Kaoschallenged | 22 Jan 2013 4:56 p.m. PST |
Meh. I have no fear of any game or game system. Robert |
Spreewaldgurken | 22 Jan 2013 5:58 p.m. PST |
"You are constantly looking for this guy so he can move his units. Put the phone down and roll the dice! Short attention spans. They don't get it and they don't last. Two different hobbies. " 40K is a lot more complex and detailed than most of the historical rules I've played in the past decade. It certainly requires a massive amount of memorization. So I doubt that short attention span is the problem for the kids. If they can concentrate on 40K, then they can concentrate on anything. They just don't have the interest. |
Mobius | 22 Jan 2013 6:23 p.m. PST |
Yes, I'm so fearful of gamey/movie wargames that I've gone into the witness protection program. |
138SquadronRAF | 22 Jan 2013 6:27 p.m. PST |
I actually consider historical gaming a different hobby from fantasy/scifi gaming. Related but nevertheless different. There are plenty who will go back and forth between the two. It agree, then go further. There are two types of historical gamer, those who place emphasis on the game aspect and those who go for greater simulation. Case in point; do you like army lists, points totals and randomly generated terrain? Chances are you like the game aspects. Do you play scenarios with asymetrical forces over terrain set out by an umpire? You're into symulation. I'm not fearful of the gamers or the sci-fi games. They leave me alone to play the games I want. I'll do the same. |
Old Contemptibles | 22 Jan 2013 7:07 p.m. PST |
Spot on 138SquadronRAF. Battles are never balanced. Sometimes you have a difficult situation, outnumbered, bad terrain etc. You adjust the victory conditions so you may lose the battle but you can still win the game. If your defending the Alamo you know you won't win the battle, but if I can kill enough of the enemy or hold out longer, you just may win the game. I do FPW I often play the French I don't except to win a lot of battles but I can win a lot of games. Many, not all, but many point players don't get that. I don't fear it at all it, but it is a troublesome trend. But to each his own. Klumpenproletariat:
I understand that 40K is complex but that doesn't mean that a player is actually understands the rules. It is usually the person who knows the rules and knows how to "game" it that is really running the game. Going from 40K to for example 15mm ACW, just doesn't hold their interest. There are of course exceptions but in some cases there is just not enough theatrics to hold the persons attention. They don't get the history. Nothing wrong with that, it is just a different hobby. You either get it or you don't. I don't get the draw of 40K, Battle Tech etc., different hobby. Why is that unit painted like that? Why do we need to take the town? Why is that leader better? Why are we outnumbered. Both sides should be equal. How can they win the game when we have killed so many figures. This is boring. |
ge2002bill | 22 Jan 2013 7:20 p.m. PST |
Ask non-historical players to watch ZULU. Afterwards offer to host Rorke's Drift, scouting missions or Islandlwana. ------ Ditto for The Longest Day or Saving Private Ryan. ------ What else? Perhaps Indiana Jones and The Temple of Doom followed by Gunga Din to get the Army juices flowing. ----- Something like that? Cheers, Bill |
Milites | 22 Jan 2013 7:51 p.m. PST |
How many rule sets are remotely 'historical'? Launch a company attack at night, are you delayed by 2-3 hours because some units mistook the route to the FUP, due to confused guides? Once you launch your night-time attack and successfully fight through the position, how long did it take, did you spend an hour regrouping afterwards? Did your units move at a fixed rate all the time? CWC, and similar rulesets, try to reproduce this chaos, but it is only a rough approximation. Did you experience near paralytic fear when units looked like failing, and did you keep awake 48 hours before the game, feeding yourself stodgy carb-loaded crap. Again, you might have rules for fatigue but they are at best an approximation. How can you refight a historical action when you have an omniscient drone hovering over the battlefield, i.e. the player? Likely odds of success can be calculated to a precison unheard of by real commanders, again some rule sets make their CRT's less predictive, but it's only an approximation and often fails to take into account unique one off factors. I can, as I have, research the FJ units in action at Maleme, but what I game can only be an approximation at best. Perhaps if the Allied and Axis forces had sportingly re-fought each battle 10-100 times I could have a better understanding of the impact of certain, critical factors. Historically based gamers to me use the game as the enjoyable apex to a long research project, 40k gamers spend equal lengths of time formulating endless combinations to assure victory against a particular opponent. BTW, completely agree with the, 'one who knows all' telling his minions, phenomena in WH games, seen it too many times in school clubs. For the life of me I cannot see the difference between a LOTR game and a WWII Eastern front game. Victory will come to the player who is best able to fight his army, oh and be lucky, a very 'historical' commodity. |
Lion in the Stars | 22 Jan 2013 10:23 p.m. PST |
You are constantly looking for this guy so he can move his units. Put the phone down and roll the dice! Short attention spans. They don't get it and they don't last. Two different hobbies. 40K is a lot more complex and detailed than most of the historical rules I've played in the past decade. It certainly requires a massive amount of memorization.So I doubt that short attention span is the problem for the kids. If they can concentrate on 40K, then they can concentrate on anything. They just don't have the interest.
