Armchair Dragoons Forums
Wargaming => Intel Dump => Topic started by: bayonetbrant on August 22, 2019, 07:37:43 PM
-
(https://i0.wp.com/www.armchairdragoons.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/JimsRant.jpg) (https://www.armchairdragoons.com/feature/cyranos-pulpit-a-defense-of-my-formative-years-against-the-imprecations-of-professor-marco-arnaudo-et-al/)
-
My glasses were roughly that size.
-
He said I'm the last generation that will ever play Star Fleet Battles! :-\
-
My glasses were roughly that size.
:2funny:
-
He said I'm the last generation that will ever play Star Fleet Battles! :-\
That's not really a bad thing.
-
He said I'm the last generation that will ever play Star Fleet Battles! :-\
That's not really a bad thing.
(https://www.aarcentral.com/pics3/jbsmall.gif)
-
That was a very insightful and interesting piece, Cyrano.
I recently friended Marco on Facebook, actually, and was very surprised to find most of his posts are very political in nature - as are some of my friends on FB, all of whom are very vocal in their opinions of the current state of affairs. That's all well and good - it's perfectly within their rights - but what sucks is, I feel that were I to lay my own opinion down, be it an opposing viewpoint or devil's advocate argument, instead of turning into a discourse/civil discussion, it would probably turn into threats of violence and a flurry of unfriending. :(
Anyway that was the first thing I thought of when I saw this on the Front PageTM, and was glad it wasn't in that vein. :)
-
It will come as no surprise to anyone that my position on this is "what he said."
Glasses aside, I can't believe Cyrano would wear that hat.
-
Glasses aside, I can't believe Cyrano would wear that hat.
I can.
-
A man that would gladly wear a tricorn hat to work will wear ANY hat.
-
Not a tricorn.
Front-and-back bicorn.
I've been confused with Doug again.
-
Oh, that's my mistake. Please forgive me. :hehe:
-
In no way do we condone the wearing of a bicorn 'athwartship' rather than 'fore-and-aft'.
-
Too bad press gangs aren't tolerated any longer, huh? :D
-
In no way do we condone the wearing of a bicorn 'athwartship' rather than 'fore-and-aft'.
Only an Italian would do such a thing.
-
(https://i.redd.it/6ga290i4hoay.jpg)
-
Well, I finally took a few minutes to watch Marco's review.
What's ever more clear to me is that there are two diverging groups that are trying to lay claim to wargaming. Marco is firmly in the "gamer" camp. Gamers are more concerned with mechanics and aesthetics than history. They want games that are quick, easy to play, and provide the "feel" of a period. The historical accuracy of the game, and what it can teach you about the period are entirely secondary...or tertiary...or just not even something to be considered.
The second camp are amateur historians who use games as a means of learning about the specifics of a period. They want their games to teach and illustrate - they want simulation. To this crowd, a game that is complicated, difficult to play, and even ugly is just fine, as long as it reflects the history being depicted accurately.
Of course, no one is really one of these or the other; think of this as a spectrum with the two points above reflecting the end points.
Now, I tend toward the second group, pretty far along that end of the spectrum. I'm personally not at all interested in games like what Marco just reviewed. I wouldn't play it. But I don't have any problem with someone else enjoying it, and think, like Marco, that it might be a "gateway" game for other people to learn about and enjoy wargames.
Unfortunately a lot of people in the first camp - which Marco has always been, if you've been paying any attention to what he reviews and what he emphasizes in his reviews - seem to feel a need to declare that the other end of the spectrum is "dead," "too complicated," "full of complexity for complexity's sake" and seem to rejoice in that. They really, really, hate the "traditional" wargame. They'll make statements about how no traditional games ever get played. Just go look at the comments on Marco's review. All of the above are in there. Marco declares that anyone that like ASL or Starfleet Battles should enjoy those games, but realize that they are the "last generation" that will ever play them. He goes so far to declare that a "fact."
