tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5185876513552272723.post5049379063722070540..comments2024-03-17T04:35:24.517-07:00Comments on Polemarch: Amateur HistoriansThe Polemarchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10958736917525649927noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5185876513552272723.post-36169517306465544312017-01-26T07:54:14.591-08:002017-01-26T07:54:14.591-08:00Yes, that certainly sounds about right.Yes, that certainly sounds about right.Ruaridhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13003128932063213463noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5185876513552272723.post-88281939889776069852017-01-26T07:24:07.444-08:002017-01-26T07:24:07.444-08:00I guess that both are the case. we have to make ex...I guess that both are the case. we have to make explicit assumptions for a counterfactual game (indeed, in history, this is the role of counterfactuals, really), and we obtain more of a distance, or at least, the knowledge that what is on the table is not history is explicit.<br /><br />Maybe then we can enjoy the game more, without having to give reasons for the failure of our 'model' of history. But logic and reasonableness still are required.The Polemarchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10958736917525649927noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5185876513552272723.post-88710913586207366112017-01-26T01:55:01.235-08:002017-01-26T01:55:01.235-08:00Is it not easier with counterfactual games because...Is it not easier with counterfactual games because the basic assumptions are clearer? Or maybe my own desire for historicity is automatically lessened by the knowledge that the game is what-if and thus one step removed from reality already.Ruaridhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13003128932063213463noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5185876513552272723.post-2013018729792252382017-01-26T01:37:13.042-08:002017-01-26T01:37:13.042-08:00I guess, as you said, a demonstration that the gam...I guess, as you said, a demonstration that the game is based on an interpretation of incomplete and flawed sources, but is our best guess would be a good thing, generally. <br /><br />An interesting question then might arise around historically possible but not actual conflicts - or at least, not recorded ones - Hoplite Greeks vs Indians?The Polemarchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10958736917525649927noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5185876513552272723.post-84578303299983880152017-01-25T04:46:17.186-08:002017-01-25T04:46:17.186-08:00Yes, a bit of balance would be nice. I get fed up ...Yes, a bit of balance would be nice. I get fed up of hearing people claim that their games are accurate recreations of history. A simple acknowledgement that the game is rooted in history, but that assumptions have had to be made, would keep me calmer.Ruaridhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13003128932063213463noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5185876513552272723.post-88059943995998820522017-01-24T00:44:13.348-08:002017-01-24T00:44:13.348-08:00I guess there has to be a balance. If we have to m...I guess there has to be a balance. If we have to make explicit all the assumptions we make for a game, we'll never get to moving any figures, so it won't be any sort of 'history' at all. However, acknowledging that history as a given is imaginary history might be a realistic option - along the lines of 'we think Hannibal did this, but he might have done that'.<br /><br />Most games, including mine, are not 'recreations' of anything. My 360 BC campaign is nothing like 360 BC Greek warfare. In a sense it was never supposed to be. At best I suppose it is a sort of "based on" thing, like when they massacre your favourite novel when turning it into a film.<br /><br />On the other hand, we like to base our games in some sort of history - men with pointy sticks and big shields, for example. Part of the interest, after all, is whether things on the table turn out like history at all. If Hannibal loses Cannae we need to come up with some reasons, even if they are 'he rolled 1's'.The Polemarchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10958736917525649927noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5185876513552272723.post-40901638242279417202017-01-23T12:53:45.785-08:002017-01-23T12:53:45.785-08:00Agreed, there is little certainty even in historie...Agreed, there is little certainty even in histories of modern wars. The key, though, is acknowledging where you fill in the gaps. A good historian will give you a methodology that recognises the deficiencies in the data and shows why they interpret the facts the way they do. Should wargamers do that too? I'm undecided. For historical demo games, I would like to see fewer 'this game is a precise recreation of Cannae' style comments and more 'the data's not great but this is our interpretation of it' statements. On the other hand, for some gamers that is probably pretty much irrelevant, because the game is about rolling dice and talking shite with their mates. I suspect many games have some games where the former could apply and some where the latter is definitely the case.<br /><br />I love the idea of a campaign where the general has to succeed ... but not too well. It could make for an interesting balancing act.Ruaridhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13003128932063213463noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5185876513552272723.post-35741004179358035412017-01-23T05:30:05.612-08:002017-01-23T05:30:05.612-08:00Oh yes, our sources are mostly sauce and not much ...Oh yes, our sources are mostly sauce and not much meat, really. Mind you, the same may well apply more modern historians...<br /><br />I have suggested that a Roman general needs to be very careful to be successful, as if they fail they will be executed or exiled to a small island. On the other hand if they succeed too well they'll be executed for being a threat.....The Polemarchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10958736917525649927noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5185876513552272723.post-61812833762261578512017-01-21T07:49:25.235-08:002017-01-21T07:49:25.235-08:00Yay for source criticism! Thanks for another thoug...Yay for source criticism! Thanks for another thoughtful post that covers yet another of my bugbears. Regarding Tacitus, it's always worth remembering that he never observed anything he wrote in Germania firsthand. Tacitus is an object lesson in the need for context when reading primary sources. The same probably applies to many other classical historians.<br /><br />On the other hand, you can make a perfectly acceptable game from his works without understanding their context. I can imagine a campaign that you win by scoring enough points in given areas that Tacitus gives you a positive write-up. Campaign objectives would be political as much as strategic or tactical. Could be fun game with an emphasis on keeping on the right side of Tacitus' father-in-law Agricola.Ruaridhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13003128932063213463noreply@blogger.com