It's not that. In 40k you can walk away from the table, get a sandwich and beer, and walk back, while the other guy is working his turn. It has been quite a challenge to learn to pay attention during the opponent's turn, to look for possible reactions, etc! |
Major Function | 23 Jan 2013 4:11 a.m. PST |
I have been playing wargames now called tabletop wargaming so as not to confuse us kids with real gamers for close to 45 years I don't understand what movie games or cinematic games are but I do understand and have played against people who study the rules and 'army' lists to create that ultimate army. I like the visual effect that figures give whether they are Warhammer Fantasy, Flames of War, Black Powder etc. I prefer Napoleonics but I haven't found any rules yet that can really be called accurate, for example cavalry that move not much further than infantry, fire tables that have muskets firing the same distance that cavalry move. It has been said already, wargaming is meant to be fun, historical 'accurate' rule sets will always be around and they change just as many times as the non historical sets. |
BullDog69 | 23 Jan 2013 5:36 a.m. PST |
Where do 'what ifs?' fit into this split? Obviously, they are ahistorical by definition, but the best ones (in my opinion) are a blend of historical accuracy and plausible changes. Refighting a battle as accurately as possible is great, but to me, the real fun / interest is in refighting it with a few tweaks – what if the 3rd Brigade didn't get lost in the fog? what if the Black Watch had found a place to cross the river? |
Condottiere | 23 Jan 2013 6:19 a.m. PST |
How many rule sets are remotely 'historical'? Define historical in a gaming context. |
religon | 23 Jan 2013 6:39 a.m. PST |
Define historical in a gaming context. While I can't define a historical game, I can cite an example
On March 29, 1804 Napoleon Bonaparte played chess with Mme von Rémusat. |
KaweWeissiZadeh | 23 Jan 2013 7:00 a.m. PST |
The older I grow the more I enjoy the 'Story-telling' elements in the games that I play. The setting doesn't matter too much. |
Supercilius Maximus | 23 Jan 2013 7:05 a.m. PST |
<<Wargaming is a broad church.>> Otherwise some of us would have trouble fitting into the benches. |
kevanG | 23 Jan 2013 7:41 a.m. PST |
<<Wargaming is a broad church.>> Yeah..best to avoid those with extreme opinions and those who take easy offence. |
kevanG | 23 Jan 2013 7:57 a.m. PST |
<<Do you claim to be speaking for ALL historical gamers? Its OK if you are. Lots of people make lots of claims around here. There's no requirement that you defend yourself or actually back up any claims.>> I didnt even fully claim it for me
I just cannot normally be bothered with those type of games as I do not see the point.
