Wargaming likes & dislikes

[Patrick Carroll]

What do you like about the wargames you've played? And what do you dislike?

Do you have a favorite war or period of history? A least favorite period?

Do you prefer grand-strategy games? Operational? Tactical?

Do you like or dislike command-control systems? What about hidden placement or movement (i.e., limited intelligence)?

Are your favorite games extremely complex? Starkly simple? Or somewhere in between?

Maybe you'd like to describe your dream game--the wargame you've always wished someone would design. What actual wargame comes closest to your ideal game?

 

[JimWLegg]

I prefer the starkly simple ancient war games. One of the things with this, is it allows the option to make the game more complex with the optional rules. If the game gets to complex early then it is hard for me to get into.

The modern add so much realism and require so much book keeping that I feels it slows down the game. I hate to have to check a chart to see if it's raining when for the grunt on the ground, if his toast was floating in his mess kit he knew it was raining.

Something I had read about ancient battles was that with the mobilitily of both armies reasonably equal the battle was fought at the discretion of these armies.

I prefer tactical.

One thing that was good; in some of the games was the history of the time and of the battle included in the game.

The SPI game ACRE was interesting in that Acre was a fortress on an island. The battle of ALESIA was where Ceasar was not only the beseiger but the beseiged himself.

 

[Latenighteric]

So many questions, so few good answers....

I do like WW2 games but am willing to pursue almost any genre if the game is good.

I prefer tactical simulations the best. ASL is probably the best system out there; period. Add Red barricades and you make it even better. Strategic games are too "impersonal."

I do enjoy the history aspect of it all. There is so much that can be learned from the battles that have been fought.

Just as an added note I prefer games that I can feel comfortable with. This doesn't mean I will win every game I play just that I enjoy playing it again and again.

My favorite games are:

1. ASL
2. Siege of Jeruselam
3. Ironclads
4. Streets of Stalingrad
5. Korsun Pocket

OKay, I added the top 5 list, but it shows where my preferences lie.

 

[Overseer]

I have to say to some extent I favor strategy and even the rare grand strategy game (although those are rare - maybe you could count god games like civilization and a few others as such). That just comes from that fact that my area of study is politics.

I enjoy tactical and operational level games, but I can't claim to be an expert in them, I tend to be more of a casual player in those areas.

As far as complexity goes, I think complexity is good as long as it still manages to maintain some level of playability.

 

[ericmwalters]

I simply like too much....

This is a very hard set of questions to answer--much depends on the gaming situation...what kind of opponents, what are my current historical interests at the time, etc. But I'll give this a shot.

"What do you like about the wargames you've played? And what do you dislike?"

I like games with smooth playing routines (combat resolution HAS to be smooth!) and with a high degree of interaction. Nothing worse than a lot of dice rolling for little result all too often (the old AH TOBRUK game), baroque combat routines (WINTER STORM series), or games where I have to wait two hours for my opponent to make his move (most monstergames).

"Do you have a favorite war or period of history? A least favorite period?"

I like them all. Seriously. I guess my least favorite period are the fantasy wargames, but even some of those are good. And it's not because I don't like medieval-era combat, either...it's just that I am more enamored with historical and hypothetical historical games. Most Sci-Fi games interest me...

"Do you prefer grand-strategy games? Operational? Tactical?"

I love them all, but I guess I'd say I prefer tactical level games because I learn the most from them.

"Do you like or dislike command-control systems? What about hidden placement or movement (i.e., limited intelligence)?"

Love it...and, as an intelligence officer, love it more.

"Are your favorite games extremely complex? Starkly simple? Or somewhere in between?"

All of the above. I am an ASL addict but love games of AH's old block game, NAPOLEON (and Columbia's ROMMEL IN THE DESERT block game as well). Love L2's RUSSIAN CAMPAIGN 4th Edition, AH's TURNING POINT: STALINGRAD.

"Maybe you'd like to describe your dream game--the wargame you've always wished someone would design. What actual wargame comes closest to your ideal game?"

I don't know if I've got a "dream game"--what I have are battles which have yet to be done decently. Here's the wish list--and I think some may be close to being published:

-- Battle of the Bulge. I know, I know, there are so many. But I've always been dissatisfied with them for one reason or another. GMT's latest game is a lot better...but I want just a bit more detail. I'm hoping the heavily revised WACHT AM RHEIN will fill the bill...

