Does anyone still play wargames?
enki
I am intersted in wargamming. I had my first contact with games
about 20 years ago and was intersted. I have been in and out of the
hobby playing mostly board games. Itis just finding people that are
intersting in gaming is dificult. It has always been and today it is
alomst impossible. I have had a few opertunites to ejoy gaming in my
life. I am not real impressed with computer war games because today
most of them are just eye candy that I have seen. Still I most enjoy
sitting over a board or a table (the few times I played with
minitures). I just have not had the opertunity in years to play. I am
intersted in any kind of complex tactical or stratigic gaming from
fantasy to simulating modern and contemorary actions. I am hard
pressed to find any people who are interested in personal getting
together over a board or table and spending time playing games.
Loz Hensel
> Hi there,
>
> I am intersted in wargamming. I had my first contact with games
> about 20 years ago and was intersted. I have been in and out of the hobby
> playing mostly board games. Itis just finding people that are intersting
> in gaming is dificult. It has always been and today it is alomst
> impossible.
I know what you mean, I feel similarly. Where abouts are you (even a
country would be useful...)? I know several people in a couple of parts of
the UK.
> I have had a few opertunites to ejoy gaming in my life. I am
> not real impressed with computer war games because today most of them are
> just eye candy that I have seen.
There are apparently some good ones, according to some of my mates (can't
remember their names at the moment, sorry. The games. Not the mates.),
but yeah, most do seem to focus on looking pretty or having a story and
completely ignore the tactics and strategy. Not that there's anything
wrong with looking pretty and having a compelling story is great, its just
not the same thing! And you can;t sit and paint a computer generated
soldier as easily as a physical model of one. Real ones tend to complain
too, I'm led to understand...
> Still I most enjoy sitting over a board
> or a table (the few times I played with minitures). I just have not had
> the opertunity in years to play. I am intersted in any kind of complex
> tactical or stratigic gaming from fantasy to simulating modern and
> contemorary actions.
Likewise.
> I am hard pressed to find any people who are
> interested in personal getting together over a board or table and spending
> time playing games.
Sounds like a great way to spend an afternoon or evening to me!
Loz
Cruo
www.boardgamegeek.com Sign up and check the forums for gaming groups
in your area.
JoeC
Glad for the responce and at least we have the internet to do searches
like this and find people from all over the world to converse. In the
past I and when I lived in another part of the US I was able to find
public places (game stores) where I could find people who wanted to
play. I have been doing some internet searches to see what games are
currently available. I have several war games and some miniture and
micro armor rules. Still solitary games are not that much fun. I had
found good strategy games but they are pretty old now. I have the
latest version of civilization and I don't like it much. I am happy
with the x's and o's symboles for games. I have a military background
with experience with war from various perspectivs from national to
tacticle. I have seen how an army operates from logistics deployment
and intelligence. All this is far more important to winning a war than
manuvering forces. It is all important and I have concepts for games I
am trying to get a base in programming so that I can combine my
experience and programming to create my own game.
All that said, I am nopt that good at winning games but more enjoy
plaing them. Winning is still good. I would not mind finding some
good computer wargames. I did have a few that I realy liked but now
they are over 15 years old.
Dav Vandenbroucke
HTTP://talk.consimworld.com
Dav Vandenbroucke
davanden at cox dot net
GJK
Though no experience beats sitting over a board wargame across from an
opponent, using the tools that we have now, you can often get a live
game going with someone that is far away from you. VASSAL
(www.vassalengine.org) and Cyberboard (http://cyberboard.brainiac.com/
- temporarily unavailable at this time) are two such tools that let you
play the boardgames over the internet. VASSAL has live connect options
- use a headset with microphone and it's pretty close to being face to
face with someone. Cyberboard is pbem only at this point, though a new
version with direct connection options for live play is in the works.
These two programs alone have revitalized the board wargaming hobby for
me.
hoo...@aol.com
miniatures games. The days of board wargaming are at a end for the most
part. Nobody has the patience for an afternoon boardgame.
"enki" <enk...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1154226211....@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
JoeC
hoo...@aol.com wrote:
> Most people are into PC frag fests or very simple Hollywood type collectible
> miniatures games. The days of board wargaming are at a end for the most
> part. Nobody has the patience for an afternoon boardgame.
>
I have the pacience and would realy like to find somone or a group that
is into some kind of hobby. I like detailed monotous activities, I
have taken to C++ programming. I like war gamming and that kind of
competitive complex interaction. I persoanlly have a facination with
the complex and understaning it. I have found other interest that
satisfy this desire but I still would like to enjoy some gamming.
BobW
"JoeC" <enk...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1154360678.1...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Try War in the Pacific at Matrix Games. That should hold your facination
for a couple years ;)
http://www.matrixgames.com/games/game.asp?gid=294
I don't have it myself but I have their Uncommon Valor game which is a
subset of it.
