"What kind of skirmish game do you prefer?" Topic

a. Non-serious – having fun with history.
b. Competitive element in an historical context.
c. Serious historical simulation.

A, by far!

A

B.5. I like to recreate historical fights, but want the game to move quickly. Don't want to spend an hour real time fighting 10 seconds of game time….

A of course.

A then B then C

There is no such thing as C.

Why is there no such thing as C? Here we go with the Wargame Nazi view: if you're not doing it like John the OFM you're doing it wrong.

Why not let others enjoy what they perceive to be historical simulation without constantly telling them they are wrong? Just because that's not what you want from a game, don't presume to tell others they can't do things differently. This kind of attitude has driven off half the decent former membership, it might be nice to keep hold of those who remain.

For the record, I enjoy games which combine A and C. I don't mind how others game, as long as they are enjoying themselves then that's fine by me.

A with loads of fun!

I prefer C.
then B.

Tin soldier,
Don't take Winston's comments so seriously. Relax and just express the way you enjoy playing.

Because I do not think that shoving toy soldiers across a table top can in any way shape or form be considered a simulation.
How does that make me a Nazi? Your education is sadly deficient if you think that my thinking that war cannot be "simulated" while playing with toy soldiers makes me a Nazi.
Or perhaps you are a child of the 70s where the word "Nazi" or "fascist " was a general description of anything you disagreed with or considered icky.

Doug, I'm bored of John telling everyone that his way is best. It's just rude to not respect the fact that some people don't conform to your idea of what is the norm. We are all part of a relatively small hobby, I think that telling a slice of gamers that they are wrong to play toy soldiers in a certain way is just absurd. We need to be tolerant of others, and accept that not everyone plays their games in the same way as we do.

Winston/John is constantly preaching his gospel of what is the right and wrong way to play Wargames. I can't understand why he can't respect the views of others who think differently and leave then alone to have their fun.

Winston: Yawn…

All three.
There's a place for pulpy games like 7TV, a place for super-serious skirmish games (ASL comes to mind), and a place for those things in-between. I like all 3 and play them at different times (often with the same figures).

WOW, you guys are way to serious about your
"games", whether their A, B or C.

To paraphrase Shylock (and switching to the OFM since my cell phone is a pain in the ass with autocorrect)…
"If I roll a 6, do you not bleed?"
No, I do not. If I did, it would be a "simulation"
I have hated that word to describe warGAME ever since those pompous dudes at SPI ran it into the ground back in the 80s.
It means that people are taking things far too seriously.

I do not disrespect your opinions, I merely do not think they are correct. There is a HUGE difference there, and it saddens me (not really, but that is the "in" phrase these days) that you consider disagreement disrespect.
Carry on, and have fun.
(Now, if I were REALLY going to disrespect you, I would have said "Have fun, if you are capable of it." But I didn't! )

BTW, you still didn't answer my question as to why disagreeing with you makes me a Nazi. I await your answer. It seems that *I* am not the one doing the disrespecting here.

Doug, no, not that serious about my games, I just want to have fun.

I do get serious about people who behave in a rude and boorish manner. I don't think it's acceptable behaviour. We should all respect the way others do things and, if that fails, refraining from making judgemental comments is a polite alternative,

C, then B, never A. I don't have time for silly games that will just frustrate me with the level of farbiness.

If a wargame doesn't simulate anything, *why bother*?
If a wargame isn't any fun at all, *why bother*?

I much prefer "does not insult my intelligence and gives a reasonably accurate feel for what happened" to "simulation".

Ha, ha, ha, oh boy, you guys are great!

I prefer A. I'm more about the social aspects of gaming, than competition.

A, though I game mostly fantasy and sci-fi, so that tends to skew my prefference a bit.

b'. A historical context with an element of competition

I think the historical context comes first, and provides the "spice" for the competition. Without a story behind the wargame, it is just an empty intellectual exercise.

The competition proves to enhance the historical context. If there is the feeling that nothing different could have ever happened, then there is no "meat" in the history, no understanding in it. It is just facts.

And, after all, history, from the Greek, historia, meaning learning through intense, active inquiry (as opposed to rote processes).

This thread gives a beautiful model of war simulation with quick hit and run skirmish tactics

C is for me important, but I expect simulation to be fun.

I don't expect not being able to fire a rifle at a target that is within the theoretical range of the weapon…

I expect troops to behave realistically

I expect the rules to enforce realistic behaviour, and not to allow everyone to be John Wayne..

I expect weapons to have a realistic rate of fire, and for troops hit to be turned into casualties (no magic armoured troops in my world war two games, I expect you to hug every bit of terrain.)

I know sometimes I am not going to have fun… I sometimes excuse myself from games when this is likely to happen because the rules allow Rambo to hack and slice his way through the enemy… and sometimes I work out the loopholes and abuse them so rules that are not simulationist / realistic in their approach get revealed for other players within the group, so that we modify or abandon them.

Good, plausible narrative. Where does that fall in the spectrum?

Full-size, 1 to 1 sex….

If pressed, B, then C …

But, in terms of the poll, I don't like skirmish games (please include this option) …

I enjoy exploring/recreating historical battles and operations at higher levels. So my strong preference is for wargames that are not 1:1 scale/skirmish

Phil

Lol….ofc the option 'C' exists. How do you think war-gaming ever came about? The Military used miniature simulation before it ever reached the realms of Hobbyists…..and yes John, they even used dice to 'simulate' random effect.

Every Military planner knows Murphy's law.

The great thing about War-gaming as a hobby is you can do whatever you wish and nobody gets hurt.

A few dented ego's perhaps……

I'm not quite dead yet, kyoteblue.

B then A

Yes it's good to see you alive Winston. I'll have an ice tea with lemon please.

I like D-you know, the type that has Caesers' Legions trying to encircle Khe Sahn.

I see the weekly OFM Witch Hunt has started…

Make mine "a"

They no longer hold the Wyoming Massacre and Craft Show on the anniversary. Pity. All those Pirates of the Caribbean reenactors pretending to be Indians were quite entertaining, and I got my stepsons authentic tomahawks.

I like D-you know, the type that has Caesers' Legions trying to encircle Khe Sahn.

That's just plain silly. Everybody knows that the Xth Legio was at Dien Bien Phu.

A. Most of my skirmish games are SF or fantasy.

A and C

A and B

The Army does C all the time and they usually take ever ounce of fun out of it. For Example: The apache scenario at Fort Huachuca, AZ.