There have been a few threads recently about influences and motivations that started people's interest in wargaming, so I thought I would stick my oar in this particular pond. The overwhelming influence for me was a love of history. For the first fifteen years or so history drove me to collect ACW figures and then 15mm Ancients. I simply made do with whatever rules were available, even when some of them were quite tedious. This never stopped me painting or collecting. Over the last thirty years or so my motivation to play a particular period has changed. It roughly goes as follows:
History - pretty much has motivated all my wargaming, so the real dichotomy for me is figures and rules.
Figures - ACW owing to the plentiful supply of Airfix when I started in the 60s
FPW - I was drawn too the colour of this period and started with Peter Laing figures (15mm), then heroics and Ros 6mm, then Wargames
south and Pendraken 10mm, then Freikorps 15
Italian Wars - Mike's Models 15mm got me into this. I have also been drawn to a lot of the 28mm manufacturers for this period,
particularly the Assault Group and Steel Fist
Rules:
This has been my main motivation for developing my wargaming probably since the late 80s.
They Died for Glory, 1870 and Bloody Big Battles all reinvigorated my interest in the FPW and caused me to switch back to Pendraken and 10mm.
Neil Thomas' C19th rules encouraged me to try out the FAW, APW, First Schleswig War and Crimea.
Altar of Freedom, BBB, Longstreet and Field of Battle 2 all got me back into the ACW.
To the Strongest and Age of Hannibal have encouraged me to look at the Ancient period again.
Dux Bellorum dragged me into the Post- Roman era in Britain.
For King and Parliament has reawakened my long dormant interest in the ECW.
Square Bashing and 1914 fired me up for WWI [this is a particularly rules driven period for me as it was a period I had previously always avoided].
Minden Rose, Black Powder and finally Honours of War got me hooked on the SYW
Et Sans Résultat has actually caused me to start collecting Napoleonics, despite the fact that there have been hundreds of excellent figures available for decades.
Impetus, and more recently Impetus 2, also caused me to develop my Ancient and early Renaissance gaming.
Clearly what keeps me wargaming these days is rules that have been well thought out to produce a straightforward yet exciting game in a reasonable amount of time (2 to 4 hours) in a feasible space.
History, first and last. Available figures have of course restricted this too often. Rules - always time to write or improve a set (possible exception being wild west; never did get them right). Rules have therefore never pulled my chariot.
History, figures, rule sets, books (fiction and non-fiction), feature films, documentaries, board games, the passions of fellow gamers ... so many things trigger a new period for me.
History first - usually.
Unless Pendraken produce a new range. Then figures. Having said that, the period needs to float my boat before the figures are anything of a hook. For example, the Indian Mutiny range look very pretty but I am immune to Colonial - and Aztecs. I will never buy Aztecs. Oh, and the American Rebellion won't happen on my table, but Pendraken release the badgers and I've got a WWI East African campaign on my hands.
History first then. What seems to happen is that something piques my interest - this could be a book, film, or even an odd snippet. It was hearing about Hearst and Pulitzer whipping up public outrage that got me interested in the Spanish-American War.
Rules - never. I'd much rather write my own.
I do not have the particular skill, interest or time to write a set of rules - there are many more out there much more skilled than I in this area. As a consequence well-written rules are vital to my wargaming, otherwise I would just become a diorama builder. I do believe that in the last twenty years especially, rules writers are giving much more thought to producing clear and, very importantly, enjoyable rules that no longer require a First Class Honours Degree in Maths and Law to play them.
It varies a lot for me. I have a PhD in medieval history, so of course the history element is important for me, and means I tend to do quite a bit of research into a period that I'm gaming, and some periods I've always been interested in anyway (Ancients, ECW, Napoleonics). For others, it's hard to say what compelled me though. Reading up on certain conflicts has led me to want to play them (Austria 1809, SCW, RCW, Mahdist revolt, and others), while rules have been the impetus in other cases (BBB for Crimea, FPW, APW, etc, Age of Hannibal for Punic Wars (though I was already interested, those rules have made me want to do a campaign), Bluecher, Maurice for SYW / Imagi-nations and others), while figures have caused me to look at others, most recently Pendraken's LoA range.
History first to see if I find the period interesting enough to game.
Rules second to see if the period is represented and the game scale
Finally figures if available in scale I can afford.
Succinctly put! :-bd .... unlike the following ramble ....
Primarily military history was (and still is) my motivation with actual wargaming, painting & collecting being secondary.
Regarding figures, I do love 28mm. Some great figures are out there, painted by wonderful artists and a favourite of most rule writers and at many war-games clubs. But I judged it to be too expensive and space consuming (I hadn't converted the garage to a a dining room when I re-started collecting) plus I also had grave doubts about my painting skills and production speed.
So, although the mass effect you get is great in the smaller scales, space, finances, time and my poor painting skills are what motivated me to collect 10 and 15mm.
Nowadays, I'm motivated by rules that are relatively easy to pick up, are reasonably fast to play and can give a reasonable level of period feel.
