Review A Wargame. But How? 10 Do’s & Don’ts

[Antonio J Carrasco]

Yo

https://amsterdamwar.game.blog/2019/09/04/what-littlewarstv-is-doing-wrong/

Thanks!

[Leftblank]

None needed, I read his review. It was unimaginative and focused on attacking the minutiae. If thats why they 'tore him to pieces' then yeah. Dont write bad reviews of reveiws then get upset when social media says that the review of the review is bad (try saying all this drunk).

I was not upset at all by the social media comments on my first blog - as usual, some facebook commenters overreact, are fond of misinterpretation and attack the blogger, not the blog.
Must say I find the discussion here very useful, I'm busy making a detailed topic list for future reviews and the comments here help me to define the topics, thanks.

[Arrigo]

After having read the review, the author made some comments worth to read. I fail to see it as unimaginative (especially because no imagination was required...). I agree with him that the rating system was weak. I avoid ratings exactly because they are weak.

[Norm]

I backed out of the blog straight away because it is monetised. I am not terribly keen on that. For my hobby, I want to hear a fellow hobbyist’s  voice because they choose to share, rather than there being a selling dimension.

What I will say about Little Wars TV falls out of the above sentiment LWTV is free and a ton of effort goes into doing it, difficult to criticise such a thing .... yet people feel comfortable doing that, rather than being grateful for the content.

EDIT - please see additional posts below that explain that a Wordpress account is automatically monetised. Sorry about that. 

[Leftblank]

An interesting read. I'd say the big thing about reviewing a miniatures wargame is to review the rules.
(...) whether an accompanying miniature range looks nice doesn't really have much to do with the quality of the game.

I tend to agree, but often the game comes in a box. I played Conan, good rules, nice miniatures. The Dropzone Commander Rules are a standard 40K/epic variant, but they work and came packed in box with scenery and excellent miniatures. Often the two topics are mixed in reviews "I recommend this box because it's a nice starter game" but maybe the rules are quite bad, only the pictures and the miniatures look fine. I think it's important to divide between "rules" and "package"

Plenty of poorly designed games have high-quality illustrations. And plenty of great games have poor-quality illustrations or none at all. For example, FUBAR is a great little ruleset but entirely un-illustrated. And Hordes of the Things has but one (terrible) illustration

I love DBA and HotT is on my wish list. I think I will mention "in passing" the quality of the layout, as you recommend. Hail Caesar is a coffee table book. I think a reviewer should not rate it, because, just like beautiful women, the outside might be attractive, but it's the inside that counts :-)

I'm not interested in playing 40K, so a comparison with the market leader wouldn't do much for me

I'll confess: I have never played 40K so far (I'm 53). Many of my fellow wargamers have, and for this majority 40k remains a benchmark. I'm not interested in a detailed point-by-point comparison, but a reviewer who writes about Dropzone Commander or Bolt Action must be able to recognize the heritage and point out in which these games are better or different than their grandfather.

2. Assess the speed of play. How long is a typical game?
3. Assess the 'time to table'.
4. Assess the suitability for multiple players.
5. Assess the game's success in reflecting its genre.
6. What does a game feel like? Is it chess-like (e.g. Battlesworn)? Is it unpredictable and "swingy" (e.g. Frostgrave)? Does that create excitement?
7. How complex is it? Could you play it with a ten-year-old? A six-year-old? Could you get a ten-year-old to read the rules and understand them? Would it work well with an adult who's never played a wargame before?
8. Assess the level of involvement.
Is it IGOUGO? Does it use opposed rolls? Does it have reactions? How long is one player "sitting out"?
9. Make comparisons and contrasts. For example, Steve Jackson's Melee is a much more 'controlled' skirmish game than Song of Blades, largely because of the latter's morale rules but also because of the former's level of detail. And Melee combat is much more deadly than, say, D&D combat; fighting goblins in Melee/The Fantasy Trip is, accordingly, a much riskier business than in D&D."

All excellent points for my topic list. Deltavector (one of my favorite game design bloggers) mentions the topics of move/shooting range ratio (the shorter the range, the more important movement is, a designer should make an informed decision about the ratio) and lethality, how many rolls are needed to defeat an opposing unit.

