Is there any period of history, war/conflict, or otherwise that you'd consider innapropriate for wargaming?
Why?
That's a good question, I'll be interested to see the replies for this.
None that I can think of...I can think of some that hold no interest whatsoever - but that's not because they're beyond the pale.
M'boto gorge? ;)
Elizabeth's Irish Wars?
Definitely beyond the pale...
Hi
For me ww1 western front no fun at all just misery and mud.
Jim
WW1 early or late makes for an interesting game. Mid-war is a bit boring at both the tactical and strategic levels.
Aahh...perhaps i should clarify a bit...
Is there any period of history, war/conflict, or otherwise that you'd consider MORALLY inappropriate for wargaming?
Would you, for example wargame the current conflict in Afghanistan? If not, would you wargame the Soviet intervention their in the 1980's? Why/why not?
Would you wargame 'black hawk down', or maybe the recent attack in Fallujah?
Would you wargame the clearing of the Warsaw Ghetto?
What about the IRA vs the British in the 1970's?
How about the recent breakup of Yugoslavia? The Bosnian war. Fair game?
It seems people are keen for Pendraken to make Falklands War figures for example, so presumably there's no problem doing that action. Why?
I currently game ultra-moderns: Iraq & the 'Stan now, plus Somalia [BHD] & current [SF v pirates] -these in skirmish using 28mm & Ambush Alley rules; ditto re Soviet-Afghan & Balkans - in 10/12mm using Cold War Commander (& nosher's *lovely* Balkans variant).
No problem, no moral dilemma for me - I'm *gaming* - and I've got plenty of contacts & friends who are currently serving in contemporary theatres - many of whom *also* game those conflicts: for example, I just sent a mate some 28s I'd painted for him to use on deployment in Helmand: the figures I sent him? Tier 1 Tali & some SBS...so he's gaming a conflict that he's actively involved in - in his down time while he's actually there fighting...get your head around that one!
Quote from: nikharwood on 12 March 2010, 11:20:55 PM
I just sent a mate some 28s I'd painted for him to use on deployment in Helmand: the figures I sent him? Tier 1 Tali & some SBS...so he's gaming a conflict that he's actively involved in - in his down time while he's actually there fighting...get your head around that one!
That must be a bit strange, but at the same time it's good that they are able to detach themselves and have a bit of downtime like that.
Yep - especially as he's not mainstream...mad fecker 8)
Quote from: Luddite on 12 March 2010, 11:08:05 PMAahh...perhaps i should clarify a bit...
Is there any period of history, war/conflict, or otherwise that you'd consider MORALLY inappropriate for wargaming?
No, because games are not immoral, but people are allowed to decide for themselves what they think is immoral, and if they feel a game is immoral, then who am I to doubt their feelings?
Quote from: Luddite on 12 March 2010, 11:08:05 PMWould you, for example wargame the current conflict in Afghanistan? If not, would you wargame the Soviet intervention their in the 1980's? Why/why not?
Yes I would games current conflicts, because they are interesting campaigns that make for repeatable games.
Quote from: Luddite on 12 March 2010, 11:08:05 PMWould you wargame 'black hawk down', or maybe the recent attack in Fallujah?
Planning and building forces for this at this time. Coming on slowly, but yes. I will be using AK47 Republic as the ruleset.
Quote from: Luddite on 12 March 2010, 11:08:05 PMWould you wargame the clearing of the Warsaw Ghetto?
For me this is the sort of war-game that is best played as an RPG within a campaign plan. I tend to take this type of historical conflict and play them out using Battletech, because it disguises the situation nicely, and makes for a rip-roaring game. There again I play "black wargames", have been involved in groups that promote such games, and wrote a black wargame scenario for a mainstream games magazine many years ago, that was a work camp game. So nothing you've mentioned so far is beyond the pale. However, I don't glorify war, or fetishise forces, which is the real reason for a lot of the anger and disgust around the NAZIs for instance IMNSHO. YMMV.
Quote from: Luddite on 12 March 2010, 11:08:05 PMWhat about the IRA vs the British in the 1970's?
Not enough action for repeatable play variation for me, but yes I have played in IRA games.
