I've had some random thoughts about the nature of warfare - or, at least, the way we game it- through the Ages. Undoubtedly these generalisations will be, at best, tenuous and at worst patently untrue but hey, ho!
Our Ancient gaming is very blood thirsty. Virtually every game ends with one side or the other being butchered. This must partly stem from the choice of rules of course but I think this also has a basis in history. Enemy armies were slaughtered, if possible.The best losers could hope for in preference to death was the dubious fate of slavery.
Conversely, our SYW battles are often indecisive and aim to capture some objective or gain some limited advantage, or a withdrawal rather than to resoundingly defeat our opponent. This comes through scenarios chosen but does, I think, reflect the reality. We actually take prisoners!
Napoleonic gaming is something else. Our battles seek unadulterated victory, usually through breaking the morale of our opponent.The games aim to be decisive. The "science of war" - whatever that is - is at the forefront.
WW2 is very different. Small numbers striving for minor terrain objectives that we are conscious of being very much part of a greater picture. So vital in a minor key. This changes the dynamic a lot.
I could go about the seeming viciousness of our ECW games or the almost random & bombastic nature of our Dark Ages games etc but I've probably inflicted enough on you.
donald