Just like a lot of the wives and significant others of fantasy gamers cannot really see the point of battles between blue lizards and green archnoid insecty things. To them its just a silly thing their "man-child" does when more child than man. That doent mean I have not played these games on occasion, like xmas themed "dinasours and cadalacs" pulp game when the point of the evening was social sillyness. |
Milites | 23 Jan 2013 8:47 a.m. PST |
I hope historical wargamers don't think they are a higher evolved form of gaming life than 'silly' fantasy gamers. Defining a term will only lead to more arguments concerning the particular definition. I said no wargame is historical and provided a few examples from the multitude I could use. Historically based, would be more accurate a term IMHO as that is what they are. Yes, 3rd whatever can avoid the fog and the 274th Workers brigade can hit the 73rd from the flank, but the result will not be 'historical', only as close an approximation as paper rules allow. The only difference in fantasy, is by it's nature, there are no real world effects to observe and replicate, apart from that, both give a great deal of fun and enjoyment, which is what gaming should be about. This remind me of the 100+ thread that got increasingly vitriolic about calling them toy soldiers or historical miniatures. Play, enjoy, it's only a game, thank god! |
Patrick Sexton | 23 Jan 2013 8:59 a.m. PST |
Hmmm, I never noticed that wives and significant others who have a predilection for putting down their mates gaming make any distinction between fantasy, science fiction or historicals. In fact some prefer that their husbands play sci-fi or fantasy as opposed to historicals because those games don't represent any actual "death". As to my wife, she thinks it is all pretty cool but has no desire to play. |
Just a painter | 23 Jan 2013 9:03 a.m. PST |
I agree with Milites. It is only a game and the more people that play, the better for the hobby in general, Fantasy or historical. My interest is in a time frame of 2000 years ago and the only factual info is from the winning side and some old burials, so it is tough to be "exact" all the time. |
Nick H | 23 Jan 2013 9:08 a.m. PST |
Rick Priestly wrote about this issue in WSS last year. His point was how many wargamers got into the hobby because they wanted action and adventure in their games? How many got into it because they wanted to accurately portray history in game form? |
Milites | 23 Jan 2013 11:00 a.m. PST |
My contention is that they cannot accurately portray history, only approximate it, secondly, most historical games emphasis combat, so they are by nature, action orientated. How many games focus on the planning, which can often be the critical determinant of success and victory. Patrick I agree, most women don't get wargaming of any type. I remember the look of resigned horror as the wife of a journalist, who had recently returned form Chechnya and suffering PTSD and myself played AH's 'B-17 Queen of the Skies'. Her mutterings became increasingly animated as we revelled in trying to destroy each others aircraft, gloating as machines caught fire or enemy crews suffered. Eventually she left the room, incredulous that her husband, who has seen apalling, horrific suffering could indulge in such a 'violent game'. Our behaviour was certainly barbaric, but also damn good fun, because at the end of the game only the counters and cards were packed away, not bodybags. So yes, I want action and adventure, if I want a glimpse of reality I can always talk to veterans, who tear up describing events from nearly eighty years ago. That's as historically accurate as I want to go. |
Old Contemptibles | 23 Jan 2013 11:13 a.m. PST |
I never noticed that wives and significant others who have a predilection for putting down their mates gaming make any distinction between fantasy, science fiction or historicals.In fact some prefer that their husbands play sci-fi or fantasy as opposed to historicals because those games don't represent any actual "death". My wife has a history degree as do I. She gets it, no problems, she finds the whole process of historical gaming interesting. She helps with the research. She is defiantly a keeper. |
Old Contemptibles | 23 Jan 2013 11:20 a.m. PST |
I still maintain that historical gaming is a different hobby. Nothing wrong with that. Some can operate in both genres others find one or the other not to their liking. Nothing wrong with that. Just please don't lump historical gaming in with sci/fi and fantasy into the same category. As a kid growing up anytime someone talked about "wargaming" I only thought about historical gaming. Nothing else occurred to me. I still find it a little jarring when someone uses the term in connection with sci/fi, fantasy. But I have mostly gotten over it. I just have to clarify what the person is talking about. I no longer make assumptions or at least try not to. Different hobbies. |
kevanG | 23 Jan 2013 11:57 a.m. PST |
"I never noticed that wives and significant others who have a predilection for putting down their mates gaming make any distinction between fantasy, science fiction or historicals." I agree they dont distinguish, but I also do not see why that should mean that because they dont distinguish I cant either
especially if there are bits of wargaming I dont see the point in gaming just as much as they do. I could also have included train spotting, duck hunting, fell running and orienteering as things that wives may not see any point in. Yet fell runners and orienteers see the point of what they do. While they are both running about in the running 'hobby', I doubt an orienteer would say a fell runner that isnt interested in orienteering is looking down on him nor have anti snobbery from the fell runner saying that using a compass and a map cannot help you get anywhere quicker
it cannot simulate direction properly so you are best just sticking to the path and trying to orienteer is a waste of time and effort. But we wargamers do this with historical fantasy, realism etc. BTW, I am interested that you even see fantasy and sci fi seperate.
