Talk:Wargame

message: I don't think I have the time and energy to worry about a Wikipedia:WikiProject, but there are some very definate things I think need doing, so I'm going to try and outline them here, where other people might contribute as a 'hobby' instead of a 'Project'.
*This article, wargaming, is in much better shape than a few months ago. It is probably still quite a ways from any real "final" form. The introduction, as I recently realized, doesn't do a very good job of really saying what a wargame is. The successive sections for miniatures, board games, card games, and computer games is a good structure, but the miniatures section should probably expand to ~3 paragraphs.
:*The article is currently (4/27/07) at 51KB. We should definitely think about what sections are really needed here. (Admittedly, this article probably deserves 40+KB to cover everything, but I do think that the intro is too long.)
:*I've tried to better define what wargames are in the Overview. I'm afraid it's still bit muddled and lost in other information. We should probably collect together the information there and in the computer games section and try to systematically discus those things that are not quite wargames. It remains one of the most popular subjects on the Talk, and needs addressing.
:*I think we can still do better on the pictures front. The top one in particular seems bland and dull. (Would prefer something with more push and pull.)
:*Board wargames needs to have its own page, and this page can get just a summary, and move off the 'components' section, which is nice, but a bit much for the eventual version of this article. (I am still working on assembling such a page. Would love some review of what's been done.)
*The normal gamebox template needs to be added to almost every wargame page there is.
*Some recent work seems to be really cleaning up the miniatures section. I think we're going to have some very strong list articles.
*There are lots of prominent wargame designers with no articles at all, this should be fixed.
*The Origins Awards should probably be fixed up to include a list of all winners (or probably a separate page with that), and make sure the winner's articles are appropriately noted.
:*Updated --Rindis 19:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Add a bit --Rindis 19:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiHobby:Wargaming

message: I guess Sniper! Special Forces is as close as we can get to this category but has anyone actually seen any man-to-man wargames about the coalition forces battling the Taliban in the mountains of Afghanistan, or US troops taking on the Iraqi insurgents.
And if these wargames don't exist what do you think would it take to make one?
--Auspx 03:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, as tactical games are generally done so that it's complete game system powered by scenarios, technically what you want is scenarios depicting the types of actions common in the current conflicts. I'm not much on tactical games, but List of board wargames modern tactical section does list the Warfighter series as recent games, and therefore the publisher may be releasing such scenarios currently. (Don't know if that's man-to-man or not though.) Traditionally, recent/current subjects have always been grist for wargaming's mill, so I expect there's something already, though I don't know of anything from the major publishers. My best bet would be to keep an eye on the magazines that ship a game with every issue. There seem to be three currenty: Strategy & Tactics, Against the Odds, and Panzershrek. --Rindis 18:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any "Sniper!" type wargames about the War on Terrorism/War in Iraq? 

message: Why doesn't Starcraft fit into this genre? Colonel Marksman 04:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the same reasons that Command & Conquer (mentioned above) doesn't. That is, using the broadest possible definition it is one, but by most standards it is not accepted as such. On a practical side, it already has the easy label of "RTS", and doesn't need an extra one. More importantly to most wargamers, it isn't one because it makes no effort at realistic simulation (as a good example, in actual combat, vehicles are generally either knocked out, or unaffected by any particular shot; a "health bar" doesn't make any sense from a wargaming perspective). --Rindis 16:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In my view this page should only be about wargaming the hobby and wargaming for the professional, into which neither starcraft fits. Mathmo Talk 09:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article mentions RTS, but doesn't say "not normally considered a type of wargame" in so many words. Would be a good addition, seeing as how at least one person was mystified... :-) Stan 16:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Starcraft

