paint job with hot rod flames on the front. But I don’t want to go through the same conversation/argument of “You know they can’t really look like that, right?”
Inaccessibility is mainly a social problem, and can be found in any game.
I discovered that the urban legend is true. You can order my Alexa to play a song over the internet. Thanks, I hate that song. Happy Sunday.
We are glad to be of service 😉
Justin is 100% right, you do your research before you get into any game and before buy an historical army you should talk to the group that you are planning to join, So! You can get the feel of where there at. (IMO) I think it’s great that there are stumbling block’s to historical gaming. I don’t want a lot of people in group any way.
Humm, so you would agree with the idea that historical is a harder genre to get into / find your feet in?
I hope so but I really can’t say that, because there are so many ways of getting into historical gaming, I do like the fact that historical groups are small and most historical groups are some what of a older crowd. The last thing I want to see is more people from 40k or from other games like that. One thing I can do is talk to a vet from my favorite time period WW2. Let’s see somebody from fantasy or sci-fi do that.
But I would think that most manufactures of historical minis etc. would like as many people as possible engoying the genre.
@lloyd I disagree. 40k is extremely dense both in terms of sheer mechanics due to so many armies and the weight of lore. Dropzone Commander by comparison has dramatically less lore because it’s such a new game. I find it more accessible than 40k or many other sci fi games.
If this is related to the comment a few posts up. I wasn’t talking about if the 40k rules where easy or not to get the hang of. Just that you don’t need to read all the codexes, just the one your going to use. Obviously if you read the other’s you will know more about what might happen.
It wouldn’t be my first recommendation.
Funny thing is I’ve found Saga to be one of the most accessible games out there. 1 rule book 1 book of stats and the battle boards come with it (plus dice). Then you can get to know most armys by just reading there boards so an a4 sheet of paragraphs. It’s a game that can get you started into historical type gaming. Saga it’s self I would say is historical light but in a good way. It’s just on the edge of fantasy, if you read the battle boards you may get what I mean.
Yes! you are right about Saga.
Lloyd you might be right about 40K, I never played the game, but if someone wants to get into historical, there’s a number of games like bolt action, chain of command and Beer and pretzels skirmish and so on, It’s up to the person or group.
Great xlbs guys. Love you saga, and Spanish force @lloyd, they look really great. Love how you asking the blood and plunder guys for color advise for you Spanish, oh and as we say, you never get to old to play with water 😉 I must say @dignity you Knight looks really good. I cant believe you used less than half a day on painting it…
A good discussing you had. I’ve wanted to try out bolt action for a while. Bolt action boot camp, her I come 😀
If you want a very simple system for ancient and medieval battles, King of war has historical version. With loads of different armies.
But you could also go further. Romans VS Orks, or Elves vs Vikings. Or you could go Vikings Vs Japanese samurais.
BoW Mythbusters.
Happy Sunday Well I did open a can of worms with the first post in the forum ?
The point about which rules to use is in my opinion a bit of a misnomer… You can experiment with lots of different rules without buying new minis.
Yes you can experiment 🙂 and don’t have to buy new minis but having time to is a real issue.
Absorbing/remembering rules is for me the hardest thing in gaming.
You don’t often see a 40k player say to another lets play this rule set instead. There all singing from the same book.
I agree learning new rules is a pain, but that’s exactly what we face because of the many types of game we play in the club, some rules get an putting maybe once or twice a year.
Also the reason I stopped playing Warhammer fantasy Battle was because I went into a Games Workshop in the 1990s with a Brettonian army I had spent 2 years and all my pocket money only to be told I can not use it because they are the old range of Brettonians… Or the one that had been superseded two weeks earlier. I was gutted and never went back.
Think you rain in to a total tool there.
It was the 1990s and many of the GW Shop staff were tool’s
OR…you could drop by the Perry miniatures store and buy the “historical” plastic medieval box sets (£20 for 12 mounted or 40 foot), and paint then up as perhaps War of the Roses (pick two of the houses). They would look like those old Brettonian armies, and you wouldn’t have to worry about them being OOP or even worse “retconned” out of existence. You could them play with the older editions of WFB with two “Brettionan” armies, and then perhaps buy an “historical” ruleset that covers the War of the Roses. One thing accessible about historicals is the price, AND the fact no-one is going to rewrite history so that you can no longer use your army 🙂
Mate of mine has just started using them to do a “Italian Wars” Swiss army (and they do look like those “old” Brettonian armies when GW first did them in metal
http://yarkshiregamer.blogspot.com/2018/07/crossbows-for-italian-wars.html
They actually got an outing a few months back playing dragon rampant. Which was ok. But after almost 30 years they were looking a bit rough and ready…lol
I started with playing Fields of Glory with fantasy models. I thought it was great because I could play it as almost any army from any period. Loads of fun. Later I picked an historical army and then I already knew a bit which kind of army I liked playing. Now we even mix it up, historical against fantasy. Great fun loving it.
a interesting XLBS guys the main thing about gaming is having some fun as long as that happens who cares if the army’s are wrong just say that’s all that survived the last attack.
Whelp, time to watch the rest on mobile so I can hobby and watch. How did we go from huge TV’s to little screens that strain your eyes? Time to get this on Xbox!
“Alexa, Order 1000 cans of creamed corn.”
Question: Is Historical Wargaming inaccessible? …… No, in no way is historical wargaming inaccessible. I am personally convinced that if someone brand new to historical wargaming chatted to someone or a group of people already involved in it, they would A: be welcomed, and B: given assistance into the hobby. I have found that 95%-99% of historical wargamers are more willing to “overlook” certain things that seem to be brought up in the XLBS comments on the show. I have not come across any historical wargamer refuse to play against someone because “their Roman army is the XXX Legion and didn’t fight against that particular force of Gauls”.
I think some of the comments made by Lloyd and Sam were almost rigged. For example, if someone wanted to make a Home Guard force, why would they want to play in the Pacific theatre? To me, thats similar to saying “Here is my force of Goblins. They have a few archers, some spear units and some club units… I want to play a game where I attack a fortress”. If you want to have a force to attack fortified areas, you add Siege Towers, ladders etc, exactly the same way if you want to fight a Pacific theatre game set in WW2, you fight using nations who fought there.
