Our hobby generates a lot of opinions regarding historical evidence, which isn't surprising-historical games are what we're about. Here are some opinions on historical evidence as examples of what can be heard at conventions and read in wargaming journals and on email lists. 'History is just a lot of contradictory opinions " "There is no such thing as historical 'facts.'" "I can find historical references to refute every historical fact you can come up with." "Historians never agree on anything." "There's no objective historical evidence. It's ALL subjective." "No one can ever know what really happened in any historical event. History is just a bunch of peoples' ideas about what they think happened." Now, all of these quotes have one thing in common: historical game designers said them. Some of these designers have given talks at game conferences on military history or written military history books. Many gamers have similar beliefs. Certainly the study of history is filled with contention, so it's easy to see why reasonable folks would hold such beliefs. Let's assume they're right. We will say it's true: If historians can't agree on historical evidence, there is no reason gamers should expect to either. And of course, our assumption is that no historical 'evidence' can prove one opinion is more correct than another-it's all subjective. What's Going On Here? Now, this is all fine and good until you look at garners' behavior across the hobby. The posts on any of the gaming lists are filled with discussions of historical game mechanics compared to some historical evidence. With just a brief survey, here are just a few recent discussions on some of the lists: Volley & Bayonet., What skirmisher stands represent and how to differentiate them from simple detachments. Then the question is which units by year and nationality should be allowed to have detachments, but not skirmishers. Principles of War AND Napoleonic Fire & Fury. Both lists had a long series of posts about Napoleonic British firepower compared to the French, combat tactics and how it should be represented in the game. Several sources were quoted. Shako: What is the appropriate number of skirmisher stands for each nation's armies? ACW list- The historical content of the movie Gods & Generals, Command difficulties in the Civil War and the speed of horseback messengers. Piquet. Several historical examples of chaotic events on the battlefield are shared and how Piquet represents them. How to represent AWI militia is also a topic. Mexican War list: Is there any evidence that Mexican Cavalry ever charged home against US infantry? Blood &Iron List: What is the correct OOB for the 1st Prussian Corps in 1870. Did Bavarian Cuirassiers take part in the FPW? Grande Armee: There has been a long discussion on blown cavalry, interpenetration and charges in reference to officially changing some of the rules. Implicit in this discussion is the belief that the rules will be more historically `reasonable' with the changes. Ancients List: The crossbow vs the bow on the battlefield. Lots of historical evidence dredged up, including a discussion of the confidence of bowmen. Then there is shield weight and its effect in combat. Colonial List: The prevalence and use of Zulu axes and the historical accuracy of the recent Pancho Villa movie. Then there are the designer's notes for most rules. Here are some examples from 19th Century game rules. Some happen to be from the same game designers quoted at the beginning of this article. Can you tell which ones? 'At the outset of the Napoleonic wars, most countries (notably the Allies), were using linear systems based on the Prussian Seven Years War model. ' "Most wargames allow the army commanders to roam the battlefield without consequence. This was not common practice. The best course of action for an army commander was to find a good observation point, set up his HQ, and to stay put. " 'First, the truth is that the French seldom intended to fight in column. Column was a means of moving troops around on the battlefield, not attacking. " "Much of the capability of good commanders was in this art of estimating, not knowing, the enemy's intentions, quality, and likely actions. His knowledge of his own troops' mettle was also a mix of knowledge and estimation (sometimes sheer hope!). "  Now, they don't seem to be making these statements as though the exact opposite could just as easily be proven, or that they're simply voicing their individual opinion. Perhaps the designers believe we all know it's just opinion. However, that's not how it's presented. And of course, none of the designers say where they got these ideas. The question is: If it's true that history is all just contradictory opinion anyway, what is going on here? Why are folks, both garners and game designers, basically wasting their time explaining the history in the games, throwing around historical judgments and reciting facts that are, in the end, just someone else's opinion? Why not just give their opinion about the game rule or movie or whatever, and be done with it? The Fun in Historical Evidence Well, regardless of what folks do or don't believe about history, it is evident by their behavior that a large number of wargamers: 1. See the sharing/discussing of `historical evidence' from history books and other sources as part of the fun in our hobby. Huge amounts of hobby time are spent on this activity. 2. Expect designers to use historical information in game design. Most all discussions assume this. Even when garners change or add some game rule, they use historical information to justify it. Almost all designers claim to have done extensive research and will share their opinions in detail. 