.its all fantasy with or without magic set in the past or the future or now or sometimes both. Star wars is sci fi fantasy set in an undetermined time with magic called 'the force'
.I'd rather watch the video or play a FPS computor game. That is how I enjoy the fantasy and sci fi genre. I can understand people having exactly the opposite stance
.I do not expect them to think that my games are better or worse or more fun or less fun. Its what they do and I dont. |
john lacour | 23 Jan 2013 1:37 p.m. PST |
what made me laugh, is who EVERY TIME we are shown a AAR of FOW, we see tanks side to side. then, when a none FOW guy mentions how goofy this looks, we are told how "every game i've ever played has had the tanks like this, going back to blah, blah, blah". not in my group. not with the rules we used. and let me tell ya, we had some modern micro armor games with many thousands of tanks. never looked like this FOW non sense. so i asked a member, who was quite proud of his tank parking lot, "do you side by side those tanks to cut down on side shots"?. turns out thats the exact reason FOW players do it. just stop making up reasons why your GAMEY game looks like something my 9 year old thinks looks goofy. tanks don't operate like that. if your "gamey game" can't figure out how tanks should work, don't include them. make it an infantry game. but then you'd have to exna the "everyone uded human waves in ww2, did'nt you know that"? |
Mike Target | 23 Jan 2013 3:30 p.m. PST |
Surely all tabletop wargames are fantasy games? Anyone who thinks Napoleonic Soldiers really were an inch tall is having a giraffe
|
McLaddie | 23 Jan 2013 3:42 p.m. PST |
Do you think that movie or gamey wargames might keep growing and eventually outnumber more historical based games? Will more games feel more like 300 rather than watching a documentary or reenactment? Will newer wargamers prefer these types of rules? Wow. 76 posts. I can agree with a number of comments already made. Those gamey/B movie-level wargames may already outnumber 'history-based' games. Has anyone counted? I have no problem with that. I play both. What I *fear* is: 1. Gamers in general won't be able to tell the difference between a history-based wargame and a movie-inspired dice-fest, or worse, can't tell the difference now
2. Questions like the ones that started this thread will be the Pinnacle of critical analysis for both historical wargames and 'just games'. |
McLaddie | 23 Jan 2013 3:46 p.m. PST |
Surely all tabletop wargames are fantasy games? Mike: Have you read the designers' notes for our wargame rules? The vast majority of the designers of our fun say different and have never called their designs fantasies. So, what do they think they are providing gamers? |
Deadone | 23 Jan 2013 4:46 p.m. PST |
I love cinematic" games – these include WH40k 2nd edition, Blood Bowl, Inquisitor, Mordheim and Necromunda. I want to try Infinity though that does emphasise some "real world" tactics and more so than 40K. I also think Force on Force is kind of a cinematic game even though it's replicating modern infantry tactics. Nothing says cinematic like a firefight between uber elite specs ops and some dirty Taliban. I also like historical games ala Fields of Glory or Flames of War (and am trying out Battlegroup Kursk). Didn' go much on DBA/DBM (too abstract) or Hail Ceasar (dice hated me so want to have another go). I've enjoyed Blackpowder the couple of times I've played it.
