Whats wrong with Alternate history?

[ernieschwitz]

As the title says: Whats wrong with Alternate history scenarios, and games.

Personally I love them. I wouldn´t play the games if it wasn´t possible to alter history in some way. Who wants to play something that is scripted so that everything happens like it did in the real world? I don´t! I want freedom of action.

Of course I can accept people who want to measure how good they are compared to history, but still that would require some changes in history for them to actually witness a better or worse result than they got in real life..

Currently I have made 3 major mods, for 2 different games. They are:

GD 1938 (Advanced Tactics: Gold)
- A relatively free action game, of the world war, starting in 1938. Global scale. And those who play it, love it!

Case Brown (Decisive Campaigns: Warsaw to Paris)
- A what if Germany had invaded France through Switzerland, while making a feint in Holland and Belgium. It was so good people who played it almost considered it stock!

Case Green (Decisive Campaigns: Warsaw to Paris)
- Or perhaps more properly named Fall Grün. The Germans had many operations they called that. This one is the invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1938.

And to top all that off I am curently working on another what if.... which you can read about here:
what if...

I simply can´t get enough of these alternative histories. I think they are fun, add flavour, and most of all challenge your abilities in new situations.

What's your take?

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: ernieschwitz

As the title says: Whats wrong with Alternate history scenarios, and games.

Personally I love them. I wouldn´t play the games if it wasn´t possible to alter history in some way. Who wants to play something that is scripted so that everything happens like it did in the real world? I don´t! I want freedom of action.

Of course I can accept people who want to measure how good they are compared to history, but still that would require some changes in history for them to actually witness a better or worse result than they got in real life ...

What's that old Koei motto?
We supply the past; you make the history.

[zakblood]

all games have it tbh, it's called the editor or mods

[ernieschwitz]

Well, all games, or most games, have an editor, and alot more do have mods, and they do often, but not always depict some sort of alternative reality. That was not my question or my point.

My question was: what is wrong with Alternate History? ... cause I did see someone on here badmouth it pretty much, in another thread.

And my point is that, without it, games would be pretty boring. My mods are just examples of experiences people have had with it, that in general are positive.

[zakblood]

history can be boring, no good being in a game and making better progress than history to only then still lose the war, makes little point, alt history gives you the option of replaying something and doing it better, or worse

[warspite1]

There is nothing “wrong with it”.

It all depends on the individual and a) what they want from a game, and b) the level of realism they need.

These war games are not simulations, they are war games – and each one has its own goal, its own end-game.

I suspect the more detailed and historically accurate the game, the more chance there is of there being only one outcome i.e. the historical one, although that can depend on the time period of course (every war has its tipping point).

So take WITP-AE. This game is really detailed, with historic OOB’s etc. The US and Japan were so mis-matched it was untrue. Therefore, if you make a war game with such attention to historic detail, guess what? You ain’t gonna see Tojo marching on the White House anytime soon. Not unless you incorporate all kinds of aids for the Japanese. But that does not mean there is no Alternate History going on in each game – it’s just more limited in scope. Judging by the success of the game that more limited scope obviously works for a lot of people.

At the other end of the scale you have a strategic game like World In Flames. This game is designed to be winnable by either the Allies or the Axis – and so you get liberties taken with the OOB, the combat/defence factors of units and even the ability to invade or not invade countries that were/were not involved in WWII.

In WIF (best game ever by the way) I am totally happy that the game allows a Sealion or no Barbarossa or Hitler pursuing a Mediterranean strategy because the game is what it is and does not pretend to be anything else. It is a hugely fun (and complex) game, set within a WWII framework, but little strait-jacketing of players to historical outcomes.

If I was playing a game with the historical accuracy of WITW for example, then I would not expect Germany to have the option of not invading the Soviet Union. It makes all the time and effort of painstaking “Historical” research a bit of a nonsense i.e. it is impossible for OOB’s to be historically accurate for one thing.

So for me, some things work and some things don’t, but there is nothing "wrong" with Alternate History.

[Kuokkanen]

ORIGINAL: ernieschwitz

What's your take?

Becouse wargames I play can include themes like fantasy and scifi, I can't claim to have hard set requirements for historical accuracy. However I want to play some historically accurate wargames as well. In those games I'd like to have at least the beginning of given scenario or campaign to equal real historical counterparts. However I can accept small deviations from history, like one SPWAW scenario (part of an campaign) having couple more ATGs for France than what was in real historical scenario (just 1).

[tevans6220]

Pretty much every war game is alternate history. The second you make the first move it becomes alternate history unless you do the same exact thing that your historical counterpart did. I like alternate history as long as it stays within the confines of the game and realistically could have happened. For instance what if Stalin had attacked first? Or the Japanese weren't caught flat flooted at Midway. When it starts getting gamey and borders on the ridiculous, I have a problem. Alternate history has to be believable and historically plausible for me.

