How wargame and wargame-adjacent designers use mechanisms to represent combat, historical events, equipment, and issues like race and gender are more important than ever considering the massive explosion of wargames and wargame adjacent titles in the last twenty years or so. Increasingly, simple dice combat for unit elimination found in games like Axis & Allies and Risk has given way to more innovative systems like deck building (Undaunted Normandy, Osprey Games), corps morale systems (Chancellorsville 1863, Freeman’s Farm 1777, Worthington Games), area control (Twilight Struggle, Fort Sumter, Flashpoint: South China Sea, GMT Games), and more. Increasingly, designers not only have to wrestle with the age-old question of balancing gameplay mechanisms with historical accuracy, but also how to create that balance in light of new, innovative systems. This paper would be based on data (interviews) from several wargame and wargame-adjacent designers, and it would consider how they incorporate new and innovative mechanisms, and how at the same time they reflect historical accuracy. To what extent do designers “fudge” history in order to make a compelling and balanced tabletop wargame. This also would consider how representing traditionally underrepresented groups can be a product of an intentional historical inaccuracy, (i.e. black soldiers fighting alongside white soldiers in the American Army during WWII in Undaunted Normandy), or how members of these groups who were actual historical actors are portrayed.