Why We Wargame: A Closer Look

In a previous post, I examined the top reasons for why we wargame as given by the survey results from Wargame, Soldiers, and Strategy's 2025 The Great Wargaming Survey (GWS).  As a refresher, the choices were:

• Creative and hobby aspects
• Fun and escapism
• Historical (or fictional background) interest
• Social connection and camaraderie
• Storytelling and narrative
• Strategic challenge and intellectual stimulation
• Training and education

When aggregating the Top 3 choices, the distributions of these top choices are illustrated in Figure 1 by counts and in Figure 2 by percentage of total.

Figure 1

Figure 2

While these results show, in aggregate, how survey respondents selected their Top 3, can the survey offer up any additional insight into why these choices were selected?  What if a handful of respondent traits and preferences are added into the mix?  Will these additional inputs offer any interesting insights over a simple accounting in a popularity contest?

As seen in a number of previous analyses, we turn to multiple correspondence analysis (MCA) for answers to these questions.

Trait Selection

From a long list of survey questions and respondent attributes from which to choose, only a handful of variables or traits are included to keep the graphical analysis manageable.  After consideration, the following traits are included in the study. 

First up is the main thesis.  That is, Why We Wargame.  Since those responses are lengthy, some recoding is necessary in order to not overcrowd the resulting MCA plot.  The recoding is as follows:

• Creative and hobby aspects - "Creativity"
• Fun and escapism - "Fun"
• Historical (or fictional background) interest - "Background"
• Social connection and camaraderie - "Social"
• Storytelling and narrative - "Storytelling"
• Strategic challenge and intellectual stimulation - "Challenge"
• Training and education - "Education"

The other traits (and responses) under consideration are:

Primary Interest with values of "Historical","Fantasy/Sci-Fi","Mixed".

Group Size with values of "0 (solo)","01-04","05-09","10-15","16+".

Game Venue with values of "At a game store","At home","At a club","Online".

Competitive Gamer with values of "Non-Competitive","Competitive".

MCA Plot

As a brief reminder, MCA graphs show patterns of association between categories (responses) of several categorical variables.  In this case, we examine the choices for Why We Wargame with the four traits of Primary Interest, Group Size, Game Venue, and Competitive Gamer.  Could other variables have been included?  Sure.  To keep the resulting plot readable, I limited the number of categorical variables to five.  The resulting MCA plot is shown in Figure 3. 

Figure 3

Figure 3 shows a readable spread of trait responses with just enough separation to see what is what graphically.  Does this plot provide a useful tool for interpreting these results and how to interpret this plot?  Let's give this plot a closer look.

Since Dimension 1 (horizontal, 83.9%) is the dominant contrast, points far right versus far left represent very different gaming contexts and preferences.  Dimension 2 (vertical, 8.24%) adds a weaker secondary contrast (top vs bottom) that refines, but does not overturn, the main story from Dimension 1.  To divine the main story, bifurcate the plot into a left (blue) and right (yellow) region split down along the origin.  See Figure 4.

Figure 4

Ignoring the attributes clustering along the origin for now, in the blue region, the top choices for why we wargame include Background, Education, and Storytelling.  As Figure 4 shows, these choices are associated with gaming at home and either in small groups or solo.  This group tends to hold a primary interest in historical wargaming.

For the yellow highlighted side of the plot, the top reason for wargaming is the social aspect of the hobby.  Gamers on this side of the plot tend to focus on Fantasy/ Sci-Fi gaming in large groups at either game stores or clubs.  They tend toward competition as well. 

One interesting side effect of MCA is that results can lead to interpretable and meaningful labeling of the dimension.  For example, the classification of these categorical variables could suggest that the blue region denotes a reflective wargaming stance.  The yellow region could be labeled as having a sociable stance.  See Figure 5. 

Figure 5

Now, what about the attributes clustering along the origin?  Being close to the origin means these categories are relatively average or weakly discriminating.  These traits do not strongly define the main contrast between the blue and yellow regions.  Here, within the red rectangle, Fun, Creativity, and Challenge are common to both groups and styles of play.  Mixed, Non-Competitive, and Online traits are found in both groups as well.  See Figure 6.

Figure 6

What can be said about the results of the MCA analysis?  This exercise suggests that the choices we make for why we wargame can be associated to some of the traits that attract us to the hobby.  Of course, correlation is a two-way street.  If you are a solo historical wargamer, there is a tendency that storytelling, education, and historical background will hold more importance to why you wargame when compared against the Sociable group on the other side of the of the plot.

Remember that these results suggest relative tendencies.  Do these tendencies hold true for you?

