Small, quick, interesting wargame . . .

[Patrick Carroll]

. . . Is there such a thing?

I've posted this a couple times to the ACG crowd, but thought I'd try once more in this expanded forum.

I'm a longtime wargamer (started in 1968), but in recent years I just haven't been able to enjoy wargames--be they boardgames, miniatures, or computer games. They're all either too big, too long, or too complicated. Even the ones marked "small" are too big for my taste. (For example, I've played the PC game Steel Panthers: World at War lately, and I find most of its "small" scenarios bigger than I like. Fussing around with all those units quickly gets boring.)

I've resorted to intro-level wargames (e.g., Battle Cry, Dixie), but I find they're ludicrous. I know too much about military history to be able to "suspend my disbelief" when playing these simplistic games. I prefer something a bit more realistic.

DBA might be OK, but I find it needs miniatures to bring it alive; and I don't have enough interest in collecting & painting miniatures.

One of the most enjoyable games I've found lately can hardly be called a wargame at all: a PC game called Battleship Chess (http://www.apezone.com/bc.htm). In many ways, it's perfect for me: the map fits on a computer screen (no scrolling); it's playable solitaire; it's got historical flavor yet is simple & intuitive; there's enough depth to keep it interesting; a full game is finished in minutes, not hours; there are never more than a few units per side (and you only move one at a time in BC). . . . But BC is more a silly chess variant than a wargame.

So, I'm just wondering: are there any wargames (PC, board, or card-based wargames) out there that are as small, playable, and interesting as BC? Preferably with high solitaire suitability?

 

[Double Deuce]

Even the ones marked "small" are too big for my taste. (For example, I've played the PC game Steel Panthers: World at War lately, and I find most of its "small" scenarios bigger than I like. Fussing around with all those units quickly gets boring.)

You should be able to find some smaller battles or play some Quick Battles against the AI.

How small are you looking for?

 

[Nat Mallet]

I've been having some of the same complaints. As much as I like ASL, it just requires too much investment in time.

Not to hijack the thread, but if you were to design such a game, what would it look like?

Nat

 

[Double Deuce]

Not to hijack the thread, but if you were to design such a game, what would it look like?

Something along Company scale actions (+/- depending if attacking, defending, etc.) Both Steel Panthers and Combat Mission can simulate this very well BUT someone has to create the scenario's.

 

[BigMik1]

Something along Company scale actions (+/- depending if attacking, defending, etc.) Both Steel Panthers and Combat Mission can simulate this very well BUT someone has to create the scenario's.

On the Combat Mission Scenario Depot, someone made a bunch of small battles that don't take so long for Combat Mission Afrika Corps.

BigMik1

 

[CPangracs]

I think ATF or Raging Tiger might fit the bill for you, Patrick. Download the demo's HERE and give them a try! Also, you can create scenarios as big or small as you like. The interface takes a bit of learning, but once you learn it, it is there for good.

I think you will also like the detail and ease of giving units missions as you play it more ands more.

Enjoy!

Curt

 

[Patrick Carroll]

Not to hijack the thread, but if you were to design such a game, what would it look like?

Probably pretty hokey, given my design ability. :OHNO:

But seriously, I guess my dream wargame would look a lot like Battleship Chess (http://www.apezone.com/bc.htm), except that it would:
1. be credibly realistic;
2. cover a wider range of subject matter (e.g., other periods besides WWI, land and air besides naval); and
3. also be playable away from the computer.

I'm surprised that a naval game appeals to me at all; I've never had any interest in naval warfare. But this is the second time it has caught me. The first was in the mid-70s, when I got a free copy of Wooden Ships & Iron Men and it turned out to be one of the best wargames I'd ever played. I dunno--maybe I'm a naval wargamer at heart but don't know it. I grew up hearing my Army/Marine father disparaging Navy guys as "swab jockies," so I'm probably prejudiced.

Technology has never appealed to me, though. I much prefer pre-20th-century warfare, because it gets me away from all the mechanical and electronic gadgetry. One downside of naval wargaming, to me, is that even in ancient times it has a lot to do with technology (beam, draft, size & configuration of sails or banks of oars, etc.). Guess air wargaming would be the same.

 

[Redwolf]

TacOps is the most efficient wargame I know. It skips a lot of detail, and chose the right detail to skip so that you retain a good experience.

Plus it has a very good programmed opponent on the attack. There are a lot of scenarios where you have the low workload of the defender but you can still move around a lot if you want.

Plus it has totally free editing: becoming frustrated? Get yourself a Cobra squadron extra.

The included scenarios have a substancial number of smallish ones.

Be warned that the current version of TacOps does not allow the programmed opponent to play in entirely new scenarios and that the editings in existing scenarios that you can make are limited if you want the PO to play. But it has very efficient PBEM, too, two turns are played with every pair of mails.