I view Flames of War as a history lite wargame. It's not really a cinematic wargame. I think cinematic refers to more skirmish or platoon level games where you've got the obvious heroics and the small scale associated with war movies which usually focus on a squad or platoon. Also sci-fi/fantasy games can be pseudo-historical if they reward historical/real life tactics. However ones like Warmachine/Malifaux seem to purely emphasise special rules. Hence I'm not interested in them. They are cinematic though. Just my $0.02 USD |
Deadone | 23 Jan 2013 4:56 p.m. PST |
You are constantly looking for this guy so he can move his units. Put the phone down and roll the dice! Short attention spans. They don't get it and they don't last. Two different hobbies. I've played people like that both in Fantasy and Historicals. Generally it's younger players under 25 that do it. |
Condottiere | 23 Jan 2013 5:13 p.m. PST |
In the end, it's all fantasy. |
Campaigner1 | 23 Jan 2013 5:33 p.m. PST |
I am fearful of my $400 USD set of Citadel paints drying out in their pots before I have a chance to use them. I am fearful of my spray varnish frosting the latest masterpiece regiment of dwarves I spent 100 hours painting. But no, I am not fearful in the wargaming regard that you described. Not at all. |
UshCha | 24 Jan 2013 12:33 a.m. PST |
My only personal distaste for fantasy gameing (mainly but we have had intrusions into other areas) is to do with over commecialisation and the unneccessary active encouragement polerisation is brings which prostitutes the hobby for commecial gain. If you are a WWII gamer (fantasy type or if you are us "Plausible resluts" type rules" you can use whom evers rules you want and spend as little or large amount on figures. You can use paper models or markers if you want. The worst commecialisations try to use peer pressure and selective entry to clubs to force only brand X figures. Worse still tyey have money and clain to represent us all. This course lead us to the decline of the hobby generaly as it becomes a game for only the dedicatedly afluemnt and they will leave our hobby having milked it and ruined more reasonable manufacturers. As to the fantasy vs historical. All models are wrong, some are useful. A computor model of an aero engine is not real, you can inside bits of the metal to see if they have too much load. Its definitely not like being the bit of metal, but it is useffull and has a usefull corelation with reality. Our experience is that players claim they want reality but in reality don't. Take our rules, realy simple. However there are may more options to be considered so it makes decisions much harder. e.g where to move. This is easire if the move is 0 to 12". Much harder if 0 to 8 ft. In the end in a tolerant world neither has the upper hand provided the commecial interests do not try and drive a wedge where one does not exist. |
Poniatowski | 24 Jan 2013 5:19 a.m. PST |
Personally fear
no, of course not
yet, I do dread them
as campy as they are
A part of me still dreads the fact that there are people out there who are actually "learning their history" from quasi historic war games
. Things like
"No way man, that tank could never hurt a Tiger
the numbers say so
" So these individuals go through life with a slightly warped view on what is real fact and game mechanic
believe you me, these people are out there
. and the Tiger/Sherman example is just one smallish example
. Accurate to a point, but not totally so. |
Some Chicken | 24 Jan 2013 7:07 a.m. PST |
My tastes tend more to the detail "simulation" end of the hobby so (for example) FoW is not my cup of tea with its points balance, tournament focus and somewhat ahistorical force structures (e.g.on-table artillery). However, as a WW2 gamer I am VERY glad it exists and hope its popularity continues to grow. Without the broader appeal of 'gamey' games, the range of available models would be limited to what cottage industries and 'one man bands' could afford to produce. Compatibility between part ranges produced by different manufacturers would be more of a problem in building historically accurate forces (as it was in the old days) and I would have far fewer buying options available. Even if BF/FoW became the WW2 wargaming equivalent of chess (standardised pieces and universal rules) I would lose no sleep over it whatsoever. I am sure there would always be some clever and dedicated people out there with interests similar to mine who would find the time to produce unofficial variants to give me my wargaming diet. Who knows, we might even reach the stage where wargames products could be bought on the High Street, which would be a great way to spend a lunch hour. |
JJartist | 24 Jan 2013 7:41 a.m. PST |
One of my favorite movies about the Battle of the Bulge is "Castle Keep" Castle Keep is a better scenario than most 'historical' ones
at least you have the opportunity to paint up an Astrid Heeren model.