Wargaming With Non-Wargamers

As alluded to in an earlier post, Nancy hosted one of the irregularly scheduled game days for her primary social group.  Since the event was to be held at our house, Nancy asked if I was interested in putting on a light wargame such as Commands & Colors to broaden the scope of games on offer.  She announced my participation and several showed an interest in giving this option a try.  As game day approached and the number of potential participants grew along with the number of tables needed, we decided to move my game downstairs into the game room and change from Commands & Colors to a tabletop miniatures game.  That way, I could get more than two players at a time into action.

Now, none of the potential participants had ever played a wargame.  One had played RPGs years ago.  Others had played chess and Risk.  This would present an interesting challenge.  I decided to bring my 28mm Sumerian armies out and play using Basic Impetvs on hexes.  On game day, I had three active players and one who was content to watch the action unfold from the sidelines.  Throughout the session, others would come down to have a look at the figures and see how the game was progressing.

Initial deployments

One challenge in bringing non-wargames into wargaming is introducing and explaining the many concepts unique to our gaming genre.  Every mechanism and concept that veteran wargamers accept as second nature and a "given" had to be explained and demonstrated in laymen's terms.  Not always as easy as the task may sound!  Anyway, after less than thirty minutes of overview, the players were tentatively ready to get stuck in.  One player would command the Red Army (red and green VBU dice) alone while the Blue Army (red and black VBU dice) would be split into two commands to accommodate two players.

Both sides began the approach to contact gingerly as players came to grips with maneuvering the different troop types.  I offered options available throughout to help their decision making.  After a few turns of cautious maneuvering, the two armies were poised within striking distance.  Let's see how the battle unfolded.

Armies slowly advance toward the center.

On the Left Wing, Red battle car rumbles forward and
 drives off an enemy massed bow unit but
not before the archers disorder the car as it closes.
Red battle car pursues and smashes into the Blue battle car.

View down the battle lines.

Red battle car rumbles into a large body of spear.
Spearmen are driven back in disorder.
The battle car does not pursue. 

In an action-packed turn, Red's Left Wing battle car pursues the enemy off table but is now essentially out of the fight.
In the foreground, Blue archers are driven off as Red's spearmen attacks.
Blue's battle car overruns enemy archers.
Players are getting a good grounding in how combat works! 

Blue Army's Right Wing (black VBU dice) wavers as most
of its command is either destroyed or reduced to '1' VBU.

The end is near...

With Blue Army's Right Wing teetering on collapse and the difference in the Army Breakpoint totals large, the battle is called in favor of the Red Army.  Game duration, after introductions, was about two-and-a-half hours of play.

How did this introduction to tabletop miniatures wargaming to non-wargamers turn out?  Players were all good sports as they took some lumps with the dice.  All three players said they would play again.  One exclaimed that he would play anything anytime!  I reckon this was a success.  As a bonus, I was invited to join one of the players for some billiards' session.  Now, I have not picked up a cue stick in thirty years or more.  This should be fun.  Perhaps I will receive a lesson in billiards for non-billiards players?

Assyrian Horse Archers

Looking back at the Painting Log, nearly one year has passed since the Biblical collections last saw some new recruits.  Where does the time go?

In one of my recent digs into The Lead Pile, I unearthed eight Wargames Foundry Assyrian horse archers.  There are only eight of them, why not push them into the painting queue and slide them over to the "Finished" side of the painting ledger?  Why not, indeed!

This is exactly what I managed to do!  Out from the painting desk today are eight Assyrian horse archers formed up into two stands.  Lovely figures.  Notice that these bases have been given the new and improved dice tray.  Having given the tray upgrade to the Sumerian collection, next time the table is clear, perhaps I can pull all of the Biblicals out of boxes and stick dice trays onto all of them?  There are a lot of stands in this collection.  An order to Warbases may be needed to complete this project but at least I can get a start.

I am not done with painting Biblicals or Ancients, quite yet though.  I see a number of units working their way through the painting queue.  After those, in-progress units make it out to the other side of the Painting Ledger, a return to painting 15mm horse & musket is in order.

Later today I introduce a handful of non-wargamers to "tabletop miniatures gaming" known to many of us as "wargaming."

Spanish Infantry for El Cid

Following up on a string of Reconquista games, it is likely no surprise that seeing these armies out on table prompted more figures to be pushed into the painting queue.  Today's offering is no exception to that tendency and, typically, the rule.

Out from the painting desk is a twelve-figure body of Spanish spearmen.  Figures are 28mm Crusader Miniatures.  Nice figures and really a joy to paint.  These fellas will be used to bolster the Spanish Army next time this collection takes to the field.  More Arab infantry are waiting in the ready-to-paint box but many more units are ahead in the queue.  A lot of variety is working its way through the production line.

