ericmwalters
Member
What kind of board wargame graphics do you prefer the most? The least? Why? Here are the categories:
-- Computer Graphic built map and counters. Typical of this genre were Fresno Gaming Associates (FGA) games and--more recently--the Gamers' efforts. Color and clarity/ease of use are usually are the hallmarks of these efforts; what is sometimes lacking is period color.
-- Hand drawn/painted map and counters. Rick Barber's efforts for Clash Of Arms games--breath-taking visually but sometimes difficult to use. Definite period flavor.
-- Icon counter symbology versus military symbology (NATO-style, German, Soviet, etc) Does the period being simulated matter? I tend to like icons for pre-20th century and military symbology for 20th century and later. Does the scale matter? I can deal with icons more for tactical games and less so for operational and strategic scales.
-- Counter colors reflect stereotype color choices or something a little different. Typical color stereotypes are olive drab for U.S. in 20th Century games, Yellow for Japanese, Grey or black for Germans, red for Soviet, light blue for French, etc. Some games opt for uniform colors/styles (L2's STREETS OF STALINGRAD, 3d Edition, for example...and most of the Clash of Arms games).
-- Charts printed on the map, in the rulebook, or on separate cards? Pluses and minuses any way you go. I'd rather pay for getting seperate cards. I really like having photos of the commanders where it means something (Zucker games usually do this well).
-- Counters--glossy or matte finish? I like the latter as it cuts down on the glare. Same for the mapboards/paper maps.
-- If you had to pick the top 3 graphically pleasing games you've played, what would they be and why? Any recent efforts that you've found particularly disappointing?
--emw
-- Computer Graphic built map and counters. Typical of this genre were Fresno Gaming Associates (FGA) games and--more recently--the Gamers' efforts. Color and clarity/ease of use are usually are the hallmarks of these efforts; what is sometimes lacking is period color.
-- Hand drawn/painted map and counters. Rick Barber's efforts for Clash Of Arms games--breath-taking visually but sometimes difficult to use. Definite period flavor.
-- Icon counter symbology versus military symbology (NATO-style, German, Soviet, etc) Does the period being simulated matter? I tend to like icons for pre-20th century and military symbology for 20th century and later. Does the scale matter? I can deal with icons more for tactical games and less so for operational and strategic scales.
-- Counter colors reflect stereotype color choices or something a little different. Typical color stereotypes are olive drab for U.S. in 20th Century games, Yellow for Japanese, Grey or black for Germans, red for Soviet, light blue for French, etc. Some games opt for uniform colors/styles (L2's STREETS OF STALINGRAD, 3d Edition, for example...and most of the Clash of Arms games).
-- Charts printed on the map, in the rulebook, or on separate cards? Pluses and minuses any way you go. I'd rather pay for getting seperate cards. I really like having photos of the commanders where it means something (Zucker games usually do this well).
-- Counters--glossy or matte finish? I like the latter as it cuts down on the glare. Same for the mapboards/paper maps.
-- If you had to pick the top 3 graphically pleasing games you've played, what would they be and why? Any recent efforts that you've found particularly disappointing?
--emw