I do agree with Justin. Historical gaming is not just a case of buying models, painting them, playing. There is research that can be done so you can have a specific unit from a specific conflict. There is however a wonderful tool that can be used for this… The Internet. If some people are funny about using the Internet due to the risk of errors, then there are more than enough source books available from libraries, bookshops or online.
There seems to be a stigma on historical wargaming about people being rivet counters or stitch counters, however I remember overhearing a conversation in a GW store of someone happily announcing he refused to play against someone “because their opponents Ultramarines were the wrong shade of blue”.
One stigma seems to be “You can’t play WW2 if the camo pattern on your Germans is wrong”. Well, you can easily research camo patterns. Also, fantasy has the same issue. I think most people would question someone if they had an Orc force who were yellow rather than green. Fantasy tells us Orcs are green.
Why does historical wargaming all of a sudden have to be WYSIWYG to such a degree that it can only be played in one specific fortnight in that historical era but not fantasy and Sci-fi? I have seen countless games where “That Space marine isn’t armed with a flamer, its a Multi-melter”.
Tips into Historical Wargaming:
1: Pick a period you are interested in – Romans, WW2, Westerns, etc.
2: Talk to Historical wargamers – Join the forums on this site, search Facebook for groups and talk to people and ask questions.
3: If you have an opponent, chat to them. Are they wanting to be 110% historically anal, or do they want to have fun and play a game or two? (Top Tip: If they want to be anal about it, they might not be the best opponent for you unless you want to game that way).
Long post cut short:
Is Historical Wargaming Inaccessible? No, and if the answer is “Yes” then the answer is Yes if the question is re-worded to include Fantasy or Sci-fi.
(Hopefully this post doesn’t sound too arsey and stuck up. It isn’t meant to, just some thoughts)
Happy Sunday !
First off, will it float was awesome! And it was super cool having Lloyd back on the show. His enthusiasm is contagious. And that leads me to the next point. There are barriers to historical gaming and fantasy. And it’s the people. Other gamers. Weather it’s that guy who says you can’t buy the stuff you think is cool, you have to get this cause it competes with my list. ( Justin!) or the guy who gives you a hard time cause your camouflage isn’t right or you don’t have the right divisional markings on you tanks. Or in fantasy, if your not playing the latest meta of what’s the most powerful list your somehow not playing right.
If my minis are painted to a high standard. Because I bought the stuff I thought was cool and worked hard on it and the army book says my Amy is good to go then let’s play. Let’s push some minis around, say pew pew and have a good time.
Maybe I’ll get there someday, when I’ll car about the camo or the divisional markings. But don’t take the fun out of it over something that’s not even in the rule book. Sorry if anything I said throws anyone. That’s not my intention.@oriskany your super smart man. I think it’s cool and important that we have these chats. I read more of the comments for this XLBS than any other. This stuff is why I became a backstager. Thanks guys and great show.
Lloyd is awesome, Sam & Ben are super cool, and Justin is always wrong !
( just kidding Justin…….kinda )
I have just had a thought, with the whole hobby growing and the merging of miniature gaming and board gaming I think that historical gaming is going to be far easier to get into as there are many really good Historical based board games plus you look at games like Joan of Arc it gives you a very easy way to play historically, plus Fantasy all in one.
Excellent. Loved it all but “Will it float?” is the stand out to me ….. I think you need to extend this to aircraft models and we can have a “Will it Glide” or spacecraft “Will it launch?” or maybe if someone had some tank models and an air rifle “Will it deflect?” the possibilities are endless ….. 😉
Will tower terrain stand up during simulated earthquakes? Find out in “Will it stand?” How good is your forest terrain? “Will it burn?” will tell you. Your missus has said you are spending too much on the hobby and is coming to audit your collection… what old stuff can you get rid of quickly?? Find out in “Will it flush?”
lol but will that work 😉
Happy Sunday guys! I have to say that I have always agreed with Justin for the past 3 years mate, but today you really dropped the ball. I play both, historical and fiction games and yes, historical is definitely more inaccessible. That is why older people play it. Historical gaming is a niche for men that usually starts in their 30s.
Teenagers and children do not play this genre. If they do, it will have some sort of mythological aspect to it. Teenagers will definitely play Konflikt 47, but they will never play the original BA.If you want your children or little siblings to enjoy the hobby, you will need to entice them with fantasy. For example, Stuffed Fables. That is the perfect gateway game.
Try bringing Saga, Flames of War, test of Honour to kids and they will never be interested. That right there is inaccessibility. Fantasy and Sci-fi will always be easier to get into. Mainly because you can do whatever you want. Once you have the rulebook, the game is yours. You will never have that freedom with a historical game.
Can I borrow your broad brush… I need to sweep the kitchen floor.
Happy Sunday!
“Accessibility of historical wargaming” would be a really interesting topic for BoW to discuss with some of the people from the industry. Companies like Battlefront and Warlord have had to work a lot with it and it would be interesting to hear their thoughts.
@lloyd, following the success of “Will it Float”, how about “Will it Fly” with the Blood Red Skies stuff and the xwings…
yeah but that would probably just end up being a segment called “will it break” lol
As long as you don’t let warren near it the models will have a fighting chance!
Loved the show, particularly “Will it float”.
On Historical gaming I think you ALL missed the mark in one way or another. Picking a historical period is no different to picking either a genre and then an IP and finally a faction. Will I play Fantasy, Sci-Fi or Zombies? Will I play Warhammer, Kings of War or Lord of the Rings? Will I play Orcs, Elves or Dwarves? Etc. Questions like scale are common to all types of miniature gaming.
As to the model ranges, previously everything was in metal, the quality of the models varied greatly because there was no ‘GW’ pushing the historicals manufacturers to ever higher quality levels. It’s only in relatively recent years that Warlord, Vitrix, Gripping Beast, the Perry’s and Fire-Forge have moved into hi-res resins and then plastics, long after GW moved Sci-fi and fantasy there.
