"Types of games" Topic

Note this is personal opinion and is not intended to upset anybody.

Me I definitely sit in the Players category. Simple rules allow very complex games. Screw up and you can get a traffic jam with no rules in sight. Get the bridge layer or the pioneers in the wrong place and you will be reliving more than one real battle disaster. I have friends who sit part way between the two.

Please feel free to add other categories. This topic is food for thought and is to stimulate thought not contervesy.

Modellers game

Most important is the size and quality of the miniatures.
Will be focused round 15 to 28mm plus.

Probably played only occasionally and with varying forces so not too much time to optimize tactics.

Breaches in reality that optimize the presence of models on the board even, if in reality its daft, after all the models are paramount.

Generally skirmish, although the game although played on the same terrain as a skirmish is called battalion or higher level game. Terrain bears no relationship to real world but does allow lots of nice models that would not be seen together on table.

Dice throwing is a desirable as it adds to the unpredictability and fog of war without getting a paracetamol headache.

Suitable for a turn up and play due to having a points/terrain system that allows un-historic battles that as a game can be entertaining.

Players Game

Emphasis on game but still models required to get suspension of belief.

Game more clearly reflects actual tactics and battle ranges.

Typically less variety of models on the board as the representation does not cover many killometers of the battlefield.

Actual frontages and formations are de-rigure so a platoon may be dispersed to cover 500m or more. Tanks will have to select formations so that fire power is optimized for the expected direction of the enemy. March columns will be long and must be reflected as such on the board

Significant planning required to concentrate forces in time and space. This may include logistics of some assets such as artillery.

The game is unsuitable for occasional play and demands a modest understanding of how the real formations act and fight.

No points/terrain system so scenarios have to be written with the participants capability and forces considered.

Beginners will have a relatively long learning curve say 10 games to get an understanding of how to implement real world tactics on table. This may require reading up on the real thing.

Dice rolling kept to minimum as its decisions not random factors that are key. Fog off war is intrinsic due to the complexity of the decisions being made (or being forgotten about or just misjudged).

Definitely a possibility of a paracetamol headache.

The Gamers Game

Core Belief: It's a game. No different from chutes and ladders, Monopoly, Tactics II, The Barbie Game, Role playing. Miniature War Games has nothing to do with real war. It is an activity engaged in for half a dozen hours of pleasure, escapism, and having a good time. They prove nothing, least of all that you know anything about running a real battle.

Jokes, puns, funny names and a complete lack of seriousness are the order of the day.

Miniatures are important. Rules are important, Both are important simply to create situations for excitement from the sense of wonder and the spirit of play. Pretty much the same as kids playing in a sand box, only we don't use pebbles to pelt at our exquisitely painted toys. We use dice which are thrown with such enthusiasm they often do the same damage as pebbles.

Rules should never be allowed to get in the way of fun and yuks. The ideal rule size should be wallet sized. The less the better.

Games should move quickly, be learnable so that in three turns you're an expert.

Breaches in reality should never be allowed-- unless they are fun and especially funny.

Games should always allow the underdog a fighting chance, and should have wide swings of fortune to promote excitement.

The emphasis on history should not be with Karl Marx, but Groucho.

My suggest is to do what other hobbies do: They don't define the 'type' of player and what they 'like.' [Modeler or Player etc.]

It only confuses the issue. For instance, "Players Game
Emphasis on game but still models required to get suspension of belief." All games and All simulations require 'a suspension of disbelief' to work, whether 'Chutes and Ladders' or a research computer simulation or a Urban Tactical Exercise. What kind of pretending is desired or required is the issue.

Hobbies define the type of enjoyment the product is designed to offer and let the customer choose… now with buyers having a better idea of what they are getting and designers a more concrete focus for that they are designing.

I recognise neither of those. They don't even figure as the extremes along more moderate lines of game play/design that I play.

The simplest games with loads of dice and unhistorical tactics are often played with basic figures or even, dread thought it may be, unpainted ones.

Plenty of players of simple games are knowledgeable about the period and at least attempt to employ historical tactics.

Your problem is that you concentrate your ideas on too narrow a time span – that has clearly distorted your understanding. There are few periods in which a platoon (or equivalent) would cover 500m and certainly not in the same period in which march columns would be used.

Not true McLaddie. The gulf between "Prototypers" and "Free Lancers" in Model railroading is as acrimonious and wide as between our devotees of "realism" and "playabitlity." There are people who in train shows where a huge "modular" railroad is made will not participate if their module is to be "coupled" to one of the opposite side in a one day event.