Bob W.
GJK
hoo...@aol.com wrote:
> Most people are into PC frag fests or very simple Hollywood type collectible
> miniatures games. The days of board wargaming are at a end for the most
> part. Nobody has the patience for an afternoon boardgame.
>
This is very much a blanket statement. Tell it to the 1000's of
members on consimworld or boardgamegeek.com. In fact, I think that
boardgaming is having a bit of a resurgence from the early 90's,
especially if you factor in "Euro-games" which are quite popular now
days.
hoo...@aol.com
real way to gauge comand ablity. I perfer campaigns. Some do campaigns but
they are always limited in scope by the "time and complexity" stigma At my
site we do campaign gaming for numerous game systems that dont cut cornres
or water it down to just a hand picked units butting heads.
"JoeC" <enk...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1154360678.1...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
hoo...@aol.com
about the time or limt the game to try to simplfy it. PC wargames..well you
can always it save. If it doesnt crash on you or something.
"GJK" <ju...@garykrockover.com> wrote in message
news:1154363139....@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Dav Vandenbroucke
>Its preyy uncommon to find people that play baoardgmaes and dont complain
>about the time or limt the game to try to simplfy it.
So? It's pretty uncommon to find any grownups who don't complain that
they would like to have more time to do the things they enjoy.
hoo...@aol.com
game takes 2 days to play.
It prety much kills off old school wargaming. Whats left is CCG's
Warhammer(wich is anything but easy to learn or quick to play) and PC games.
If you have no time to play then you cant play. But you get people on these
wargame forums scaring off people that do want to play with incest rants
about..its to hard and takes to long. Maybe it does for them. But it would
be nice if they allowed others to at least try. But as I say the insistance
that all to time conusimg does much to curb no interest in wargaming.
Ever since the articles started flowing out in the 80's about how PC will be
the future theres been a this self fullfilled prophecy for lack of a btter
term that has killed no PC gaming to large extent. Can wargames be
complicated and time consuming..yeah. Is the only way to fix that to go to
PC games or water down realism and depth of game to the point of something
like Axis and Allies CMG? Absolutley not. But the majority of the online
"wargaming community" will insist that it does. And people that mention this
> I have the pacience and would realy like to find somone or a group that
> is into some kind of hobby. I like detailed monotous activities, I
> have taken to C++ programming. I like war gamming and that kind of
> competitive complex interaction. I persoanlly have a facination with
> the complex and understaning it. I have found other interest that
> satisfy this desire but I still would like to enjoy some gamming.
"Dav Vandenbroucke" <dav_and_france...@compuserve.com> wrote in
message news:ov3tc2dq6fij4seee...@4ax.com...
Patrick
> > So? It's pretty uncommon to find any grownups who don't complain that
> > they would like to have more time to do the things they enjoy.
hoo...@aol.com wrote:
> They compain about a somewhat false permise that anything other then a vidoe
> game takes 2 days to play.
> It prety much kills off old school wargaming. Whats left is CCG's
> Warhammer(wich is anything but easy to learn or quick to play) and PC games.
Some people do blame lack of time for changes of interest. I've done
that myself. When I think about how I used to spend hours just setting
up "The Longest Day," then countless hours more playing it, I tell
myself I'd never have time for such a game anymore. But the truth is
I'd just never *want* to set up and play a game like that anymore. I
wouldn't have the patience for it--though I used to.
Part of it, I guess, is the effect of the PC. I've gotten used to
relying on the computer for all the number crunching and memorization
of rules and such. And it also sets up a game instantly. I'll admit
it; I'm spoiled.
Yeah, I'd like to go back to being a kid again and feeling I had all
the time in the world to set up and play board wargames or miniatures
games. But it ain't gonna happen. My time on earth is growing shorter
by the day, and the older I get, the more aware of it I become. So,
these days I'm happier playing a PC game or a quick, fast-paced card
game or something, leaving me with time to do lots of other things.
It's not just the time factor, though; I just don't *like* "old-school
wargaming" the way I used to. Six or seven years ago, I looked at all
the games in my closet, enjoyed a wave of nostalgia, then realized I'd
*never* play any of those games again in my life. I just wouldn't want
to. They wouldn't be fun anymore. So, I sold the lot of 'em, and I
haven't regretted it.
But YMMV. If you still have enough patience for old-fashioned
wargaming, more power to you. Do what you love. And good luck finding
others who enjoy it too.
--Patrick
JoeC
Thanks for the honest responce. I think many people feel as you do.
You might want to re-start small. Play games that last a few hours or
somthing that is simpler. As you get used to it move back to longer
more complex games as time permits. There are many things I would like
to do but just haven't gotten around to because of my adult life.
Right now I have all the time in the world but am not using it for any
of my hobbies.
