Pages

Sunday, April 6, 2025

Ancients as the Missing Link?

In a recent post on cluster analysis using wargaming periods as the grouping variable (see Games of a Feather...), one reader's response triggered some additional thought and a return to the data.

In the commentary from that post, Milton.Soong asked,
I have a comment in the ancient/medieval vs other historical period break: I wonder if this is rather a “competition gamers vs non-competition gamer” rather than a preference for period.  Only other big competition set in historical is Bolt Action/FoW. I bet a look at comp vs others would give some interesting insight.

Interesting observation Milton.  Is the separate and distinct clustering of Ancients from more "Modern" historical periods explained by an unobserved "competition" attribute?

Recall from the earlier cluster analysis referenced above that the three-cluster solution produced three distinct groupings.  They are Modern Historical Periods, Ancients Historical Periods, and Non-Historical Periods as shown in Figure 1.  These clusters were formed only from using wargaming period preference as an input variable.

Figure 1

Notice how the Ancients branch only merges to the Modern branch in the step immediately preceding the joining of Non-Historicals to Historicals.  While the cluster analysis shows Ancients Historical merging into Modern Historical at the last branch, this last-minute merge suggests that Ancients may have attributes in common with non-historicals too.  When considering the bifurcation between historical and non-historical periods and Ancients late arrival into the Historical grouping, should Ancients historical periods compose a viable third rail to the Big Two wargaming categories?  If so, on what basis?

Returning to Milton's suggestion of searching for an unobserved "competition" component possibly driving these clustering results, let's see what the data suggest.

Figure 2
To begin, the list of all gaming periods included in the survey are reduced down to the Top 10 periods.  These Top 10 periods include four non-historical periods and six historical periods.  All three of the periods making up the Ancients group are included.

For the competition component, we examine preferred Game_Type responses.  The possible responses to game type include:
  • Campaign-driven game
  • Cooperative game
  • Pick-up game
  • Role-playing game
  • Scenario-driven game
  • Tournament game

Game_Type of "Tournament" will be the response used for measuring competition.  Figure 3 illustrates the Top 10 periods with each period's percent distribution for each Game_Type.  Figure 3 shows periods grouped by Non-Historical periods and Historical periods.

Figure 3
From Figure 3, Non-Historicals tend to fall below Historicals with respect to percentages for Pick-up and Scenario-driven games and surpass Historicals in percentages of Cooperative, Role-playing and Tournament games.  These results are likely not too surprising or unexpected.

When Historicals are divided into Ancients and Modern periods as clustering suggests, something interesting comes to the surface.
Figure 4
When Ancients historical are singled out from Modern historical (see Figure 4), the graphic illustrates that, as a group, Ancients historical gamers are more likely to prefer tournament play and less likely to prefer scenario-driven games than Modern historical gamers.  Gamers in the Ancients Era (up to AD500) are less likely to participate in campaigns than other historical periods.  In these measures, Ancients have tendencies that lie somewhere between non-historicals and modern historicals.

Competition or tournament gaming appears more likely within the three Ancients gaming periods than within the three modern historical gaming periods.  Milton suggested the presence of competition gaming may be a contributing factor in gravitating toward Ancients.  Is it, though?  Remember that these are correlations and tendencies, not causations.  These tendencies draw from game type responses only and World War II sees a similar game type profile.  As for Ancients as a missing link in the competition/non-competition divide, perhaps through Ancients wargaming, non-historical gamers with an interest in competition may move toward modern historicals or vice versa with Ancients acting as a possible conduit between the two?  Whatever the route, Ancients wargaming seems a possible place to either land or pass through.

39 comments:

  1. An interesting read and it could well be that Ancients are the link between non and historical gamers, a very interesting thought.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hmm - not sure on this one Jon - because Milton also mentioned the "other" big historical competition genre is WW2, but that does not seem to be reflected here?? (Or maybe I just can't read the stats correctly?!)
    I can see there MIGHT be a link between fantasy and Ancient, though, as most non-sci-fi fantasy gaming seems based around "fantasy" Ancient/Medieval realms eg Frostgrave or Mortal Gods - a lot of the fantasy figures are fundamentally dark ages or medieval in character - so maybe there is some crossover there?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Is there crossover between non-historicals and historicals? When primary interest is examined (which I do often), the bulk of survey respondents place themselves in the "Mixed" category suggesting there is crossover. Does Milton's thesis on competition gaming capture all of the interactions possible? There are likely many variables at play but the Game Type proxy for competition brings up an interesting look at this relationship.

      Delete
  3. Very interesting, although the variations seem to not much more than natural variation. I think rule set will be the driver here. My club doesn't really do competitive games, more in it for the craic. But some of them have taken part in TTS tournaments. I think that as popularity of specific rule sets ebbs and flows then the competitive element may also. Although, obviously the competitive players may just seek out rule sets that work well in competition

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Martin, good call on bringing up ruleset choice. As mentioned to Keith above, only Game Type was explored in this analysis. I used "Tournament" as a proxy for competition gaming. If a period is dominated by a small handful of rules and those rules are based toward competition, then choice (or lack thereof) could be a driving factor in responses.

