View Full Version : What is a WARGAME?
Thought I'd split this one from 'The Myth of the Cavalry Charge' thread as it deserves its own.
What is a Wargame?
Well many years ago, before computer games, when I was in my teens and ran a Wargame Club, the term Wargame had a very clear definition which was rigorously defended by Wargamers.
A Wargame was a game which sought to recreate a battle on a tabletop by modelling the historical capability of the troops taking part.
When Tolkienesk games began to appear they were certainly NOT classed as wargames, they were labelled Fantasy Games or Fantasy Wargames only if they were strictly modelled on particular peices of literature like LOTR.
Certainly the GW products would never have been allowed the suffix of Wargame as GW make the rules up as they go along.
Likewise games based on Space Ships and little green monsters etc. Were labelled appropriately. But the term Wargame was sacrosanct and kept to identify a game based upon serious historical research.
The other big exclusion to the Wargame genre was the BOARDGAME. Boardgames were NOT wargames even if supposedly based upon historical research and most clubs, my own included banned anything with a hex-grid from Wargame evenings.
Unfortunately, for wargaming, boardgames were the first and the easiest to program and so most early computer games were actually Boardgames not Wargames.
To add to the confusion early Computer Games sought to increase the credability of their products by calling themselves Computer Wargames. The net result was that the vast majority of true Wargamers do not play Computer Wargames and there is in fact a huge untapped market for historical wargames on the computer.
STW was one of the first games I have come across that appeared to be moving away from the Boardgame approach for historical games and attempting to reproduce a true WARGAME on the computer screen.
However, if, as we are now being told the performance of the units is NOT based upon historical research and therefore is NOT a serious attempt to model medieval warfare then MTW cannot be classed as a Wargame under the original definition of the term.
Its still a great game but for me at least loses the credability that STW managed to maintain and all our arguments about knights v spearmen etc are a waste of breath.
------------------
Didz
Fortis balore et armis
The Green Knight
10-12-2002, 16:35
Have a look at the Napoleonics games produced by Breakaway so far they have done Waterloo and Austerlitz.
www.breakawaygames.com (http://www.breakawaygames.com)
Quote Originally posted by Didz:
What is a Wargame?
Well many years ago, before computer games, when I was in my teens and ran a Wargame Club, the term Wargame had a very clear definition which was rigorously defended by Wargamers.
A Wargame was a game which sought to recreate a battle on a tabletop by modelling the historical capability of the troops taking part.
[/QUOTE]
Man, you are HARD CORE!! I haven't heard this argument since I had a subscription to MOVES.
lunchbox
10-12-2002, 18:11
A very good point and one I TOTALY agree on (accuse the pun)
Did war games originate from the military? Were they would calculate the effects of losses and successfulness of an operation through different scenarios before taking it into a real battlefield?
Sir Lunch of Wulfrun
------------------
http://www.lunchbox.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/images/englarms.gif
MajorFreak
10-12-2002, 19:25
buh? Sorry for bursting your semantic bubble, but these are all games you're talking about.
Quote WARGAME (http://www.bartleby.com/61/9/W0030900.html)
==============
1. An often physical or electronic simulation of a military operation involving two or more forces and using rules, data, and procedures designed to depict an actual or assumed situation. 2. A simulation of a proposed plan of action or a strategy, intended to test its validity when challenged. [/QUOTE]
Now, go tell that general his wargame simulation is faulty because a computer is simply GIGO...If he's American he'll tell you to "stfu and go play with your barbies, fairy." Which is exactly what these lame parlour games you're referring to as "historically accurate" are. duh!And besides, these folks customers are people like us and not some damned general. Course, you'll come back with something scintillatingly witty. *groan*[/list]Personally, i'm not interested in recreating the situation in a realistic manner because i'm not real interested in standing around in a field wearing a stupid costume...Though, on the other hand, i'd love to watch it for real.