Quote from: Luddite on 12 March 2010, 11:08:05 PMHow about the recent breakup of Yugoslavia? The Bosnian war. Fair game?
Not an area of interest, but only because I can only cope with a set number of periods, which are WW1, SCW, Vietnam, Somalia, Afghanistan, oh and Battletech. :o
Quote from: Luddite on 12 March 2010, 11:08:05 PMIt seems people are keen for Pendraken to make Falklands War figures for example, so presumably there's no problem doing that action. Why?
My Uncle-in-Law was there, and I don't think he would have a problem with it. I'll have to ask him next time I see him, and get back later.
So to sum up where I come from. War is not the same as war-gaming. I can't remember a game I played for hours with boring stuff that ends in a few minutes of total adrenaline overload, not even the ones where I've been on training exercises with soldiers simulating a field exercise. And why would I spend hours of my life doing something that bores me? I have a job that can do most of that, and I get paid for the boredom, and when it get really exciting, as in oh my god someone might die kinda way, then I'm still getting paid for doing my job. Wargames OTOH are generally some enjoyable hours spent with a few mates playing a game, and I wouldn't have it any other way.
I'd say that if any theatre was morally wrong, then they all are. In every war there are people who suffer, innocent and not-so-innocent people who die, there is always a hidden agenda, it is rarely about freedom and nothing else.
Still, by recreating the conflict, ancient or modern, we learn to understand more than just the battlefield tactics. I believe you get to take a peek inside the heads of the commanders. By reading up about a conflict, you learn to understand both parties, even though you don't (have to) agree with either.
There can be tasteless ways to go about recreating a battle, but that is a different discussion.
Just my 2 cents
I personally feel uncomfortable with ongoing wars such as Afganistan but now OK with the Gulf Wars; Wonder why.
Quote from: Stefanpanzer on 13 March 2010, 11:45:18 PM
I personally feel uncomfortable with ongoing wars such as Afganistan but now OK with the Gulf Wars; Wonder why.
We forgive as we forget?
Your opinion is quite common among wargamers which is why i started this thread. It seems there's often discomfort found in wargaming 'close' wars, that fades as the conflict in question moves more into history.
The 'request thread' seemed to have a lot of people saying 'yeah, Falklands War figs would be great', which made me think that that conflict has now moved into 'history' enough for people to be comfortable wargaming with it.
It seems that so far the concensus here though is that 'no conflict is beyond the Pale'...which is interesting.
Essentially though, any game is based on events where people died. The only issue I could see would be with current conflicts, or where the gamer has some personal connection to the game being played. So maybe as you say, those feelings fade over time and we are able to see it from a more disconnected perspective?
Men are not so much bothered by what happens, but what they believe about what happens, to paraphrase a Greek philosopher whose name escapes me at this time.
I definately wouldn't do the current ones. I'd also feel uncomfortable with the Falklands. Oddly I am mostly ok with WW2, though my home brew Battle of Britain can give me a pause and question myself.
Interesting discussion, and curiously one I had with a couple of friends not too long ago. I asked them more or less the same question, but also asked them why they are perfectly OK with gaming scifi settings with much worse atrocities than anything that has happened yet in our own history (40K anyone?). Their main argument was that those scifi and fantasy games are clearly just that, fantasies and thus misses the essential historical component to make them 'real'. Some of them had no problem with gaming anything up to and including the Modern Era (including Iraq and Afghanistan), but others don't like the fact that they would be using IED as some of our own countrymen have died as a result of those.
Personally, I think that as long as you can make a clear distinction between the game and the ideals of some of the factions you are gaming with everything should be fine. I'm painting up some Taliban for Ambush Alley games, but I see them as gaming pieces not as little tin manifestations of my approving the Taliban.
Are there things I wouldn't game? Probably, but not because I feel it's morally inappropriate, more likely because the period does not appeal to me.
Just my two cents.
Cheers
Jase
Didn't Don Featherstone or one of those Old Greats refuse to wargame flamethrowers for moral reasons?
Flamethrowers, pretty toasty. Again, unless I'm mistaken this is a game of people dieing in warfare. Dead is dead whatever the means.
