Back in February it was lovely to have the return of a much loved local show, Cavalier at Tonbridge. The Rejects descended to support the show, admire the displays and stock up on goodies. See the show in more detail at BLMA and Don't Throw a One.
The games were a real delight to look at. I lingered for a particularly long time at this game by Retired Wargamers Reloaded.
I love that our hobby has a strong aesthetic quality, but I did start posing a question. Accepting that this excellent exhibition was a demonstration game, can a wargame look so good that it ceases to be seen (or even function) as a wargame?
Over to you.
I think that it is possible to add detail that is too delicate to handle or that restricts function. In the example above, maybe if utility poles and wires were added, it would cross over into that realm, but I don't see this game as crossing that line.
ReplyDeleteThe line probably moves around a bit with the scale and scope of a game, as differing levels of detail will interfer with different game mechanics and the handling and management of figures differently.
I would love to play on that table, and don't find that it interfers with my ability to "see" the game, but that is probably just a function of the differences in what we each expect the game to represent.
Thanks for the thoughtful response, especially by injecting scale and scope.
DeleteAn amazing tabletop and something to be admired. I stick with more practical terrain for myself.
ReplyDeleteI think they can be both, but I probably tend towards "functional aestheticism".
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI'm probably somewhere in the middle. I like a games table to look good, but remain functional. Little vignette's add colour and story to a table, but are probably best suited to a demo game at a show. Spectators will come to the table with different expectations so the best demo games tend to have a good mix of visuals and practicality. That being said, beautiful demo games are inspiring and it would be a sad day if shows only had practical wargames tables to view.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your view Lee. What if the terrain was not set in the context of a demonstration?
DeleteGood question! While I enjoy seeing a well-set gaming table, my own tables fall solidly into the Function Over Form camp. A table should be practical and playable to allow for easy and effortless play.
ReplyDeleteCheers Jonathan. We appear to be of like mind. I've taken part in enough games where the wonderful scenary becomes a point of contention and bad feelings. And occasionally even spoil a game.
DeleteI certainly appreciate the craft and effort required to put on such a display. In the US, the American Civil War tables are the most likely to be full of terrain, with a close second being WWII (Pacific in particular). I lean more towards utility. It is a 3D hobby, and I'm mainly a pre- 20th Century gamer. Terrain is nice, but it must be secondary to utility: is there room for figure bases and formations?
ReplyDeleteGood point Ed. It therefore behoves a games master to think carefully about the length of walls, hedges etc.
DeleteThat is a beautiful table and has that initial wow factor. I find that after playing a game for half an hour whether the terrain is realistic and diorama level or not falls away and becomes secondary. A piece of felt with a tree on it begins to look every bit as much of an orchard as one that has been purpose-made and lovingly crafted. As long as you are not wrestling with the terrain when moving figures through it then both are fine.
ReplyDeleteGreat point Lawrence. In that sense, if the game is engaging, we become blind to the realism of the scenary.
DeleteIt does look fantastic anf if it's WWII and using individually based fogures, if would probably work fine. The problem with super detailed, model railway standard terrain is practicality, as everyone has stated. If you are fighting pre twentieth century, it's impractical to have battalions in line etc moving through this type of terrain ( which is why, by and large, they didn't! That is another topic entirely....a lot of gamers put TOO MUCH terrain in their games, given that army commanders generally tried to arrange nice open terrain for their battles!)
ReplyDeleteOne if the few shows I attended in my teens included an absolutely beautiful rendition of a battle from Lord of the Rings ...I don't know the book but I think it may have been the final battle. It had a mountain that towered several feet over the table and looked stunning, but it was totally impractical for the figures based in threes or fours on old style bases, which were sitting at all sorts of weird and wonderful angles on the realistically uneven ground!
Thanks for your view Keith. I think you might have been looking at the Battle of the Pelenor Field (excuse spelling). You make a valid point about the quantity of terrain. I wonder if this is about understanding the scale of the battlefield compared to the scale of the figures/bases?
DeleteThis is a topic that crops up now and then with friends when we visit wargames shows and to a lesser extent some of the images in the wargames mags. As a former professional modelmaker, I can admire the skill, time and effort that has been put into these demo games and they certainly are wonderful to behold. But I feel I would struggle to enjoy a game on them as at times, there is too much terrain. Also lots of these games never seem to have much going on, almost being display pieces rather than a wargame.
ReplyDeleteThe ones that do inspire me more and where the terrain is generally modular and based so that it can be re-arranged to suit any given period etc. In essence the sort of game that most of us can put on at home. This type of game is, IMHO, a good mix of the practical and the visual. It also makes the hobby more accessible to newcomers who could easily be put off by say the wonderful and large Partizan games.
Excellent points Steve. This broadens the discussion to one about the purpose of demonstration games. Perhaps best left for another time. But to respond to you and Lee about the inspirational vs accessible demo, I probably sit in the "that's great because it looks attainable" corner.
DeleteI remember that Carentan game at SELWG last year, it was pretty amazing to look at, but I admit that I was probably not looking at it as a game, more a very large diorama! All well and good and inspirational at a show, I guess. But as someone has said, maybe what I really want to see is something that looks good AND could reasonably be emulated at home.
ReplyDeleteOne bugbear of mine is to see beautifully detailed painting of figures, but on a slapdash-looking terrain - why go to all the trouble with the painting? The 'old school' style of quite simple painting styles on an equally simple, slightly stylised terrain perhaps works because of the consistency between figures and table - I think I've tried to do something like that with my games.
Maybe the most impressive games I've seen at shows have been with small-scale figures ( 6mm or 2mm ) on terrain that looks like an aerial/satellite view - the guys demonstrating Bruce Weigle's 1859-1870 rules spring to mind, and that style really suits the larger battles of that period. They have pictures here: https://grandtacticalrules.com/photo-gallery/
Not sure I could do that at home, though!
Thanks for the considered response David. Now that you've mentioned consistency in approach that does ring true. Certainly, the small scales permit something of the epic look to a show game. I too, admire those Weigle games, but without the skill to make them myself.
DeleteThe game in question was a superb looking affair and would be in the top 3 of any show in the country. But I kinda know what you mean Richard. Was it a game to be played or a demo game. There's room for both at shows and both inspire me personally to try and emulate the effect given.
ReplyDeleteBut simply, sometimes less is more.
Thanks Ray. There is a compromise that needs to be struck.
DeleteAbsolutely gorgeous table, but I agree, for all that it looks rather impractical for actual gaming.
ReplyDeleteFor gaming needs, Function over Form wins the day in our hobby I feel.
Thanks for the comment Dai. I guess terrain must serve the game not the other way round.
DeleteOne of the best things about the hobby is that it affords a wide range of approaches in scale, figures, detail of rules... and terrain. I marvel and drool at images of such tables (or on occasions that I see them in person). It's a pinnacle of bringing together model making and miniature wargames. Part of the joy for me is because it's not something that I will ever attempt. I enjoy seeing all types of terrain for a game, whether a flat green table with a few terrain items, an over-cloth with laid on roads, rivers, building and trees (my preferred), sculpted terrain, or a modelling masterpiece like the one you have shown us.
ReplyDeleteRegards, James