In re-enactment it's the "Farbs" against the "campaigners." The farbs are the people who have fancy uniforms and keep them flashy and neat and the campaigners make it a point of pride to never wash their uniforms and pee on their buttons to get the right "patina" of corrosion.

People love to break into factions to slake their own sense of superimportence.

People love to break into factions to slake their own sense of superimportence.

True--to some extent--but you have exaggerated the acrimonious feelings in both hobbies--expressed by a minority on both sides, forgetting those who have expressed far less rancorous views of both approaches to the hobby.

However, that is one reason why hobbies--particularly the ones in the hobby providing the products don't focus on the acrimonious or the 'kind of players' to define the entire hobby or the products they provide for those 'factions'. They design equipment etc. to certain specifications for different tastes--period.

And if our hobby would produce games that actually promote the games on some functional, meaningful basis for 'playability' and 'realism' other than what someone feels after a couple of beers, [nothing wrong with that, just not game design and an awful limited--drug induced--view at that.] that 'acrimonious gulf would not be so wide.

When the products are mystery meat on all levels and any response is 100% feeling, THAT encourages acrimonious responses. [The depth of the discussion: Who are you to say what I should like or not like? Nobody or everybody cares about "X" or I've always seen 'X' according to personal preference and experience.

RC modelers who simply like to fly off the shelf planes on Saturday may think the 'True Scale' modelers are Sphincter-challenged detail drudges who they'd never fly with, let alone share an airfield with. They might feel they are an annoying part of the hobby.

What I've never heard the flyers say is that 'the True Scalers aren't part of the hobby' or that the entire hobby is made up of ONLY flyers who like to fly on an occasional saturday, or that they do it for 'fun' and everyone else is missing out on the 'real hobby.' Or vice versa.

And differences aren't based on whether they simply clear coat the plane or paint it up with authentic WWII camo and markings. [O God, they are playing with unpainted figures… that isn't part of the hobby!]

people love to break into factions to slake their own sense of superimportence.

That is one aspect of human nature, but then hobbies come together as a whole for mutual enjoyment and some hobbies are far more successful in keeping the desire for factions from impeding the drive for community and mutual enjoyment of a hobby. I've just mentioned a couple of methods that most hobbies practice to mitigate those acrimonious aspects of human nature… not change human nature.

All simulations require 'a suspension of disbelief' to work

Disagree. Research simulations (such as you identified) require an acute understanding of what is "real", how "real" it is, what "real" means, and what is not to work properly.

Not to say there aren't researchers who take others' models and run simulations that violate the fundamental constraints of those models to generate information for their own area of expertise. Again, suspension of disbelief works against research sims.

Training is similar. You need an understanding of what is being represented to participate in a realistic way and build habits of mind. But you also need a reasonable awareness of the intent and limits of the simulation (or, the performance environment created by the sim) to avoid (or mitigate) building habits of mind that are inappropriate.

If you want to seriously taxonomize wargames, you first need to identify the salient characteristics of wargames. Those become the basis for distinction and similarity.

As with GildasFacit, I don't recognize your paradigm for taxonomization, so I don't quite get your categories. Or Otto's additional one.

Disagree. Research simulations (such as you identified) require an acute understanding of what is "real", how "real" it is, what "real" means, and what is not to work properly.

Oh, to work at all, any simulation require of a user/player an acute understanding of what is being represented and what is not, what 'real' means but a simulation of ANY kind is an artificial construct,

But let me give you a couple of examples:

A friend of mine in astrophysics did a simulation of galaxies colliding. Now he had a 14" screen and software to represent billions of stars millions of light years away. There was a great deal he didn't know about those galaxies, such as the gravitational relationships between those billions of stars. He developed a program and ran it, thousands of pixels representing billions of stars.

The pixels danced and he had a sequence showing two spiral galaxies colliding. Now, he had to BELIEVE that his artificial 14" screen portrayed something REAL millions of light years across and far, far away. He suspended his disbelief and went looking at photos for colliding galaxies. He found examples showing the same angles of contact and low and behold--the galaxies looked similar to his construct.

Or the chemist that programs a computer to simulate the interactions of chemicals. He gets certain results. He has to believe [and suspend disbelief] that the software does demonstrate something real. But he knew what could be real and what wasn't…he was just playing with pixels and software.

You can kibitz about 'how much' suspension of disbelief, how much pretending has to go on with a research simulation compared to a military exercise or entertaining wargame, but all of them require users to believe [ pretend, act as if real, suspend disbelief ] the artificial construct has some relationship to the real world, past or present. Validation of the simulation is when there is proof that the relationship exists. Like all games, simulations are 'guided pretending.'

