Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 frozenwastes wrote:
Considering others so odious that they kept you out of the hobby sounds pretty damn elitist to me.

Then I have to wonder if you understand the word "elitist." That word does not mean anything like "not wanting to be around people because they treat you and the things you enjoy as inferior."

 frozenwastes wrote:
I think you know what I meant.

I also think I know what you meant, which is why I posted what I did. A lot of the elitism in historicals flows directly from this concept of accurately "re-fighting" battles from the past.

 Manchu wrote:
Then I have to wonder if you understand the word "elitist." That word does not mean anything like "not wanting to be around people because they treat you and the things you enjoy as inferior."

I see the opposite occurring. That the current approved target in the historical gaming community is anyone who wants a strong a connection as possible (or perhaps the least weak connection as possible) between history and their gaming. I think you are treating them and the things they enjoy as inferior.

 Manchu wrote:
A lot of the elitism in historicals flows directly from this concept of accurately "re-fighting" battles from the past.

The elitism that's trendy right now is to sit in judgement on those who want to "re-fight" as fools chasing after the impossible. And then blaming their preferences for all the "elitism" in the hobby.

 frozenwastes wrote:
the current approved target in the historical gaming community is anyone who wants a strong a connection as possible (or perhaps the least weak connection as possible) between history and their gaming

Where?

Also - how am I treating games other than BA as inferior? In point of fact, I am the one who is excited about BA, Battlegroup, and Chain of Command ... as opposed to what I have seen of elitism, where someone says (for example) "BA is 1940k."

 frozenwastes wrote:
The elitism that's trendy right now is to sit in judgement on those who want to "re-fight" as fools chasing after the impossible.

Again, where is this "trendy"? Take a look at WI or WS&S and you will see articles about scenario play issue after issue. Take a look at any forum and you will see the same.

Most historical players I know came from playing GW. I did. And i also have an MA in war studies, so I must be elitist and snobbish with myself...

I have also seen plenty of elitist and snobbish behaviour from fantasy and scifi gamers.

Its nothing to do with what they play but their personality. They would be arses in any hobby.



I do think JD and Manchu have a point though...

Popularity and success do seem to breed contempt from a certain section of the historical crowd.

I know, I have experienced it first hand.


As for refighting history... I dunno... you can certainly play a game scenario based on real events, but it is just a game and not really, in essence any different from the same scenario but using orks and marines. I play historical games as I love the periods I game, I enjoy reading history and modelling and painting that genre. I also like playing with them on cool terrain with my mates.

Its a game for me, not a tactical simulation, and its a pleasent way to spend a few hours and have a laugh with my chums.

For me and Woz, Battlegroup was written as we wanted something to play that was fun, exciting, let us put toys on the table, had a feel of the common perception of the period, rewarded people playing in a manner that feels correct for the period but also has the ease of play that comes with pick up points systems but then set inside 'historical' scenarios. Its just a game thats alot of fun to play.

Big P wrote:
They would be arses in any hobby.

There are good and bad in every bunch but the flavors are often consistent per bunch.

Big P wrote:
Popularity and success do seem to breed contempt from a certain section of the historical crowd.

I know, I have experienced it first hand.

It's only going to get worse for BG because at this rate of quality BG will only get more popular. Imagine how much they will hate you guys if you start selling an accessible 20mm range that plebs like me buy up.

 Manchu wrote:
In point of fact, I am the one who is excited about BA, Battlegroup, and Chain of Command ... as opposed to what I have seen of elitism, where someone says (for example) "BA is 1940k."

What's wrong with 1940k? That's one of Bolt Action's strengths. It has almost all the good sides of 40k and very few of the bad. It has common ancestry with the game and is very robust in terms of accessibility and fun.

When someone uses 1940k as an expression of what they don't like about the game (they might consider the good sides to be bad sides for their purposes) why does it suddenly become elitism? Because it's pithy and clever?

