Historical accuracy in wargames

[Jim D Burns]

My point is simple. European Colonialism was not a “good” thing and should not be celebrated in histories the way it is. Sure, it was good for the European people who practiced Colonialism, but everyone else involved suffered terribly under the forced oppression.

I liken it to what we did to the Indians here, we saw a people who for the most part lacked the ability to effectively resist us, so we took everything we could from them and gave no consideration to what we were doing to them until it was far too late. The only difference I can see is as a nation we regret what we did, European nations appear to simply want to forget or deny what they did.

Jim

[Orm]

Can we move back to the original topic now, please?

Before this thread gets locked.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

My point is simple. European Colonialism was not a “good” thing and should not be celebrated in histories the way it is. Sure, it was good for the European people who practiced Colonialism, but everyone else involved suffered terribly under the forced oppression.

I liken it to what we did to the Indians here, we saw a people who for the most part lacked the ability to effectively resist us, so we took everything we could from them and gave no consideration to what we were doing to them until it was far too late. The only difference I can see is as a nation we regret what we did, European nations appear to simply want to forget or deny what they did.

Jim

warspite1

For the first time we agree on something - your point is simple...and plain wrong... and the hubris on display is really quite astonishing.

How is colonialism celebrated in the UK? Where did that come from? Ever been to school in the UK, ever read the BBC website? Ever lived in the UK? You think it's celebrated here? - you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

You really think that "everyone else involved suffered terribly under the forced oppression"? You genuinely need to stop reading the Guardian and maybe vary your choice of reading material. That statement is quite simply false.end.of. I think you still live in a Bad Guys = black hats (except Napoleon of course); Good guys = white hats world. Need to come out of that world and start looking at real life. Have you any idea how many British were in India? How many of them were soldiers? No - because the truth takes your falsehood and dumps it in the trash.

The US as a nation regret what happened and the British, the French, the Dutch etc don't? That one sentence proves further discussion is totally pointless - the arrogance is simply breathtaking. Good job you are hear to show us pathetic Europeans how we should see the error of our ways.

I should have stopped at Godwin, but now really is the time to say thank-you and goodnight before I say something I will only regret.

[Aurelian]

Hmmmmmm

[kemmo]

Just a few facts about the Royal Navy in Nelsons time,the average beer consumption in England was about 35 gallons a year a sailor got around 300 a year,tobacco in England about a pound a year, a sailor got about 24 a year.The average wage in England was between 3 and 10 pounds a year,the lowest rating in the Navy got over 10 pounds a year,press ganged men got paid as well, medical treatment in England such as it was and if you could find a doctor had to be paid for,it was free in the Navy unless the illness was self inflicted(usually STD's),the average worker in England couldn't afford to buy the daily bread allowance that a sailor got free.Calling it slave labor pure and simple doesn't tell the whole story.

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: kemmo

Just a few facts about the Royal Navy in Nelsons time,the average beer consumption in England was about 35 gallons a year a sailor got around 300 a year,tobacco in England about a pound a year, a sailor got about 24 a year.The average wage in England was between 3 and 10 pounds a year,the lowest rating in the Navy got over 10 pounds a year,press ganged men got paid as well, medical treatment in England such as it was and if you could find a doctor had to be paid for,it was free in the Navy unless the illness was self inflicted(usually STD's),the average worker in England couldn't afford to buy the daily bread allowance that a sailor got free.Calling it slave labor pure and simple doesn't tell the whole story.

Don't forget the prize money.

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: kemmo

Just a few facts about the Royal Navy in Nelsons time,the average beer consumption in England was about 35 gallons a year a sailor got around 300 a year,tobacco in England about a pound a year, a sailor got about 24 a year.The average wage in England was between 3 and 10 pounds a year,the lowest rating in the Navy got over 10 pounds a year,press ganged men got paid as well, medical treatment in England such as it was and if you could find a doctor had to be paid for,it was free in the Navy unless the illness was self inflicted(usually STD's),the average worker in England couldn't afford to buy the daily bread allowance that a sailor got free.Calling it slave labor pure and simple doesn't tell the whole story.

I found a table of Allowance of Provisions from Regulations and Instructions, 1808 at:

http://www.nelsonsnavy.co.uk/broadside2.html

Interesting. The rest of the site seems to be worth a look as well.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

My point is simple. European Colonialism was not a “good” thing and should not be celebrated in histories the way it is. Sure, it was good for the European people who practiced Colonialism, but everyone else involved suffered terribly under the forced oppression.

I figure I owe my existence to Colonialism. There wouldn't be a USA without it.