Just to quote someone else who was in my line of work, though I've posted this elsewhere:

‘Simulation' is a broad term. But simulation is, by definition, pretending. All simulations are tools that give you ersatz (as opposed to real) experience.

--Marc Prensky, Education and Training Simulator "Interactive Pretending: An Overview of Simulation" Digital Game-based Learning 2007

I can give you any number of similar views from a wide variety of simulation fields.

The OP seems a bit confusing and I'm not sure about the terminology. Again, I think some people focus on the minority of gamers who want to use online discussions by a handful as representative of what happens in actual games.

I often see people trying to use historical tactics in 'games' and the number of rules coming out suggests that lots of people want to have some historical representation, even in a quick club game. I've also played bigger games that involve little dice rolling, but as the game is more about decision-making and not knowing rules, it's a very different kind of stress and whilst it can be exhausting, it *tends* to be more engaging.

Gentlemen,
If you do not recognise a game standard as being one you recognise plaese give it a new name and set out ypur dehinition and add it so we have what folk recognise as a game. THIS IS NOT EXCUSE TO SLAG OF OTHER FOLKS GAMES, or at this stage modify/reject others opinions. Different folk have diferent opinions all are vaid.

I am very carefull to use the term simulation. no game however sophisticated is real, nobody dies which is a key feature of simulations. Plese refrain from the use of the term it should not appear in any deiscussion on game design.

Dear UshCha

I recognize the point of view of games as you enumerated them as valid and held by many. I do not think there is one view of this or one interpretation. "Modelers Game" and "Players Game" are two valid points of view held by various gamers. My own "Gamers Game" is another. There are many more.

You understand, I see, that this point of view of games is intensely idiosyncratic and individual. The problem with recognizing that there are different points of view of the game is that it denies that there is ONE view of the game. Once you deny that there is ONE view of the game you pull the rug out from under people who want to think that their point of view is the correct and only one. At that point it becomes an excuse to slag off other folk's games.

UshCha,

The hobby is more than pushing toy soldiers around. The 'game' is only part of it.

I'm with McLaddie and think that there are different things to get out of the hobby, that different players will want and different desires there can lead to disagreements, even when they choose the same game. This can cause problems when people advertise 'looking for a DBA player in X' or play games because they're popular and can find opponents, which leads to frustration.

There is
- the spectacle
- the social
- the game (in that there is something to win)
- the challenge (whether equal points or scenario)
- the history/fluff
- the context (is this part of a campaign or not)
- the role (does someone want to form squares or order corps)
- the research
- the simulation
- the painting
- the modelling
- the creativity (writing/tweaking rules/imaginations)
- the immersion
- the learning/understanding
- the wider interests (holidays to battlefields, etc.)

I think you could have an interesting time mapping out desires and pairing players based upon that, rather than what they play.

Imagine an advert:

'Hi, more of a History Channel guy than a reader. I can't stand painting but less so than unpainted lead, I like campaigns for the logistical exercise and fog of war as much as the battle, but am happy to play skirmishes every few weeks. I did enjoy a holiday to Normandy and am a fan of castle visits. I'm not fussed about overly-detailed combat resolution as long as it feels plausible and I bring homemade biscuits to the game.'

vs

'Wanted FOW player, preferably with non-German armies.'

I am very carefull to use the term simulation. no game however sophisticated is real, nobody dies which is a key feature of simulations. Plese refrain from the use of the term it should not appear in any deiscussion on game design.

Come again? Why shouldn't if if that is what the game design is attempting to do?

If we are discussing "types of games," the types of gamers and their POV shouldn't be the focus. If you look at Ben's list, there are a huge variety of products and services that are and can be provided gamers… but discussing types of gamers or personal desires doesn't address what games can offer or the categories there of.

Ben – top example would be useless to me, I want to play a game, not go on a date. Bottom example tells me all I need to know (which is that this person isn't a suitable opponent).

Adding to a discussion that is going nowhere useful by making more 'types' would be a pointless exercise.

Maybe to you, perhaps Tony. The point is, that for many people it is a social hobby and focusing on 'the game' as the sole arbitrator of whether you want to spend time with people in the hobby seems ridiculous. It is like dating someone because you like the same TV programme.

I play a wide range of games, but in many cases that's almost the only thing I might have in common with people in terms of what I want out of the hobby.

'Come again? Why shouldn't we if that is what the game design is attempting to do?'