Lastly, while looking for facts to shove down yer throat i found a cool wargamer site with old games for downloading like "CloseCombat2" http://abandonwar.oldgames.ca/
[This message has been edited by MajorFreak (edited 10-12-2002).]
MajorFreak
10-12-2002, 19:55
Quote Originally posted by lunchbox:
A very good point and one I TOTALY agree on (accuse the pun)
Did war games originate from the military? Were they would calculate the effects of losses and successfulness of an operation through different scenarios before taking it into a real battlefield?
Sir Lunch of Wulfrun[/QUOTE]Nope. It's not weather prediction nor a report card, but training. It's called, "Train the way you fight"...Unfortunately, that's about as far removed from a "boardgame" as possible. *g* (Go read up on Leavenworth (http://www.leavenworth.army.mil/))
Anyways, back on topic, Didz has the same idealism about what a "wargame" is as these guys:
Quote WHAT IS A WARGAME (http://www.hyw.com/Books/WargamesHandbook/1-what_i.htm)
A wargame is an attempt to get a jump on the future by obtaining a better understanding of the past. A wargame is a combination of "game," history and science. It is a paper time-machine. Basically, it's glorified chess. If you've never encountered a wargame before, it's easiest to just think of it as chess with a more complicated playing board and a more complex way of moving your pieces and taking your opponents.
A wargame usually combines a map, playing pieces representing historical personages or military units and a set of rules telling you what you can or cannot do with them. Many are now available on personal computers. The object of any wargame (historical or otherwise) is to enable the player to recreate a specific event and, more importantly, to be able to explore what might have been if the player decides to do things differently.
To be a wargame, in our sense of the word, the game must be realistic. And in some cases, they are extremely realistic, realistic to the point where some of the wargames are actually used for professional purposes (primarily the military, but also business and teaching).
).[/QUOTE]Please note i think that's rather silly to play semantics and quibble over why people PLAY these games. *shrug* Anyways, for a more pragmatic look at the history of wargames why don't you go check out that old famous site: http://grognard.com/index.html
Enjoy. And do remember we all PLAY games here. Something far removed from anything someone from Fort Leavenworth would think worthy of the name "WarGame". Oh, and sorry about the tone i was using. Guys like Didz remind me of Armchair Generals. Quote A little knowledge is a dangerous thing[/QUOTE]
[This message has been edited by MajorFreak (edited 10-12-2002).]
Quote Originally posted by MajorFreak:
[This message has been edited by MajorFreak (edited 10-12-2002).][/QUOTE]
Well as MF demonstrates the concept of the wargame has moved on considerably since I used to play seriously.
When I used to play the object was to reproduce history as accurately as possible and a lot of research went into refining and justifying the rules.
Wargames really were used to predict and plan military operations the British version was based upon The Regulations for the Conduct of the War Game 1872 Whilst the German variant was designed by Von Reiswitz whose son was a Prussian Artillery Officer in 1824.
Even the Japanese tested their major WW2 campaigns using wargames and in his book Midway - the battle doomed Japan. Mitsuo Fuchida notes that the wargames played before the Midway campaign accurately predicted the disaster that was likely to result for the japanese fleet but that Rear-Admiral Ugaki the presiding officer frequently intervened to override the rules in order arbitarily reduce the damage suffered by Japanese ships. Apparently at one point he reduced the hits on the carriers Kaga and Akagi to such an extent that instead of being listed as sunk they both re-appeared later in the game.
The real irony is that it was the advent of the computer which we all hoped would be a valuable tool for wargamers that actually signed the death warrant for Wargaming as a serious hobby.
Instead of providing Wargamers with a tool which could crunch numbers quickly and record hidden movement impartially it reinforced the Boardgame mentality of history in box.
The suggestion that you can just crack the seal on a box and play a wargame without any need to understand the period or the principles behind the rules has more or less killed the hobby.
The term wargame today gets used to describe any game that involves combat whether it includes Space Marines, Orc's or mutant bunny rabbits.
