"Is Modern Gaming Stuck in the 80s?" Topic

I don't really consider Vietnam modern any more (it's been 50 years), so this doesn't really count Vietnam.

Back in the 1980s I got into miniature gaming as a high schooler after playing a session of JagdPanzer at Gencon (back when it was in Kenosha).

I wanted to game really modern wars, though, and bought a Russian force from CinC while my friend bought a West German force (which eventually was given to me) and I used the now long defunct Leopard II rules set.

A year later I got to play Harpoon at GenCon with Larry Bond himself and bought a bunch of modern Soviet and American ships.

Back then, 'ultra modern' gamers were trying to game the very latest technologies and try to model how such battles would go. There was a lot of speculation then on Soviet systems that we still didn't know a lot about. Anyone remember the rumored T-74 tank? We didn't even know about the Su-27, and new next to nothing about the MiG-29. There were all the speculative systems that were supposedly leaked by a Russian defector that all turned out to be untrue. It was a fascinating time to be gaming.

Now, 35 years later, we have a slew of games that all re-fight the same cold war set in the 1980s. We have better knowledge now of the systems that were fielded then, and in a post-Soviet world, we can verify real orders of battle.

Team Yankee is set then, Harpoon is still fighting battles then as it's primary focus. Air Combat is even further behind, with the most rules set in Vietnam up to perhaps 1980. There are stacks of miniatures from the 80s era and scores of rules set in that era.

We even have a re-release of Twilight 2000, which was created in the 1980s and the new version (which I am backing) is based more on the original version of the game built back then.

While you can get ultramodern miniatures, there are very few rules that even attempt to model the changes in warfare since the 1980s. There just doesn't seem to be the same interest in potential conflicts that there was in the 1980s. Also, any discussion of potential conflicts gets super political very quickly. Back in the 1980s, it just didn't seem to be the case. I remember intense discussions of Soviet capabilities and tactics, but I don't recall it getting political the way it seems to now if you speak of a potential conflict in China or the Middle East or even modern Russia.

There's very little exploration or discussion of the tactics of ultra modern warfare and the potential impact of new technologies- even on a speculative level. Stealth rules in air games are few and rare and usually terrible at representing how they actually work. Is that due to complexity? Lack of a desire to speculate? Or something else?

It seems that people are most comfortable playing the great war that never was. Is modern war miniatures gaming stuck in the 1980s?

On a side note- if there were truly ultra modern rules, the miniatures are there from select vendors. Would you buy a truly ultra modern set of rules and miniatures for land warfare, naval warfare or air warfare? Or is the 1980s the latest people want to really play?

Personally, due to advances in weapons systems, I find ultra-moderns to be simultaneously boring and complex except at the skirmish level.

Also, possibly, at some level, those of us who were in the military during the Cold War have the resources to collect and game the biggest what-if of our service time.

Add to the above that advances in technology are coming so fast that by the time you publish an ultra-modern set of rules, it's obsolete. I don't have time to keep up.

To be fair, back in the '80s there was a lot less disagreement about whether the Soviets were a threat or a menace to our well-being. At least in the US it wasn't a left-or-right issue, it was a question on which political party was going to look "tough" enough against the Commies.

Also, while Vietnam was certainly traumatic, the US could re-focus on the looming Soviet threat to unify the country. After the Cold War the US embarked on a number of military endeavours that were much more open to a difference of opinion, & does not have a monolithic threat to focus on anymore (CHina notwithstanding is not the monolithic threat the Soviets were). There is far less the unifying force for both sides of the political aisle IMHO, so politics can quickly come up.

Damon.

Well, I guess Romney was right about this.

Damon.

…but I don't recall it getting political the way it seems to now if you speak of a potential conflict in China or the Middle East or even modern Russia.

