"In game resources have got to go" Topic

Games that have an in game currency of command points, blood tokens, or prayer points have got to stop.

I want to concentrate on my unit stats and rules, not worry about using my arbitrary resource.

I can see some of that to a limited extent, but I mostly agree with you. To me, it is too much of a game within a game. Your choice is to ignore it, or find another set of rules.

You are referring to 'supplies' that auto-replenish periodically, I assume?

I play games which have limited ammunition, limited capacity of spells some of the heroes can cast in the game, but these do not replenish at any time, per the rules. Once they are used up, they are gone for the remainder of the games.

The only variable would be Unit Morale, which can swing like a pendulum: break from Good Order to Shaken, to Routing; may reverse on a Rally die roll one order up until back in Good Order.

I don't play games which have resources that rejuvenate periodically during the game. That is too fiddly for me. I just want to roll dice until we have a winning side, with plenty of action between start and finish. Cheers!

in game currency of command points, blood tokens, or prayer points

Isn't this a version of Command and Control? Seems to me that this is half of the game, insuring that not all of your units can do what you want them to do…which adds a small amount of 'realism' that you have to deal with….

To me this adds enjoyment to the game. Unless you get steamrolled because the dice Gods abandoned you…..

Louis XIV, is there a particular game that has gotten under your craw?

Dave

What is the difference between an currency written in the rule book or an army list (like strength, defense, movement or command range) and a currency marked with markers or counters.

The biggest difference is that markers give a changeable value. But some would argue that is the strongpoint of them. BTW removing casualties is a form of negative markers (because our troops are markers too).

The other critic could be an aesthetic one. But with dead miniatures (as casualty markers), ADC models (as command markers) or modelled fire (as markers for disorder) that argument is not very convincing.

As Miss Jean Brodie said, "If this is the kind of thing you like, you will like this kind of thing."
Personally, I don't. I will not purchase that kind of thing.
Let those who like that kind of thing buy it. I'll play, but complain. 🤷

Horses for courses.

I'm mostly with the Sun King on this one. I don't say they "have to go." Where would they go, after all? Who would have them? But I don't do that sort of game within a game. Don't play them, and certainly don't buy them.

PzGeneral, I will at certain levels buy off on C&C by way of DBA pips or Mersey's activation rolls, and I've seen systems in which a general can make a unit do exactly what he wants by effectively taking over and not giving orders to anyone else this turn. No quarrel with any of those. But mostly "chit draw" "bargaining" and such are just what His Majesty describes--a game within a game, no more related to actual command and control than learning to play the piano. "Realism" is exactly what it doesn't provide.

Decebalus, I need a five page essay from you explaining the difference between a description and an expendable resource. Also the difference between a strongpoint and a strong point.

I think I must say that I almost didn't click on this thread because I had no idea what "in game resources" were.
Then curiosity prevailed.

Are we talking about something like To the Strongest?

I mostly agree.

First of all, there are a *lot* of these games out there, both miniature and board. I guess people like them? I don't want to rain on someone else's parade.

I think they're good for manufacturers who get to sell cards, tokens, and tracks. And they're good for designers in the sense that they let you be clever and balance things and introduce color, but as a designer I think that's a pretty lazy approach. You add stuff at the expense of the player and at the expense of immersion.

But yes, when you're thinking about whether to use that double firepower card this turn or save it you are not thinking about anything analogous to what a "real" commander would have considered. It can make for a good *game* but not for a good evocation of the situation.

I will put up with ONE very general resource. This makes for some interesting decisions. Command Pips in DBA/HOTT or Froth in Shieldbash are okay. But if you have three different colored token, a command point track, and a hand of cards full of text then I'm losing interest in the game…

Can't say I like it. I also don't like so points systems on how to make your army of force.

Andrew, we'll put up a monument to you. People have been raining on my various wargaming parades for a good 50 years.

As far as I'm concerned, all criticism of fantasy and SF wargames are a matter of taste, and historical miniatures are an exception only when they're critiqued over historicity. People are free to say whatever they please about my taste in books, music, TV. films and miniatures, but I'm not interested in accusations of "bullying" when I say what I please about theirs. (I do insist on accuracy both ways. No fair critiquing imaginary faults.)