There are things that computers can do that can't be represented in a
board game. The abstractions are different. There have been good
computer war games but as I have said most of them today have more to
do with artwork than strategy. I have become interested in history
through war and role playing games. From my suddies and research I
have come up with ideas and concepts for games. Some are good for
computers some not. I would be drawn to any game that has minimlist
graphics but rich depth to logistics and other aspects of war. My
problem with most games is that I have military experience and have
seen how armies deploy and operate. I have also been involved in
different aspects of war. From full scale conventional to guerilla
conflicts. There are certian similiaries and differences.
hoo...@aol.com
What bummed me out was guys that told newbie's its impossible to play non pC
games cause of time and complexity. It happens allot and kills of the non PC
side of things.
I try PC games here and there. I hate em. They aren't anywhere near as
interesting as the old wargames. PC are quirky and constantly need expensive
upgrades, patches, configuration tweaking de-bugging. Pc tech support is
worse then ever. Nothing standardized. You might have to trouble shoot your
PC then you game. Its all a huge pain. Time and effort wasn't ever so bad.
If you had the room for your game you could leave it up. I guarantee those
who claim they aren't wasting time on setup of the board waste the same time
on the PC in other ways before a game starts.
Whatever a person prefernce is is cool. Its just to bad this whole Time
complexity thing has killed off everything. The whole PC kick got that
started and it was never really true.
Patrick
> . . . There have been good
> computer war games but as I have said most of them today have more to
> do with artwork than strategy. I have become interested in history
> through war and role playing games. From my suddies and research I
> have come up with ideas and concepts for games. Some are good for
> computers some not. I would be drawn to any game that has minimlist
> graphics but rich depth to logistics and other aspects of war. My
> problem with most games is that I have military experience and have
> seen how armies deploy and operate. I have also been involved in
> different aspects of war. From full scale conventional to guerilla
> conflicts. There are certian similiaries and differences.
I was also turned on to military history via wargaming, and I even had
a little bit of military experience myself years ago. The more I
learned about real war, the more ridiculous wargames seemed to me.
Even the best ones start to look like speculative abstractions. To
enjoy a wargame, I have to switch on my "suspension of disbelief," just
as I do when reading fiction or watching a movie. Then it can be fun.
Otherwise I find myself shaking my head all the time, thinking, "That's
not right; that's not it at all."
And because I have to do that in order to enjoy wargames, I often take
one more step and just play non-wargames instead--computer strategy
games like Heroes of Might & Magic, for instance, or Civilization.
They're ludicrous, but they're challenging and can be fun to play. For
real history, I find that books work much better than games.
--Patrick
Patrick
> If you don't want to play wargames that's okay.
>
> What bummed me out was guys that told newbie's its impossible to play non pC
Yeah, I hear ya. That's pretty silly, isn't it? People played non-PC
wargames for years before the PC ever came along. So it's obviously
possible.
And there are some things that board wargames and miniatures do that
computer games don't. For one thing, they lend more of a hands-on feel
to the game. You have to pick up the pieces and move 'em, calculate
the odds, refresh your memory of the rules, and so forth. Some people
call that drudgery, but I often miss it when I'm playing computer
games. That "drudgery" gives me the feeling I'm doing something real,
not just "virtual."
--Patrick
JoeC
I have yet to finish playing the new civilization 4 game because of
crashes. The game is intersting but realy not much fun. There were
some good computer games I have yet to see anything that realy find
intersting. Avalon Hill had some realy simole but addictive games for
the TI99 and Amiga. I just had the wrong platform so I missed out on
many games but the games that were availabe for my system were great.
There can be good computer games I realize that the AI for an opponent
is the most dificult part. Either the computer is stronger or has more
knowlege.
Most people want to follow a story or blow stuff up. It may have
somthing to do with our culture that is being dumbed down. I could be
that current conflicts make war gamming less appealing. The wargamming
hayday was in the aftermath of Veitnam. I have watched social
evoultion back to the early 70s as far as my memory goes back. Being
in the military, I am pretty insulated from most social opinion.
JoeC
I can realate to you. That drudgery cam be poor game design. There is
always a ballance between realism and playability. There are certian
abstractions that can be clumsly but the basic skills of reading
counting and basic math are good skills for the rest of your life. I
do rember the work it takes to play a game but all that work gets lost
in the enjoyment of the game and a game like ASL where digging into the
rules was the path to victory. I have many fond memories of playing
ASL and Civilization. I have played other games but I had limited
experience.
Go back and play simpler smaller games and allow the enthuisam to
rebuild. To me winning was not the objective but playing ever more
comples rules and larger games. Playing games is a social experience
and the best times I have had is playing in public places. People
would pool their resources to play minitures or have a place to
actually set up these huge games. Rember these are games and ment for
fun. I had great times playing 6-8 hour of civilization while on
deployment.
JoeC
> a little bit of military experience myself years ago. The more I
> learned about real war, the more ridiculous wargames seemed to me.