-- D-DAY "Longest Day" beach combat. Best game on this is OMAHA BEACH by The Gamers, long out of print. And it's only on half the beach front. Would like something on that tactical scale or even a bit smaller. I used to play those PANZER LEADER scenarios about D-Day and can't get them out of my system.

-- Air campaign games dealing with the strategic bombing of Germany and Japan, similar to what we see for BATTLE OF BRITAIN by SPI and the very recent DOWNTOWN by GMT.

-- Really good modern tactical naval combat game. I'm still playing HARPOON 4 miniatures rules and longing for a board game version.

Hope that gives everybody SOME food for thought!

--emw

 

[Patrick Carroll]

Sometimes I think chess is the best wargame in the world. But wait--hear me out.

Chess is compact--small board and just a manageable handful of pieces on each side. It's elegantly simple--your standard Igo/Ugo sequence of play. The capabilities of each type of playing piece are unique, producing a fascinating "combined arms" complexity. Without dice, there are no odds you have to calculate; with open information, you're free to plan without deduction or guesswork. Chess is challenging enough to hold anybody's interest for life, providing endless planning/problem-solving opportunities. There's also a wealth of chess literature to peruse, so you can read about what works and what doesn't. And as icing on the cake, the chess set is physically beautiful--arguably the nicest game components on earth.

However--

Unfortunately, chess is too abstract for my taste. The game pieces don't correspond directly to any real-life military units; there's a symbolic association at best. One thing I like about realistic wargames is that they more fully engage my imagination: in a good wargame, I feel I'm involved in a miniaturized battle right on my own tabletop. Chess forces me to stretch my imagination if I want to make any associations with historical battles. Realistic wargames draw me right into those historical battles so I can vicariously experience them. I do like problem solving, but when I play a wargame I also want to immerse myself in a historical scenario.

Another downside of chess is that it's widely treated as a sport. People play chess the way they play tennis or football. Frankly, competition is my least favorite aspect of game playing. I enjoy planning and problem solving, and I love the imaginative immersion in history, but I couldn't care less about spotting clever opportunities, psyching out an opponent, or edging my way to victory. To me, wargames are more of an interactive (or participatory) escape--a diversion from the humdrum of day-to-day life. They're like good books or movies, only you get to actually make decisions and participate in the action.

But an upside of chess is that computer programmers have been working at it for a long time, with tremendous success. Consequently, there are chess programs and dedicated handheld chess computers around that are strong and fast enough to keep most anyone occupied for a lifetime. The benefit of that to me is that it means I don't necessarily need an opponent. I've loved board games all my life, but it's a pain in the neck to have to talk somebody else into playing. I hate going out of my way to a club, and nobody else in my circle of family & friends is a gamer. So if I'm going to enjoy game playing--especially something as involved as wargames--I'm pretty much on my own. With chess, that's no problem at all; computer chess is a full-blown hobby all by itself. With wargames, there are fewer options, and the AI rarely plays a satisfactory game.

So, my ideal wargame would have all the positive features of chess that I just described above. It'd be compact, fast-playing, elegantly simple, interesting enough to last a lifetime, and playable solo.

Beyond that, it'd also be realistic: i.e., it'd have enough chrome to engage my imagination. It'd be set in my favorite period, the black-powder era (roughly the 18th & 19th centuries). And it'd probably be a tactical-level wargame, because strategy-level games tend to become more abstract as well as confined to a particular campaign or war. I like the detail and excitement of tactical-level wargames, the up-close nitty-gritty action. I also like the flexibility: with a tactical system, you can re-create most any historical or fictional scenario--the possibilities are endless.

There are a few sets of miniatures rules that almost fill the bill. The drawback of all of them is that they require miniatures; and I don't have the patience or craft skill to collect & paint up a miniature army. I've played DBA using dominoes & other markers, and it makes for a good game--but without the miniatures, there's just not enough chrome; it becomes about as abstract as chess. So if I'm going to do that, I may as well just play chess instead.

Skirmish-level wargames (e.g., Firepower) don't quite work for me, because they get into too much nitty-gritty detail. At that level, I lose all sense of participating in anything as grand as a battle, much less a campaign or war.

The vast majority of board wargames fail me because they're just too big, with too many unit-counters. Though that lends an epic feel to the game, it's time-consuming; and after a while I get tired of all the fiddling and number crunching. I used to own The Longest Day. These days I'd glance at it, shake my head, and go play a nice game of chess.