Grattan, I'm with you, but I suspect the original sin was not points as such, but the effort to fine-tune them for competitive play. Grant has one in the original Table Top Teasers--whole numbers by regiment--2 points for light infantry and batteries, 3 for light cavalry and line infantry and 4 for heavy cavalry. Games might be 15 points for each side. It's a quick way of looking at the balance of the forces. When you reach the point--and I have played such games--of counting individual figures and assessing value in half points, the conversation around the game leaves sound tactics for bargain-hunting. When your players start saying "Dragoons in CLS are 2 points, but their actual value is 2.5" you've got problems you can't fis by adjusting numbers.

I'd go back to the old way: one man picks terrain, objective and forces for both sides. The other man decides which side he wishes to command.

The title sounds like a leftist protest chant.
"Hey hey! Ho Ho!
In game resources have got to go!
Hey hey! Ho ho……"
Repeat ad infinitum.

VERY like a leftist chant, OFM--especially in that they can't get the beat right half the time, and half the people chanting it won't know what an "in game resource" is.

To all who can't be arsed to play games with "in game currency, all I can say is, "that sounds like a you problem," and I hope you enjoy the hunt for rules you DO like.

I live THOUSANDS of miles from my former game group, I'd love to be able to worry about pointless stuff like in game currencies.

Do what makes you happy.

Robert,

I agree. Or when they get to the point of 2 points per man, then one point for a gun, one point for a sword ect. Way, way too much.

I broke into The Hobby™️ way back with WRG 3rd edition. Which was immediately superseded by 4th, and soon 5th. Points were everything. I was young and innocent than. I thought that points were the cat's pajamas!
I was wrong of course.

It's a hobby not a job, if you don't like a set of rules, don't play them.

If you don't like how other people play Wargames, well good luck with that one….

Those things are like any game mechanic. A benifit or a hindrance. If they are a benifit they aren't my problem.

My solution as always design my own system

The problem with "In Game resources" is that often you must buy them separately. And then you lose them.
Try playing poker with the Jack, King, Queen and Ace of Spades missing. Oh, yeah. Replace the red Bicycle cards with the blue ones.
What if you lost all the Volley cards? Or the D12? Or the "Change Formation" cards? 🤷
Why do I have to buy the cards for Dutch Freebooters, or English Buccaneers separately?

Can't play the game without them, hainna? Naaaah. I'm just buying the figures anyway.

Can't disagree with you, OFM. Not gonna buy extraneous bits made just for one game.

I'd rather make my own multi-use tokens or markers (some dead guys to mark casualties, my own dug-in markers that fit whatever rules need them, and so on).

20 years ago, when I played FoW, we used points, but we also all loved the history, so it wasn't just min-maxing and unlikely matchups. And I wasn't buying troops to set point values, I was making big formations and a lot of support units and then could tailor my Soviet Wave to meet the requirements of the game (not to win, mostly, but to have fun playing, certainly).

I play my own rules, so im not buying them or the bits I need to play them.
I like things that serve more than one purpose, if im using activation and unit cards they are the same thing.

U also dont like on table clutter. Hit rings 🙊 again they need to serve several purposes and not spoil the look of the table.

Im not opposed to needing extra stuff… almost everything we use in a game is extra stuff even if i had to buy it. I dont mind too much. But its the cost, which I understand come from small runs etc. I prefer when I can print and do the extras myself.

As resources in game… we have to have something. Be it figure removal, crossing of boxes etc. Even a game as simple as crossfire is using base removal as in game currency.

As resources in game… we have to have something. Be it figure removal, crossing of boxes etc. Even a game as simple as crossfire is using base removal as in game currency.

Best post on thread.

As robert piepenbrink points out, there's no common idea in the discussion about what an "in game resource" is. There seem to be six or seven different ideas about it above, which results in talking past each other. There are probable three or four substantively different discussions to be had here.

👍🏻