And, Colonialism isn't something Europeans invented. It's a fixture of biology. Currently, the USA is being colonized by Mexico (resulting in the "forced oppression" of the Obama Administration [:D]), and Europe by Islam.

I liken it to what we did to the Indians here, we saw a people who for the most part lacked the ability to effectively resist us, so we took everything we could from them and gave no consideration to what we were doing to them until it was far too late. The only difference I can see is as a nation we regret what we did, European nations appear to simply want to forget or deny what they did.

Revisionist history. The colonists didn't arrive in the New World and set to slaughtering the Indians. Rather, they arrived and were slaughtered. It was somewhat like gouging out an amphibious lodgment in WWII.

The first organized war was Powhattan's War in 1619 (that's before Plymouth Rock, by the way). It was initiated with a sneak attack that killed 1/3 of the Jamestown settlement's population (men, women, and children). (To put that in perspective, it would be like 9/11 killing 100 million people.) The colonists didn't bring genocide to American - they learned it from the Indians. The Indians were just fine with it - it was SOP for them. They just wish it had turned out the other way.

[Perturabo]

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft

OK, that's just one tactile level of "accuracy" and not relevant to operational/strategic games but it is these larger scale games when the problem gets worse. There was an interesting discussion in the "Time of Fury" forum about whether a successful SeaLion should be achievable within the game system. One group of purists held that hindsight showed that the Germans would never have succeeded in invading Britain and the game should reflect that reality. The other group of purists (including me) acknowledged that SeaLion would have failed in real life but at the time the British were operating under the belief that it MIGHT have succeeded and their strategic decisions were affected by that belief. If you removed the possibility of a successful SeaLion from the game system then you were not accurately modelling the challenges facing the British ("Hey, since we know the Germans can't invade the Homeland then lets just send the whole RAF to Egypt and wallop the Italians."). And why would the Germans divert part of their 1940 production into transports (as they did historically) if they know that those units will never be used in anger? So which 'accuracy' do you choose? Operational planning or strategic mindset? You can't have both in that situation. D@mned if you do and d@mned if you don't - the game designer just can't win.

If UK would leave the homeland without air cover, they'd probably end up without airfields, ports and industry. I think that crippling UK as an air power was necessary for Germans regardless if they'd proceed with Sea Lion or not.
If Germans would abandon preparations for invasion of UK, Stalin would realise that Germans are going to turn East and would attack first.

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft

I agree with DSWargamers point about allowing variable setups (and starting forces) in order to defeat perfect plans and perhaps that's as close to "accuracy" as we can hope for. OTOH he also said "You are kidding yourself if you think most computer wargames are giving you 'great' wargaming." and with that comment he perhaps risks portraying himself as the sole arbiter of what defines 'great' wargaming (I'm sure that wasn't his intention.)

"Great Wargaming" is different things to different people and for me... Pandora=[>:] + MWiF= + War in the West=. Your mileage WILL vary but IMHO there is room in this hobby for all of us and just because we may differ on what defines "accuracy" in a wargame it doesn't mean that any of us is wrong.

However I do exclude weapon performance from this thesis. While an Avro Lancaster will always carry more bomb weight than a Mosquito there may well be a viable discussion about whether the RAF should have scrapped all of the heavies and just built swarms of Mosquitos... you'd have to miss out on events like Operation Chastise but the overall effect may have been well worth the sacrifice.

So (reaching for tin hat and hunkering down under my desk in anticipation of incoming fire) what do you think?

Well, that's why I prefer Science-Fantasy wargaming. It isn't dependent on pre-set historical situations.

[Perturabo]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Well, we are clearly poles apart in terms of how we view history. Brutal dictatorship... oh goodness...

But it appears its not just on the matter of Empire, but also with respect to Britain's desire to keep themselves safe by not allowing any one country hedgemony in Europe. I am a little surprised that you do not recognise that such hedgemony could only be achieved by tin pot dictators invading other countries. So while Britain was such a force for evil, Napoleon invading Austria, Italy, Prussia, the other German States, Russia, oh and not forgetting stabbing their ally Spain in the back, was perfectly acceptable? Nice guy Napoleon - salt of the earth.

Highlighting Trafalgar as a great moment in the annals of military history? Damn right I do. Admiral Lord Nelson a pompous ass? What a ridiculous thing to say about the finest fighting sailor ever.

How about:
They were all scum of the earth?
Anyway. I find it bewildering that people can attach themselves to entities that they have no control over and whose moral clarity is extremely doubtful.
We killed "Indians", we did "colonialism", etc.
There's no we in these actions. It is "they" who did colonialism, holocaust, annexation of this or that territory, not "you".

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Perturabo

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Well, we are clearly poles apart in terms of how we view history. Brutal dictatorship... oh goodness...

