Help support TMP


"Which Do You Prefer in a Game...?" Topic


18 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

Please do not post offers to buy and sell on the main forum.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Return to the Which Do You Prefer in a Game...? Poll


Areas of Interest

General

Featured Hobby News Article


Featured Link


Featured Workbench Article

Deep Dream: Painting Picard

If the AI doesn't know the Vietnam War, does it know Star Trek?


Featured Profile Article

Instant Mix Epoxy

Personal logo Editor in Chief Bill The Editor of TMP Fezian learns to pay attention to all of the details when buying two-part epoxy...


Featured Book Review


451 hits since 26 Feb 2015
©1994-2024 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

snurl126 Feb 2015 3:33 a.m. PST

I like both!
There is a time and a place for everything.

Personal logo x42brown Supporting Member of TMP26 Feb 2015 3:44 a.m. PST

I don't believe that accurate simulation is possible on our table tops but I do enjoy unbalanced games, particularly struggling against the odds. This means I do like some games set up as a simulation of an event but can never believe that they can simulate history.

x42

Yesthatphil26 Feb 2015 4:10 a.m. PST

I reject the terminology 'realism' and 'accurate' used in framing the question (bogus concepts that misrepresent what the wargame is likely to do) …

However, the choice set up … 'balanced' game (with equal chances to both sides) vs attempt to recreate 'historical' events … is easy to answer (in favour of the latter, of course) …

However, intelligent use of victory conditions and Lost Battles style asymmetrical values should mean you don't need to choose.

Phil
Ancients on the Move

Personal logo etotheipi Sponsoring Member of TMP26 Feb 2015 4:44 a.m. PST

I prefer an interesting conflict that makes me plan, execute, and adapt as a player.

warwell26 Feb 2015 5:24 a.m. PST

I like both!
There is a time and a place for everything.

I concur. I play a lot of solo games. Those I don't mind if they are unbalanced. For games against a live opponent, I prefer a game that is somewhat balanced.

jeffreyw326 Feb 2015 5:45 a.m. PST

I really wish the wording had just been changed to "More plausible" from "accurate simulation," but people seem to be getting it.

Dave Crowell26 Feb 2015 5:53 a.m. PST

A game with asymetrical victory conditions can still be balanced.

Think of a last stand scenario like the Alamo, would it be fun to play as the Texians if you knew going in that you were going to lose?

To me a "balanced" game means both players have an equal chance to win the game. This is not always the same as winning the battle. I have played many enjoyable games where the side that lost the battle still won the game.

I see "realism and accurate simulation" vs "balanced" as a false dichotomy. An historical rules set that fails to deliver both is a flawed game design. We call them warGAMES not warSIMULATIONS.

How many people who say that historically accurate simulation is the most important factor would continue to find playing enjoyable if they were given the historically losing side every game? That is to say you know that you are fated to lose every game you play because that is the historically accurate outcome for your army. You get the Saxons at Hastings every single time you play.

As a solo player, you already have the luxury of knowing you will be playing the winning side, no matter what the outcome.

advocate26 Feb 2015 6:25 a.m. PST

I agree with Phil.

Frederick Supporting Member of TMP26 Feb 2015 6:36 a.m. PST

I like it to be fun

So – could be either (or both) as long as it is fun

MajorB26 Feb 2015 6:48 a.m. PST

There is no such thing as a "balanced game" unless you fight with identical forces on a symmetrical terrain. Chess is "balanced".

To me a "balanced" game means both players have an equal chance to win the game.

But how do you measure the probability?

I also think that an "accurate simulation" is fairly impossible.

I voted "No opinion"!!

Who asked this joker26 Feb 2015 9:02 a.m. PST

I prefer a fun game where the level of command is correctly modeled. An army commander should not be changing battalion formations or determining where skirmishers are deployed for example.

Rhoderic III and counting26 Feb 2015 9:08 a.m. PST

I find it limiting to always be playing games wherein both sides are evenly matched. I prefer special narrative scenarios that don't pay much heed to points cost balance. In fact, I want scenarios that don't involve collecting strictly determined victory points or anything like that. Rather, in my scenarios, players should simply have commonsensical ideas of how their forces may acquit themselves well. For a player whose force is outmatched, that may well be small feats accomplished in the face of certain defeat, like making sure the enemy force pays a high price for its victory. If that leads to post-game debate about who "won more" based on subjective opinions, then that's perfectly fine.

