UshCha | 29 Aug 2016 1:10 p.m. PST |
In looking at the latest crop of Commecial games I realise they all work on the idiotic equal armies principal. Almost all real battles are attack/defence. Phil Barker got this right even with a dreaded points system. Thus the realism of wargames is moving backwards. Its becoming increasingly a game with little connection with reality appart from the use scale models in bizzare games. This to me is very diassapointing. Does this mean Holliwood has won with such poor portrayals of battles like Fury which at the end was more like a very poor spastick comedy than a battle? |
ITALWARS | 29 Aug 2016 1:15 p.m. PST |
i think it means, among other things, that we have less and less time to read, understand and play with tabletop wargame rules…so the easiest way is unrealistic but quick and fun games |
Tgerritsen | 29 Aug 2016 1:22 p.m. PST |
Examples? Or are you just tilting at windmills? |
boy wundyr x | 29 Aug 2016 1:26 p.m. PST |
A lot depends on what scope you're talking about too. |
Weasel | 29 Aug 2016 1:31 p.m. PST |
I'd suggest that: A: Not every game attempts to be a simulation. B: Not every gamer wants a simulation. C: Not every simulation is simulating real life. Looking at recent commercial titles, Team Yankee is simulating a dramatic novel for example.
Hence, its design requirements would be different from someone creating a simulation of Afghanistan infantry patrols or a simulation of superhero combat. This is leaving out the marketing aspect: A points-driven game with recognizable cold war units, suited for pick-up-and-play had a ready market looking to purchase it. |
Who asked this joker | 29 Aug 2016 1:38 p.m. PST |
No game is a simulation. It's called warGAMING for a reason. Even this whole equal sides thing can be changed with some simple rules. Neil Thomas' rules are all equal sided gaming. You could play out a big battle using his rules by just saying each unit is a brigade or something and go with that. Problem solved. Or are you talking about tournament gaming? If so then i am afraid you will be disappointed. Tournament players play these games to win. they will use the most powerful combinations they can come up with. It has little to do with the army lists except where the list limits them. |
deephorse | 29 Aug 2016 1:51 p.m. PST |
I hope you meant 'slapstick' comedy. |
Miniatureships | 29 Aug 2016 1:57 p.m. PST |
Who wants to play a game where at the out set of the game you already know that you have lost? Years ago I ran a battle of Shiloh game. I went with what I believed to be historical sides, plus I included rules to the game that restricted a player from reacting until certain events took place. The game played out very similar to the actual battle. The reactions of the players. Most had a good time, because even given the size differences and added rule restrictions, there was still that element of gaming that said, either side could win. One player hated the game because he believed that if your going to do ANY historical simulation, then don't use rules, just read the account and the players move the figures accordingly. He was the store owner and from that point on NO simulations were allowed for gaming ACW, just come up with the points allowed each player and what side they would be, and roll dice. |
VVV reply | 29 Aug 2016 2:08 p.m. PST |
Yep points are with us and I will tell you a secret, they don't work. Thats right no points system is ever fair because different troop types will be more effective or not, depending on the terrain or the situation. But they have their place for the standard club 2 hour wargame. |
rmaker | 29 Aug 2016 2:37 p.m. PST |
It appears to me that the OP either has an authority problem or is short on creativity. Just because the examples and/or introductory scenario of a ruleset are balanced doesn't mean that you are locked in to that situation. The author(s) an/or publisher(s) aren't going to force their way into your game room and repossess the rule book if you fight unbalanced scenarios. Don't like the points system? Don't use it. Oh, and by the way, there is a lot more to this hobby than GW and Battlefront. |
Pictors Studio | 29 Aug 2016 2:53 p.m. PST |
"The author(s) an/or publisher(s) aren't going to force their way into your game room and repossess the rule book if you fight unbalanced scenarios." No, but the fans of the game might. GW tried to do this with Age of Sigmar. they basically said, here is a game that you can use to fight narrative battles. We aren't putting points in because we want it to be narrative. The entire gaming universe went ape So a year later they put the points back in and now people can do the math they want to do to figure out what is the most effective unit and so on. |
MajorB | 29 Aug 2016 2:56 p.m. PST |
Who wants to play a game where at the out set of the game you already know that you have lost? Nobody does. But if you adjust the victory conditions so that the loser in the "foregone conclusion" can have a chance of doing better than his historical equivalent, then it can make for tense and interesting games. |