> Even the best ones start to look like speculative abstractions. To
> enjoy a wargame, I have to switch on my "suspension of disbelief," just
> as I do when reading fiction or watching a movie. Then it can be fun.
> Otherwise I find myself shaking my head all the time, thinking, "That's
> not right; that's not it at all."
You have a point. ASL is pretty good and reflects small unit action on
a board. Somthing like Planzerblitz is more abstract and is more
sanitary. The higher level you go the more abstract you get. I came
up with a game concept while deployed to the middleeast watching the
army operate all around me. I admit that I have never been under fire
but have prepared to defend my positions.
War is both simpler and more complicated than it is portrayed to be,.
Mostly it is a lot of work and being boored. Tactics are realy pretty
simple but it tough trying to get 10 guys to work together. The huge
psycoligical trauma of being shot at directly. Mostly forcing people
to keep their heads down.
Agin my interest in war is logistics and intelligence. War is very
confusing and you only know what is in front of you. I once read that
military science it getting men to move like blocks and wargamming is
blocks to move like men.
>
> And because I have to do that in order to enjoy wargames, I often take
> one more step and just play non-wargames instead--computer strategy
> games like Heroes of Might & Magic, for instance, or Civilization.
> They're ludicrous, but they're challenging and can be fun to play. For
> real history, I find that books work much better than games.
>
> --Patrick
Have your ever hear of Harry Turtle dove?
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=br_ss_hs/002-5161914-6200044?platform=gurupa&url=index%3Dstripbooks%3Arelevance-above&keywords=harry+Turtledove&Go.x=0&Go.y=0&Go=G
Why play war games? Why refight old battles? To see if we can do a
better job than the originial leaders. Is there a way that Germany
could have won the war or could the aztecs have repulsed the Spanish?
This auther does a realy good job at creating alternate worlds if a few
things heppened different in history.
Still some of my favorite games were ASL, 3Reich, GDW WWIII series and
Civilization. I have seen other games but never had the opertunity to
play them. Many complex games take a serious investment in time to
learn and then to play then play with any skill.
hoo...@aol.com
designed rules. Allot of the tedium of non PC can be eliminated through
better rules. More can be eliminated with simple planning. I don't want to
sound like Mr. smarty pants and all others are dumb or anything but it
always amazed me how many guys never took a few easy steps to make the games
flow faster. Some examples
Setup prior to play
All charts photocopied and enlarged for easy viewing by players without
flipping through books.
A Judge or Ref (I understand this can be hard as allot don't want to waste
there game time not being a player but if you alternate its all fair and
helps greatly)
The Pc I find is better used as a tool to assist in non PC games. A large
variety of good programs have been written to do this. they range from Dice
rolling programs to Army list organizer and programs that assist in
campaigns. I have even seen some that have hit results and damage reports.
Many guys are working on fully automating a set of rules. These make things
go much faster.
Board games were reported in many game magazines as making a comeback. I
wote about this at my webstite http://battlegroupllc.com. Many people are
tired of expensive computing and the hazards of the internet. They long for
the face to face social interaction. I have always found though, the biggest
detriment to wargamers is themselves. The time and complexity thing kills it
off. SO many are convinced it has to be that way and certainly doesn't.
"JoeC" <enk...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1154711767.9...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
JoeC
hoo...@aol.com
"JoeC" <enk...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1154716418....@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
Patrick
I've played every version of Civilization, and even though I've spent
many hours at it, I have to agree that it's "really not much fun." The
new version, Civ IV, is by far the best; a lot of improvements have
been made, and one of the best things is that the game can now be much
shorter than before. Still, it somehow falls flat. Maybe it's just
that an old wargamer like me wants to play games about war, and war is
optional in Civ IV.
Luckily, it hasn't crashed on my system. But it won't play movies
(probably due to an older video card).
I'm surprised that Civ has become such a hugely popular game. Maybe
it's because it's not just a wargame, so it appeals to a wider range of
people.
--Patrick
JoeC
Im not sure what it is. Coud be the interfaces too many choices. I am
playing at the easiest level just to get to know the game. I still
have yet to finish a game. I was a big fan of the first three
versions. I guess, I feel too aloof from the game. I seldom try to
get into a war in civilization, I like to avoid it and build my
civilization economically.
Chuang Shyue Chou
> playing at the easiest level just to get to know the game. I still
> have yet to finish a game. I was a big fan of the first three
> versions. I guess, I feel too aloof from the game. I seldom try to
> get into a war in civilization, I like to avoid it and build my
> civilization economically.
What of the Civ IV expansion? Warlords? Does that add anything?
JoeC
Don't know, I have not seen the expansion.