A crazy thought that's been occurring to me for the past couple days is naval wargames. I've never had any interest in naval warfare; I'm a natural-born landlubber. But I keep hearing how great the game Ironclads is. And I know from experience that Wooden Ships & Iron Men is a terrific wargame. After Squad Leader, I'd have to say WS&IM is probably the best wargame I've ever played--and the one I most regret selling. Of course, it's not really suitable for solo play--but it's not a perfect world. Anyhow, I'm thinking that tactical-level naval wargames typically have few units and are reasonably compact, unlike many land-based board wargames, where hundreds of unit-counters are sprawled all across a huge map.

OK, OK--enough about me and my peculiar wargaming tastes.

 

[Tom DeFranco]

My favorites:

Period:
1) Tie - ACW and WW II
2) 18th Century, 7YW and Am Rev
3) Napoleonic Period

Game Systems:
1) RSS/CWB The Gamers' ACW series
2) TCS The Gamers' Tactical Combat System - I especially like Matanikau.
3) BAR Battles of the Age of Reason by Clash of Arms. I like their stuff about Fred, and love their Brandywine/Germantown game. If you like the 18th Century, with all of the attendant tactical minutiae of the period, and you don't have the space or money for miniatures, this is the system for you.
4) SCS The Gamers' Standard Combat System - has enough meat to be a simulation, playable enough to be a game.
5) OCS The Gamers' Operational Combat System - This is the system I want to learn well one day. Lord knows I know the right people to get me started properly.
6) The Avalanche system used in MacArthur's Return. I wish they finally released the Marianas Campaign game like they promised they would.
7) GMT's Down in Flames. Aircraft games that are playable.

Play Level:
1) Tactical
2) Grand Tactical
3) Operational
4) Strategic

Individual Games:
1) This Terrible Sound - RSS Chickamauga
2) This Hallowed Ground - RSS Gettysburg
3) Brandywine/Germantown
4) Matanikau - TCS game on Guadalcanal
5) Hunters From The Sky TCS game on Crete (as modified to account for glider losses)
6) MacArthur's Return
7) Landships - Tactical level WW I (beaucoup scenarios)
8) Rise of the Luftwaffe - GMT's first Down in Flames game
9) Ardennes - SCS game on you know what battle
10) Fallschirmjaeger - SCS game on German invasion of Holland
11) Afrika - SCS game on 1940 - 1942 N African Campaign
12) Omaha - Gamers' TCS game on what was mainly the 1 ID sector of Omaha Beach. (Colonel, there has been recent talk of a redux of this game.)
13) Marengo - The Gamers' Napoleonic Brigade level game about the 1800 battle between Nappy and the Austrians

 

[Tom DeFranco]

Dislikes:
Games or gaming systems where the designer has pre-determined that one side has to be the winner, and he's just as determined to show you why.

1) La Battaille by Clash of Arms would not be so bad if the series honcho was not such a Francophile.
2) Most Command Magazine hypothetical games involving Nazis and/or Confederates (i.e. Rommel at Gazala, some other game where Hitler doesn't take Guderian's armor before Moscow, and some other garbage about an Axis attack against the Panama Canal, whereby the Germans had aircraft carriers with jets, the Japanese, alone, had more carriers than the Americans, the Americans only have 92 B-24s and someow the Japanese do not need a supply chain or staging area across thousands of miles of Pacific Ocean.)

 

[Patrick Carroll]

Some likes:
1. The fact that wargames combine my three favorite hobby activities--military history, planning/problem-solving, and literature--making for a wonderful diversion.
2. Enough complexity, with little enough hidden information, to make a wargame suitable for solitaire play.
3. The horse-and-musket (black powder) era, where I find there's a nice balance of fire & melee, shock and maneuver, structure and flexibility.
4. North American engagements. Somehow I'm drawn to battles & campaigns that took place on my home continent.

Some dislikes:
1. The modern era (c. 1900 to present). Too many mechanized or high-tech gadgets, too much speed & complexity & mass destruction, too much like real life. I prefer to escape into the past. But during my wargaming heyday, all the best games were WWII games (most still are, it looks like), so I had to make do.
2. Ancient/medieval warfare. Kinda reminds me of baseball: it's all in the lineup. Once opposing forces of massed spearmen or swordsmen are engaged, there's not much decision making; they slug it out, while you sit back and roll dice for the results.
3. Distortions of history. E.g., Battle Cry (Hasbro/AH)--a fun game, but totally ludicrous as a simulation. I don't care how simple or complex a wargame is, but whatever's there ought to be historically accurate.
4. First-person perspective. Some gamers rave about it, but I can't stand being confined to the battlefield commander's narrow view of what's going on. I want more of an omniscient overview.