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: tevans6220

... When it starts getting gamey and borders on the ridiculous, I have a problem. Alternate history has to be believable and historically plausible for me.

Or as Tom Clancy once said: "The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense."

[Jim D Burns]

Nothing is wrong with alternate histories, but wargames do need an identity based on history. So creating a game about WWII that allows the allies to steam roll the Axis in 1939 cannot really be termed a wargame about WWII. Instead I’d call it a strategy game themed on WWII.

I think this is where a lot of the confusion and frustration for players arise. People who get angry that a game too closely follows history and makes them feel as if they are reading a book approach their games differently than people who look at their games and expect to see history simulated by the game.

The first group of people usually weighs victory and defeat by who clears the map at game end no matter if it was possible historically or not. The second group weighs victory and defeat by the conditions laid out in game and even if their controlled side loses the map war they can still feel satisfied by meeting a series of conditions that bests what was accomplished by the combatants historically.

So to summarize I’d say the only thing that is “wrong” is in how a game is identified. A wargame follows history whenever possible and a strategy game doesn’t or at least isn’t constrained by it as much and is more concerned with the game system than the history.

Jim

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

Nothing is wrong with alternate histories, but wargames do need an identity based on history. So creating a game about WWII that allows the allies to steam roll the Axis in 1939 cannot really be termed a wargame about WWII. Instead I’d call it a strategy game themed on WWII.

I think this is where a lot of the confusion and frustration for players arise. People who get angry that a game too closely follows history and makes them feel as if they are reading a book approach their games differently than people who look at their games and expect to see history simulated by the game.

The first group of people usually weighs victory and defeat by who clears the map at game end no matter if it was possible historically or not. The second group weighs victory and defeat by the conditions laid out in game and even if their controlled side loses the map war they can still feel satisfied be meeting a series of conditions that bests what was accomplished by the combatants historically.

So to summarize I’d say the only thing that is “wrong” is in how a game is identified. A wargame follows history whenever possible and a strategy game doesn’t ...

... like the last Europa Universalis release.

[Fred98]

Point 1: Every country had a specific amount of resources. Every country could have produced more armoured cars and less tanks than they did historically. Or more ships and less tanks. Or more tanks and less aircraft. Or a million Pz IV's and no Tiger tanks. Or any other combination you might come up with.

So, if your alternate history has more tiger tanks on the Russian Front - then you might finish up with fewer aircraft - and France does not fall in 1940.


Point 2: General whathis name on the ground has information and based on that information has 3 choices: A, B or C. He selects A and slugs it out to a draw. The thing is that B and C were equally legitimate based on the information. In a wargame we make alternate history and select C - and have a magnificent victory! Or we would have except that the enemy, in alternate history, swapped his tiger tanks for aircraft and killed our general and wiped out all our armour!


Everything is connected to everything else. Alternate history cannot be confined to the 100 square Ks of your alternate history wargame.

[MrsWargamer]

My usual biggest beef with wargames, is the mode.

If the game is more about arcade reaction time, and almost no real careful thought out planning, then the level of 'accuracy' is probably not as important to the gamer, as they are more interested in an action game.

But if the game uses turns, and has wholely gamey effects, it too will make a farce out of the experience.

It always boggles my mind, that we haven't actually gotten rid of stupid real time, and gamey turns, and made all wargames WEGO designs.

Because I don't play games to pretend Sealion was ever possible. But I also find using trucks as minesweepers is highly questionable.

I play the games to be entertained to be sure, but, the only reason I play wargames, and not fantasy games, is I want to see what it was like, what the challenge was, and maybe could I have done a better job.

The moment a game isn't wego, it's either someone thinking real time has any connection with actual time, or it's someone using gamey tactics in a turn based design. With wego, you come up with your best efforts, and then hit commit, and if you suck, there is no escaping it. No mouse clicking style and no clever way to abuse the design.

It's just odd so many of you play so many games, that so clearly suck shit, and yet you are so defiantly dedicated to defending them

There are VERY few actually good wargames when it comes to any reason for historical accuracy.

[Curtis Lemay]

Does "Alternate History" = "Hypothetical"? Or are they different things?

One favorite wargame topic is NATO vs. Warsaw Pact. No way that can be historical, so it has to be hypothetical. I've certainly played plenty of that.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: MrsWargamer

It always boggles my mind, that we haven't actually gotten rid of stupid real time, and gamey turns, and made all wargames WEGO designs.

WEGO causes as many problems as it solves. There is no perfect solution to the war simulation problem.