Quote from: Paint it Pink on 17 March 2010, 05:54:59 PM
Flamethrowers, pretty toasty. Again, unless I'm mistaken this is a game of people dieing in warfare. Dead is dead whatever the means.
Oh agree with you Big Cat, just thought it interesting that this has been debated for decades.
Greetings
I think I would theoretically be prepared to game any war but would draw the line at some things - I've had acquaintances and relations who were in some pretty unpleasant situations over the years (sniped in Belfast, terrorist attack on a farm in Zimabwe) and I wouldn't play those as it's too close for personal comfort.
Also there are some types of scenario I won't play e.g. I'll happily play 1940 Blitzkrieg games but wouldn't include air attacks on refugees - they would take place 'off table'; the same is true of almost any targeting of/collateral damage to civilians - it's an undeniable feature of war but not one I will put in a game except where the potential for civilian casualties is acting as a brake on players' actions.
Regards
Edward
Hi All
I share the general unease with gaming current conflicts, mainly because gaming is for fun and war isn't, and I feel that to game a conflict which is currently underway threatens to trivialize it. The only exception would be a proper simulation whose aim was to understand a particular tactical or strategic problem, but the reality is that this isn't the main reason why I game (although it is one of them), and most of the rulesets I use are not realistic enough to count as "simulations".
I think for me the issue is one of abstraction. The further away a conflict is in time, the easier it is to see past the human mess of it all to what really interests me, which is the mechanics of combat, the interaction of different systems of weaponry, tactics and military structures and cultures. The truth is that many of our games are actually quite abstract in that sense because we self-censor. Most wargames tables, for instance, are civilian-free, which is not the case in most wars. At our club we play quite a lot of AK47 Republic, but there are never any civilians on-table, which I know perfectly well is not the case in African wars. The fact is, we aren't gaming the conflict in all its aspects, but just in some. I think you need a certain amount of distance to make that abstraction possible without appearing insensitive to the mess and suffering which wars involve. It's harder to justify ignoring it when it's in your face, at least for me.
Regards
Quote from: redrevuk on 25 March 2010, 05:53:20 PM
The further away a conflict is in time, the easier it is to see past the human mess of it all
Why?
Quote from: Luddite on 25 March 2010, 06:11:38 PM
Quote from: redrevuk on 25 March 2010, 05:53:20 PM
The further away a conflict is in time, the easier it is to see past the human mess of it all
Why?
Good question. Not sure....
Perhaps because there is less at stake for me ethically and emotionally. The stock response of liberal western culture to the suffering and pain of others is compassion (at least, that's what we're encouraged to aspire to), which requires a degree of emotional investment and sense of ethical involvement. This can lead to feeling conflicted about conflict, especially if we have an active stake in it. I think this is what lies behind a lot of the "not in my name" rhetoric which surrounded the Iraq war - people felt bad about the idea of unpleasant things happening to people they were seeing on their TV screens, and weren’t anonymous or faceless. Certainly it's difficult to have an objective, rational conversation with people about any conflict which is currently underway, because the empathy with those suffering is so strongly embedded in our culture. For me to game a current conflict is to declare an interest in it â€" which is to say I get something out of it, namely the fun of gaming it â€" and that involves me ethically in a way I find troubling.
I think a war which is safely in the past doesn't confront us with the reality of suffering in such an immediate way and doesn’t imply the same ethical stake, partly because the thing is over, the main interests have been at least partially resolved, and I am not implicated in the suffering involved because my interest and the suffering itself does not coincide. Hence, if I were to game the current Afghan conflict I would feel ethically accountable in a way I don’t when gaming the First or Second Afghan War â€" and the more remote from me the conflict is, the less ethically involved I am because the gap between the interests involved in the conflict and mine is bigger. That's not to say that one doesn't feel empathy or sympathy - WW1 has always fascinated me partly because of that, as does the Congo in the 1960s. For me, part of the draw of military history is what it reveals about the extremes - both heroic and despicable - of what human beings are capable of. But the empathy is just that bit more generalized and detached, and confuses some of the other issues (like tactics innovations and challenges) less.
