History is Bunk (Long Live Wargaming)

Of late, I have been somewhat perplexed by recent "developments" in what some of our brethren are pleased to call "The Hobby". The merchants of DOOM are still among us!. This was especially evident in Mr. Tanner's latest diatribe. I did not, as you might expect, explode into rage at his rant but was rather bemus~.by it. Why is this chap so negative? What does he actually LIKE? Bear in mind that I only have his printed words as a guide, but if I thought like him, I'd have left the business years ago and if "The Hobby" was as he appears to want it, I and most other companies would be bankrupt!

 From his writing he appears to be anti-history, anti-competition, anti- shows (at least the ones which he feels are too crowded), indeed anti- everything as far as I can see. I have yet to discover what he is FOR. Yet, when all that is said, I cannot muster the spleen to be angry with a chap who, we hope, means well. His views are, for me, too narrow; he does not seem to see the larger picture. From my position as both a "user" and a "pusher" I have a far mo~ positive outlook and while not everything in the garden is rosy there are plenty of roses about if you look for them.

 He appears to want the magazines to be full of "concepts" rather than "plagiarised history" Well here's an interesting concept for you -How can you be a historical wargamer without history? Military History, plagiarised or not, is the bedrock upon which we all layout our wargames tables, this even applies to a significant proportion of the fantasy genre- so we ignore it at our peril. I have no idea how extensive Mr Tanner's personal library is, nor do I care. What is certain is that there are impecunious wargamers out there who may not be in a position to acquire an approriate library on their chosen subjects, or who may want to dip into another period -for which an article in such a magazine as this may be just the ticket. For myself, despite a fairly extensive book collection, a little history with my "concepts" will do me no harm. Personally I lament the demise of the historical article in favour of pathetic scenarios for specific rulesets simply because the writer doesn't expect his readers to have read a book. Dumbing down Rools O.K.! !! ! !

Now after the "horses-doovers", something a little more meaty ...a real concept or two.

Ground scales and figure-to-man ratios as expressed in many published rulesets are complete BUNK. I would go further, many rule writers have only the hastiest notion of how military forces actually WORK and, despite cloaking their writing in historical background, are far more interested in a saleable game. Now there is NOTHING actually wrong with this, but rulesets such as the DBAs, Ms, or Rs are now so far from the historical root that they bear only the vaguest resemblance in both visual and mental terms to that which they purport to represent

Needless to say statements such as these need qualification and most of my strictures only apply to pre-1914, mainly because I don't playa great deal after that day (everyone is so BROWN, my dear, no fashion sense at ALL!) The current fashion for depicting higher and higher levels of command with fewer and fewer toy soldiers and simpler and simpler rule mechanisms inevitably means that those of you who follow this path remove yourselves further from the historical root of the hobby. While it is by no means necessary to have lots of toy soldiers for a reasonably accurate and enjoyable game (and the two are NOT mutually exclusive!) perhaps it is time to ask of any or all rulesets exactly what THEY are trying to achieve. (To which of course the answer is SALES !)

Obviously the "one-size-fits-all" school of rule writing a la DBA,R or M and Armati has VERY severe limitations in terms of identity with a pe~od of history and while it is inevitable that we accept a certain amount of fudging to achieve our ends the current mania for dumbing down (or perhaps you prefer "simplification of systems"?) has resulted in whole tribes of wargamers who have no historical knowledge to speak of and want none in case it interferes with their game. To me this is a crying shame. Why is it now so unfashionable to use your brain? To actually give some study to that in which you are supposed to have an interest? NOW here's a concept for you -Historical Wargames that use some history- think of it! ! ! ! Nearly 6000 YEARS of human history to work with ...NAAA it'll never work.  

Seven Years War, British Horse Grenadiers, recently released Old Glory

In a recent conversation with the Editor of this August Journal (it comes out the rest of the year too!!!) he opined that most wargamers don't read history anymore -they use army lists. He may be right -but AAAAAARGH ! ! .Let's face it, idiot books (sorry, Army Lists) can NEVER be the whole answer; I'm not expecting you all to line up for your Ph.D'shere but reading books doesn't hurt the brain you know, honest. To be a little fairer (that'll be the day, thinks you) army lists do have their uses for the quick and simple (games, that is, not garners,) They are also a useful starting point for the beginner. The biggest problem with them is that they are the most perfect examples of "making history fit my rules" that you can get. Distorted annies are the least of it, a few examples will suffice to illustrate my point, all of these are from rulesets I play and generally LIKE. First, from Waifare in the Age of Reason, the Jacobite army list misses out more troop types than it includes. (For details see La Gloireagazine no 5) while the Clive in India lists contain troops that simply didn't exist. Warhammer ECW has massively over-armoured Royalists. Waifare in the Age of Discovery has Irish "warbands" in mainland ECW Royalist armies as well as a surfeit of cuirassiers for both sides. I could go on (elephants in Imperial Rome?) but wouldn't want to bore you more than I already am. The major problem here is not the lists themselves, the writers all emphasise that they are only a guide, but wargamers who happily accept such guff because it's easier than reading a book, hence the need for a re-appearance of "plagiarised history" in the pages of such magazines as this. If you heard some of the nonsense that passes as "knowledge" that I hear at shows it would make you weep (or at least giggle somewhat).

Without doubt there ARE some very knowledgable people out there (I listen to them at shows too) and such a thing is one of the prettiest roses in the garden. But as ever, the problem with not tending the garden is that it gets choked with weeds. So with dumbing down, too many weeds, not enough roses. Or perhaps it is simply that the weeds make more noise. I know that there are Historical Wargamers out there who know their stuff because I talk to them when they buy their figures and rules and, despite the yellings of the less knowledgeable they are by no means all akin to a fashion free outer garment. The big problem, for me at least, is the simple "fact" (of course it's really an opinion) that the mainstream is becoming more bland and "gamey", rather than the historically based gaming I joined up for. However that is my problem, my point is simply to suggest to Mr Tanner and his ilk that history will do them no harm, books don't rot the brain and MORE history can result in BETTER games -so there!!!.

 Andy Copestake Old Glory 

This letter was written in response to an ongoing correspondence in Wargames Illustrated (August). However, Andy has some valid and important points to make, and is certainly passionate about making them !

Dave Millward, Web Director.

Return to Wargames Forum    Return to Random Shots Return to the Library