But it appears its not just on the matter of Empire, but also with respect to Britain's desire to keep themselves safe by not allowing any one country hedgemony in Europe. I am a little surprised that you do not recognise that such hedgemony could only be achieved by tin pot dictators invading other countries. So while Britain was such a force for evil, Napoleon invading Austria, Italy, Prussia, the other German States, Russia, oh and not forgetting stabbing their ally Spain in the back, was perfectly acceptable? Nice guy Napoleon - salt of the earth.

Highlighting Trafalgar as a great moment in the annals of military history? Damn right I do. Admiral Lord Nelson a pompous ass? What a ridiculous thing to say about the finest fighting sailor ever.

How about:
They were all scum of the earth?
Anyway. I find it bewildering that people can attach themselves to entities that they have no control over and whose moral clarity is extremely doubtful.
We killed "Indians", we did "colonialism", etc.
There's no we in these actions. It is "they" who did colonialism, holocaust, annexation of this or that territory, not "you".

warspite1

They were all scum of the earth?

What? Who?

bewilldering that people can attach themselves to entities

I attach myself to my country so yes I say we.

[Perturabo]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

They were all scum of the earth?

What? Who?

Imperialists.

ORIGINAL: warspite1

bewilldering that people can attach themselves to entities

I attach myself to my country so yes I say we.

I see. Then I guess it would be fine if you'd be held personally for all the historical atrocities of of "we". Maybe we should start some kind of a second Nurmberg trials and judge "you" for all that stuff or something.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Perturabo

ORIGINAL: warspite1

They were all scum of the earth?

What? Who?

Imperialists.

ORIGINAL: warspite1

bewilldering that people can attach themselves to entities

I attach myself to my country so yes I say we.

I see. Then I guess it would be fine if you'd be held personally for all the historical atrocities of of "we". Maybe we should start some kind of a second Nurmberg trials and judge "you" for all that stuff or something.

warspite1

Judging the actions of people in the past by values of the present day is a totally pointless exercise - other than to understand one's current thinking on the subject e.g. anyone looking now at the slave trade and not being saddened and disgusted by it, clearly has issues.

But beyond pointing out the glaringly obvious, its actually interesting and of value to explore who did what, why etc as understanding our past helps to ensure we do not repeat the mistakes made. But simply labelling everyone as scum, without at least trying to understand the thinking of the time, adds nothing to the debate really does it?


Why would you wish to hold a "Nuremburg trial" for someone talking about their country via the use of we rather than they?

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

My point is simple. European Colonialism was not a “good” thing and should not be celebrated in histories the way it is. Sure, it was good for the European people who practiced Colonialism, but everyone else involved suffered terribly under the forced oppression.

I figure I owe my existence to Colonialism. There wouldn't be a USA without it.

And, Colonialism isn't something Europeans invented. It's a fixture of biology. Currently, the USA is being colonized by Mexico (resulting in the "forced oppression" of the Obama Administration [:D]), and Europe by Islam.

I liken it to what we did to the Indians here, we saw a people who for the most part lacked the ability to effectively resist us, so we took everything we could from them and gave no consideration to what we were doing to them until it was far too late. The only difference I can see is as a nation we regret what we did, European nations appear to simply want to forget or deny what they did.

Revisionist history. The colonists didn't arrive in the New World and set to slaughtering the Indians. Rather, they arrived and were slaughtered. It was somewhat like gouging out an amphibious lodgment in WWII.

The first organized war was Powhattan's War in 1619 (that's before Plymouth Rock, by the way). It was initiated with a sneak attack that killed 1/3 of the Jamestown settlement's population (men, women, and children). (To put that in perspective, it would be like 9/11 killing 100 million people.) The colonists didn't bring genocide to American - they learned it from the Indians. The Indians were just fine with it - it was SOP for them. They just wish it had turned out the other way.

I am confused why you picked the war of 1619. Why not the First Anglo-Powhatan War of 1610? And why begin with an organized war? Before that there had been combat with the Indians.

I also wonder why you compare it to an amphibious lodgement? Is it because you see the colonists as an invasion force?

Edit: No offence was intended. Please educate me.

[DSWargamer]

"Well, that's why I prefer Science-Fantasy wargaming. It isn't dependent on pre-set historical situations. "

She makes a very significant observation about why Civilization V is so compelling. Every time I fire up Civ V I get a new game. Same engine, new game. They design some incredible historical scenarios for Civ V, but they escape the limitation set by historically accuracy obsession. I applaud her for realizing that sometimes the quasi historical wargames are often more realistic for being less obsessed with technical accuracy.