------------------
Didz
Fortis balore et armis
MajorFreak
10-12-2002, 21:31
Even historians got it wrong on tactics and strategy. (As that thread on "cavalry" illuminated so well the concept of fuzzy logic creeping into historic "facts" that were more opinion than fact)
*shrug*
If historians often don't admit to getting things all bass ackwards, how can you say any historic boardgame can reflect what really happened even if it was designed by people who were intimately involved in those battles?
I must say i'm completely fascinated by that "Cavalry" debate thread. Amazing how what one thought was "fact" was merely "opinion"
BTW, i find your laments about "wargaming" being defiled and descrated by commoners like me who use the term haphazardly to be utterly hilarious. It's you who bandy the term about so readily about a term reserved for amateur hobbyists rather than what the commercial core call this genre: RTS
Next i suppose you'll bemoan the usage of the word "Strategy". roflmao
BTW, i take offense at your learned tone whilst managing to shovel words down my throat. At no time do i demonstrate anything beyond total confusion as to why the heck you think i give a fig towards using "wargame" for anything but what the NTC does over at Fort LeavenWorth & the gamers i linked to. *shrug* (what on earth did i demonstrate beyond that?)ahhhhh...i think i get it. You think me lumping RTS computer software titles in with tabletop/boardgames as "GAMES" means you can shove the word "WARGAME" in it's place? sorry, mate. wrong context. waaaaaaaay wrong context[/list] Quote "first get your facts, then you can distort
them at your leisure" -- mark twain[/QUOTE]
[This message has been edited by MajorFreak (edited 10-12-2002).]
Pachinko
10-12-2002, 23:30
Well Didz, Have you seen, I bet you do.. ANYWAY, I really like it. With ALOT other "grognards" people who has it too. The title is Combat Mission Beyond Overlord & a new won..Combat Mission Barbarossa to Berlin.
Here is a clip from the Devs..A VERY grognards person.
Quote One of our goals is to keep the wargaming hobby in step with new technology. We are committed to producing first-class military minded software without becoming obsessed with "glitz over substance", like the other 99% of the game industry[/QUOTE]
there it is.....
P.
PS I like your ideas. Very instresting.
------------------
Crush your enemies, see them driven before you on the field of battle, and hear the lamentation of their women.
Dev quote>>Sigh, ye of little faith. Don't assume everything is a bug.
[This message has been edited by Pachinko (edited 10-12-2002).]
solypsist
10-13-2002, 00:12
this is more OT than MTW, but I'll let it sit for a while before moving it.
Have you ever played "Harpoon"
Its a naval simulation... not really classified as a game. It also states in the manual that the game is based on real world stats and no game balances have been applied. Its not the prettiest game but if you want a simulation... not a game this is the one... unfortuantly I don't believe this game is in circulation any more.
el_slapper
10-13-2002, 00:35
Harpoon... Great game, indeed. Never mastered the use of subs, though. And as realistic as possible within 640 ko of RAM. The 4th should be out in 2003, wait & see.
To come back to the thread, I'll ask a side question : is hard rock music? Obviously yes, but music had never sounded like this before. Same thing applies to computer wargames. It had never been done before - this does'nt mean it's not wargames.
------------------
War is not about who is right, only about who is left
EuroLord
10-13-2002, 02:19
Hi,
What is a wargame. Well ive been wargaming since about 1972. From the sound of it, it seems much like Didz was playing.
Wargames became famous as training sessions for members of the German (Prussian) officer corps during the 1800s.
EuroLord
Hakonarson
10-13-2002, 04:43
I too have ben playing "wargames" with toy soldiers since 1972 - must've been a good year huh?! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
To me a wargame is anythign that is a game about war - it's that simple.
I have no problems categorising them as historical wargames, sci-fi wargames, fantasy wargames, aerial wargames, naval wargames, etc.
