Great Wargaming Survey

[FierceKitty]

As Ithoriel says, we should not tolerate splinter groups of fantasy players. They can't help being what they are, and should just be given a painless injection for the good of the hobby.

[Ithoriel]

As Ithoriel says, we should not tolerate splinter groups of fantasy players. They can't help being what they are, and should just be given a painless injection for the good of the hobby.

Absolutely!

The sooner these weirdos playing their fantasy games with their Franks and their Ayyubids are anaethsetised, for the greater good, the better!

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

Now now Children play nicely. I play almost anything, got Historical from M1's to EAP, in scales from 28 through 25, 20, 15. 10, 6 mm, 2mm, aircraft in 1/200th, 1/.300, 1/600th, shipping in 1/300, 1/6 or 700th, 1/1200, 1/3000th and indeterminant - Distopian Wars.

[steve_holmes_11]

The current PoW apparently wants to be George VII, not Charles III, so his grandson will end up being George VIII.

Unless little George decides to be Charles III, Edgar III, or Harthacnut II.

[Gwydion]

Because it's creating "out groups."

...

I am suggesting that creating artificial divisions does the hobby a disservice.

Not out 'groups', 'different' groups.
The division isn't 'artificial' to me.

Which 'hobby'?

I can't see why differentiating between games based on real world physics, chemistry, human psychology and anthropology, and those based on non existent powers and species and imagined technologies is a problem.

That's not excluding anyone from anything meaningful.

Play all by all means, but to me they aren't the same thing.

[Ithoriel]

I can't see why differentiating between games based on real world physics, chemistry, human psychology and anthropology, and those based on non existent powers and species and imagined technologies is a problem.

If you think Fantasy and Sci-Fi aren't "based on real world physics, chemistry, human psychology and anthropology" then you have a different view of Fantasy and Sci-Fi than I have.

Is "what if folk tales were true" any more fantastic than "what if the Germans had managed to launch Unternehmen Seelöwe?"

I have long decried the fact that Fantasy games tend to be "Ancients with Dragons" rather than looking at how warfare would be changed by the use of magic or the existence of dragons and giants. Not that it stops me enjoying such games.

[Raider4]

It's all miniature tabletop gaming to me.

Don't understand why some people have to sneer at others for doing something they have no interest in.

[Gwydion]

I'm honestly not trying to have an argument but I think we probably do have different ideas of what Fantasy and SF are.

I don't see how Fantasy and SF can be based on ' real world physics, chemistry, human psychology and anthropology.'
They are imaginary worlds designed to avoid real world scientific constraints.
Some types of SF may be closer to current reality but the harder the tech element, the less testable against real world effects we get.

The games may be very true to the source fiction but until someone shows me the real world penetration table of a sixth level mage's anti-armour spell I'm going to remain sceptical about the relationship between Fantasy/SF gaming and wargaming.

Not better, not worse, but definitely different things.

I'm really glad you enjoy Ancients and Dragons, and want Fantasy to be more than that. I wouldn't want to stop you for the world. Nor to stop you calling it whatever you want. I don't see it
as a divisive issue at all.

But for me I can't see it being a 'war'game.

@Raider - who's sneering?

[John Cook]

Unless little George decides to be Charles III, Edgar III, or Harthacnut II.

As long as he doesn't decide to be Wayne or Kevin.

[Leon]

I have long decried the fact that Fantasy games tend to be "Ancients with Dragons" rather than looking at how warfare would be changed by the use of magic or the existence of dragons and giants.

That's an interesting point that I'd never considered before, we impose historical tactics onto a Fantasy game when the approach could have been entirely different if your infantry are backed up by a fire-breathing aerial demon.  And how much command control would a leader have had over a sentient beast?  Our vision of massed infantry ranks would have been a perfect target for a blanket fire weapon, or a well-placed fireball from Gandalf, so would they adjust into pockets of smaller, manoeuvrable units that could employ almost guerilla tactics against a larger individual?

[Ithoriel]

That's an interesting point that I'd never considered before, we impose historical tactics onto a Fantasy game when the approach could have been entirely different if your infantry are backed up by a fire-breathing aerial demon.  And how much command control would a leader have had over a sentient beast?  Our vision of massed infantry ranks would have been a perfect target for a blanket fire weapon, or a well-placed fireball from Gandalf, so would they adjust into pockets of smaller, manoeuvrable units that could employ almost guerilla tactics against a larger individual?

So many things to consider. What's the recharge rate on a dragon's fire breath? Can it breathe flames at will with no more effort than we put in to breathing or does it get one good blast and then need to sleep for a decade to recharge?

Can a wizard's largest fireball engulf a single target, a squad, an army?

What about the undead? Can you damage them with normal weapons or do you need magic or divine assistance? What is the airspeed of an unladen demon with a Supersoaker full of holy water?

How much faith can we put in penetration charts calculated from firing range tests or hit rates from muskets fired at unit sized bedsheets?

[T13A]

Hi

For me 'wargaming' is and has been for the last 60 or so years intrinsically linked with the military history side of things.

I particularly like the old Miniature Warfare (magazine) 'strapline' (yes, I'm that old):

"The magazine for those who those who wish to recreate the tactical ability and weapon capabilities of armies of a chosen period".

The fact that I'm refighting Gettysburg with rules that allow me to use the tactics etc. of the time and the result doesn't follow the historical events as they happened does not mean I'm playing 'fantasy', in my book anyway.

I have absolutely nothing against 'fantasy', 'Sci-Fi' etc. they just do not fit into my definition of wargaming.

Cheers Paul

[steve_holmes_11]

That's an interesting point that I'd never considered before, we impose historical tactics onto a Fantasy game when the approach could have been entirely different if your infantry are backed up by a fire-breathing aerial demon.  And how much command control would a leader have had over a sentient beast?  Our vision of massed infantry ranks would have been a perfect target for a blanket fire weapon, or a well-placed fireball from Gandalf, so would they adjust into pockets of smaller, manoeuvrable units that could employ almost guerilla tactics against a larger individual?

Indeed. The whole "closed ranks" business, persisted until the 19th century precisely because we had no serious area effect weapons.
Once Krupps and Armstrong got to work on quick firing breachloading artillery, all the formation keeping reas relegated to the parade ground.

Now think about a world where Merlin and members of his order can lob fireballs or cause ricks to splinter into shrapnel.
What's the impact on the shieldwall formations of the age?
Do infantry start entrenching prior to every engagement?

[steve_holmes_11]

I like the history stuff.
Some bits of history more than others.

I like a bit of the fantasy stuff.
But much of it leaves me cold.

It is therefore helpful that hobby suppliers, figure manufacturers and rule writers have split the hobby into categories by period and genre.
I really don't see that as  formenting out groups any more than librarians classifying books by subject type.

[fred.]

I can't believe that the 'is fantasy part of wargaming?' discussion is still happening - can we leave it back in 1985?


The Ancients with Dragons question is a much more interesting one. I have said that our home brew fantasy rules feel more Napoleonic than medieval or ancient. As Ithoriel says a lot comes down to how your fantasy creatures behave - and another key bit, of how common they are?

If the fantastical creatures are rare or if the fantasy creatures eg orcs don't really bring anything different tactically,  then battles are more likely to be as historical ones.

But if flying creatures are common, then formations and fortifications could be very different. Watch towers would be much more likely to have some kind of roof or overhead cover to protect the occupants, whilst still providing the more traditional functions. Battlefield formations could change to cope with flyers - this might be quite minor - like having light cavalry in a 'sweeper' role - or totally breaking up battle lines to minimise the impacts of top attacks!