[Twotribes]

ORIGINAL: MrsWargamer

My usual biggest beef with wargames, is the mode.

If the game is more about arcade reaction time, and almost no real careful thought out planning, then the level of 'accuracy' is probably not as important to the gamer, as they are more interested in an action game.

But if the game uses turns, and has wholely gamey effects, it too will make a farce out of the experience.

It always boggles my mind, that we haven't actually gotten rid of stupid real time, and gamey turns, and made all wargames WEGO designs.

Because I don't play games to pretend Sealion was ever possible. But I also find using trucks as minesweepers is highly questionable.

I play the games to be entertained to be sure, but, the only reason I play wargames, and not fantasy games, is I want to see what it was like, what the challenge was, and maybe could I have done a better job.

The moment a game isn't wego, it's either someone thinking real time has any connection with actual time, or it's someone using gamey tactics in a turn based design. With wego, you come up with your best efforts, and then hit commit, and if you suck, there is no escaping it. No mouse clicking style and no clever way to abuse the design.

It's just odd so many of you play so many games, that so clearly suck shit, and yet you are so defiantly dedicated to defending them

There are VERY few actually good wargames when it comes to any reason for historical accuracy.

I do not like real time "wargames" but do like pausable realtime simulations. As long as I KNOW a game is not going to be historical I have no problem with the mechanics, though I am to slow to jerk games so don't play first person shooters or that type. I have no problem with well made IGOUGO or WEGO. I do have a problem when someone claims ONLY their favorite type is good or appropriate though.

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: Joe 98

Point 1: Every country had a specific amount of resources. Every country could have produced more armoured cars and less tanks than they did historically. Or more ships and less tanks. Or more tanks and less aircraft. Or a million Pz IV's and no Tiger tanks. Or any other combination you might come up with.

So, if your alternate history has more tiger tanks on the Russian Front - then you might finish up with fewer aircraft - and France does not fall in 1940.


Point 2: General whathis name on the ground has information and based on that information has 3 choices: A, B or C. He selects A and slugs it out to a draw. The thing is that B and C were equally legitimate based on the information. In a wargame we make alternate history and select C - and have a magnificent victory! Or we would have except that the enemy, in alternate history, swapped his tiger tanks for aircraft and killed our general and wiped out all our armour!


Everything is connected to everything else. Alternate history cannot be confined to the 100 square Ks of your alternate history wargame.

This sounds like Paradox's "Hearts of Iron" series where you could manage resources and research, set governmental policy, war fighting strategies and then choose the appropriate generals. It was a popular game until its last, broken installment.

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: MrsWargamer

It always boggles my mind, that we haven't actually gotten rid of stupid real time, and gamey turns, and made all wargames WEGO designs.

WEGO causes as many problems as it solves. There is no perfect solution to the war simulation problem.

WEGO works for AGEOD, and I frankly prefer it; both WEGO and pausable real time are superior to IGOUGO, which can take forever.

[Twotribes]

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: MrsWargamer

It always boggles my mind, that we haven't actually gotten rid of stupid real time, and gamey turns, and made all wargames WEGO designs.

WEGO causes as many problems as it solves. There is no perfect solution to the war simulation problem.

WEGO works for AGEOD, and I frankly prefer it; both WEGO and pausable real time are superior to IGOUGO, which can take forever.

I really try to like AGEOD but their interface sucks for me. I have a few of their games and it is so painfully playing them I don't.

[MrsWargamer]

Wego to my knowledge hasn't been really tried hard enough.

@TwoTribes, dear, you gotta learn to not go instantly defensive. It makes you sound paranoid. I never stated I knew everything, and yet you imply I did.
When I'm ready to claim to know everything, I'll come right out and say it.

Having some grief lately with my own wargaming preferences, in addition of course to not have any restraint in making purchases.
Then again, I might just be getting too old for what wasn't too much work 40 years ago.
Kinda trapped in my lazyboy tonight. Fired up some TOAW III... no go, just too much like work. Fired up some Unity of Command. Played the entire first battle in less than 20 minutes. Lost unfortunately heh but I enjoyed it.

Some call some games beer and pretzel, and insist those games are less value than others that are incredibly complex. You know, you can drink beer and eat pretzels while playing any of your games eh.

I think some games are just more inline with what some want to experience. It has nothing to do with the design being better than another game necessarily, or more 'real' or less complicated.

Me, I wear out in about 30 minutes. So it really isn't relevant what the games many qualities are, I have 30 minutes to offer it, and then I need a rest. I'm likely to enjoy a game I can play most of IN that 30 minutes now. Maybe 40 years ago, I'd be in better shape to spend 30 minutes or 3 hours on a game, where I got done more.