TooFatLardies Advent Panto, Day 22

[@HenryHydeCreative]

Well said, Rich. Very thought-provoking.

[@ashley-r-pollard]

I've enjoyed all the TFL Advent windows, but today's takes the biscuit (chocolate Hobnob) for the epic rant against professional wargames and historians. I can only give you a virtual standing ovation in this comment. I would suggest that the transcript for this episode be published in WSS or on your blog, or alternatively it's time to write the book on wargaming design (each chapter could have alternate perspective by you guys on each subject too). Anyway, Bravo!

[@rotwang2000]

The other day a KZbin channel called Invictus ran a Computer simulation of Cannae. Trying to figure how the armies were set up rather than actually fight the battle. The first thing you notice there is those kinds of armies took up quite a bit of real estate. They also had a talk with Adrian Goldsworth who did see the value in figuring out such matters rather than just draw a big elongated rectangle on a map and call it an army. But even he expressed some doubts that other historians would follow him in this matter.

[@steveholmes11]

Ask "Why don't these people see the untapped potential for wargaming", as much as you like. But a look in the big collective mirror is also instructive. Not the tight focus of Lardy games - but "How does the Hospital Director, Army General or Business Leader regard wargaming". The greater hobby doesn't do a great job of self promotion. Our leading brands don't project seriousness. Our leading rules "Space goblins against power armour nazis". Our leading forum "A bunch of old men railing against forriners, libruls and yankee agression". Can we rehabilitate our "brand" so people associate it with: !"Positive, educational, the sort of people you'd wish to spend 6 hours with"? All while keeping the focus on "And we had a lot of fun doing this". Much credit to the Lardies and Little Wars TV for showing that positive side.

[@jongjdey]

Don't forget how serious wargaming was taking itself in the 1960s, and how little good that's done the hobby. Because it is indeed a hobby, and hobbies are not supposed to be serious. And to be honest, most wargamers would make fools out of themselves if they took themselves too seriously, because their knowledge of war and the period they are recreating is insufficient to go toe to toe with professionals. Most of their understanding is second hand, if not derived from the rules they are playing. I'm all for professional wargaming, but let's be honest: it is a different world and few wargamers are professional

[@steveholmes11]

I've considered how the Army would apply this. I believe there are two factors to consider before landing a sale. The sort of "Wargame" used in emergency service disaster planning doesn't feature many painted figures and rulers. It's closer to those "mega games" of the 1970s. A pre-defined command structure performing resource management. The Army's alternative is planning exercises; a written problem, multiple players, multiple solutions - find something that works. Returning to Rich's point: Neither uses a live opponent. Instead the moderators/judges/refs/game masters throw in spoilers to wrong-foot the players. Emergency service stuff leans on "another outbreak" - reminiscent of the Pandemic boardgame. You've positioned all your ambulances. fire appliances, roadblocks, and now you've a new problem. The Army's favourite is the "change of situation" (There's a wargamer's buzzword from the past). 45 minutes observed planning session, 10 minutes before the end you're informed "The main road bridge collapsed", "Your local 'allies' deserted", "The radio failed". Points for how the bright young candidates react under stress: save the plan, or start again.

[@benitoverap]

Wise words! One of the best windows in the calendar this year, Rich. I fully agree there’s a general misunderstanding of what wargaming is and, I would add, there’s a negative bias among the public because of the word “war” in the title.

[@Bugsy58]

Perhaps one of the reasons for the late Terence Wise in naming his book 'Introduction to Battle Gaming' back in 1969?

[@steveholmes11]

I've commented above. Public perception isn't helped when high profile "fellow hobbyists" publicly "shit the bed" that all of us must lie in. As in my comment, the Lardies and others are the good guys here. But negative voices dominate a number of high profile forums.

[@kierdalemodels]

More and more I’ve heard our hobby referred to as “miniature gaming” in the last four or so years.

[@adamedwards1937]

Totally. An example that still anoys me is the generally espoused narrative of the Battle of Barnet. Supposedly Oxford manages to disengage from defending a hedge, turns right, marches downhill then back uphill again and routs Hastings. All in mist and at the crack of dawn. The wargamer in me calls BS on that.