Myself, I have very little interest in fantasy, but no real complaints about Jedi and goblin wannabes. I pray to Mars for their conversion, but that's another issue. There is, however, one thing which seems to me to be a wanton stagnation of the gin-clear waters of the chalk-stream that is wargaming: the "imagi-nations" game.
There are doubtless large double-shotted guns being aimed at me already, so let me give my reasons, if only so the gunners have targets:
i) The invented histories of these states of CharlesGrantia are without fail less amazing than the real ones that in our age are so easy to read up on. Why do people bother? Rupert of Henzau is Coronation Street next to the Pragmatic Sanction or the Wars of the Roses. Endless "Magnificent Samurai" skirmishes are downright tedious beside Operation Woodpecker. Is it just about being too lazy to look up the real thing? Prejudice that assumes that anything dressed in coats and wigs/tights and codpieces/tunics and turbans/Hollywood sandals is automatically stuffy and boring?
ii) There's often no way of checking if the rules one is using mean anything. In wargames based in reality, if skirmishers in good going regularly face and beat good charging cavalry, there are chapter and verse instances making it clear that rewrites are called for.
iii) These games often parasitise on real figure ranges by concentrating on the exceptional, so there are armies where every footsoldier is a grenadier, every horseman a cuirassier, and even the emergency levies are fanatics.
OK, throw your glove down, whoever wishes.
I have an Imagi-Nations setting planned which should start to bear fruit soon. Why? Well really a chance for me to use a mix of figures I like and to give greater scope (IMHO) to my games than a historical setting could. Others are more than welcome to disagree with my approach.
As for your points ii & iii, mine will certainly not be going down that route I can assure you!
It's not something I do myself - there's so much rich history out there. However, I am involved in a friend's mid-C19th imagi-nations campaign and he, at least, has the background knowledge to field many rubbish troops in these armies. His version of Prussians are nowhere near as efficient as their historical counterparts.
Why Imagi-Nation?
Firstly they do, as Friend J states, allows one to mix units that otherwise would not be able to fight.
My 1920's in the Desert allows me to pit hard-bitten French Foreign Legion against doughty topee wearing English yeoman whilst circling are the patient Bedouin. Did it ever happen? Nah. But I grew up reading Beau Geste and stories of the Empire between the wars. Those grainy photos and the stirring tales from the Victor comic have been an undercurrent, a low thrummed theme which resonates even now. It no worse than AVBCW or those Far Easten adventures. In some ways it in cinematic. In fact, I can imagine my FFL being led by Basil Rathbone with a sneering German accent, my Brits by John Guilguid suppoirted by plucky Richard Attenborough, whilst that renowned Arab, Laurence Olivier plots in his tent. At one point I did consider painting all these figures in greys to get that cinematic effect but a) I'd need to do all the scenary too and b) I ain't that good. I've also got the same place being battled over in 1960.
My third Imagination in from 1705. Two small states bickering a snapping at each other. Why? Well, I like the warfare of the early C18, but I don't love it. The wars of Marlborough's day seem to have a lot of coalitions and principalities and dragoons in bedsheets and whatever. It's too much. I'm not prepared to invest in the large number of figures that the WSS deserves. I'd much rather devote my time to Napoleon, but I can have as much fun with a couple of little armies. There is the element of containment. I can't adequately mimic Blenheim, but I can model both the North Pendrakenland and South Pendrakenland forces perfectly well. (OK, that bit probably lack a little iamgination.)
I have drawn a map for these two. They sit somewhere in the North Sea on an island somewhat like a cold water Hispaniola. They are influenced by the Swedes and the French and are wealthy because of their strategic position, herring and a thriving market in C18 aphrodisiacs. I have designed uniforms, flags and street plans. I've created histories woven in to the history of the time, and I created armies that are balanced but different. You know what? Using that amount of imagination is fun.
I suspect some peple may also use imaginations as a defence against the nit-picker. "On that Tuesday the standard bearer for the 3rd Grenadier Zu Pferde de Lorraine was left handed and yours is right handed so your entire army is invalid." It's one of the reasons I stopped going to games clubs. They banned me because I kept pointing out the innacuracies in others' forces.
