Motivation - History, figures or rules

[mollinary]

This is a really HARD question.  I think the first inspiration was history, stimulated by TV showing such things as Sealed Knot re-enactments, and epic scale films such as Cromwell (I know!!) and Waterloo, and all the old black and white films on TV based on WW2. And National Geographic magazines in the 60s doing centenary ACW issues, Purnell and TV doing 50th anniversary WWI, and ongoing programmes like 'All Our Yesterdays' taking you through WW2. The 1960s, looking back, had a lot of stuff on military history!  

Then it was Featherstone books and Airfix figures, together wih Airfix Magazine telling you how to modify them.  Then figures led me into new periods, and I sought rules to play them. This worked for most periods, but struggled for the ECW. I went through a period of twenty years when I collected and painted figures, convinced I would write my own rules. In the end it was the discovery of 'To the Strongest' which finally allowed me to achieve my aim, and have a game fo use all the troops I had collected over the years. For King and Parliament is the result, and I am now a happy wargamer!

[Steve J]

TV & films a big influence. As a kid 'Combat' and 'Garrison's Guerrillas' were staple favourites, with 'The Great War' and 'The World at War' really kicking things off in a big way.

[John Cook]

Military history first, I suppose, but miniatures too.  I collected Britains 54mm hollow-cast metal toy soldiers, when you could still buy them at Hamleys - 10/6 for four cavalry or eight infantry as I remember - long before I 'found' wargaming. 
Other than Featherstone's 'Wargames' there were no rules in the beginning and I never found a set of commercial rules that I really liked.   They all seemed either too simplistic or too complex and that hasn't changed much over the years such that haven't bought any for decades.    These days I use Computer Strategies computer moderated rules.  They are simple to use, do all the calculations satisfactorily, and they work well for solo or two or more players but, most importantly, they satisfy all my preconceptions.   Their author is also very approachable where upgrade suggestions are concerned,

[steve_holmes_11]

History got me interested - but I've found a tension between areas of interesting history and interesting rules.
Many parts of history feature one dominant army or general, and it's often not much of a game playing "Romans can't lose" or "+5 for Napoleon in radius".

Figures - In order to play I need a range, but am not massively fussed about getting the best artist-style casts or paint-jobs.
These days we are spoiled for choice, and almost any army can be built with a little patience, morphing and imagination.

Rules - In my gaming world these are what separate the poor game from the good game.
You can have the same figures and history, but a dud set of rules can suck the joy out of a game.


Cycling back to history - I'll add one very personal issue.
I get very agitated about "bad history" in rules for my favourite periods of history.
For example I never enjoyed SAGA with its "These 2 dice mean Odin shows up and kicks the tar out of your Anglo Saxons" - for me Dark Age means shieldwalls, and SAGA doesn't model that.
By contrast Congo (Same publisher) is a fantastic game, and probably takes similar liberties with history - the fact that I have little invested in the history of "Darkest Africa" allows me to ignore the liberties and recognise a superb game that continually challenges both players.

[Leman]

This is one reason I play Saga and Dux Bellorum - Saga is a fun quick game of thirty lads out on the rap having a scrap with a similar sized gang. Dux Bellorum has armies of at least a few hundred men so the shield wall becomes a meaningful formation.

[Chris Pringle]

History got me interested - but I've found a tension between areas of interesting history and interesting rules.
Many parts of history feature one dominant army or general, and it's often not much of a game playing "Romans can't lose" or "+5 for Napoleon in radius".

Hi Steve, I suggest that's a problem of scenario design rather than rules per se. Take the Franco-Prussian War, for instance, which many wargamers seem to steer clear of because they perceive it as one-way traffic with the French being kicked all the way to Paris and beyond. While that's sort of true, the individual historical battles can be made hugely interesting and entertaining games if the victory conditions are calibrated appropriately. Some of our group (me included) particularly relish the challenge of commanding truly terrible armies and trying to do better than they did historically.

That's the design philosophy that informs all our historical scenarios for "Bloody Big BATTLES!" - basically, take the historical result as the "par score", and players may still lose the battle but win the game if they lose it less badly than what actually happened - and I think it's a good one.

Chris

Bloody Big BATTLES!
https://uk.groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/BBB_wargames/info
http://bloodybigbattles.blogspot.com/

[Westmarcher]

Take the Franco-Prussian War, for instance, which many wargamers seem to steer clear of because they perceive it as one-way traffic with the French being kicked all the way to Paris and beyond. While that's sort of true .....

Yep! 

- basically, take the historical result as the "par score", and players may still lose the battle but win the game if they lose it less badly than what actually happened - and I think it's a good one.

Plus, the "loser" can come away feeling reasonably satisfied if he still "wins" the battle (albeit not so convincingly as the historic outcome). 

[Norm]

Tough one;

I wouldn't say history, but then I don't do sci fi or fantasy, so if everything else is equal, then the history must be important.

I am tempted to say the figure is my temptress, but I did just boardgamig for so many years (and still do), perhaps that is not true either.

I am tempted to say that the rules are not such a biggie for me and that I like things  fairly simple, then why do I have ASL and Lock 'n Load and Panzer type rules for my first love - tactical and why do I have multiple sets for other periods and why do I have four significant  rulesets for ancients when I don't have ancient armies (yet!)

I am tempted to say I quite like writing my own rules, but I don't. I just do that as a consequence of using hexes. I much prefer the nice productions with all the work done for me. I don't really play Black Powder much, so why do I have the rules and so many of the supplements?