After Featherstone's ACW rules, I did what many of us did and embarked on that elusive quest to find the perfect set of rules. Rules had to be period specific and the more sophisticated and detailed, the more impressed I was. Some of these were pretty good but most were slow and clunky.
However, by the time I found a regular opponent, my attitude changed. With limited leisure time, I didn't have time to read detailed and period specific rules. I just wanted the chance to get the toys quickly on the table and have easily memorised rules to play with, with as little stress and fuss as possible. So, it was then that I started to warm to 'wider era' and faster play rules like Field of Battle and Black Powder. After all, "a man's a man for aw that"* regardless of the era he lived and fought in. Thankfully, the modern trend in rules tends to be for simpler, more elegant and innovative mechanisms and faster to play.
* Robert Burns.
Quote from: fsn on 09 November 2018, 11:18:56 AM
Rules - never. I'd much rather write my own.
Do you incorporate ideas from other rules?
Military history first and foremost. Then add in a nice figure range, such as the 1st Schleswig-Holstein War range, and I'm away :). Finally the icing on the cake could be a new ruleset, such as Bloody Big Battles, that just ticks all the boxes for me. So all of the aforementioned then kick off an interest in European conflicts circa 1848 - 1870.
Quote from: Westmarcher on 09 November 2018, 02:53:40 PM
Do you incorporate ideas from other rules?
I do buy other rule sets to read, and may have added a few ideas into my own.
I'm still developing a set of air war rules. I've read a couple of other sets, but my set isn't quite right yet. It's probably because I'm trying to set it at the flight rather than individual aircraft level.
History, every time; reading a book(s), watching a film, documentary, docudrama or the work of others all do it for me. Usually one of them will spark my interest enough to make me think 'I haven't done that period/sub-period yet, I'll give it a go.) Then I will look around for figures and then either find a set of rules to fit my criteria or write my own. That saying, I have any number of sets of rules going back to 1973 so I can always bring them out of retirement and maybe tweak them a little.
For me the motivation is history with figures and rules being limitations or enablers
One of the other challenges our group faces is the number of periods and rule sets we use. We currently use 15 different rule sets / period combinations and this leads to two different challenges.
Remembering the rules
Getting round to playing all the different periods, so far this year we haven't played any naval games :o (We did do the Solomons campaign last year so played a lot of WWII naval plus some pre-Dreadnought naval as well)
So for us it takes a major impetus to introduce a new set of rules the two 'recent' examples are:
- WWI - If the Lord Spares Us - the centenary of WWI and the manoeuvre of 1914 and Palestine
- English Civil War - For King and Parliament - long held interest in the period, a major period of warfare not covered at all, a great set of rules that captures the period and gives a great game
For me (as no doubt for many of you too) the sequence reversed over time.
As a boy, figures came first (playing with toy soldiers); a friend introduced me to the idea of wargame rules using dice rather than marbles; and from there I got into reading the history behind the figures.
Then in later years, after reading a lot more history (and tried a lot of rules), I wanted to fight the historical battles; dissatisfaction with existing rules led me to write my own; and then of course I had to acquire the armies of figures to use with them to recreate the history.
I do occasionally play an ahistorical game - either a generic scenario rather than a historical one, or something non-historical like zombies - but however fun the game it always feels vaguely unsatisfying, like fast food instead of a proper meal. For me history comes first.
But of course we want it to be fun! I don't want to lecture my players. If they want that, they can read a book. Rules and figures are there to make it fun, and the games are to educate by entertaining: "learning by doing".
Chris
Bloody Big BATTLES!
https://uk.groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/BBB_wargames/info
bloodybigbattles.blogspot.com/
I guess growing up a military brat I have always been interested in military history and that would have ot be the base inspiration. But the thing that gets me the most is unique and colorful uniforms that I can translate into painted figures. When I decide to start an army, I always see them in my mind of how I think they should look, and after that I start pursuing just the right figures! I feel I have a nice library, not huge but some really good references, and I'd say easily 50% is books on uniforms.
Rules have never been a big attraction to me, which I guess my being quite satisfied with HOTT and DBN proves it.
Terry
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!
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.
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,
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.
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.
Quote from: steve_holmes_11 on 12 November 2018, 08:23:20 AM
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/
Quote from: Chris Pringle on 12 November 2018, 10:23:18 AM
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! ;D
Quote from: Chris Pringle on 12 November 2018, 10:23:18 AM
- 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). :-bd
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 :-)
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.
Quote from: Leman on 12 November 2018, 10:00:22 PM
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!
Quote from: Leman on 12 November 2018, 10:00:22 PM
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. ;)
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.
Quote from: Leman on 12 November 2018, 09:07:06 AM
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".
Quote from: Chris Pringle on 12 November 2018, 10:23:18 AM
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.
Quote from: steve_holmes_11 on 13 November 2018, 05:20:31 PM
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
Depends how far we go back really...