The number of rivets argument is ridiculous too. If you paint a Space Wolves army bright pink, people will comment that it isn’t very accurate. If your Elves all have blue skin, people will ask what the hell happened to them. In ‘real life’ everyone knows Orcs are green, that’s why they are called “Green-skins”! Companies like GW spend loads of time creating colour schemes of uniforms for players to follow.
The historical reality is that the mass production of uniforms in a factory doesn’t happen until the mid 19th century and even then there is massive variation. You only have to look at German uniforms in WWII to realise the variation in colour, design, etc even within the same divisions, despite being ‘uniform’.
In regards to the ‘Grognard’ issue, historical wargamers have traditionally replayed historical battles, Zama, Cannae, Hastings, Waterloo, etc. The funny thing I’ve seen with these battles if you want a different result you need to set up differently, manoeuvre differently, etc or you get the same result but then I’ve watched historical gamers almost go into melt-down when a player departs from what happened in history. Don’t get the point myself. Sci-fi and Fantasy never really had that restriction. You were fighting battles that never happened in worlds that don’t exist.
With the advent of larger scale warfare, such as the world wars it’s been easier for historical gamers to abstract conflict and not pin themselves to specific battles. There were so many theatres of conflict in the world wars and so many battalion sized battles in so many locations that the range of what may have happened is greatly broadened. WWII Russians fighting Brits? Maybe it’s an accidental exchange in Afghanistan. Germans versus Japanese? It could be German trainers and German equipped Chinese troops versus the Japanese in Shanghai, etc.
It’s the same in any game world. Anyone familiar with the Warhammer World would have had to ask themselves how often Ogres and Lizardmen would have fought, or Dark Elves and Chaos Dwarves, Chaos and Tomb Kings, etc. In 40K the Tau Empire is tiny and yet they seem to constantly come into contact with every race in the galaxy. Marine Chapters situated on a single home world seem to cross the galaxy, pass possibly hundreds of other chapters and threats to the Imperium to fight races they would feasibly never come into contact with.
Historical gaming is growing. Slowly. Games like Bolt Action, Flames of War and the ability to go beyond just replaying history will continue to broaden the number of people playing historical miniatures games.
I’ve never played in a historical re-fight where anyone had a meltdown or where it was played using the historical events. At an Austerlitz re-fight, my Russian Cuirassier Brigade broke the French lines and over-ran Napoleon in his carriage… He died that afternoon at Austerlitz in our re-fight.
No one had a hissy fit. 😉
Historical wargaming has been growing… for about 70 years.
Me neither. I’ve seen a few sulking due to bad die rolls. I would say most historical gaming is people putting armies and having a go. I think this tends to be more ancients to the start of renaissance. After that you can get more details of particular armies and refight actual battles
I should qualify that the melt-downs were neither common or terrible. If anything they were amusing. I’ve been doing it for 40 years, and whilst I’ve gone into other gaming over the years, I’ve always been drawn back to it. By contrast I’ve seen a 40K player throw a metal terminator at someone with malicious intent, a magic player over 6ft in his 40 screaming at his teenage opponent, the infamous army burning on YouTube that went viral in our community. Who can deny that the concept of “Rage-quitting” came from the competitive side of GW gaming? The Historical community is by and large the most mature, passionate and interesting people in the gaming community.
“The Historical community is by and large the most mature, passionate and interesting people in the gaming community.”
I could agree with that. 😀 😀 😀
Actually, technically @dracs could use his “home guard” in the pacific theatre. During the Kakodha campaign in New Guinea, the Australians defending were reserve/ home guard that were deployed with very little/dodgey equipment.
I think the whole thing comes down to 1) is there someone who plays a historical game in your area that interests YOU. 2) How deep do you really need to go for the local group (or tournament group). 3) Can you play historical game, but can your group evolve to play “what if” style scenrios, that will put forces against each other that historically never faced each other, but What If??
I’m of the opinion I dont care about historical accurracy, is it an opponent I’ll have a good, and interesting game against. I would would happily play @dracs or @dignity play moria goblins against me in SAGA.(I know I don’t play SAGA, I’m just saying I’m more interested in having a good game against a good opponent than the rivet counting)
Being ‘historically accurate’ doesn’t directly equate to ‘rivet counting’ (which I take to be used in a derogatory sense as an insult to a persons rigid adherence to some sort of historical theme).
Partly, I like to be historically accurate out of respect to those who did it for real.
Apologies @piers, I was not being derogatory when I used the term “rivet counting”, I unfortunately used it as a general term for the few players that cannot cope with new or returning players that do not have a historically accurate force.
I can appreciate you wanting to “get it right” as tribute to those that have served in such conflicts, as I think most gamers would have someone in their family that have served in a conflict that has some form of wargame rules for it.
I know a lot of gamers who will prefer any force from a historical game to be as accurate as possible (as we all would love our opponents to have an army that is Historically or Fluff/Law(for those sci-fi or fantasy games) accurate), but are usually willing to over look some historical inaccuracies to have a game that will be entertaining and enjoyable.
I wont go into the whole “proxie” model thing in historical gaming as I do not wish to “poke” that particular bear at the moment.
Hopefully you’ll get where I’m coming from. The local gaming group where I am is only about 20 odd people who have a very eclectic range of games that are played(40K unfortunately is a main stay that I no longer wont to play), so we are a bit more open in what we are willing to “put up with” on the table in order to get a game. If I want to get a really good game, be it historical( bolt action, chain of command, sharpe practice) or sci-fi/fantasy, I have to travel 600kms the Perth in Western Australia (that’s 6hrs drive one way)
“Being ‘historically accurate’ doesn’t directly equate to ‘rivet counting’” – what do you mean? @piers
Er… that you can want to be historically accurate and that doesnt mean you are an utter arsehead.
Small point really, but one worth making.
Historical painting can be more inaccessible than fantasy/sci-fi painting, specifically for anyone who’s colour blind.
I can’t look at pictures and reference material, then translate that to a paint scheme. Only way I’ve been able to do it before is with really specific references which tell you exactly which paints to use, which kind of takes the fun out of it.
Good thing about sci-fi and fantasy is I can just pick colours, they don’t have to be “right”.