I guess back in the 80's the majority of people understood what the threat was and stood together, unlike now where every third person is

I'm of the same gaming era as you TG, and even made it to Kenosha where I got Assault from GDW. I still have my UK and USSR companies and Challenger II rules from GenCon. I'm still looking to game 80's conflicts but after Desert Storm my interest in ultramodern outside of skirmish level is low. At least in the 80's there was some wiggle room as to what would be effective and what was hype but now that we've seen some of the gear in action I think it puts some games up on the shelf. Missile ranges and electronics especially. Even playing games on the PC (TOAW, SP) aren't very engaging when it comes to 1990+ scenarios.

There's something odd, or at least counter intuitive, about using little lumps of lead to represent warfare that is being fought primarily by computers, drones, and satellites.

It would be like using lead figures to game a moon landing.

Having played Harpoon all the way from version 1 to 4 as well as games such as Air Superiority, Air War, and the Speed of Heat, about 1990 is as far as I'm willing to go. The advancement of weapons systems, sensors, countermeasures, etc., makes gaming anything in today's world a non-starter for me. Too complex, tedious, and you need to have your rules/charts updated about every day.

For example, who would want to play a game where 4 F-35s escorted by 2 F-22s are penetrating enemy airspace to knock out some air defense sites. You have to keep track of the F-22s advanced sensors and what they're seeing, they're passing targeting info to the F-35s, drones are sending back SAM frequencies, then there's info coming in from satellites, AWACS, and more. That's just on one side! The other side is trying to figure out what's going on, where to send interceptors, etc., and we haven't even launched a missile yet in the game. There's a 95%+ or higher that the F-22s knock down any intercepting aircraft that gets off the ground and the F-35s knock out their target without a loss. Doesn't sound like fun to me.

There's a 95%+ or higher that the F-22s knock down any intercepting aircraft that gets off the ground and the F-35s knock out their target without a loss. Doesn't sound like fun to me.

I think this is the other part of the problem. Not the sensors or stuff like that -- that can be abstracted out with some die rolls. But the disparity between combatants. It isn't much fun of a game if the sides are so imbalanced that you might as well not play. I remember playing some of those computer wargames (I think it was Panzers III or something like that, by SSI), playing vs Iraq & the US. If I played Iraq I had no chance despite how big my army was. If I was playing as US there was no challenge whatsoever. One trend I have seen so far is that anyone that plays ultramodern doesn't do so above skirmish level. At least there there is some parity between combatants. But above that level history has not shown this level of parity, At least not yet…

Damon.

Iam

Nope, I'm doing the 1950s – 1970s too, just for grins.

I'm also planning on doing the Ukrainian Conflict with Russian separatists. Not much has changed there, other than the initial denial of "little green men" AKA Russians "on vacation", or lost over the border, with their weapons in tow.

Not much difference from the 1980s there, other than the odd vehicle, and more reactive armor on the tanks, which appears to work well. Aerial drones of course for the Russians, and/or Russian separatists, so they can plan moves against the Ukrainians and/or artillery barrages with deadly effect.

Force on Force, and Ambush Alley would seem to work well for adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan at the tactical level, for the 1990s and 2000s+.

1990s+ air battles are easily doable.

As mentioned though, USA is pretty strong here, and opponents generally don't/won't let their pilots and aircraft take off to play. Still, it is possible to set up small, interesting scenarios to play out, since other nations have opponents, skirmishes, and conflicts too – see Asia primarily here, though there could be others – Turkey and Greece going at it again, as one example. Perhaps Libya/Turkey vs. the Egyptians, and/or other Euro nations too there as well, like France coming in on the Egyptian and other Libyan side.

Russia/China vs. Vietnam, South Korea, or Japan, with the occasional US aircraft too, just to make like interesting, not to mention Taiwan.

Note, you can bet that all that latest/greatest US tech may not work as well as advertised, when/if the balloon goes up. Also, serviceability and sortie rates for the advanced US aircraft will be appalling if it does get hot, since they're only about 40% – 50% during peace time, now.

