Hi readers! With regards to David Commerfields' letter in despatches FE37 regarding the popularity of fantasy gaming as opposed to mainstream wargaming, I feel that this is due to a number of factors as follows: Mainstream wargaming suffers as a result of the general public's miss conception of what our hobby involves. To most its grown men playing with their little solders. Where as most people perceive fantasy gaming as being played by younger people, which to their minds make it more acceptable. To over come this problem we must continue to increase the publics awareness of what our hobby is all about. Companies, such as Games Workshop, market their products as a complete package with exciting stories, graphic imagery and outlandish, comical figures. This is all backed up with in-house gaming with some one on hand to explain the rules and to give advice on making and painting the models. This friendly and helpful attitude attracts new comers to fantasy gaming. I think we should take note of this marketing ploy as I feel that a number of new comers to mainstream wargaming are being put off by the high brow attitude of some of the 'self appointed' gaming/historical experts. Main stream gaming, as my daughters pointed out, can turn out to be a bit of a history lesson, where fantasy gaming appears more light hearted and fun. An important point as I am of the opinion that much of the fun factor has been removed from our hobby and that many people have forgotten that wargaming is just that - a game. Chess is a wargame, but is it a true reflection of war. Frankly, no but it is a great game of strategy and this is how I view wargaming. Many wargame rules are a broad based compromise between historical fact and playability. It must be virtually impossible to reflect in detail the social, political, economic and military doctrine of all nation and states that took part in the Napoleonic wars, in a game which in most cases is resolved in a few hours. The other main factor that appears to be overlooked by many gamers and historians alike is the human factor. This not only includes the people who fought in the battles but the civilians who suffered directly or indirectly as a result of war. This coupled with sickness, decease, sleeping rough, hunger and the sheer horrors of war must have played a major role in how well the troops performed in battle, but I am at a loss to see how any rule set can properly incubus all these factors. With the omission of this human factor, many of the historical debates that go on FE are as sterile as many gaming rules. I for one am happy to leave out this human factor from my wargaming because I want a pastime that is fun. Creating a totally accurate reconstruction of human suffering is not fun and true warfare is certainly not a game. With reference to David Hollins comments about OB's, I'm going to stick my neck out and say that I agree with him. I have found that when I research a battle the same problem occur. Take any number of historical reference sources applicable to a specific battle, what do you get? More often than not you get varying numbers of troops at the battle, a conflicting list of units that took part, different starting positions for the troops and vastly differing topographical features for the battlefield itself. If the terrain details can not be agreed upon then how true is the description of the troops who took part. I'd like to make it clear that the OB's that I give with my wargaming articles are for wargaming purposes. From a gaming point of view OB's are of great importance because without knowing roughly how many troops fought in the battle, their starting positions etc., the wargame can not be played. However, I would question their value in the context of historical research. The rule sets that people play with tend to be a very personal thing. People tend to use sets which reflect their own personal perception of the warfare of the period in which they game, be it historical, futuristic or fantasy. So in conclusion if David Hollins was to develop his own set of Napoleonic wargaming rules, I'm sure that even he would be open to criticism. It boils down to the plain and simple fact that you just can't please all of the people all of the time. Back to Table of Contents -- First Empire #39 Back to First Empire List of Issues Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 1998 by First Empire. This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com