Patrick
> Im not sure what it is. Coud be the interfaces too many choices. I am
> playing at the easiest level just to get to know the game. I still
> have yet to finish a game. I was a big fan of the first three
> versions. I guess, I feel too aloof from the game. I seldom try to
> get into a war in civilization, I like to avoid it and build my
> civilization economically.
That sums up my experience too! In Civilization, war is annoying. I'm
always surprised when I read strategy articles by expert players and
they talk about conquering enemy cities early on, or about nuking the
world and pulling off conquest victories at the end. I can hardly ever
bring myself to fight a war in that game. I almost never start one.
If I have to fight a war, I can do it--but it's not enjoyable. I'd be
happier if everybody just left me alone and let me develop my
civilization and go on to win a space-race victory.
Unfortunately, that seems to only happen on the easier levels. Once
you get up to Noble level (in Civ IV), you have to be prepared to
defend--or even make a pre-emptive attack.
I also get tired of being prompted by the computer all the time. "What
do you want to build?" "Where do you want to move this unit?" "What
do you want to research next?" On and on. After a while I feel the
game is playing me instead of me playing it.
Right now I'm enjoying Heroes of Might & Magic 3 Complete--a game I
just bought for an older computer system. I had HoMM2 years ago and
liked it. HoMM3 is great! And it's all about war and conquest (with
some treasure hunting and other stuff thrown in), so when you build
your cities and economy, you know you're doing it just to support your
military in its effort to dominate the world. Thus there's a nice
focus to the game that appeals to me. Also, the battles are fought out
on a tactical battle screen--very stylized, yet tense and interesting.
Now that I've got HoMM3, I don't bother to play Civ IV anymore.
--Patrick
JoeC
I think we agree. I just want to create my own games based on my
research and experiences in the military.
Kharsis
during combat other than just casting spells.
Kharsis
JoeC
> Now that I've got HoMM3, I don't bother to play Civ IV anymore.
>
> --Patrick
If you don't mind, I have some ideas for my civilization game. Here is
a great book I read that is the source of many of my ideas:
I realy like the premise of Civilization but I agree with you that the
latest game plays us and discourages war.
I am not one make criticizms with no suggestions. To start, I don't
like the idea of ancient "uits'. Until modern times countries raised a
single army each country or countries would pool their resources and it
would result in a single combat or series of sieges until the weaker
country could defeat the larger one. There is a also the question of
logistics that this realy goes into. Saying that an Ox yoke was more
of a combat factor than some weapons. That is because armies could
carry their supplys more efficiently. In Civilization you can station
an army in the desert or the arctic. for centuries and they surviuve.
Logistics is how far can you move an army and how long can you leave
them in the field. Many armies lived off the territory they went
through causing far more devistation that the actual fighting. See the
30 years war and Gustavus Adolfus who moved his army more of the goal
to survive.
I would have natural disaters that have been critical turning points in
civilizations the Eruption of Thera in 1200 BC. Civil wars where bad
governace leads to fighting your own units. One thing I liked about an
older version of Civilization is that under certian government if you
lost a war they would make you end the war.
One fustration I have with the game is that it exclued the resource tin
because it was very expenisve and was traded and explored for
extensivly in the ancient world. From 1200 to 800BC was the
introduction of iron. It is somwhat better of a metal but it is
cheeper to work and more pleantiful. In that there was enough weapons
to go around so you can have much larger well equiped armies and you
can have a single greek city be able to field an efective army.
The basis of my game is that you have a general population. As your
civilization progresses, you get surplus population. That population
can allocated to various activities. They could be profetional
military class, researchers scribes, merchants crafts man and so on.
In a defensive war or shor campaigns you can allocate more of your
population to war but they will be lesser trained and equiped
auxiliries. You can also have the posibility of nomadic civiliztions
with their certian streinghts and weaknesses. I would also take the
type of governmet out of direct control of the player but allow them to
have indirect control over it. For example you a dictatorship if you
allocate too many people to the military and to gain points you have to
go to war which if you loose can result in civil war for example.
Another thing is that conquered cities reatin their identity after
being captured and are more apt to rebel in civil war.
I would change the way each advancement was researced. I would also
take that out of the control of the player. Your advancements would be
generated by the computer but if you allocate your people to research
or priests of the army would make it more likely that you will accuire
those skills and also you will be more likely to accuire the skills of
your neighabors.
This is a rough outline for a vision I have for a game. I have taken
from civilization that book Sumer to Rome and the civilization board
game with is a great deal of fun. The goal realy is to make it more
faithful to history as I have studdied it. I also think it would be
fun. There is a proscess for devloping games and designing the system,
graphics and interfaces but as long as the player or players understand
what is going on the graphics and interfaces are doing their jobs.
