What's your complexity level?

[Patrick Carroll]

Most of us probably like "meaty monsters" sometimes and "beer & pretzels games" at other times. But on the whole, over the long haul, what would you say is your preferred complexity level in wargames?

We'll use a scale of 1 to 10, 1 being a fast-playing no-brainer, and 10 being the most complex wargame you've ever seen or heard of.

 

[MCranmer]

I voted 5 simply because it was in the middle. In reality, it depends on a lot of factors. Sometimes I'm just in the mood for something quick and fun, other times I like something a little more involved. Also, if a gmes covers a battle/campaign I have a real interest in, I'm more willing to take the time to learn the rules. Some things just can't be covered by simple rules, and other lend themselves well to a fast, easy game. Overall I probalby lean toward ease of play, but again, it depends on mood and subject.

 

[Patrick Carroll]

In the old Avalon Hill General, a regular feature was the Reader Buyer's Guide (RBG), where games were rated in several categories. One category was complexity, where a 1-10 scale was used.

I owned lots of AH games, and after a while I noticed that my favorite games were always rated 4 in complexity. When a new game came out, I could usually tell just by the complexity level alone whether I'd like it or not.

Games rated 3 or less were always too abstract for my taste. They didn't really feel like wargames; they were too close to abstract games like chess or stratego.

Games rated 5 or higher were, IMO, more complicated than they were worth. It took too much time & effort to learn and play them, and the extra complexity seldom helped in any way.

There was a rare exception or two. Squad Leader, for example, was rated 9 or 10, and it was the most exciting wargame I'd ever played. In that case, the extra complexity was worth it.

 

[Tom DeFranco]

I voted for the "complex side of moderate". I happen to think that most of the games I like fall into that category. The OCS, RSS, FG and DN, TCS and BAR would fall neatly into that category. Other, simpler games, I enjoy are the SCS series (simple, not simplistic), the old SL, and Landships might be what I'd declare as a 5 or 6.

 

[ericmwalters]

But what if you play them all?

Tough poll because I play games that fall into all complexity levels and don't seem to prefer one level over the others.

For example, Frederick the Great was not a complex game, but it was a real mind-bender to play. Same with Air Assault On Crete. Russian Campaign is another. The old Napoleon by AH is yet another. I'd guess these games would rank about 4.

Yet I find myself playing ASL (definitely a 10)...and love many games that fall inbetween...

--emw

 

[chrisvalla]

I go for more complex than simple, but some games are just to complex-ly Byzantine to be called a 'game'.

 

[jguritza]

I went with complex. I agree with most everyone here that I play a range of games but the ones I enjoy the most and are most rewarding for me are the complex games. Ever since the ASL Starter Kit #1 came out I am hooked now! I am actually rather upset with myself I never took the time to learn the system earlier.

 

[Pete G]

Went with door #7, as that's representative of my collection.

ASL is highly rewarding and has seen hundreds of my dollars thrown at it, but I think that's the only "10" I'll ever buy into. Indeed, I have a copy of World in Flames "The Deluxe, Final, We Really Mean it This Time, Edition," but lawd only knows what I was thinking when I bought it. There are quicker and easier ways to get in my gaming fix, the SCS games among them. With a wife and family that I like to give my time to, anything that serves up fast and furious action that I can work in an hour at a time has my vote.

-Pete

 

[Janos]

I play all across the spectrum, but lately have stayed away from the complex stuff -- I just don't want to bother. As long as the rules are good, I'll have fun.

 

[JDS8072]

as long as its still historically accurate I will consider it