3. Treat historical information as evidence for 'the rightness' of a particular point of view concerning history and their games. Even though we have already agreed that any expectations regarding #3 are hopeless, there remains two powerful reasons for presenting historical evidence in the design of historical games: It provides more fun because there is more historical data to share and it meets the design expectations of garners. Now this last point is obvious enough to game designers, even the ones I quoted. To meet garner expectations, they all make an effort to provide historical rationales for their game mechanics. Most offer little evidence or documentation, mind you, but lots of opinions and rationales. Some designers are like Bruce Weigle, who provided a great deal of documentation and explanations in his 1870 rules. It helps make the 1870 rules book a valuable resource even if you don't play the rules. So why don't all designers provide the historical documentation that garners obviously enjoy sharing and expect of their games? The Difficulties of Documentation By documentation, we mean that when an opinion is expressed, like the use of the linear system or roaming commanders, the designer identifies where he got the idea. This should be very simple for designers, as most have already done extensive research. However, there are reasons for this general lack of documentation in game designs. Sam Mustafa described the obstacles in MWAN # 126: 'If theres one thing I've learned in a career as a professional historian, its that 'the facts' never speak for themselves. On my shelf I can find several well-regarded Napoleonic histories that will tell you that Napoleon's German Confederation troops were loyal and enthusiastic. Just this past summer I was in Germany doing primary-source research in a Prussian military archive and I discovered some things that totally changed my opinion about the morale of those regiments. (I uncovered diaries, court proceedings, and correspondence that leads me to believe that desertion was very high in Confederation regiments, and morale very low, and the men felt mistreated by their French officers.) 'So Wargame Designer #1 creates a game and gives the Confederation regiments very high morale, based on those popular books by Elting, Gill, Nafziger, and others Designer #2 creates a game and gives the same regiments very low morale, based on what 1 just found in the archives. Two totally different conclusions, resulting in different games. Multiply this by the number of game design decisions that go into even a simple design, and I think you 71 agree that objective documentation is a Fool's Errand. Ill design it the way I think is right, another designer will do it the way that he thinks is right, and you the player will choose which one "feels right" to you, based on your own encounter with the data. " So, because it would be ridiculous, a "Fool's Errand," to try and document all the game decisions in a design, the only option is to document nothing and rely on whatever 'feels right.' There are some observations that need to be made about Sam's description above: 1. More Options. There are several options other than Sam's all or nothing approach to documentation. This problem of what and how much to document is not unique to wargaming. Historians, and those in many other disciplines, have faced the very same problem. Historians have been writing history for a long time--they've come up with solutions to Sam's impasse. There are a number of methods that provide supporting data in books-history books, each containing thousands of decisions and interpretations--without having to provide documentation for everything. It is actually quite easy to keep the number of references etc. to a reasonable amount and still supply the pertinent information. [See Jacques Barzun's 1957 book The Modern Researcher for a description of those options and methods.] 2. Encountering the data. According to Sam, doing what "feels right" is "based on your own encounter with the data." I agree. This means that garners really need the data if they are going to 'encounter' it. If we are all 'encountering' different data, and have no idea what data designers have 'encountered,' it makes 'feeling right' a very isolated experience and causes a lot of disjointed discussions, where everyone is using different data or guessing what data is being used. We've all had the experience of 'talking around' one another in discussing some historical issue with game rules. Providing the historical data would seem to be a significant activity for game designers considering how central it is to the hobby's fun. 3. Important differences. There are reasons why Sam was convinced by the primary sources he read concerning the poor morale of Confederation troops, and that it was closer to the `truth' than that offered by Elting, Gill, Nafziger, and others. Probably a major reason is that all those authors documented their research and because of that, Sam could tell they had not seen the primary sources he had. Wouldn't that be important to mention when a game presents conclusions that are diametrically opposed to Elting, Gill, Nafziger and others? Or is the only choice for a designer restricted to what Sam suggests: The designer can spend years doing the research, design, and development of his historical war game, then pays good money to publish it, but must keep the history and research it was based on a complete mystery because no one can document everything? 