Yes, I value true historical gaming. I can tell you the facing colours of most of the infantry regiments of the British army in 1812. I can describe the evolution of German tanks from the Pz I to the King Tiger. I can even describe the composition and method of fighting of a Republican Roman legion, and the effect of the reforms of Marius.
Sometimes though, it's good to set oneself free of the shackles. People are attracted to SF and fantasy because there isn't a right or wrong - whatever Games Workshop may say. If you want to paint wood elves in pink and yellow, then in your world, wood elves wear pink and yellow* and no-one can tell you otherwise. If you want to have set yourself up a contained campaign using some made up forces, that is Jake with me.
After all. It's meant to be fun, isn't it?
*To be fair, it's more a pale russet and a sort of orangey yellow that the deciduous wood elves wear in Autumn (Fall to the US subscribers.) Their numbers have been much depleted by their habit of going naked in recent very cold winters. They are much laughed at by the Coniferous Wood Elves.
FSN
+1 :)
While I haven't joined in the Imagi-Nations idea, my reason would be that I just don't care about the history...
For instance, I love the rules and flow of play of Sharp Practice, but I have virtually zero interest in the Napoleonic period... I don't care if they're Austrians or Venusians. But having a bit of back story makes a campaign easier to organise.
No interest in history - Christ! :o
Quote from: Leman on 31 October 2016, 10:47:15 AM
No interest in history - Christ! :o
Well, He's omniscient, so history is probably rather dull for him (and He got into trouble when he did try it).
I forgot about this one. I once tried a Maurice imagi-nations campaign, set in the period of the SYW. I came up with a jolly little state called the Grand Margravate of Leftitz. the troops were pretty ho-hum, but dedicated to their Grand Margrave. I asked my opponent what he was going to call his nation. "Prussia" he replied. Two games later the campaign ended. :'(
Quote from: Leman on 31 October 2016, 10:47:15 AM
No interest in history - Christ! :o
:o indeed!
Anyhoo. I largely agree with FK (but not so sure about the Mars issue). I have absolutely no interest in the histories of fictitious nations often featured in various imagi-nations blogs. Real history's hard enough without adding fictitious 'histories' (I've started reading Antonia Fraser's
Cromwell and at page 6 I was already thinking of 'skipping ahead'). And it is just as interesting, if not more so, because it actually happened (e.g., the real story of William Wallace and Robert The Bruce vs.
Braveheart being a case in point). I also have enough bothers painting up real historical armies without adding fictitious ones!
However, as an 'outsider' I can see some of the attractions set out by exponents like Nobby. It also seems to me that even imagi-nations have certain reality based conventions which I could find attractive i.e., they follow the costume and level of technology, and to a certain extent the political and social conditions, of an actual historical era. So I could see myself getting involved in such nonsense as conflict within or between pseudo 19th Century
Prisoner of Zenda / The Great Race nations, 17th or 18th Century fairy tale principalities (inspired by real Holy Roman Empire type states, of course) or small Dark Age kingdoms 'long forgotten about' in a post Roman Britain. And lets face it, of all the battles we 'real history' players fight, how many are actually historical re-fights? Imagi-nations therefore appears to me to be just another step further in our inventiveness for getting the wee men on the table and having fun. Its maybe just not my kind of fun. :)
;D (Prussians vs goblins)
Quote from: Leman on 31 October 2016, 10:53:49 AM
I forgot about this one. I once tried a Maurice imagi-nations campaign, set in the period of the SYW. I came up with a jolly little state called the Grand Margravate of Leftitz. the troops were pretty ho-hum, but dedicated to their Grand Margrave. I asked my opponent what he was going to call his nation. "Prussia" he replied. Two games later the campaign ended. :'(
;D ;D
Does it really matter as long as you enjoy the game ( game being the operative word)?
Even Pendraken produce items for imagination games. What is a KV-5 other than imaginary tank that never left the drawing board, was cancelled 4 years before the end of the war and never saw action?
I would go so far as to suggest that the mass of rules on Napoleonic wargaming and other periods, all supposedly offering the idea of something different (or more realistic!?), border on such games becoming imagination games.
