darthfozzywig | 09 May 2016 11:25 a.m. PST |
Constraining is defined here as "makes the player conform to historical norms." Some games try various methods to encourage/require players to perform in a manner similar to their historical counterparts. For example, restricting what formations ACW infantry brigades are allowed to adopt, or how responsive a Soviet motorized rifle regiment is to changing orders. With 4 being the most, how do you like your rules? 4 – I march unerringly to the beat of the historical drum and the rules better make sure you do, too 3 – The rules should allow me to try the "what ifs" of the period that didn't happen, but not allow counter-factual tactics 2 – I enjoy the "feel/flavor", but the rules don't have to be specifically tailored to that period 1 – If I paint Austrian dirigible-borne paratroopers, by golly, I'm fielding Austrian dirigible-borne paratroopers! As always, if you don't like my terms and definitions, start your own poll. :)
|
pzivh43 | 09 May 2016 11:58 a.m. PST |
I'm a solid 3 for the most part. |
Rich Bliss | 09 May 2016 12:04 p.m. PST |
|
steamingdave47 | 09 May 2016 12:08 p.m. PST |
|
Old Contemptibles | 09 May 2016 12:09 p.m. PST |
Just to be clear we are talking about rules not scenarios. That's another discussion. 3 |
45thdiv | 09 May 2016 12:12 p.m. PST |
I am between 3 and 2. I play the eras I do because I like the tactics and look of the armies. I like the what if games and imagination armies. They should at least be played to the way armies fought for a given era. |
Fat Wally | 09 May 2016 12:22 p.m. PST |
|
Extra Crispy | 09 May 2016 12:29 p.m. PST |
|
jeffreyw3 | 09 May 2016 12:52 p.m. PST |
I don't understand the difference between 3 and 4. Please elaborate. |
leidang | 09 May 2016 12:59 p.m. PST |
|
ubercommando | 09 May 2016 1:10 p.m. PST |
I would say between 2 and 3 on this one. |
Ottoathome | 09 May 2016 1:23 p.m. PST |
Whichever one you want from time to time. My first rule of wargames is a paraphrase of Fletcher Pratt. "Nothing may be done in the game that would not be done or could not be done in real war unless it is fun and everyone wants it, and certainly if it's funny." |
darthfozzywig | 09 May 2016 1:45 p.m. PST |
4 requires my 1985 Soviet regiment to maintain doctrinal formation in the assault. 3 allows me to try a non-doctrinal formation (a US formation, e.g.) even if I abide by Soviet command restrictions. |
Saber6 | 09 May 2016 2:13 p.m. PST |
|
vtsaogames | 09 May 2016 2:29 p.m. PST |
I was going to say 3, but that explanation changes it to 4. My Crimean Russians attack in column. As do my 1866 Austrians. |
Shagnasty | 09 May 2016 2:43 p.m. PST |
|
Mute Bystander | 09 May 2016 2:50 p.m. PST |
|
JLA105 | 09 May 2016 2:54 p.m. PST |
|
21eRegt | 09 May 2016 3:21 p.m. PST |
I want to be a 4, but am probably getting closer to 3 in my "mature" years. |
Herkybird | 09 May 2016 3:47 p.m. PST |
|
rmaker | 09 May 2016 3:56 p.m. PST |
|
Yesthatphil | 09 May 2016 4:15 p.m. PST |
3 or 4 mostly … depending on the purpose of the game. Phil |
Coyotepunc and Hatshepsuut | 09 May 2016 5:04 p.m. PST |
-2… far below 1, because I like my historical rules to have fantasy and/or science fiction supplements. |
Cerdic | 09 May 2016 10:46 p.m. PST |
3 or 4 depending on what type of game it is. |
(Phil Dutre) | 09 May 2016 11:09 p.m. PST |
I think the rules themselves have not much to do with it. "Playing historically" is a mindset of the players, not something that will or can be enforced by the rules. Players who need the rules to constrain themselves do probably not get the idea of playing historically in the first place. But then, I subscribe to the notion that wargames rules are a set of guidelines to conduct your games, not a legal text to be followed without discussion. |
Martin Rapier | 09 May 2016 11:18 p.m. PST |
What Phil said. I would however be very surprised by a set of rules which allowed my little lead heroes to do things they werent trained to do in real life. |
Dynaman8789 | 10 May 2016 5:25 a.m. PST |
I don't see how "2" applies if NOT enforcing possible tactics/capabilities of the units involved. Most likely 3.5 for me. |
jeffreyw3 | 10 May 2016 3:07 p.m. PST |
Thanks for the explanation…4 |
raylev3 | 10 May 2016 8:58 p.m. PST |
3 For me wargaming and military history are intertwined. I want my wargames to help provide insight into some aspect of history -- which can actually cover quite a bit of ground. |
Ottoathome | 11 May 2016 2:30 a.m. PST |
For me 1. It's my money, time, and effort, and I'll play whatever game I want. It is only a game and nothing else. |
Old Contemptibles | 11 May 2016 3:05 p.m. PST |
Phil, You need rules that favor historical tactics. If you don't then you have people who are not as familiar with the period, try anything that is not forbidden by the rules. Not everyone is playing just for the exercise of doing the tactics. They are out to win. This is a big factor that governs what rules I buy and use. |
darthfozzywig | 11 May 2016 8:52 p.m. PST |
I tend to view most games as roleplaying games to one degree or another. I want to pretend (in a sense) to be Lee, Napoleon, Warmaster Horus, or what have you, and like the rules to support and reward thematic/historical play. |
(Phil Dutre) | 12 May 2016 3:27 a.m. PST |
Phil,You need rules that favor historical tactics. If you don't then you have people who are not as familiar with the period, try anything that is not forbidden by the rules. Not everyone is playing just for the exercise of doing the tactics. They are out to win. I understand that. However, the point I was trying to make is that if you have players who know nothing about the period and will only play the rules, the rules themselves will always be insufficient to make sure one plays "historically". Playing according to historical tactics or doctrine also requires a mindset that you wouldn't do things that are technically not forbidden by the rules, but do not make any sense whatsoever historically. In theory, you could have a ruleset that limits or encourages players to always do the "right thing" tactics-wise, but in practice this often means over-complex rules that are no fun to play. Hence, I think therefore it's better and more productive to approach games with the right mindset, and that requires some knowledge about the period, but also some common agreement on what type of game you want to play. Hoping that the rules alone will offer the correct framework is a bit idealistic, in my opinion. And if the goal of the game is "trying to win", well, that's a different goal from "playing historically". They are not mutually exclusive, but it's also not easy to make them align perfectly. |
Elenderil | 15 May 2016 10:10 a.m. PST |
3.5 here, I don't see the point of doing historical if you don't follow the constraints of that period. |
Dasher | 24 May 2016 11:52 a.m. PST |
Give me the tools. As long as I don't violate the laws of physics, do not tell me what I can or cannot do. If the only way I can win is the designer's way, there is no point in playing. |
Wolfhag | 24 May 2016 4:11 p.m. PST |
I run into this at conventions all of the time. You use a set of rules that reward the real tactics of the time and the players have no idea of what they are and conventions are time for enjoyment and entertainment, not a painful lesson. As much as I hate it I try to "reward" good tactics and historical actions by giving positive die roll modifiers. That's something everyone can understand. They may not really know how to use fire & maneuver but if you abstract it and give them an incentive to use it they will and the game will seem "real" to them. Wolfhag |