You can, of course, find articles going back to the 1970s about how wargaming is dying. I'm not going to rehash that argument here, but what I will propose is that there are a lot of people, mostly involved in playing other kinds of boardgames, who really wish wargames would die. They really don't like the subject. They don't want to be reminded about the unpleasantness of much of the history. They don't care for the racial aspects of some of it. They may well have encountered a less than well socially adjusted player sporting some sort of offensive dress and more offensive attitudes. They have a bunch of reasons, and they may not even really be aware of it, but they really, really would like to see an end to what those of us toward the other end of this spectrum call "wargames." Increasingly we see this attitude crop up in diatribes against wargaming thinly veiled as reviews. In an age where everyone thinks their opinion is worthy of being widely shared, and everyone is perpetually outraged, I guess this isn't surprising. This too shall pass.
It's unfortunate that there are people like this, but I don't think they really represent the majority of players. It's unfortunate that there are wargamers that use certain games to feed their racist, misogynistic fantasies, but they don't represent the majority of players, either. I think there's little doubt that "the hobby" is gravitating in a couple different directions. Frankly, I don't think that means much. I'm not sure there ever was a monolithic "hobby" to begin with.
Stop. Go play. Less yapping, more gaming. A bunch of us are routinely playing 1824 Kriegsspiel 195 years after it was first conceived. Osprey will no doubt sell a bunch of copies of Undaunted. Everyone is wrong, shut up, go play.
-
:applause:
-
Another trend is that "traditional wargamers" age, many no longer want to play big, complex games that take hours to set up and weeks/months/years to play. I know many folks in my own group who want things quick to setup/breakdown and able to be played to completion in a few hours. There are any number of reasons for the trend, availability of free time being number one.
As many of us have noted, the hobby has been "dying" for decades. Now, I think some aspects of it are waning for a variety of reasons. As it broadens, the idea of what is a wargame has broadened. I'm not overly concerned. This has always been such a niche hobby. I suspect the games I like to play will now become a niche within a broader hobby. I'm not worried the types of games I enjoy playing are going away (lord knows I have a life times worth already).
-
There was a lovely comment in one of the Twitter feeds prompted by the original rant.
It pointed out that years after a great many PC games have been binned, lost, or no longer run on contemporary PCs, it's pretty easy to take "Napoleon's Last Battles" down from the shelf and have a go.
I like yapping, probably too much, but, yeah, moar gaming!
-
Perhaps I should say "more yapping about games, less yapping about gaming."
-
Another trend is that "traditional wargamers" age, many no longer want to play big, complex games that take hours to set up and weeks/months/years to play. I know many folks in my own group who want things quick to setup/breakdown and able to be played to completion in a few hours. There are any number of reasons for the trend, availability of free time being number one.
I completely agree with you Mirth. Marco even suggests that aging is behind his turn to simpler games. Deciding that you are to the point where you no longer find complex games compelling doesn't mean everyone else has to make that same decision.
It also seems that many people think wargaming was invented in the 1950's and 1960's, and wargames have always been generally available to a broad audience. I doubt many Medieval peasants had chess sets, and I know that even middle-class citizens weren't playing Kriegsspiel in the 19th century. Except for a brief era wargaming has always been a niche activity practiced by a very narrow range of people (and really it still was in the glory days of SPI and AH). I'm glad that boardgaming and RPGs are more broadly egalitarian than ever, but wargaming will never be.
-
Perhaps I should say "more yapping about games, less yapping about gaming."
Wargamers are traditionally a bunch of old hens. We'll yap about anything and everything.
-
I'm glad that boardgaming and RPGs are more broadly egalitarian than ever, but wargaming will never be.
Certainly not wargaming the way you and I think of it. You have to be at least part history nut or a staff officer to enjoy the hardcore stuff. ZoCs, CRTs, Supply Lines...it's not stuff that most people get jazzed about.
-
To be honest, I rarely watch Marco's review videos. I know he's hugely popular and a lot of people swear by his reviews. I generally don't find video reviews all that compelling to watch and I'm also not a huge fan of Marco's style of review. I appreciate what he does, but I don't rely on him for a source of information nor do I particularly care what is his opinions are on the hobby.
-
Lost interest in Marco's opinions after his review of DVG's 1500 when he went off on the topic of the game and how horrible it was to make a game about colonization. He then went on to say it would have been better to make it a sci-fi theme because then it would be OK. My take away from it was that, according to him, colonization is OK as long as you don't reference actual history. Other distasteful bits of history like the Eastern Front, area bombing of German cities are OK but colonial expansion into the New World is too much.
