"Which do you prefer in a game..." Topic

If we presume that realism ≠ complexity in rules (I know many equate the one with the other but that need not always be the case) which is more important to you?

A) an accurate simulation of the historic events (or a more plausible explanation of hypothetical events if you prefer)

B) a balanced game where each side has a reasonable chance of victory.

For purposes of this poll let us presume a balanced game is, by nature, not an accurate simulation of evens and presume that all rules are equally complex and enjoyable and in all other ways equal.

A

A

A

The fact is that you can and should have both.

I'm bucking the trend here and say B. Most games I play are at clubs and for multiple players so the emphasis is not on recreating actual battles, but fighting battles set in the era. These games are usually good to play and fun. The last but one historical battle I played in was Salamanca and it was a very dour affair, with some players taking things very seriously and forgetting the social side of the hobby.

Both.

I would prefer a set of rules that gave an accurate simulation of the historic events which I could use for a balanced game where each side has a reasonable chance of victory.

Definitely A

Yes, indeed A.

Both. Why compromise?

Both. Why compromise?

Because it defeats the purpose of the question…

Let's presume, at least for the purposes of this pole, they are diametrically opposed.

If you need a further explanation, how about balanced fights are rare. After all a general uses (or should use) every advantage available. What general looks for a fair fight?

A, but intelligent use of victory conditions should mean A can also be B

Phil

A for sure.

B

But I also believe that if you set up the objectives correctly, most A can also be B

I prefer balanced "historically plausible" scenarios. So C.

Since I play with toy soldiers I vote for fun.

B, I don't see the point in playing a game if neither side can win.

I am into more skirmish-y stuff right now if it helps.

I don't accept the premise of the OP, you can do both by setting the victory conditions sensibly.

If forced to choose between two identical armies fighting over a wood, two hills and a town in a meeting engagement vs a historical battle. Give me historical every time.

A.

What Mr. Rapier said!

Agree with those who say there is no "continuum" here. EVERY game should be an accurate representation (within it's desired level of complexity) AND be an even contest.

Let's presume, at least for the purposes of this pole, they are diametrically opposed.

If you need a further explanation, how about balanced fights are rare. After all a general uses (or should use) every advantage available. What general looks for a fair fight?

The problem with this poll is that is does presume that they are opposed and they are not.
A balanced game does not mean identical forces or matching points. It means that each player has attainable objectives. You can have asymmetrical forces and still have a balanced game. There is actually very little fun to be had in a game where one side has no way to achieve a victory.

I vote for A & B.

Why do you assume it is one or the other? There is no reason you can't have both. I write scenarios that have both all the time. You can usually just write the scenario with different victory conditions for each side. For example:

There is little doubt the Texans at the Alamo are going to lose the battle, we all know that going in. But if you manipulate the victory conditions, then the Texans will lose the battle but have a chance to win the game by causing a certain number of casualties.

You are not trying to win the battle. You are trying to win the game.

Caesar and Rallynow sum up my opinion.

Christopher

C: Both A&B for me as well. Good scenario design is the key.

D) Neither.

First, I don't see how your premise asserting the inequality of realism and complexity leads to choices of historical accuracy or balance. This compounds with my agreement with others that balance and historical accuracy are not mutually exclusive (or even a direct trade space).

Personally, I prefer a game that is engaging, rather than either of your choices. I play a lot of games that are set up where the "good guys" are supposed to win, and highly favoured. After all, who really doesn't enjoy playing a good James Bond movie villain, even if you know from the outset you're not going to win?

I think the real thing I prefer is to have a reasonably understood set of expectations of what I am getting into before the game starts. If I have that I can decide whether or not to participate, and the rest will fall into place and be enjoyable.

Even on the rare occasion where I play a game out of social obligation rather than genuine interest, the upfront lack of a false expectation makes the game enjoyable.