Pages

Wednesday, August 7, 2024

What Do You Like Most About Miniatures Wargaming?

In a natural counterpoint and follow up to the earlier analysis that examined what survey respondents liked least about wargaming in Wargames, Soldiers, and Strategy's 2023 The Great Wargaming Survey (see What Do You Like Least About Miniatures Wargaming), today's installment focuses on responses to the question,

What do you like most about miniatures wargaming?  

As in the Least Liked question, responses were captured as unstructured text with about a 2,100 character limit.  Respondents could (and did) enter any text they wished.  For the Most Liked question, the survey received 7,438 non-blank responses in this field.  The total record count for Most Liked is slightly more than the 7,278 responses to the Least Liked question.  Perhaps the count increase reflects a bias toward positive commentary?  You know, if you have nothing nice to say, say nothing.  

To make sense out of these unstructured texts, machine learning techniques are employed.  Again, these text analytics techniques focus on cluster analysis and principal component analysis (PCA).  The goal of these techniques is to gain insight into the underlying data structure and reduce this large body of text down to a manageable number of associated "words" without losing the essential information contained within each response.

To begin analysis, a series of text transformations were applied to each response to standardize a collection of word tokens.  After word tokenization and preprocessing, 4,144 unique terms and counts of term frequencies were created for follow-on analysis steps.  By contrast, the Least Liked word tokenization resulted in 4,918 terms.  After removing terms having near-zero variance, these 4,144 terms were reduced down to only fourteen word tokens.  These remaining tokens are:
  • games
  • people
  • painting
  • miniatures
  • history
  • research
  • collect
  • model
  • terrain
  • table
  • fun
  • creative
  • army 
  • build
What is especially interesting about the final list of tokens presented here is that three of the tokens (people, painting, miniatures) made the final list in the Least Liked analysis as well.  What does this result suggest?  Well, there seems to be a love/hate relationship with other wargamers and painting miniatures.  Even without word association, this list of fourteen tokens paints an interesting snapshot of the factors enjoyed in miniatures wargaming.

Having reduced the tokens down from more than 4,000 to 14, time to examine the results from cluster analysis of categorical data.  The dendrogram produced by cluster analysis is shown below:

The results in the graphic above illustrate an interesting and intuitive clustering of the words.  Notice that "games" (and gaming) forms a cluster alone with all else falling into a second cluster.  Given that the hobby is "miniatures wargaming" in name, it is reassuring to see that gaming represents an important facet of the hobby.  The two-cluster solution with "gaming" and everything else is illustrated in the dendrogram below:
In the three-cluster solution, "people" spins off from the large, 13 token group identified in the two-cluster solution.  With three-clusters, "games" and "people" show the most separation from the remaining word tokens.  For most respondents, games and other wargamers are the most frequently liked facets of wargaming. 
While the cluster analysis iterations could keep slicing the dendrogram to increase the number of clusters, I stop at the four-cluster solution.  With four clusters, painting miniatures separates itself out from the pack.  From the survey, three universal drivers for wargaming happiness seem to fall to gaming, people, and painting miniatures.  Based upon my own experience, I agree with the survey results but, of course, opinions and rationales may differ.  The survey does produce intuitive results from all of these unstructured texts. 
One final point before moving on to principal component analysis.  Notice how the tokens, research/collect, terrain/table, fun/creative, and army/build pair up within the clustering?  Very interesting and intuitive given the nearly 7,500 responses and the 4,100 unique terms.  In the prior cluster analysis of Least Liked, some have suggested this is akin to magic.  
Now we examine PCA.  As in the Least Liked analysis, details for the technique are left for the reader.  One useful visualization tool is PCA Variable Plotting which illustrates the relative importance (loadings) of each of the fourteen variables in 2D space.  Color and length of each vector denotes its contribution to the PCA analysis.
Graphical analysis of PCA results tends to lend itself (in most cases) to inferences that are easier to interpret.  While only two of the dimensional plots are illustrated here, only one of these dimensions lends itself to easy interpretation.

When considering the DIM1 (x-axis) in the graph below, there is no clear interpretation of the yellow and green semicircles.  Only the "creative" token projects into the negative (yellow) space of DIM1.  With all other tokens in the positive (green) space of DIM1, inferences are fuzzy. 
When examining the PCA Variables plot in the DIM2 (y-axis) space, meaningful inferences regarding the underlying classification are easier to distinguish.  In this case, the sign of loadings suggests a contrast between the Social (positive) and Solo (negative) principal components.
Another visualization technique in the PCA toolkit focuses on examining scree plots.  Scree plots allow a quick visual assessment of the relative importance of factors and principal components as well as suggesting an underlying classification or interpretation of each principal component.  Interpreting scree plots can be subjective but assigning a classification to each of the first three principal components, in this exercise, seems straightforward.