Also, he churns out the videos at a very high rate and that makes me question how little time he puts into each title before forming an opinion and posting a review.
-
I'm fonder of his voice than some here about, but I think he desperately wants to be relevant and part of a conversation in which I have a level of interest that would be hard to measure with currently-available technology.
-
a conversation in which I have a level of interest that would be hard to measure with currently-available technology.
-
You rang?
In other news, SDR made me look at the "1500" review.
Yes, made me.
He's a much poorer thinker than I gave him credit for and should stop.
-
"in truth you are getting there, slaughtering people, and taking their stuff"
he's not exactly wrong about that. I didn't bother with the rest of the review though. It's another game that I would never bother playing in the first place. Do people actually enjoy these colonization type games? I get bored just thinking about them. Cards, tokens, resource gathering! All my favorites.
-
There is likely a good game about colonialism somewhere out there, perhaps in the future.
It is to be stipulated that "1500" was never it. I thought as much from its inception.
The theming issue could have been managed in a sentence rather than in a poorly-constructed, tendentious, and comically self-righteous lecture. Borrowing from an old Conan O'Brien line, "good, good, I am glad we still live in a country where we boo Hitler."
The game would and should have come crashing down on its own merits.
-
You rang?
In other news, SDR made me look at the "1500" review.
Yes, made me.
He's a much poorer thinker than I gave him credit for and should stop.
I think very much goodest!
Never played 1500 as I didn't have any real interest in it. Basing a game on the subject doesn't bother me in the slightest. It's just a game. Playing it won't retroactively go back and prevent history nor will it somehow normalize the topic and convince a bunch of nerds to go out and colonize anew (China and Nestle already seem to be doing a bang up job of that.)
As for good games on colonialism, I liked Pax Britannica back in the day. I still fire up Vicky II on the PC from time to time. I also fire up AGEOD's Pride of Nations but then I rediscover how long the turn processing takes and I shut it down again.
-
There is likely a good game about colonialism somewhere out there, perhaps in the future.
It is to be stipulated that "1500" was never it. I thought as much from its inception.
The theming issue could have been managed in a sentence rather than in a poorly-constructed, tendentious, and comically self-righteous lecture. Borrowing from an old Conan O'Brien line, "good, good, I am glad we still live in a country where we boo Hitler."
The game would and should have come crashing down on its own merits.
I guess the bottom line is I don't care about the game or the review. I wasn't going to play the game or watch Marco's review. I did skip to the end for a few seconds and he was making some points about problems with the mechanics. Something along the lines of one or two lucky turns early on essentially assures you a win. That's hardly an uncommon criticism of CDGs.
-
Of course it’s not a wargame but one of the most beloved euros in the BBG community is Puerto Rico. Clearly a game whose historical veneer is sanitized, i.e. colonists not slaves....the irony is historical accuracy is subjected to criticism not leveled against the same themes if sufficiently “hidden”.
-
Of course it’s not a wargame but one of the most beloved euros in the BBG community is Puerto Rico. Clearly a game whose historical veneer is sanitized, i.e. colonists not slaves....the irony is historical accuracy is subjected to criticism not leveled against the same themes if sufficiently “hidden”.
That one's been discussed quite a bit as a contrast to what happened with GMT's Scramble for Africa.
At this point, I'm not convinced that Puerto Rico ever gets reprinted.
Not sure if we specifically called it out in that thread, but we did bring it up on the podcast
-
It just was.
https://www.miniaturemarket.com/rio569.html (https://www.miniaturemarket.com/rio569.html)
-
It just was.
https://www.miniaturemarket.com/rio569.html (https://www.miniaturemarket.com/rio569.html)
Yes, but that was at the press before the SfA blowup.
What'll be interesting is if the Eurogamers try to pass it off as somehow "ok" for Puerto Rico to still exist because it's not from a wargame company.
-
It just was.
https://www.miniaturemarket.com/rio569.html (https://www.miniaturemarket.com/rio569.html)
Yes, but that was at the press before the SfA blowup.