Wargaming is just that, a game! Enjoy whatever YOU want to do in whatever way YOU want to do it. It will not be to everyone's taste but who gives a damn.
Quote from: Leman on 31 October 2016, 10:47:15 AM
No interest in history - Christ! :o
No interest in
those nations. I care about 20th Century & more recent, I care about ancients, but the middle bit... meh. =)
Re. West marcher's comment on post-Roman Britain. That is sort of imagination anyway as we know so little about it. I would even suggest that 'real imagi-nation' in this period is probably more like fantasy - Merlin really is a magician/wizard, there really were giants, wee people, dragons et al. Still not my cup of tea (yet). Saxon/Pictish/Irish hordes flowing across the cultivated lands of the Britons is monstrous enough at the moment.
Quote from: Wulf on 31 October 2016, 11:25:49 AM
No interest in those nations. I care about 20th Century & more recent, I care about ancients, but the middle bit... meh. =)
And yet it's the middle bit that laid the foundations of the world (mess) we live in today.
Quote from: Leman on 31 October 2016, 11:32:25 AM
And yet it's the middle bit that laid the foundations of the world (mess) we live in today.
That's part of the reason. It's not that I don't
know about the history, I just don't
care, because virtually everything that happened got changed again & again... I
I'm in FK's camp on this one, and I have myself occasionally wondered, "Imagi-nations - why bother?"
BUT:
The replies on this thread have given some very good reasons that I hadn't thought of.
That's probably because they aren't especially powerful reasons for me personally, and I'm still not likely to go anywhere near an Imagi-nations game any time soon, not if I could spend my time doing something historical instead. But it's nice to have these insights into the genre's appeal.
Thank you, then, to FK for asking the question, and to all those who have provided answers.
Chris
Quote from: Wulf on 31 October 2016, 11:39:17 AM
That's part of the reason. It's not that I don't know about the history, I just don't care, because virtually everything that happened got changed again & again... I
Given that I spent my career teaching history and it's relevance to the present day, it's the 'don't care' attitude of the moody teenager at the back of the class I find hard to take. Thank goodness I didn't come across too many of them, but I never expected to find one on a wargames site.
Quote from: Leman on 31 October 2016, 12:46:28 PM
Given that I spent my career teaching history and its relevance to the present day, it's the 'don't care' attitude of the moody teenager at the back of the class I find hard to take. Thank goodness I didn't come across too many of them, but I never expected to find one on a wargames site.
Would that it surprised me. :(
:( :( :(
Yes, we all have our pecadillos (Code PEC1, £4.95 for 30).
I eschew fantasy wargaming, but was quite a big T&T fan in my youf. I have more time for SF.
Most Asian conflicts leave me unmoved. I can see the appeal of the AWI, particularly to our friends on the other side of the water, but to me it's a grubby looking affair. I can even see the appeal in ultra-modern gaming, though for me it's a tad too close for comfort.
What I can't see the point in is things like Flintloque where you have musketry armed trolls and orcish riflemen. >:( >:( >:(
But as I say. It's what gives you pleasure.
"There's a time for everything young man
And a way it should be done
You've got to show concern for everyone else
For you're not the only one" - "Flowers Are Red" Harry Chapin
As far as I'm concerned if you're not replaying historical battles over historical terrain with figures in exactly correct uniforms and getting an exactly historical result you're all playing "imagi-nations" to a greater or lesser extent.
And as far as I'm concerned if you ARE replaying historical battles over historical terrain with figures in exactly correct uniforms and getting an exactly historical result ... what on earth are you doing! Go outside, breathe the air, enjoy the sunshine, talk to people ... sheesh! :)
Quote from: Leman on 31 October 2016, 12:46:28 PM
Given that I spent my career teaching history and it's relevance to the present day, it's the 'don't care' attitude of the moody teenager at the back of the class I find hard to take. Thank goodness I didn't come across too many of them, but I never expected to find one on a wargames site.
Life is too short to care about every facet of military history (let alone history
in toto ). Sumer and Elam? Oh! Wow! Gosh! tell me more! The war of 1866? Who, what, where now? Meh, whatever! :)
Ah, T and T! Memories of staying up all night trying to get a heroine to survive through all ten consecutive fights in the arena, and then being frustrated because when one did she was too tough to be used in other adventures!
