How I explain wargaming

I got hooked by wargaming after being frustrated with some of the classic war-themed strategy games, so I decided to make my own.  Telling someone that you're making your own game generally gets some strange looks and raises some questions.  I generally start by explaining what I don't like about the classic games, and then try to describe my game in terms they might understand.

I liked the idea of RISK, but it always turns into a massive army marching across whole continents in a single turn.  Turning in cards at the right time seemed to be more important than almost anything else. STRATEGO is fun, but the underpowered units never win.  I don't really like that level of determined outcomes.  I played my dad's boyhood copy of BATTLE CRY!, and somewhat enjoyed it, but I didn't like how one army could occupy so much space on a map.  One single army could easily span several hundred miles and then instantly form battle lines and fight as a cohesive force.

Many younger people have played the TOTAL WAR series of PC games.  If you have, then you know that you fight battles on the tactical level, but move your forces at the strategic level.  My game, and most wargames, focus somewhere nearer the tactical battles from TOTAL WAR.  My specific game is grid-based, so I don't worry with fiddly spacing and unit depth.  I don't have unit formations in my game.  I let the lower level commanders make those decisions.  In my game the players move large units across the battlefield, capturing objectives and completing scenarios.  Most historical battles focused on holding key terrain features and locations, not just lining up and destroying the enemy army as in TOTAL WAR.