10. What's its 'natural' number of miniatures per side?

I agree it's an important assessment. I once played Spearhead for example, a starter scenario with an enormous number of miniatures. I had the feeling it was unplayable, but it's hard to say if the scenario or the rules were the cause. It's a quite personal and difficult judgment. I plan to review big battle games, btw. For big battles an important question is 'what is the natural scale'? Flames of War is presented as a 15mm game but works much better in 6mm, other reviewers think.

[Leftblank]

I backed out of the blog straight away because it is monetised. I am not terribly keen on that. For my hobby, I want to hear a fellow hobbyist’s  voice because they choose to share, rather than there being a selling dimension.

My dear friend, I'm not a salesperson. I'm just a fellow hobbyist like you who is using free Wordpress to express my thoughts. I'm not paid by anybody and one of my Don'ts on my list is 'Don't get paid for your blog'. WordPress automatically places ads, I recommend you to use an adblocker. That's internet, sorry for that.

[Norm]

Hi Leftbank, thanks for replying to my post so politely. I had no idea about Wordpress. I use Blogger, which on the surface is not doing anything obvious. I also have some paid for web space that allows me to run a sort of wargame site without adverts. So I suppose everything actually gets paid for one way or another.

I suppose with Blogger being owned by Google, they can run it without there being an obvious charge and I am now awake to the fact that a Wordpress site can’t (and why). 

thanks for putting me straight and sorry if my post had a whiff of accusation. Norm. :-)

[Leftblank]

I do not think a reviewer need to look at other people opinions, he could, but the review must stand in his own right. I usually do not give a damn on what Blogger X or Y think.

If Deltavector, Shut Up & Sit Down and/or Madaxeman are positive about a game, it's probably worth a Michelin star. If
Beast of War recommends it, the designer probably paid for it. Reviewing is not a science, but I like to mention relevant other sources.

One thing that I do not see in any list is... how effective the game is in doing its job. If it is an historical game, how well it captures the essence of the topic is of paramount importance to me,

Correct. I will try to capture that in 'the goal of the designer'. I think Bolt Action designer Priestley was inspired by WW2 when he designed Bolt Action, but I think his main goal was to design a fun skirmish game with improved mechanics (compared to 40K) He's in that aspect not as ambitious as Richard Clarke, who researched German and Allied infantry tactics before he designed IABSM and CHoC.

how many of us are interested in what a six year old can or cannot play? Of course there will be a sizable group  who is interested, but an equally sizable group who is not!

Maybe I will not be that specific, although I think that something can be said about complexity and age group. A reviewer should not discommend a game because he likes simple fastplay while the rules are for experienced wargamers, or voice his disapproval because the rules were designed for starting wargamers (teenage boys) while he is a middle-aged historian with a zillion different rules.

[Leftblank]

I suppose what I'm thinking about here is the situation where a simple mechanic can deliver a wealth of different outcomes. So the complexity is "under the bonnet". Here, I'd compare two skirmish games: Song of Blades and Heroes and GW's Kill Team. The former uses a single opposed roll to give a wealth of results: attacker gruesomely killed; attacker killed; attacker knocked down; attacker pushed back; draw (nothing happens); defender pushed back; defender knocked down; defender killed; and defender gruesomely killed. By contrast, Kill Team uses four successive rolls to give (IIRC) far fewer results: nothing happens; defender lightly wounded; defender killed (I may have missed an outcome).

hmmm...
Thinking about it, we have 'lethality' - how quickly is the opposing unit killed; simplicity - both game mechanics, the SOBH and the Killteam mechanic are easy to explain; and consistency, how many different dice mechanics does the game use. Two Fat Lardies for example are notorious for their inconsistency in their games.

[Leftblank]

2) Do I need special items that are specific to the game, to play?

Good point. I think I will include the topic of 'completeness'. Not only special items, but also supplements already or not included in the game. Some companies sell you a core book but to play it you need extra books with army lists etc.

How long, typically, takes for units to become engaged from the moment of deployment to the moment of decision? I mean, how fast can I expect my units to be fighting instead maneuvering?

You remind me that I personally like manoeuvering and that I tend to rate manoeuver-wargames higher than clash-games. But that is bias actually.

To conclude, what I look for in a review is to information on the actual game

.
Just like BGG a thorough review should categorize a few hard facts about the game.

Tnx for all the reactions! Really helpful!

[Antonio J Carrasco]

After having read the review, the author made some comments worth to read. I fail to see it as unimaginative (especially because no imagination was required...). I agree with him that the rating system was weak. I avoid ratings exactly because they are weak.