As a kid, it was figures first, but that got me interested in history, an interest that outlasted my love for the toys. Recently, after 35 years of history books, I've rediscovered the toys. Rules are interesting, but always frustratingly flawed versions of history.
So: history, figures, rules, in that order!
Oddly for me the first interest is the Technology involved in the period and how this influences the conflicts.
Particular interest is in periods of transition between dominant technologies and how this shapes the associated conflicts.
Love a nice figure but scale has to be suitable for the scale of game and conflict and hence quiet transition to 10mm for many areas [not sure what to do with my 20mm WW2 massed armor!]
BBB has inspired the group I play with to look more at 19 Century and we will be looking in at the Warfare game on Sunday [Just did and ACW test with BBB and loved it!]
Kelvin
Quote from: kabrank on 14 November 2018, 08:40:36 AM
BBB has inspired the group I play with to look more at 19 Century and we will be looking in at the Warfare game on Sunday [Just did and ACW test with BBB and loved it!]
Kelvin
Happy to hear that, Kelvin - looking forward to meeting you at Antietam aka Warfare in Reading on Sunday!
Chris
Bloody Big BATTLES!
https://uk.groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/BBB_wargames/info
http://bloodybigbattles.blogspot.com/
Hi Chris
Will look forward to meeting you and several of my players will be along as well I suspect.
I would appreciate a little chat on using BBB for smaller actions as we try to stick to a minimum number of Rule sets and there is some interest in multi using ACW figures for Pacific war etc.
Also looking at possibly some WW1 desert.
Kelvin
Quote from: kabrank on 14 November 2018, 11:37:32 AM
Will look forward to meeting you and several of my players will be along as well I suspect.
I would appreciate a little chat on using BBB for smaller actions as we try to stick to a minimum number of Rule sets and there is some interest in multi using ACW figures for Pacific war etc.
Also looking at possibly some WW1 desert.
That will be great. Have you joined the BBB Yahoo group? You will find a ton of scenarios for all manner of different conflicts in the group files. For War of the Pacific there is a small scenario for Tacna, and a bigger one for the twin battles of Chorrillos & Miraflores - complete with naval gunfire support, minefields, machineguns, railway guns, and other colourful stuff.
Chris
Hi Chris
Not rejoined Yahoo since Oath took over as I use a work PC and they seam to want cookies etc.
For me at least it was Airfix soldiers (21 pence per packet) which got me interested in the Second World War
Take care
Andy
I was a kid in the 1960,s and my favourite toys were my wooden castle with Britians and Timpo 1/32 scale figures, and of course my Action Men ;DI was introduced to wargaming at senior school back in 1973, Airfix figures being the cheapest way to feed my addiction, mainly WW2 and Napoleonics. Nowadays it is my love of history first, figures second and rules a close third,
I have to admit to being mystified that some will play a game with any old rubbish rules just because they like the figures. All that painting, and for what?
Quote from: Leman on 16 November 2018, 07:42:48 AM
I have to admit to being mystified that some will play a game with any old rubbish rules just because they like the figures. All that painting, and for what?
If people haven't read up on the history, too often they may not realise how bad some rules are.
Quote from: Leman on 16 November 2018, 07:42:48 AM
I have to admit to being mystified that some will play a game with any old rubbish rules just because they like the figures. All that painting, and for what?
Actually I have seen enough people sitting around happily enjoying themselves at monster games where nothing really happens for hours to believe that there are plenty of folks for whom the spectacle, the company, and the occasion are enough, and are more important than the gameplay. "There was like 17 of us playing for 17 hours on a 17' table, it was totally awesome, man!" (A pretty much verbatim quote from a guy I had a drink with at Fall In one year.) I'm not one of them, but it doesn't make them wrong.
Chris
For me wargaming isn't, at heart, about historically accurate rules allowing beautifully and accurately painted figures to move correctly across superbly sculpted landscapes. It's about the people (players and onlookers) around the table.
In my limited experience, megagames are often more about the spectacle and experience than the rules, figures or outcomes.
Agreed but
Quote from: Ithoriel on 16 November 2018, 11:46:13 AM
... historically accurate rules allowing beautifully and accurately painted figures to move correctly across superbly sculpted landscapes...
is a great bonus ;)
It much depends on what is meant by historically accurate. Masses of historically accurate detail does not necessarily make for a practical or enjoyable game. For a pleasant evening sitting around a table on which little is happening I would recommend the pub.
Sitting round a wargames table is better for the liver, the bank balance and ambient sound levels.
And total boredom when the rules are glacial and your companions are of the OCD brigade - sigh!
Quote from: Leman on 17 November 2018, 10:33:42 AM
And total boredom when the rules are glacial and your companions are of the OCD brigade - sigh!
Hear him!
Why would you game with people like that?
Can't say I've come across glacial rules ... just indecisive players who take forever to decide what to do. Even Analysis Paralysis isn't fatal to the game if the rest are happy to chat while they make up their minds.
My brother can take ages over moves, I just throw wine gums at him!