Quote from: Ithoriel on 31 October 2016, 12:50:32 PM
As far as I'm concerned if you're not replaying historical battles over historical terrain with figures in exactly correct uniforms and getting an exactly historical result you're all playing "imagi-nations" to a greater or lesser extent.
As soon as you roll dice it ceases to be historical.
Quote from: Ithoriel on 31 October 2016, 12:55:14 PM
Life is too short to care about every facet of military history (let alone history in toto ). Sumer and Elam? Oh! Wow! Gosh! tell me more! The war of 1866? Who, what, where now? Meh, whatever! :)
Exactly :D
Maybe I need to start a new thread: restating the bleedin' obvious.
Quote from: Ithoriel on 31 October 2016, 12:50:32 PM
As far as I'm concerned if you're not replaying historical battles over historical terrain with figures in exactly correct uniforms and getting an exactly historical result you're all playing "imagi-nations" to a greater or lesser extent.
Quote from: Wulf on 31 October 2016, 01:05:46 PM
As soon as you roll dice it ceases to be historical.
Oh, please, not that old "it's all fantasy really" chestnut ... I'll respectfully disagree and leave it at that.
Is it real life?
Or is it just fantasy?
Caught in a landslide...
Got to say I'm not interested in the imagi nations blogs where people indulge themselves writing endless pseudo histories, but nobody is forcing me to read them so I don't have to.
Quote from: fsn on 31 October 2016, 12:49:56 PM
Yes, we all have our pecadillos (Code PEC1, £4.95 for 30).
I eschew fantasy wargaming, but was quite a big T&T fan in my youf. I have more time for SF.
Most Asian conflicts leave me unmoved. I can see the appeal of the AWI, particularly to our friends on the other side of the water, but to me it's a grubby looking affair. I can even see the appeal in ultra-modern gaming, though for me it's a tad too close for comfort.
What I can't see the point in is things like Flintloque where you have musketry armed trolls and orcish riflemen. >:( >:( >:(
But as I say. It's what gives you pleasure.
While I really like my Flintloque toys and fact I can be a bit more creative with them than possibly with straight Napoleonics, and I also play regular fantasy and SF.
Have decided to give up wargaming. Much prefer watching Sci-fi and fantasy. I have now taken up historical miniatures gaming, and only with people living south of Berwick, apart from Ian , of course. :d :d :d :d :d
I find this whole thread strangely depressing.
Martyn
--
It's interesting seeing some quite different viewpoints so far. I've always preferred reading Fantasy to researching history, and a resulting fondness for our fantasy ranges rather than the historical ones. So I've also enjoyed seeing people's Imagi-Nation games as well.
While I find real history interesting as well, when you get into the finer detail I do tend to glaze over somewhat. I'm OK at looking through online sources and checking up on things we need for ranges, but I must admit I've not read a book cover-to-cover for about 5 years now, mainly due to a lack of time. I think these days the thought of sitting and reading through the 'History of the Grenadier' or something similar would feel too much like work...!
One last point, the most popular show on TV at the moment is basically a medieval Europe imagi-nation with some dragons thrown in... :D
Quote from: mad lemmey on 31 October 2016, 01:23:45 PM
Is it real life?
Or is it just fantasy?
Caught in a landslide...
Mama, I just killed a man.... :d
We all use imagination to a greater or lesser extent. Those of us who play historical games know we are kidding ourselves really. We model our forces as closely as possible on the perceived real thing within the bubble of one or more sets of reality provided by the rules we intend to use. But unless we only fight historical battles and make the same historical moves to achieve the same historical outcome, what we are playing is a form of fantasy game.
However I much prefer this as game outcomes can be measured for accuracy against historical outcomes so you can set yourself or opponents similar problems to those of the generals of the day. A classic but wargameable battle is Quatre Bras 1815. If you leave the average gamer to set up the Dutch Belgiums they will be defeated before any reinforcements arrive where as if you follow the actual deployment used in 1815 it becomes much closer.
