Should History Decide who Wins?

One of the things I enjoy most about making these videos is that so many of them begin with questions from viewers. This week's discussion was inspired by Tony Wentworth, who asked a deceptively simple question: should historical wargame rules do everything possible to produce the "correct" historical result?

Most of us want our games to feel authentic. We want armies to behave as they did historically, commanders to face the same challenges, and the battlefield to reward historically sensible tactics. But at the same time, we're still playing a game. If every battle is predetermined because history tells us who won, where does that leave the players?

My own view is that a good ruleset should always be capable of reproducing the historical outcome. If the rules accurately represent troop quality, command, morale, terrain and weapon effectiveness, then the historical result should be one possible outcome. The important word, though, is "possible" rather than "guaranteed."

History is full of battles that seem almost impossible to recreate without some additional help from the rules. Agincourt relied heavily on terrible ground conditions, French overconfidence and the effectiveness of English longbowmen. Thermopylae depended almost entirely on geography until betrayal changed everything. Rorke's Drift was shaped by carefully prepared defences, disciplined rifle fire, leadership, fatigue and the pauses between successive Zulu attacks.

Without acknowledging those unique historical circumstances, generic tabletop rules often produce results that look nothing like the real battles. That's where carefully designed scenarios and special rules become valuable. They shouldn't dictate the outcome, but they should recreate the conditions that made the historical outcome possible.

For me, that's where the real challenge of historical game design lies. A scenario should encourage players to make the same kinds of decisions their historical counterparts faced, while still leaving enough uncertainty that skill, judgement and luck can produce different results. After all, if players have no meaningful choices, they're simply acting out history rather than exploring it.

That's what makes this such an interesting subject to discuss. There probably isn't a single right answer. Some players prefer tightly scripted historical recreations, while others enjoy seeing history take an entirely different direction once the first dice are rolled. Wherever you fall on that spectrum, I think we can all agree on one thing: the best historical games are the ones that leave both players feeling they had meaningful decisions to make and a genuine chance to influence the battle.

I'd love to know where you stand. Should historical rules prioritise historical accuracy above everything else, or should player agency always come first? Join the discussion in the comments below and let me know your thoughts.