I've decided I am not going to answere the question ... it is too difficult :-)

[Leman]

Dead easy for me these days. If the rules are naf the corresponding figures either don't get bought or get sold off. I witnessed another example of this in the club today. Went down for a Square Bashing game  - great fun, easy to use rules and all over in 2 1/2 hours. On a neighbouring table was a beautiful Hellenistic game using very well painted 15mm armies. The pike blocks looked superb. BUT that's the second week that game has been left up. Knowing the sessions most of the evening/Sunday afternoon players keep it is my estimation that so far that game has been running for about 8 hours. The QRS (sic) was on the table - 10 sides of A4. I took a quick glance. One table was a test to see whether a unit had panicked. Next to that another table to test whether a unit had not panicked. Surely if they pass the first test the second is superfluous. It is this style of rules that puts me right off a game, and quite possibly then colours my view of an entire period, eg. I didn't play ancients for about 15 years until my interest was reawakened by Impetus.

[mollinary]

Dead easy for me these days. If the rules are naf the corresponding figures either don't get bought or get sold off. I witnessed another example of this in the club today. Went down for a Square Bashing game  - great fun, easy to use rules and all over in 2 1/2 hours. On a neighbouring table was a beautiful Hellenistic game using very well painted 15mm armies. The pike blocks looked superb. BUT that's the second week that game has been left up. Knowing the sessions most of the evening/Sunday afternoon players keep it is my estimation that so far that game has been running for about 8 hours. The QRS (sic) was on the table - 10 sides of A4. I took a quick glance. One table was a test to see whether a unit had panicked. Next to that another table to test whether a unit had not panicked. Surely if they pass the first test the second is superfluous. It is this style of rules that puts me right off a game, and quite possibly then colours my view of an entire period, eg. I didn't play ancients for about 15 years until my interest was reawakened by Impetus.

I recognise these symptoms. I had a 20+ year hiatus with Ancients between WRG 7.596 and its Extra Heavy Light Infantry with Rhompheiai and Bow, and rediscovering fun with Command and Colors Ancients and then To the Strongest!

[Nick the Lemming]

Dead easy for me these days. If the rules are naf the corresponding figures either don't get bought or get sold off. I witnessed another example of this in the club today. Went down for a Square Bashing game  - great fun, easy to use rules and all over in 2 1/2 hours. On a neighbouring table was a beautiful Hellenistic game using very well painted 15mm armies. The pike blocks looked superb. BUT that's the second week that game has been left up. Knowing the sessions most of the evening/Sunday afternoon players keep it is my estimation that so far that game has been running for about 8 hours. The QRS (sic) was on the table - 10 sides of A4. I took a quick glance. One table was a test to see whether a unit had panicked. Next to that another table to test whether a unit had not panicked. Surely if they pass the first test the second is superfluous. It is this style of rules that puts me right off a game, and quite possibly then colours my view of an entire period, eg. I didn't play ancients for about 15 years until my interest was reawakened by Impetus.

I don't suppose you noted the name of the rules did you? You can PM me if you don't want to name and shame openly.

[Leman]

TBH I didn't clock the name, but they did look as though a Phd in Dry as Dust was a requirement to play use them was necessary.

[steve_holmes_11]

This is one reason I play Saga and Dux Bellorum - Saga is a fun quick game of thirty lads out on the rap having a scrap with a similar sized gang. Dux Bellorum has armies of at least a few hundred men so the shield wall becomes a meaningful formation.

It's a good point, my oldskool wargamer vision struggles to see 30 models as 30 individuals, imposing a traditional ratio and interpreting it as a 20 ship raiding force.

I do love Dux Bellorum, hits my sweet spot for force size and "attitude".

[steve_holmes_11]

Hi Steve, I suggest that's a problem of scenario design rather than rules per se. Take the Franco-Prussian War, for instance, which many wargamers seem to steer clear of because they perceive it as one-way traffic with the French being kicked all the way to Paris and beyond. While that's sort of true, the individual historical battles can be made hugely interesting and entertaining games if the victory conditions are calibrated appropriately. Some of our group (me included) particularly relish the challenge of commanding truly terrible armies and trying to do better than they did historically.

That's the design philosophy that informs all our historical scenarios for "Bloody Big BATTLES!" - basically, take the historical result as the "par score", and players may still lose the battle but win the game if they lose it less badly than what actually happened - and I think it's a good one.

Chris

Bloody Big BATTLES!
https://uk.groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/BBB_wargames/info
http://bloodybigbattles.blogspot.com/

Ta Chris.

I avoid a lit of the "Hyphenated wars" for a different reason.
There are only 2 teams involved, and I prefer a bit more diversity.

[Chris Pringle]

I avoid a lit of the "Hyphenated wars" for a different reason.
There are only 2 teams involved, and I prefer a bit more diversity.

Hmm, well, that's not strictly true for most of them. And any given army can usually choose from several historical opponents, albeit in different conflicts. Eg Prussians fight Danes, Austrians, Bavarians, Saxons, Hanoverians, French (Imperial and Republican). Austrians fight French, Italians, Danes, Prussians. French fight Russians, Austrians, Prussians, Bavarians, Italians. Turks fight Serbs, Russians, Rumanians, Greeks. Etc etc.

Each to his own, though. Which are the more diverse conflicts that light your candle?

Chris