Weasel | 29 Aug 2016 2:57 p.m. PST |
A points system only has to be work "good enough" to do its job. |
Robert666 | 29 Aug 2016 2:57 p.m. PST |
He meant 'slapstick comedy' move on. |
gamershs | 29 Aug 2016 3:36 p.m. PST |
I enjoyed playing Cold War games in the 70s and 80s where a heavily outnumbered NATO blocking force fought a Warsaw Pact assault. You were not going to STOP the Warsaw Pact but the idea was inflict maximum casualties, slow down the advance and force the Warsaw Pact to commit reserves that would be needed later. You as NATO may be forced off the table but if you kept your forces intact and hurt the enemy you won! |
Winston Smith | 29 Aug 2016 4:14 p.m. PST |
To the OP. Is anybody forcing you to play equal battles, or even points? No? Hmmmmm….. All that rules can give you is mechanisms on how to do things. How you apply them and set up a scenario is up to you. If you like the mechanisms, use them. As said above, there are no "perfect" points systems. They are just a guide. The wargaming "press" is full of crybabies whining that Glorious Fields of Flaming Gore is "broken" because 2000 points of Garnetia cannot fight 2000 points of Sapphiria. So don't play points. Do scenarios. We have been playing Flames of War (GASP!!!!) for years using unequal points scenarios and campaigns. Guess what. It works quite well. |
rmaker | 29 Aug 2016 4:22 p.m. PST |
I've got no problems with unbalanced (or even hopeless – think Alamo or Camarone) scenarios, but they aren't good for learning the rules OR for introducing newbies to miniature gaming, which are the two purposes of introductory scenarios. Imagine yourself on the wrong end of this scenario: "Hi, Tommy, you wanted to learn about colonial gaming, so today we're going to do Intombe Drift and YOU get to be the Brits!" Think you'll ever see Tommy at the table again?. For those not in the know, Intombe Drift saw a half company of British infantry split between the two sides of the drift, attacked at dawn by a vastly superior force of Zulus. |
Dynaman8789 | 29 Aug 2016 4:57 p.m. PST |
Plenty of non-equal rules sets out there, just stay away from the flashiest ones to find them. |
Winston Smith | 29 Aug 2016 5:00 p.m. PST |
Who wants to play a game where at the out set of the game you already know that you have lost? Nobody does. But if you adjust the victory conditions so that the loser in the "foregone conclusion" can have a chance of doing better than his historical equivalent, then it can make for tense and interesting games.
I doubt that. Just this morning here I was musing on the Paoli Massacre, where "No Flint" Grey massacred 100 Continentals as they slept. Would you consider it an interesting victory condition for the Continentals if the British were held to 50, or if it took twice as long to do it? I would think the GM was nuts. |
Winston Smith | 29 Aug 2016 5:03 p.m. PST |
The only reason people are eager to game the Alamo is because it's famous and almost mythic. The Paoli Massacre is just as dirty and just as much a massacre, but without any mythic airs to give tone to an unseemly brawl. |
Bede19002 | 29 Aug 2016 5:15 p.m. PST |
Does wargaming have a larger share of cranks than other hobbies? Or are the model railroaders (for example) the same? |
dragon6 | 29 Aug 2016 6:27 p.m. PST |
I'd say the train guys are at least as bad. |
Weasel | 29 Aug 2016 6:57 p.m. PST |
What do train guys argue about? |
Eumerin | 29 Aug 2016 7:16 p.m. PST |
If you've got guys who can set up scenarios for every single game, then more power to you. But a lot of groups (your typical FLGS, for instance) needs something that deals with the situation in which two random guys show up looking to play the same game. These guys aren't going to play a scenario because they probably don't have the time to put the scenario together. Plus, if they don't know each other very well, they might not trust each other to build a balanced scenario. Points systems deal with all of that. |
Extra Crispy | 29 Aug 2016 9:14 p.m. PST |
And a list of games that are "better." Why not just play those? |
Martin Rapier | 30 Aug 2016 12:08 a.m. PST |
I'd like to see an actual list of these disappointing commercial equal battle games before commenting. The last two sets I bought not two weeks ago make no mention of equal battles and appear to be stuffed with historical scenarios. Which is why I bought them. |
martin goddard | 30 Aug 2016 2:13 a.m. PST |
Every single one of the 20 sets of Peter Pig rules are attack/defence. The aim for rules is to become more elegant. Early rule sets (Featherstone, Bath etc)tended to just give the mechanics of the game rather than any scenario creation or evaluation of success criteria. Do try a PP set if they cover a period that you are interested in. Ata guess (i have no statistics) there are probably 1000 sets of war-game rules in active production. That number grows each year albeit a fair few are just copies/variations on existing ideas Good discussion martin
martin |
UshCha | 30 Aug 2016 10:28 a.m. PST |