It seems accurate to me (both on the good and bad sides depending on people's preferences).

 frozenwastes wrote:
Again, where is this "trendy"? Take a look at WI or WS&S and you will see articles about scenario play issue after issue. Take a look at any forum and you will see the same.

I think we have very different experiences. I always see a ton of "you can't really have anything to do with history and you're deluded if you think you do" type comments. I imagine it's one of those issues where we remember what we want to as being the most prominent feature.

 Manchu wrote:
.

Big P wrote:
Popularity and success do seem to breed contempt from a certain section of the historical crowd.

I know, I have experienced it first hand.

It's only going to get worse for BG because at this rate of quality BG will only get more popular. Imagine how much they will hate you guys if you start selling an accessible 20mm range that plebs like me buy up.

A certain section already dislike us... we dared to release a book with pretty pictures and army lists in. Should see the slating a guy on Amazon gave us. Thankfully some of our proper players posted reviews too.

Of course im pretty sure those being negative never bought the book or played a game. Remote reviewers are the worst.

We wont do ranges of figures... thats PSC's job!

Big P wrote:
Most historical players I know came from playing GW. I did. And i also have an MA in war studies, so I must be elitist and snobbish with myself...

I have also seen plenty of elitist and snobbish behaviour from fantasy and scifi gamers.

Its nothing to do with what they play but their personality. They would be arses in any hobby.

This is what I was saying earlier. That it's not some generalized group of people but individuals. Regardless of their game of choice and their target of choice, they'll find something to latch onto in order to dump on the preferences of others.

Popularity and success do seem to breed contempt from a certain section of the historical crowd.

I know, I have experienced it first hand.

A certain section of the historical crowd, absolutely. If I were to guess they probably believe you must have had to sacrifice something that's essential to them in order to appeal to the masses, even if they can't identify what that is.

For me and Woz, Battlegroup was written as we wanted something to play that was fun, exciting, let us put toys on the table, had a feel of the common perception of the period, rewarded people playing in a manner that feels correct for the period but also has the ease of play that comes with pick up points systems but then set inside 'historical' scenarios. Its just a game thats alot of fun to play.

For a lot of people that feel of being correct is the most important thing. That's not my priority, but it's okay that they have games out there that meet their needs while I mostly play Bolt Action and have Chain of Command and Battlegroup when I want that feel to be stronger.

To bring the OP back into this, I think that we have a good overview of some of the contentious areas of discussion related to WW2 historical right now to use as a map going forward. I've found that I get along best with gamers who want different things when I accept the things they say as the expression of their preferences rather than some statement of fact. The real problems come up when you start blaming entire swathes of the gaming community and creating an us-vs-them situation. Or when you start seeing the preferences of others as the source of the problem.

 frozenwastes wrote:
Well, this thread for starters.

Really bad example considering how this line of conversation actually started in this thread.

 frozenwastes wrote:
Even though you knew I was using it as a short hand you still had to pick it out.

I thought you were using it as short hand for the notion of a "strong connection ... between history and their gaming," to use your own subsequent words. Considering those are in fact your words, it looks like I was correct.

 frozenwastes wrote:
You do think that a gamer desiring a strong connection between their game and history is pursuing the impossible, right?

I think you're trying to change the subject as part of your ridiculous attempt to characterize people who dump on BA as the victims of elitism. As I have already noted, in addition to BA I enjoy BG and have been wanting to get into CoC for a long time. Because they seem like fun games.

 frozenwastes wrote:
What's wrong with 1940k?

First, it is a lazy and ignorant comparison (as opposed to "pithy and clever," as you said, but then again I am not really talking only about that particular slogan). Second, it is often used as a put-down. It is part of the larger picture of looking down on popular games.

 frozenwastes wrote:
I always see a ton of "you can't really have anything to do with history" type comments.

