I have nothing at stake in how the game is categorized, but praising a BGG thread on a subject like this as being "remarkably restrained" is like praising the 18th Congress of the All-Union Communist Party for how smooth the meeting went.
Own the game and love it, the design, production and education aspects. Well done Fort Circle for publishing this and I look forward to more historical political games.
I’m not going to lose sleep over the definition but since you mentioned conflict simulation gaming and how it doesn’t roll off the tongue…. I hope that games such as Votes for Women (there are a growing number) does allow for a broadening of the language. These are political games, let’s not be shy about it. Conflict simulations also, yes, but social and political. I feel wargaming is applied too widely and can be a detrimental label. A friend of mine will not play any wargames but looking at this he would see a historical political euro game.
A better definition of wargames might be a game that involves kinetic conflict somewhere in the topic, so even a game that explores the high level struggle of War (with capital W) including political and economical struggle and has a reasonably central kinetic component is a wargame. If it doesn’t include kinetic conflict then it’s an economic/social/political struggle and should be proud to wear that label. Twilight Struggle is clearly a wargame while Versailles 1919 is not.
Agreed, let’s break free of the label and adopt a better one. I would argue that there is as much to be gained in being identified as a non wargaming label as there is in being pooled with wargaming. I think games like Votes for Women are proving that there is an interest in the genre from outside the wargaming sphere - Freedom the Underground Railway, Stonewall Uprising, even perhaps An Infamous Traffic which while set in the Opium Wars is more about the economic, social and political levers within a historical conflict. Titles like the Cola Wars and Cod Wars are often assigned by commentators as an easy and often sensationalist label but it doesn’t mean it’s accurate. Games such as Root clearly are kinetic conflicts, cute furry creatures or not they are still killing each other, and easily defined as wargames.
Returning to Votes for Women, it’s a splendid game, it really is, and I applaud the designer and publisher and hope Fort Circle wins whatever category it is placed in.
I have nothing at stake in how the game is categorized, but praising a BGG thread on a subject like this as being "remarkably restrained" is like praising the 18th Congress of the All-Union Communist Party for how smooth the meeting went.
Own the game and love it, the design, production and education aspects. Well done Fort Circle for publishing this and I look forward to more historical political games.
I’m not going to lose sleep over the definition but since you mentioned conflict simulation gaming and how it doesn’t roll off the tongue…. I hope that games such as Votes for Women (there are a growing number) does allow for a broadening of the language. These are political games, let’s not be shy about it. Conflict simulations also, yes, but social and political. I feel wargaming is applied too widely and can be a detrimental label. A friend of mine will not play any wargames but looking at this he would see a historical political euro game.
A better definition of wargames might be a game that involves kinetic conflict somewhere in the topic, so even a game that explores the high level struggle of War (with capital W) including political and economical struggle and has a reasonably central kinetic component is a wargame. If it doesn’t include kinetic conflict then it’s an economic/social/political struggle and should be proud to wear that label. Twilight Struggle is clearly a wargame while Versailles 1919 is not.
Agreed, let’s break free of the label and adopt a better one. I would argue that there is as much to be gained in being identified as a non wargaming label as there is in being pooled with wargaming. I think games like Votes for Women are proving that there is an interest in the genre from outside the wargaming sphere - Freedom the Underground Railway, Stonewall Uprising, even perhaps An Infamous Traffic which while set in the Opium Wars is more about the economic, social and political levers within a historical conflict. Titles like the Cola Wars and Cod Wars are often assigned by commentators as an easy and often sensationalist label but it doesn’t mean it’s accurate. Games such as Root clearly are kinetic conflicts, cute furry creatures or not they are still killing each other, and easily defined as wargames.
Returning to Votes for Women, it’s a splendid game, it really is, and I applaud the designer and publisher and hope Fort Circle wins whatever category it is placed in.