And I too have a copy of the original Prussian Kriegspiel - never played it though, but IIRC it's both simple in it's rules and yet complex in it's requirements, and uses a D6 for everything!! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
MajorFreak
10-13-2002, 05:45
Quote To me a wargame is anythign that is a game about war - it's that simple.
[/QUOTE]argh!!! I need to learn how to speak like you! lol. thanks. (Guess i tend to argue on the wrong footing)
Quote Even the Japanese tested their major WW2 campaigns using wargames and in his book Midway - the battle doomed Japan. Mitsuo Fuchida notes that the wargames played before the Midway campaign accurately predicted the disaster that was likely to result for the japanese fleet but that Rear-Admiral Ugaki the presiding officer frequently intervened to override the rules in order arbitarily reduce the damage suffered by Japanese ships. Apparently at one point he reduced the hits on the carriers Kaga and Akagi to such an extent that instead of being listed as sunk they both re-appeared later in the game.[/QUOTE]
I didn't know this! Interesting stuff. Midway was an overwhelming victory for the US Navy but was actually a 'close run thing' when you break down the details. Even with compromised communications betraying Yamamoto's intentions had that single Japanese search plane which located the US fleet not taken off 18-20 minutes behind schedule Nagumo would have struck first and Yamamoto would have had another 6 months to run wild in the Pacific. I read somewhere that the US Navy conducted a similar wargame in the 30s that depicted a struggle with Japan. The officers playing the Japanese conducted the same devastating surprise attack against Pearl Harbor except I believe they also nailed the US carriers.
Quote The real irony is that it was the advent of the computer which we all hoped would be a valuable tool for wargamers that actually signed the death warrant for Wargaming as a serious hobby.
Instead of providing Wargamers with a tool which could crunch numbers quickly and record hidden movement impartially it reinforced the Boardgame mentality of history in box.[/QUOTE]
I couldn't agree more, well said!
Quote The suggestion that you can just crack the seal on a box and play a wargame without any need to understand the period or the principles behind the rules has more or less killed the hobby.[/QUOTE]
I disagree. I believe the hobby entered a steep decline because of the very same boardgame mentality you mentioned. Most gamers are genuinely turned off at the prospect off dealing with the clunky look and feel of 'old school' style wargames, especially in light of the fact that such games look, sound and play markedly worse than state of the art offerings in other genres. In an age of CPUs and 3D cards there's no excuse for computer wargame designers not to abandon the traditional boardgame design approach, especially when dealing with tactical scale battles. By embracing new technology wargame developers will ensure that the genre will always be seem relevant and always be a viable gaming choice to future generations who appreciate the genre's past but don't desire to live in it!
Keep in mind that wargames (or 'historically based strategy games' as they are referred to today) that have abandoned the hex and dice era mentality of yesteryear and embraced progressive concepts such as realtime or simultaneous turn execution (i.e. Combat Mission's 'IgoUgo' style of gameplay) as well as 3D graphics, advanced AI, etc. seem to do surprisingly well. The Harpoon series, Impression's Great Battles series, Battlefront's sleeper hit Combat Mission, the Close Combat series as well as our beloved Total War series, all successful games that have one foot firmly planted in the genre known as 'wargaming'.
Quote The term wargame today gets used to describe any game that involves combat whether it includes Space Marines, Orc's or mutant bunny rabbits.[/QUOTE]
I also disagree on this point. The term wargame is hard to come by nowadays and is certainly not heard too often with respect to the ridiculously broad genre known as Realtime Strategy. Whether this is the result of political correctness, marketing strategy or even the prevalence of cross-genre games like MTW the gaming public is simply reluctant to use this term for games that clearly fall under its definition.
[This message has been edited by Spino (edited 10-13-2002).]
Astounding! '72 was my first year as a wargamer too. A very good year indeed!
I had the advantage of growing up in the Baltimore area and could go to the Origins cons on the East coast when they were all about traditional board games during the Golden Age of the 70s. I even had a lifetime sub to S&T and Moves.
