Inaccessibility of Historical Wargaming

[mecha82Participant 10037xp 1]

@piers You gave extreme example about opposite. I was thinking more in line with example of @solariabsg39 were some one refuses to play when there is wrong infantry unit. I see it disrespectful behavior as it pretty much says that time and effort you spend on those models means nothing and you are trash even for trying. While it’s true that 40k and AoS community can also have they share of similar people those communities tend to be more welcoming with more people eager to guide new potential hobbyists into it and being happy to help them. That combined with easier starting points to hobby really shows why those communities seem more welcoming to new hobbyists than historical community.

[piersParticipant 25489xp 1]

@mecha82 well that’s your viewpoint, and you are entitled to it. I cant argue with your perception of it.

I personally wouldn’t read all that into one person not wanting to play a game if the opponent has the wrong stuff. But once more it again sides with one viewpoint over another depending on your personal stance. I see both viewpoints as being equally fine. I may not agree with them, but its their hobby… No one has to play if they don’t want too. If someone gets offended by that behaviour… well it is only toy soldiers.

I will happily play my mates US Airborne army in our Normandy games despite it being painted up for Market-Garden. We all have limits to our enforced rivet counting.

However I wont field anything not suitable for Normandy Germans in my own force in such a game. Im more in the realms of self inflicting pain that doing it to others!

Would I want to play a game of Japanese versus Finns? No I wouldn’t and that’s the way I roll… But then I don’t end up in the situations where playing such a game is an option.

Its also how you handle the situation, which again devolves to the personalities involved. If someone didn’t have the right stuff for one of our games… We would just supply it. When I run games, I try and supply everything so people can just turn up and play. Perhaps its different in clubs or shops where you are ‘cold’ playing against people you may not know. A very different environment from that where my group plays which is in members homes. This by definition means we have a closer knit group.

But it still comes down to the fact that no one way is the ‘correct’ way to hobby. Making generalisations of all the people in a genre of a hobby does nothing except drive stereotypes further. Historical gamers do it all the time in terms of Fantasy/Sci-Fi stereotypes.

Im both. I started the hobby in 1984 playing Warhammer Fantasy Battle… and I still have my armies. I still play it too whenever I get the chance. I also still play Rogue Trader too… My Void Pirates might get a new lease of life with Kill Team coming out! But I also play historical games…

Its not about the genres themselves, though I agree that the lack of easy access starting sets (or selling tools for companies depending how you look at it) is a key missing driver for new players. Its something I have wanted to offer for a long time with our Battlegroup game and hopefully will be available when Northag is released next year – an entire ‘historical’ wargame starter set in a box. But to me its more the fact that some people are just more @rseholes than others… regardless of what they play!

I’ve met gamers from both genres that are wonderful ambassadors of the hobby, and I’ve met ones from both sides that are not…

 

 

[chaingunParticipant 1939xp 1]

I don’t think it’s a lack of starter sets that has been mentioned on here, as if you look around you can almost get a starter set for any period and in any scale.

I think one of the biggest problems coming from say a GW background of gaming to historicals is the same issue as if you were into railway modelling. Historical gaming like railway modelling is still deemed a little nerdy and very closed doors. For me I’m proud of our hobby and I’m more than happy to talk to anyone who cares to ask.

For me I wouldn’t have a problem if a guy wanted to use his US Airborne that’s painted for Holland and use them for Normandy as it’s on,y the uniform that’s different and they are after all US Airborne. This also wouldn’t bother me as this guy might have little he can spend on his hobby and that is all he has at this time, or, he is just getting into the period and that’s all he has done for the time being.

Unfortunatly people are people and we all behave in different ways, I would hope we are all interested in what we all do and can take something from each other’s hobby. Like I said in my previous post, I am lucky being in the U.K. as we seem to have a little more access than most, but perhaps we don’t promote it as well as we could.

