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

[tobymagillMember 1414xp 1]

@phaidknott – there is nothing that puts me off playing them, other than having two kids under four and free time being a distant memory! TBH I have an idle plan for a calais garrison bolt action army, and have played quite a few in the past just on computer. I love hex based Napoleonic and ACW games, but that is probably a discussion for a different thread.

I do wonder if the barrier to getting people to do re-fights is the situation that they find games in. Not being a player it seems that re-fights need a level of agreement between players much earlier on – pick a battle, research the sides etc and seem ideally suited to groups/clubs doing them as projects. 40K and other games seem more individualistic in that i can collect an army, rock up to an event/club night/pick up game and play. Could logistics of getting a game be an issue?

[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.

[limburger 21704xp 0]

“Finns vs Chindits” is probably along the lines of “Star Trek vs Star Wars” … sometimes it’s fun to see who was the ‘better’ army. I understand why you wouldn’t want to do that if you’re more into actual history.

I suspect that this sort of thing may be why GW decided to ‘destroy’ the ‘Old world’ and replace it with something where anyone could fight anyone (similar to 40k).

Anyways … being able to just grab an army and pick a fight is definitely one of the reasons people may be more inclined to not do re-fights.
If you don’t have a lot of time to spend then you want to spend it as effectively as possible (I’m surprised that pre-painted armies aren’t a bigger deal … although I suspect that’s because it’s not cheap for anything other than Xwing … ).

Maybe all that’s needed is for people to discover an interesting battle/scenario ?
Translating it into a fictional setting may also help getting people appreciate the concept.

There’s also the issue that the name ‘re-fight’ sounds so boring.
What’s the point of doing the same thing again ?
Can’t I watch the movie instead ?

Maybe we should find a better way to describe the concept ?

I’m sort of doing a tiny bit of research on a scenario myself. While it is fun to discover aspects of the real event it’s also rather boring and unproductive at times. And then I don’t even know if it will be fun as a wargame scenario at all. So when time/resources are limited something needs to be sacrificed.

btw :
Tolkiens’ stories (both LoTR as well as the Hobbit and others)  would be a prime candidate for  re-fights in a fictional setting.

@blinky465 truth is often stranger than fiction

[piersParticipant 25489xp 1]

@limburger

It’s odd to me though, if a person is a historical gamer, that they would sacrifice the history to save time.

 

 

[limburger 21704xp 0]

@piers I’m not a historical gamer … or at least not in the search for the most perfect reproduction of an event sense.

To me it is just a game like any other, but with the added bonus that either some of the stuff happened or the gear did exist or both.
I do admire the effort that goes into near perfect reproduction of historical scenarios, but I’m not going to start from scratch if someone has already done half the work of translating it into a game.

At the same time I’m not into ‘researching’ the fluff for fictional games either. I couldn’t care less for the reasons why robot girlyman did the things he did with the smurfs.

There is a wide range from ‘pure fantasy’ to ‘perfect reproduction’ and everything in between.
To me there is no one ‘true’ way of playing (historical) wargames.
The one thing that should matter is being aware of the ‘realism’ (or lack thereof) in the (historical) games we play.

[piersParticipant 25489xp 1]

@limburger

Indeed, and awareness of realism (or lack of it) in a historical period set of rules, comes from research/reading? Isn’t that the best way to assess if a set of rules matches a persons perception of realism. We have to have a baseline upon which to base such assumptions.

You are correct, there is no one right way of playing in general, but there is one right way of playing for the individual.

[phaidknott 7023xp 1]

I think we’re getting into just a “Why play Historicals” debate again.

