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

[piersParticipant 25489xp 1]

@tobymagill

I think you are right to a degree, there is a time investment with a certain form of historical gaming that does not have its same form in other genres, and I think games like Bolt Action have tried to divorce it. It’s why I dont personally look on those games as purely historical despite their setting.

Historical wargaming is still a huge hobby and its number grow as games like Bolt Action and Flames of War over players from games like 40K to a historical system that is tournament based and makes them feel at ease and at home.

What we dont have, to the same degree, in Fantasy and Sci-Fi games is the need, or desire perhaps, to indulge in historical research for a chosen period. It used to be that a prime driving factor in persuing historical gaming was a deep interest in history and military history in particular. It was a given that when starting a new period that you would need to buy rules, figures and books!

Many still do that research, but I think it’s no longer that important to some, and the idea that people lives are ‘busier’ now means that many dont feel they have such time to spare even if they wanted too. This is where the historical package game comes in and fulfils the historical nice in the manner of a more traditional sci-fi or fantasy game offering. It’s a one stop shop. All you need in one package, but often, by its nature, at a level that just scratches the surface of a topic (as anything has too of course).

This means that the previous levels of historical reading and research, perhaps needed to design and create historical based scenarios isn’t something that new historical players see as fundamental anymore. While it used to be, and still is to more ‘traditional’ historical gamers, I think it’s something that isn’t as required as it once was.

To me, historical reading and research was, and still is, part of my wargaming hobby. Any new project starts with the buying of books, not figures or rulebooks. Perhaps it’s that segment of the hobby, that forms the dividing line between the two forms of historical play, but it’s not a clear cut line. To take Bolt Action for example, I know players of that who have supreme historical knowledge and research. The fact that there is no clear divide likely muddied the water further.

What we do see more though is an increasing form of discussion that to some, such research isn’t needed, and by some, is something to be ridiculed. I personally find that small section of people to be particularly worrisome, as for me I can never divorce reality from historical wargaming. It was, at the end of the day, a real event. Perhaps that’s why, regardless of the game played or the rules, I always want the correct troops and the correct terrain on a table.

For me the example of playing Finns versus Chindits is an anathema. It brings me out in  a rash… I personally cant see any interest or reason to do such a thing as it’s not historical. I dont care less if others do it, as that has no bearing on me, but it’s the opposite of what I strive for in my historical gaming, which I guess, is an extension of my love of history.

Perhaps that’s the key. Perhaps to some it is purely a game, while to other it’s part of a wider more encompassing pastime with various facets. Of course, some would say that history isn’t as ‘popular’ as it used to be, but I dont see that. The sheer volume of books published on the Second World War alone renders the idea that society in general has discarded the reading of history to be somewhat false.

So perhaps it is time. Perhaps it is that some just prefer a different focus on their hobby.