Results from PCA on the Most Liked unstructured text responses suggest that the principal components separate into three classifications of respondents.  These classifications I label as Craftsman, Gamer, and Historian.  The scree plots for each of these principal components and their contributing factors are illustrated below:


The significant factors comprising the Craftsman principal component are painting, miniatures, build, terrain, collect.  The factors driving the Gamer principal component are people, games, fun.  Finally, the Historian principal component sees history and research as the significant factors.  Now these are remarkable results in that we can transform roughly 7,500 unstructured text responses, reduce the dimensionality of the data (from 4,144 word tokens down to 14) while retaining sufficient information to assign meaningful classifications to the principal components. 

Do these 14 Most Liked factors reflect your own wargaming preferences?  If so, does the dendrogram hierarchy for the survey population fit your experience?  If not, what is your Most Liked factor?  Finally, do the classifications of Social/Solo and Craftsman/Gamer/Historian fit your own profile? 

In the Least Liked and Most Liked analyses, there were many insights to uncover from very large bodies of unstructured texts.  For me, these exercises have been a fascinating glimpse behind the curtain.

52 comments:

  1. Lots to chew on here.

    Jonathan, explaining what the importance of different mentioned factors is bound to give me a small project for the week. Thanks? ( it's 4 am and I am not quite up to this just now ).
    As always I appreciate the time you spent forming the analysis of the survey.
    Joe

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, certainly lots to chew on. This may be information overload but useful to lay it all out for further discussion.

      Delete
  2. Interesting analysis. I must be one of the lucky ones as there isn't much about wargaming that I don't like. As for the classification I think I tend to move between the Craftsman and Gamer

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I thought the analysis interesting as well. I am always surprised that surveying a bunch of random wargamers produces such clear and reasonable results. Over the last four years, I’ve shifted from craftsman to gamer.

      Delete
  3. Well I'm afraid I don't pretend to understand the technical stuff, I think the resulting categories make pretty good sense. You can put me down as (mainly) 'Solo' and 'Historian', I think.. Though the 'Social' side of things has been much improved by your kind invitations to join remote games!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No need to understand the technical stuff, David. Looking at the Big Picture from what falls out of the analysis is good enough. Very happy to have a small part in shifting your Wargaming experience into the “Social” side of things.

      Delete
    2. Just been reading a bit of Neil Thomas (19th Century Europe) and he says 'there is however much more to the hobby than the direct recreation of historical battles. For the apparently secondary goal of allowing the wargamer to reflect upon historical events is in reality the key to any successful game'.
      I think 'allowing the wargamer to reflect upon hostorical events' is what it is ALL about... That's what I like most, I think!

      Delete
    3. Thanks, David! Reflecting upon historical outcomes drives much of my gaming as well. See my latest post on Thomas' 19th C Wargaming book.

      Delete
  4. For me, it's painting, collecting, scratch-building scenery/terrain, and tinkering with home-brew rules in no particular order.

    Kind Regards,

    Stokes

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Stokes! You look like a "Craftsman" to me.

      Delete
  5. Great analysis as always, I'm happily in the craftsman/historian range with an occasional excursion to gamer!
    Best Iain

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, Iain! I have seen a number of games on your table of late.

      Delete
  6. I don't have the reference, but a long time ago Frank Chadwick made the observation that miniatures gaming mixes model making, history, and playing (I'm paraphrasing: probably not the exact terms)--and that there were people who more engaged (or not) by one of these facets of the hobby than others. Since then, others have made this point--and this open ended survey seems to provide the data to convert those observations from lore into something more substantial.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ed, I do have a reference to these different facets of miniatures wargaming and the notion likely predates Chadwick. See my post on wargamer profiling at
      https://palousewargamingjournal.blogspot.com/2015/07/wargamer-profiling-and-holy-trinity.html.

      Without other sources, I reckon Ted Haskell in a 1971 issue of Courier magazine might get credit for this. You are correct. The survey provides the data to back up these assertions. In fact, one of the questions in the 2024 GWS addresses the craftsman and historian question.

      Delete
  7. Well that data/graphs etc I cannot pretend to understand Jon, but I would certainly class myself as craftsmen, gamer and historian in equal amounts. To me they are all inextricably linked and provide me with pleasure in equal amounts. Take one away and the fun goes for me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Steve! I agree the graphs may be a lot to wade through but if you make it, I reckon it may be worth the journey. Gamer, Craftsman, and Historian are all inextricably linked for me as well. I am in good company!