      Delete
  4. At the risk of sounding like a creaky old dodger, the problem is more than a little complex. If a set of rules are so popular as to dominate an era and are suitable or aimed at competitive game play, won't be resulting gamer population be labeled as competition gaming? Ancient games really took off with WRG rules and for decades, at least locally, meant that the game was always practice for or part off tournament play. Many newer games of the period show cased a continuance of a reaction away from the tournament model. I think that new players in the era had always been expected to be in the tournament mold.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The answer (if there is one!) is a little complex. Your observations on ruleset choice, domination, and your example of WRG are compelling. Are there fewer choices of rules for Ancients periods than more modern periods? While there may be a small handful of Ancients rulesets that are widely played, I am not sure the same could be said of Napoleonics. Does the history of Ancients gaming lead players in the direction of competition gaming out of necessity?

      Delete
    2. Again, I fall back to example, late in the 70's to mid 80's there was an acceptance of a very small number of rule sets for 'ancients' whilst it was said the number of Napoleonic rule sets was nearly equal to the number of people playing Napoleonics. World War 2 games as 'competitive' really seems to me not a situation until Bolt Action came upon the scene the decade or so back.
      Locally there are about two dozen Bolt Action players who are relatively new to gaming, play in leagues and tourneys only. Maybe some would play non competitive games, just less comfortable 'coming up with' a scenario.

      Delete
    3. Thanks, Joe! I have heard the same anecdote about Napoleonics rulesets too. I think it may still apply today!

      Delete
  5. One interesting thing about the Ancients category, less obvious from the Dark Ages and Medieval, is that there is less interest in campaigns (lowest of the ten categories) and more in pick up games (highest of the 10 categories). Does this reflect a history of equal points army contests as a way of matching forces, rather than historical match-ups, I wonder?

    The pattern of preferences in Fantasy and Sci-fi seem quite different to historicals, not just their themes. Does this reflect a different style of hobby, which would mean cross overs to historicals may be less likely ?


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anthony, that is an interesting point about the nature of Ancient (up to AD500) Ancients gaming. With a focus on points-based games and no confinement to strict historical match-ups, historical scenarios seem less likely. Pick-up games and tournament play may fill this void.

      The Game Type profiles between non-historicals and historicals are different. While these profiles differ, data suggest there is crossover between the two groups. Two differences between these groups seen in past studies are that player age and size of game are contributing factors too.

      Delete
  6. Interesting post, the only competition game I've played was ancients/medieval TtS, which conforms to your data I guess, ADG is another competition ancient ruleset as is Impetus at least in Europe, by contrast the blackpowder family of games are designed not to be such tournament games, the rules are deliberately a bit vague around the edges and a lot of it is open to discussion, not ideal tournament traits! Bolt action is very much a tournament type game, with it's 40k heritage, 1940k as it's sometimes known!
    Best Iain

    ReplyDelete
  7. Wow glad to see my comment lead to this well reasoned article, thanks!
    1. Re Ancient/Medival as cross over from Fantasy: I kinda see this (after all, if you strip out a lot of WHFB armies magic element, you end up with a dark age/or late medieval army). Though I do know a few folks who were fantasy guys who drifted into historical this way.
    2. Ancient vs Modern: Still murky in my mind, since the biggest histo tourney rules by far is Bolt Action (at least in the States). You can find them in main stream convention like LVO or Adoption with large BA tournament, but not Ancients/medieval.
    Many BA players were ex-40k players, but I wonder how many of these BA players drifts into other periods and truly embrace the "Historical" label?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're welcome, Milton! You presented an interesting thesis. I wanted to see if the survey data supported your compete vs no-compete idea. Interesting to see that many ex-40K players play BA. This falls into line with Iain's comment that BA as 1940K.

      Delete
  8. One old data point was Warhammer Ancient, it has all the marker for success: branded in a way that Fantasy players would've heard of them; there were a lot of cool army books in support it. Our local scene never got into it, but someone must remember if it had a chance to mushroom into a way into historicals if they kept at it..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have played a game or two of WAB many years ago. It didn't stick with me either.

      Delete
  9. oh, didn't think of that. Lets see there's Bolt Action for WWII and ADLG for Ancients. I believe ADLG is more popular in Europe (don't know where I've heard that, I just have OK?) and could show up more as competitive / tournament play.

    I think the bigger issue is one package. LIke Bolt Action, it's one stop shopping for everything and it's ease of purchase along with a rules set that is good. Gripping Beast tried it out with Swordpoint but it never got the same traction.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ADLG is popular in the UK tournament circuit and may be in Europe as well. One-stop shopping offers convenience, for sure.

      Delete
    2. ADLG certainly seems popular in Europe. There do seem to be quite a few US competition players too, though given your vast territory, they may be less noticeable? With your love of stats, I'm sure you can spend a pleasant hour looking at their international tournament details on the ADLG website : ) .

      One rule set not yet mentioned in the competition sphere is Flames of War. This was once very popular, though I don't know its current status.

      Delete
    3. Anthony, I recently did some stat analysis for Martin Stephenson using ADLG army data. The number of games played was astonishing.