[commodorerob 11076xp 1]

I have to disagree, somewhat here, I started my gaming life playing D&D and various other RPGs moved into GW via Warhammer Fantasy Role Play… and from there into WFB and Blood Bowl, alongside all that I was also playing computer games, yet I then moved into historical war gaming when I went to a war games event and got hooked on Naval stuff it spread out from there into other stuff so saying coming from GW background is a hinderance to getting into historical is not something I can relate to. My journey opened up a world of opportunities and as such I find GW games rather more inaccessible then any other games, even blood bowl which I used to love I now find rather dull.

[boazParticipant 545xp 2]

Being an old chess player (but not speaking for other chess players) I approach a game as a match between 2 players on a tabletop … you got an SS (german) European army, I got a Russian front Fallschrimjager (german) army, great let’s get a game in … I don’t have the time or cash to prep a force for every front in WW2, or have the perfect opposing force for whoever might wall into the shop looking for a game … but I do have ‘a’ force, care for a game ?

And I am building a second force, American GIs, to help balance group events and a second force allows a second play style.

The ‘correct’ opposing force dose add an extra touch and can look great on a nice table but for me it’s a game first and history second.

[piersParticipant 25489xp 1]

…and that’s fine @boaz indeed that’s the key point. Play it how you enjoy.

But for me its history first… I’ve spent too much time listening to old soldiers to have it any other way. 🙂 Its still feels like a fairly recent event to me, WW2, so I treat it with some reverence. But then I spend some of my spare time researching the engagements my Grandfather fought in so it adds a touch of personal history to it for me.

My group like the visual spectacle to match the history. Same as we don’t play until everything is painted. We probably do hit the Elitist moniker to most… but it works for us a group. Oddly the only play with painted aspect is the same in our group whether they are historical or Fantasy/Sci-Fi biased gamers.

My only point is, that whichever way you do it, if its fun for you and those you play with… then its not wrong. We just have to accept that sometimes not all people have the same viewpoint.

[boazParticipant 545xp 2]

I would definitly agree their is more than one way to be right or more than one way to enjoy a game … each shop seems to have it’s own mete in this regard and that adds to their charm.

[piersParticipant 25489xp 2]

Yes… I do sometimes feel that not having local gaming shops or wargames clubs here, does mean we miss out on that aspect.

My old UK scene was much busier… and very different. I still get my fix though by flying over to attend the odd show.

[chaingunParticipant 1939xp 0]

Getting into GW games is the easiest games to get into. Let’s face it, they have their own stores, a main hq all where you can play or even try out a game system or even get information. Then you have local gaming stores, Wayland games, firestorm games to mention a couple, where again they have gaming insights for you to try games. If they don’t do the gw game your interested in them you can normally find people playing the games.

Then if that’s not enough information or you would rather watch videos then you have YouTube. Again he you can find a whole host of channels showing off GW games. Also you have Twitch where you can find the Warhammer Community putting on programs Wednesdays, Thursdays and Fridays.

So getting into a GW game now is very easy and straight forward, the only thing that is still an issue is price range. Lol ?

[oriskany 60771xp 4]

Oh man, this is a great discussion.  Let me start with some replies.

@elessar2590 –

“Screw where D Company of the 82nd Airborne was on D-Day+5. Just paint some Paras and throw some dice.”

Eh … “D” Company of the 82nd?  Um … I think you mean “Dog” Company, and what <i>battalion</i> and <i>regiment</i> of the 82nd, please?

Just kidding, of course.  😀

Since most people here are talking about Bolt Action or some similar scale, there really isn’t that big of a problem with strict history.  The scale is so small , as long as you have a squad of Allies against a squad of Axis, aren’t don’t go completely bonkers (Nationalist Chinese vs. Vichy French, hey, that’s Allies vs. Axis) … you should be okay.

I like your “historical research cliff notes.”

<b> … so the Good Old US of A had to come over and kick their butts to save the world.</b>

As an American, I’m not sure if I should be honored or offended by that.  😀  Again, kidding about everything.

American War of Independence: ‘MURICA F**K YEAH!!!

Except we lost 95% of the battles.  🙁

Now go paint some minis.

Or not.  There’s such a thing as wargaming without miniatures.  This is ESPECIALLY true in Historicals.

