Game Type
The survey includes ten choices for game type ranging from games using one figure or vehicle per player up to big battle games with thousands of figures on the table. The game genre covers sports, tournament, survival, and others. Some may be more familiar to historical wargaming while other genres may be more familiar to fantasy and sci-fi wargaming. Sports, survival, and cooperative games may not lend themselves to easy classification between historical or fantasy/sci-fi.
Whatever a gamer's preferred game type among the listed choices, I found this question posed a difficult choice. Most of my miniatures' wargaming battle are historical, scenario-based, big-battle gaming. With the choices provided, what do I select as my preferred game style? For me, I faced a conundrum. Do I choose Big-Battles or Scenario-Driven as my first choice? To me, these two choices go hand-in-hand. I do not recall a Big Battle game that was not driven by a historical scenario. Given the situation that all Big Battles are scenario-driven but not all scenarios are Big Battles, I likely picked scenario-driven as my first choice. Or, did I? Perhaps, I needed a bit more guidance when answering this question? Was I alone in facing indecision in the choices offered?
Favorite period by game type and period
Given each respondent's first choice of game period, each first choice of game type is tabulated. The graphic below illustrates these aggregated results by Game Type and Game Period.
First, Skirmish, Big-Battle, Scenario-Driven, and Campaign-Driven game types comprise the top four choices when responses to all first choice periods are aggregated. Second, Skirmish gaming is the top choice by a large margin. Third, while WWII is the most frequent top choice for skirmish gaming, Warhammer 40k, Sci-Fi, and Fantasy are well represented. In addition to being the top choice for skirmish gaming, WWII represents the top game period in three of the top four game types. Only Napoleonics edges out WWII in the Big-Battle game type. Finally, sports and monster/survival gaming seem to hold little traction as a first choice. Even single figure or one-on-one gaming shows little, primary interest.
Favorite period by game period and type
When the data are transposed showing Favorite Period by Game Type, WWII gaming rises to the top of the charts. With the addition of the second place game period choice of Warhammer 40k, these two game periods garner much of the gaming attention.
What other insights emerge from this slice of the data?
First, when reviewing the top five game periods, skirmish gaming is the most popular game type excluding Napoleonics. As noted earlier, Napoleonics holds Big-Battle as its first choice of game type. Second, in addition to Napoleonics, Big-Battle gaming is the top choice for Ancients, 18th Century, and Pike & Shotte gaming. If WWII gaming is excluded, Big-Battle gaming seems to be the choice for historical wargaming periods. Finally, once the top six or seven game periods are accounted for, primary interest in the remaining game periods falls away quickly.
What these results demonstrate is the popularity of WWII gaming as a favorite period and skirmish gaming as a favorite game type. The combination of WWII and skirmish gaming is very popular. Perhaps not surprising results but interesting, nonetheless.
Does this analysis hold any surprises or simply confirm conventual wisdom with respect to the combination of game period and game type? One assumption of this analysis is that top choice of game period corresponds to the top choice of game type. If this does not hold in your situation, I would enjoying seeing that justification.
For the next survey installment, I stick with analyzing game period. Expect an examination of favorite game period by figure size. Anyone willing to hazard a guess and go on the record as what those results might suggest?
Interesting, if not surprising that ww2 and 40k take the top spots, I'm surprised pike and shot came out over medieval. I can't remember if I put down big battle or scenario driven to be honest! It's too big a choice for favourite game period by figure size! Anything in 28mm,as I only do 28mm!
ReplyDeleteBest Iain
As for P&S over Medieval, perhaps more respondents list Medieval as a second, third or lower choice? Perhaps there is more diversification among those enjoying Medievals? For those that specialize in P&S that might be their primary interest.
DeleteYou had to pick a favorite period in the survey. What did you choose among your many choices?
Thanks for your comment!
Perhaps medieval was lots of people's second choice, I chose pike and shot as it covered the great Italian wars and the war of three Kingdoms ,what was your favourite period?
DeleteBest Iain
Medievals as a second or third choice is my guess too. I ought to run through the numbers to answer definitively.
DeleteMy favorite period? That is such a difficult question! It is akin to asking my favorite child. Well, actually choosing favorite child is easier...
For the survey, I cannot say with certainty how I ranked my choices but 18th Century may have taken the nod as first choice. Really, with so many periods of equal interest, my favorite tends to be the one I am working on or gaming at the moment asked. If you asked me now, I might say Ancients!