Also, Justin’s views expressed on this show, which are his own, and are completely legitimate, are a classic example of why historical wargaming can feel inaccessible to outsiders. Justin demonstrates that to him, the fun stuff (either in historical or otherwise) is doing research, and making sure all your stuff on the tabletop is “correct”, and it’s clearly important to him that other people’s stuff is “correct” according to the universe too. I look at that and think “eugh”. I just wanna make stuff up and have fun with it.
Justin’s final comment – pick a period and do your research together as a group instead of everyone just going off in your own direction. To me that just sounds like the opposite of fun.
I get though that to some people, that is fun, and that is what some people believe the hobby is all about, and I think it’s that difference in mindset that determines that some people will be attracted to different types of games, and gaming cultures.
I don’t mind @dracs ‘ mind being in the gutter; could be a whole new segment for XLBS – Warren has his mats, so why not throw Sam a bone? (Or should that be boner considering the subject? ?)
Will it float – was really not expecting the resin Viking longboat to float. Wonder if you could do a naval game using these ships actually floating in a large tank/paddling pool? ? Tricky thing would be learning the balance for minis so that the warriors in them don’t capsize them. ?. The montage of John working on making the large ships float was almost Mythbusters-esque, if it hadn’t been for Lloyd’s beatboxing. ?
I think @dignity ‘s ball were sucked back up into his body when Lloyd tried to touch his knight. Again we’re straying into BoW After Dark territory aren’t we? ?
Math’s isn’t Lloyd’s strong point is it? 6 is 1/3 of 18, not 1/2 mate. ?
No flashback to show Sam breaking Justin’s mini? ?
On Zeus’ moldlines – you should have painted him as a Bronze statue Ben, that way you could claim the moldlines are supposed to be there because the Ancient Greek sculptors left them there when they cast the statue. 😉
If it makes you feel better Sam, it’s still better than what my projects have scored. 😉
9pm to 3am is 3 hours? I echo my earlier comment on Lloyd’s maths skills. ?
Will it Float Round 2 – would have helped if you hadn’t piled all the minis on the side that was dipping into the water Lloyd. ?
I’m going to have to vehemently dispute Lloyd’s “It’s Fantasy so doesn’t matter” assertion; you can’t really go and just slap anything down just because it’s Fantasy. If the setting is ill-defined or not defined then you can get away with that, but if the setting is established, then just as with historics there are lines within which you have to colour. With WHFB for example you can’t just slap down some Skeletons and orcs backed up with Dwarf cannons and lead by a Chaos Lord and a Slann Mage Priest; none of those things mix within the lore. The Army Books restrict what you can have and the various slots (Lords/Heroes/Core/Special/Rare) and restrictions on said slots are designed to replicate how an army within the lore is compromised. You can then delve deeper into the lore and self impose restrictions to further shape the army to match one within the lore (eg taking no black powder weapons or gyrocopters in a Dwarf army that represents one from a traditionalist hold, or not taking Ushabti, Bone Giants, etc in a Tomb Kings army that’s from a city that didn’t make any use of constructs in the lore). This is exactly the situation being argued for historics; you have army books/lists which restrict what you can have but may not necessarily be specific to early/mid/late War (or whatever) and it’s up to the player to self-impose the restrictions to match the historical records available. The main difference between Fantasy and Historics is that there is more comprehensive records on army compositions so you are able to research and find out more exact numbers for composition; while this does mean you have more leeway in a Fantasy army, the flip side is that with an Historical army you can go look up the records and get exact numbers so know exactly what you need to get rather than dithering over what minis you need to buy. Granted even then that’s really only for more recent periods and the further back you go the more inexact things get (for example go back to the Ancients period and you’ll get X Legions and X Auxilia Legions, but no numbers on what comprises said legions and have to look up what the average was to use as a rough idea), but even then that’s more info than you get for Fantasy armies most of the time. Ultimately, like Justin says, it comes down to who you play as the sort of person that would ridicule you for painting the wrong period camo on your WW2 minis or using too many tanks for an army of that period is the same sort that would ridicule you for using the wrong war gear in your Fantasy army; and again “it’s fantasy” is not carte blanche to do whatever you want in an established setting. That’s like saying “Oh Captain Kirk should be able to fly through space without a spacesuit or star ship because Star Trek is Science FICTION!”.
Another consideration on the plethora of army lists for sub periods in historics compared to the dearth of the same in fantasy is not to do with there existing more of them in history, it’s down to companies being more willing to support them for historics than for fantasy. Again taking WHFB as an example, an Empire army from the time of Sigmar is radically different to one from the End Times, and one from the midpoint would be different to both. But GW only ever supported the Empire from just before the End Times up to the End Times itself, so anyone wanting to do an army from the time period of Sigmar was left out in the cold because that was totally inaccessible, as would a Tomb Kings’ army from when they were still alive; anyone who wanted to game those periods would have to scrounge for what little info they could dig up and then go digging for another fantasy ruleset that supported something similar and fit what theyd found out into that, then they have to find someone who plays that system, then they have to find someone amongst those people who also want to game that WHFB time period, *and* who want to do a compatible opposing army. Which pretty much describes Lloyd’s scenario for narrowing down an historical game, except it’s even worse because it’s more specific (again “it’s Fantasy” isn’t an excuse to throw down whatever because you’re after a specific result).
As for “Oh I want Imperial Romans; actually I want Republican Romans; no wait I want Greeks; scratch that I want Carthagenians”, how is that any different to “Oh I want Empire; actually I want Dwarfs; no wait I want Orcs and Goblins; scratch that I want Skaven”? 😉
Uh Lloyd, you do know by the time Hannibal crossed the Alps all his elephants had died?
Bronze vs Iron – I feel sorry for Sam in this debate; at least Ben has the protection of being on the other side of a screen.
Elephants died after they crossed the Alps but before they could be used in battle 😉
I think some of them fought in some the early battles in Italy as they left the Alps
I’d like to think so
I was looking it up. There was an unspecified number at the Battle of Trebbia
I stand corrected.
class
The info I got off the internet I have a couple of books to see if it goes into more detail
I think Polybius says that 38 try crossing the Alps and are at Rhone, but no other mention other than that only one survives the battle of Trebia.
Here is my opinion on the historical debate.
