I’d argue that for historical gaming, doing the research is all important for you to really enjoy the game. Researching the uniforms, equipment, organisation and battles of the day is the “fluff” of historical gaming

Sadly I think that’s part of the historical hobby that’s falling to one side to a degree. Many people don’t have a deep interest in history, nor the time or inclination to delve too deeply into it. I would have expected those who play historical games.to have some interest or connection to the period they choose to game. For me historical wargaming has always been an extension of an interest in military history. Perhaps that’s why it’s hard for me to divorce the two from each other. I expect to buy books and research any periodic play. Hence the bloody small library at home…

Being ‘historically accurate’ has become something of a dirty word, and something to be almost ridiculed by some in certain quarters of the internet.

Part of the attraction of historicals is not having to be constrained by a starter set… perhaps it’s a generational thing, but the whole attraction was looking for what to use, finding options and matching them to what you wanted. I like having to use multiple companies for an army… I see it as a bonus not a hindrance. It can lead to interesting discoveries.

Realistic rules that reflect the period can be fun and fast. This myth that realistic rules are by default complicated and boring is just that. You can make rules to be ‘Hollywood’ in style, that’s fine, but it doesnt mean that realistic rules are by default more complex and boring. But you always have to accept that wargaming as a hobby is a broad church, but each person has a very individual take on how they express that hobby. What’s right for one isn’t right for another… and that’s likely why, especially in historicals, we have such a wide array of products.