Lee494 | 09 Dec 2017 3:28 a.m. PST |
I have noticed dramatic decline in GW and FoW in my area. ADLG has taken over even WWII gamers. And board games are back. Is it perhaps that gamers are tired of the time, trouble and expense of large miniatures games? Is smaller now better? Which do you prefer large or small. Lee |
ZULUPAUL | 09 Dec 2017 3:36 a.m. PST |
Smaller. I paint slowly & sporadically so a small game like Lion Rampant fits my preferences. I also like DBA/Hotts. |
Andy ONeill | 09 Dec 2017 3:38 a.m. PST |
I prefer skirmish and don't know what an ADLG is. |
advocate | 09 Dec 2017 3:48 a.m. PST |
I enjoy the full range, but practical limits – club nights allow 4 hours including setup and clear up – mean large battles are few and far between. |
Green Tiger | 09 Dec 2017 4:23 a.m. PST |
Large -I do smaller stuff but my primary interest is strategy and you don't really get that in a skirmish. |
Fred Cartwright | 09 Dec 2017 4:43 a.m. PST |
ADLG is L'Art de la Guerre I assume, which is an ancients/medieval set. I tend to play short games around the 2 Hour Mark from start to finish, but like the occasional all day game. Short games are not necessarily skirmish though. |
UshCha | 09 Dec 2017 4:49 a.m. PST |
I think I prefer to say long or short. A short game is one that lasts one eveing at the club and is basicaly a tactical game. Long is a game that takes a lot of bounds to play (best so fat is 150+ bounds) and involves as it should tactics, strategy and logistics. I like both the long games are far more demanding but in consequence more vrewarding but there are times where the demands are too high to do it all the time and a short fun game has its appeal. I am not a modeller most games long or short use minis painted only cruely, suffice to be acceptable at 4 ft. Over detailed painting to me is a closed book. The greatest step forward for the Long game is the Tablet. You can record the situation at the end of the day in minutes ready for the next week or later. Leaving more time for the inevitable planning during the week. |
Dale Hurtt | 09 Dec 2017 5:36 a.m. PST |
What happens with me is that I generally start small and over time try to build the games up to larger ones. Sometimes I succeed and can sustain the painting effort that goes with it. Most of the time I do not. I tend towards smaller scales for larger battles, so the effect is that the table sizes remain the same. |
14Bore | 09 Dec 2017 5:37 a.m. PST |
Large, very large, its just being a single it takes a lot of effort. |
warwell | 09 Dec 2017 5:38 a.m. PST |
|
robert piepenbrink | 09 Dec 2017 6:00 a.m. PST |
Small, but bigger than skirmish or RPG. I think Daniel Morgan at Cowpens or Wellington at Talaverya are an appropriate level for a miniature commander, while being Napoleon at Borodino or von Moltke at Gravelotte St Privat staring at the map of battlefields they can't see are more board game--or computer game--territory. |
Fred Cartwright | 09 Dec 2017 6:04 a.m. PST |
I am not a modeller most games long or short use minis painted only cruely Ouch! You paint your minis cruelly?! :-) |
FlyXwire | 09 Dec 2017 6:42 a.m. PST |
I think I prefer, and prefer to host games that only accommodate from 2-6 players (scenarios which can run with 2 players, but can stretch to 6). I like to maximize opportunities for participants to be presented with a number of points for making command decisions during a game (this is how I like and hope to be involved in playing games too). When games get too big – with lots of lead to push, and lots of players to manage, the pace of the gaming experience often slows, and the moments for meaningful command decisions come more slowly too. I remember decades ago (gosh, it's been 40+ years now) seeing the impressive, large, linear warfare tables at the cons, where you could pass by in the morning, and later pass by in the afternoon with seemingly nothing changed on the tabletop (except the player's sagging postures around them – some of these large games seemed to lack a large reason for