Movie Spartacus is more fun than TV Spartacus
Nobody says "I love you Spartacus" on the TV show as well as Tony Curtis. Acting!!! Movie Spartans are more ridiculous than real Spartans, but it is more fun to shout and bellow and wear tight thongs than be laconic. Movies about Rome are great because it shows you can use any Roman model to represent Romans at any time in their history, as long as they wear lots of leather. Lots of leather, ok back to Astrid.. link |
pas de charge | 24 Jan 2013 7:46 a.m. PST |
Why would anyone be fearful of a wargame? All types of games have their place. Personally, I prefer rules systems that reflect my own personal interpretation of history and give what I regard as realistic results without involving me in brain-numbing complexity. However, I also like the occasional dabble with hugely complex "simulations" and have been known to play light-hearted "gamey" games, as well as having put on a participation game that we described as "cinematic". Play what you want, with who you want and stop fretting; it is all a game:). |
Bandit | 24 Jan 2013 8:00 a.m. PST |
Fearful no, commonly disinterested yes. My interest level and focus changes when it comes to playing something that is a game dressed up as a period. I commonly play: BattleTech, it is definitely not simulation of anything. FoW, it is mostly game with little simulation. Johnny Reb 2, it is simulation in some aspects and game in others. Regimental Fire & Fury, it is mostly game Guns of Liberty, but am not familiar enough with the period to say. Et sans résultat!, it is simulation with some game aspects. The Sword & The Flame, entirely game. I have previously or occasionally played: Legacy of Glory, it is simulation with some game aspects. Napoleonic Command, it is a mix of simulation and game aspects. Napoleon's Battles, it might simulate some aspect but I am at a loss as to what, I find it to be a game only. Corps d'armée, it is a pretty balanced simulation and game. Empire, it is a simulation overstretched and thus becomes a game. Fire & Fury, mostly game, some simulation. Bolt Action, mostly game, not sure there is much of any simulation. Grunz, entirely game. Basically every historical rules set I've ever read the introduction of claims to be a simulation of warfare in its given period.
Simulation is a sticky term. Simulation typically refers to an aspect that the rules set has focused on or is used overly broadly almost as a marketing description.
Empire is an easy example to pick on. Empire simulates so many levels that it becomes "gamey" in that a player will win more not by doing what was historical but by developing combinations of actions in each level of simulation to use in concert, combinations that due to the lack of control experienced by historical generals, would have never been available to those who were there. I don't say this to make a statement that Empire is bad but to show that it is impossible to remove "game" from "simulation" while the reverse can be done. Empire calls itself a simulation but double-blind hidden movement is not mandatory or even included in the rules. Thus, while Empire simulates a great many things, it does not simulate the knowledge the player should have available while acting as a historical general. All simulations choose to simulate *some aspects* and ignore others, thus defining their focus area. The introduction to Napoleon's Battles says it is a simulation of warfare in the Napoleonic Age. Heck, basically every wargaming rules set says this about whatever their period is. I would argue that Napoleon's Battles is definitely not a simulation and is definitely a game. My opinion is that if I roll high my decisions don't really matter. This is true of many games, it is less true (but not false) in simulations. Thus simulation vs game is a continuum, game vs simulation is a binary. Neither is bad, play what you like. I use this rule to determine if it is a "game" or "simulation" on the continuum: Can a new player do well by knowing the history and acting according to such or will he always be beat by someone who knows the ins and outs of the rules set better? Cheers, The Bandit |
CptKremmen | 24 Jan 2013 8:56 a.m. PST |
Nope! I love hollywood style Cinematic games systems. What would you prefer to spend two hours doing. Watch the latest hollywood blockbuster or attend a physics lecture on aerodynamics? MOST of us would go for the hollywood blockbuster Me I would go for the blockbuster game everytime. I want to have fun not study aerodynamics. Bolt Action all the way for me for WW2 and Impetus for Ancients Andy |
kevanG | 24 Jan 2013 12:00 p.m. PST |
"A computor model of an aero engine is not real, you can inside bits of the metal to see if they have too much load. Its definitely not like being the bit of metal, but it is useffull and has a usefull corelation with reality." This quite susinctly puts the hammer on the head of the nail.
