"Sam Mustafa's Rommel - initial thoughts on options" Topic

My first post got published twice in two different threads, so I've deleted them and reposted it again here.

link

I was very interested in these until I saw they were square based. Just a prejudice I have.

I wasn't originally keen on the idea of area movement games but I thought Square Bashing worked very well and I came to appreciate how their inherent precision stops the cheating and disputes I have seen in free movement games.

In the latter players inevitably take advantage of manipulating distances and angles in ways no real-life generals could. Maybe that's not so bad in low-level tactical games, but in high-level games it's probably a good thing to isolate the players from such considerations and temptations.

I'll certainly have a look at it when it comes out, as it seems aimed at the level we tend to read about in history books, but like Crispy, I'm not a fan of square based games even allowing that docphalanx makes a very valid point.

Still, looking forward to it!

I would argue the problem with "manipulating angles and distances" is a gamer issue, not a rules issue. I don't play with people like that, life is too short.

So for me area movement is a solution in search of a problem.

It's many years since I've played an outright cheat but it's sometimes unavoidable in a club context unless you want to cause a scene. People soon get the reputation they deserve!

Then there are players, often with overwhelmingly strong personalities, who are so absorbed by the desire to win, that they can be gamey when it suits them but oppose it in others, and don't have the self-consciousness to realise their own bias.

And then there are perfectly straight players who line things up because that's the way the rules work. My point is simply that AMGs level the playing field. You send stuff from A to B, not deliberately falling short or critically angling a unit. It's the difference between tactical manoeuvre and making (less detailed) operational decisions which is why I think area movement could be good for this scale of representation.

In a Mandy RiceDavis sort of a way I would agree with Doc. Of course it is a subjective issue. Grids have been very popular with me and after 50 years of gaming they seem logical and appropriate to me. I suspect that GW or similar will use a grid in an upcoming game and unleash a mass of "I always thought grids were great" type comments. Grids just make game easier in allowing the commander to concentrate on his tactics rather than measuring. The debate continues!

I stand firmly in the hex/grid camp. It speeds play. Not only no measuring but no arguing.

Joe

Here's Sam's own rationale for switching to a grid approach:

link

I hate podcasts. I like to read. I am sure I am in the minority but was really hoping to read what he had to say.

Joe

I just listen to the podcast as I was painting some samurai last night… Great piece. Sam is very thoughtful and able to explain his points well. I would give it a listen, way too much to try to summarize in a piece of writing.

I hated the idea of a card based war game to begin with, at least until I tried it, so I'm willing to give this a try to :-)

Wow, a lot of errors in that post. My bad; used voice dictation and didn't double check:(