Throw in heavy rains, and those stealth coatings get negated or damaged, and things change rather quickly.

AirWar:C21 for the air war, since the rules there can be used easily, and tweaked as needed to reflect some of the above.

On the LeadAdventureForum, they call 1945-1990 the Cold War Era. Seems appropriate, and includes hot wars of the time.

I agree with Garand.

When you can have an M1 Abrams moving at 40mph and hitting targets at 3k firing a round about every 6 seconds with a 90% chance to hit it's pretty unbalanced. Add to that MRLS launches with sub-munitions and drones with Hellfires it's not much fun to play the enemy. Some of the weapons being planned will be even scarier. Let's play a skirmish game with this: link

However, if enemy armor can disguise themselves as civilians they may have a chance.

However, modern-current SpecOps combined with cyber-warfare could be very interesting.
Game Over!!!

Wolfhag

All I do is 6mm Sci-fi now … so I'm stuck in the future ! 👽🛸🛰🚀

Well there is this.

link

An excellent discussion. Two additional related thoughts:

1. Before the mid-80s, it is hard to imagine a NATO-WP major clash that does not escalate to nuclear warfare in short order. The raw numbers are also heavily in the WP's favour. Simulations of this tend to be nasty, brutish, and short. Out-of-theatre wars, without (major) escalatory threats, are easier to imagine (Nam, Korea, Middle East, etc.). Not impossible, but harder.

2. The West has more than a fighting chance in the mid-80s, making it a fairer contest and one we fancied could be fought through successfully without a massive nuclear exchange. Lots of new tanks and kit, and not a Soviet walkover anymore. WP superiority we now know was somewhat overestimated, further making the 'game' more interesting for the NATO player.

Before the '80s, in other words, it is hard to have a balanced, credible game without nukes. After '89, there is no credible WWIII scenario at all.

Well, except for right now, versus China.

Yes it is and I'm perfectly OK with it.

Yes, I think mass battle wargaming stays in the '80's or earlier. There are reasons.

During the Cold War we had an idea of what "high intensity" warfare with a peer would be like. (We might have been wrong, of course. But we had an idea for gaming purposes.) I'm not sure we do today. Unless it's China, we don't know who the enemy would be, and even with China I'm not sure we have a good idea of how our high intensity land warfare weapons and doctrine would interact with theirs.

Now, we DO understand skirmish-level stuff. And really, at a skirmish level, you could take a set of "banana wars" rules, bolt on air support and drones, and play out Iraq and Afghanistan. So I think the moderns people are sticking to what they understand. Nothing wrong with that.

I'm stuck in the 70s.

A Cold War 1960-1985 WP battle would be very interesting. However, to get the real experience you'd need to fight it as Legion described in several battles.

The WP has overwhelming numbers but the first stage of the battle is air-air with the winner getting to perform air strikes on the enemy. Then the WP gets hit with artillery and scatterable mines to slow them down and obstacles to channelize them. While they are contending with this the NATO helicopters are popping up and firing ATGM's and both sides recon units are sparring. The Spetznatz and NATO specOps units are doing their dirty tricks behind enemy lines making C&C difficult.

The NATO troops keep giving ground and avoiding a real tank-tank clash unitl the WP is weakened and they can counterattack.

Sounds like a project for Just Jack.

Wolfhag

I dunno, I've done a reasonably modern naval game using David Manley's Bulldogs Away rules. It was based on an incident in the Persian Gulf featuring Iranian missile boats and included US Littoral Combat Ships. There was a political side to the scenario that encouraged avoiding conflict if possible. It was fun, but once things got out of hand, quite bloody.

Perhaps a little nostalgia factor is in play? The 1980s was the last time we could think of the next war as a large clash of mechanized forces with entire divisions and army corps…wargaming modern NATO battalions against the Russians in the Baltic doesn't have the same level of excitement as playing out a Reforger scenario:

Post 80's its becoming more of a digital data war. Personally not as interesting as a general rule but that a personal view.

