Board Wargames vs PC Wargames

[schizoid man]

I played a ton of wargames when I was 14. In 1975, Avalon Hill and SPI were cranking them out and my friends and I played so many new and different games, we really never developed favorites. Then the 80's hit, college, marriage #1, job progression, etc. so no time for board gaming but PC gaming started up (very insophisticated at first and expensive) so there was always the few minutes to "play with myself" and save to continue later.

Now that were are in the 00's, I have rediscovered the board games (ebay on the assist) like 1776, D-Day which then compelled me to get into the new generation of games by the kings out there like GMT, Columbia, maybe S&T and Decision Games. I can't imagine any PC game giving you the wonderful feeling you get with Europe Engulfed spread out over a 3' x 6' table and 100 blocks representing 8 nations on the board. Or the beauty and elegance of a game of Paths of Glory.

So my vote goes for board gaming.

BUT , I would love to play a great PC game if y'all can recommend one. Not a first person shooter, but a strategy war game, probably turn-based with some flow that does not get boggled down in a ton of rules to know. I bought HPS's 1776 and I don't think it is what I was looking for. Any suggestions?

 

[Runyan99]

Get Korsun Pocket. It is a computer game that plays like a classic board wargame.

 

[RetPara]

I miss the board games. Firefight by SPI was the first one I got in '79 and was hooked. Never did really get into the Bde and above orientated games... just a frustrated BnCdr at heart I guess... Since the first Steel Panthers came out though my wife learned to hate computers... But I have managed to infect my son (14YO) with strategy gaming...

 

[STIG]

Still prefer board games

Which is superior? Computer games have a great advantage.

1. You don't need to worry about the rules, the computer takes care of that for you.

2. Games move much faster. For example, you can play dozens of "Starfleet Battles" games on the computer in an afternoon vice 3 game turns in a day on the board.

3. Graphics, sound, etc. are all far better.

4. Almost everything else is better.

So which is the superior form? The board game.

Why? Because in a board game, you can stare across the table and "defeat the soul" of your opponent. You just can't get the same satisfaction from a computer game... yet.

 

[trauth116]

Personally I like both - for different reasons -- naturally it is a lot easier to getinto a PC game qicker - but it is also possible to get into it so quick you have no idea what is going on - or why....

I like board games in that regard; you pretty much are forced into knowing the machinations of the system before playing them... the programmed rules are also pretty helpful -in some titles.

I can't remember how many I had - I think if you counted that I subscribed to S & T in the SPI days -- and count al of those titles -- I might have had a couple hundred board games...

Had some pretty collectible titles too at one point - like War Between the States, and War in the Pacific. Still got a few -- -ok more than a few ( in fact I need to sell off some more eventually).

Personally - back in the day, I preferred SPI to AH ... although nowadays, while I got some Gamers' titles -- like the 7 Days battle set from the Bde Series ... and Europa and the other GR/D series' -- I seem to like GMT (they always have provided topnotch service as well - which is a rarity anymore.)

 

[Mantis]

Originally posted by runyan99
Get Korsun Pocket. It is a computer game that plays like a classic board wargame.

Which also sports a decent AI, which is a shock all by itself.

 

[Tom DeFranco]

SSG

Originally posted by Shane Sohnle
Which also sports a decent AI, which is a shock all by itself.

Carriers at War had a decent AI, too. That seems to be something that SSG has done well through the years.

 

[trauth116]

AI - I think for me the jury is out on Normandy 44 -- but a lot of it might be because I could have chosen different optional rules at the start ( that I did not realize what effect on the game -the ones I did choose had)...
Bascially I was playing the full bore campaign game - and it looked like the German units were way too brittle - and I basically blew them out of the way - they were also too aggressive -- charging the 21st Pz into the gam between Juno and Sword beaches -- only thing is they did this - with no flank support - and most of my strength was on my flanks -- which means - it got cut off and basically destroyed -- same thing happened with the 12th SS when it arrived on the field - and now the German East flank was so decimated that -- I was able to overrun Caen by D +6 and take on Panzer Lehr - whoch did not appear to have any flank support eiter and was just sitting out there to the West of Caen.


Now if it were me.... I would have delayed delayed delayed - until I got 2 or 3 Panzer Divisions on the field - then nailed them - to put a damper on the British advance -- also I would have put a decent amount into Caen to make that a little rougher to take ( technically I did not take Caen yet - only the West side with one Bridgehead over the Orne in town).... for some reason the AI got fixated with the area to the East of Caen where the British 6th Para Div landed .. not sure why...

I decided to call off that iteration of the game and see where things were - there was maybe 2 companies of Germans covering over 15 km of front - in front of the Big Red one Div - - not too much --- more was facing my units on the peninsula itself -- but - well I am hoping tweaking the German strngth and a little more attention to the cause/effect of the optional rules might make for a better game the next go around... don't get me wrong - it was still very interesting -and there is always the solitaire option - which would basically make it a board game.

