This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Board and table games High‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Board and table games, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to board games and tabletop games. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Board and table gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Board and table gamesTemplate:WikiProject Board and table gamesboard and table game articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Technology C‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles C This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Military science, technology, and theory task force Combat Games (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Combat Games, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Combat GamesWikipedia:WikiProject Combat GamesTemplate:WikiProject Combat GamesCombat Games articles Games (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Games, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.GamesWikipedia:WikiProject GamesTemplate:WikiProject GamesGames articles

Archives

/Archive 1

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)[reply]

• Add a bit --Rindis 19:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Standards

Just proposing a few 'standard' ways of doing things.

• Articles on game publishing companies should contain a list of their products, unless the list is long enough that it should use a mini-TOC, in which case the list should be a separate article.
• Large manufacturers should have their own category, i.e., Category:Avalon Hill.
• Games should include a BGG link, if available.
• Only complete games get their own article, unless the topic is big enough that a good subarticle is needed. Expansions and guides should be talked about in the main article.
• A game series should probably get it's own page. This may well be the only page until the article gets big enough for the individual games to start geting their own pages. (Note the Europa (wargame) page.)

I know nothing about wargaming, but I somehow expected a mention of a couple of specific computer wargames, namely Command and Conquer and World of Warcraft, if they are not categorizable as wargames, or not notable enough, fair do's. --RickiRich 00:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You'll note that the various sections on types of wargames often don't mention many specific games, leaving that to the 'notable' section, with the exceptions being where such games are rare, or of a small class. Of the games you mention, C&C is technically a wargame, being about war, but is not really considered as one by the hobby (some of this is artificial, but there is the fact that the game doesn't even try to present a real view of combat). An article on RTS as wargames could be fun, but completely original research at this point. World of Warcraft is not a wargame at all, but a role-playing game (not being about warfare and militaries, but good-old-fashioned adventuring).

Read through the introductory portions of the article, and see if you can give any further questions you have on 'what is a wargame'? (Looking at it, you should have several.) We'll use the feedback to improve the article. ^_^ --Rindis 17:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone in the know provide a definition for "card-driven"? It may be confusing to see We The People listed as the first card-driven game, and then see Up Front touted as a "card game" but appearing 10 years earlier. A separate article on "card-driven" seems to be in order, defining the term? Michael Dorosh 20:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really up on them either. At the moment I don't think I could do much better than the first sentence of 'Cards' in the Board wargaming section (which, come think of it, I think I contributed). If you want more info, the Board Game Geek entries on We the People, Hannibal, et al, will help out. The main thing is a 'card-driven' game is still a board game first and foremost, with cards being a primary game mechanic after that.

I also note that you've been busy writing up little mechanic articles. Many thanks! Do you think you could write a good article for the semi-simulaneous turn? (I'd be interested in seeing something starting with it's genesis with SPI in '70s through the ASL version of it, and it seems like you might have the knowledge to write that.) --Rindis 22:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice to have this section better defined. When I hear card-driven the only thing that comes to mind is the currently popular "Warmachine" but even that is really a table-top warfare game...so really, I'm confused by a description even within my own area of interest. Hmmm...

-FX

Well, the problem may certainly be that I assumed it's just a board game thing, when it's not. Of course, I just looked at Warmachine and I don't see anything about cards in there, so I don't have any idea about what goes on there. Obviously, I need to get a 'card-driven' game instead of just noting remarks about them on BGG. ~_^ --Rindis 17:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Why doesn't Starcraft fit into this genre? Colonel Marksman 04:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I have to question the following as "notable". All are fine games, however unlike many of the other games noted, they have yet to stand the test of time.

Warmaster (Games Workshop, 2000) Confrontation (Rackham, 2000?) - A French fantasy wargame with card based initiative. Warmachine (Privateer Press, 2003) Flames of War (Battlefront Miniatures, 2002) - a World War II based wargame with a devoted following.

I would deem each of these minature wargames as less notable than BattleTech...the first popular mecha wargame with two rather novel game mechanics for the time...overheating rules (over-extending) and simple, integrated unit design rules.

That said, I would not deem BattleTech notable in an encylopedic context.

Robert L —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.136.254.77 (talk) 21:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Still in print after 22 years, first of its kind, spawned spin off computer games, arcade games, and an RPG, as well as the novels - I'd say it's very notable. Very few games have had the same long-term and kind of success as BattleTech.

That said, I don't know anything of what's going on in the world of miniatures, so I can only trim the really obvious stuff. If you'd like to help with the list and put in some of the longer-lasting or influential rules, please go right ahead. I've been hoping that we'd get someone who would look past recentism in constructing the miniatures list. --Rindis 18:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After looking on boardgamegeek.com, I removed the Warmaster, Flames of War and Confrontation entries as recentism...fewer than 150 gamers had rated these. There are 50 games with the "miniatures" tag with more than 150 ratings. They do not make the short list of notables.