Someone who isn’t playing mini wargames decides for some reason to give it a try. That is the real kicker, why did you decide to get into wargames? Did your FLGS start something up? Are you a RPG player that wants to give something else a try? So you go to the shop and that will dictate what most people will get started playing. If there are people playing a game and they are friendly and decide to show you why they are having such fun you will probably take up what they are playing. If they are jackasses then you may not want to play that game or with them. Many younger gamers (and yes this is a broad generalization but the numbers do bare it out) play a certain Sci-Fi or Fantasy game (usually a GW game). Older people generally decide that historical games look interesting, mostly because older people start to have an interest in history.
So is there a barrier to playing historical games? yes the basic norm is that it is an older group of people that have an interest in some form of history and they will eventually flock together and play a game. Younger people are not interested in playing those games and wouldn’t be caught dead playing one, yet they will eventually become older and change their minds. Please note that I did not use the term mature in this post as I don’t think it is a maturity thing in the way we bandy about the term, I do think it is fitting but it can be seen as divisive and have a negative connotation.
I love you guys and this show and have been a backstager for a couple of years now… I play everything from Fantasy, Historicals, Post Apocalyptic and Sci Fi. I have been around the hobby since around 1989 as a young boy. I’m sorry but I had to skip through “Will it float”. It just made me go “Meh”. I found the historical wargaming discussion ignorant at times and frustrating. I think Justin was bang on with his points however I felt he was bullied and shut down for having an opinion that differed to the others. I felt the argument contradicted itself quite a lot. Any period of wargaming can be perceived as difficult to get into, not just historicals. I have picked up Kill Team and the last 40k box set I bought was in 1992, I have no idea what I am doing however with some research online I am sure I can pick it up… how is that different to anything else in Wargaming??? I felt that was just a bash at historical wargaming.
I think some of the differences would be as follows.
With Kill Team, yes, you will need to familiarise yourself with the rules, and select and build a kill team within that framework. But in terms of research, if you want, that can literally be it. You don’t have to know anything about the background at all to play. Say you decide to do space marines, and you can’t be bothered to learn anything at all about how space marine chapters are organised, so you assemble and paint your models in a scheme which does not resemble any of official chapters, and without any codex compliant chapter, company or squad markings – Not a problem! The fluff is literally optional, your guys can be anything you want, they’re clearly an unknown, non compliant chapter.
Or say you know a lot about the fluff, but you want to use it as an opportunity to be creative rather than be constrained by it, so you model/paint your kill team as 30K alpha legion. Nobody is going to tell you you can’t do that because this is the 41st Millenium and you can’t play alpha legion using loyalist rules. Everyone will just go “cool”. Clearly they have been trapped in the warp for thousands of years or something. I’m sure there are exceptions to prove this rule, so let’s say almost everyone.
You think the 40K fluff is laughable, you want to parody it, so you model and paint your kill team as angry marines, a fan-made joke chapter which takes the piss out of the hyper-masculine concept of space marines. A few people will be secretly butthurt, but most people will laugh at the joke, or pay it no mind and get on with the game. After all, most of the fluff was originally written with tongue firmly in cheek – it was never meant to be taken too seriously.
Historical gaming generally just doesn’t have that kind of latitude to be creative, playful, or even just lazy about the backdrop and setting for your games.
Like, to a certain kind of gamer, when somebody says “can my dad’s army british home guard guys fight against your imperial japanese in the pacific theatre” the best answer is “yeah, totally, because that’s cool, I don’t care that it could never possibly have happened. Also my imperial japanese are kamikaze cyborgs from the future…”
That particular kind of gamer is not likely to be drawn to historical wargaming for obvious reasons.
Also, with historical gaming, there is just more work to be done, or the same amount, but it is less easy to avoid doing it. You have to know at least a little bit about the period, the way the armies you’re playing actually worked, and what they looked like, otherwise you’re just likely to get a lot of funny looks from people who don’t want their immersion in the period ruined.
Yeah, there are some of those people in non-historical gaming too, but they’re in the minority, and the generally accepted standard is the rule of cool.
Good post above ^ @tachycardia 🙂
I will agree that there aren’t more barriers to historical wargaming when I can turn up to a Napoleonic battle, knowing nothing at all about the period, with an army exclusively of Hussars (as long as that’s legal in the ruleset), chosen purely because I think the models look the coolest, painted in purple and gold uniforms, because I think that’s a cool colour scheme, and couldn’t be bothered to research and attempt to replicate a real one, and when asked what this army is supposed to represent, I’ve invented my own European nation which never existed, let alone participated in the Napoleonic war.
Because the equivalent would totally fly in, for example, Warhammer 40K.
You’ve clearly never heard of Imagi-nations… The concept of making up your own country and force in historical wargaming goes back decades, right to the founders of popular gaming with Charles Grant and Tony Bath in the 50’s. They played almost all of their historical games in ‘worlds’ they invented for the purpose.
Tony Bath’s ‘Hyboria’ campaign ran for years… and Grant fielded the duchies of Lorraine and Vesta in a long running feud over land…
But lets just go with a blanket ‘cant do this in historicals’ instead aye…
To be fair @piers I do agree with you… but (and a small but at that)
It’s a stretch to talk about “never heard of imaginations” and then having to pull an example from nearly 70 years ago to demonstrate that. 🙂 (is there anything more recent and wildly known – or perhaps we need to take a lead in creating that?)
I doubt many of the community will have your depth of experience in this 🙂
@warzan to be fair people may not be as aware of historical stuff as me… and I should have included some recent links.
But Imagi-nations continue now, its not a ‘dead’ example but an ongoing and alive facet of gaming. I merely stated it started 70 years ago with the dawn of popular historical gaming…
Plenty of blogs cover it and books too.
The wargames annual has articles and features on it…
http://caliverbooks.com/Partizan%20Press/partizan_WargAnnual.shtml
Or perhaps Henry Hyde’s games…
https://henrys-wargaming.co.uk/category/imagi-nations/
So no… its not really a stretch. Its a current and relevant part of historical gaming and my point was that its been around since the hobby really started – That was why I mentioned the old campaigns by those who really did create the hobby we all share today. When we did Napoleonic skirmish gaming we created Imagi-nations for our campaign exactly for the reasons above – We wanted to paint and create our own uniforms.