 

[Mephisto]

I always enjoyed Up Front from AH.

I know, I know, it's not a board game but based on cards. The game play was easy and quick and the scenarios were easy to understand.

I hear that MMP will be releasing it again within the next year or two.

 

[Patrick Carroll]

I always enjoyed Up Front from AH.

I know, I know, it's not a board game but based on cards. The game play was easy and quick and the scenarios were easy to understand.

I hear that MMP will be releasing it again within the next year or two.

I liked Up Front too. Just hated the relative-range chits. Something about having to visualize where the groups were in relation to each other spoiled it for me.

Would a map have helped? Maybe. But one of the nice things about UF was the fact that it was a compact card game, not a big, sprawling board game.

 

[Prester John]

I always enjoyed Up Front from AH.

I know, I know, it's not a board game but based on cards. The game play was easy and quick and the scenarios were easy to understand.

I hear that MMP will be releasing it again within the next year or two.

I too was thinking of Up Front as a possible answer.

 

[Aries]

Didn't like UpFront?

Man you is one hard target.

I was able to get my wife to play it

Ever thought of Chess?

 

[Patrick Carroll]

Didn't like UpFront?

Man you is one hard target.

I was able to get my wife to play it

Ever thought of Chess?

Have I ever thought of chess? Actually, that may be my whole problem. I have a tremendous admiration for chess, but I'm very noncompetitive and really suck at it. I went out of my way to learn chess when I was twelve (I discovered wargames a year later); but after thirty-seven years I'm still a novice, and I probably always will be.

The thing is, I like to take my hobbies seriously. Chess players generally take their hobby seriously by being extremely competitive, working hard at winning. That just doesn't work for me; I don't have that fighting spirit, and my mind won't function along those lines.

Wargamers, in contrast, often take their hobby seriously by regarding it as an extension of a military-history study. E.g., "I'm not just playing The Gamers' ACW Brigade Series for fun; I'm a student of the Civil War, and the games bring certain aspects of the battles to life, dynamically illustrating important points."

But the trouble is, the more serious wargames are usually the most complicated and time-consuming. And even the best of them have their flaws or shortcomings; so it's doubtful whether one can really make a case for their being studies in military art/science/history. After all, beyond the initial setup, the players' decisions take the game away from history and into the realm of possibility--i.e., fiction. I don't want to spend a lot of time on something so dubious.

So, what I'd ideally like to find is a game that looks and feels and plays pretty much like chess, yet is all about military art/science rather than abstract logic & competition. A mediocre example is the old PC wargame "Sun Tzu's Art of War." I loved it for a while, because it had all the elements I was looking for: it had strategic and tactical dimensions; it boiled tactical units down to three timeless types; while being fun, it also taught valid lessons about how to wage war. The big downside, unfortunately, is that it had such limited options. It got stale after a while, and then it became overshadowed by advancing technology and games with more bells & whistles.

 

[Mephisto]

How about Tactics II? You can still nab copies of that on eBay.

 

[Patrick Carroll]

How about Tactics II? You can still nab copies of that on eBay.

Not small enough, nor realistic enough.

Kriegspiel is small enough, but even less realistic than Tactics II.

 

[BigMik1]

Not small enough, nor realistic enough.

Kriegspiel is small enough, but even less realistic than Tactics II.

You are a very discriminating Wargamer, I tip my hat to you.
The gaming world may not have a game for your tastes.

BigMik1

 

[Rilie]

I'd personally stick to the ASL starter kit scenario's. Small in scale, very realistic and can be played in a relatively short time.

We've had some really great games with these six scenarios.

 

[markhwalker]

I'd personally stick to the ASL starter kit scenario's. Small in scale, very realistic and can be played in a relatively short time.

We've had some really great games with these six scenarios.

Yeah, I like it too. Has anybody here given my Lock 'n Load a shot. It has a lot of flavor, without a lot of rules... if I say so myself.

Check it out at...

www.locknloadgame.com

Best,
Mark

 

[Cougar_DK]

Hi Patrick, have you tried Massive Assault ? It works a little like chess, i.e. NO random to-hit/to-damage rolls. Its turn based and the AI is REALLY good. Take a look at the demo if you want.

Mark

 

[Patrick Carroll]

Hi Patrick, have you tried Massive Assault ? It works a little like chess, i.e. NO random to-hit/to-damage rolls. Its turn based and the AI is REALLY good. Take a look at the demo if you want.
Mark

Thanks. I took at look at the features & screenshots. Looks like quite a game.

However, I'm not asking for a lack of randomizers or a strong AI. I kinda like dice rolls (I used to be big into SL/ASL). And even a pretty wimpy AI can sometimes beat me. I'm not a very sharp player; I just want to enjoy the wargaming experience without having to move fifty or more units every turn or lead my army across a map the size of a pool table. And I'd prefer that the game take minutes, not hours, to complete.