I temporarily left Warmachine as nearly 300 people had rated the game. This is low. More justification is needed as to what makes this game notable.

BattleTech is classified on the page as a "Unique Game System". That works as I see it is a hybrid miniature game with heavy board game elements.

Robert L.

Funny, I see it as a board game with heavy miniatures game elements.... ^_^ Which is why that section exists. (When I played it, it came with hex-grid boards....) Anyway, sounds good. If you get into putting in some older influential games, don't forget that recentism applies at BGG too, and a once-popular game may not have any ratings (it seems to me that miniatures gamers are less willing to play a game from the '70s than many board gamers).

Also, if you're going to hang around a little, and do some editing, why don't you get account? It makes it a little easier to know who's wandering around editing. ^_^ (Oh, and you can then sign comments with four tildes "~", which will generate a link like mine. --Rindis 21:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm amazed you removed those games, over here they are some of the few games commonly available! Also I'd have doubts about using boardgamegeek.com with reference to miniture gaming. Mathmo ^Talk 21:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does commonly available mean notable though? I consider the general list to be those that have had a real influence on the industry, or stood the test of time. While I'd be cautious about using BGG for miniatures data, is there a similar site dedicated to miniatures? I know that BGG is officially supporting the inclusion of miniatures games and CCGs in its database because there isn't really any place to direct people with those interests. The contingents of users are very small, but not non-existent. Anyway, I'll leave it to you two to hammer out a common ground. --Rindis 22:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Rindis - The last sentence or two of your remarks really hit the nail on the head, imho. What I am groping blindly toward is some sort of division between the military historical wargaming that is the focus of this article, and the geewhiz shooter/action games that now dominate the market. Scale, it seems to me, is a bit of a defining characteristic, although it may not be the truely defining Rosetta Stone that I am mentally looking for. Bonbga

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)[reply]

Rindis - I am a bit troubled by trying to use the entertainment/scholarship approach, because where does that leave "wargames" like the old SPI Alpha Centauri, and similar sci-fi games? Some of them are more closely related to the classic wargame than they are to the shootem-up, video games, that have had a mass market appeal. Perhaps the approach could be to acknowledge that there exist "gray area" games, while trying to nevertheless use the scholarly distinction? Bonbga

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)[reply]

After the latest edit [1] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Is there such a thing as "Live Action" wargaming?

This is not to be confused with LARP (otherwise known as Live Action Role Playing), but a good example would be the scenarios and military simulations portrayed during Airsoft or Paintball games.

Some things to consider:

Do the primary differences in wargaming and Airsoft/Paintball lie in the perspective of the player, such as first-person and third-person?

Do the primary differences in wargaming and Airsoft/Paintball lie in gameflow, such as turned-based and real-time?

Does wargaming have a limitation on the scope of gameplay? Many boardgames include naval, aerial, and mechanized warfare. Would Airsoft/Paintball be restricted because of it's primary focus in infantry combat?

I feel that these modern combat sports can be a fairly realistic approach as many of the strategies and tactics used are just as realistic as infantry in real-life warfare.

Overall, I would like to see Live Action Wargaming as a subgenre in the article - please discuss.

UTF-NeonDevil 18:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that Sniper! is certainly a wargame, no, it's not out of scope. I would also consider something like Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six to be a valid computer wargame.

Is it a wargame...? Not sure. At the very least, it is related. (And we should still do more on the 'things that are almost wargames'.) The argument against would be that it is more akin to an actual military field exercise (a 'war game' instead of a 'wargame'), than an artificial re-creation (that is, it is too real - a nice contrast to everything else which isn't real enough). There is also the fact that it's not something that the hobby really pays attention too. (Instead, it is its own hobby.) And in the end, this article is trying to be about one, sprawling, hobby.

But it could be considered a wargame. Either way, I'm not the person to write about it, as my knowledge is fairly minimal, and my personal experience nil. --Rindis 19:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see... your choice of using 'artifical re-creation' seems to portray a precise and accurate definition of what could be 'wargaming'. Perhaps the limitation lies in the amount of physical activity that the participant is involved in, thus making it more akin to a sport than a hobby.

But still, I'm not sure that the use of athletics means that there is a lack of 'brain power' when employing many of the infantry tactics on the battlefield.