AI is usually an achillies heel of most hex based computer wargames imo

 

[AnemicOak]

Why list PC Wargames & Boardgames, but leave out miniature wargames? Miniature wargaming is huge now & getting bigger all the time. With quality rules like Flames of War and Fire & Fury more & more folks are getting into it.

Boardgames seem to have been dying in popularity around here for about the last ten years. Not that there aren't some titles that are still popular.

 

[Tom DeFranco]

Originally posted by AnemicOak
Why list PC Wargames & Boardgames, but leave out miniature wargames? Miniature wargaming is huge now & getting bigger all the time. With quality rules like Flames of War and Fire & Fury more & more folks are getting into it.

Boardgames seem to have been dying in popularity around here for about the last ten years. Not that there aren't some titles that are still popular.

Regarding your last sentence, I don't find that to be the case here in Chicago. I am seldom, if ever at a loss for an boardgaming opponent, not that I don't ever dabble in minis, though. From what I can tell, the Consimworld Monstergame Convention in Arizona in May has a good attendance. People come from all over the world to play at Homercon in Homer, IL, former HQ of the Gamers (now owned by MMP). I have met players from Great Britain, France, Germany, Sweden, South Africa and Belgium while playing at Homercon.

 

[Holeshot]

WWII Online

http://www5.playnet.com/bv/wwiiol/index.jsp

 

[trauth116]

Ack -ok the next person that mentions WWIIOnline

in the same sentence with 'wargame' - gets a pie in the face -given a quarter - and shown to their choice of a Battlezone or a Red Baron Machine.

 

[ericmwalters]

Let me have both

I cut my teeth on boardgames back in the early 1970s and still love them. Some computer wargames are terrific, but designers still haven't fully harnessed the power of the computer to recreate fog and friction well and the market still seems aimed at the First Person Shooter (FPS) set with glitzy graphics. I like today's computer games to where board wargaming was in the late 1960s--still too heavy on fascination with technology with not enough emphasis on the soft factors. Thankfully there have been some very notable exceptions which I hope will inspire similar and more efforts in such a vein. What computer games can do that board games will never approach is replicate the problems of command at the tactical level.

For example, my ideal tactical computer wargame would be that I am Wellington at Waterloo, mounted atop my horse on a hill, seeing the panoply of my troops to my left and right behind the ridges and seeing the French opposite me. I can ride around the battlefield to see things and/or give orders to the senior officers I can find...or dispatch aides to do the same (of course, some might not make it or have my orders disobeyed/ignored). I can't see the whole field of battle and have to figure out where I should be at any one time. The action doesn't stop while I'm riding around and/or thinking. Commander personalities are a big part of the game experience and knowing who can be entrusted to do what kind of actions is essential. Fog and friction dominate. And I'm a bit vulnerable atop my mount riding around on the ridges--I can dismount to become less visible/vulnerable, but lose situational awareness and mobility. You get the idea.

I can play solitaire, two-player, or networked with a team online in such a game!

Substitute your own time period and/or scale. Computers handle these kinds of things so well. For example, if I were a WW II Corps Commander I'd have a command post with staff and situation map, reports and plans to ponder...but could go to the front and consult with my division commanders at their command posts...or go forward to the brigades/battalions in contact (and lose overall situational awareness as I do so)....

--emw

 

[jpaulding]

PC vs Board Games

I find the thing I miss the most about board games, since I haven't played them in 15 years since turning to computer war games, is the visual experience of seeing all the counters layed out on the map. It is so aesthetically appealing. Second, it is easier to get a feel for the space - the time and distance factor. On a computer screen, it is just not the same.

Another thing, mentioned by others, is that with a board game you must master the rules and underlying mechanics. You must understand how the system works. With the computer that burden is lifted, but at the same time, you often don't really know how the program is working to generate the results you see on the screen. Good computer war games like Combat Mission give you a good manual that explains the mechanics, but many others are just a black box.

It also seemed that when you sat across from an opponent while playing a board game it was easier to pysche him out than through the computer interface.

Lastly, there was that magical relationship you had with the dice. I swear some days you could will a "six" when you needed it the most.

 

[Brad Ritter]

Don't have the time or available opponents to play board games anymore. The PC allows me to still enjoy the hobby.

 

[Gepard]

Board Gaming

There is nothing in the world like sitting across the table from someone and playing a board game. I'm not sure I have the exact quote, but the question was:

What is best in life?

To crush your enemy, to drive them before you, and to hear the lamentations of the women.

You can only really get that feeling when you play live and not memorex.

 

[Patrick Carroll]

I loved board wargames for decades, and I always wanted to get into miniatures (but never did, because I'm no craftsman; I hate the thought of collecting & painting figures). But I had to vote for PC wargames, mainly for one reason: you can play 'em by yourself.