and that is basically my job, Consistantly do simulations that are built in the real world All this "you cannot do an accurate simulation so dont try" bull
Remember that EVERY phone call you have ever had is a voice SIMULATION and is not the real voice. Maybe those with the "accurate can't be done " atitude should realise that they are fooling thmselves if they actually think they can interprete the words, so just throw that mobile phone away because that is how foolish it sounds. |
Milites | 24 Jan 2013 12:45 p.m. PST |
We are talking combat simulations, not engineering simulations, which can quite accurately predict future events, simply because they deal with materials that have predictable qualities. The Space Shuttle never had a dry run into space but it worked, as each component and its inter-relationship with other components could all be modelled, to simulate likely sceanrios. Combat simulations are notoriously hard, the US's combat models showed a clear Arab victory in 73, how'd that work out? Iraq defeated and expelled from Kuwait, in a matter of days, who predicted that? Try the Battle of the River Plate, using most naval rules, I've never come close to the historical result. Combat involves humans, humans are notoriously unpredictable, and history is replete with unique, rarely-repeatable events that help determine the end result. Taking unique examples and trying to extrapolate to generate tables for a set of rules is frought with hazzard. Most rules writers acknowledge that and plainly state they give approximations to reality, due to the lack of contributory factors, when gaming in the safety and security of your home or club. As for phones, strawman, sorry. It's the level of accuracy that I question, which is why I think fantasy games are just as robust as 'historical' rules. |
CooperSteveOnTheLaptop | 24 Jan 2013 1:15 p.m. PST |
Fearful? Yes, it often wakes me up bathed in sweat & screaming |
Patrick Sexton | 24 Jan 2013 2:14 p.m. PST |
I wasn't fearful before but I am now. |
kevanG | 24 Jan 2013 2:16 p.m. PST |
simulaion is simulaion. They are used to simulate human movement during the evacuation of ships or crowd movement in buildings and at stadia
so why not someone fighting "We are talking combat simulations, not engineering simulations, which can quite accurately predict future events, simply because they deal with materials that have predictable qualities." You obviously know nothing about materials then
.One of the most 'approximated' things in engineering. and I am glad you consider that wind and earthquake behaviour can be so accurately modelled. Where exactly can we get some earthquake predictions? Thee are not even appoximate, They are just arbitory
probably the only thing more approximated than mateials Its either.. 1.whew, we live nowhere near a tuetonic plate 2 its a bit of a shake 3. Is a biggy 4 Dont bother your life isn't worth it, hope you had to visit the east coast or are flying in a jet with good engines
.more on those engine later ..Just throw away that phone man, thow it away
.We can transmit shakespeae in its entirety without losing any accuracy in binary morse code. Is it any less accurate in that simplisic format? Is the language less realistic in meaning?