On the gaming front, Monday saw me joining the Rejects in a remote game hosted by Richard.  Richard used Koenig Krieg played on a hex grid with tiles.  My Russian army faced the wily Ottomans in an 18th Century clash.  I leave it to Richard to tell the tale of this battle.  Once his story has been told, I will weigh in with my thoughts.  Richard always hosts an enjoyable game.  This one was no exception.

Uzaktan Savas (Russians in blue)

Later today sees me dropping into Matt's for the next installment of our long-running AWI campaign.  This time, my beleaguered Americans attempt to avert disaster at Paoli against the even more wily British.

Paoli Set up
(photo courtesy wargamesinthedungeon)

Beautiful table.  Too bad it will soon be covered in American casualties!

Sumerians On Parade

In an effort to upgrade my Impetvs armies to include a two-frame, dice tray at the back of each stand, I pulled all of the 28mm Sumerians from their boxes and set to work.  Having made short work of this little project by adding Warbases' dice trays to the 28mm Sumerian collection, I figured why not take a group photo while they are all out of their boxes?

When lined up across the table, I was surprised at how this project has grown even though new units are only added occasionally.  For a sense of size, each hex is five inches, so the footprint of this display is about three feet square.  Several collections remain to receive this treatment.  Maybe Punic Wars will be next?  First, I need to place another order with Warbases for a restock.

Why lead off with the Sumerian collection for this upgrade?  Well, Nancy is hosting a game day for her social group next Saturday and asked if I was interested in hosting a game.  Since there are men with an interest in history joining, she suggested several rounds of Commands & Colors.  Now, only one person had played a wargame and that was a game of Commands & Colors years ago.  Still, several were interested and willing to give it a try.  Well, the size of the potential participant pool grew, and table space was drawing tight.    

With three tables reserved upstairs, my little game was pushed downstairs into the game room.  A game with a small footprint on my large gaming table was not going to work especially with three or four players interested in playing.  A change of plan was needed.  How about a game to introduce these gamers to tabletop miniatures gaming?  

My choice?  A small four-player, Basic Impetvs game using the Sumerians.  With four, like armies on the table, I figured that after a brief overview and coaching throughout, that we could get through a game in about 90 minutes.  At least the players will get a taste of miniatures wargaming.

Will introducing four non-wargamers to a simple wargame with figures be a bridge too far?  We will see.  Wish me luck.

The Battle of Wakefield 1460

Richard joined me in testing the Battle of Wakefield scenario in a one-on-one game.  My main goal (besides having an enjoyable game) was to see if the scenario might offer enough of an interesting situation to broadcast to multiplayer audiences.  The version of the battle I am grounding the scenario on presents an asymmetrical challenge for the Yorkists especially.  Among the many and varied rationalizations for the battle (or no battle!), the scenario emphasized the Rescue Party and Hubris theories while discounting some of the Deception theories.  After laying out the situation in a Battle Briefing, Richard jumped at the chance to take command of the underdog Yorkists in his attempt to overturn history.  Richard's battle report is found at Battle of Wakefield 1460.  Do pop over and visit Richard's blog to read his account if you already have not.  Good stuff!  

Initial Situation.

The battle opens with the foraging party on its way back to Sandal Castle under pressure from the enemy.  The Duke of York decamps from Sandal Castle and launches an aggressive attack toward Somerset to protect the foraging party.  As York moves north, Northumberland arrives on the battlefield pulling up alongside Somerset.  As the forage train plods south, Rutland turns his archers to face Northumberland.

York moves up to support the forage train...

as Northumberland comes up in support of Somerset.

After letting loose a volley of arrows, York guides left and passes his melee lines through his archers.  Northumberland is the target of this attack.  Northumberland's archers let off a volley before retiring through his own melee line.  In the close combat, York is stopped but Northumberland recoils back through his archers when his troops panic.

York attacks!

York's attack is stopped... 

but Northumberland panics.

With York not having yet recovered from his setback against Northumberland, Somerset leads his men into the already wavering York.  York is pushed back.  Somerset does not follow up mainly because he is carried from the field wounded.  Having rallied his men, Northumberland leads a counterattack back into York.  In heavy fighting, York's MAA are destroyed and York goes down on the field, dead.  York's billmen have seen enough.  They scatter.  York's Battle breaks before Salisbury can come up in support.  Clifford arrives onto the field of battle to Somerset's left.

Somerset attacks...

followed up by Northumberland's attack.

York falls, dead on the field, his Battle broken.

With York dispatched, Salisbury has the unenviable task of delaying the advance of the enemy alone.  The forage carts are making slow progress along the road.  Salisbury must trade space for time to allow the forage party to reach the castle. 

Lancastrians converge upon Salisbury.

In a desperate move, Salisbury launches an attack into Northumberland in order to neutralize one Battle before the other two blows fall.