I cant recall for sure and too lazy to go back and check Jonathan - but my impression was that in earlier analysis, the result was a clear "win" for the sci fi/fantasy type gaming of 40k et al - how does that gel with this analysis? WW2 skirmish level gaming is undoubtedly popular - Bolt Action/chain of Command etc - but where did all the 30 something Warhammer fans go to in these questions? Napoleonic taking out the "big battles" category - not very surprising - my guess would be 80% of gamers over 45 would have a Napoleonic army in their collection - I have three, plus the start of a fourth! Prediction on the next lot of analysis - WW2 Skirmish level will definitely be 28mm - in fact, I would expect ANY skirmish level to be 28mm as favoured scale. 15mm will come out in some area would be my pick - and 1/300 for modern tank warfare. I have 20mm figures for my 21st century "War on Terror" skirmishing but my expectation would be that 20mm will not be a favoured scale in any category - it was already old school when I started gaming in the mid 70's!
ReplyDeleteHi Keith!
DeleteWWII comes out on top when considered in the aggregate. I wonder if you are thinking about the analysis that broke game periods down by Primary Interest or Age Group?
Napoleonics are definitely more popular with the older age groups. I am one of them!
You make some good predictions regarding a look-ahead to favorite game period and figure size. Stay tuned to see what is discovered.
Your insights are much appreciated. Thank you!
I can't recall how they defined Big Battle. To my mind that means refighting major, large, historical or campaign driven battles whether the game is played at 1 stand/counter=a corps, a battalion or a company (ie with a score minis on the table) I suspect for a lot of people it means any game where you put a lot of figures (or counters) on the table.
ReplyDeleteI picked scenario driven since 90% of my games, in all periods, over the last 40 years at least, have been that way whether they were a skirmish, a refight of an historical battle, large or small, or a tabletop teaser sort of scenario.
If "big battles" means refighting important historical (or fictional) battles to someone, then pretty much any period might have them with,lets say Quebec 1759 being a "big battle" for F&IW gamers although a battle that size would be no more than a skirmish to a gamer used to refighting historical SYW in Europe battles.
I suspect though that many people would interpret "big battle" as lots of figures and units on the table and from that POV Quebec at 1:10 might be as "big" as Minden at 1:100. If that is the case, the chosen rule style and game set up rather than period might play a role and but popular rules for a period might favour certain sizes of game or the game scale might slide up and down like the Command and Colours games do, even when played with minis not blocks. Would a player using a C&C style game to refight, lets say a scaled down Minden consider it a "Big Battle" because it was based on a historically important one? or pass it off as just another scenario using the same number of units as last week's Quebec?
The popular rules style used in various wargame periods and what is meant by Big Battle might be the critical factors. But outside pop culture also influences, I wonder if Napoleonic skirmishes were more popular when Sharpe movies were a regular on tv? Have shows like Vikings and Last Kingdom increased the popularity of Dark Age skirmishes?
Ross, Big Battles are described in the survey as "Big battle games with hundreds of miniatures" so your notion of a putting a lot of figures on the table seems a fair definition of Big Battles. So, "Big Battles" refers to the number of figures on the table and not necessarily the importance of a historical battle.
DeleteYou make good a argument for how Big Battles could mean different things to different gamers. As you say, rules may provide a major determinant in the number of figures on the table.
In addition to pop culture driving game style, I add in magazine articles, manufacturers' releases, blogs, etc., all contribute to what is being played and in what fashion. As seen in the survey results, Dark Ages makes the top 10 in popularity (#8) so "Vikings" and "Last Kingdom" may be driving this interest.
Good insights, Ross! Thank you!
I wonder how much of the skirmish / WWII interaction stems from the scale of available rules. Rommels the largest scale "miniatures" game I can think of for WWII, and while I'm sure there are others out there, my impression is that there's few options for big-battle scale WWII outside of counter games. I mean, are there miniatures rules for corps-scale engagements in the period?
ReplyDeleteMarkus, rules could certain be a contributing if not major factor in which game style is played. While I don't regularly game WWII in the "Big Battles" style, I have played Spearhead in 1/285 and other large games in both 15mm and HO.
DeleteThanks for your comments!
To be honest I can't remember what I chose, but imagine WWII would be first given it was the first period I ever gamed etc.
ReplyDeleteThen it could have been Campaign, Scenario Driven or Historical, all of which have equal weight in my gaming preferences. So actually making a choice in this category felt quite arbitary as all three are a factor in the games I play.
What constitutes a big battle is interesting, as I could play a 'normal' battle in 6mm or 10mm and easily have a few hundred figures on the table. The same game in 28mm might be significantly less. As an example I have two 6mm armies in progress beside me, and between them they total around 300 miniatures or more, yet I will play a 'normal' game with them and wouldn't consider it a 'big battle'. Yet if I used the same figures and played a 'Bloody Big Battles' historical scenario, I would consider that a 'big battle'.