Well to give a little example.
I didn’t catch the meaning in imagi-nations (nations being the key word there) i thought you meant it a little more harsh as in lacking imagination 🙂
So a bit of a classic case of a bit of knowledge not transferring automatically. 🙂
Thanks for the followup links and a descriptor for lloydoslavia lol
My bad!
@warzan
I made the classic historical gamers mistake of assuming people know what I’m talking about! 😉
When in reality, most of the time I don’t know what I’m on about…
Its interesting though as Tony Bath was the man who introduced Donald Featherstone to the hobby, and while he may well be regarded as the ‘grand-daddy’ of wargaming by many, he wasn’t always very complimentary about Fantasy gaming… Though my early editions of Warhammer have a note of thanks to Featherstone in them, so they recognised their lineage.
Its kinda why I don’t see it as two separate hobbies… but as all the same thing – Playing with toy soldiers.
I thought HG Wells was the grandfather of wargaming? Or would this make him the great-grandfather? ?
I’d see him as a more God-like figure. 😉
But then we might need to go back to von Reiswitz…
Wasn’t it Tony Baths ancient rules that first had the roll to hit/wound and then save in them?
@torros yes I think so… In his ancients rules… Peltast & Pila were they called?
@piers Yes something like that
Imagi-nations – Nice, you did it and didn’t even know it 🙂
I’m not being funny, but the fact that there is a thing called imagi-nations, which some people in historical wargaming might have heard of, and which there have been some articles about, and which has been around since the 60s, really painfully obviously does not mean that I can start playing Napoleonics with the guys at a local club who do it, and turn up with a bunch of stuff which makes no historical sense, all painted the wrong colours, and just be like “yeah, I’m not really interested in the fluff, I just want to play toy soldiers”, and that those guys would be cool with that. You know as well as I, and everyone else does, that they would not.
So for a certain kind of gamer, or rather for a couple of particular kinds of gamer – those who aren’t really interested in history, can’t be bothered to do research, want to do their own thing with their armies which is outside the scope of the setting, or who just don’t really care about any of it, and just want to roll dice, historical wargaming is obviously less accessible. That’s all I’m saying. There are plenty of gamers who don’t fit into those categories, and those people probably don’t find historical wargaming inaccessible at all.
And that I’m sure all sorts itself out anyway. Like, if doing historical research and making sure your army is historically accurate is not part of the fun for you, and instead it’s a chore, and a barrier to entry, then why do you want to play historical wargames anyway, when clearly there are better options out there for you? It’s only really inaccessible to people who aren’t well suited to it. So no worries.
Have to say, on a separate note, the fact that in a discussion about the inaccessibility of historical wargames, an advocate of the accessibility of said wargames pops out the slightly condescending expression “You’ve clearly never heard of imagi-nations…”, then references some obscure thing from the 50s done by some dudes I’ve never heard of, and some articles in publications I didn’t know existed, doesnt help cut accross the perception that there are a lot of barriers to entry, you know?
I know… who cares about those old dudes who started the hobby.
Its not a barrier… more a sandbag wall topped with barbed wire and a smattering of landmines.
Agree 100% with @piers on this one … including all the “historical hypotheticals” from Avalon Hill games like Tactics II from as far back as 1954.
“Any period of wargaming can be perceived as difficult to get into, not just historicals.”
Sure, but alot of genres don’t also have periods to contend with too.
“I felt that was just a bash at historical wargaming.”
What was? @cheezfriend
We enjoy historical gaming and have done for a long time. So we are definitely not bashing it.
“I felt that was just a bash at historical wargaming.”
Sorry to say that I agree with this, @cheezfriend – I mean the conversation in the show wasn’t bad at all, but I’m not sure I can say the same for the thread that followed.
It’s one thing to say that you don’t play historical because you don’t like it. That’s perfectly fine. But the insinuation seems to made more and more the further I scroll down that people aren’t being “allowed” to play historical because historical players are being condescending, we’re not “inclusive,” and …
Man, I dunno. We’re all just repeating ourselves at this point.
I should paint my pirates, and I should probably rig up the Brigantine.
Yeah that sounds great. Let me know if it floats 😉
I didn’t dig the arguing, not a great section of the show.
To be fair, early war armies can compete, sure they probably can’t deal with that Tiger, but hit it with the early war arty, pin it down, and keep going.
@lloyd @dignity (et al) just finished watching the XLBS episode, or rather the historical bit… for my 2 cents i think there are a couple of bits…
Firstly is the question more inclined to “are large scale battles more inaccessible now?” Most of what makes historical battle interesting are the “Battles” as apposed to the skirmishes we tend to see in Sci-Fi and Fantasy. People are more time and space restricted and as you widen the accessibility to the hobby overall this impact is expanded. Therefore people look for skirmishes and that typically leans away from historical as you have more freedom/variation in what you are “allowed” to take even in a more hollywood way as opposed to the strict historical accuracy (Wild west exodus for example is a skirm game but typically from what I have observed you can have a couple of numerous different types of inf, character, weapon, tanks etc, where as a real American Civ force might be all regular inf).
This leads me on to my second point – variation. Sci-fant games allow more variation in what you can take based on rules lists alone where as with a historical game even if you are not being grognardic you will to a large degree have more inf than anything else with increasing proportions of Inf compared to cav or arty as you get more historically accurate (in medieval battle i believe that even 10-15k souls on a force, only 500 would be heavy cav/knights, yet look at most wargames collections and the swing is definitely not that way at all). Gamers like the shiny and if they are used to being able to have what ever they want (or being able to unlock what they want using small cheap fodder units) being guided/told they (usually) cannot (and yes there will be countless of specific examples of Cav on cav etc to allow that type of set up they are not then necessary portable to tournament or random play.
What historical does allow is a lot more “testing” for less upfront cost. Depending on what you are interested in, it can be often easier to make a small cardboard army to see if you like something before you commit to models and basing. Even if you must have models, 1:72 plastics are relatively easy to come by and give a reflection of a force without too much investment before you invest time and cash in a beautifully painted force to whatever colour scheme you desire. This isnt possible with a lot of Scifant with the possible exception of KoW that comes to mind so you need to almost buy possibly before you are sure you want to commit so that can make it easier and possible to find a rule set you like or even play different rules with more than one set up.