It's not that games can have nothing to do with history; it's that we need to come to a better understanding of that relationship. A game designer is not a historian. Someone can certainly be both but if they are doing one, they are not doing the other. Games will only ever be inspired by history, i.e., they can only be history-themed. We have this basic dichotomy between mechanics and theme. That is where designers do their work, as opposed to their research, sorting out how these two elements interact. This is exactly why there is room enough on the market (and on my shelf) for more than one set of WW2 rules.

We sacrificed lots of things to make BG...

... our sanity mainly.

Big P wrote:
We sacrificed lots of things to make BG...

Sacrifice ... sounds like cultists, which are a unit in 40k, therefore BG must be just like 40k. I mean, it has minis and turns and dice. And Mr. Kinrade even wrote for GW!!!

Look, if people give FoW crap by saying it's based on 40k, then Bolt Action can weather the same. Both games have succeeded beyond any need to justify themselves.

By the way, I actually consider Bolt Action better than 40k, despite my many reasonable complaints about the game, and despite some similar design sensibilities. But it does suffer from some of 40k's lackadaisical design sense. Someone hire Alessio an intern to finish his work like the Antares guys are doing.

This topic went hilariously off the rails after I posted that comment. [MOD EDIT - RULE #1 - Alpharius]

 Manchu wrote:

Big P wrote:
We sacrificed lots of things to make BG...

Sacrifice ... sounds like cultists, which are a unit in 40k, therefore BG must be just like 40k. I mean, it has minis and turns and dice. And Mr. Kinrade even wrote for GW!!!

And I worked for GW too...

Its all a dark conspiracy.

 Vertrucio wrote:

This topic went hilariously off the rails after I posted that comment. [MOD EDIT - RULE #1 - Alpharius]

It was actually a really reasonable post you made. You let the OP know there are other options out there and that miniatures and rules are not joined at the hip (one of the greatest strengths of historicals).

 Manchu wrote:

 frozenwastes wrote:
What's wrong with 1940k?

First, it is a lazy and ignorant comparison (as opposed to "pithy and clever," as you said

I disagree. It doesn't seem ignorant or lazy at all, but very apt and accurate. Same sales model (rules + army book + line of miniatures), same basic rules of roll to hit, roll to damage, very similar armour piercing rolls, same short ranges. Same 2d6 roll under for command. Very similar assault rules. None of these things are bad, but it seems like it's even more 40k WW2 than Flames of War. I think BA has a better turn structure and the added on morale mechanic takes the game somewhere far better than 40k, but I think it's totally legit to call in 1940k.

I wonder just how many changes I'd have to make to a given 40k codex to get it to work with Bolt Action. I suspect very, very few. Bolt Action has a "normal human" as its baseline with very similar results to a guardsman in 40k. The games might be so close as to be nearly compatible with minor tweaks. The psychic phase presents some problems, but the core of the games are so similar you'd just need a way of interpreting some 40k numbers to get target numbers for Bolt Action.

I first played Bolt Action when the playtest document was given out and when I tried it I had a huge "This is everything I love about 40k! (and very little of what I don't)" moment. It's similarity to 40k (and use of common practices in wargaming going back to the 1960s) is a good thing. So even if people want to use 1940k as an insult...

Second, it is often used as a put-down. It is part of the larger picture of looking down on popular games.

...I say own it rather than cry about it.

It's not that games can have nothing to do with history; it's that we need to come to a better understanding of that relationship. A game designer is not a historian. Someone can certainly be both but if they are doing one, they are not doing the other. Games will only ever be inspired by history, i.e., they can only be history-themed

When I read a history book, I'm not a historian. When I listen to a history lecture, I'm not a historian. This idea that the only way we can interact with history is through the narrow scope of being a professional in one academic discipline is just ridiculous. And even if we do accept something like that idea, part of the role of a historian can be considered to be the presentation or communication of their findings or the findings of others.