But I don't primarily see that as being a more accurate simulation of reality. I primarily see it as being a more fun way of playing out battles and skirmishes in miniature, nothing more. So I chose "other".

Weasel26 Feb 2015 10:42 a.m. PST

An unbalanced match up can be balanced through the scenario and victory conditions.

I mean, games have done this since the dawn of time, hardly anything new or surprising.

MajorB26 Feb 2015 11:40 a.m. PST

An unbalanced match up can be balanced through the scenario and victory conditions.

In theory, yes. But a previous poster said:

To me a "balanced" game means both players have an equal chance to win the game.

So the question is, how do you quantify the effect on the probability of winning of either scenario or victory conditions (or both) so that you get a balanced game according to that definition?

Toronto4826 Feb 2015 6:18 p.m. PST

I like a game that is entertaining and keeps my interest Some of my most enjoyable games had me gong down to a massive defeat yet managing to do more then my historical counterpart

Ed the Two Hour Wargames guy28 Feb 2015 10:03 a.m. PST

There is no such thing as a "balanced game" unless you fight with identical forces on a symmetrical terrain. Chess is "balanced".

No such thing as a balanced game – even chess.
Not possible as the players will always be of different ability. Close, maybe – but never equal.
It's a game, just enjoy it.

Porthos01 Mar 2015 12:03 p.m. PST

My wargaming came from interest in history and enjoying collecting miniatures. Wargaming for me is better understand what happened (or could happen ;-)) in history.

"How many people who say that historically accurate simulation is the most important factor would continue to find playing enjoyable if they were given the historically losing side every game? That is to say you know that you are fated to lose every game you play because that is the historically accurate outcome for your army. You get the Saxons at Hastings every single time you play."

The words "historically accurate simulation" have already been "defused" (;-)) by JeffreyW3, and I quite agree. For me good rules are those that you do not need to read, but you most certainly must understand the period and the type of army. And playing the losing side ? I collect among many others the Confederate Army of Robert E. Lee, the Jacobite Scots of Culloden, the Germans who opposed the Romans and lots of colonial native armies… I would gladly play the British at Isandlwana and the French at Waterloo. Winning is fun, but FUN is more fun !

Tom Bryant01 Mar 2015 2:49 p.m. PST

Portos nailed it. When it comes down to being "Historically Plausible" (another, perhaps more politically correct way of saying "accurate") or "balanced" (another equally, if not more so fallacious statement) I err toward the plausible. Why? I've seen too many so-called Balanced games that are anything but. 1500 points can be spent a lot of ways and rarely in any "balanced" format other than points selections. From killer and weenie armies or decks in CMGs and CCGs to games like Flames of War or Warhammer Fantasy and 40k we've probable all seen it.

"Balanced" is just as much a relative and subjective term as are "Historically Accurate Simulation" or "Historically Plausible". The real problem is that unless you have exactly the same force structures points wise the forces will NEVER be "balanced". Also "Balanced" games tend to be "arena" affairs no matter how hard you try to add surprise, terrain, delayed deployments, etc into the mix, both sides know that: "I have 'X' points of forces and so does my opponent." With that kind of foreknowledge,a commander can breathe easier and rest a little knowing that he isn't "out balanced" at least. Outnumbered, or over strengthened in some ways, maybe but unbalanced, no. He has the knowledge that his opponent may have chosen different, perhaps radically different forces to his own but they all "balance out" in terms of points and that those point systems were developed to insure play balance. (Ok you guys stop laughing. Come on now! I mean it!)

What I like about "plausible" scenarios is the very "unbalanced" nature of the actions and how commanders face those realities. Last ditch stands can be made very interesting if the victory conditions are set up correctly. Sometimes what seems like a "sure thing" is anything but. Reinforcements don't get there when the history books say so, if at all, communications get fouled up. Orders are garbled or misconstrued, the list goes on.

A shrewd ref will use all these tricks and more to add to the "fog of war" as much as possible for both sides. This is what makes "plausible" scenarios better in my mind than anything "points balanced for fragile egos."

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.