Few games I have played have a "glaring historical inaccuracy." Most do a reasonably good job with the basics of ranges, comparative values of troop types, and illustrating the pros and cons of fire, melee, and morale. The history may be slathered on more heavily in some games than in others, but the primary distinction isn't the history but the cleverness, smoothness of play, and,yes, enjoyability of the game and its mechanics.

Most complaints, in my experience, revolve around very subjective assessments of extremely fine points. I can remember gamers going on and on about some niggling minor detail(that they believed absolutely critical) usually involving organization, squares and the general subject of cavalry versus foot, the turn sequence(Time), or arcane aspects of command.

In most cases the critic is not really a wargamer, but someone who revels in acquiring, and exhibiting "expertise' about some extremely limited and obscure historical facts. (The more limited and obscure the less is the chance of being contested.) The best way for him to show off his book larnin' should be by writing a good book or a series of articles. That, too often, is beyond the skill of this expert. (Or it could be that his "central facts" are so obscure and meaningless to the wider world that no one could imagine giving them the weight of a book or article!)

The next best way would be by designing a good game that puts his conceptions into motion. This, though often promised, is also a relatively rare event.

So they end up as critics on the internet forums, always professing their commitment to "realism", often quantifying games(which are intuitive in their best manifestations) in terms of an "objective" 1 to 10, and give their reasons why such and such doesn't work 'historically', or how they will creatively combine several rule set ideas "someday".

This allows them to continue as an "expert", to proclaim their soulful search for the perfect wargame, ignore the strongly subjective nature of wargaming and, instead of exploring how to make the game more enjoyable, seem intent to insist the games fit their view of history at the expense of damn near everything else. This has been the curse of the hobby and the cause of too many repetitive(copy-cat) and boring designs.

I often think these people never expect, or want, to find satisfaction in a design as then they would have to give up what is truly their favorite hobby-expounding on history and critiquing the creative work of others.

"That ain't realistic!" is generally heard after a bad die roll, a poor combat result, an unexpected event, or a lost battle. The worst thing a wargame can do for these folks is present them with a loss or embarrassment. They see that as an indictment of their expertise and knowledge. Any hint they might be wrong, confused, or "don't get it", well, "That just ain't realistic!"

This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web.
Other articles from military history and related magazines are available at http://www.magweb.com