Today's Feature: We'll Always Have Hexes

[bayonetbrant]

https://www.armchairdragoons.com/feature/wargaming-evolved-well-always-have-hexes/

[Barthheart]

AHHHHHH! Those poor counters in the GDW WWIII photo.....   

[bob48]

Mwhahahaha!

^{.....clip clip, clip clip....}

[panzerde]

Despite being an avowed counter-clipper, those counters have been butchered. Someone's been at them with a toenail clipper.

I wholeheartedly agree with the core premise of Gary's article, despite being shocked to find out that he's an aging white guy.

I'm not sure I agree though that we are, or will be seeing a narrowing of the hex-and-counter style of games. I keep hearing this, but at the same time keep seeing new, more boutique publishers appearing. These publishers, through the magic of print-on-demand and offshore printers seem to be producing a steady diet of new and often very good hex-and-counter games at all points across the spectrum of complexity, quality of components, and price.

Despite deciding a couple of years ago that I'm only buying games that cover the historical period I'm most interested in, which is definitely a niche of a niche, I still have more games available to me than I can afford to buy or have hours to play. And I daresay that with weekly gaming sessions and solo gaming I probably play more than the average hex-and-counter gamer.

There's a lot being produced. It might only be selling 200-500 copies per game (or less) but these boutique operations seem to be providing enough income for their owners to live on while doing what they enjoy. If that's the future if the hobby, I'll say I'm well pleased.

[BanzaiCat]

Academy Games' 1754 Conquest: The French and Indian Wars has always had my eye. Not sure why; that period doesn't particularly appeal to me, but that one, and Mr. Madison's War: The Incredible War of 1812 both look very interesting.

[Cyrano]

I've been thinking about this a lot.  It really is sweeping the hobby.

Consider:

1.  Uwe is working on SIMPLIFYING CoH.  It's not that hard a game to begin with.
2.  The emphasis on wargames  by VPG is instructive.  Since its acquisition, the "Premiere Line" is hobby boardgame only.  Yes there are assuredly wargames there, but they are evidently not the primary product.
3.  By Mark Herman's own reporting, the sales of "Fort Sumter" are outstripping any of his previous offerings.
4.  Mystery Wizard.  Mystery f-ing Wizard.

GMT, MMP, and the little shops will print wargames for we dotards, but, even at GMT, we're getting shoved to the back of the line to make room for games that sell better.  That's just common sense.  As Uwe, Harold Buchanan,, and any number of others have pointed out, the difference in print runs for "Dominant Species" versus MBT is an order of magnitude.  We will have games and they will be fine ones, I think.  They'll just be very different from those we first loved.

[mirth]

I'm not too worried. I already have enough wargames to keep me occupied until I finally kick the bucket.

[bob48]

'Simplifying' CoH may well  destroy its integrity as a game system, which,  IMHO, is  very robust and playable in its present form.

[Cyrano]

@mirth:  that’s where I see this heading.  The internet and modern printing have ensured there’ll be a fine handful of games as we go.   And some really good “next wave” consims as well.

@bob:  I don’t play much TTG WWII squad-level stuff as CMx2 is a thing, but I have wondered about that.

[mirth]

I play a lot of table top WWII squad level games and the long term trend is toward simpler, fast playing games. I got into the hobby with Easy Eight's Battleground WWII. It is complex, demanding, and will absolutely punish poor decisions, but it is still the best set of squad level rules for WWII that I have ever played. I cannot stand playing FoW, Bolt Action, or any of the myriad of simpler rule sets that are available.

[Cyrano]

Oh. man, don't even get me started on miniatures.

I was told twice at Origins that "Sergeants" was "far too complicated".

I remembered Battleground (and Crossfire) at those very moments.

[mirth]

For some reason, these days complexity = bad. Battleground is complex because you are playing with individual troops with each having two "man actions" per turn. So there's a lot you can do with a squad of 10 soldiers. I like that level of control and flexibility. It allows you to use real world tactics and have them work. The LMG team lays down suppressing fire while the rest of the squad maneuvers. One guy tosses a grenade into a room and the rest of the team moves in to clear it. That's what makes it fun to play, but you have to plan and know how the troops/weapons work.

Too many of these "fast-play" games reduce squads to firepower factors that you push around the table as a blob. 

[bayonetbrant]

I was told twice at Origins that "Sergeants" was "far too complicated".

How many of those people had backpacks with 11 RPG books in them?

[Cyrano]

@brant:  Like the Macho Man would say, "oooooh, yeah".  And, going a step further, how many of them would cavil that Savage Worlds is overly simplistic as it points out that any number of specialized spells named after this or that Foozle of the Dark Tower are really just fireball with a better press agent?

@mirth:  It's obviously courses for horses, but I liked Crossfire as a concept, though I never played it much.  I've not played Battleground (though I've read it) and found what it does clear and reasonable enough.  "Force on Force", on the other hand, despite all my attempts to love it (I really grokked "Ambush Alley") came off as a pile of un-assembled and poorly-fitted parts that only could come together as a game under the watchful eye of the designer.

One of the nastiest arguments I've ever seen at Historicon was over that game...

[bayonetbrant]

One of the nastiest arguments I've ever seen at Historicon

Jousting with wheeled walkers?

Someone dropped the 'heck'-bomb?

Accusations of unpainted armies or dice that were only single-digit-years old?

Use of the word "forsooth"?

I mean, the mind boggles...