For me, a wargame always tries to simulate rational, realistic combat or aggressive action of some sort or another among the players. As soon as too much realism slips away, the "game" takes over and the sim part is finished. Parcheesi is a game. Panzerblitz is a WARgame.
I don't believe PCs have injured wargaming as a hobby as much as video games, VCRs, cable TV, and the Internet. All are alternate, even compelling ways to spend time that I didn't have 30 years ago.
I do see PCs used as CRT support at HMGS miniature wargames occasionally. The PC also can do things that wargamers only dreamed of in the past. Like provide a solitaire opponent that enforces the rules. How many times have you other grognards played for hours before discovering that you had interpreted the rules badly and thus trashed the game. I can remember my friends and I mailing an author to clarify rules. And he did reply.
PCs also ushered in real time gaming which is anathema for many old timers who demand all night to plan the perfect turn and feel rushed if they don’t get it. IMO real time is absolutely ideal for tactical play a la Medieval or Shogun, especially with the turn based strategic game to provide context. Air combat board games like Red Baron were fun until I played Dynamic's Red Baron on a PC from the cockpit perspective in a dynamic WWI campaign. So I think PC first person sims have redefined some types of wargames for the better so long as they provide context. A flight sim without a decent campaign has no appeal to me no matter how good the FM may be.
Of course, I still enjoy standing around a map table planning my next turn while I drink beer, eat salty snacks and BS with friends. PCs will NEVER replace that.
------------------
COGITOERGOVINCO
EuroLord
10-13-2002, 14:52
Hi again,
Yep, it seems 1972 was a really good year for wargamers.
I can only agree with the above comments, as excellent as MTW/STW etc is, I will never stop playing the more conventional wargames.
Good luck in your future games.
EuroLord
Well Major, I really have no idea why you are determined to get yourself in such a stress over this thread. As far as I can see reading our respective posts we are in perfect agreement.
WARGAME
==============
1. An often physical or electronic simulation of a military operation involving two or more forces and using rules, data, and procedures designed to depict an actual or assumed situation. 2. A simulation of a proposed plan of action or a strategy, intended to test its validity when challenged.
I must admit your definition is a bit more sophisticated in its wording but essentially its saying exactly the same thing as mine except mine was written when electronic simulations were in their infancy and even the military relied on dice and umpires rulings.
Quote
Now, go tell that general his wargame simulation is faulty because a computer is simply GIGO...If he's American he'll tell you to "stfu and go play with your barbies, fairy." Which is exactly what these lame parlour games you're referring to as "historically accurate" are. duh!
[/QUOTE]
I don't think anyone was foolish enough to believe that they could accurately reproduce warfare on a tabletop the whole motivation was to try and reproduce the situation and capabilities of the opposing forces as accurately as was possible. The benefit being that the attempt to do this required considerable research which in itself was a valuable activity with the added bonus that it could be partially verified and understood by play testing on the tabletop.
Thus, for example one could study the theory of combined arms tactic's in the Napoleonic Period and then gain a better understanding of them by incorporating them into your games.
Quote
Personally, I'm not interested in recreating the situation in a realistic manner because I'm not real interested in standing around in a field wearing a stupid costume...Though, on the other hand, I'd love to watch it for real.
[/QUOTE]
I think you are confusing wargaming with re-enactment here. Personally, I have never been involved in re-enactment although I do like to watch the Sealed Knot re-enactments when they are staged. I'm sure that anyone on this board who is involved in re-enactment will be happy to explain to you that whilst they do indeed spend time standing around in fields in period costumes, such activities are the end product of hours and hours of painstaking research. Research incidentally that many academic historians overlook or ignore. For example, it was the re-enactors who proved that knights really could run, jump, sit and climb ladders in full plate armour and it was a re-enactor that proved that the English Longbow really could hit a target at over 300 paces despite a scientific analysis claiming that the arrow would not have carried for more than 150.
Quote
Enjoy. And do remember we all PLAY games here. Something far removed from anything someone from Fort Leavenworth would think worthy of the name "WarGame". Oh, and sorry about the tone I was using. Guys like Didz remind me of Armchair Generals.