why they should be played). Some games look terrific and beg "play-me", but then once involved, a player realizes he's got very few opportunities to make any meaningful command decisions (he/her is merely playing a part in animating the lead on the table with little chance to alter the course of the action – except perhaps with terrific dice rolling!). I guess what I'm hoping to stress in my comments here, is where emphasis should be placed so participants enjoy challenging themselves over the tabletop, it's not always "big" that succeeds in this, but rather "more" engaging opportunity – and it's my experience that this often occurs more in the smaller, more intimate gaming experiences too. |
21eRegt | 09 Dec 2017 6:54 a.m. PST |
FoW is a large game? Boy, have times changed. I very much prefer large(r) games. Setting up an attractive table is important to me and it just isn't worth the effort for a two hour game. I won't play a game designed to be an hour. A good two session game with 1000+ figures is just my cup of tea. Even if I am an American. ;-) |
WLBartlett | 09 Dec 2017 6:57 a.m. PST |
I prefer skirmish games. It takes less time to prepare minis and terrain and set up is easier too. Most of my gaming is solo, so I end up doing both sides. I also find with large games, the players tend to get distracted and it causes lots of delay, resulting in too much standing around and not enough engagement for me. A 3 x 3 table, with a little terrain and a handful of minis on either side gives a fun game. regards, Bill |
Early morning writer | 09 Dec 2017 7:27 a.m. PST |
Large. Skirmish is a dice or card game more than a war game. And large doesn't require large numbers of bodies – the trick is faster playing rules. Though, true, more figures mean more time pushing them around than making the decisions. But well done, a large game well presented is a true visual feast that will live in memory for a very long time. I've yet to play a truly memorable skirmish level game. Fun? Sure. Just not memorable. By the way, the whole 'card' phenomenon has gone overboard – pretty, sure, but miniature war gaming is about the miniatures! Board gaming is a whole different hobby in my opinion and far too time consuming for those I ever came into contact. Though there is great irony in how long it takes to put a large war game collection together. |
23rdFusilier | 09 Dec 2017 7:27 a.m. PST |
Robert Piepenrink said it better in his post here then I could. It is important to me which regiment I am pushing about the table, which brigade they belong to and their history. I get as much enjoyment from researching the regiments I paint as I do commanding them. So I would say regimental or brigade level commands for the games I like best. Which I why I am drawn to periods like War of 1812 or American Rev War. |
wizbangs | 09 Dec 2017 7:58 a.m. PST |
It was the spectacle of a large, colorful army arrayed in a table that got me into the hobby in the first place (where I started as a board gamer). I went through the skirmish phase, but it always left me wanting for something more. My niche is a game with 2 players that can last for hours. If we don't finish in an evening it remains set up in my hobby room & we continue it next time. Taking good photos of the battles is part of the hobby for me. |
Zeelow | 09 Dec 2017 8:05 a.m. PST |
|
Lascaris | 09 Dec 2017 8:15 a.m. PST |
Large(ish). I find the maneuver and use of reserves in "battles" vs skirmishes to be of more interest. I have a dedicated game room so it doesn't matter how long it takes to play to conclusion although with modern rule sets even relatively large engagements can be fought fairly quickly. |
ChrisBBB2 | 09 Dec 2017 8:29 a.m. PST |
+1 to what FlyXwire said. I prefer large historical battles but in the form of club-night-sized games, where "club-night-sized" means playable by 2-6 players on 6'x4' in a 3- or 4-hour session. To quote from the introduction to BBB: "We were tired of trying to recreate [major battles] with rules that needed 20 players to wargame on a basketball court for a week." Chris Bloody Big BATTLES! link bloodybigbattles.blogspot.co.uk |
