Games That Are Part of Your Life

[Patrick]

Maybe this thread title better captures what was on my mind last time
I posted.

What I've come to realize is that the games in my life fall into a few
categories:

1. Games I played in the past but don't (and probably won't) play
anymore.

2. Games I played in the past, still play, and expect to always play.

3. Games I haven't played (but might someday).


On the sad side, I've come to realize that most wargames fit into
category 1. And it's not that I couldn't still play them; I just
wouldn't want to. Some of 'em have a lot of nostalgic value, but
anytime that motivates me to set one up, I always end up
disappointed. As my dad told me when I was a kid, "You can't go
back." Besides wargames, there are other games that fit into category
1--children's games, for example (unless it happens that I'm playing
one with a child someday). There are also some games in my closet
that I may never get to play again: Dune, Advanced Civilization,
Merchant of Venus.

There are lots and lots of games in category 3. In recent months I've
done a lot of window shopping and even some purchasing; and I now own
at least half a dozen new games that I don't know when I'll get around
to playing. That's kinda sad to me too, because it's possible I'll
run out of years before I ever get around to playing some of those
games.

But then there's category 2--games that have become part of my life,
so to speak. There's a positive ring to that.

Backgammon is one such game; I learned it in the 1970s, and I've had a
backgammon set around ever since--and even if I don't set up a
physical game and play it with anyone very often, I'll play on the
computer, and I'm ready for a physical game anytime. I also have a
couple books on backgammon, and I like reading up on the game
sometimes.

Cribbage is another category-2 game. I was intrigued when, in my
teens, I read about the game in a copy of Hoyle--but I didn't know
anyone who played. I bought a cribbage board anyway and taught the
game to myself. Don't remember if I ever played it with anyone else
back then. But the woman I married is a cribbage player, so I've been
able to play it with her for the past couple decades. It could be
"our game" if we stuck to it instead of experimenting with new games
all the time.

Chess, checkers, and go are games I forcibly keep in my life. I've
never been any good at them, and truth be told, I don't like working
so hard at a game; but they're so classy and challenging and rewarding
that I periodically take a renewed interest in one and study or
practice it a bit. It's weird, though; something tells me I shouldn't
have to force myself to play a game--it should be a fun and welcome
pastime.

Dominoes is a game I first learned as a kid. Many people think of it
as a kids' game, but there's really more to it; some domino games are
as good as any card game (and a few domino games are modeled after
card games). I own a few boxes of dominoes, and I play on the
computer pretty often. There's something appealing about them that
sticks with me.

I suppose Scrabble would fit into category 2, though I haven't played
it in a long while. Recently bought Buyword, which is also pretty
good.

Rummy would be a category-2 game. It's what my family mostly played
when I was a kid growing up. And I still play some gin rummy fairly
often.

My wife would include Yahtzee in her category 2, and she gets me to
play that sometimes. She has fond memories of Monopoly and Milles-
Bornes too, but it's unlikely she'll ever play those again.

If I were going to name a few games that are truly and naturally part
of my life today, though, I guess I'd name backgammon, cribbage,
rummy, and dominoes.

Many other games seem very cool to me--but I admire most of 'em from a
distance rather than actually playing them.

[Sukunai]

I will label them as defining games in my case.

Squad Leader/ASL and Advanced Third Reich are by far the games that
made me want to wear the label wargamer.
In computer games, Steel Panthers is my defining computer wargame.
Outside of specifically military themed games, Heroes of Might and
Magic series and the Civilization series have used up a lot of my
gaming life.

Hearts of Iron has been a game I like to shit all over mostly just for
the comedic effect if has on it's fans.

In the non fanatic group based genre, Axis and Allies rules as the
game I can play against the most people.
And I am a devouted role gamer having played nearly every well
established commercial design. I began with Dungeons and Dragons, and
I appear to have returned there this year.

I have a very noticable bias in favour of physically present and
physical constructed types of games.

[Patrick]

As I look at what I wrote, I guess I could sum it up like this: I've
decided it'd be wise to focus on games I might actually play with
somebody, given my life as it is and looks to be in the foreseeable
future.