I only keep bringing it up because we’re talking about the ACCESSIBILITY of historical wargaming – players from other genres can try out something light in hex & counters (Memoir 44 series,  Valor & Victory is FREE to download and print & play for cryin’ out loud) and see if they have a taste for it BEFORE setting off to spend hundreds of dollars / pounds on armies of miniatures.

Now you can do more research eg. Audiobook while painting minis, a lot of podcasts or some great Youtube Channels.

There’s also a Historical Editor at this site you may have hear about, it’s called Beasts of War?  Check it out, this fool takes a perverse kind of pleasure in helping people with their historical grunt work for no compensation beyond a little geek-cred.  Kinda sick, if you ask me.

 

@mecha82

Many apologies, sir, but I just can’t really agree with some of these characterizations.  I agree with @piers – I don’t feel like a hard-core historical player (or designer, or writer, or all of the above) should be “obligated” to play historically inaccurate wargames.  It’s not disrespectful to the non-historical player.  I don’t feel that makes us “elitists” who make it “unfun for everyone else.”  Maybe I should show up at a 40K tournament with my Star Wars Imperial Army, see how far I get.  Or Cyclons from BSG.  Or Daleks from Dr. Who.  Then, when people start raising eyebrows, I can call them “elitists?”

I realize you might consider these example extreme (looking at your later posts) but I would argue that’s a matter of perspective.   For a historical wargamer, such absurd combinations (eh, sure, they’re all lazer-flashy-blowie-uppie space things that make no scientific sense) are just as forgivable as  … a Sci Fi or Fantasy player might find 1940 Germans vs. 1944 Soviets or Americans (eh, it’s all grays and browns and greens … its dirty and depressing and looks like Band of Brothers … so good enough). 😀

And, eh … I’m not sure that Historical is the least popular genre …

That said, I do fully acknowledge and agree that there are historical wargamers who take it too far, as I said way back on the first page of the thread.  Just speaking for myself, while I would never put German 1940 PzKpfw IIIDs up against 1944 JS-2s … I do keep my WW2, modern, and AWI miniatures “generic” enough to where I don’t have to worry about finer distinctions like say .. Overlord US Paratroopers vs. Market-Garden US Paratroopers.  Or 24th Rgt of Foot at Hubbardton vs. 62nd Rgt of Foot at First Freeman’s Farm.  And if another player wants to play with THAT level of approximation, I’m certainly fine.

I mean, on my latest Kursk article, those Prokhorovka images have two glaring historical “mistakes” in them.  Certainly knew about them before we published, but I left them, in anyway because … eh … it’s fine (SU-85s and British uniforms in the Lend Lease Churchills).  There are acknowledgements in captions and none of the rivet counters have come after me.  We’re really not all monsters.

But when players start talking about putting WW2 “Americans vs. British” tournament style, or pitting two German armies against each other, or tanks slugging it out at 20 paces, I start having issues.

 

@piers –

I know plenty of overbearing Historical gamers who I would never want to play a game with… and the same goes for 40K gamers too. Its not the genre… its the person that’s the key issue there.

Now that I agree with 100%.

But let’s be honest, perhaps the more unhistorical nature of games also puts people off.

God, yes.

I’m happy to fall into this oddly termed ‘elitist’ group I guess.

I guess I would call myself a “partial” elitist?  At least for me, the trick is to be “elitist” in the many of the games I choose to play or not play, and in the historical research put into my writing, scenario designs, etc … but not to treat other gamers from other genres with that demeanor.

In my interviews, live streams, and article threads, we get comments and questions that are sometimes … rather silly.  Or just flat-out wrong.  But in every post (or wargame) there is <i>something</i> right, something good, something to which we can respond in a positive manner.

Just speaking for myself, I try to focus on that, trying to build up a profile as someone who’s both knowledgeable and inclusive, an authority who’s also helpful to other wargamers.

But again, that’s part of my hobby (helping with the website), and may not be for other people.  😀

[piersParticipant 25489xp 1]

@oriskany well said as always.