Thanks for your feedback, Steve!
DeleteWII likely first choice for you. That's good. You are among the masses in that pick. As for ranking Game Type, I faced a similar dilemma. I can understand a distinction between scenario and campaign generated games but I found Big Battles not to be mutually exclusive with the other choices.
"Big Battles" as presented in the survey is premised on the number of figures on the table. To me, hundreds of figures may not be that big of a battle. For my 28mm Napoleonics, 200 figures per side may only represent a brigade action at the battalion-level.
In 6mm, a big battle may field several thousand figures per side. Same with 10mm. We need to get some clarity and refinements in this question so at least I am not confused...
To me a 'big battle' is one that represents a major battle, such as Gettysburg or Koniggratz, not the amount of figures on the table, as I've seen 'big skirmish' games that would count as a 'big battle' as it currently stands. Certainly more thought in phrasing the questions is required for next year IMHO.
DeleteFor historicals, I agree but how would you classify big battle for the fantasy/sci-fi side of the wargaming hobby?
DeleteNot sure to be honest, but based upon experience it would depend upon the ruleset. For example club games of WH40K would only ever be at the equivalent of a WWII platoon or company level action. If you played Epic or Future War Commander, then you could be at Battalion or Brigade level, depending upon table size. A tricky one to sort out for sure!
DeleteThis topic requires more thought...
DeleteI struggle to remember how I responded to the survey, but I am pretty sure that I would have seen ‘big battle’ as something too big for my gaming space, perhaps encompassing something like a whole battle.
ReplyDeleteWhereas, I see scenario driven as something much more in the park for me. This would be the ‘Teaser’ type of game, or a slice of action taken to represent part of the big battle. So I think Big Battle by its nature is automatically scenario drive, i.e. the big battle is the scenario, whilst scenario driven is something a little more contrived and can certainly be something more than skirmish ..... would it have made sense to call the category ‘Small Battle’ :-) A lot of blog AAR’s seem to sit in this slot.
Thanks, Norm!
DeleteFor you and your "gaming in small spaces" theme, I can understand how the "Big Battles" gaming style may not even be applicable.
Looks like I was not alone in my indecision on this question. I see Big Battle and Scenario-Driven (or Campaign-Driven) as complimentary to one another and not mutually exclusive.
Perhaps the distinctive could be made between scenario-driven where the game setting is pre-planned vs free-form in which the figures are arrayed on the table and clash in the middle?
"Big" vs "Small" battles would be an interesting distinction too but, again, complimentary to scenario-driven or free-form. how would one distinguish between 'Small" and "Skirmish?" I think we need more robust definitions. Maybe these classifications make more sense to fantasy/sci-fi gamers?
It is an interesting thing as to where we ‘feel’ we sit on such things and to what degree those that set such poll questions can accurately anticipate relevant and related responses.
DeleteMy own sense of not belonging to the ‘big battle’ setting does primarily come from limited gaming space, but importantly, my need or desire to go there is quelled by the fact that I use boardgames to deal with that level of play and so from the survey perspective, I would look at the term ‘big battle’ and instinctively exclude myself from that group and start looking for other options to fit into - hence the scenario driven, which I would have read as ‘teaser’. I believe this puts my thinking and what the poll author actually wanted to capture at some odds.
I tend to think of skirmish as relating to the individual Soldier through to individual companies being represented on the table. Once the lowest organisational unit is battalion plus, does this start to enter the realm of small battle?
Your post highlights the interesting point of whether the ‘right’ question is being asked and whether there were enough definitive options available for the respondents to choose just one and be able to exclude the other options with sufficient certainty.
I appreciate your continued thoughts on the subject, Norm. When polling, it is much better to formulate precise questions to prompt distinct and meaningful responses. Inferences and insights may be misleading if there is confusion, indecision, or outright misinterpretation of the question an possible responses. This seems a question that could benefit from tightening-up to yield less ambiguous interpretation. Well, at least some of us experienced some indecision when completing this question.
DeleteOur thoughts on what defines a skirmish game are similar. I would take it one step farther and say that skirmish is defined wherein the Basic Maneuver Unit (BMU) is either an individual figure or the equivalent of a fire team with perhaps three or figures per stand. My rule of thumb is that an interesting game can be had with around a dozen BMUs plus support.
Do you have suggestions such as splitting this particular question into two?