Just some food for thought - UTF-NeonDevil 20:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 'sport' angle occurred to me a few minutes after I posted. ^_^ I guess it's the sport of wargaming, eh? (I wish I had a precise definition... other than 'I know it when I see it.) --Rindis 22:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just ask the basic question. Are there any reliable sources linking paintball and the like to wargaming? If not then it doesn't belong here, if yes, sure.--Caranorn 12:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if these sources are considered reliable, but heres some airsoft links mentioning the gameplay or equipment as wargames:

http://www.ultimatewargames.co.uk/

http://www.wargamefever.com

(video) http://www.metacafe.com/watch/47215/wargame/

Some paintball links mentioning the gameplay or equipment as wargames:

http://www.combatuk.com/

http://www.lpspaintball.biz/wgmain.htm

In regards to views concerning airsoft/paintball being a wargame or a military exercise, I believe that it would still be considered a wargame mostly because airsoft/paint is intended to be .fun. (just like board/card games), where military exercise is far more serious and in some cases, grueling.

UTF-NeonDevil 18:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paintball and airsoft are in general ONLY tactical, while wargames are often both tactical and strategic. Also, If you include this, you'd probably have to have more on first person shooter video games as well. Maybe link to another article. Rhinocerous Ranger (talk) 20:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

First-Person Shooters do not belong here. Jacob Haller 15:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why?--Goon Noot 20:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

FPS is not all what traditional wargamers (such as myself) think of as "wargaming", however it probably should be put under computer wargaming. With the rise of technology this will become even more common, as the lines blur between computer use and not. Mathmo ^Talk 00:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• I reverted the deletion of several books to the book list on this article. I don't have any knowledge about any of these books, thus no favoritism one way or the other; however, their removal from the list does show some sort of bias. Certainly they might not apply for one reason or another, but just a blanket rollback of each of these entries is not warranted. I ask that the books be removed or revised based upon a set of standards, and believe that there are no standards currently, for determining which books should be allowed to be listed in this article section. First I think the list of books needs to be cleaned up and presented in a standard fashion, author last name, first name, ISBN number, whatever. But a blanket rollback of non-vandal submissions is not warranted. FWIW, I did NOT add these book entries. // // Mark Renier (talk) 07:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The standard I'm trying to apply to the removals I've done, are just the ones I've tried to allude to in my edit notes: Books listed in a general article about wargaming should be about wargaming in general, not about specific aspects such as WWII wargaming. (I haven't been worrying too much if a book covers just miniatures or board games though, just period and scale and the such.) I've been hoping to get to some sort of stable list before worrying too much about the quality of the remaining titles. Personally, I think most of the recent additions have been pretty poor, as I've been unable to dig up any info on most of them, and the rest seem to be hard-to-find small press books from 30 years ago (by the way, by merely reverting my last edit, you knocked out what few ISBNs I had dug up).

In order for this section to be of use to a general reader (i.e., a person who is not already familiar with the subject of the article), I think the list would be best with just the more general and available books ("available" including 'can be found used without too much pain'). Sadly, I think a really strict version of that gets us down to Dunnigan's book (on the web), Featherstone's general book available through Lulu (PoD), and Freeman's (having a large enough print run to be available used). --Rindis (talk) 16:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I was wondering whether folks may consider a revamp/rewrite of the wargame overview section to allow for two major subsections. The first being purposeful wargaming (I need some word better than "purposeful") and hobbyist wargaming.

I think the proposal will go a long way to resolving issues that have been discussed on this talk page about just what is a wargame. It will also provide additional credibility to the hobbyist community (not that it is needed, but I think it is cool to have people understand that hobbyist wargames are deeply rooted in real-world activities).

The proposal is as follows:

(1) In the overview section, introduce a more general definition of wargaming as a "tool for exploring decision-making possibilities in an environment with incomplete and imperfect information" as per the US Naval War College's, War Gamers' Handbook

(2) In the overview section, describe the role of wargames in its real-world operational context: military decision making is a codified process and wargames provide a framework for military decision-makers (e.g., a Generals and their related command staff) to practice executing these processes. Wargames are an iterative method of strategy optimization with roots in mathematical optimization (e.g., Bellman's equation).

(3) Remove some references that seem somewhat ill-informed regarding what is and is not a wargame: For instance, in the current overview there is a distinction made between wargames and field training exercises that is misleading. While it is true that wargames do not involve "boots on the ground" military forces, military command and staff often behave as if they are actually conducting a live military operation while the wargame is live. One must keep in mind Perle's audience. He is speaking to current and future military decision-makers. These folks are very much a part of the wargame even if they do not constitute a "military force" per se. Speaking from personal experience, a wargame is an extremely serious activity (I will add sources since I realize my personal experience is not valid in the article). Another example is the repeated comment that a wargame scenario is historical and centered on something that has already happened. In practice, military wargame scenarios center on possible responses to possible near-future events.