FlyXwire | 09 Dec 2017 8:50 a.m. PST |
…and like Chris says, and with much of what's been penned by all posting here, much depends on our game-playing environment – do we play primarily at a club, hobby shop, or for during a con's limited time slot (with transport to the event's considerations) – or at home with/or without time or setup issues? Another thought, one gamer's "battle game" for 2 players might be a "skirmish game" for 6. |
Extra Crispy | 09 Dec 2017 9:07 a.m. PST |
My club meets every Monday and we have the luxury of a club house so we can leave games set up over time. We have 8 or 10 tables on wheels so even our skirmish games can cover 6 tables! That said, I much prefer grand tactical games to skirmish level games. "Size" does not affect my preference if "size" means either miniature scale or available playing space. I would rather play Waterloo on a 2x3 table than "Sharpe's Rifles" on a 12 x6. That said, I enjoy them all, and the cameraderie most of all. |
UshCha | 09 Dec 2017 9:10 a.m. PST |
Must admit I almost never play more than one player a side. Generally multi player games involve inexpert players without much tactical knowledge. They are more social than actually challenging games. Fred Cartright, a 1/144 mini at 4+ feet needs nothing more. but the same really applies to 1/72 ( warGAMES figures do not exist bigger than this ;-) at least to me ). If you are looking at it closely you are not playing the game just lollgaging. |
Legion 4 | 09 Dec 2017 9:26 a.m. PST |
Bn/Bn TF, + or – … all we do is 6mm … |
FlyXwire | 09 Dec 2017 9:34 a.m. PST |
I just realized we've all been snookered into the old size does matter argument! (well done Lee) ;) :))) |
donlowry | 09 Dec 2017 10:15 a.m. PST |
As large as the table can accommodate -- or maybe a bit larger. |
Tin hat | 09 Dec 2017 10:21 a.m. PST |
Large- even huge. Never been interested in skirmish games. It's what drew me to wargaming in the first place. It's the spectacle of the thing and seeing thousands of troops ranked up with flags and cavalry is to me what it's all about, even if I only play a few games a year. |
Blutarski | 09 Dec 2017 10:26 a.m. PST |
Blutarski's Law (number 67) – The planning, preparation and logistics required to deliver a successful game varies according to the square of the number of participating players. Blutarski's Law (number 68) – The satisfaction and enjoyment derived from a truly successful and enjoyable game varies according to the square of the number of participating players. B |
Frederick | 09 Dec 2017 10:33 a.m. PST |
I prefer large games but tend to play more small games as noted they are hard to stage – I do have the luxury of a basement so can keep things set up At the local club we do about a 50:50 mix of large and small games – when I run the games I tend to use either Hail Caesar or Black Powder SYW so largish |
robert piepenbrink | 09 Dec 2017 11:02 a.m. PST |
I notice some of us are talking large or small in terms of the battles represented and others in terms of the number of players involved. Both perfectly reasonable, but let's try not to talk past each other. For clarity, my preference for brigade and division in horse and musket assumed one commander a side, though I'm perfectly happy to command a brigade or so in a well-managed larger game. Which can be a problem. I agree with Blutarski's Law #67: every additional player adds to scheduling problems, difficulties in making sure everyone understands the rules and game design problems in making sure everyone participates. but I'm not convinced of Law #68. It takes a lot of work on the day to put on a 20-player game, and I'm not by any means convinced it's 100 times the fun of a 2 player game. [2 squared is 4. 20 squared is 400.] Ten times, perhaps. |
Nashville | 09 Dec 2017 11:08 a.m. PST |
Here in Tennessee, if the board isn't at least a dozen feet long , and a cast of thousands we are not happy.