Also our rules go to at least 2010 and by then some players are alredy finding it much more difficult. By definition as in the real world the data flow increases the more complex the decision making, some players simply sink into confusion too many options available. Even with our basic simple mechanics some players struggle even with deciding things such as where to go if the distances are large enough, so complex decisions on targeting where the target options are far more extensive gives them "Analysis paralasis", in the real world that is a real life thretener..

Making excuses and just adding more die roles renders it just more implausible as a simulation and far less interesting (for us) as a game hence 80's is generally a good place to stop for a fun simulation.

Many Si Fi games are more like say Warhamer 40K are Napoleonic games with a different dress code so to me are SI Fantasy not SI-Fiction.

First, less than a month ago … TMP link

Second, I think it depends on what type of battle you want to play. We don't fight extended, large mechanized force on force battles today. So if you prefer that type of battle, you don't play ultra-modern rules. In general, you don't play games with rules that represent a milieu you don't want to play. You don't go looking through rules that represent warfare in the 1980's if you want to play smooth bore, black powder games, either.

There's nothing too complex about current warfighting that you can't put into several different modalities and levels of war for a game.

Personal opinions are personal opinions, but when I fought and otherwise supported warfighting post-80's, I found it neither incomprehensibly complex or boringly simple. Same goes for wargames about those conflicts.

so to me are SI Fantasy not SI-Fiction.

I agree … As I have said, we play Epic/6mm Sci-fi as more of a retro-high-tech versions of WWII, plus a little higher tech and aliens[demons are just aliens AFAIK!] added in.

Dropped much of the GW absolute silliness, cartoony, etc., aspects of it. Modified the rules to make it more of a "war" game … than a game with bright shiny things trying to pull off being weapons of war ! 😁😎🤩

I served in '80s, in the US Army, I "played 1 to 1 scale wargames" from '79-'90 while on active duty. So my POV may be a bit biased …

etotheipe,
your link indicates cards. I feel it unlikely it would reasonably simulate for instance the various levels of battle managements systems and for instance there LOS limitations to say the least. Over generalizing to me makes the makes the game unrepresentative of the strength and weaknesses of systems and thereby minimizes the fun.

Our own rules are relatively simple but like chess that does not make the game simple. I the game is not more complex with the digital dimension with new systems them by definition you have oversimplified it somewhere so the game is in some way degraded and in my personal opinion had the fun taken out of it. Thing is what you define as fun is a near impossible to agree on, much past having you head cut off is not fun.

Over generalizing to me makes the makes the game unrepresentative of the strength and weaknesses of systems and thereby minimizes the fun.

But not actually reading the rules or playing the system is enough for you to make a judgement? I understand the basis for your perspective.

Unless it's a skirmish I think the ranges involved put me off to gaming post 1950's.

In my opinion the main attraction of miniatures gaming is the visual aspect.
And at scales smaller than 1:100 / 15mm the visual attraction of the miniatures starts to diminish rapidly.
Another important factor is the miniatures to table scale, which starts to look really ridiculous once you go beyond a factor of ten or so.
This then means that with visually attractive miniatures even a large table can't handle combat ranges of much more than a kilometer.
So the Korea era or earlier can be done, but anything that happened at a later date is really only suitable for infantry skirmish games in my opinion.
And once we enter the tanks that won't miss at 3 kilometers era you're basically looking at a diceless wargame, that's no fun anyway.

In my opinion the main attraction of miniatures gaming is the visual aspect.

Yes, I agree … otherwise it would be better, easier, etc., to use board games. Or today computer games.

And at scales smaller than 1:100 / 15mm the visual attraction of the miniatures starts to diminish rapidly.