In hard fighting, Northumberland's MAA scatter as both Salisbury and Northumberland go down leading their troops.  Salisbury's melee line presses forward into Northumberland's archers as well.  The Lancastrian archers fall back.  The momentum of the attack carries Salisbury's troops into Somerset.  The Yorkist attack is repulsed with heavy casualties.  Somerset advances with Salisbury's archers falling back before.  Somerset smashes into Salisbury.  Salisbury's MAA are cut down.     

Northumberland's MAA scatter as Salisbury presses on.

Somerset counterattacks, driving the enemy back.

Salisbury teeters on the breaking point.

With one last push forward, Somerset hits Salisbury's wavering billmen.  As expected, the billmen collapse and so does Salisbury's Battle.  The Yorkist army reaches the breaking point and retires with what remains of the army.

One last shove and the Yorkist Army collapses.

For the Duke of York, this battle is truly over.  Leader casualties were extremely high with four of the six Battle commanders going down in the fight.  For the Yorkists, Richard and Salisbury were dead.  For the Lancastrians, Northumberland was dead and Somerset wounded. 

In the end, Rutland escaped this battle unharmed.  Otherwise, the narrative of the game followed the traditional narrative quite closely.  Did the Yorkists have a chance?  Well, perhaps not much but had York's initial attack against Northumberland gone in Richard's favor, the outcome could have been very different.

Post-game discussion focused on modifying the scenario to make a more even contest.  While the game produced the historical (and likely the most expected result), we discussed allowing more easy passage through the hedges lining the road and allowing Salisbury to come one turn earlier.  Game duration was about 90 minutes.  

Interesting battle and a very good game.  Thank you, Richard!

Why We Wargame

Another new question in Wargame, Soldiers, and Strategy's The Great Wargaming Survey (GWS), 2025 edition asked respondents to list the Top 3 reasons why they play a wargame.  The choices were:

• Creative and hobby aspects
• Fun and escapism
• Historical (or fictional background) interest
• Social connection and camaraderie
• Storytelling and narrative
• Strategic challenge and intellectual stimulation
• Training and education

Having given this topic some thought over the years, getting hard data through the survey might offer worthwhile insight into this question as applied to a broader population.  While I hold a mental notion of my top reasons for wargaming, these top reasons can move around a bit over time, interest, and mood.  Others may have similar thoughts on what drives them to wargame too.  

What does the survey say?  Well, let's find out.

Top Choice in Why We Wargame

The survey asked respondents to rank up to their three top choices.  To begin the analysis, only the top choice is examined.  In counts of reasons why we wargame (variable "WHY" in Figure 1), "Historical (or fictional background) interest" came in at the top spot by about 500 responses.  The top choice was not close.  The results are aggregated by percentage in the pie chart illustrated in Figure 2.

Figure 1

Figure 2

As primarily an historical wargamer, the top choice makes sense to me.  The result that surprises me is that "Strategic challenge and intellectual stimulation" comes into the rankings ahead of "Social connection and camaraderie."  In the rankings, "Social connection and camaraderie" comes in at #4.  While I enjoy the challenge and puzzle-solving aspects that wargaming brings to the table, my anecdotal inclination would have been to see the social aspects of the hobby rise more toward the top.  Are many of the respondents primarily solo gamers or in it for the challenges of competition?  A question, perhaps, for another analysis.

Top Three Choices in Why We Wargame

Since the survey asked for the top three choices, do the rankings change much when all three response choices are aggregated?

Figure 3 shows that the top two spots in the rankings remain the same as in Figure 1.  "Creative and hobby aspects" reason closes the gap with "Historical (or fictional background) interest" making up a lot of ground and coming in at a very close second place in the rankings.  "Social connection and camaraderie" and "Strategic challenge and intellectual stimulation" swap places in the rankings when the top three choices are included.  

Figure 3

Figure 4

Interesting to see that "Fun and escapism" and "Storytelling and narrative" fall to near the bottom of the rankings.  Almost no one lists "Training and education" as a top choice.

Why do fun and storytelling sink to the bottom among the collection of reasons why we wargame?  These survey results suggest that we do not game simply for fun and narrative building!  Perhaps adding a "Competition" choice might be telling?

I plan to return to this question and analysis again for a deeper dive into these data.  In past analyses, preferences tend to shift and become more nuanced as other qualifying attributes are brought into the computations.  Adding stratifications by primary interest, age groupings, and a few other attributes might provide a clearer and, perhaps, another interesting perspective.

If you completed the 2025 GWS (or even if you did not!), what are your top reasons for wargaming and why?  Have these top reasons for wargaming changed over time?  I wonder if your choices and rankings could be predicted if other qualifying attributes mentioned above are brought into the equation?