|
Fred Cartwright | 09 Dec 2017 12:25 p.m. PST |
Fred Cartright, a 1/144 mini at 4+ feet needs nothing more. but the same really applies to 1/72 ( warGAMES figures do not exist bigger than this ;-) at least to me ). If you are looking at it closely you are not playing the game just lollgaging. It was a joke. You put cruelly when I think you meant crudely. :-) But I think you are right there is a limit beyond which any additional level of painting is a waste of time as 99% of the time you can't see it. |
TMPWargamerabbit | 09 Dec 2017 12:44 p.m. PST |
Since we generally play with a "player team" format for each side the scenario tend to be medium to larger battles using 25/28mm miniatures (napoleonic or ancients) or 20mm for WWII using FOW. Just played a 12,000 points per side America vs. Soviet 1945 post war scenario, commonly called a "TankFest or Tanksgiving" game on the weekend after T Day. Table was 16x6 in size. Napoleonic games mostly historical scenarios for single corps per side, maybe a second corps… depends on scenario and period. Still, the larger scenario beckons once a month with four or five players per side. the northern Los Angeles (Winnetka) gaming warren is open to all, including visitors passing through the city. All games or scenarios posted on the Wargamerabbit blog with lists of games (all periods) and most have AAR write ups: link Michael aka WR P.S. Even the local FOW group plays multiple player team games using V3 rules. A small game of Saalfeld 1806:
A larger game for Ligny 1815:
A larger FOW game *The Ordeal of the 179th RCT at Salerno 1943:
|
UshCha | 09 Dec 2017 12:54 p.m. PST |
Fred, my reply was supposed to be funny ;-). In my opinion game fun is inversely proportional to the square of the number of players. Each player adds more inexperience and less tactical knowledge hence less demanding and challenging game. What is interesting is that most folk assume the bigger battles mean more on table at one time. In my case that is not really true. Big games to us are where we still only model a small frontage but over say 10Km of depth. The battles and terrain are such that companies run out of men, material, fuel and ammo before that distance is reached, so husbanding resources of possibly 2 battalions is required to get to the end despite typically only a company being engaged at any one time. More is required if its tough and counter attacks can be expected. A chess match with several players would not be so interesting as a game. Perhaps as a social event but to me there are better social hobbies, Dominoes for instance. |
Legion 4 | 09 Dec 2017 2:41 p.m. PST |
Some great looking tables and models there guys ! |
Mark 1 | 09 Dec 2017 4:21 p.m. PST |
|
Mark 1 | 09 Dec 2017 4:24 p.m. PST |
Wha da … ??? No, I did not plagerize an Armand look-at-this posting. Did the bug eat my entire noveletta on game size? -Mark (aka: Mk 1) |
Mark 1 | 09 Dec 2017 4:25 p.m. PST |
Big or small might well be comparative, and so beg the question big or small compared to what? That answer might change from one gamer to another, and certainly might change from one period to another. My games are focused on the 20th century -- WW2 up through the end of the cold war. So what I consider reasonably large might be pretty small by Napoleonics or Ancients gamers. Much as Legion 4 suggested, my own gaming preference is for battles that are about a battalion-sized battlegroup per side. Occasionally I have scaled this up to multiple battalions per side, but I have not been satisfied with the gaming results. My experience shows me that my games work best with each player running about one company with attachments. So if I can get 4 or 5 guys together I can build a game of the scale I prefer. If not, it's just a bit smaller. I like to provide enough room for maneuver. With direct-fire weapons reaching out to 3Km or so, in a maneuver environment I like to provide more than 4km in the short dimension, and 5-8km in the long direction. My games run longer than the 3-4 hours some describe for a typical club game night. More typical would be a full day, with set-up taking an hour or more, and tear down perhaps again as much. For cons, the few times I've put games on I have tried to reserve two or three slots in a row, and have set it all up at home before packing to go to the con, to speed the set-up at the event. It is important to me which regiment I am pushing about the table, which brigade they belong to and their history. I get as much enjoyment from researching the regiments I paint as I do commanding them. I identify with this comment quite strongly. Although I am not focused on the individual regiments, I am deeply focused on the arms and the armies I collect and paint up. I absolutely get as much, or more, enjoyment from researching the stuff I paint as I do from gaming with them. It's almost as if I was a stamp collector, except I get to paint my stamps and occasionally spread them out on a table and go "Pew pew, I GOT ya!". -Mark (aka: Mk 1) |