CarpeCerevisi
system, taking into account terrain far more effectively (imho) than
Heroes, with a less "cartoon" feel. Been a while since I've played it,
but it was old and re-released (Xplosive games iirc) when I bought it a
few years ago, but I still find it plays better than Heroes 3 (haven't
seen 4)
Graham Lockwood
Yes, is the answer. The hobby is nowhere as popular as it was in it's
heyday (the 70s & early 80s). In Australia (population around 24
million), there are around still a number of gaming conventions -
miniatures / RPG / boardgames / CCGs each with healthy attendances even
considering distances (Melbourne to Sydney is around 1000kms).
On a local level (I live in the western part of Sydney - population
around 3 million) gaming is supported by a local retail store with room
for around 120 gamers to play any and all of the above branches of the
hobby. The retail owner is a hobbyist himself and has had enough trade
to support his family & business over the last 6 years or so.
I consider myself almost a fanatic (own 350+ board/wargames) so I am
always positive and try to promote the hobby when possible. I get much
more enjoyment out of interacting with other humans than with a PC or
avatar.
My 2 cents.
Regards,
Graham Lockwood.
JoeC
Great glad to hear that. There may be a market for games. It dosn't
do me much good because you are on the otehr side of the world. I
don't know much about business but I am not sure how many player it
takes to support a store or a game maker.
Patrick
> Just my tuppence-worth. I'm rather a fan of Age of Wonders's battle
> system, taking into account terrain far more effectively (imho) than
> Heroes, with a less "cartoon" feel. Been a while since I've played it,
> but it was old and re-released (Xplosive games iirc) when I bought it a
> few years ago, but I still find it plays better than Heroes 3 (haven't
> seen 4)
I've played AoW (three versions of it, the latest I'm aware of being
called Age of Wonders: Shadow Magic).
It's a good game. But for my taste, the battles tend to be too long
and drawn out--especially the big sieges (which happen pretty
frequently). I was always tempted to click the quick-resolution button
and let the computer work out the tactical battle details.
Years ago, this was also a problem in Master of Orion. The tactical
battles were often way too long.
In Heroes of Might & Magic 3, the battles are so stylized and the maps
so small that even the biggest engagement plays reasonably quickly. I
like that.
If I wanted realism, I'd still be playing hardcore wargames. But after
doing that for many years, I finally realized I wasn't getting as much
realism as I wanted anyway (because a game necessarily abstracts war
and usually distorts some elements for the sake of making a good,
playable contest of it). And besides, what I really wanted was a good,
fun exercise in strategy & tactics--and I can get that even from a
silly fantasy game like Heroes 3.
Also pretty good is Battle of Wesnoth ( http://www.wesnoth.org ). It's
a free download that plays a lot like the old SSI game Fantasy General.
My only complaint is that it eventually beats me even on Easy level.
For wargamers, People's Tactics ( http://www.peoplestactics.com ) might
be a better game to download. Haven't tried this one yet, but it looks
promising.
--Patrick
Kharsis
part and unit quality comes into play.
I have yet to play Total War: Rome although I own it. It is supposed to
be the bestso far.
Kharsis
Dav Vandenbroucke
wrote:
>Total War is a good game if you like using tactics.
There are wargamers who don't like using tactics? There are wargames
that don't require them?
Dav Vandenbroucke
davanden at cox dot net
Patrick
Dav Vandenbroucke wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 08:32:15 +1200, Kharsis <kha...@ihug.co.nz>
> wrote:
>
> >Total War is a good game if you like using tactics.
>
> There are wargamers who don't like using tactics? There are wargames
> that don't require them?
I think there are wargame(r)s that are more strategy oriented, and
those that are more tactics oriented.
Sometimes it's just a matter of scale: e.g., a game that covers all of
WWII on a map of the world is unlikely to portray much of the
nitty-gritty infighting of tactical engagements. Of course there are
still game tactics involved in the play, but that's true of any game.
When it comes to game tactics, it's hard to tell where to draw the
line. Some say chess is a mostly tactical game (with some strategy),
while go is a mostly strategic game (with some tactics).
I suspect Kharsis is saying that Rome: Total War does a good job of
presenting military tactics in game form.
To me, that's an aspect of what's often called "realism" in wargames
(i.e., how well the game simulates war). Years ago, realism meant
everything to me in wargaming; now it doesn't mean as much anymore.
I'm happy to do without a lot of realism for the sake of a game that's
more fun to play.
I browsed through the screen shots of Rome: Total War a while back, and
it all looked *too* realistic to me. I don' t want a game that puts me
right there on the battlefield; I just want one that lets me try my
hand at exercising strategy & tactics while also indulging in a little
make-believe.
Btw, another very good computer strategy game, which I forgot to
mention last time, is Lost Admiral Returns. It's a remake of an old
game, and the graphics and interface are way outdated--but the gaming
challenge is superb! For a look-see, go to:
http://www.lostadmiralreturns.com
--Patrick
Kharsis
thanx patrick you covered what I was trying to get across perfectly.
Some games eg Close Combat are more tactically oriented; whereas others
eg hearts of Iron are more strategically oriented.