      Delete
    4. Ah-HA! I knew that I heard ADLG was popular in Europe. Take that!

      Delete
    5. HAVOC had a 3 round tournament for ADLG (no interest on my part in tournament play) on Saturday, a small 3 round Lion Rampant Tournament on Sunday, and a Wars of Ozz tournament on Sunday. I don't know if I have ever seen a Napoleonic, SYW, or AWI tournament.

      Chariot era armies suffer from a lack of known engagements with anywhere near enough information to recreate them on the tabletop. Even the main exception, Qadesh, certainly has lots of room for interpretation!

      Delete
    6. I never see tournament play either. Chariot Wars definitely require imagination to field battles since historical actions were rarely recorded.

      Delete
  10. I too was thinking of the number of Ancients/Medieval rules which had a fantasy supplement, and the figures and armies were often largely interchangeable. We played a game of Warmaster recently with my Ancients group. I had never played before but they all pick up a game every now and then for some light relief, using a mixture of Ancient/Medieval and fantasy figures. I think many of them started with fantasy gaming and then drifted across to Ancients.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lawrence, good to see firsthand report of gamers moving from fantasy to ancients. While I do not have many Ancients rules, I never connected that many of these rulesets offer fantasy supplements as a crossover into fantasy.

      Delete
  11. Your analysis is beyond my simple mind Jon, but Ancients are good and competitions are not for me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I doubt this work is beyond you! Ancients are good and competitions are not for me either!

      Delete
  12. Interesting stuff... Looking at fIg 4, I noted that the 'Tournament' category was still quite a small proportion of 'first choice' game types in all periods, so I wonder if that would really drive the differentiation between Ancients and other historical periods?
    I do wonder if tournament/competion preferences are indeed influenced by the 'complete package' setup of certain rules? ( didn't' Flames of War used to call itself 'The FoW Hobby' , as if it wasn't part of wargaming at all?!). I suppose WRG was simply seen as the best Ancients set back in the day, so nearly everyone used it, and when they published Army Lists that perhaps made competition gaming a preferred model, as you could see how Alexander or Caeser would have done against any army from 3000BC to 1500AD, or whatever they ended up as! That seems a bit pointless to me, but it obviously appealed to lots of players!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, David! The percentages of tournament priorities may be small but the differences between groups is noticeable. I do t understand the appeal of fighting ahistorical match-ups either. Pointless to me as well.

      Delete
  13. I'm not sure how this fits in, but in regards to armies I'll say periods starting with say ECW/30years war and forward are packed with historical scenario's that offer an alternative to tournaments, however, things before that time not so much. Just for my ACW alone I've more scenario books then I could ever play, but if you want to fight historical enemies in the ancient period your limitations come in and is why tournaments become an alternative to play the armies you like.
    I'm not a tournament player......hmmm maybe that's why my ancients don't see the table as much as my other periods.

    Christopher

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Christopher, I think this an interesting and important point! Perhaps Ancients wargaming with ahistorical match-ups in tournament play is closer to fantasy than later historical periods?

      Delete
  14. I wonder if those who played DBA and the WRG rules way back when only really ever played them in tournaments or at the club, possibly as part of a league? ADLG et al seemed to have taken on their mantle and runwith it these past few years.

    I remember chatting with the 'head' of the Society of Ancients some years ago at Colours and we got to a talking about the lack of info for many battles from the Ancients era. This lack of info might make it harder to say run a campaign, easy for a one off game though. But then could you make a compelling campaign from say the Anglo-Saxon/Vikings period when often they arranged to meet on the hazeled field and knock the living daylights out of each other. Not the most compelling thing to do in a game I must admit!

    So compare the above to say the Corsican Ogre's Danube Campaign or Normandy 1944, where the campaign side has so much to offer the gamers. I think this is one reason that I struggle to engage with Ancients in a meaningful way, as I do love to run a narrative campaign for my games. Not impossible to do of course but there is more to offer in other periods I would dare to venture. Answers on a postcard;)!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Excellent and well thought out response, Steve! Perhaps ancients campaigning is more difficult. I have done it before using a boardgame as a battle generator when forces collide.

      Delete
  15. I think you may have a point about material for refighting historical campaigns Steve. That said, it is easy enough to fight fictional campaigns in the Ancients through Medieval periods, especially simple framework campaigns to string battles together. We might also note the legendary Hyboria campaign run by SoA founder Tony Bath, which was important in the evolution of the Ancient game. I doubt if modern players would have the inclination towards something quite so complicated these days, though, despite us having IT coming out our ears.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A historical campaign would be a challenge I think for most periods due to the paucity of reliabe info, but for say the 'Roman Period', possibly easier? However I agree that it would be easy, and dare I say it preferable, to run a fictional campaign for your chosen period. Whilst Tony Bath's book had so much to inspire one, I agree that in today's age it appears far too much work except for the most dedicated campaign player. Personally a 3-5 game narrative campaign more than fits the bill:).

      Delete
    2. Ancients campaigns can be set up and run. I did this based upon a hex-an-counter wargame many years ago. I should consider doing so again.

      Delete