What'll be interesting is if the Eurogamers try to pass it off as somehow "ok" for Puerto Rico to still exist because it's not from a wargame company.
I don’t think it will receive the same scrutiny. There is of course some discussion form time to time. However, I think overall the game is accepted by its fan base as an economic engine builder not tied to the historical roots of the theme. And it recently got a blinged out version printed which now sells for $$$$$ on the after market.
It’s similar to Five Tribes. Original game had a slave card which was replaced by a different card. Same intent and purpose but renaming it satisfied those upset by the original card. So no more fuss. Of course, no one bats an eye at the idea of assassination.
There is also a game called Mombasa were you are an investor buying and selling shares of companies exploiting the wealth of Africa during the colonization period. Again highly rated on BBG but the theme is not explicitly tied to colonial practices so little to no offense is raised. Even though you are clearly buying shares of trading companies in South Africa, Egypt, Kenya, and Senegal.
-
It’s similar to Five Tribes. Original game had a slave card which was replaced by a different card. Same intent and purpose but renaming it satisfied those upset by the original card. So no more fuss. Of course, no one bats an eye at the idea of assassination.
There is also a game called Mombasa were you are an investor buying and selling shares of companies exploiting the wealth of Africa during the colonization period. Again highly rated on BBG but the theme is not explicitly tied to colonial practices so little to no offense is raised. Even though you are clearly buying shares of trading companies in South Africa, Egypt, Kenya, and Senegal.
This is the thing, right? These people are okay with hiding the history. They aren't bothered as long as they don't have to look at it. Like, we can all pretend this didn't happen if we cover up the offensive bits.
Somehow, that's better.
-
Yeah unfortunately I think that’s part of today’s social reality. In the current discussion, it’s evident in the argument colonization would be “ok” in in sci-fi setting. The logic is twisted.
-
Time to stand up for alien aboriginal rights! Set the BEMs free!
-
What's ever more clear to me is that there are two diverging groups that are trying to lay claim to wargaming. Marco is firmly in the "gamer" camp. Gamers are more concerned with mechanics and aesthetics than history. They want games that are quick, easy to play, and provide the "feel" of a period. The historical accuracy of the game, and what it can teach you about the period are entirely secondary...or tertiary...or just not even something to be considered.
The second camp are amateur historians who use games as a means of learning about the specifics of a period. They want their games to teach and illustrate - they want simulation. To this crowd, a game that is complicated, difficult to play, and even ugly is just fine, as long as it reflects the history being depicted accurately....
Well written piece. I think it's not as simple as "gamer" versus "simulation." The simulation that you describe is just one axis of the spectrum, one that I might label "military simulation." The axis that I often find the most interesting is what I might label "psychological simulation," meaning does the game give me a better understanding of the decision making that was happening on that fateful battle or campaign. While in certain circumstances, "military accuracy" may contribute to "psychological accuracy," in other cases it may hinder it. I consider a game that helps me better understand a situation to be a successful "psychological simulation" even in cases in which the OOB isn't 100% correct or when the rules abstract away military simulation-level minutiae. Because a mechanically and aesthetically pleasing game that gives a "feel" for a period may not allow people to develop a better understanding of the situation the game depicts, it would seem as though "psychological simulation" is yet another category to consider.
-
Time to stand up for alien aboriginal rights! Set the BEMs free!
Preach, Comrade!
-
Well written piece. I think it's not as simple as "gamer" versus "simulation." The simulation that you describe is just one axis of the spectrum, one that I might label "military simulation." The axis that I often find the most interesting is what I might label "psychological simulation," meaning does the game give me a better understanding of the decision making that was happening on that fateful battle or campaign. While in certain circumstances, "military accuracy" may contribute to "psychological accuracy," in other cases it may hinder it. I consider a game that helps me better understand a situation to be a successful "psychological simulation" even in cases in which the OOB isn't 100% correct or when the rules abstract away military simulation-level minutiae. Because a mechanically and aesthetically pleasing game that gives a "feel" for a period may not allow people to develop a better understanding of the situation the game depicts, it would seem as though "psychological simulation" is yet another category to consider.