I would say if people are dying in your simulation, then something has gone badly wrong.

There are two types of wargames:

1. The type of games I play;

2. The type of games everyone else is playing.

;-)

Anyway,

There are many dimensions in miniature wargaming. Any given game can position itself along various axes. Reducing everything to a single axis with two extremes seems a bit simple.

I have only really understood about 10% of this topic. I really think there are too many variables in game types and gamer types to be able to actually cover all that would need to be said to meet the OP's proposition in even a long blog post.

Though Phil Dutre (above) has had a fair crack at it :-)

One type of game that I do like is a relatively simple game, in which there is a lot of flavour, but does not require constant referencing. It should be playable in an evening by two players and also be viable as a solitarable game. It needs to be on a topic that I like and not have cards in it. It can be a board game or a figure game or even a boardgame that uses figures. It should have a relatively small footprint with a fast set up and take down time. The rule book should be self contained and not done in the Codex manner.

Does that count as a separate category? :-)

UshCha – are you writing a thesis on the subject or doing a paper of some description? (Serious question – interesting if you are).

'Come again? Why shouldn't we if that is what the game design is attempting to do?'

I would say if people are dying in your simulation, then something has gone badly wrong.

Ben:

From my reading of:

I am very careful to use the term simulation. no game however sophisticated is real, nobody dies which is a key feature of simulations. Please refrain from the use of the term it should not appear in any discussion on game design.

I thought the 'term' that should not appear in any discussion was 'simulation'. Was the term actually
'dies'? Ah, the translating meaning…

There are many dimensions in miniature wargaming. Any given game can position itself along various axes. Reducing everything to a single axis with two extremes seems a bit simple.

That is one reason categories are important : Make Complexities more manageable, easier to identify. What we have now are designers positioning their games along all axis to supposedly appeal to the entire hobby, every game is both playable and historically accurate. What do I mean?

Age of Eagles
Napoleon's Battles
Shako
Piquet
Black Powder
La Salle

All the designers claim those rules are simulations, all claim they are fast playing, all claim that they are historically accurate, all claim they can be played in 2-4 hours. All claim that they are 'fun' to play. All claim to be simpler than say Empire.

But then, obviously simpler rules such as:

Snappy Nappy
Napoleonic C&C
Field of Battle
Blucher
Volley & Bayonet
Old Trousers
Fast Play Grand Armee
Charles Grant's 1974 Napoleonic Rules

Now these rules are 'simpler', but each Designer still states that their rules recreate Napoleonic battle and portray 'the way things were.'

Point being, every single rules set seems to be designed to be all things to all gamers regardless of simplicity or claims of simulation. They all purportedly offer the same things to gamers. So gamers have to play every one to find out which one actually provides 'what they like'… or they change the rules they have or create their own…

You see players attempting to categorize games such as 'old school', but that doesn't really describe much of the actual game mechanics…it assumes some similarities that aren't there between older rules. And of course, when you attempt to categories the qualities of a design, designers and gamers take exception because 1. It goes against the designers' claims of universal qualities and 2. gamers take exception because as the only criteria is now all likes and dislikes, can feel any attempt to categorize games is categorizing THEM and THEIR likes… How many times have we seen such categorizing the players rather than the games?

Bob Jones was well known for his belief that all the games were basically the same, the differences were what the players liked about the games. [There were only two groups]

We have to get beyond what players like [They will like what they like] and start talking about what wargames can provide and how to design them to specifically target various axis, how to identify where they fall on those various axis and what that does AND doesn't provide the players--the consumers.

One type of game that I do like is a relatively simple game, in which there is a lot of flavour, but does not require constant referencing. It should be playable in an evening by two players and also be viable as a solitarable game. It needs to be on a topic that I like and not have cards in it. It can be a board game or a figure game or even a boardgame that uses figures. It should have a relatively small footprint with a fast set up and take down time. The rule book should be self contained and not done in the Codex manner.

Wouldn't it be great to know which games were specifically designed to offer just that. Your description could be the start of a category. The major problem is the "a lot of flavour." What is that? The pictures, the terms used in the rules or something designed into the wargame itself? If so, where do you find it? There is a difference between decoration that is not necessary to play the game--or effects play, and then those things that are integral parts of the system.