      Delete
  8. A lot to take in there Jon and something to come back to, I am pretty much Craftsman but with a good part of gamer and historian! Interesting post.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Indeed, information overload, no doubt. Come back to review the results when time and energy permits. I reckon many of us, here, fall into the trio of Gamer, Historian, and Craftsman.

      Delete
  9. Historman and Craftsian for me or "Craftyhistorian" it's difficult to know where one starts and the other ends....
    The grouping for visualisation is probably the best you can do with the data to make sense of it.
    I have to say I'm a bit of an outlier in most surveys; in this one, what model or range would I like to see! ☺
    Neil

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Neil, you fit the mold of "CraftyHistorian, for sure! Your knowledge of history and wargaming is remarkable.

      Delete
  10. Oh I totally understand how some terms are on both the like and dislike lists. Things that are hard to do (like building an army, an opposing army, appropriate terrain, etc..) are often the most rewarding.
    In the past I would of ranked myself a Gamer, then Historian, and Craftsman as a far distant third. But as years have gone by I think now I would rank myself as Gamer and Craftsman almost in equal measure with Historian as the trailing trait. 😁

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, I can see how "painting" and "people" could be the least liked for some and the most liked for others. In fact, for some, it could be both!

      We are always evolving in our likes, dislikes, and preferences. Before remote gaming opened up for me, I was definitely craftsman and historian with gaming a distant third.

      Delete
  11. What jumped out at me (besides my awe over how you do this and how many years of study it would take for me to comprehend the analysis) was the grouping of games and fun into the "social" half of the graph.

    As a solo gamer, I see games as the ultimate solo activity - the apex of the work i did in all the other solo activities and indeed the driving factor behind them. Certainly fun ranks highly for me - it's a hobby, so I hope people are doing it for fun and not out of a sense of obligation real or imagined - as well. So neither of those are "social", at least not the majority of time.

    My quibble then isn't with them landing in the same quadrant but rather in the labeling - although I concede for many, the both gaming and fun are most likely solidly in the social sphere. Playing (instead of Social) and Preparation (instead of Solo), or terms that encompass the game vs the things that lead to a game, seem equally applicable as terms without implying a number of participants.

    Undoubtedly different terms would bring in issues of their own.and for the sake of the analysis I'm fairly certain the term doesn't matter, as long as they lead to your very useful classification of Gamer, Crafter, Historian.

    That was a lot of words on my part and I'm not sure I've said anything so much as reasoning my way through your post. Wittgenstein said "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent" - I should take his advice, but I do enjoy the thinking your posts inspire and I couldn't help myself!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. John, thanks for your comprehensive comment! The labels I placed in the PCA Variables chart were my nomenclature only. I actually prefer your "Playing" vs "Preparation" labels better. I was thinking more along the lines of individual activities vs group activities.

      Never hold back from commenting!

      Delete
  12. Jonathan - interesting as ever and thanks for your analysis and efforts. I suspect this is not the work of an evening. It's easy to say that this is what one might expect (I'm thinking of Yarkshire Gamer's Venn Diagram) but teasing it out of the stats is well above my skill set.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, Andrew! Yes, this is more than an evening's work. Much of the effort is wrangling all of the data into the correct form to produce any analytics at all. While the results are what one might expect, it is surprising to me that these results can be teased out of unstructured text in free-form comments. I have not seen YG's Venn Diagrams. What does he present?

      Delete
    2. From memory Yarkshire Gamer's podcast guests have to define themselves in the Venn diagram of historian, gamer, painter / collector....
      Neil

      Delete
    3. Neil is on the money. it is an amusing and effective question to ask. I often think that I am not a collector but then Mrs F mentions her concerns about the structure of our home...

      Delete
    4. Andrew, structural integrity is one reason I store my collections in the basement!

      Delete
  13. I completed this year's survey a couple of days ago so it will be interesting to see of any of these analyses have changed, although a five or ten year comparison would no doubt highlight greater changes over time. Like many I definitely consider myself to be a combination of the three characteristics.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A times series of some of the questions is interesting but the survey data remains fairly stable across time. Two exceptions are that we tend to get older and that metals are losing ground to plastics. Perhaps I will do more time series after the 2024 survey wraps up. I know vendors are interested in these multi-year results. Thank you for completing the survey!

      Most readers here tend to be a combination of all three of the dominant characteristics.

      Delete
  14. Thanks for the interesting analysis, Jon. I see too little of the gaming and am involved too much as an historian and craftsman - but hopefully once I manage to sort my troops out there'll be much more of the gaming! :-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You’re welcome! You definitely fall into the craftsman and historian classifications. I know many of us are grateful for the superb flagworks you constantly churn out.

      Delete
    2. Thanks, Jon. Very kind of you to say so... :-)

      Delete
  15. Thanks for putting all the effort into understanding the survey Jonathan. Mucking through the responses of 7,000 wargamers can't have been fun. Although hopefully there were some amusing comments in there somewhere.