4. A Guessing Game. If the different morale levels given to Confederation troops results in different games, wouldn't it be valuable for garners to know why they're different? Regardless of which interpretation is right, it would avoid a lot of pointless discussions and provide valuable gaming information by simply documenting why the choice was made. Otherwise, it is a guessing game for garners, pointless efforts at trying to read the designer's mind in understanding the game design. If such historical evidence is used to make each game different, documentation could have something to do with which rules a garner chooses to play. 5. What's the Difference? One reason there is more than one game design per battle or period stems from different interpretations of the evidence. That is a good thing for the hobby, if we have some idea what the various interpretations are. It would help to differentiate the resultant games based on design content rather than just hype and amorphous 'feels right' distinctions. Game Design as `Mystery Meat.' However, Sam doesn't believe it would do any good even if we could document the evidence, as he explains in MWAN #126: "Even if by some miracle we could arrive at an agreement on what "the facts" say, and how that should be incorporated into a game design, what do we do when a player decides., ' Hmm... I think the Saxon infantry should be rated Good. I m just going to play them as Good. " Players do this all the time. It hardly matters what's in the book, how it was characterized, or how many facts lay behind my design decisions Bill may not like "It feels right" as a criterion for games/simulations, but that's exactly how most wargamers do it. You could categorize a game design all you like, or hold the designer to a specific set of vocabulary when he's promoting his product, but garners will do as they please. And who am I, as the designer, to say they're wrong? They've paid their money. It's their game now, and they should play it the way they like." Again, there are several things that can be said in response: 1. Just one criterion? I never said I didn't like "it feels right" as a criterion for games. I said it shouldn't be the only criterion, and by definition, it's not a technical criterion at all. Our games are very technical. I am quite happy to choose games that feel right, but I know there is far more to game design than that, and as previously noted, feeling right in our hobby usually involves an encounter with the historical data. 2. Add some fun. I don't think that we all have to agree about what the facts say to justify documenting the history used in game design. It would certainly up the odds of agreement, but if garners "never agree on anything," providing the documentation will still be a valuable contribution to the hobby, it's discussions, and particularly the enjoyment of sharing historical data. 3. Mystery Meat. One reason garners have such a propensity for changing the rules is because they don't know "whats in the book, how it was characterized, or how many facts lay behind the design decisions. " All they know is their "encounter" with some data. Obviously, if it's a choice between the designer's decisions based on "who knows what?," and the information they actually have read, even if it's only the encyclopedia, why wouldn't they change the rules? Garners might be less inclined to monkey with the game mechanics if they knew what historical data went into them in the first place. When you've got 'mystery meat', it's human nature to add catsup just to make it somehow familiar. 4. So gamers change the rules? It's another enjoyable part of the hobby. In some sense, very gamer is a designer. Designers wouldn't be saying the gamer is wrong or can't change the rules by providing documentation. Suggesting that it's pointless to document the rules because garners are going to change rules anyway is a pretty lame excuse. 5. A Hobby cornerstone. Designers need to state what information they are using in a design. If some garners modify the design, that doesn't render the designer's goals invalid or unimportant. If game designers did provide the documentation, it would provide a whole hell of a lot more information to base such changes on than gamers have now. The historical data is a foundational aspect of our hobby, in the games, the play, and the hobby discussions. Making it implicit will enhance the hobby fun, not hinder it.  Designers would be providing a very valuable service to the hobby if they would document where they got their historical facts found in their game. But when I say this would be valuable, I have no absolutist expectations about "facts," no belief in 'objective truth' ushering in an era of uniform agreement among gamers. Facts are simply tools, and as Sam said, open to interpretation. That sharing of interpretations is one of the fun aspects of our hobby and creates a great deal of depth. But informed interpretations require some sort of shared data. So, what do you call an interpretation of the facts without any available facts? A feeling. A feeling can change after an encounter with the facts. Sam has experienced that change with his primary sources. Others in the hobby would enjoy the opportunity too. Back to MWAN # 127 Table of Contents Back to MWAN List of Issues Back to MagWeb Magazine List © Copyright 2004 Hal Thinglum This article appears in MagWeb.com (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other articles from military history and related magazines are available at http://www.magweb.com