About all Dissapointinly that has come out of this is the random element. Clearly there is a diversity of views that could at least be allied to. Some want always a chance for the underdog to turn it round, Basically a relatively high deviation from the mean and high chance of an extreme. To me that is not a merit point. 50% of the time in our game the expected result would be achieved and an extreme at only 5%. This is enough to encourage the use of reserves but not enough to basically degrade the overall progress to a plan. More random to me would degrade the game and be no fun at all. Just snakes and ladders. Clearly a designer needs to declare where on this parameter he stand. This is a potential axes that has been talked about but not defined.

UshCha – I think you may be overestimating the ability of some game designers to understand probability and apply it in some logical manner and the amount that many gamers care, one way or another. In my experience most designers do not look in any depth at the statistical outcomes of their mechanics – or, if they do, they don't take much notice of them.

McLaddie – Macdonalds and a 4 Michelin star place both claim that they serve excellent food, just the way you like it. Both could be right for some people. You have to understand that this type of characterisation is, to a large extent, subjective – in wargaming just as much as for food. You can't get an acceptable set of criteria that even a relatively small group would agree on – look at some discussions on this forum and you will see that even the basic vocabulary of wargaming and game design cannot be agreed on.

While I'd have to agree that it would be good if some scheme could be devised and applied, you are wasting your time trying – it is impossible.

Dear Gildas Facit

You say "McLaddie – Macdonalds and a 4 Michelin star place both claim that they serve excellent food, just the way you like it. Both could be right for some people. You have to understand that this type of characterisation is, to a large extent, subjective – in wargaming just as much as for food. You can't get an acceptable set of criteria that even a relatively small group would agree on – look at some discussions on this forum and you will see that even the basic vocabulary of wargaming and game design cannot be agreed on.

This is absolutely correct. War games is just to closely imbued with the personal point of view to agree even on a common vocabulary.

McLaddie – Macdonalds and a 4 Michelin star place both claim that they serve excellent food, just the way you like it. Both could be right for some people.

GildasFacit:

I am talking about what is on the menus, not the quality or what is right for some people. People can decide that… but how can they do that if both restaurants claim equal quality with NO menus, McDonalds And the 4 Star place saying you can get anything and everything you want through our doors?

People are reduced to asking their friends 'what did you like?' or trying out every restaurant to find their subjective 'just right' or self-determine whether they got a fish taco or a T-bone steak.

Menus. categories. That is what semi-scale and True scale are a part of. A hobby menu of PRODUCTS… not hobby 'types' or telling hobby members what they must like.

This is absolutely correct. War games is just to closely imbued with the personal point of view to agree even on a common vocabulary.

Then you have to explain:
1. why all other hobbies and past times with the same imbued, wholly subjective POV of participants have succeeded in establishing such categories, or
2. why wargaming is sooooo different that it alone among human endeavors, let alone hobby past times, can't come up with a 'common vocabulary.'

[I have an answer to that.]

Categories are tools that guide selection, guide design, guide production and promotion… help people meet their so very subjective preferences. There is no 'right' set of categories, just those that work to provide meaningful choices.

Where would the restaurant industry be if they categorized all food by the customer 'types' rather than the food itself? What would that mean for me as a 'type' if I want to eat at both a 4 star bistro and a McDonald's too? I either accept a limiting stereotype or I don't 'fit in.'

I don't have to explain anything. Go ask Uncle Toby.

Everyone has his own hobby horse he rides. The only unifying factor is that they ride it, and like to ride it. It is emortionally pleasing to them. The emergence of "categories" which are as numerous as there are players times 3 of 4, is a result of the emotions of favoring one point of view over another. As Phil said there are two types of wargames.

1. The type of wargames I play.

2. The types of wargames everyone else plays.

They are united only by the maxim "When I'm at your house I play by your rules."

Whether you have fun in war games, this wargame, or that, is up to you. If you have set your mind to have fun, no matter what you play, you will have fun. If you expect the rules or the game to MAKE you have fun in spite of yourself you will be forever disappointed.

and a 4 Michelin star place

Michelin only hands out 3 stars. ;-)

McLaddie – we seem to be having similar conversations across several threads now and I'd agree that there is no reason why there couldn't be greater discussion around categories. It doesn't mean everyone would follow them, just as lots of people ignored the GNS discussions in RPGs, but I'm not worried about that. It might influence in different ways.

I've a broad background in gaming, but until the last few years it's rarely overlapped. Now I'm doing a fair bit of designing for various audiences and also considering how to 'sell' games which might have a number of different sub-games.

Can I suggest that you start a new thread and outline what you would consider to be your categories, for a starting point at least. TMP might not be the place to have the most productive discussion, but it's a start.