SPI did a survey years ago, and it turned out some 90 percent of board wargamers mainly played solo. I was one of them. For a few years a friend and I played a lot, and now & then I'd find a club or whatever. But the vast majority of my wargaming time was spent just playing both sides against each other. After a while I came to prefer that. I could go at my own pace and enjoy the game my own way--and there was always plenty to think about, so it held my interest. Also, I'm basically noncompetitive. I like people, but I don't like competing with them.

So, for me the home computer was a godsend. Now I can interactively explore historical (or fictional) military engagements to my heart's content, anytime I want, without having to talk anyone else into joining me.

And when I miss the social interaction, I can visit the forum here in Armchair General and talk about war and wargames.

Another advantage of PC wargames is that you can easily save & load them. When I was single and living alone, it was easy to leave a board game set up; but the computer is much handier for clean storage and instant setup.

The downside of PC wargames is mainly that the game engine becomes automatic and invisible to the player(s). With a board wargame, you have to know the rules and be able to crunch the numbers yourself; and I think that makes for a richer understanding of what's going on. In a PC wargame, often you just see the results of combat, and you don't (or at least I don't) often pay attention to just what happened or how. Somehow, PC wargames are not engrossing in the same way board wargames used to be. Still, I'll never go back; board wargames are just too time-consuming. And I never did care for all that paper and cardboard anyhow.

 

[Patrick Carroll]

Re: Let me have both

Originally posted by ericmwalters
. . . my ideal tactical computer wargame would be that I am Wellington at Waterloo, mounted atop my horse on a hill, . . . Fog and friction dominate. And I'm a bit vulnerable atop my mount riding around on the ridges--I can dismount to become less visible/vulnerable, but lose situational awareness and mobility. You get the idea.

I do get the idea--but that'd be wargame hell to me.

Sure, it's realistic, from a certain POV. But I don't care. I've always loved the grand overview provided by old-fashioned wargames. The last thing I want is to be limited to a battlefield commander's perspective. I treasure the omniscient overview, because I want to understand battles, campaigns, and wars from that perspective. That's why I read military history (where the narrator typically writes from an "omniscient overview" perspective), and it's what I want to see in a game too.

What I love best about military history and wargaming is what it has in common with chess.

To each his own, but please don't lock me into any limited first-person perspective. I'll take the "unrealistic" helicopter overview, please.

 

[raydude]

strengths

For me the advantage of playing wargames on the PC is that the game can utilize many of the PC's strengths. The computer does the number crunching, the table look-ups, and computations. All the player has to do is analyze the resulting information from it and take action.

As an example Korsun Pocket's supply system. If it were a board game then the supply calculation would require at least 1 hour of number crunching plus some bookeeping (because the supply trucks keep giving out supply only until their own supply runs out).

As well there are the calculations for morale in games like the Total War series or Close Combat series.

Then there is the potential for modelling things like orders delay and staff proficiency (a la the Highway to the Reich computer wargame). Now I begin to understand what is meant by 'friction in war' and I too get frustrated with how slow Horrocks XXX corps seems to acknowledge my orders and advance!

However, I do love board games and have a nice collection of them. And there is this thought:

when one talks about board wargames there is never any confusion of what is being talked about. You won't find someone recommending Monopoly for example when talking about board wargames.

However, it seems that some people think computer wargames include any game that has war in it. So you get recommendations like "Call of Duty" or "Medal of Honor". Sure, they have war in them, but those are not computer wargames.

Ray

 

[Tom DeFranco]

Re: strengths

Originally posted by raydude
For me the advantage of playing wargames on the PC is that the game can utilize many of the PC's strengths. The computer does the number crunching, the table look-ups, and computations. All the player has to do is analyze the resulting information from it and take action.

As an example Korsun Pocket's supply system. If it were a board game then the supply calculation would require at least 1 hour of number crunching plus some bookeeping (because the supply trucks keep giving out supply only until their own supply runs out).

As well there are the calculations for morale in games like the Total War series or Close Combat series.

Then there is the potential for modelling things like orders delay and staff proficiency (a la the Highway to the Reich computer wargame). Now I begin to understand what is meant by 'friction in war' and I too get frustrated with how slow Horrocks XXX corps seems to acknowledge my orders and advance!

However, I do love board games and have a nice collection of them. And there is this thought:

when one talks about board wargames there is never any confusion of what is being talked about. You won't find someone recommending Monopoly for example when talking about board wargames.

However, it seems that some people think computer wargames include any game that has war in it. So you get recommendations like "Call of Duty" or "Medal of Honor". Sure, they have war in them, but those are not computer wargames.

Ray

Friction can be, and is, simulated in board wargames. Try most anything by The Gamers/MMP. If you want, take a look at my article on this website on June 7, 2004 - Anatomy of a Game System. It is about the way that C2, morale and combat are simulated in the Civil War Brigade Series and the Regimental Sub-Series.