The responses to the somwewhat contervercial post are interesting. Obviously there are shades of grey but there are clearly groups who have distinctly diffrent (but of course equally valid)opinions. Only a few note that in the real world the typical wargame game does not occour or more to the pont it is not worthy of comment. The game overides the simulation. Winning seems to be the thing and that seems to generally to require roughly equal armies. Ajusting victory conditions does not seem to gain favor with many. The intresting issue of the rejection of GW narative game, I must admit it is flashier (and better) than our statement that we are just telling a story. More significant is the fact that we only play that sort of game. In many scenarios it would be a wise man who could fortell how they will end. How long can you hold off the soviet hords? The game will tell and you will know whether you fought well or not. That is our best most enjoyable games. You may re-design or just re-visit a scenario if one or both feel they have done better but it is raley not an intersting and enjoyable game. This is the simulation side and does not seem overly popular. Clearly game designers head for a specific market and that has a very clear idea what that market wants and goes for it. That market does not have enough drivers to invest in uneven battles typicaly. They are generaly not what is wanted by a large section,so do not supply that part. Leaving that open for personal interpretation. These are interesting issues. That there are a few who want more is attested to by the Skirmish Canpains (for which I have no connection but did buy some of the Normandy books. For those that worry about miss spelling you are welcome, if life offers you no other opertunities for entertainment feel free to continue, I would hate to spoil so little that you have. |
deephorse | 30 Aug 2016 12:40 p.m. PST |
Well I'm happy to have you clarify that it was a spelling mistake and not the intentional use of a different word altogether. |
sillypoint | 30 Aug 2016 2:42 p.m. PST |
|
rmaker | 30 Aug 2016 2:45 p.m. PST |
What do train guys argue about? As a sample (not exhaustive): That's the wrong color for Scalplock and Defiance coaches! That's not how you operate a hump yard! You're gauge (whether G, #1, O, O27, S, OO, HO, TT, N, Z or something else) is no good! Mine is the only proper gauge! |
Lion in the Stars | 30 Aug 2016 3:38 p.m. PST |
But a lot of groups (your typical FLGS, for instance) needs something that deals with the situation in which two random guys show up looking to play the same game. These guys aren't going to play a scenario because they probably don't have the time to put the scenario together. Plus, if they don't know each other very well, they might not trust each other to build a balanced scenario. Exactly. For several years, Infinity really suffered from this problem, there weren't any scenarios known to be balanced so people just played kill-em-all. And that gets really dang boring. That's been fixed, now, but it took probably 6 years before we got balanced scenarios published. |
VVV reply | 31 Aug 2016 5:51 a.m. PST |
Lets see of the 5 scenarios in Action all Fronts (WW2 rules). One is a Meeting engagement with equal points, one is defence with equal points (half the defenders army arrives as reinforcements), one is defence with the attackers having 30% more points, one is defence with equal points but victory can be achieved by meeting victory conditions rather than just 'beating' the enemy and the last one is capture prisoners within a limited number of moves, with the attacker having twice the points. Good enough for you? |
Rudysnelson | 31 Aug 2016 6:57 a.m. PST |
It is all equal battles only if you want it to be equal battles. Even back in the 1980s when I designed a lot of board and miniature systems for myself and others, that was a point of debate. The always equal battles is sometimes referred to as meeting engagements. But as I said this does not always have to be the case. When we did Glory, Fire and Discipline and the WW2 Fire! Ogon! Freur! we included a scenario generation system. These are all low level tactical and skirmish systems. In FOF, due to the number of years, major Axis enemies, seasons, force ratios and missions, There were over 2,200 basic scenarios that could be outlined. The force ratio varied from 3:1, to 3:2 to 1:1 to 1:3. Missions ran the gambit between 5 types as well. More could be designated as desired. With the GLORY skirmish rules, we released LIFE in the FOURTEENTH which was a campaign system where you were the commander of an outpost for a year. This also had an extensive scenario generation system, so there was hardly ever a balanced force meeting engagement. So it is up to you to avoid balanced force meeting engagements. |
ubercommando | 31 Aug 2016 2:28 p.m. PST |
I can't think of a single set of wargames rules where you can't ignore the points system and design your own scenarios. There, problem solved. I'm more concerned that modern war games rules emphasise simplicity. I like simplicity, don't get me wrong, and it's great for club night games where you have lots of players who need to get up to speed with the rules quickly. But sometimes a nice, complicated game where there are more options and considerations is what I prefer to get the brain stimulated more. |