 

I’ve always found historical gamers to generally be very helpful. Certainly when I started, I was lucky to have a club that put on all manner of games and every week allowed a 14 year old to join in and use their stuff. It was that attitude that made me become solely focussed on Historical gaming. When I finally had my own stuff they offered me rulesets and then played the games I ran. I was lucky to find such a good club where the older members were so encouraging. I can remember almost every game we played in those first few years… and I don’t think my experience was rare or unique.

But its a two way street… and the stereotypes of both sides don’t help.

[limburger 21704xp 0]

@piers : of course it is a choice, but for some people it might seem it isn’t a choice at all.
They lack the information and confidence to skip such things.
This is in part their experience with whatever local community they have and part the advertising for various systems.
The SF and Fantasy counterparts seem just that bit more aware of the need to provide this info.

Maybe it is because history has such high availability in educational format and not enough in the ‘fun’ variant ?
I’m sure that both Saving Private Ryan and the Band of Brothers series were responsible for triggering the interest in WW2 as opposed to the more boring actual books and documentaries about the same event.

I know how alien the Battlegroup books were to me when I first encountered them.
It took a while to make the switch and grok what they were about. Now I’m at a stage where I wonder what a ‘cold war gone hot’ book in Battlegroup format would be like before I think of any other systems …
To make that kind of switch takes effort and (as I said) not everyone has the motivation or resources to do so.

I also know that SF and Fantasy games can take a bit to get used to.
I know there are video games where I don’t have a clue what the weapons are like, because I can’t make sense of their strenghts and weaknesses. And then there’s others where it just clicks and the alien becomes as familliar as the ‘real world’ stuff. Sometimes that’s even within a game itself where one factions’ weapons & troops are a bit too weird to understand. (I think this sort of misunderstanding is why people complain about how certain things are too weak or too powerful … they simply don’t get the context in which they are used).

[tankkommanderParticipant 6421xp 2]

The person refusing to play against the ‘wrong’ infantry may have had some bad experiences with min-maxing opponents using cheese lists to game the system.

[noyjatatParticipant 16155xp 0]

This is certainly turning into quite the thread Rob 😀

I think we have started to get into some detail as to peoples personal opinions applied back and forth to other members responses. I have read through and been interested in all of the responses that have been posted and am looking forward to even more.

Could I ask a clarifying question of those taking part?

What do you mean by games being inaccessible?

I would love to read your viewpoint in a concise definition or meaning from each persons perspective.

We are all being very civil which is super cool and I can feel the passion in a lot of the posts words but have to admit for a lot of you I have little to no idea what you mean by inaccessible. I stated earlier this word doesn’t really fit my thoughts on whats being spoken about and having read this thread feel that’s even more true now.

Many have agreed and applied it to other game systems and genres, some have stated that they themselves may not be interested in making a game accessible to others, especially if they don’t have the same gaming ethos. Having read through all this and the great points and counter points that have been made, in my mind its not that the genres are inaccessible at all, in fact quite the opposite but that the people playing them are often incompatible.

I think this word better describes what a lot of people have been posting.

Great post guys and if this all ends up in a war of words I blame CommodoreRob, I point boldly at him and and in my best inner child 7 year old snitch voice shout at mummy and daddy (Warren and Justin) He started it!

[torros 23816xp 1]

I read all the threads again and wonder if inaccessibility should read confusion.

 

Take Napoleonics for example. Everyone has heard of Waterloo and maybe watched Sharpe and it all looks nice and colourful though might be a bit complicated doing all the painting. Right so where to start. Well there’s 28,25,20,15,10,6 and 2/3mm scale that you can buy from multiple manufacturers then there’s the plethora of different rulesets depending on what sort of sized battles you want to portray. If you look at reviews everyone has the own opinion of what is a good/ bad ruleset.So I guess I’m not really surprised that people trying to start are maybe a little put off. Now take all this and apply it to nearly every period of history people might want to game in and bedlam ensues

 

I think there is a case for starter sets and many companies offer ready made packs for rulesets but I do think  looking from outside in trying to start in  historicals is pure confusion

[Author]

Posts