Sobieski | 09 Dec 2017 6:22 p.m. PST |
Real battles any day, not skirmishes. |
Lion in the Stars | 09 Dec 2017 7:07 p.m. PST |
Depends on the setting. I like Infinity for scifi (~10 men per side). I like Flames of War for moderns and WW2 (1:1 figure:man, but roughly a company per side, call it ~250 figures per side) ~250 figures per side is about my max for figure count. But if I'm playing Napoleonics, I want to fight an entire battle, not just the critical hours. Blucher, not LaSalle. I think for WW1 and probably WW2 in the desert, there's something to be said for that scale of game. Big battles. |
Gone Fishing | 10 Dec 2017 7:20 a.m. PST |
My interest ranges from skirmishes to small, fictitious battles of the Lion Rampant/TSATF level. Big skirmishes might be a better word. Frays where the loss of a single man might change things, personalities are to the fore and everything is focused, sharp and fast-moving make, to my mind, the best games. |
donlowry | 10 Dec 2017 9:45 a.m. PST |
I was thinking "big battle" in terms of the number of units on the table. In WW2 games (I'm seeing this thread on the WW2 board), I game 1:1, so I guess you could call it a skirmish, but with a company or more per side. And I prefer armor over infantry. |
Early morning writer | 10 Dec 2017 1:34 p.m. PST |
Three additional comments: Nice to see a thread staying 'courteous' throughout here on TMP. Hope Winneteka is out of the hazard zone of all those fires. And, yes, above all else, camaraderie is what makes the hobby worthwhile. Okay, okay, fourth comment – yes, those are some nice looking photos above. |
catavar | 10 Dec 2017 1:37 p.m. PST |
Big battle definitely. I think part of it is the eye candy appeal of large scale encounters. I've never enjoyed skirmish games for some reason. |
uglyfatbloke | 10 Dec 2017 2:07 p.m. PST |
Big battles – today we had a battalion in attack – 4 companies, mortar platoon, recce platoon, MG platoon, squadron of Shermans…28mm Bolt Action. Great. |
4th Cuirassier | 11 Dec 2017 2:55 a.m. PST |
@ TMPWargamerabbit I had to smile at your Ligny table – L-shaped! Doesn't that say it all about how well chosen the position was (not)? Nice looking games by the way! |
mysteron | 11 Dec 2017 3:03 a.m. PST |
I enjoy the full range. Multi player games are the best sort for larger battles with players acting as the commander and subordinates. |
FlyXwire | 11 Dec 2017 7:55 a.m. PST |
Let me throw out a thought about what Lee initially wrote at the top of his thread, about the "….. trouble and expense of large miniatures games? Is smaller now better?" Well, as I posted in a thread of mine this morning, it got me thinking about the trend [back] to the larger figure scales today (in the 1960s when I started my gaming it was HO, and "20s"-1/72nd, and "25s" [some "30s"] which were all that was available). Now the wargaming hobby is very much back to the "biggin" figs, which the fantasy/sci-fi genres started with, and for the most part never left. TMP link Much of the resurgence/energy within the hobby has now come with the low-figure count games ["skirmish" for many of us], which has also coincided with this trend back to the larger figure scales, and if playing with these nicely-visible figures, with decent paint jobs, is to come at and overall "affordable" price tag, this dictates for many gamers that they're going to be doing these new collections on a fewer figures per-collection basis, and with fewer than we used to tackle for our "battle game" collections of 15s, and 6s. Sure, most who have large battle collections in the smaller scales (and still collect them – btw I love 10/12mm) still enjoy the grander scope allowed by "massed" armies, but by and large (yes, there's always exceptions), these new games and rule systems of recent times, which enable lower-figure count action, has occurred with a trend [back] to the larger scale miniatures too. |
Blutarski | 11 Dec 2017 8:00 a.m. PST |
UshCha wrote - "In my opinion game fun is inversely proportional to the square of the number of players. Each player adds more inexperience and less tactical knowledge hence less demanding and challenging game." Hi UshCha - Our respective wargaming experiences seem to differ. My experience was with a good-sized long term (40 years for most) group of pretty competent veteran gamers, all of whom were well-versed in the rules we favored. Some were better or worse tacticians, some more or less aggressive, but that is real life and over time commands in big game were allotted in accordance with the perceived skill levels and personalities of the various players. My comment about degree of satisfaction varying according to the square of the number of participants derives from my opinion that achieving success in a game which involves not only pushing one's own troops around on the table, but also requires cooperation and coordination among a number of players represents wargaming on "a higher level" than a simple one-on-one game. My opinion FWIW. B |