I tend to favor games providing one or both of two characteristics which are firmly rooted in the decisions a player is compelled to make. First, to better understand the circumstances unpinning why the decisions that were actually made by military or political leaders. For me games present a venue to better understand history. Reading a book is great but seeing forces and resources arrayed on the map gives whole new insights that are difficult to portray in words alone. Second, to understand my own decision making processes and how I develop options or potential solutions to overcome emerging threats, risks, or even unexpected success.
-
What's ever more clear to me is that there are two diverging groups that are trying to lay claim to wargaming. Marco is firmly in the "gamer" camp. Gamers are more concerned with mechanics and aesthetics than history. They want games that are quick, easy to play, and provide the "feel" of a period. The historical accuracy of the game, and what it can teach you about the period are entirely secondary...or tertiary...or just not even something to be considered.
The second camp are amateur historians who use games as a means of learning about the specifics of a period. They want their games to teach and illustrate - they want simulation. To this crowd, a game that is complicated, difficult to play, and even ugly is just fine, as long as it reflects the history being depicted accurately....
Well written piece. I think it's not as simple as "gamer" versus "simulation." The simulation that you describe is just one axis of the spectrum, one that I might label "military simulation." The axis that I often find the most interesting is what I might label "psychological simulation," meaning does the game give me a better understanding of the decision making that was happening on that fateful battle or campaign. While in certain circumstances, "military accuracy" may contribute to "psychological accuracy," in other cases it may hinder it. I consider a game that helps me better understand a situation to be a successful "psychological simulation" even in cases in which the OOB isn't 100% correct or when the rules abstract away military simulation-level minutiae. Because a mechanically and aesthetically pleasing game that gives a "feel" for a period may not allow people to develop a better understanding of the situation the game depicts, it would seem as though "psychological simulation" is yet another category to consider.
I tend to call those "command simulations." Those types of games are exactly the kind of games I'm most interested in. I'm less interested in the game that, for example, accurately reflects firing by platoons during the War of Spanish Succession but doesn't consider at all the issues of command and control in a period where all messengers are on horses and the general has no staff to speak of. I can do without the accurate platoon firing mechanics, but I don't think you can really understand the period without understanding the command and control issues.
I'd actually say that the players who are primarily concerned with aesthetics and OOBs, or hardware, fall into the "gamer" category. I agree completely that what's most important about simulation is capturing the reasons why things happened the way they happened. Things like doctrine, C3I, training, and morale are more important (and interesting) than the specifics of an OOB or the range of a .50 caliber round. Those can't be ignored, but I think a game misses the point if those are the main focus.
-
Ah, I misread your original intent. Sounds like we're more on the same page in terms of interest!
-
And if I like both "simulation", "gaming", and "role playing" each side? (http://www.aarcentral.com/emoti/new/scratchead.gif)
-
And if I like both "simulation", "gaming", and "role playing" each side? (http://www.aarcentral.com/emoti/new/scratchead.gif)
Mental disorder or prototypical wargamer
-
And if I like both "simulation", "gaming", and "role playing" each side? (http://www.aarcentral.com/emoti/new/scratchead.gif)
Then you need a hat.
-
...an outrageous hat with cockades and plumes, presumably?
-
...an outrageous hat with cockades and plumes, presumably?
There are other kinds?
-
One hears rumours..............
-
And if I like both "simulation", "gaming", and "role playing" each side? (http://www.aarcentral.com/emoti/new/scratchead.gif)
Then you need a hat.
Been a weird, weird day. Bordering on un-good. This made me smile.
-
And if I like both "simulation", "gaming", and "role playing" each side? (http://www.aarcentral.com/emoti/new/scratchead.gif)
Mental disorder or prototypical wargamer
There's a difference?
-
And if I like both "simulation", "gaming", and "role playing" each side? (http://www.aarcentral.com/emoti/new/scratchead.gif)
Then you need a hat.
There is evidence to suggest that hats paid an important part in the Royal Navy's victory at Trafalgar. It seems that Nelson ordered all the officers in the fleet to wear their hats 'athwartships' thus catching the wind and producing an additional half knot of speed, which proved to be a decisive factor in the battle.