Solo games (computer or non-computer) will no doubt account for most
of my gaming in any case, just because social gaming doesn't come up
for me but once in a blue moon, and I'm unwilling to actively pursue
it any more than I have been. But I've never really been content with
solitaire gaming. So, these day I look for games that *can* be played
solitaire but which I have a decent chance of playing with someone
else from time to time.

Those are the games I've named: e.g., cribbage, backgammon, dominoes,
rummy.

There are other games I might end up playing with someone--e.g., Lost
Cities, Bohnanza, Battle Line. But those don't lend themselves to
solo play between two-player games. So, they sit on the shelf for
three or four months, then one comes out and gets played.

But a game like backgammon is cool to me because I can practice it all
I like on a computer or PDA, read books about it, and have it fresh in
mind anytime an opportunity for a "real game" crops up.

As to wargames, I don't expect to ever play one against another person
again. And that pretty much puts a damper on playing solo. I used to
play wargames solo a lot, but I always figured I was just practicing
for the "real game" I'd play someday. Nowadays it's hard to motivate
myself to play a wargame solo. It has to be a pretty simple, fast-
playing game without a lot of rules to learn--something I can have
some fun with but not have to spend too much time at.

Lately, there's something especially appealing about a deck of cards,
a box of dominoes, or a backgammon set. Armed with those three things
(or any one of them), I'm ready for a game anytime, anyplace, with
anybody. Even somebody who doesn't know how to play.

[Sukunai]

Have you played Up Front Patrick?

The reason I ask is the following,

It plays like poker, and poker skills actually count for something.

It can be played near anywhere, as it takes as much space as a game of
cards.

I have actually played it against two utterly non wargaming females
both at once in a 3 way game (yes it can be played that way too).

It's fast, you generally play 3 draws through the deck.

It looks like Squad leader (no shock there) so a fan of Squad Leader
sort of gets their 'fix'.

It has so many aspects of both a great wargame and an easy social
game.

But yeah, solo with no expectation of ever not being solo is
depressing I can agree.
I play solo sort of intentionally, but I wish I didn't have to.

[Patrick]

On Apr 20, 8:47 pm, Sukunai <sukunai.ni.y...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Have you played Up Front Patrick?

Yes. I used to love it--though it took a while for me to get it.

> The reason I ask is the following,
>
> It plays like poker, and poker skills actually count for something.
>
> It can be played near anywhere, as it takes as much space as a game of
> cards.
>
> I have actually played it against two utterly non wargaming females
> both at once in a 3 way game (yes it can be played that way too).

LOL. I played it once against a female friend who'd never seen a
wargame before. She was lost at first and gradually began to catch
on, as I recall.

> It's fast, you generally play 3 draws through the deck.
>
> It looks like Squad leader (no shock there) so a fan of Squad Leader
> sort of gets their 'fix'.

I bought it when it first came out--at a time when I'd become so
frustrated with "Crescendo of Doom" that I'd nearly reached the end of
my rope. I hoped UF might provide a much-needed respite.

The first four times or so I played it, I felt I'd been gypped. "The
Squad Leader Card Game"? Pfft! It's nothing like SL! Besides, it's
weird--with terrain features appearing and disappearing randomly.
What a miserable excuse for a game! Those were my initial
impressions.

Then, around the fifth game or so, I got it. Something clicked, and I
could see what the system was trying to show. Everything came
together and started to make sense.

Pretty soon, I was ready to swear off SL and its expansions and just
stick to UF for my tactical-wargame fix. I kept it around, bought the
expansions for it, and continued to play it for ten years or so.
Finally, I sold it, along with all my other wargames, in 1999, just
before my last move.

> It has so many aspects of both a great wargame and an easy social
> game.

It does have a lot going for it--and it's apparently still very highly
regarded and commands good prices (when you can find a copy at all).
There are always rumors about a reprint, but it never seems to happen.

However (there's always a "however" with me), there are some things I
never liked about UF. One was the relative-range mechanic; I hated
having to study the relative-range chits and try to visualize where
the groups were in relation to each other. (Don't know how many times
I belatedly realized I was close enough to infiltrate an enemy group.)