When you use your laser blaster against a shielded spaceship the outcome is decided by a spotty geek who wrote the rules and seems to suffer in that who knows or cares whether it is right or not.
Personally I dont read fiction anymore although I will watch films. I found reading military history to include events that would be unbelievable in fiction. Can anyone not marvel at the brilliance of Hannibal during the second Punic War. Read Polybius, if you put the battle of Cannae into a novel people would say ridiculous. Marvel at Marlborough's march to the Danube, how he conned a continent to bring on his decisive battle. Or how he conned the French into filling in their own intrenchments so he could penetrate the Ne Plus Ultra lines. You wont find General Horrocks in any Holywood film telling the commander of the American 34th div in Tunisia, who was complaining his men couldnt take the hill and were being murdered, to forget it, he would take the hill with a battalion of the Coldstrean Guards, and they did it. And dont get me onto the Lucy spy ring, Collossus and all that British secret inteligence stuff, far too far fetched to be real.
I have found fact is stranger than fiction. I think this tends to make series such as Game of Thrones for instance seem so incredibally tedious and limp in comparison with something like the real wars between Sparta and Athens in Thucydides.
My two penneth :) :)
Rob
Quote from: Rob on 31 October 2016, 08:32:55 PM
When you use your laser blaster against a shielded spaceship the outcome is decided by a spotty geek who wrote the rules and seems to suffer in that who knows or cares whether it is right or not.
And this is different from an older gent deciding that Tigers hit on a 4, but Shermans need a 6 how, exactly?
Cheers, Martyn
--
Technically the Sudan campaign I am going to run is Imaginations. The Anglo Egyptian forces have to get from Suakim to Berber, then down the Nile to Khartoum. They didn't do it, I have given them A camel corps which as we know were up in't north and definitely not east. Another one our club is thinking of is Conquistadors... but we are thinking a two pronged attack the winner gets to the Aztec capital first... didn't happen but as it is made up then is it an imaginations game.
We have run many campaigns using the mighty empires tiles.. the biggest a whole two sets worth as our continent, quasi medieval forces in an imaginary world. We could have used maps of real places but as we had sets of the map tiles it made life easier..
It is down to each to their own, I love the idea of imaginations.. my mate writes role playing games and he developed a whole world in Hellfrost.....fantasy I know but very clever all the same.
I wish I had the imagination and patience to develop a whole army list from scratch, but to be honest it must be nice to paint up a Napoleonicesque force in whatever colour you fancy rather than worrying about the uniform pattern of August 1809 as differs from March 1810. I do however sit in awe at the people that do the research and represent said chappies on the table.
This is wierd as an ex re-enact or accuracy was important (we drew the line at double bits in the horses mouth and used Pelhams)
Apologies for the rambly reply... Sh*t day at work and being on the tablet, struggling to go back to reread the thread.
Quote from: Ithoriel on 31 October 2016, 12:50:32 PM
"There's a time for everything young man
And a way it should be done
You've got to show concern for everyone else
For you're not the only one" - "Flowers Are Red" Harry Chapin
As far as I'm concerned if you're not replaying historical battles over historical terrain with figures in exactly correct uniforms and getting an exactly historical result you're all playing "imagi-nations" to a greater or lesser extent.
And as far as I'm concerned if you ARE replaying historical battles over historical terrain with figures in exactly correct uniforms and getting an exactly historical result ... what on earth are you doing! Go outside, breathe the air, enjoy the sunshine, talk to people ... sheesh! :)
:D :D :D
Agree so much here
Cheers
Ian
Different types of game scratch different itches. I wrote a bit of an essay about this a while back:
http://bloodybigbattles.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/wargames-how-much-war-how-much-game.html
I'm not a history vs fantasy snob. I happily play fantasy RPGs, and I'm running a fantasy campaign. I just didn't really 'get' Imagi-nations, but now I think I do, thanks to the posts on this thread from Imagi-nations fans.
Chris
Who cares, do what you like, it's only a game! :P
Quote from: SV52 on 01 November 2016, 09:29:03 AM
Who cares, do what you like, it's only a game! :P
Absolutely not! It's my life, my religion, my soap box - it certainly is not 'just a game'
Football that's just a game and dull as dishwater. What I do is far, far more important, vital and interesting and well important than that tosh.