I do agree that a simulation is as robust as its model and that does not need to be historical. In this respect, fantasy has an inherant advantage in that the model values are the fantasy technical values. Weapon Performance moves to a value rather than a value being assigned to a historical performance "It's the level of accuracy that I question" and what level of accuracy is that exactly? Is 50% good enough for you? or is it 60%? What accuracy do you think you get out of an aero engine? Would you doubt the accuracy of a wargame at 60% then fly in a plane with engines on 50%? So if you can accept engineering can predict accurate results with massive and aggregating approximations, why not a set of wargames rules with appoximations based on recorded perfomances? |
Lion in the Stars | 24 Jan 2013 2:20 p.m. PST |
@Some Chicken: FoW doesn't require you to place your artillery on table, though I like having mortars on-table. My 1ID force has no artillery models, just the observer teams. Then again, I'd need a 1/700 scale destroyer or cruiser for my artillery model! In fact, the Flames of Vietnam rules REQUIRE your artillery to be off-table. All you need is the observer team(s). @Thomas Hobbes: hop on over to the Infinity forum, infinitythegame.com/forum . We're friendly there and quite happy to give all sorts of suggestions. I will make a big suggestion here, though: Infinity needs lots and lots of terrain, at least one large piece per square foot of table and more 'scatter' terrain like hedges, walls, planters, bus stops, cars, etc. |
Deadone | 24 Jan 2013 3:28 p.m. PST |
Thanks Lion in the Stars. We've already got plenty of terrain thanks to other sci-fi games. Also in FOW V3, there is no longer a provision for off-board artillery (Across The Volga rule has been removed). You can of course use the old rule but that does involve getting permission from the other play and unbalances the game as the guy taking the artillery is missing out on certain benefts they pay for (enhanced AT, extra platoon on the board). |
McLaddie | 24 Jan 2013 4:07 p.m. PST |
.The introduction to Napoleon's Battles says it is a simulation of warfare in the Napoleonic Age. Heck, basically every wargaming rules set says this about whatever their period is. I would argue that Napoleon's Battles is definitely not a simulation and is definitely a game. Bob Coggins stated on the TMP that he and S. Craig Taylor did not design a simulation, but that AH editors included that term
though he has said other things that would suggest they did write that
In either case, it sold NB rules at the time. My opinion is that if I roll high my decisions don't really matter. This is true of many games, it is less true (but not false) in simulations.Thus simulation vs game is a continuum, game vs simulation is a binary. Neither is bad, play what you like. I use this rule to determine if it is a "game" or "simulation" on the continuum: Can a new player do well by knowing the history and acting according to such or will he always be beat by someone who knows the ins and outs of the rules set better? Bandit: You do realize that IF the game system does simulate history and actual tactics of the period that there would be no difference between the play of the two? If the player who knows the rules always beats the player who knows the history, then either the history player is struggling with learning the rules, or the game probably isn't a simulation. If the player who knows history consistantly beats the player who knows the rules, that doesn't prove the game is a simulation, only that the history guy is the better player. Just saying. There are far better ways to establish whether a game system simulates. |
Spreewaldgurken | 24 Jan 2013 4:52 p.m. PST |
"1.whew, we live nowhere near a tuetonic plate " Would that be something like this:
?? |
Milites | 24 Jan 2013 4:56 p.m. PST |
Wow, kevan your argument moves around like a tectonic plate. I once studied a model for the prediction of forest fires and how its calculation of uncertainty could be used by business. Turns out, although a forest fire looks like chaos, its path can be predicted, you just need to know which factors are more active in each scenario. The model though did not include any human involvement, firefighters were to use it to plan strategies, as realistic scenarios could be downloaded. Ship evacuation models are close to combat simualtions? Perhaps, if the crew and passengers are trying to not only avoid being killed but actively seeking each others destruction. So you can accurately predict the engineering performance based on 'massive approximations', god I though quantum physics was hard to get my head around! I used to work with engineers, all that talk of specifications were based on approximations, clever sods, had us fooled. If you think a wargame can get to 50% good luck. Stop whatever you are doing and copyright your idea, more like 30%, or as John Hill used to say 6-70% if both players understood the loser would be shot! The responses of human beings under intense stress creates so many, often cascading variables, that only a rough approximation can be made. On top of that, is the players unrivalled epistemological certainty of capability, regarding his own, and ,often, his opponents forces. |
kallman | 24 Jan 2013 5:35 p.m. PST |
sigh!(shakes head and walks away to the work table to paint some more toy soldiers.) |