"Your Wargaming Play Style?" Topic

Been wargaming for about 10 years but this is my first time actually posting on here. I'm just curious how everyone plays with their own armies in this hobby as it seems the slightest difference can make a big change when playing to win against somebody. I've been thinking about this ever since I read this story link seems a little more about 40k but it provokes the idea!

What is everyone's opinions?

First, your topic is probably (I can be corrected) to systems that have points systems. These proportion to "balance" armies with different approaches. This only b works with sterile terrain. It has to have rigidly fixed amounts of terrain else one army or another would be massively disadvantaged.

In my games if you are in a dense urban area you need foot. On a salt lake you need heavy armour. Most real contemporary armies have similar weapons unless you fight very asymmetric warfare where the objectives of either side are wildly disparate, for which I cannot speak.

On that basis armies do not fight with widely different tactics over any one particular set of ground. So say choosing, Russian, German, Brit or US does not make that much difference from late ww2 onwards.

Why is there a demand to win every game.

It will never happen.

Play the game/re-enactment/scenario and enjoy the experience.

Experience-oriented. Sure, go for the objective and try to win but it's all about the story unfolding on the table. I guess that makes me 'narrative-style' war gamer.

The linked article is not about points but "style." If you are a charge to hand to hand kind of guy, don't buy an army of long distance shooters. That assumes, of course, you have a distinct style or preferred army "type." Myself, I am in it for the problem solving.

I have a mass of Zulus, how do I defeat well armed invaders?

My army is large but green, my enemy small but veteran. How do I win?

And yes, I do play to "win" in the historical sense. That is, I try to fulfill my objective (hold on and wait for the cavalry, kill everything in sight, hold a piece of terrain etc.). I don't always "win" but I try to. I admit I like winning more than losing.

@Camineer321: No one ever reads the links (almost)

I like mobile, elite, hard striking forces but that means they are small.

Depending on terrain, and enemy, it can mean no chance so you do the best you can.

UshCha point value games are not as sterile as you seem to believe. Realistic? Not that either but it's a GAME, they are all just games.

40K, FOW and ancients gaming are often tournament games. That may not be a persons cuppa tea but many do enjoy it.

As an example many ancient rule sets have random terrain depending on army. DBX (X = various members of the family with similar rules) system gave each army an aggression number plus a random D6. You compared the results and high number was the invader. That meant the game was played on the defenders home terrain. Each army had a set number of pieces that each player drew from the defenders terrain.

There were weather rules.

You could be in trouble with terrain, or weather, or a bad troop matchup any or all.

EC, some of us do. Early training.

For myself, I figure it's the person writing the rules and the scenario whose job it is to make my army perform like its historical original, and to give it a shot at winning. My job is to win battles within those limitations. That should push me to use sound historical tactics, and if I don't enjoy the preferred tactics of a particular army, I probably shouldn't buy, paint and command it.

If the rules let people use wildly unhistorical tactics and prevail--winning 20th Century naval engagements by boarding, or giving Zulu an edge in firepower--you probably want to skip those rules for a number of reasons.

Now I'm basing on the link, but I get the feeling there's something else involved. More information gets a more pertinent answer.

In wargaming there's only one tactic and word you need "Charge!!!!" It's about as realistic as any 120 page super historically accurate rule book.

I'm with Extra Crispy. My style is the one the army I have demands.

+1, JimDuncanUK

Calculated until the target can be subject to aggressive action

If I've been playing to win, this would have been the worse use of my time imaginable.

My biggest 'style' preference is that I rather be the attacker than the defender, especially at convention games because it gives me something to do to drive the action!

Other than that, I like to think I am like the others in that I am quite flexible on how to approach.

What I was trying. T g o get over is that in scenario games where the terrain is more demanding in some cases the flexibility to charge styles is not there. A bansii care by infantry in open ground against armour is not going to work. If it did the game was a dead loss before it started. Pick-up games have a lot of limitations but may be one of the few styles where to some extent reality can be suspended and different arms can "compete". Again it depends on the simulation/game balance. The gamey side has no appeal to me personally.

My style seems to be the exact opposite of what will be effective with the army to hand.