-
This seems a reasonable historical anecdote to me.
-
from Jim's column
May I also say that it is strange (pilfering a point made by my friend Brant Guillory on a podcast somewhere hereabouts) to hear the howls of “these rules are to complex” thrown to heaven by those toting about the second edition of Pathfinder which has a core rulebook — note a single book of what will be many — that weighs in at 640 pages. I will be closely scrutinizing the bookshelves of all who review games in the future to see who will strain at the gnat of most wargames while swallowing that particular camel.
FWIW, I stumbled across this today
https://twitter.com/philipjreed/status/204203244648542209
that turned into a extended column
http://www.battlegrip.com/tabletop-roleplaying-games-are-too-long/
And without even jumping into sourcebooks I’m comfortable saying that the majority of roleplaying game books hitting store shelves these days are just too damned long. The core rulebook for the quite-impressive Pathfinder Roleplaying Game* (the successor to Dungeons and Dragons) comes in at 576-pages. The Battletech roleplaying game, A Time of War*, is over 400-pages. And even Shadowrun* comes in at almost 400-pages.
That’s too many pages for a game. How, exactly, is someone new to tabletop roleplaying supposed to get excited by a tome that makes textbooks look like light reads? And regardless of how much beautiful artwork is jammed between the covers the fact remains that these books are simply too damned thick. It’s a lot to expect someone to read and absorb all of these rules, let alone then convince friends to play a “game” that has such a massive rulebook.
We need shorter games. Games that don’t scare and intimidate the average person who might, just maybe, have an interest in a tabletop roleplaying game.
of note?
that was 7 years ago
-
You can have a RPG in 32 pages if you cut out all weapons, armor, spells, tech, skills, classes and any decent combat and initiative system. I would guess a RPG called Dinosaur would work. Plant or meat eater, move, fight, eat, sleep, and poop (that may need to be an expansion rule book). You could wrap that up in less than 32 pages with a few pictures.
Humor aside, RPG type games need source material to define everything in terms of the game system being used. You are not chained to a table to read every word before playing. You read and use what you need for the character you are playing. If reading RPG materials is too much, I would find a different game type to play.
-
There are RPGs out there that have smaller rulebooks (cough, Classic Traveller, cough). That said, the problem with RPGs is that they aren't just rules. They also include settings, lore, tables, etc., etc.
-
Dang, ninja'd by Capn Darwin!
-
You can have a RPG in 32 pages if you cut out all weapons, armor, spells, tech, skills, classes and any decent combat and initiative system.
https://rpggeek.com/rpgitem/47226/duel (https://rpggeek.com/rpgitem/47226/duel)
-
Melee and Wizard.... 'nough said.
-
https://forum.rpg.net/index.php?threads/your-favourite-one-page-rpg.699091/
-
There are RPGs out there that have smaller rulebooks (cough, Classic Traveller, cough). That said, the problem with RPGs is that they aren't just rules. They also include settings, lore, tables, etc., etc.
But the lore/setting needn't be "rules" right? City-State of the Invincible Overlord was rules-agnostic. Can you get the rules down to 32 pages?
-
Melee and Wizard.... 'nough said.
+1, QFT!
Having said that, it could be argued that Melee and Wizard are drop-in combat systems for other RPGs, something Steve Jackson himself says he intended with them. Death Test and Death Test II do a pretty good job of providing RPG content for the system each in less than 32 pages though, and soloable to boot! 15-16 year old me would certainly have argued with you if you claimed that they weren't RPGs.
Even in the recently re-issued incarnation, with the full In the Labyrinth book and the published adventures, the system is considerably lighter (and MUCH less expensive) than other systems.
-
I also fire up AGEOD's Pride of Nations but then I rediscover how long the turn processing takes and I shut it down again.
I was enjoying our game with UCG, wish he didn't disappear!
-
He's had a lot of personal problems over the last couple of years. I am in touch with him, and he hopes to be around more soon.
-
He's had a lot of personal problems over the last couple of years. I am in touch with him, and he hopes to be around more soon.
Good to hear. Hope his "adventures" resolved themselves in a positive manner....