The re-fight (using a fixed army list and map) has indeed been used as the basis for Sci-Fi/Fantasy scenarios (Bloodbath at Orc Drift springs to mind), and I’ve indeed played games where we’ve taken a Napoleonic refight and “morphed” it into an Ancients battle (Napolenic heavy and light cav swapped for their equivalent ancient version for example). So it’s not a hard core “you must adhere to the exact details in everything down to the most minute detail”. Even played a game of 40K based on Arnhem (with a column of Imperial Guard trying to punch through to Marines holding abridge (although that was more perhaps a battle used as inspiration for a game than strictly being a re-fight)

But there does seem to be an aversion these days in playing with a fixed army list and map. Rather things seem to be “I’ll paint up what I think is cool, and I’ll play it when and where I want to” (not saying anyone here takes this mindset). I think we first had a debate on this when Dracs bought the Dads Army box set from Warlord (because he liked them), but then found great difficulty in getting a game because other Bolt Action Players seemed resistant in a pick up and play game (although the Dads Army set were more for the Campaign books for the fictional invasion of Britian). A worse case might be buying the Mash figures for a game of Bolt Action in the Korea campaign (although I don’t think there’s rules for them). But unless you are aware of that before buying Mash Unit someone who has done no research into the period might assume you CAN use them in a game of Bolt Action somehow. But you can find similar stories into both the Sci-fi and Fantasy genres (it just seems to be the vogue to demonise Historical gamers at the moment).

But many may not have realised we HAVE seen some historical re-fight sneak in “under the radar” here on BoW in the form of the World War Zero “lets plays”. And these seemed to have a general “good” response from the viewers, compared with the “not even going to contemplate that” response to playing an historical refight game.

I suppose I do keep carping on about this as we just are not seeing any “new blood” coming into the field of doing these refights. When watching the Historicon footage it just seemed to be a mass of grey hair (to match mine) with not a lot of younger gamers around (vs watching things like the Gencon/Adepticon footage). And I really don’t want to see this genre die out.

I play Sci-fi and Fantasy as well as Historicals (in fact I think my largest 28mm collection is for Gates of Antares), although I admit I don’t enjoy the whole tourney scene (which is more popular these days). An I find I end up doing as much “research” for Sci-fi and fantasy genres as historicals (although this might take the form of trawling trough the internet for cool paint schemes to “borrow”), and have bought campaign books for both Sci-Fi and Fantasy game systems I own. Yet there seems to be a self imposed barrier these days in gamers going across from playing fantasy and sci-fi games toward playing historicals and an even greater one in playing a historical refight (although I’m sure some here can regale me with an example of historical gamers refusing to play a sci-fi or fantasy game).

But “re-fights” go beyond just historicals (although it’s more common to see these days). The old GW boxed campaign systems like Bloodbath at Orcs Drift and the Tears campaign ARE a “refight” (ie they have a map and a fixed army list) yet appeared for a Fantasy rules system (and game world).

But they do tend to be a joint effort (rather than a solo one) sometimes if you want to do the REALLY BIG battles like Waterloo. Yet even with historical periods that are easy to paint and collect (such as the American Civil War), with LOADS of reference material (as this was the first “media” war with war correspondents from many of the newspapers). Many of the more recent gaming systems released (such as black powder) ignore the aspects of the refight and just tend to provide details and points for players to pick their own army list for a more tourney style game.

But the refights (I probably only get to do one of these as an annual experience these days as we just don’t have the new blood coming in) still form the highlight of the hobby for me. These large multiplayer games where we aren’t fighting for individual victory points (instead we are relying on our fellow gamer to hold our flank and/or deal with the enemy cav so YOU might press the attack on the enemy), and the constant running into a side room for a brief consult on the tactics we are going to do as the game progresses and plans change still cause a laugh. And I think that’s it, most of our refights have us laughing at each other for bad dice rolls and everything going FUBAR, whereas many game styles today are just too competitive and feature lots of scowls.

Fixed army lists mean you can blame the troops that were there on the day (rather than blaming yourself for bad choices when building a army list), Deployment is also fixed (so no arguments at the table about legal deployments before the game has even started). Rather its a game of trying to do the best you can with the troops you have in the situation they find themselves in. Rather than a constrained game, it’s actually rather “free” in a way.