No, none at all, I don't think the two aspects are natural bed-fellows and probably would have been best dealt with as independently separate items.
DeleteAlso it would be a big ask on my part that a figure based questionnaire should have even taken into account that a respondent such as I, might be out on the boundaries, as someone who really likes big battles, but that I allow boardgames to deal with that interest. It sort of bats me out of the frame for being able to answer he question with any validity.
When completing this survey, I guess, one must keep in mind the goal and market. That is, answering questions in the frame of mind of a miniatures' wargamer.
DeleteLike you, I enjoy board wargaming and believe operation-level gaming is best suited to hex and counter treatments.
Interesting, and I wish I could remember how I responded to some of the questions on the day I did the survey. Not that I would expect much variance if I did it again today, only a couple of months later, but there might be some. For instance, I prefer collecting 28mm Napoleonics but currently only game 15mm, so can't remember which I would have put as a preference. Either way, these are always interesting analyses Jonathan.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Lawrence. Your comments give me encouragement to continue on with these analyses and I appreciate your interest and personal insights.
DeleteThis analysis may not provide as much interest and debate as other topics but this one lays the groundwork for more complicated inferences as additional variables are considered later.
As I mentioned in another comment, my survey responses are very much driven by what I am working on or enjoying at the moment. My preferences change over time and sometimes in very little time. The survey is a snapshot in time of everyone's preferences but in the aggregate (hopefully) useful tendencies can be discovered.
If your first choice of gaming period is 28mm Napoleonics, does your preferred game style reflect the 28mm Napoleonics or the more actively played 15mm collections? Would the game styles of 28mm Napoleonics and 15mm Ancients be the same? If you took the survey today, how would you respond?
Here is another related point Jonathan, in that I suppose I must have responded to the survey around August time when my gaming was only just recommencing after a layoff due to COVID-19, and so I was probably thinking in the abstract anyway. In which case 28mm Napoleonics was my preferred period at that time but, now we have been back gaming for a couple of months in 15mm, that scale is again at the forefront of my thinking.
DeleteThanks, Lawrence. If we could save our own responses to the survey from year to year, it might be interesting (and perhaps surprising) to see how our own preferences change over time.
DeleteI should take a closer look at this survey. For what it's worth I seem to fall into the UK camp of rules; from WAB to Bolt Action, and the rest of the "black books" in between.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Dean. Do you complete the survey each year?
DeleteThis might sound scandalous but I confess to never having taken part in these surveys. As a mostly 6mm napoleonics player I would have no difficulty with the ‘big battle’ question as to me the scale is the primary driver to enable players play out larger battles. It is the desire to play the bigger historical battles which drive you to the smaller scale, which - in turn - translates to a higher number of figures on table.
ReplyDeleteO
However I can see the difficulty when it comes to the larger scales in historical gaming and especially in the fantasy/sci-fi genres where there are no real-world terms of reference. In such cases I would agree that it is the number of figures/models on the table but it is very much subjective to different responses.
Hi Mike! Perhaps next year you will complete the survey?
Delete6mm armies are definitely built for big battles in my book although I really enjoy playing Commands & Colors Ancients in 6mm. I suppose even in CCA the number of figures on the board would qualify under the a Big Battles survey definition.
Thanks for your clear explanation of the survey Johnathan. I complete the thing every year knowing that my input is becoming part of the minority as regards how wargaming is progressing.Its no surprise that skirmish wargaming is so popular, what with the cost of building armies, the research needed to produce a historical army and the trend for instant games. I always felt that skirmish games were just a warm-up for the real thing. I would hate to exclusively fight such games, I would soon become bored.But thanks again for you hard work.
ReplyDeleteYou are welcome, Robbie! Very good to read that these analyses are useful.
DeleteAs for WWII Skirmish being the favorite gaming combo, like you, I am out of sync with the hobby. I prefer recreating historical battles. Skirmish gaming is not often seen on my table. This trend seems to be driven by demographics as you and I march on into the tail of the population distribution.
Another very interesting read and nicely written. I also enjoy reading the comments of others on this. Like many, I have amnesia on how I actually answered the questions. Next time I’ll have to take notes. In my defense it was a fair amount of time ago and a fair amount of questions and I’m fairly sure I was distracted while doing it. 😀
ReplyDeleteThe data is not surprising; WWII skirmish (probably in 28mm) dominates. I can’t even think of a ‘big battle’ WWII game. 28mm figures naturally I think drift toward skirmish level gaming.