    Good to see that I am not on my own in solo gaming (that sounds odd) and enjoying building terrain.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Glad you like the analysis, Ben! There are always a number of comments that make laugh. Some make me cringe too. The analysis does not associate gaming to solo activities. Gaming is more associated with the social category including fun and people.

      Delete
  16. As with any classification of this type eg the various psychometric profiling techniques that place one into one of four quadrants of different naming conventions, doubtless few of us area "pure" version of any of these. I am honest enough (and self-aware enough) to admit I am probably 50% craftsman, 40% gamer and 10% historian. It will be blasphemy for many, I am sure, but my knowledge of many of the eras I paint and game in is peripheral at best - eg RCW I have read one book specific to the subject, plus the biographies of both Lenin and Stalin, some stuff on the web, and watched a couple of Netflix or YouTube films/series - and that's it! My research and knowledge on the SCW is of about the same depth - and despite having played Napoleonic games since my early teens, my actual knowledge about the campaigns, battles etc is only one level above the basic knowledge of a person with a passing interest in military history! I do now a bit more about how the armies were organised - well, the individual battalions/regiments, anyway - I know about flank companies and centre companies, who had what colour of epaulettes how the Kings and Regimental colours worked in the British army etc etc - but what happened at Vimeiro or Funetes D'Onoro etc, I ahve no idea really!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Apologies for the multiple typos in this comment, too!

      Delete
    2. Keith, your reply surprises me on your historical depth of knowledge. I figured your Historian percentage would have been much greater than 10%. Given that, how do you rate yourself in the survey along the Historical vs Fantasy/Sci-Fi continuum?

      Delete
    3. Don’t fret about typos. Without the ability to edit a response, typos are a fact of life.

      Delete
    4. Perhaps I am being too harsh on myself Jon, but of the three "personality " types, the historical research is definitely the least influential in my enjoyment of the hobby...I, too just like toy soldiers a lot!

      Delete
  17. Very interesting analysis Jon. I did the survey and I am intrigued by your comments on the idea that we have a bias towards positive comments. Between me and you work surveys get a plethora of negative comments- but i found it hard to think negatively about my hobby! And bottom line- I like toy soldiers- enough said!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Since a hobby should be fun and enjoyable, I suppose more are likely to respond to “Most Liked” than “Least Liked” in a survey. At least that was the case here.

      I like toy soldiers too!

      Delete
  18. A great read Jonathan. I think that the fourteen word tokens are a perfect summation of our hobby.

    Over the years the way I have slotted into the three groupings has changed. In my early years I was clearly a gamer - I was involved in the club scene, played in local and national competitions with a good measure of success. Collecting armies was a necessity to play games and the interest in history was there but pretty much suppressed.

    In my middle years, when I stopped playing competitions, the craftsman side developed more because I was involved in a wargaming business where I made master patterns for resin casting, made moulds for both resin and metal casting and tinkered with some figure making too. Gaming became a bit of a casualty as hobby fatigue resulted from being in the business. The historical side began to play a bigger role.

    Now I think the weighting has shifted to historian - craftsman - gamer. I am a historical gamer and as such I HAVE to understand what made the armies that I collect tick - how they were organised, how they fought and they battles fought. I am rarely satisfied just reading one account because that research is what, as Hercule Poirot would say, stimulates the little grey cells. And the historian feeds the craftsman because for me the model armies and terrain are heavily researched. The historian's need to know how armies fought in their era, influences the rules that I write and provides additional intellectual stimulation. In many ways the game itself is now a minor part in my gaming life.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the excellent response, Mark!

      Like you (and many others), I reckon our emphasis and preferences shift over time. Today, I am much more of a gamer than I was only a few short years ago. My rankings are likely to continue shifting as interests change.

      Delete
  19. So... does the emphasis differ with historic and fantasy/sci-fi preference players? Is lore (e.g. Warhammer Canon or Lord of the Rings) seen as "historic research"? Or is it much more about the game, painting and collecting? I suspect there has to be a bias that way but that is mere gut feel. Wouldn't want you to have nothing to do!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good question! With the mix of historical and fantasy/sci-fi survey respondents, I was a little surprised that “history/historian” rose to the top. Perhaps the primarily historical gamers and those that play both historical and fantasy/sci-fi dominate those that are primarily fantasy/sci-fi. Would be interesting to look at only those that are primarily fantasy/sci-fi to see if there are differences with the whole population.

      Delete
  20. I think I fit in with all of those words in the list and probably a few more too! Just ask the Rejects!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I appreciate your feedback, Ray! Which other words???

      Delete