So perhaps if you haven’t tried a re-fight yet, take a look at some of the booksellers at the next wargames show you go to and see if you can find a campaign book featuring refight with ORBATS and a map with the deployments shown (there’s actually plenty out there if you look for them). Then after reading it you might pick a battle to do (perhaps one of the smaller ones) and then either pick up the figures for both armies (or perhaps you and a gaming buddy might decide to do one side each) and then do a large multiplayer game (because that’s were the fun is). ACW is a fine start, as the uniforms are easy to paint (although you might want to look at getting 15mm, 10mm or 6mm as 28mm takes AGES to paint and restricts the size of the refights you can do to perhaps a brigade each side…which knocks down on the multiplayer aspect). But first of all just look for a book to act as the source for building your refight (in the same way the Bloodbath/Tears campaign boxes had armies listed as an “aimpoint” for you to collect and paint) and then decide if you want to give it a go.

But drawing a self imposed line of “I’ll never do that” just cuts down on the availability of games you have access to (perhaps I’m guilty of this myself as I draw a similar line in not wanting to do any tournies). And although saying you only have so much time to devote to the hobby I’m sure you still take the time to trawl the internet for tips on painting or how to do the best paintjob for Imperial Fist Marines  (and this is “research” even if you don’t think of it as such)

[piersParticipant 25489xp 2]

Ah…. the old greying of the hobby thing.

Been hearing that since 1984. I think it’s just that older people perhaps have the time to devote to such things… but I dont see it in my group or our player base.

We have plenty of ‘young’ (20 – 30 years) players and they come in all forms from the gamer to the historical purist in the same manner as older ones. I dont think there is any issue with the vitality of historicals on the whole.

I think it’s just alot of historical gamers have a different mindset, and a different venue to play in. If playing in a shop, against an unknown opponent, the points based pick up game is king. If playing in a club or home setting the social group has time to plan and postulate. The two forms of social contact work in different ways and suit game styles in different ways. I have a group of gamers that play in our homes, aged from 24 to 50. We all have a similar outlook and a passion for gaming and history. We dont use unpainted figures, we have buildings that reflect different countries, we spend a small fortune on books! 🙂

I dont honestly think about finding new players, or worry about it, as for as long as I have been gaming historicals (30+ years), I’ve been told it’s a dying hobby. It’s a long death. Either that… or the historical hobby just tends to gain people later in life, so seems to maintain this greyness… though I see plenty of young gamers at historical shows we attend. I think the historical hobby is quite healthy these days.

But I only have my blinkered viewpoint to go by, and can only base my assumptions on my perceptions, which could of course be utterly skewed!

[limburger 21704xp 0]

I think part of the reason for this ‘dislike’ about refights is that as an outsider it is almost impossible to get excited about it.

I simply can’t think of anything interesting about the entire American civil war, because it doesn’t ring a bell. It took articles by @oriskany for me to even begin to see what could be interesting.
At the same time I didn’t need much convincing to start digging into a local battle once I discovered it in one of the ‘operation market garden’ game books I own …

Same thing for other eras/genres …(anyone please do a viking/dark ages themed series … ;))

you need to find a hook first, because history tends to be one of the most boring & depressing subjects at school (next to geography and religion).

And technically the younger generation have had their ‘refights’ … they just call ’em video games (altough I’m pretty sure the allies didn’t have med packs at Omaha ;-)).

 

[tobymagillMember 1414xp 2]

@limburger – i am not sure you can make such a sweaping statement about history. It was always my favourite lesson at school and one of the best taught – and that isn’t just because i am the son of a history teacher!

 

@piers – i think you have hit the nail on the head with the different playing environments. If you have a group to play against, you can sit down and agree what you want to re-enact, plan it out etc. If you’re just going down to a GW/FLGS then the points based, anyone can play anyone approach will be a lot easier for all involved.

I suppose this does lead to the question off recruitment and how you bring new blood into these private groups, but it doesn’t sound like that is an issue, at least for your group.

[Anonymous 0xp 1]

Have to agree with @tobymagill regarding History as a subject, plus a subject in school is only as boring or exciting as a teacher makes it.  A few years ago my nephew had to bring home made armour and weapons into school as they were reenacting the Battle of Hastings – he was quite enthusiastic after that and has picked it as one of his GCSEs.

