Silent Pool | 22 May 2014 12:27 p.m. PST |
fighting a campaign of your chosen period? War gaming battles, one-offs, are all very well but surely one discovers one's ability as a General (of your own chosen period) ONLY when embarking on a war game campaign. True or false? I say TRUE. |
PVT641 | 22 May 2014 12:40 p.m. PST |
|
MarescialloDiCampo | 22 May 2014 12:48 p.m. PST |
Going to disagree, or at least have fun by adding parameters. If, the game is of your own choosing, in the period that you have played in for the last half century, with rules you know 'wery', 'wery', well (like good old Spiffy's WRG rules of the XXXVIII edition), and you have a known campaign (that you also helped play test, designed the board, and painted all the figures – all perfectly aligned in the same pose) - then 'No' I answer and scream "FALSE". But, if you are playing in a war-gaming battle game (even a one off)at a convention, with people you don't know, with troops of indifferent quality (not even painted well, with broken bayonets), using rules that "who in the world" made them that are 565 pages long (and you nor anyone else present has never even heard of them)
and you win, squashing your opponent as he runs crying from the room, ripping hair from his bald head. - Then that is the ultimate test of a war-game "General" |
Mollinary | 22 May 2014 12:48 p.m. PST |
Depends, Few Generals get independent commands, many get to command on the field. You pays your money, and you takes your choice. Mollinary |
Extra Crispy | 22 May 2014 1:12 p.m. PST |
|
Winston Smith | 22 May 2014 1:38 p.m. PST |
In my 40+ years of war gaming I have participated in
.. Hmmm. No campaigns. I do not feel any lack. |
Silent Pool | 22 May 2014 1:48 p.m. PST |
In my 40+ years of war gaming I have participated in
.. Hmmm. No campaigns
40 years? No campaigns? You cannot be serious!! |
Winston Smith | 22 May 2014 2:55 p.m. PST |
Why not? Why does everybody have to do things your way? |
docfin | 22 May 2014 4:01 p.m. PST |
Wargaming since 1976 and my first campaign was a Longstreet one. |
Frederick | 22 May 2014 6:30 p.m. PST |
Sure but whole campaigns are few and long between |
Martin Rapier | 23 May 2014 2:18 a.m. PST |
Campaigns are often more a test of endurance than skill, I 'won' a Nepoleonic campaign as after seven years of playing it I was one of the few original players left:) I quite like linked scenario campaigns, but they are there to give flavour and context to the battles rather than a test of operational generalship. If I want to play operations, then I'll use a set of rules which let me do that. |
Who asked this joker | 23 May 2014 6:31 a.m. PST |
What kind of general are we talking? Brigadier? Division commander? Army general? My answer would depend. Probably the answer would be FALSE for the lower level generals but TRUE for a Corps or Army commander. |
corporalpat | 23 May 2014 6:50 a.m. PST |
I will respond to an overly generalized (pun intended) question, with an overly generalized answer: Resoundingly False! |
Herkybird | 23 May 2014 2:53 p.m. PST |
..is trying to beat a better Wargames General! |
Rudi the german | 24 May 2014 7:26 a.m. PST |
False! The ultimate test is to paint, and set up a wargame campaign for OTHERS! because thies means you are not only able to win a campaign but you must understand, constuct, forecast and balance it
. Sorry |
LORDGHEE | 25 May 2014 5:07 p.m. PST |
To throw your dice and see your troops Victorious in the Field and hear the lamentations of the defeated. |
andygamer | 26 May 2014 4:21 p.m. PST |
That makes you the best Chief of Staff, Rudi, not general! ;^) |
TelesticWarrior | 27 May 2014 3:12 a.m. PST |
Definitely true, providing that; i) the campaign also includes tactical table-top battles (or equivalent). Forcing your opponent into a bad position via your campaigning skill doesn't mean much unless you can also pulverise them in battle. ii) the campaign is well run with lots of challenging parameters that are designed to reward skill and historical behaviour. As Rapier said, lots of campaigns come down to endurance and many other factors that have little to do with the Generalship and skill of the players. Perhaps Rudi is right in saying that the greatest skill as a gamer is creating playable balanced campaigns and battles that the players can take alot from. |
(Phil Dutre) | 27 May 2014 5:12 a.m. PST |
As long as you're talking about "war game generals" and "war game skills" instead of real military generals and real military leadership, sure, why not. Otherwise, I also think that playing a wizard in fantasy roleplaying campaign really shows your potential as a great wizard – casting a single fireball at a lonely orc obviously is no testimony of your wizardry skills at all. |
etotheipi | 27 May 2014 10:30 a.m. PST |
On any given day you can defeat a vastly superior force or snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. For this or that campaign you can outlast, outmaneuver, outthink, and outluck any series of opponents. And they could do the same to you. The ultimate test of a war game General, however, is to attempt to teach players with less experience than you without throwing the game or frustrating the other players. That, m'buckos, is leadership. |