I’m sure I answered this question with ‘large battles ACW., I see by the chart I am not alone. I should form a club. I also think that certain genres naturally select certain game styles. For example; people who like horse and musket genre games frequently want to do bigger battles. 😀
Stew, your comments and support for this series of analyses is always inspiring. I agree that the post commentaries are very enlightening and extend the discussion and my analysis greatly. As always, comments are ALWAYS appreciated and encouraged!
DeleteACW gaming is well-suited to Big Battles and is most often the game type I steer toward for ACW gaming. For ACW gaming, I enjoy recreating entire battles the most but will use rules like RF&F to refight parts of larger actions or smaller actions in their entirety. Speaking of ACW, it seems it has been a long time since an ACW battle last graced my table. I ought to work on that.
I have you down for one vote 28mm WWII as a top period/figure size. You have been paying close attention!
Thanks Jonathan as always an interesting analysis. It is pretty clear from the comments and your analysis that we have a very varied hobby. We are all aware that the effort required for big battles, time and cost has led to an increase in skirmish games. But in many cases I suspect these do lead onto more significant collections, I have of course several good examples of this in my own collections. Thinking through your analysis I do wonder if the survey asks the right questions. We have some experience at work where surveys of staff are notorious difficult to interpret unless the questions are very clear. You allude to this in your analysis. It does provide some interesting talking points which is all for the good as long as we recognise the limitations. My own preference is actually very hard to define specifically, although I do feel drawn to larger battles. As for scale I think we know where that is going...........
ReplyDeleteYou are welcome!
DeleteThe point about skirmishing gaming being an entry into Big Battle gaming is a good. As you say, it takes time, money, more time, more money, and perseverance to build up armies to qualify as Big Battle gaming.
Asking the right question in the right to yield the right inference is a challenge, for sure. My hunch is that the survey began as a way to foster wargaming interest during the dog days of August when it seems all of Europe is on holiday.
Could questions be rephrased to remove some of this uncertainty, sure. I requested a couple of questions be be added into the survey for the 2020 and they were. Lacking other comprehensive hobby surveys, still, these data provide a "reasonable" peek into the state of the hobby. Do you agree?
Interesting read as ever Jonathan, cheers.
ReplyDeleteGlad you enjoyed it, George!
DeleteNothing too surprising there. I would of course choose 25/28 mm, as 99% of my figures for any era are that scale, Napoleonics as first choice, with Pike and shot and Ancients being after that, in one order or another. In presumably chose big battles as the genre, although as you say, scenario driven and campaign based could easily overlap.
ReplyDeleteI've done the survey every year for at least 3 years, maybe a year or two more (how far back does it go, anyway?).
Some serious thought about the questions next year may be in order, depending upon what it is the surveyors are trying to learn! That is perhaps the first thing when planning a survey -defining what do you want to learning, why, and what will you do with the information? That and of course, who is your target audience/population?
Not too many surprises on the historical side of the hobby. I have learned a lot about the fantasy/sci-fi sector, though. The survey goes back to 2014. I don't recall when I first began completing it but 2016 sounds about right.
DeleteAs I mentioned in one of the comments above, the survey may have begun as a way to increase hobby interest during a usual downturn in wargaming activity seen in August. Several new questions were added in the 2020 survey and some questions revised. Still, work remains in refining the survey in order to yield even more interesting and meaningful results.
Peter, I think I could have done a respectable job in filling out your survey preferences. I have always wondered why you never expanded beyond 25mm?
I started with painted Aloys Ochel 25 mm flats, actually, but soon transitioned to 25 mm "rounds", starting with my original Scruby troops, augmented with some Hinton Hunt figures in the late 60's and early 70's, then on to Minifgs, etc.
DeleteI have tried 15mm ACW twice, and both times after painting a few units decided I just don't enjoy painting 15's, and gave those troops away. The only 15's I have are the crews for my 15 mm Renaissance Galleys. Overall, I'd rate my decision to stay with 25/288 for everything as one of the best I made - no need for multiple scales of terrain, etc.
I don't like the look of 6 mm figures one bit (for my own use, at least). If I were to do another scale it would be 40 mm (American Revolutionary War) or 10mm (Tricorne of some kind or ACW). However, I am rapidly concluding that I am coming pretty close to having "enough" troops. Despite the large dent made in the lead pile, there is still enough for another year or two of painting at least, and maybe Murawski will do the Baden Hussars? :-)
For new projects, I do have 100 or so figures in waiting for a "Darkest Afrika"/Congo type game... in 28 mm, of course! :-)
One scale makes a lot of sense with respect to terrain. I am finding that as I age, I prefer painting 25s much more than the smaller scales.
DeleteThanks for providing a bit of your gaming provenance.