All we do is 6mm and think that is the prefect scale for most Co./Co. Tm, Bn/Bn TF operations. If nothing else you can get the ranges closer it reality, etc., IMO …

@ Legion 4

In my opinion 6mm is simply to small.
The infantry usually looks like painted tooth fillings on bases, and I have yet to see the first 6mm army without half the vehicles sporting bend or broken gun barrels, or missing them entirely.
To small, to fragile, not my cup of tea…

Well go to 6mm Sci-fi board and look at some of my posts … We find none of that to be true !

So … some people like

and others like

but others like

… and you don't get all three views at the same time.

etothepi, an interesting and informative analogy.

I'm all for 1990's-to-present modern gaming. Made some TY cards for current opfor tanks and helos in fact.

Of course, given the contraints of miniature gaming they'll be employed in a "WWII" fashion anyway. So it's just the same-old-same-old with new trappings.

given the contraints of miniature gaming they'll be employed in a "WWII" fashion anyway

Which constraints are those?

Which constraints are those?

The practical constraints imposed by the requirements of most gamers that the minis have to fit on a 4' x 8' table, which is way too close for modern engagements. Using ground scale makes everything look like close range firefights WWII-style, the larger the figure scale the worse it looks on the tabletop (e.g. the infamous "tank parking lot" in FOW and TY).

I'd say looking at modern conflicts — from Libya to Syria to, now, force-on-force conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan, it's clear that (most) ultramodern warfare remains absolutely game-able. Drones exist in all of these conflicts, as do post-80s gear. The idea that these factors completely change the way war is fought seems, to me, to be more driven by the sales pitch of arms manufacturers than reality — although I'd be fascinated to see a strong argument otherwise (particularly insofar as it pertains to miniatures, board game, or computer wargaming).

That said, conflicts need proper framing to make good games. I think it is true that gaming (a remotely realistic) US vs. second tier militaries (or less) fight tends to make for a bad game in most frames, but that's more a comment on the US's military budget (and the sorts of conflicts the US is likely to be involved in now or in the very near future) than the "mechanics" of modern warfare.

However, to get the real experience you'd need to fight it as Legion described in several battles.

I played it on the board, as well with minis plus on Active Duty in 1 to 1 scale wargames, with real Troops, APCs, MBTS, etc., '79-'90. We spent a lot of time training and planning for war with the USSR/WP, North Koreans, PRC and even war in Central and South America.

As I have said before, all I do is hard military Sci-fi now. Which like the Cold War going Hot. It never happened either … 😁😉🤩😎

15mm and 28mm Fanatik, We play on an 8 by 6 ft board. that is 2400m by 1800m real world. Intravisibility (See Brassies) typicaly limits battles to between 500m and 1500m in Northern Europe with limited exceptions both ways. That means that an 8 by 6 ft board is perfectly acceptable. Perhaps you need to downscale, 1/144 vehicles seem acceptable to us and are significabntly smaller than 15mm. It's personal opinion but to me 6mm is too small to provide a playable model for our prefered wargame simulation (Maneouvre Group). However perhaps with 6mm you could move to 1mm represents 2m so a board would be 4800m by 2400m well in excess of typical intervisibility limitations so should have few issues in representing combat situations.

Perhaps you need to downscale, 1/144 vehicles seem acceptable to us and are significabntly smaller than 15mm.

Sorry, but I'm in total agreement with panzerfrans above. Anything smaller than 1/100 takes too much out of the visual aspect of wargaming. Even the hub-to-hub ridiculousness of tank parking lots look cooler on the tabletop than minis so small that you can't see much detail.

I have never understood the comparuson made between computor games and minature games. While I am no great lover of the models themselves as perhaps some would say is shown by using 1/144 scale. However me looking down on a 6ft by 4 ft board is somewhat closer to looking at a map than stareing at a small TV screen.