message: I am a relative "newby" to Wikipedia, but have a background in board wargaming (being an old S & T subscriber).
Reviewing the article itself, and the ongoing discussions, it appears to me that a concise definition of "wargaming" is a key feature that is presently lacking, but which would improve the content of the article.
With that in mind, let me submit a few thoughts for consideration:
(A)  A wargame has some sort of scale.  Unlike Age of Empires, Command & Conquer,  Civilization III, etc., a wargame has an identifiable scale in terms of time ("each turn equals one day"), distance ("each hex is 1.25 miles") and size of military unit ("each unit represents a brigade of 2,000 to 4,000 men").
(b)  The wargame is an attempt to simulate reality.  Command & Conquer, and various similar video/action games, do not present a reality of the situation.  It is an attempt to provide you, the player, with the problems, decisions, and difficulties encountered by historic leaders, and to give you a greater grasp of their decision-making process (and of alternatives that could have been pursued).  This definition would encompass war games showing hypothetical military situations (i.e. during the '70's and '80's, there was a spate of war games showing a hypothetical Warsaw Pact invasions of Germany) because, again, the game is trying to realistic present the problems, decisions -and likely outcomes- that both sides would face had such a war occurred.  Admittedly, there exist a small genre of wargames which involve sci-fi (the old S & T Star Force, for example) and which blur this line - they are not attempting to present a "reality", but are attempting to give a "real feel" to a totally arbitrary future situation.
By way of example, there are a number of video/xbox games which purport to simulate World War II combat as a "first person shooter".  The characteristics of these games are closer to Hollywood than the reality.  A genuine wargame would attempt to present realistic capabilities of real infantry, and real infantry weapons.
 Ok, my "concise definition" is longer than I intended.  Thoughts?
Bonbga
:Well, first I'd say (a) should be unnecessary for a concise definition, as it's a consequence of (b) - simulating reality tends to create a need for a hard scale.
:Also, the opening paragraph contains the following: "A wargame is a game that simulates or represents a military operation." and "the general consensus is that they are not only games about conflict or warfare, but that they must realistically simulate war to some degree." I think those are adequate concise definitions, but perhaps they're being lost under the avalanche of other things in that paragraph?
:I think we might need some more restructuring there. What I think you're more reaching for is actually more an explanation of the definition. i.e., a section that discusses some of the things that wargames typically worry about, and a discussion of why those things that can be considered related are not actually wargames. We have pieces of that scattered around, but a solid section on it might be a big improvement. --Rindis 18:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad you approved. ^_^ It's a section that I've had a vague idea of putting in for a while now. To me, the real difference generally comes down to overall attitude and approach. Effectively, is this pure entertainment, or are thoughts of scholarship entertained? You can have both in one game, but the computer game industry is generally ignorant of such concepts. –But not completely so. --Rindis 00:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It gets harder to define the distinction, but not impossible. "Scholarly" may be the wrong term. GDW's Striker takes some assumptions about the future of technology, and applies them rigorously on top of a framework that does reasonably well as a modern miniatures game. The various Lord of the Rings games (board wargames - I have no idea how EA's titles do) start with source material and then try to recreate the conflicts depicted therein, much as a historical wargame does. Once you look at the easier examples like that, I always find it easy to extend the principles that apply to Victory in the Pacific to, say, WarpWar. I suppose the difference is really whether gameplay flows out of the world being depicted, or the other way around. (Though even that is slippery...) --Rindis 22:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DEFINITION OF WARGAMING 

message: After the latest edit  and looking at how long the current history of wargaming section is I suspect very soon a subarticle should be spun off about the history. Mathmo Talk 08:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's possible. I like history, and most of my knowledge of wargaming is from the '70s, so that's why it's gotten so long. ^_^ Personally, I think the Board wargaming article is needed more, but I haven't gotten far on my draft yet. (I started with the history, of course.) --Rindis 16:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of Wargaming Subarticle 

message: The external links are better suited for something like dmoz.org. It would be better to create a directory there and then link to it from here. SharkD 04:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Too many external links!

message: What about games like America's Army, which is created by the US military and is essentially a type of wargaming.--Goon Noot 05:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First-Person Shooters do not belong here. Jacob Haller 15:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

text: What do they have in common with the wargames and occasional non-war consims which this article covers? Jacob Haller 23:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FPS games not mentioned? 

message: I just noticed that kriegspiel is spelled differently here than in the article it links to, which spells it kriegsspeil. I don't know enough about the subject (or German) to know weather there are alternate spellings or if one is a mistake. Rhinocerous Ranger (talk) 18:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling of ''kriegspiel''

message: I'm somewhat new to Wikipedia, and have a fear of editing actual articles. However, I feel as though the computer game "Defcon" should be considered a wargame. It seems to fit under all previously mentioned critera...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.50.0.64 (talk) 03:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Defcon

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*Oppose. A Wargame is a Military simulation. Wargaming is a hobby involving games about war. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 04:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: There also are "cracker wargames" which are some machines on a network that are designated to be cracked and then kept secure from other crackers.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.161.47.18 (talk) 22:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cracker Wargaming 

message: Could one part of the article just be a simple summery, like it's a video game made by the US Army?
I'm still blank on what wargames are!!! This article isin't made for the simple man, it's made for poeple who already have a general idea about this.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.75.215.172 (talk) 02:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Huh?