If we are going to get snitty about accuracy, then I am inclined to demand the map be 100% accurate and FORCE the game to accept it. In the case of the SC3 game underway in development, I am simply not interested in listening to problems of map size. Make the map fit the needs of the game, and stop thinking in terms of rigid box shaped maps. Our planet is round, the map should reflect this fact. Going from the USA to Europe is best via the Atlantic, but, I think the Russians should be capable of getting supplies via BC and into eastern Russia and via the trans Siberian railway too.

South America was never really 'in' the war, but, it was also not out of the war. The axis made life dangerous on the world's oceans all the way into the South Atlantic, and into the Indian Ocean. The greater bulk of Africa might mean nothing and South America might have no non naval aspects, but they were still in the way. No one fought east of the Urals, but all of that wilderness was still in the way. Northern Canada has nothing to fear from WW2, but that massive chunk of land is still there. There was no chance of Germans of Japanese in Kansas either, as big as Russian was, Germany could have gotten there on foot.

The danger of being obsessed with 'accuracy' is when all you focus on is the machinery, and not the scenery. I don't need to account for every plane, every tank and every ship. That's a tactical wargame problem.

[Kabar]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

My point is simple. European Colonialism was not a “good” thing and should not be celebrated in histories the way it is. Sure, it was good for the European people who practiced Colonialism, but everyone else involved suffered terribly under the forced oppression.

I liken it to what we did to the Indians here, we saw a people who for the most part lacked the ability to effectively resist us, so we took everything we could from them and gave no consideration to what we were doing to them until it was far too late. The only difference I can see is as a nation we regret what we did, European nations appear to simply want to forget or deny what they did.

Jim

Your knowledge on the historiography on British colonialism needs updating beyond the Seeley era. In no way is it celebrated as you claim.

[fvianello]

ORIGINAL: kemmo

Just a few facts about the Royal Navy in Nelsons time,the average beer consumption in England was about 35 gallons a year a sailor got around 300 a year,tobacco in England about a pound a year, a sailor got about 24 a year.The average wage in England was between 3 and 10 pounds a year,the lowest rating in the Navy got over 10 pounds a year,press ganged men got paid as well, medical treatment in England such as it was and if you could find a doctor had to be paid for,it was free in the Navy unless the illness was self inflicted(usually STD's),the average worker in England couldn't afford to buy the daily bread allowance that a sailor got free.Calling it slave labor pure and simple doesn't tell the whole story.

No surprise they had the best crews!

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Revisionist history. The colonists didn't arrive in the New World and set to slaughtering the Indians. Rather, they arrived and were slaughtered. It was somewhat like gouging out an amphibious lodgment in WWII.

The first organized war was Powhattan's War in 1619 (that's before Plymouth Rock, by the way). It was initiated with a sneak attack that killed 1/3 of the Jamestown settlement's population (men, women, and children). (To put that in perspective, it would be like 9/11 killing 100 million people.) The colonists didn't bring genocide to American - they learned it from the Indians. The Indians were just fine with it - it was SOP for them. They just wish it had turned out the other way.

I am confused why you picked the war of 1619. Why not the First Anglo-Powhatan War of 1610? And why begin with an organized war? Before that there had been combat with the Indians.

I also wonder why you compare it to an amphibious lodgement? Is it because you see the colonists as an invasion force?

I've never heard of the First Anglo-Powhattan War of 1610. Nor do any of my references mention it. So, I doubt it was much of a war. I you wanted to, you could even go back to the Roanoke colony - the one that vanished forever in 1580. Regardless, Powhattan's War (which was a real war with all the trimmings) illustrates what the colonists faced (it was actually 1622, not 1619 - my bad). Colonizing was like an amphibious landing in that the first waves were slaughtered or otherwise died and it took multiple waves of reinforcements to finally establish a lodgment.

[kemmo]

It also helped having the most advanced guns of the time,that along with better training enabled Royal Navy ships to fire nearly twice as fast as other crews,the effect on moral meant Royal Navy crews went into action expecting to win.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Kabar

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

My point is simple. European Colonialism was not a “good” thing and should not be celebrated in histories the way it is. Sure, it was good for the European people who practiced Colonialism, but everyone else involved suffered terribly under the forced oppression.

I liken it to what we did to the Indians here, we saw a people who for the most part lacked the ability to effectively resist us, so we took everything we could from them and gave no consideration to what we were doing to them until it was far too late. The only difference I can see is as a nation we regret what we did, European nations appear to simply want to forget or deny what they did.

Jim

Your knowledge on the historiography on British colonialism needs updating beyond the Seeley era. In no way is it celebrated as you claim.

warspite1

Kabar what is the Seeley era please? Thanks.