Lining up the "personality cards" and counting up firepower every turn
was another downside to me. Seemed like there ought to be something
else--miniatures maybe--instead of "personality cards." Yet, they
were functional.

The main thing that bugged me about the game, I guess, was the fact
that all kinds of movement was *supposed* to be happening, but you had
to visualize it, because the "game pieces" didn't actually move on the
table.

Last time I played UF (in the mid 1990s), I was thinking that the
basic game system would be great for a board or miniatures wargame.
You'd still divide your troops into a few groups, and you'd still use
cards to drive everything, but there'd be actual movement on a board.
I briefly toyed with designing a game like that--and then I got
sidetracked and didn't get around to it. But I kept the idea in the
back of my mind.

Then, lo and behold, along comes designer Richard Borg with his
Commands & Colors system, starting with the game Battle Cry, which
came out in 2000. It works *very* much like UF transformed into a
board game with miniatures. Except that it's greatly simplified. I
doubt if Memoir '44 is much like UF (I haven't seen any C&C games
except Battle Cry), but there's a similar game mechanic. Basically,
Borg did almost exactly what I'd been thinking of doing myself.

Unfortunately, he didn't work nearly enough realism or accuracy into
Battle Cry for my liking. I can't stretch my imagination enough to
make the game seem credible. I did download a variant for it, which
supposedly adds some realism, so maybe I'll try that. Also, I've
heard rumors that Borg is working on a new, improved version.

> But yeah, solo with no expectation of ever not being solo is
> depressing I can agree.
> I play solo sort of intentionally, but I wish I didn't have to.

Same here. I don't mind; I usually like my time alone well enough.
But games seem to fit into the "it takes two to tango" category of
experiences. The fun and satisfaction can be magnified when two or
more people get together for a game.

That's why lately I've been favoring more popular, traditional games
(e.g., cribbage and backgammon). Even if, for the time being, I'm
playing solo, I'm also aware that many thousands, perhaps millions, of
other people play this game. Hence, there's always a pretty good
chance that I'll be able to play it with someone else someday soon.

Not the case with any wargame I know of. Not unless you count a
thinly war-themed game like Battle Line, which I expect to get my wife
to play one of these days. Or a fantasy game like Battlelore, which I
might also be able to persuade her to play--and which is popular
enough that I might actually meet another player someday.

Wargame-wise, I stick to only the lightest and easiest and most fast-
playing nowadays. Such games would be easy to teach to someone, and
that's a plus. Too bad I don't like fantasy more; fantasy-themed
games are all the rage and have a wider appeal than WWII games and
such. The American Civil War is boring to most people I know, so it'd
be hard to get anyone to play A House Divided or Battle Cry.

If someone did republish Up Front, maybe they'd do it with a medieval-
fantasy theme. It might sell better (though it would probably appeal
less to you and other wargamers). Come to think of it, there is a new
fantasy card-based wargame out that's supposed to be very good; it's
called War for Edadh:
http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/38400

--Patrick

[Sukunai]

Have not seen War for Edadh.

On Up Front, the lack of the board was I think it's strength. Because
it didn't have a board, you were able to ditch all the hell that is
designing a game that can't ignore the board. That's what happened to
ASL. Vehicle Bypass movement, LOS problems, the whole are you in the
hex or IN the hex. With Up Front, just like in real life, you just
don't always know what's over the next hill all the time. The range
chits were yes a trick to learn to get used to. No denying that.
I liked that a man might not fire, might not move, might not rally.
Humans are a right unpredictable bunch.

I understand they briefly tried to release it sans counters entirely
(it was to be all cards).
I know a chap that has done a lot of homemade for sale cards, but god
while they look great, he expects you to pay off his mortgage with
them :)

I've got this notion for a game that I want to develope with a friend
of mine. I just wish he would hurry up and finish this epic
masterpiece creation of a piano miniature he's been slaving over
first.

Your idea of a different genre setting card game of the same basic
concept of Up Front does sound very marketable.
Well at least I like the idea.