Help support TMP


POLL: Wargames: Balanced, Historical, or Unbalanced?


387 votes were cast.


Back to POLLS home page


RupertC Inactive Member writes:

I voted unbalanced I assume that means assymetric. Lining up "balanced forces" on minimal terrain is not my cup of tea I like scenario driven games with objectives other than simply eliminate the opposition.


Back to the Homepage



1,858 hits since 31 May 2012
©1994-2017 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

If you were a member of this website, you could participate in website polls. Would you like a free membership?

VOTING RESULTS
AnswerVotes%Chart
mix
163
42%
bar of chart
no preference
58
15%
bar of chart
unbalanced games
23
6%
bar of chart
balanced games
54
14%
bar of chart
historical OOB
89
23%
bar of chart
POLL IS CLOSED
POLL DESCRIPTION

dglennjr Inactive Member observes...

I generally run games, especially at conventions, with equal number of players (3-5) on each side and equal forces. (Whether it is historically correct or not.) My reasoning is that way, the game can be boiled down to using proper tactics and strategy (and sometimes a little Fog of War luck) and nobody has more than the other person. I don't play very much DBA (and this discussion isn't about DBA), but as an example, isn't that the whole idea behind the army lists so that each army is essentially equal? People still play it, right?

Now, that's not to say that I don't run my share of historically accurate battles and OOBs with lopsided forces and the weaker usually in a better defensive position. (SYW, Napoleonics, ACW, Colonial-Zulu, etc.)

What type of game do you run?

What type of game would you rather play?