 

[Tom DeFranco]

Patrick, I have a question about points 3 and 4. You say you want historical accuracy, that's good. But in point 4 you say you want a "omniscient overview". By limiting the players' ability to react immediately to an opponent's move they are accomplishing point 3, are they (the designers) not? That's why I like games that try to limit player near "omnipotence" (except, of course, for the dice). To each their own, though.

 

[Patrick Carroll]

Originally posted by Tom DeFranco
Patrick, I have a question about points 3 and 4. You say you want historical accuracy, that's good. But in point 4 you say you want a "omniscient overview". By limiting the players' ability to react immediately to an opponent's move they are accomplishing point 3, are they (the designers) not? That's why I like games that try to limit player near "omnipotence" (except, of course, for the dice). To each their own, though.

It's somewhat contradictory, I admit. Here's how I see it, FWIW:

When I pick up a good book on, say, the Battle of the Bulge, I expect the text and maps and illustrations to be historically accurate. I also expect the book to be written in the third person, from an omniscient narrator's perspective. That's standard; we can probably all agree on it.

Well, when I open up a wargame on the Battle of the Bulge, I expect the same things: an accurate map and set of unit-counters, as well as rules and charts that are true to the historical battle the game is based on.

Whether I'm reading a book or playing a game, I want to vicariously experience the whole battle (or as much of it as the author/designer can manage to cover). Occasionally, as a change of pace, I might want to read, say, General McAuliffe's account of what the Battle of the Bulge looked like from his individual POV; but there's a big trade-off there: I'm apt to see only the 101st Airborne sector and an isolated set of events. Similarly, I might occasionally want to play a wargame from a commander's perspective, just as a change of pace; but when I do, I'm going to miss the "big picture"--the grand overview.

The whole battle did, in fact, take place. Therefore, it's conceivable that some god was hovering over Belgium, looking down and seeing everything. Historians often endeavor to give us that "god's-eye" view of the battle. Why shouldn't a wargame designer do the same?

I don't mind command-control rules, actually. They simulate the delay in getting orders to the units and the units' ability to comprehend and react under prevailing conditions. They also make me, as a player, feel I'm not having to micromanage a situation that could not historically have been micromanaged. Still, I don't usually mind if command-control rules are absent; because it's still true (if the game is well designed) that the historical units could have moved and acted as I move them in the game (if they'd received explicit orders and been able to act exactly in accord with them throughout the battle). I don't see the lack of command-control rules as a violation of historicity. It's a dimension of reality that's optional in the game design.

Limited intelligence (hidden setup/movement, dummy counters, etc.) goes more against my grain. True, it simulates the fact that commanders don't always know exactly what they're up against. But OTOH it spoils my overview of the battle. If most of the enemy's moves are invisible to me throughout the game, I may never know what happened overall ("I was just doing this, and then suddenly the enemy appeared out of nowhere and did that, and before I could react it was all over"). That spoils one of the main reasons I want to play a wargame: to see a dynamic, interactive illustration of how a historical scenario might play out.

When I play a wargame, I don't feel I'm playing the role of battlefield commander or even commander-in-chief. I'm just a game player--a human being temporarily granted the godlike power of hovering over a battlefield and directing the action of one side's forces. (Or, in a solo game, I may even be choreographing the actions of both sides' forces.) The purpose of that exercise (beyond entertainment & amusement, which is also a big factor) is to learn something--to increase my understanding of what happened when & where, or what could probably have happened.

In short, I want pretty much the same kind of experience from a wargame as I get from a war movie or military-history book, only more dynamic and interactive (or participatory). I do not (except as an occasional change of pace) want to be forced into the narrow role of battlefield commander.

Does that answer your question?

 

[Gepard]

What do you like about the wargames you've played? And what do you dislike?

I like wargames that teach me something I didn't know about a conflict. I also like clever design work. I don't like wargames that are not effective simulations of what occurred.

Do you have a favorite war or period of history? A least favorite period?