 

[piersParticipant 25489xp 3]

“History is boring”… well that ends the discussion there really.

Nuff said.

I shall retire to the Drawing Room and flick through a book to calm my nerves!

[limburger 21704xp 0]

@tobymagill it might be a local thing, but all we did was listen to boring teachers being boring …
I can’t remember a single thing we were supposed to learn.
Definitely no lessons about war (except that war is bad and we’ve never won anything either …) or anything interesting.
I think the murder of William of Orange barely got mentioned, which is pretty odd considering that it probably ranks as one of the first (public) murders of a leader of a country.

I’ve learned more through gaming and documentaries on Discovery &co than I ever learned at school.
I do wonder if the history lessons my nephews are getting are more ‘fun’.

@piers no offense intended kind sir.

[angelicdespot 4689xp 0]

The few games I get time to play these days are fantasy or SF, but I do collect some ranges of historical miniatures, have played some historical games and would like to play more.   I don’t think I’ve played any historical refights, and not really thought about why that is until reading this thread.

I think some of the assumptions here are a bit shaky, or at least, are a bit more nuanced.   It may be true that many gamers today don’t want to do historical research, but plenty will spend a lot of time reading codexes or novels, etc…   There are clearly gamers willing to spend time researching their army / a particular battle.   Perhaps the knowledge that it’s fiction frees them from the pressure of getting it ‘right’?   So perhaps one question to consider is whether those who may be open to refights can be encouraged to worry less about this?

Next thought is that plenty of fantasy and SF games feature set battles / scenarios which are refights, just not historical ones.   The Lord of the Rings is a good example.   And plenty of gamers are willing to play ‘unbalanced’ scenarios using fixed lists and prescribed deployment zones.   So again, that suggests that some of the apparent barriers to playing historical refights are less real than might be imagined.

I’ve always been aware that gamers did refights, but I suppose I’ve while I’ve not really thought ‘what a horrible idea’ I’ve never seriously considered doing it either.   If I was invited (and could get to) play in @avernos ‘ next game or Rourke’s Drift, I’d jump at the chance, so it’s not that I’m intrinsically against refights…   I suppose I’m more likely to feel that I want to draw inspiration from a historical battle than to actually refight it because what is the point?   Take what I want from it, without worrying about accuracy…   Makes it easier to get on and do play?

Possibly the closest I’ve come to playing  refight was joining in with a participation game at a convention.   It wasn’t actually a refight but I had no say in the composition or deployment of my troops, and I still thoroughly enjoyed it.

I suppose my theoretical questions to historical refighters are ‘will you do the work for me so that I can join in?’ (Because if you do, I’m up for it, and who knows, further down the line I might be able and willing to do more of the work myself.)   And why?   What is the advantage of doing a refight over a battle inspired by a particular historical event?   I’m an open door…   But I think I need someone to hook me in to it.

 

 

[piersParticipant 25489xp 2]

There is no advantage… it’s just a scenario that has a historical basis and outcome.

Thus a player can, in an abstract way, see if he can do better than his historical counter part.

It’s still a game, it’s still played for fun. It’s really not any different to me, except we tend to find historical based scenarios more interesting as they have a narrative story that is real and a context to them. They come with ‘fluff’ rather than just playing a points match up.

If having a background, narrative and context to the game doesnt interest a player, nor the perceived chance to perhaps compare his attempt to reality, doesn’t float someone’s boat, then it’s no advantage at all.

Thus perhaps that historical interest or knowledge is needed prior to a game in order to see and feel the advantage? In order to make the most of it you may need some background explanation, perhaps no more than being told that it’s a real battle and what happened.

As for having it all done for you… I do that for my group when I design scenarios, and do it all the time for magazine articles and in the books. You do it in order that it might inspire people to do their own too.

 

 

@limburger no offence perceived or taken old chap… just having a pipe and slippers moment. 😉

[Author]

Posts