MajorB | 31 Aug 2016 2:36 p.m. PST |
I doubt that. Just this morning here I was musing on the Paoli Massacre, where "No Flint" Grey massacred 100 Continentals as they slept. Would you consider it an interesting victory condition for the Continentals if the British were held to 50, or if it took twice as long to do it? I would think the GM was nuts. Well the Paoli Massacre was not exactly a battle. I agree if one side is unable to fight back it's not much of a game, but that is very much an exception. Think Isandlwhana, Camerone or the Alamo rather than Paoli… |
MajorB | 31 Aug 2016 2:39 p.m. PST |
That's been fixed, now, but it took probably 6 years before we got balanced scenarios published. will someone please tell me what makes a scenario "balanced"? |
Who asked this joker | 31 Aug 2016 4:08 p.m. PST |
will someone please tell me what makes a scenario "balanced"? When both players feel like they always had a chance to win throughout the game? |
thehawk | 01 Sep 2016 1:59 a.m. PST |
Thus the realism of wargames is moving backwards. Its becoming increasingly a game with little connection with reality appart from the use scale models in bizzare games. Agreed. |
Blutarski | 01 Sep 2016 6:58 a.m. PST |
I'm not dispensing any timeless wisdom here. This hobby attracts both the strangest and the most interesting folks (occasionally one and the same) I have ever had the pleasure of meeting and they seem to find their way to this hobby for a galaxy of reasons. Some like a simple and amusing diversion while draining their latest six-pack; some are furiously rehearsing for their planned campaign of world conquest and domination; some are interested in simulating history (I plead guilty, your honors) – and we gravitate to those who share our interests and proclivities. So, in all humility and honesty, let me just close by saying that I think |
Lion in the Stars | 01 Sep 2016 7:53 a.m. PST |
will someone please tell me what makes a scenario "balanced"? When both players feel like they always had a chance to win throughout the game?
Thought that was self-explanatory? |
Skarper | 01 Sep 2016 10:14 p.m. PST |
Points based games are easy to set up. They are the fast food of gaming. Finely crafted scenarios are the gourmet dinner party. Someone sweats in the kitchen for days to get everything just so. You need gourmet players to make it worth the effort. Much easier to just go to a food court and tell everyone to go get the food they want then all sit down and eat. A points based game is never going to be a great game – but it's an efficient return for negligible effort. Many rules sets are written to sell figures. They don't much care if the games are top notch as long as people buy the figures. So easy pick up games abound. That said, there are many private groups who are playing more serious games – they just don't get noticed. |
Blutarski | 02 Sep 2016 7:08 a.m. PST |
+1 Skarper. Well put indeed. My problem is that I have become bored to tears with the "fast food" games, as you have so aptly described them. B |
Weasel | 02 Sep 2016 10:02 a.m. PST |
Sometimes I feel like the only person in the world that played a game of warhammer 40K and didn't use the points system :-) |
Balthazar Marduk | 02 Sep 2016 7:21 p.m. PST |
Modern rules trends try to out-do one another with how progressive and "fast playing" they are. I want mathematically sensible rules sets that make practical sense. |
Gamesman6 | 03 Sep 2016 1:20 a.m. PST |
If my experience with clothes was like mine with buying wargames rules, it would be buying a lot of expensive label products cutting them in to scraps of cloth and then sitting at a sewing machine and sewing that back together again in new and interesting ways… I wouldnt have worn anything I bought as I bought it… |
Weasel | 03 Sep 2016 12:31 p.m. PST |
A normal war game: Two infantry platoons both at perfect text-book strength meet each other during a routine patrol. The losing platoon is completely wiped out while the winner took only 55% casualties. A realistic war game: Two infantry platoons both at perfect text-book strength meet each other during a routine patrol.
The losing platoon is completely wiped out while the winner took only 55% casualties. There was reaction fire. :-)
|
UshCha | 04 Sep 2016 11:17 a.m. PST |
Weasel, Sensible tactics on platoon patrol with a point man. Most likely real result, stalemate with probably 25% casualties on both sides if they were top noch troops. Proably less if both sides are not well trained. I think you have been round Holywood too long. In world war 2 platoons have met and walked past each other. :-). |
Blutarski | 04 Sep 2016 12:33 p.m. PST |
LOL, UshCha. Reminds me of du Picq's account of French and Russian patrols stumbling upon each other one night in the Crimea. According to him, both parties resorted to throwing a few rocks at one another, then fled in opposite directions. B |