My three favorites in descending order: World War II, Napoleonic, and the American Civil War. My least favorites in descending order: World War I, Vietnam, and wars that never happened.

Do you prefer grand-strategy games? Operational? Tactical?

I like all games, but prefer strategic, then operation, and tactical last.

Do you like or dislike command-control systems? What about hidden placement or movement (i.e., limited intelligence)?

I tend to like command-control that express the limits of command without forcing you to make the same bad decisions the original commander made. I don't mind hidden placement and movement within reason. If I'm in direct line of sight, I should be able to know what your doing.

Are your favorite games extremely complex? Starkly simple? Or somewhere in between?

Both. I don't mind a complex game that tries to simulate the complicated forces involved in a war. I don't mind a starkly simple game that demonstrates elementry principles in a limited environment. I don't tend to like games that fall in between and then seem unreal or not directed related to what they are suppose to be simulating.

Maybe you'd like to describe your dream game--the wargame you've always wished someone would design. What actual wargame comes closest to your ideal game?

I would love to see a strategic level game that simulated the entire Napoleonic period. When that had the economics, political, and social dimension to accompany the military events that occurred between 1805-1815. The designer of Krieg was working on this game, but I've never heard any talk about the game coming to fruition.

 

[Tom DeFranco]

Originally posted by Patrick Carroll
It's somewhat contradictory, I admit. Here's how I see it, FWIW:

When I pick up a good book on, say, the Battle of the Bulge, I expect the text and maps and illustrations to be historically accurate. I also expect the book to be written in the third person, from an omniscient narrator's perspective. That's standard; we can probably all agree on it.

Well, when I open up a wargame on the Battle of the Bulge, I expect the same things: an accurate map and set of unit-counters, as well as rules and charts that are true to the historical battle the game is based on.

Whether I'm reading a book or playing a game, I want to vicariously experience the whole battle (or as much of it as the author/designer can manage to cover). Occasionally, as a change of pace, I might want to read, say, General McAuliffe's account of what the Battle of the Bulge looked like from his individual POV; but there's a big trade-off there: I'm apt to see only the 101st Airborne sector and an isolated set of events. Similarly, I might occasionally want to play a wargame from a commander's perspective, just as a change of pace; but when I do, I'm going to miss the "big picture"--the grand overview.

The whole battle did, in fact, take place. Therefore, it's conceivable that some god was hovering over Belgium, looking down and seeing everything. Historians often endeavor to give us that "god's-eye" view of the battle. Why shouldn't a wargame designer do the same?

I don't mind command-control rules, actually. They simulate the delay in getting orders to the units and the units' ability to comprehend and react under prevailing conditions. They also make me, as a player, feel I'm not having to micromanage a situation that could not historically have been micromanaged. Still, I don't usually mind if command-control rules are absent; because it's still true (if the game is well designed) that the historical units could have moved and acted as I move them in the game (if they'd received explicit orders and been able to act exactly in accord with them throughout the battle). I don't see the lack of command-control rules as a violation of historicity. It's a dimension of reality that's optional in the game design.

Limited intelligence (hidden setup/movement, dummy counters, etc.) goes more against my grain. True, it simulates the fact that commanders don't always know exactly what they're up against. But OTOH it spoils my overview of the battle. If most of the enemy's moves are invisible to me throughout the game, I may never know what happened overall ("I was just doing this, and then suddenly the enemy appeared out of nowhere and did that, and before I could react it was all over"). That spoils one of the main reasons I want to play a wargame: to see a dynamic, interactive illustration of how a historical scenario might play out.

When I play a wargame, I don't feel I'm playing the role of battlefield commander or even commander-in-chief. I'm just a game player--a human being temporarily granted the godlike power of hovering over a battlefield and directing the action of one side's forces. (Or, in a solo game, I may even be choreographing the actions of both sides' forces.) The purpose of that exercise (beyond entertainment & amusement, which is also a big factor) is to learn something--to increase my understanding of what happened when & where, or what could probably have happened.

In short, I want pretty much the same kind of experience from a wargame as I get from a war movie or military-history book, only more dynamic and interactive (or participatory). I do not (except as an occasional change of pace) want to be forced into the narrow role of battlefield commander.

Does that answer your question?

Yup. Just curious as to what you prefer considering that points 3 and 4 seemed to contradict one another at first blush.