On that ground I definitely disagree with the idea that games will only ever be inspired by history. They can be a presentation of it. A communication of it. I can present the findings of any academic discipline through an interactive game. And as I've said before, you can find out more about this by getting access to an academic database and looking for peer reviewed papers on how humans learn, how our brains work during play, what teaching methods are effective, what trainers actually do when they present subject matter through a game and a huge amount of other information about games and the presentation and transmission of information.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=learning+games&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_vis=1

Either people are ignorant of how games can be used to teach or they cling to some strange notion that all these time tested and proven techniques will suddenly fall apart if we try to apply them to our hobby. Why?

I think it is because "games can only be history-themed" is just a deflection tactic to negate the (often accurate) criticism of rules that fail in regards to history. It's a means of protecting oneself against inappropriately personalized criticism of a game by others. If no game can be considered historical, then any criticism of my pet game on those grounds must be wrong! Yay!

Well the British Army has been wargaming for years...

The idea that Bolt Action is "nearly compatible" with 40k is flatly ludicrous. It's a notion that fails to make sense on any meaningful level. The heart of BA is its activation system. It's next most prominent feature is the pinning mechanic. Unlike trying for X or better on a modified D6 roll, which encompasses most of your staggeringly superficial comparison, these aspects are definitive mechanics. And there is nothing even remotely close to them in 40k. (In fact, I have watched 40k players demoing BA at the LGS complain bitterly about these mechanics.) If you told someone who knew nothing about BA that it was "like 40k" the result would be them actually knowing less about BA than before; i.e., your misrepresentation would be an obstacle to them forming an accurate impression of BA.

As a reminder, I have read your rant about gamifying learning, etc., and it still has nothing to do with history. My response stands:

 Manchu wrote:
Yes, you can use games to help people remember information more effectively or encourage them to be more interested in that information. That is not what I am talking about. What I have posted is:

 Manchu wrote:
Playing a war game cannot be a valid source of historical knowledge.

The game does not generate information about history. You cannot learn what happened in the past by playing a game. You can only ever "wrap" game mechanics up in historical references. I don't challenge that this "wrapping" can make the references more exciting.

To clarify with respect to my comments in this thread: Game designers form an impression of historical combat (one way or another) which they conceive of as theme. They try to capture theme with mechanics although that is ideally not their only consideration when it comes to designing mechanics. It seems like most people easily understand that designers come up with mechanics. But many seem to miss that conceptualizing theme is also a fundamental part of being a good designer. This is the aspect of design that I am talking about when I say that all games are at best inspired by history. That is, abstracting something like firing a machine gun into a mechanic (rolling some dice) is not the only gap between reality and a game. There is also the gap between conceiving of the past on its own terms so far as possible (which is history) and conceiving of the past in order to in turn conceive of how a game should "feel."

One designer may have spent more time researching theme than another. But as I have tried to explain before:

 Manchu wrote:
"Historical accuracy" is just a bugbear in gaming. A game stands no closer to history by being informed by historical data at a more granular level because the distance between a game and history is already infinite.

What is going on when someone expresses preference, for example, for BA over CoC or vice versa is not a judgment about historical accuracy. Rather. it is a judgment about fun. Unsurprisingly, this is because the object of the judgment is a game. Pretending otherwise is exactly the source of that painfully ignorant elitism that plagues historicals. It is elitist because it seeks to justify a totally subjective preference by appeal to historical facts. It is ignorant inasmuch as making such an attempt reveals the person doing so does not understand why this is futile.

Big P wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

Big P wrote:
We sacrificed lots of things to make BG...

Sacrifice ... sounds like cultists, which are a unit in 40k, therefore BG must be just like 40k. I mean, it has minis and turns and dice. And Mr. Kinrade even wrote for GW!!!

And I worked for GW too...

Its all a dark conspiracy.

Battlewargrouphammer Kursk40k!1!!1 1!

Seriously, though. Battlegroup is just like 40k. You should change your tagline to "Battlegroup: It uses dice... like 40k!"