>>36786878>I don't historical wargame for the game, I historical wargame for the history (and the painting).Then you lean towards the collecting side of things and there is nothing wrong with that.
>>The history side of historical wargaming is equally as important as the wargaming side...True, but investigating and/or learning about the history of a given conflict doesn't necessarily equate painting little figures of men, tanks, and ships. I took up both minis and map&chit wargaming at about the same time. I very much enjoy exploring the history associated with many of the games I love and not just those which used figures. Investigating the historical side of historical wargaming does not require figures.
>>The models aren't entirely arbitraryYes they are. We know next to nothing about what most armies in most eras ACTUALLY LOOKED LIKE and yet many hobbyists want to believe their little painted men are somehow historically accurate. And many, like the asshole in
>>36783474's post, throw hissy fits when their fantasies are challenged.
>>collecting them forms one of the foundations of historical wargaming: collecting toy soldiers.Collecting toys soldiers greatly predates using toy soldiers in wargaming, by hundreds if not thousands of years. It was Wells who took the existing example of the map based kriegsspiel and linked it to toy soldiers. Map&chit came first, figs just look prettier.
>>Historical wargaming is not just a game.True. Historical wargaming is a game which claims some sort of historical accuracy, an accuracy which varies from game to game naturally.
I play wargames to play wargames. The game is the thing for me. Others play wargames for other EQUALLY VALID reasons. I respect their reasons and expect that they will respect mine. When some sperg lord chooses not to play because a shield is the wrong shape, that's their prerogative. I'll be over here playing a wargame instead.