[/QUOTE]
Exactly! All we are doing here is playing games. And as I pointed out in my very first posting these games would certainly not have been classed as Wargames 30 years ago.
Whether they are today seems to have more to do with marketing than content. As for being an 'Armchair General', well I'm flattered but I'm afraid I have never held such a lofty rank even in an armchair. I consider myself to be an enthusiastic strategy game player with a strong curiosity to understand why things in the past happened the way they did.
I don't expect everyone else to share my interests nor do I expect those that don't to object to the fact that I do. However, I do enjoy discussing my ideas with others and to swap notes on things like 'The Myth of the Cavalry Charge'. These debates frequently highlight new facts that I was not aware of by bringing together the knowledge of wargamers, re-enactors, historians and soldiers.
I'm sorry if you find these discussions irritating.
------------------
Didz
Fortis balore et armis
Quote Originally posted by EuroLord:
Hi again,
Yep, it seems 1972 was a really good year for wargamers.
EuroLord[/QUOTE]
Do you remember the series Callum, starring Edward Woodward?
It used to feature at least one wargame sequence every episode.
And the BBC even started televising Wargames at one point. Brigadier Peter Young was on one I think. Can't remember what the series was called though. In fact I think wargames were televised before snooker, darts and bowls even got a look in.
------------------
Didz
Fortis balore et armis
Michael the Great
10-14-2002, 00:15
WHAT???????
R u saying that there is no historical research in the relationships between units???
U mean that spears don't beat cav in reality?
Quote Originally posted by Didz:
What is a Wargame?
Well many years ago, before computer games, when I was in my teens and ran a Wargame Club, the term Wargame had a very clear definition which was rigorously defended by Wargamers.
A Wargame was a game which sought to recreate a battle on a tabletop by modelling the historical capability of the troops taking part.
[/QUOTE]
I'd agree. All those tabletop games that have hex maps and little cardboard units and counters. Those are traditional wargames.
However, Axis vs. Allies, Diplomacy, etc, are also considered as "war games".
Also, the military uses the term "wargames" to label their practice battles and skirmishes played with real units versus OpFors or Opposing Forces units.
So "wargames" sort of has several definitions.
Anyway, what's the point of this thread exactly? Is there someone out there who disagrees with what wargames are?
[This message has been edited by JRock (edited 10-13-2002).]
Quote Originally posted by JRock:
I'd agree. All those tabletop games that have hex maps and little cardboard units and counters. Those are traditional wargames.
[/QUOTE]
They are now but 30 years ago they were very carefully classified as Boardgames. The important distinction being that no historical research was required to play them. However, I recognise that this is no longer the case today and as you say Axis vs Allies, Diplomacy, etc, are also considered "Wargames" in todays market.
Quote
Also, the military uses the term "wargames" to label their practice battles and skirmishes played with real units versus OpFors or Opposing Forces units.
[/QUOTE]
I don't know what the situation is elsewhere but my understanding is that the UK military stopped using the term 'Wargame' quite a few years ago. Except of course for the tabletop variety. I beleive there are now a whole range of terms used which carefully define each type of exercise and simulation including TEWT (Tactical Exercises Without Troops)which would probably be classed as a wargame by a layman.
Quote
Is there someone out there who disagrees with what wargames are?
[/QUOTE]
Well I have no doubts about what wargames were but no idea what they are.
------------------
Didz
Fortis balore et armis
TenkiSoratoti
10-14-2002, 05:05
A wargame is MTW and STW.
------------------
"The good fighters of the old first put themselves beyond the possibility of defeat, and then waited for an oppurtunity to defeat the enemy."
Quote Originally posted by Tenkisoratoti:
A wargame is MTW and STW.
[/QUOTE]
I don't know about that. I think Total War is more a tactical/strategic simulation. Unless that is what you define a wargame as... in that case I guess it is.
[This message has been edited by JRock (edited 10-14-2002).]
MajorFreak
10-14-2002, 14:57
Irritated? maybe you should look to yourself first before attributing to me what you assume you don't feel. lol. Anyways, back on topic, i think you've proven to have a quite long history here of ignoring anyone's context but yourself. *g* The point i continue to make is quite simple, and i fear i'll probably have to repeat it ad nauseum infinitum: The assumptions we make that underline the 'rules' of a "wargame" are just that. assumptions. Quote As the success of the Pearl Harbor Raid became clear on December 7th, 1941, his staff congratulated him. Yamamoto was on the Combined Fleet flagship, the battleship Nagato, sitting silently with eyes closed along the wall. He rose and said, "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve." Then he excused himself and walked out on to the deck of the Nagato, where he stared out at the sea.
[/QUOTE] Quote WISDOM
"Military history is many things. It is, and for many writers past and present is not much more than, the study of generals and generalship, an approach to the subject which can sometimes yield remarkable results - the American historian Jac Weller's three modern studies of Wellington in India, the Peninnsula and at Waterloo, for example, convey a powerful sense of character and are informed by a deep and humane understanding of early nineteenth-century warfare at every level from the general's to the private soldier's - but which, by its choice of focus, automatically distorts perspective and too often dissolves into sycophancy or hero-worship, culminating in the odd case in a bizarre sort of identification by the author with his subject - an outcome common and understandable enough in literary or artistic biography, but tasteless and even mildly alarming when the Ego is a man of blood and iron, his Alter someone of scholarly meekness and suburban physique."
- John Keegan, The Face of Battle[/QUOTE] Quote No evidence exists that Yamamoto really said the "sleeping giant" quote. It is not found in any of his writings. The only time it was quoted was in the screenplay (written by Gordon Prange and Ladislas Farago) of _Tora! Tora! Tora!_ (1970), dialogue and cutting continuity, reel 18, page 16. However, a month after Pearl Harbor, Yamamoto wrote, in a letter to Ogata Taketora (January 9, 1942), "A military man can scarely pride himself on having 'smitten a sleeping enemy'; in fact, to have pointed it out is more a matter of shame."
Source: Nigel Rees, the Library of Congress' _Respectfully Quoted._[/QUOTE]someone once said we marry our opinions more closely than our spouses. *G*
EDIT: ah bugger. this forum doesn't allow cascading quotes
[This message has been edited by MajorFreak (edited 10-14-2002).]
Quote Originally posted by Tenkisoratoti:
A wargame is MTW and STW.
[/QUOTE]
Actually thats where this thread was borne.
I thought STW and MTW were wargames but as LongJohn has been careful to point out elsewhere on this forum they were never intended to be.
It appears that contrary to my own assumptions the performance of the units is not based upon historical research. Nevertheless, I think they are probably a lot closer than many so called wargames that you find elsewhere.
------------------
Didz
Fortis balore et armis
Quote Originally posted by MajorFreak:
Irritated? maybe you should look to yourself first before attributing to me what you assume you don't feel. lol.[/QUOTE]
I'm not irritated merely confused, as I've yet to understand the point you are trying to make.
Quote
The point i continue to make is quite simple, and i fear i'll probably have to repeat it ad nauseum infinitum: The assumptions we make that underline the 'rules' of a "wargame" are just that. assumptions.
[/QUOTE]
Of course they are. As indeed is any record of an historical event written sometimes hundreds of years after it happened. However, one can always test assumptions and that is one of the things wargamers and re-enactors do. They look at the facts available make assumptions about which are true and then seek to validate those assumptions by testing them on the tabletop or in the field.
Quote No evidence exists that Yamamoto really said the "sleeping giant" quote. It is not found in any of his writings.[/QUOTE]
I'm sure you are correct.
Personally I'm equally convinced that Nelson never said 'kiss me Hardy' and that Wellington never uttered the words 'Now Maitland, nows your time.'