message: I agree with an earlier comment that the article as it stands is not clear enough about what wargaming is, nor about what the different kinds of wargaming are.  So at some points the article talks about wargaming as if it were just or mainly miniature wargaming (Kriegspiel, HG Wells etc), then at other points as if it were just or mainly board wargaming (eg the section on the 'golden age of the 1970s' - which has no mention of the various kinds of miniature wargames going on at the time - Wargames research group etc - the various figure manufacturers).  122.163.203.46 (talk) 06:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huh II 

message: Would it not be appropriate to mention Twilight Struggle in here somewhere?  I've never played it, but I was hoping to learn more about how it compares to other wargames here, given that it's been the #1 ranked game on all of BGG for the past four years now...  71.94.92.122 (talk) 16:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Twilight Struggle? 

message: The article currently says "... According to Max Boot's book War Made New (2006, pg 122), sometime between 1803 and 1809, the Prussian General Staff developed war games, with staff officers moving metal pieces around on a game table... ". But how about Georg Venturini's book from 1797; Beschreibung und Regeln eines neuen Krieges-Spiels, zum Nutzen und Vergnügen, besonders aber zum Gebrauch in Militair-Schulen (Description and Rules of a New War Game, for Usefulness and Enjoyment, but Practicularly for Use in Military Schools).
Source: Empire of Chance: The Napoleonic Wars and the Disorder of Things, Anders Engberg-Pedersen (2015, pp. 124-128). This book also mentions Allgaier, Chamblanc, Opiz, and Reißwitz as notable contributors to the first war-games.
Jsekamane (talk) 10:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Venturini? 

message: I just stumbled on this source:
:*
It is published by the US Federal Government Printing Office and thus in the public domain. That means you can copy-paste passages of text into Wikipedia without attribution, though I would not recommend it, at least use attribution. Regardless, it's a very complete and well done book about wargamming recently published. It mentions a lot of different games, publishes and designers, and thus could be used throughout Wikipedia because so many of our articles on wargamming are lacking good quality sources like this one. -- GreenC 17:07, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It can be used in many articles.  -- GreenC 02:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excellent source 

message: User:Aaron Locke changed the first line of the lede to this:
:A wargame is a realistic scenario designed to train relevant stakeholders (soldiers, officers or planners), improve readiness or explore specific issues inline with scenario aims and objectives.
I'm sure this edit was made in good faith because I've seen similar-sounding definitions in professional wargaming books.  And I hate them because they don't make much sense to the layman.  They sound more like conclusions rather than the start of an explanation. I think the Curse of Knowledge is strong and endemic in the professional wargaming community. I came up with this definition:
:A wargame is a type of strategy game that simulates warfare realistically, as opposed to abstract strategy games such as chess
Most of our readers play videogames and know what a "strategy game" is (Total War, Starcraft, etc.).  I thought it smarter to start with something most readers would know.  "Oh, so it's like Total War but it's with modern warfare and realistic enough to train actual soldiers." Kurzon (talk) 08:08, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Wargame definition

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: Not moved   (t · c) buidhe 02:51, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: But they might have different usages, which appears to be the case here. The genre more commonly uses the unspaced variation, while the military exercise more commonly uses the spaced version. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:08, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: That's just a trivial stylistic choice! Kurzon (talk) 15:24, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Not on Wikipedia. See also War Machine and Warmachine, War hawk and Warhawk, war hammer and Warhammer, war cry and Warcry, etc. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:17, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

text: You've illustrated the usage difference, which is my point. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It does not justify two separate articles. Kurzon (talk) 05:38, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The two usages justify two navigational paths. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Kurzon means that war game is used by some military institutions to refer to tabletop/computer simulations without live troops. That is the same thing that wargame currently describes. Again: there is no difference between spellings when it comes to topics signified. Again: there is no reason to confuse people further by splitting up war game and wargame when they mean the same thing. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 17:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: JHunterJ's point is that what someone wants with "Wargame" might be different to "War game" so one might have a primary topic but not the other. Crouch, Swale (talk)  19:18, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I've lost track of how many times I've said this, but they're the same thing. This thread has invented a distinction between them where one doesn't exist. They're identical. They have entirely overlapping use. If one spelling has a primary topic, then both do. If one spelling doesn't have a primary topic, then neither does. The good news is that the primary topic is clear, and it's the page both wargame and war game currently link to. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 04:49, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, you keep saying that that has to be the way it is, but the issue is that it's incorrect, that it can be that one spelling (spacing) can have a primary topic while the other doesn't, or has a different one. This thread recognized that a distinction might exist. That you use them identically and see no difference doesn't mean that everyone does those things. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:07, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 6 October 2020 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:War game (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 08:47, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress