Reply To: Reign of the Neckbeards (or why do historical re-fights).

[tobymagillMember 1414xp 0]

Interesting post @phaidknott.

Having read most of the threads that i am guessing inspired this one, I am not sure the issue is a fear of historical refights (or for that matter an issue with personalities involved),  rather it is a clash of what is more important fidelity of flexibility.

The first clash I have seen between fidelity and flexibility is what defines a historical game – is being based on a real historical period/conflict enough, or does it have to try and represent the period/conflict in accurate detail?

The second is should someone be willing to suspend their sense of disbelief/history even slightly too accommodate someone else? E.g. is it ok to refuse to play @warzan‘s Nachtwulf due to it not being properly historical? Is it ok to refuse to play WW2 Finns vs Chindits as they never came up against each other?

If you’re in the flexible camp then OTT have been putting out loads of historical content – SPQR, FOW, Bolt Action, Sharpe Practice, World War Zero (Blood and Plunder maybe?) and the incredible output @Orisksny has produced.  If you’re in the fidelity camp them maybe many of these don’t seem to be truly historical as most are based on creating cinematic moments  and take too many liberties with history and you may not feel you are being served the historical content you crave.

Long story short – we seem to be on different pages on what the historical genre is and how it should be approached.   OTT and the wargaming public (including myself) and probably more in the flexibility camp which i think is the cause of a lot of the frustration.