Sorry if that went on at length, but it was a challenging question which I will go on thinking about!
Quote from: redrevuk on 25 March 2010, 05:53:20 PM(snippety snip)I think for me the issue is one of abstraction. The further away a conflict is in time, the easier it is to see past the human mess of it all to what really interests me, which is the mechanics of combat, the interaction of different systems of weaponry, tactics and military structures and cultures. The truth is that many of our games are actually quite abstract in that sense because we self-censor. Most wargames tables, for instance, are civilian-free, which is not the case in most wars. At our club we play quite a lot of AK47 Republic, but there are never any civilians on-table, which I know perfectly well is not the case in African wars. The fact is, we aren't gaming the conflict in all its aspects, but just in some. I think you need a certain amount of distance to make that abstraction possible without appearing insensitive to the mess and suffering which wars involve. It's harder to justify ignoring it when it's in your face, at least for me.
Well, when I start playing AK47R at home, it will be set in Somalia and it will have civilians too. While the scenario won't necessarily ask players to shoot civilians, the civilians will respond to how the militia and Western intervention force acts, and can start to riot, end up looting and killing each other. I rather like games where the players get put into dilemmas that they have to solve as best they can, it teaches us about the realities of life.
It's a game! For the same reason I don't feel a need to question my morals when I send some to jail in monopoly or kill my opponents pawns in chess, I would not consider any period as ‘beyond the pale’.
Apologies if this seems dismissive, but I really think it is that simple. I am more interested in why miniature wargamers seems to spend so much time agonising over this issue, when the general population consumes so much violence through computer games, TV and movies with nary a second thought? When was the last time you heard a hex & chit wargamer raise moral questions? As a community we seem strangely sensitive to this issue (particularly since no one outside the hobby ever seems to raise it).
Peter W
Still, Elizabeth's Irish wars are always beyond the pale....
Elizabeth's Irish Wars? What so tricky about them then? Never heard of them (in that terminology at least).
I have to agree with huascar. A game is a game is a game to paraphrase Gertrude Stein.
Quote from: Jase on 26 March 2010, 11:36:45 AM
Elizabeth's Irish Wars? What so tricky about them then? Never heard of them (in that terminology at least).
I have to agree with huascar. A game is a game is a game to paraphrase Gertrude Stein.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pale
:)
A tricky master of pun-ology is in our midst.
I found with a lack of morality play with the new trilogy of star wars setting, saying that "those" is star wars universe.
I don't see a problem with gaming any conflict. As long as you a gaming not living out your own little war and thinking your a general. :)
We all have run into that guy, who thinks he could run a army cause he wargames.
Quote from: Jase on 26 March 2010, 11:36:45 AM
Elizabeth's Irish Wars? What so tricky about them then? Never heard of them (in that terminology at least).
I have to agree with huascar. A game is a game is a game to paraphrase Gertrude Stein.
Why isn't there a range of 10mm early twentieth century Paris-dwelling intellectual posers? You could have a Fauvist-Cubist-post-Impressionist alliance against an axis of expat Nazis and American writers, and you'd get to make an Eiffel tower out of matchsticks! French civvies would be ever such fun to paint up as every Gallic stereotype known to Giles and his fellows.
I have to agree with others that my major objection to periods I don't play is lack of interest, rather than any intrinsic repugnance. Something in me, however, will not allow me to paint casualties. Perhaps because it's an acknowledgement that war cannot be waged without deaths, but I don't see them as necessary or desirable. I did, to my shame, once buy a packet of Japanese casualties, but never got beyond undercoating them. Is that hypocrisy?
Quote from: Hertsblue on 02 May 2013, 08:34:43 AM
I have to agree with others that my major objection to periods I don't play is lack of interest, rather than any intrinsic repugnance. Something in me, however, will not allow me to paint casualties. Perhaps because it's an acknowledgement that war cannot be waged without deaths, but I don't see them as necessary or desirable. I did, to my shame, once buy a packet of Japanese casualties, but never got beyond undercoating them. Is that hypocrisy?
Damn! It's just occurred to me what a nifty baggage element a sepukku scene would be!
Particularly modelled from life. :d