 

[jguritza]

1) What do you like about the wargames you've played? And what do you dislike?
This is a tough one. There are some games that the mechanics make the game. The mechanics make the game playable and fun. “Paths of Glory” is a great game with a card driven mechanics that plays very well. ASL once you get the rules down is great to play as well. Many of the old Avalon Hill games use the basic system and once you understand the mechanics many play very well. You have impulse games like Breakout: Normandy. To narrow it down…For me I can play the extremely complex games and get satisfaction out of the game but if you want to get other people into your gaming fold you have to have elegant rules. They can be complex but if they are elegant I can get more people to play a game with me. For example there is no way I could convince my wife to sit down and play AH The Longest Day with me but something like Hammer of the Scots and Paths of Glory I have been able to sit down instruct the wife and we both enjoy the experience.

2a) Do you have a favorite war or period of history?
I personally love WW2. I have spent a lot of time with the ACW and Ancients.
2b) Least favorite period?
I have not enjoyed many of the current event games from cold war on.

3) Do you prefer grand-strategy games? Operational? Tactical?
I like tactical above all else. I do enjoy operational and strategy but tactic is the most rewarding.

4) Do you like or dislike command-control systems? What about hidden placement or movement (i.e., limited intelligence)?
I like the concept of “Fog of War” but it is very hard to make it work right. Computer games do this flawlessly but on board games you need to have double blind boards or something of that nature to make it work right. You need a strong attention to detail. A game master to control the flow.

5) Are your favorite games extremely complex? Starkly simple? Or somewhere in between?
There are some nights you want to sit down and play a game of chess or some nights you want to operationally take over the world. With the time restraint I have I will play a larger tactical game solo over a week or two. I will bug the wife or friend to play a quick game when I can.

6) Maybe you'd like to describe your dream game--the wargame you've always wished someone would design. What actual wargame comes closest to your ideal game?
I have played a lot of games. My idea war game is a paradox if you will. I want to have the detail of an ASL but the simple rules of Chess. Is that possible I do not know. The one game I would like to see done well would be a squad level WWI game. I have not seen anything like that out there.

 

[Patrick Carroll]

Originally posted by jguritza
My ideal war game is a paradox if you will. I want to have the detail of an ASL but the simple rules of Chess.

Bravo! You said in 25 words what it took me 13 paragraphs to say above.

 

[Janos]

Originally posted by Patrick Carroll
What do you like about the wargames you've played? And what do you dislike?

The key to me is the balance between playability and historical accuracy. You need to have both, as much as possible.

I should note that I have generally drifted away from board games to miniatures because they allow more flexibility (not tied to a given map) and look a heck of a lot better.

Do you have a favorite war or period of history? A least favorite period?

Currently medievals, but have gamed WW2 and WBTS in the past.

Do you prefer grand-strategy games? Operational? Tactical?

Let me define the terms as I understand them, from my modern Army framework.
Tactical - Lowest levels through Corps, battles are tactical.
Operational - Campaigns, normally a theater level.
Strategic - National level. Wars are strategic.
Your definitions may vary, but these are what the military uses now and I use the terms in that sense.
I prefer tactical and operational level. Normally, I command a medieval army in a battle that is a part of a map-based scenario which drives the battles. I seldom play strategic games -- can't recall the last time I played one.

Do you like or dislike command-control systems? What about hidden placement or movement (i.e., limited intelligence)?

Not a big fan because they are too complex and they detract from playability.

Are your favorite games extremely complex? Starkly simple? Or somewhere in between?

In between, but leaning towards playability.

Maybe you'd like to describe your dream game--the wargame you've always wished someone would design. What actual wargame comes closest to your ideal game?

I'm a huge fan of Chainmail, but have rewritten the combat tables to make it more realistic.

JS

 

[tadcar]

Originally posted by Patrick Carroll
What do you like about the wargames you've played? And what do you dislike?

Do you have a favorite war or period of history? A least favorite period?

Do you prefer grand-strategy games? Operational? Tactical?

Do you like or dislike command-control systems? What about hidden placement or movement (i.e., limited intelligence)?

Are your favorite games extremely complex? Starkly simple? Or somewhere in between?

Maybe you'd like to describe your dream game--the wargame you've always wished someone would design. What actual wargame comes closest to your ideal game?

I can only address a couple of your questions. First of all, Squad Leader and Advanced Squad Leader were my favorites. However as my eyes get worse, I like the large counters and printed information from Critical Hit's Advanced Tobruk System! My preference have always been tactical level games, however lately I have been playing simpler operational and even strategic level games for a change of pace. They include Axis & Allies too! I have the whole series and really like them much.

