Introduction

In his chapter Simulation, History and Computer Games, media scholar William Uricchio posits a continuum on which “historical games” can be placed: at one end are games addressing specific historical events, and on the other are games that model historical processes (328). Games of the former type often include war games seeking to recreate specific battles or campaigns. While these naturally include a certain amount of “what if?” (a game wherein players simply move through pre-determined steps would hardly be a game), the emphasis is on accuracy and simulation. Uricchio notes that in these games “Play emerges in the space between the constraint of detail and the exhilaration of improvisation” (330). At the other end of the spectrum are the process-type games, the best known example being Sid Meier’s Civilization (MPS Labs 1990). These games allow a freer engagement with the past in exchange for a deemphasis on particular referents: “Rather than a what if simulation with a known case study as the referent, nonspecific simulations provoke a wider range of interrogations, encouraging a more abstract, theoretical engagement of historical processes” (330). These games are more concerned with general processes, principles and ideologies than specific events.

Although Uricchio only discusses video games in this piece, his event-process spectrum is also applicable to board games. Although board games lack the computational, and hence simulational, complexity of computer games, many aim to represent historical events and processes. Such board games also incorporate a large amount of thematic elements that do not contribute to the simulation of history, yet imbue the game with a historical sense, which in turn complicate the event-process spectrum.

In writing on the problems of "historical games," Claude Fogu writes "I have not been able to conceptualize the criteria by which one [game] can be distinguished from the others as being "historical," let alone which of them would qualify as a "successful" example of historical representation in the digital mode" (2009, 104). The goal of this project is to shed some light on both Fogu's problem and Uricchio's spectrum. This is done through close anaylses  of how the founding and early years of the Baltimore and Ohio railroad has been represented in contemporary (1986 - 2009) board games.

To those who will note that these theorists were writing on the topic of video games, and not board games, I would defend their application to board games by appealing to the similarities between the two forms. Although Fogu in particular is interested in digital representation, that the game itself is a form of representation ties the two forms together. Further, board games are easily and often translated to the digital medium without drastic alteration; the conversions are often nearly direct. For example, one of this site's key case studies, 1830: Railways and Robber Barons (Tresham 1986) was ported to the MS-DOS operating system in 1995. Thus the analyses in this site will be applying theories of digital games to board games, but will be mindful of the differences between the two.