Finally before I go and get back to work – Imagi-nations. If you like a historical genera but are not too sure about if you are “doing it right” or wish you could have/do xx then create your own world based on that setting and go for it! I can remember which stalwart of the hobby it was/is but he had a long ongoing Imagi-world where his gaming partner used Prussians, but he used whatever models/unit he liked and created his own space to make it work. Lets face it every time you more away from an actual battle to base your game on you are moving away from fact anyway so what does it matter.
Apologies this was longer than expected and full of gramatical errors but wanted to say my piece before getting back to work!
Ignoring the perception problems associated with historical wargaming/wargamers, and by that I mean the historical accuracey snobs (and speaking as someone who is not a hostorical wargamer, I really can’t say how accurate that perception is) I think the blocker to historical wargaming is setting definition. when you look at sci-fi gaming, you choose your game and everything you need is laid out and defined for you. Sure there’s “gaps” that you can game in but they’re usually purely aesthetic and don’t really change the rules. This definition has traditionally been less visible among historical games and you may well be required to go and do some research of your own to find out what armies within a given historical time period were like. Even settings such as “Ancient Rome” and “Medieval England” can have huge variations over that time period between the start and the finish (consider the Norman invaders predominantly wore chainmail whereas by the War of the Roses knights were wearing plate). You can’t necessarily choose a game and jump right in.
I do think that there have been huge efforts over the last few years to improve this with games like Bolt Action and Flames of War taking steps to define some sub-genres within their chosen settings (i.e. Early/mid/late war) and also providing supporting ranges of miniatures for those sub-genres. Also Saga has done something interesting by producing a kind of “historic lite” version of historical gaming which I think is incredibly accessible because it doesn’t focus too much on historical accuracey and is based more on historical legend (the clue is in the name, “saga”).
In summary, I think that traditionally historical wargaming has been less accessible but that many companies have put a lot of effort into making it much more accessible to the point where it is now it is not really an accurate assessment of the genre to say it is inaccessible, because it isn’t.
Another barrier to entry, this is just for me personally, I don’t apply judgement to others based on this preference – I struggle with the idea of playing a fun game against the backdrop of real world atrocities and/or tragedies.
Example, do I want to play a game of bolt action set in the battle of Stalingrad, where something like 50,000 civilians were killed? Military casualties were something like 2 million I think, and by this point in the war, we’re talking about mostly conscripts. Of the Germans who surrendered only about 5% ever came home. The rest died in Soviet PoW camps. How do I make a light hearted, fun wargame out of that? Or a game of blood red skies – say I’ve got a B-17 and a bunch of P-51s painted up – in my head, what’s happening here? Are they flying to the bombing of Dresden for instance? Where is my fun there?
Don’t get me wrong, I think that for the most part historical gamers do a great job of paying respect to their source material, because they take it seriously, know their stuff, and treat it with a certain amount of reverence. I’m just saying for me, I want a casual, irreverent, fun gaming experience which I don’t need to take too seriously, and real history would just get in the way of that.
I can see that being a barrier to other people too. Feeling like you need to know your stuff, and take your hobby sufficiently seriously in order to do justice to real world events, so you don’t feel like your fun is exploitative.
I think that’s fair enough @tachycardia
But wargames do involve death… whether fantasy, Sci-Fi or Historical. But they are also games. I remember when those playing D&D were seen as devil worshippers and Satanists… But yes, I understand your point of view. I’ve met people who feel the same about 40K due to the ‘demons’ and the like. But yes… history is filled with atrocity and genocide.
You are right, where you draw that difficult line is a personal thing. Though Im not sure anyone would want to make a game out of POW deaths. You do have to have some degree of separation between reality and a game.
I have things I wont game, even some I have gamed in the past, and then changed my perception. So yep… I agree, for some it may well be too much to enjoy as fun. But its a very personal thing that…
OK, I’ know I”m late on getting into this discussion but I totally agree with Justin on the historical gaming thread. Although I agree it is a perception that historical wargaming is harder to get into, it is a false perception. You really have to treat it like @warzan says ‘we all get into this hobby for different reasons’. If you want to play a historical game such as Flames of war as I did I painted my german tanks up in a camo pattern that was no where in any historical pictures and only one guy has ever commented about it out of the literally dozens of guys I’ve played with. If someone is going to be anal about it you just don’t play with them if they have an issue with it. There are plenty of other gamers out there that just want to socialize and play games and have fun. I don’t play with gamers that are that anal about it as that is not enjoyable.
As far fantasy in the same light, I have found plenty of anal Warhammer fantasy & 40K guys that are very quick to point out that you can’t do that or that does not fit in Warhammer fantasy so it is absolutely false that the fantasy and sci fi genres don’t do the same. It really depends on the people you are playing with. Just comes down to finding the right people to play games and socialize with.
This “feeling” of in-accessibility @lloyd is referring to means that type of person is not really interested in getting into historical wargaming. As Justin says that’s what makes it fun, if you think doing some (doesn’t have to be a lot) of reading/studying on it makes it in-accessible then its just not for you, not that its in-accessible. In essence you are choosing to make it in-accessible of your own free will. Your choice!
Right on target Justin, fantasy and Sci Fi are very hard to get into if you don’t know any thing about the world, you need a bud or someone that is going to coach you into. My buddy Drew had to do just that when I first got into Warhammer Fantasy, as I have done with LOTR and other guys in my local gaming group as I got them into Battle Companies.
The variety of Rule sets and different games are just as infinite in Fantasy and Sci Fi as they are in Historicals, BOW itself is a great example of that, there is no way I can keep up with all the rules you guys introduce demo etc…. So I don’t buy the argument that this makes historical more in accessible.
But @brennon I could easily say they same thing about a group of historical guys saying the same thing about fantasy games and not wanting to get into them because of the fantasy bean counters and zealots, again it goes back to what your local group is used to and wants to play.
Ben i’d also say that no one says you have to or should collect an early war army and a late war army, you just collect the Army for the period your bud or group is playing. Going to other periods comes later only if you are interested. I was playing flames of war late war for three years before I decided to take the plunge into mid war with BOW boot camp.