Kharsis
JoeC
JoeC
Loz Hensel
>
> Dav Vandenbroucke wrote:
>> On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 08:32:15 +1200, Kharsis <kha...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>> >Total War is a good game if you like using tactics.
>>
>> There are wargamers who don't like using tactics?
>> There are wargames that don't require them?
I've played games of Warhamer 40K that involved no tactics or stategy,
just a lot of dice, and games of DBA that didn't even involve that!
>
> I think there are wargame(r)s that are more strategy oriented, and those
> that are more tactics oriented.
>
Can you briefly describe the differnece between stategy and tactics. I
know there is a difference, and I vaguely know what it is, but I'm not
entirely sure where to draw the line.
Loz
JoeC
> Can you briefly describe the differnece between stategy and tactics. I
> know there is a difference, and I vaguely know what it is, but I'm not
> entirely sure where to draw the line.
>
> Loz
Yes, according to Clauswitz the Author of Von Kreig, Strategy is the
goal of your campaign and the tactics are the steps used to acheave the
strategy.
Strategy: conquer your neighabor, tactic frontal assault or tactic
manuver around their force.
darksan
You need to learn some of the Play-By-E-Mail (PBEM) programs like Aide
De Camp 2 (ADC2), CyberBoard (CB), and VASSAL. There are a lot of
wargamers about and quite a bit of wargaming goes on using E-Mail. You
also need to use the Internet to find your wargaming opponent.
Internet places to go.
Web-Grognards: The site for wargames on the Web since 1995
http://www.grognard.com
ConsimWorld: Confilict Simulation Gaming News and Discussion
http://www.consim.com
Web-Grognards has some listings for other wargamers that have a
particular interest, variant, errata and other links for wargames, and
much more.
ConsimWorld is basically a chat forum with lots of folders, some for
individual game, some game series and other topics that relate (or not)
to wargaming
PBEM programs
ADC2: The Universal Boardgame Conversion and PBEM Assistance Utility
http://www.hpssims.com
CyberBoard: PBEM Boardgaming System for Windows
http://cyberboard.brainiac.com/
VASSAL: a game engine for building and playing online adaptations of
board games and card games
http://www.vassalengine.org
I am currently playing Avalon Hill's Luftwaffe using CyberBoard, may
soon start Avalon Hill's Flat Top using one of the three PBEM programs
above. ADC2 and CB are specifically for PBEm while VASSAL is mainly for
on-line playing. All three are well supported and many games
modules/gameboxes are available.
Skip Franklin
enki wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> <snip>
> I am hard
> pressed to find any people who are interested in personal getting
> together over a board or table and spending time playing games.
JoeC
>
> Skip Franklin
>
> enki wrote:
> > Hi there,
> >
> > <snip>
> > I am hard
> > pressed to find any people who are interested in personal getting
> > together over a board or table and spending time playing games.
Sounds like fun but I have taken to writing my own computer games.
Loz Hensel
Thanks. Interesting. How, then, can you have any game without both?
Even if, at the most basic, your goal is to destroy as much of your enemy
as possible (or even reach the end square) that's your strategy, while
your tactics would be the actual manoeuvres you make and units you attack
(or the numbers you roll on the dice and the attempt to avoid the snakes
and fine the ladders)
Loz
The Garvins
"Loz Hensel" <lozh...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.08.16....@yahoo.co.uk...
its application, very difficult to differentiate between strategy and
tactics).
"Conquer your neighbour" I would call your objective
"Employing infantry with a view to perforating the enemy's lines and
exploiting with armour in order to shatter their will to fight. All the
while pretending to be suing for peace." I would call a strategy.
Frontal assault with artillery attacking THAT hill with smoke while I come
around on his left I would call a tactic.
Strategy has been called by some "that planning done out of contact of the
enemy. Including the deployment of forces, your overall game plan, etc"
Tactics would then be "that planning done in contact with the enemy.
Including the timely deployment of forces and method of attack."
Close in definition, I know, but.....
Patrick
> Can you briefly describe the differnece between stategy and tactics. I
> know there is a difference, and I vaguely know what it is, but I'm not
> entirely sure where to draw the line.
You're in good company, then. Most people are unsure where to draw the
line.
Here's a link to a discussion among firefighters that addresses the
difference between strategy & tactics. What they say also applies to
military strategy & tactics as well as game strategy & tactics.
http://tinyurl.com/eq999
In a footnote, naval theorist A. T. Mahan gives a handy mnemonic
device. He says TACTics are what you use when your forces come into
conTACT with the enemy; strategy is all the thinking and planning you
do when your forces are *not* in contact with the enemy. If you think
about that, and use some imagination, it seems to work even for game
tactics & strategy. In bridge, for example, strategic thinking happens
mostly in the bidding phase (when cards are not actually being played,
and thus it could be said that "forces are not yet in conTACT");
tactical thinking happens mostly during cardplay (when forces--i.e.,
cards--are in contTACT).