-
Bring Back the GEEK! We miss him. :applause:
-
Bring Back the GEEK! We miss him. :applause:
Amen.
-
Bring Back the GEEK! We miss him. :applause:
Amen.
A huge +1 to that. We need him around!
-
Echoing hoping UCG's life is getting better and hoping he'll make an appearance.
-
Bring Back the GEEK! We miss him. :applause:
Amen.
A huge +1 to that. We need him around!
So Say We All!!
-
I'm not sure I've ever been more pleased to reuse a cover graphic than the front page splash image for this one
https://www.armchairdragoons.com/articles/columns/we-are-all-styx-fans/
-
Embedded shout out to Metal Dog whose company and conversations I missed while writing this piece.
-
The jig is up, the news is out
They finally found me
The renegade
Who had it made
Betrayed for a bounty
Any time, my friend. Any time. And a damn fine article.
-
Collecting all of the feedback threads for Cyrano's "Rant-y" articles, since it's kind of a series at this point :groovy:
-
Too Many Rulesets!
https://www.armchairdragoons.com/articles/columns/we-have-too-damn-many-rulesets/
-
10 essential wargames
https://www.armchairdragoons.com/articles/analysis/essential-wargames-there-are-many-such-lists-but-this-one-is-mine/
-
Point of order! :tickedoff:
One more thing if I might? Some will have noticed a lack of fantasy and sci-fi games. This is not an accidental omission. I am now more convinced than I was when I said it on “Mentioned in Dispatches” that both these have headed off into the hobby space. Taking only the most obvious example, Twilight Imperium is an order of magnitude more complex than a lot of what gets fobbed off as a “wargame” these days and yet it is played by many who turn up their noses at consims. These two genres have adopted the forms and assumptions of hobby games. Their wargaming DNA is there, but it is far harder to discern.
Are we talking wargames from the past, or current products? 'Cause I don't recall Battletech, or Ogre/GEV, or Car Wars (well, ok, I'll give you Car Wars), being especially "hobby" (or even complex), at least back in their heyday. Or the Star Wars minis games which I know nothing about because I detest intellectual-property-moneygrabs. Heck, Star Fleet Battles might be considered as "essential" as Squad Leader, and if anyone has a problem with that I'll go buy the Compleat ASL rules, print them out, and drop them on your car leaving it flatter than a fritter. And no love for Dune, Starship Troopers, or Starfire? How about the more modern iterations of War of the Ring? Root? (I don't know enough about Root, but it seems awfully different from most "hobby" games.)
Finally, I would like to point out that the Cold War Gone Hot industry started out as science fiction and is now either SF or fantasy, depending on one's viewpoint, and that the Game Formerly Known As Fleet Marine Force is not historical.
:bringit: :v
;)
-
10 essential wargames
https://www.armchairdragoons.com/articles/analysis/essential-wargames-there-are-many-such-lists-but-this-one-is-mine/
I have Panzergruppe Guderian from that list...had it since the 80s. I've wanted Wilderness Survival but it usually commands high prices.
-
Point of order! :tickedoff:
One more thing if I might? Some will have noticed a lack of fantasy and sci-fi games. This is not an accidental omission. I am now more convinced than I was when I said it on “Mentioned in Dispatches” that both these have headed off into the hobby space. Taking only the most obvious example, Twilight Imperium is an order of magnitude more complex than a lot of what gets fobbed off as a “wargame” these days and yet it is played by many who turn up their noses at consims. These two genres have adopted the forms and assumptions of hobby games. Their wargaming DNA is there, but it is far harder to discern.
Are we talking wargames from the past, or current products? 'Cause I don't recall Battletech, or Ogre/GEV, or Car Wars (well, ok, I'll give you Car Wars), being especially "hobby" (or even complex), at least back in their heyday. Or the Star Wars minis games which I know nothing about because I detest intellectual-property-moneygrabs. Heck, Star Fleet Battles might be considered as "essential" as Squad Leader, and if anyone has a problem with that I'll go buy the Compleat ASL rules, print them out, and drop them on your car leaving it flatter than a fritter. And no love for Dune, Starship Troopers, or Starfire? How about the more modern iterations of War of the Ring? Root? (I don't know enough about Root, but it seems awfully different from most "hobby" games.)