There are plenty of two player box sets for historical too! Open Fire, El alamein, etc…
As far as the vastness of history I see two approaches. Justin’s is a viable one but a lot of the time it comes down to finding out what the guys in your local area are playing and just seeing if you are interested in the period they are playing.
BLUF (perception aside) there is no difference in taking the plunge into any genre be it historical, sci fi or fantasy etc…. Some game systems out there are incredible in depth just like history.
For all, the ‘stumbling blocks’ are there for any game system regardless of genre IF the group you are gaming with throws them at you, otherwise there is no difference in accessibility based on genre!
Great weekender, loved the debate!
Awww, I was hoping for more “Will it float?” at the end…
That was one heck of a discussion! Love the interstellar part lol. IMO I think the historical and scifi fantasy accessibility is really down to personal knowledge and tastes. I personally only buy historical to convert live that plastic but also metals. Cheers guys
Personal viewpoint on inaccessibility in games.
I bought a box of late war fallschirmajager for bolt action, as a new club I went to played bolt action a lot and it looked great fun. When I bought the box I hadn’t really noticed the late war label, I bought them was they were cool looking and I wanted a german army. I enjoyed researching uniform colours to paint them, but I felt I had to research this, on the “perceived” reaction by other gamers. The “perception” around historical (not limited to historical by any means) is to the people that play it and not the fact it’s an historical game.
People want to play Hollywood movies, I want to play Germans shooting Americans, I fell I cannot do this because as soon as I put my army together, an opponent will refuse to play as they are the wrong weapons, not the right uniform colour etc etc.
You get this in any game system that has backstory and people interested in the back story, the issue historical gaming has, is it seems the people that play the game. A generalisation I know, I was aware of being accurate in gaming, so I was ok when building my German late war, BUT! The kit from warlord didn’t list the components on the sprues either, so I wanted to build an SMG person, I had to guess which was the SMG, I was a total novice, so the companies that make historical kits could also help out by including a detailed sprue loadout so new folk can workout what all the bits are, whereas as fantasy, an axe is an axe really.
Sci-Fi also has this – Infinity anyone? A brilliant game, but you give that game to anyone and they would say it’s totally inaccessible for a casual game – what corvus beli have done however is make an amazing two player intro boxes, which give you awesome models, introduce rules slowly, and offer advice on expansion. Historical wargames need to adopt this method too, it is the only real way to allow the game to be complex yet easy to try out.
Re-enactment/Historically minded people are drawn to detail, and I agree that this is a major fun factor for historical games, it to accurately represent a moment in known history, but it does take away a pick up and play aspect.
I think chain of command offers a very good way to get into WW2, you can have the mix of models and weapons, and who cares if it’s not an accurate rifle design, you class it as the weapon in the rules, and I think that’s a good thing too.
Happy Sunday! Well quite late, but I’ve been caught up with various different things.
I loved will-it-float, I look forward to an entire Blood & Plunder table with real water, and battle with fully-floating ships.
As for the historical inaccessibility, I feel like everything has been said at least once! So I’ll try not to re-tread old ground.
Broadly, I have to agree with most of the points raised to it’s inaccessibility, and I’m not convinced they apply so easily to fantasy/sci-fi. Though some of them clearly do, not all of them, and not to the same extent.
That being said, I am a fantasy/sci-fi/pulp wargamer. In that vein, I am quite a stickler for canon (a dragon-scale counter as @oriskany put it). Not that I’ve ever refused to play with anyone on that basis, just that I prefer to play with within the lore of the world.
If someone wants to have a chaos lord lead their army of Stormcast, or Clone War Troopers fight a Resistance Cell. I am going to say we have one of three options
– Say we don’t care about canon at all, which is fine, we just accept that this game is for fun but is canonically nonsense.
– We invent some alternative canon that somehow makes this make sense (which can be fun in itself). But try and stick to something vaguely plausible.
– We change up these forces so it is canon.
I think it’s easier to get sci-fi fantasy right in this regard, but that might be bias because I have a natural love for the lore that others might have for history.
I have to say, I’ve never been a fan of historical wargaming. However, I am not much of a fan of history. I didn’t enjoy it in school, I don’t enjoy books, TV or films that are purely “historical”. I always want some fantasy, whether that is horror, science-fiction, traditional fantasy or whatever it might be. The endless re-treading of the same ground on TV and documentaries drives me mad (and that is just the adverts on Discovery when I am trying to watch Mythbusters). Though I guess the same could be said for LOTR if you don’t like it.
Something one person spoke about, which I am inclined to repeat, is the idea of character through mechanics. This is something that I think is possible with historical, but often avoided for reasons I’ll not speculate on. What I mean is, when sci-fi or fantasy game designers work on a faction, they’ll often incorporate rules that really make them feel and play a certain way. Often two factions can play very differently and feel like they embody the flavour of that faction. This kind of mechanical theme-ing is either not present, or very light in many historical games.
I generally avoid the historical content on the site, for these reasons. Which is a great shame, as I think @oriskany is a delightful human being, an eloquent writer and possessed of a creative and incisive mind.
I do like cowboys (especially gunslingers) but I prefer weird west (hence loving Malifaux and, to a lesser extent, Grimslingers). Sharps practice was about as close as I’ve come to considering a historical game. In part because I have watched the odd episode of Sharp, and not entirely despised it. Largely though because the game looked entertaining, and Rich is so much fun to watch having fun.
I will say I agree with those who have said Infinity, from a rules-standpoint, is also pretty inaccessible. I’ve played through one of the starter sets tutorial missions, and it did a great job of teaching the basics. The problem is, the leap from those basics to the full-game is still pretty big. I sat down with the proper rule book after playing those games, and immediately turned me off, as I felt like it was too bigger bridge to gap.
So I guess part of what I am saying is, I don’t have a stake in this game. It might be inaccessible, it certainly is perceived as such by many, but that might be an inaccurate perception. I guess I don’t need to care though, because even the most accessible historical game/club/rules isn’t going to get me into it.
Fair play to those who enjoy it though, that is one of the great joys of this hobby, to each his own and long may it be so.