In a computer game like Heroes of Might & Magic, the big shift from
strategy to tactics shows up as a switch to the tactical battle screen.
When forces are not in contact, you're maneuvering around the big map,
gathering resources, exploring, and setting up strategic positions.
The moment one of your armies bumps into an enemy army, you're switched
to a battle map, and now tactics come into play.
In chess, anytime you're thinking, "If I move here, then he can move
there, and then..." you're using tactics. Chess strategy is more like,
"Shall I try to open up the center of the board, or leave the center
closed and launch a king-side attack?"
Hope this catches the gist of it.
--Patrick
Loz Hensel
> Loz Hensel wrote:
>> Can you briefly describe the differnece between stategy and tactics. I
>> know there is a difference, and I vaguely know what it is, but I'm not
>> entirely sure where to draw the line.
>
> You're in good company, then. Most people are unsure where to draw the
> line.
>
> Here's a link to a discussion among firefighters that addresses the
> difference between strategy & tactics. What they say also applies to
> military strategy & tactics as well as game strategy & tactics.
> http://tinyurl.com/eq999
>
> In a footnote, naval theorist A. T. Mahan gives a handy mnemonic device.
> He says TACTics are what you use when your forces come into conTACT with
> the enemy; strategy is all the thinking and planning you do when your
> forces are *not* in contact with the enemy.
Thanks, one and all. I think I get it now! So for a standard tabletop
wargame my strategy would be defined with the forces I chose, how I chose
to deploy them and my overall goal (such as take the left flank first and
roll down the line, or whatever), whereas the tactics would be how I went
about specifically manoeuvring my forces and which units I engaged where
and how (e.g. HOW I take the left flank, which units to target with my
artillery, etc.)
And for snakes and ladders (to continue the facetious example from
earlier), the strategy is "get to the end square as quickly as possible
avoiding the snakes and taking advantage of the ladders along the way",
while there ARE not tactics, unless you count trying to roll high on the
dice, or of course using loaded dice (not that I ever would...)
Loz
Patrick
> Thanks, one and all. I think I get it now! So for a standard tabletop
> wargame my strategy would be defined with the forces I chose, how I chose
> to deploy them and my overall goal (such as take the left flank first and
> roll down the line, or whatever), whereas the tactics would be how I went
> about specifically manoeuvring my forces and which units I engaged where
> and how (e.g. HOW I take the left flank, which units to target with my
> artillery, etc.)
Sounds right to me.
> And for snakes and ladders (to continue the facetious example from
> earlier), the strategy is "get to the end square as quickly as possible
> avoiding the snakes and taking advantage of the ladders along the way",
> while there ARE not tactics, unless you count trying to roll high on the
> dice, or of course using loaded dice (not that I ever would...)
I'm not sure there's any strategy in S&L either; there's only a goal.
Strategy and tactics are two levels of *decision making.* Where there
are no decisions, there can be no strategy or tactics.
--Patrick
hoo...@aol.com
perhaps I mis typed it
"JoeC" <enk...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1155643155....@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Jim Gunn
>Hi there,
>
> I am intersted in wargamming. I had my first contact with games
>about 20 years ago and was intersted.
I am just getting back into the wargaming hobby with some of the old
Avalon Hill games that I used to enjoy in my youth. I am happy to see
that there exist Vassal game modules (and other pbeM utilities) for
many of the games I just (re)purchased on ebay since I don't really
have any reliable local playing partners. I woud be up for a online
game of The Russian Campaign (3rd edition), Waterloo, Alexander The
Great or Caesar At Alesia using Vassal, Cyberboard or other PBeM aids.
The Red Goblin
"Graham Lockwood" <pro...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:44d91dfc$0$5110$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> I consider myself almost a fanatic (own 350+ board/wargames) so I am
> always positive and try to promote the hobby when possible. I get much
> more enjoyment out of interacting with other humans than with a PC or
> avatar.
>
> My 2 cents.
>
> Regards,
> Graham Lockwood.
I echo this post. Though my collection is even bigger :-( Sadly, I play on
a regular basis only a dozen or so. Jobs and family commitments all but
rule out multi-player game fests. If it can't be set and played to
completion in about four hours (tops) it rarely gets played.
The social interaction is always what makes board gaming special, though I
enjoy PC games also. I could probably sell most of my collection but a love
of history and the nostalgia of my youth prevents it.
Jim Gunn
<i_sa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>The social interaction is always what makes board gaming special, though I
>enjoy PC games also. I could probably sell most of my collection but a love
>of history and the nostalgia of my youth prevents it.
>
I just started playing some of my old favorite Avalon Hill board
wargames again via online utilities like Vassal (live online) and
Cyberboard (pbem) with opponents from all over the world. It works
great!