How dare you tell me not to care about my passion sirree - swords, dawn, your place! :P
I don't see what the problem is. I have been involved in demonstration games using the Arnhem scenario book for Rapid Fire rules and had great fun. On the other side of the coin we once did a Very German Civil War game loosely based on Operation Valkyre and yes I was Tom Cruise ;D ;D
If we all liked exactly the same stuff life would be so BORING :D :D :D
A lot of the talk here is not about imagi-Nations but of alternative histories and other 'what if' scenarios involving
real nations. As regards
imagined Nations (i.e., nations that do not exist except in someone's mind), I think my favourite is probably Pottsdorf - a late 19th Century / early 20th Century game with the forces of Crown Prince Hapnick on the one hand against the rebels led by Baron Rolfe von Stuppe and General Kuhster might be quite fun! :D
What's yours?
Pretty sure Kriegsspiel was imagi-nations
if it was good enough for Reisswitz it should be good enough for us
But I agree imagi-nations is a specific thing in wargame circles and usually generic 18th century-ish.
However, although a lot of other fantasy and SF stuff isn't necessarily imagi-nation just because it's not historical, some is. I can think of the Hyborian campaign and Tolkien's works at one end of the spectrum and Star Wars and GW Backgrounds at the other. They all have their own internal 'logic' and setting which defines them just as much as history does (only with less grey areas as the documentation and interpretation is defined and limited).
You need only raise the question of whether balrogs can fly to set the nerds arguing for hours.
I suspect we can be just as certain of the capabilities of balrogs as we are of those of many historical troop types. Providing neither the former nor the latter are unduly overpowered I can't say I care much, to be honest.
My point was related to the allegedly fewer grey areas.
Quote from: FierceKitty on 02 November 2016, 01:54:53 AM
You need only raise the question of whether balrogs can fly to set the nerds arguing for hours.
African or European Balrogs ?
IanS
Nice one Ian. 😄
Ni!
Quote from: FierceKitty on 02 November 2016, 07:19:55 AM
My point was related to the allegedly fewer grey areas.
Alledgedly?
you want historical grey areas?
What was a peltast and how did he form up and what weapons was he equipped with - what about an Iphicratean hoplite?
Thureophoroi what were they and what did they look like?
Chariots - what's with the 3rd horse - how does it contribute?
Chariot runners what were they and how much were they paid?
Cromwell 95mm was it worth the build time?
I said
fewer not none!
You could effortlessly fill ten pages with similar queries about fantasy issues. Some of them would even be real questions.
Personally I don't object to imagination based games as essentially all wargames involve the use of one's imagination and the suspension of disbelief (i.e. I can't believe I've just rolled cr*p dice AGAIN!!!).
I've never bothered to build a full imagination campaign, but can see the allure, anything based on history is, of necessity, constrained by the historical geography which can have unfortunate results. I tried running a Renaissance campaign a few years ago, the rules were fine, the historical setup was good, but the physical limitations of trying to play a campaign from Southern France and Southern Germany down into Sicily proved to be rather constricting for the players.
Players at the out edges could only go one way while those in the middle were beset by enemies. All very historical, all very real but terribly constraining on the players room for manouver. An imagination campaign could improve on the player experience by altering the geography to allow more flexibility.
Quote from: FierceKitty on 02 November 2016, 01:07:18 PM
You could effortlessly fill ten pages with similar queries about fantasy issues. Some of them would even be real questions.
So?
The author can give a definitive answer to any query, that very 'closed box' approach is why so many of the popular game systems are just that game systems with in built definitions, rules and parameters - no debating the finer points of history. It's in the 'codex' and that's that.
Of course they then have to update and change the 'codex' in order to generate more sales, <shrug> that's business.
But unlike historical interests a fantasy or SF background can be written and presented, whole and complete with no uncertainties. Naturally there are backgrounds never written in that way, but like Tolkien written as pseudo-history with open questions, now unanswerable without that same authority at the helm.
There is no period of history that can be presented with 100% certainty, all of it is arguable and questionable to an extent - that's one of its attractions, it's also one of the major things that turns many away.