However, the accuracy of a musket can be verified from historical records and test firings as can the strategies and tactic's employed by the respective armies and wargame rules were designed to reflect these known facts.
------------------
Didz
Fortis balore et armis
[This message has been edited by Didz (edited 10-14-2002).]
MajorFreak
10-14-2002, 23:07
well, assumptions are opinions. they aren't fact. and as you've already quoted Wellington (thanks for that one) i won't bother preaching to the choir...i'll just remind you that an argument/theory rests on facts, not opinions/assumptions.
What wargamers do is play with hypotheticals, but never really form theory cause they're not generals. *shrug*
Quote To accept superiority of numbers as the one and only rule, and to reduce the whole secret of the art of war to the formula of numerical superiority at a certain time in a certain place was an oversimplification that would not have stood up for a moment against the realities of life.
~Clausewitz[/QUOTE]*shrug* Anyways, i think i'll want to read your thread about cavalry in detail because that debate is simply fascinating.
Quote Originally posted by MajorFreak:
Well, assumptions are opinions. they aren't fact. and as you've already quoted Wellington (thanks for that one) i won't bother preaching to the choir...i'll just remind you that an argument/theory rests on facts, not opinions/assumptions.
[/QUOTE]
And your point is?
The only thing I note is that you seem to be making a lot of assumptions about what Wargames were 30 years ago and have a very strong opinion about what they are today.
------------------
Didz
Fortis balore et armis
DragonCat
10-15-2002, 00:48
Well, I began wargaming in 1968 so I'm a tad older than those of you who began in 1972.
Also and "wargamer" knows its properly called PanzerBUSH not PanzerBLITZ - as that more accurately protrays the way people played because of the LOS rules. You could creep your tanks bush to bush and not be fired on.
And that brings me, finally, to my point. Never been a perfect Wargame - never will be. Panzerblitz being a good example. The fact that it uses dice, that LOS rules were sloppy, etc. etc. etc. means it has a lot of failings as a wargame. Most, if not all games will have similar failings.
That is why I prefer descriptive labels to prescriptive ones. (If you don't know what I mean- use a dictionary). Chess is a wargame - but a very abstract one. Go is a wargame, but even more abstract. We can talk about where they fall on a spectrum of reality, of playability, of simulation, etc, but at the end of the day, they are all abstractions at some level of that thing called war. Some may prefer one end of the spectrum to another, but that's personal preference.
When I taught theatre, I would give my definition of ART as anything that is man made. You can then quibble over what is good or bad art, but its all art if it follows that definition. And many people, if the art is bad enough, no longer want to call it art.
------------------
DragonCat
. . . on the prowl!
DragonCat
10-15-2002, 00:49
Well, I began wargaming in 1968 so I'm a tad older than those of you who began in 1972.
Also and "wargamer" knows its properly called PanzerBUSH not PanzerBLITZ - as that more accurately protrays the way people played because of the LOS rules. You could creep your tanks bush to bush and not be fired on.
Anyways, enough rambling - interesting topic, glad the admins left it open.
And that brings me, finally, to my point. Never been a perfect Wargame - never will be. Panzerblitz being a good example. The fact that it uses dice, that LOS rules were sloppy, etc. etc. etc. means it has a lot of failings as a wargame. Most, if not all games will have similar failings.
That is why I prefer descriptive labels to prescriptive ones. (If you don't know what I mean- use a dictionary). Chess is a wargame - but a very abstract one. Go is a wargame, but even more abstract. We can talk about where they fall on a spectrum of reality, of playability, of simulation, etc, but at the end of the day, they are all abstractions at some level of that thing called war. Some may prefer one end of the spectrum to another, but that's personal preference.
When I taught theatre, I would give my definition of ART as anything that is man made. You can then quibble over what is good or bad art, but its all art if it follows that definition. And many people, if the art is bad enough, no longer want to call it art.
------------------
DragonCat
. . . on the prowl!
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.