(4) Introduce a small subsection titled Purposeful Wargaming or maybe Military Wargaming. Perhaps include references to US military wargames that are mentioned in wikipedia and other public sources.

(5) Introduce a Wargaming Hobby subsection. Provide a small introduction that ties the Hobby subsection into the revamped overview (1), and then fold most of the current article into this subsection.

Jupiterjosh (talk) 17:34, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jupiterjosh: Glad to have an editor who actually knows a thing or two about professional wargames.

"For instance, in the current overview there is a distinction made between wargames and field training exercises that is misleading. While it is true that wargames do not involve "boots on the ground" military forces, military command and staff often behave as if they are actually conducting a live military operation while the wargame is live." Well... duh. I thought that was clear enough. Perhaps I need to replace "military forces" with something more clear. By "military force", I don't mean personnel, but a group of soldiers prepared such that they could fight a real war.

(1) In the overview section, introduce a more general definition of wargaming as a "tool for exploring decision-making possibilities in an environment with incomplete and imperfect information" as per the US Naval War College's, War Gamers' Handbook — This definition feels specific to professional wargames. It describes the purpose of a wargame rather than what a wargame essential is. It does not apply to competitive wargames, or open wargames (ie where there is no fog of war). But if I make a subsection dedicated to professional wargames I would definitely include this definition somewhere.

"(4) Introduce a small subsection titled Purposeful Wargaming or maybe Military Wargaming. Perhaps include references to US military wargames that are mentioned in wikipedia and other public sources." — The only military wargame I know of is TACSPIEL. Do you know some more?

"Another example is the repeated comment that a wargame scenario is historical and centered on something that has already happened. In practice, military wargame scenarios center on possible responses to possible near-future events." What I meant by "setting" is to establish in general terms the sort of weapons being used and the environment played in. For instance, if you're doing the Napoleonic Wars, you're using muskets and cannons and no helicopters or missiles, and you're not fighting in the jungles of South America. I suppose for a military wargame, you'd have a "modern setting", using armaments currently used by the military. What you're thinking of is the scenario, and the scenario indeed does not have to be a historical battle.

A thing I'd like you to do is develop the subsection that describes the levels of war (tactical, operational, strategic). I wrote that bit from the perspective of a recreational wargamer. Maybe a military guy like you could give the professional perspective, and perhaps lead to a more general definition of level. Kurzon (talk) 17:59, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just stumbled on this source:

• Matthew B. Caffrey Jr. (2019). On Wargaming: How Wargames Have Shaped History and how They May Shape the Future (PDF). Navel War College Press. p. 396. Archived from the original on 2020-01-25.

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)[reply]

@GreenC:But I already used it. Kurzon (talk) 10:31, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It can be used in many articles. [2] -- GreenC 02:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note that plagiarism is frowned upon here, even when the source is public domain. Even public domain passages must be attributed. See Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Copying_material_from_free_sources Kurzon (talk) 17:39, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@A D Monroe III: I figured "past" could mean yesterday just as easily as 80 years ago, which is why I used the phrase "distant past". Because if you're simulating an old battle from the War in Iraq, it's not what most people think of as historical gaming because the armaments are all modern. Kurzon (talk) 06:32, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "past" is vague and could include recent times to some, but "distant past" is more emphatic, and can imply Ancient; everyone has their own impression of time, like historians tending to call everything since the Middle Ages the Modern Age. So "distant past" errs on one side, while "past" (as you note) can err on the other. Between the two, I think it's better to have some think the Iraq War is historical than have others think there are no historical games with black powder weapons. The term "historical game" isn't precise anyway, since there are a couple wargames that cover purported pre-historic battles. And where to fantasy or sci-fi wargames fit in?

You've edited the sentence in question to emphasize the point that wargames that don't feature current armaments are of little use to the military. First, you can say that without using "historical" in any form, as I've just done, avoiding the distance problem altogether. Second, it's not entirely true. Study of the Battle of Cannae has been required in many officer schools, along with many other decisive battles in history (including the Iraq War).

I suggest something along the lines of the following text:

Commercial wargames can cover a wide variety of subjects, from pre-historic to modern – even fantasy or sci-fi combat. Ones that do not include modern armaments and tactics are of limited interest to the military, though wargames covering famous historical battles can interest military historians.

If you generally agree, feel free to edit the passage along these lines as you see fit. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 21:41, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kurzon; Point of order: you're editing the text while a discussion about it is still ongoing -- not in keeping with BRD, also making the discussion point a moving target. Please respond. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 21:36, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lacking any objection (or even interest), I've edited the paragraph per the suggestion above, avoiding "historical wargame". Issue closed. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 19:53, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aaron Locke and Hohum: 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)[reply]

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)[reply]