Everyone has his own hobby horse he rides. The only unifying factor is that they ride it, and like to ride it. It is emotionally pleasing to them. The emergence of "categories" which are as numerous as there are players times 3 of 4, is a result of the emotions of favoring one point of view over another. As Phil said there are two types of wargames.

Otto:
You have provided one answer to the question. Categories aren't designed to unify people, they are designed to describe what products offer.

Whether you have fun in war games, this wargame, or that, is up to you. If you have set your mind to have fun, no matter what you play, you will have fun. If you expect the rules or the game to MAKE you have fun in spite of yourself you will be forever disappointed.

Here is another misconception about the topic of categories. This isn't about making anyone have fun any more than menus are about forcing people to enjoy salads.

There are strong resistances to the idea in this hobby… for several reasons, but one is simply a misconception about what categories do. They clarify choices and options and make it easier to find and decide what you want with a product. It isn't about making anyone like anything, or any other 'requirement' for having fun.

McLaddie – we seem to be having similar conversations across several threads now and I'd agree that there is no reason why there couldn't be greater discussion around categories. It doesn't mean everyone would follow them, just as lots of people ignored the GNS discussions in RPGs, but I'm not worried about that. It might influence in different ways.

Ben:
You're right. I think it is because it is a core issue for the hobby products, innovation and other aspects that categories help foster.

I will start another thread. [Only my second I've ever started. ]

You have provided one answer to the question. Categories aren't designed to unify people, they are designed to describe what products offer.

Otto:
I should clarify this. The categories I'm talking about have to do with what game rules are designed to offer.

If folks have some need to create categories of gamers to unify them [or separate them from 'us'], they won't be alone… lots of TMP posters have done that already.

Michelin only hands out 3 stars. ;-)

Gah! They are conspiring to tell me what I should like with an artificially limited grading system. I have a right to my opinion. I say there are four star Michelin restaurants.
[ Note: This is an attempt at irony and sarcasm. ]

Yes, the interests/desires/drivers I listed were not meant as actual dividers – any individual would probably subscribe to most, but to different degrees and that might well change depending on mood and who you're playing with.
For a different thread though.

the interests/desires/drivers I listed were not meant as actual dividers.

Well, I don't think anyone thought that, and the entire list certainly could apply to anyone to some degree.

The reason GNS was not universally embraced was that it didn't work as it was about participants' "Creative agenda." Eventually even its originators abandoned it for what they called the big model and creative agenda became one just one small component.

It was basically an exercise in futility for the same reasons McLaddie is pointing out here. Only add in some derision for previous approaches to play as incoherent or dysfunctional. Eero had the patience of a saint in his voluminous posts on the S in GNS whereas other participants in those discussions just saw S as the dumping ground for all the traditional forms of play they were no longer interested in. GNS became about the Ascension of Narrativism even to the point of people like Morningstar calling other forms of play "null play." What a toxic mess that whole thing was.

The times GNS had any value at all was when specific games were designed to support a given approach, but despite that people still wanted to have their theory be about participant priorities rather than game/product category.

The most valuable thing to come out of GNS was the sharing of information on how to get into self publishing. The actual categorization eventually was abandoned.

I always thought the basic approaches of GNS theory were interesting. For our group at least, it helped us discuss gaming in ways we hadn't before.

Like any theory though, it was prone to internet-clever-people trying to feel better about themselves.

The fundamental distinction between "produce an interesting game, produce an interesting narrative, produce an interesting simulation" and how they interact has value I think, even if some baggage needs to be chucked out or the terms rebranded for wargaming.

The problem, I think, in wargaming is that we really don't have a lot of basis for even beginning to have those conversations because people are so locked into "wargaming" meaning one exact thing.

I rather like the food classification. I eat at McDonald's and at bistros even Indians occasionally. What I was trying to get at was some basic descriptions of game types. This was never aimed at a single unitary game.

Our own game would is a simulation, optimised for 1 player a side. For the serious regular player keen on understanding and implementing tactics close to those of the real world.

There are for example many games out there which are better multi player games with far smaller decision matrixes which probably suit folk better than our game. The aim of this thread was to try and get a comprehensible categories that help like McDonald's or Indian. How much he'll would thre be if you went to a resteraunt and had no clue what food to expect.

I think the elephant in the room is the publishers. They'll market what they want and how they want based on what people are buying. The big companies have enough money, marketing power and distribution to shove anything they want down people's throats.

If they get a large enough following other gamers will be forced to compromise and play something they normally would not play. Eye candy will dominate more than the rules.

That's how I see it anyhow.

Wolfhag