Finally, I would like to point out that the Cold War Gone Hot industry started out as science fiction and is now either SF or fantasy, depending on one's viewpoint, and that the Game Formerly Known As Fleet Marine Force is not historical.
:bringit: :v
;)
I'll start with the easy part: "Cold War Gone Hot", as I said in the podcast on the topic is damned hard to figure because history has caught up. Even Twilight 2k felt it had to change the timeline.
As to SCIFI/Fantasy, you all but prove my point. All of those you mention, with the notable exception of WotR, which is a fair cop, are retro. Where are there contemporary peers in the wargame space? Hint: they left and shut the door behind them And no, the 14th edition of either OGRE or Car Wars does not count. If you want to tell me CW 6e is a wargame, well...
-
The latest I can think of is Space Empires 4x (2011). I agree, I wish it weren't the case but fantasy and sci-fi wargames seem to be going the way of the shag carpeting.
-
The latest I can think of is Space Empires 4x (2011). I agree, I wish it weren't the case but fantasy and sci-fi wargames seem to be going the way of the shag carpeting.
I think that the simplest reason for this is that people interested in consims aren't necessarily as interested in fantasy and sci-fi.I think that the publishers (past and present) know the market and if there was one for these type of games we'd see them.
Twilight Imperium is an interesting example as it is quite complex (nothing like the Next War series) but it is, I think, primarily a social game.
-
The latest I can think of is Space Empires 4x (2011). I agree, I wish it weren't the case but fantasy and sci-fi wargames seem to be going the way of the shag carpeting.
I think that the simplest reason for this is that people interested in consims aren't necessarily as interested in fantasy and sci-fi.I think that the publishers (past and present) know the market and if there was one for these type of games we'd see them.
Twilight Imperium is an interesting example as it is quite complex (nothing like the Next War series) but it is, I think, primarily a social game.
Wargaming's relationship with science fiction and fantasy has always been kind of iffy. More than a few wargamers exclude SF&F from "wargames" explicitly, others look at mechanisms and such and exclude not only a lot of historical games but also (and in fact rather preferentially) SF&F because they tend to be different and weird. And, of course, they're not serious. You'll never find them played in the Pentagon. (Which is kind of weird, since most of the professional games I've seen are also not wargames. I'm not clear on how that works.) It's not surprising that designers and publishers have gotten rather leery of them.
(Anyone remember in the '80s when SF&F were a staple of magazine games and small ziplock-bag games? Sure, a big part of that was the lower research requirements. :) But then a fair number won various wargamey awards, possibly because of their difference and weirdness, even though they really weren't wargames. (It's ok, I've been told I'm not a wargamer several times for several reasons, so I can say that.) And, of course, they introduced a lot of people to something that sort of looks enough like the hobby that they went on to become real wargamers.)
[Note: before you go further, make sure you've taken your blood pressure medication and have a nice cup of chamomile tea. In fact, I'd recommend nobody read further at all.]
Root. Roooot. R't. Root?
Rather it was [Twilight Struggle's] approach to conflict simulation that was radically different from what had come before. I, in my narrow world view, do not regard it as a wargame. The world clearly does and it ushered in a new vision of possibilities for the form — not all of which I care for. In a few years’ time, I could see see Undaunted in this slot. Today, however, it belongs to TS.
Or perhaps Memoir '44? :biggrin:
Anyway, there is that big, invisible, grimdark elephant in the room. You know the one; it's fantasy and/or science fiction. Probably both. It at least looks an awful lot like a wargameishy thing. It's been in existence since the 1980s. And the revenue on its income statement has an awful lot of digits to the left of the decimal point. And it will show up on exactly 0 of these sorts of lists.
-
Cyrano crashes EYWTKAWBWATA
and it's a RIOT
-
Okay, I might have circle back and actually watch the whole thing. The first five minutes alone had me cackling. ;D
-
I caught the end last night. :2funny:
-
Okay, I might have circle back and actually watch the whole thing. The first five minutes alone had me cackling. ;D
totally worth it.
put it on 1.25 or 1.5x speed and you can still keep up with it