podcast 20 discussion on historical accuracy of gaming

Your outlet for items not relating to TFL rules!

Moderators: Laffe, Vis Bellica

Post Reply
Jiefu
Posts: 56
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2019 8:15 am

podcast 20 discussion on historical accuracy of gaming

Post by Jiefu » Mon Jul 08, 2019 2:30 pm

Interesting discussion, it seems Richards angle is very much driven by interest in history first. One view can be almost reverse. I'm primarily interested in collecting and painting miniatures, then I game with them, then as I develop an affinity with their little tin souls I get interested and read on on their history. So my historical learning comes from painting and gaming first, so any accurate scenario is something I'd become interested I after some time, or just as a fun game option.

Contrarius
Posts: 318
Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2018 1:35 pm

Re: podcast 20 discussion on historical accuracy of gaming

Post by Contrarius » Tue Jul 09, 2019 7:20 am

Personally, my journey was:

Airfix models > Airfix figures > wargaming > history > frustration with inaccuracy of wargaming

After 25 years in which I did no modelling or gaming to speak of, only military history, I’ve started to go back down the ladder, prompted in large part by the sheer fun of Lardy rules.

Nick B
Posts: 219
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2013 7:46 am

Re: podcast 20 discussion on historical accuracy of gaming

Post by Nick B » Sat Jul 13, 2019 1:20 pm

My journey was similar to yours. After 40 years gaming I've gone through the search for the holy grail and historical accuracy. Now I'm an old git I swing back towards fun with an acceptable level of acuracy. :D

With so many rule sets and scales covering all periods of historical gaming I'm just pleased to find some one who plays the same thing! :lol:

Richard
Site Admin
Posts: 1623
Joined: Sat Aug 17, 2013 7:50 am

Re: podcast 20 discussion on historical accuracy of gaming

Post by Richard » Fri Jul 26, 2019 10:59 am

Historical accuracy is a difficult thing to achieve in a game as most games focus on one or two elements which the designer considers to be core. So for me that is battlefield friction and how commanders can try to overcome it. Personally I treat the hardware of combat with aa relatively light touch. I'm not that interested in millimetres and think that the human being is both more fragile and more resilient simultaneously, and consequently a much more important factor than whether your rifle is 0.303 or 7.92mm. As a result I simply seek to create an outcome that is both plausible and evocative of the period.

Actually my angle of approach to the hobby was very much the narrative of history and wargaming allowed that to come to life in front of me. I cannot deny that I prefer historical scenarios as they provide me with a cinematic connection to real history. Rather than just read about an action, I get to relive it. Much as we are doing with the battle for Best on Lard TV at the moment. We have the first test game lined up for Monday, then on Tuesday we return to the Scottish Corridor campaign at the club and then hopefully we'll be back to the Gembloux Gap campaign in the week as well. I vastly prefer that to simply taking "scenario 5" from the rule book. But don't get me wrong, we do plenty of that as well.

Cheers

Rich

siggian
Posts: 806
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2013 3:22 am
Location: Abbotsford, British Columbia, Canada
Contact:

Re: podcast 20 discussion on historical accuracy of gaming

Post by siggian » Fri Jul 26, 2019 5:54 pm

To me, a set of rules needs to do several things to be successful: it needs to be playable, coherent, and reflect the period. If a set of rules isn't playable, what is the point? Coherent rules are easier to read, easier to actually play, and are easier to extend or tinker with to handle situations that are not expressly covered. Finally, the rules need to instill the feeling of being there (even if in a fantasy or science fiction setting) and being specific to that setting. I'm not saying that you need to have a different rules engine each time. Rich and Nick have adapted their card-driven engine to many different settings but each time they have tweaked and adapted it so that each set of rules is distinct even though they share similarities.

mellett68
Posts: 46
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2019 6:55 pm

Re: podcast 20 discussion on historical accuracy of gaming

Post by mellett68 » Mon Jul 29, 2019 2:33 pm

So far, in my very new foray into historicals and I'm still very much finding my feet.

For my own collecting I've been more careful about choosing my period and building an appropriate force. I'm putting together my first Sharp Practice force as 1/32nd Regiment of Foot, who were present in the peninsular from 1808-1809 evacuating at Corunna. At this time they wore canvas trousers, moving to the better-documented grey after their return to the peninsular in 1812. That does limit the scope of the war where my army is appropriate but I don't think I'd beat myself up about it. After all I don't fancy the thought of another 70-odd figures to paint identically except for their trousers!

In terms of scenarios for this force I'd happily play or create fictional encounters with the backdrop of a real campaign, battle or equivalent. After all my officers are fictional men and largely influenced by growing up with Sharpe and Hornblower on the telly.

I certainly appreciate the weight of a historical scenario, however. The Gembloux Gap games and Battlefield Challenge video have been a great deal of food for thought.

Post Reply