In my other serious hobby I now have the UK OS mapping system on my compuoter giving mapping scles from 1:200,000 to 1:25000, however for route planning you still need a large paper map covering a large area at a relatively fine scale to make sensible decisions on routes ect. Therefore to me the computor while it has lots of uses to me is no substitute even technicaly for a large 3D map i.e a Wargames table. A forward projecting 3D TV screen 8ft by 6ft would be an acceptable substitute but that seems a long way off. I guess its what you consider are your key priorities. Tank parking lots and none linier ranges would cause me to give up gaming as all attempts at simulation would be eliminated which to me is the interest.
Again many modern wars are still fought in dence terrain where long ranges ar immaterial, Each to their own as they say.

Disagree … 6mm is more to scale for Co.- Bn TF level games. If you stood on the plains of (West) Germany, or a desert anywhere. You'd know what I am talking about. Been there … done that … 6mm looks/feels right IMO it is …

Anything at Co., or smaller is a good scale for those type of actions. Having lead a Rifle and Mortar Plt, commanded a Mech Co. attached to Tanks Bns. And even was chosen to fill in for both a Mech Bn and Bde Cdrs for wargames, etc. I guess my experience and training is different than many here.

My Mech Hvy Bde Cdr had me requisition thru Training Aids on Main Post all the units(vehicles) in our Bde from GHQ. Plus a USSR MRR and Tank Bn + too. To "wargame" our Bde in different situations, etc.

The Bde S2 glued them in Plt strengths on bases then painted them Green for US and Brown for USSR/WP. The Bde Officers and some senior NCOs ran different scenarios, operations, etc. Using those GHQ models. I was good training, and a little fun too !

Even after I was Mech Co. Cdr, the Bde HQ sent me to Ft. Bragg, NC. To "command" our Bde in a computer simulation wargame with the 82d and 10th Mtn. Under 18th ABN Corps S3. I guess they figured I was "capable" enough to do that with a small group of troops from our Bde and some from 10th Mtn. Having Full COLs and GENs showing up at your TOC and ask you question about the Bde's operations, etc., etc., during the wargame. And not chew your butt or even relieve you, then leaving satisfied that I pretty much knew what I was doing as a Senior CPT. Even getting positive feedback directly from them was generally a "good" indicator.

So again my experience with wargaming in real life or on the board, etc., is different than most here.

However me looking down on a 6ft by 4 ft board is somewhat closer to looking at a map than stareing at a small TV screen.

In the (19)70's, 80's, and 90's actual warfare was fought at battalion and higher level on those size screens. The late 0th and early 1st Century brought in 4'x6' plasma screens and plasma walls. But those were for standing 30' away or more, so, macht nichts. Today, command level planning like that is often done on a tablet.

all I do is hard military Sci-fi now

When does playing with orks and elves and other 40K races count as "hard sci-fi"?

The way we play it … it does … Not cartoony, silly, over the top goofy, kiddies who like bright shiny things GW game rules! 🤩 Orks, Eldar, etc., they are just more aliens to kill or ally with. I have other 6mm aliens from other companies too. Since I/we have never met any aliens, these various "made up" ones will do !👽 For now … at least …

@ Legion 4
The 40K (Epic) stuff isn't 6mm, its 8mm.
That, in combination with the ridiculously oversized 40K weaponry, makes the miniatures suitable for gaming btw.

Wait … wait … NO that is Not correct. I started Epic in '89. It started out as 6mm and some of the models got larger as time went on. Called scale creep by most.

I have almost all the models they made. SMs eventually came in 4 sizes, Orks in 3, Eldar in 3, Chaos SMs in 2. The only ones that stayed somewhat constant is IG and Squats. Tyranids too but they are bug aliens so their sizes vary greatly. They are aliens after all.

I don't play 40K for the reasons I mentioned already. And again we play a harder sci-fi version. More like Hammer's Slammers. We modified the rules to suit us. We've been playing wargames mostly historical, since the late '60s. Forgot more about wargaming than many here. We play a "wargame" … not the "kids" GW version.

Don't know where you got 8mm. Some of the later models are 8mm. But again that was scale creep … Epic was always considered 6mm or 1/300 scale. Do you have any Epic models ?