I play exclusively solitaire now because I read many military history books and enjoy playing a game that the topic of the book may address. Over the years I have learned to develop a split personality! I will sometimes have two games set up and they may be up for days (to my wife's chagrin) so that takes care of the fog of war! As I age and mellow, I don't like to be rushed or have an opponent across the table fidget and make faces at me while she/he waits for my turn to end!:bang: Most of my games and books center around World War II.

 

[Patrick Carroll]

Re: Re: Wargaming likes & dislikes

Originally posted by tadcar
. . . I play exclusively solitaire now because I read many military history books and enjoy playing a game that the topic of the book may address.

That's just what I've always wanted to do! Unfortunately, I don't think it's possible unless your favorite period is WWII.

My favorite wars to read about are the ones that took place in North America--including the big one (Civil War). Right now I'm reading a book on the French & Indian Wars--but where am I going to find a board wargame on that? And even if I do, how will it compare to great wargames?

I've played more WWII games than any others, simply because all the really good board wargames seem to be set in WWII.

Every few years, I make a false start into miniatures wargaming. Not because I like miniatures (to me they're more trouble than they're worth), but because it's easy to find a set of wargame rules that covers my whole period of interest. Theoretically, I should be able to set up & play a wargame on any battle I read about. But when harsh reality sets in, I find that it's not as easy as I'd like to set up such a wargame. I'd have to find a good map and create a replica of it on my tabletop; research the order of battle; and so forth. By the time I got through all that, I'd be reading some other book anyhow.

Over the years I have learned to develop a split personality! . . . As I age and mellow, I don't like to be rushed or have an opponent across the table fidget and make faces at me while she/he waits for my turn to end!

Same here. But of course you really don't need a split personality. Playing both sides of a two-player wargame is kinda like choreographing a battle scene for a movie or something. You're just creatively experimenting: if this side does this, then suppose the other side does that, and then. . . . I find it's a wonderful outlet for the creative imagination. You only need an opponent for wargaming if you're playing it competitively, the way most people play games like chess and bridge.

 

[Tom DeFranco]

Re: Re: Re: Wargaming likes & dislikes

Originally posted by Patrick Carroll


My favorite wars to read about are the ones that took place in North America--including the big one (Civil War). Right now I'm reading a book on the French & Indian Wars--but where am I going to find a board wargame on that? And even if I do, how will it compare to great wargames?

I've played more WWII games than any others, simply because all the really good board wargames seem to be set in WW II.

There is a game by GMT which covers the F & I War called "Wilderness War". It is card driven a la "We the People", "For the People", "Thirty Years War", "Hannibal", and "The Napoleonic Wars". It is at strategic level.

I still think that the CWB and RSS are "really good board wargames" (better than really good, actually) set in the Civil War.

 

[Patrick Carroll]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Wargaming likes & dislikes

Originally posted by Tom DeFranco
There is a game by GMT which covers the F & I War called "Wilderness War". It is card driven a la "We the People", "For the People", "Thirty Years War", "Hannibal", and "The Napoleonic Wars". It is at strategic level.

I still think that the CWB and RSS are "really good board wargames" (better than really good, actually) set in the Civil War.

I bought a copy of the Avalon Hill version of "For the People" on eBay a couple years ago. Then I learned that it's a defective game and I'd have been better off buying the GMT version. No matter: I looked over the components and realized I'd never play the game anyway.

I'm reluctant to try one of hte CWB games for the same reason. Last time I bought a board wargame (unless you count Battle Cry), it was "Stonewall Jackson's Way." My intent was to rekindle the old wargaming fire, and I thought that game might just do it for me. I was moderately impressed with the design, but I only managed to punch out a few counters and play a couple turns of one scenario. I got antsy after that, decided I just didn't have the time or patience for it anymore, and put it away. (Along the way, I grumbled about the unmounted mapsheet. I was complaining about the cheapness of cardboard unit-counters as far back as 1968. When I started seeing unmounted mapsheets as well, I was appalled.)

So, I have a feeling I'd buy a CWB game, read the rulebook, set up a practice scenario--and then say to myself, "Nah, I've got better ways to spend my time than this. Great game design; wish they'd had games like this back in my heyday--but these days I need something quicker & simpler, I guess."