Agreed. Same here.

[Arrigo]

You remind me that I personally like manoeuvering and that I tend to rate manoeuver-wargames higher than clash-games. But that is bias actually.

I do not think it is a bias. It is what you like. As long you made it clear that this it is not a bias. We read reviews to get other people opinions on games. Of course we can even avoid reviews if we think the writer's opinions does not matter to us. I found Beast of War quite rubbish, so I do not care about their reviews... I get one way or another (read the latter: I write for) several game reviews magazines (mainly for map based games, but also Vae Victis that covers both sides of the divide), and there are some authors I know are writing rubbish, I just skip, or maybe I read when I have an empty stomach... but in the end they are opinions (even if at times are presented as fact). Two examples. Last issue of Battles Magazine... David Hughes reviewed Holland 44. I have the game and I think it is a good game and a good simulation. Mr Hughes does not and ended up ramblings (after having started flames wars on CSW) about that, telling us that he will bring evidence, and failing to point the reader to any single historical work to support his claims... in the same issue I panned Mike Force from Modern Warfare Magazine. I said the engine is good, but history is questionable. I also point the reader to several texts that support my analysis. I found the game stupid because errors, unwarranted abstractions, and a fantasy and inaccurate design idea at the start. Now... funny part... the designer is an analyst working for the DoD (Joseph Miranda, quite well known designer) but had some strategic concept I think are not based on evidence... so well maybe it is just my opinion... on the other hand if you go to BGG, you will see the game is reasonably well received.

Here the issue is focus. The system works, but the implementation is, to me, so rubbish that kills the enjoyment. Other peopel will just play the game for its gaming value. Maybe I am biased, but there will be players that are biased in my same way so the review is worthwhile to them. On the same token, I hope to have explained the strenght and weaknesses of the system sufficiently to allow other players with different bias to decide by themselves.

Oh, something I really do not like in game reviews... abuse of superlatives... or always crediting the designer for innovations (usually because the reviewer has a very limited experience on other title). Those are the typical hallmarks of fan boys... 

[Leftblank]

A follow uo. My more detailed topic list here.https://amsterdamwar.game.blog/2019/09/21/what-matters-in-wargame-reviews-a-checklist/

[Antonio J Carrasco]

I like this new approach. It is more informative, which is what I look for in a review.

Maybe I would include in the second point some commentaries regarding how well (or bad!) the game manages to be scaled down or up. For instance, there are two Age of Sail naval warfare rulesets that are about to be published, one by Firelock Games, Oak & Iron (focus in the 17th Century) and the other by Warlord Games, Black Sails (from the 1760s to the 1820s). The impression is that the focus of both games is squadron-sized actions, but before commiting I would like to know if they also manage competently ship-to-ship actions, or if I could, in a whim, throw a bigger game with several squadrons per side (a club night, for instance, with several players a side). That is information that I would like to know from a review. Probably Warlord or Firelock say that their rulesets can be used for any size of action, but I appreciate having a third party opinion, which is not biased by commercial interests.

Also, in the point about the layout I believe it is a good idea to comment about how eye-friendly it is. I am 52 and my eyes are not what they used to be. Recently, I bought the of the new Necromunda suplements from GW. Imagine my disappointment when I found myself struggling to read the rules. Not because they were badly written, nor the font was too small, but because some genius had decided it was a brilliant idea to use a dark-grey background for every page! Each page in the manual. Not just a few decorative details, no: all of it. So far I have been completely unable to read anything. My eyes became tired after a few paragraphs, even when using my reading glasses.

[Leftblank]

DeltaVector wrote in one of his game design blogs that 40k was designed as a skirmish game but evolved to become a large battle game. One of the design mistakes in his view is that the original (Rogue Trader) mechanics are too detailed for large battles, so that the game is slowed down.
Dropzone Commander (a game he recommends) uses 40k-statlines and mechanics, but when you play a larger battle, units count more miniatures, not more options. In other words: units have more hit dice but not more different weapons.
I played Warlord's Pike and Shotte and discovered that because of a combination of game mechanics and too many 28mm miniatures on a relatively small 6x4 table the game became a simple bucket of dice game in the middle of the tabletop, while cavalry was ineffective and unable to maneuver.
So in answer to your first point, I intend to include such insights in my reviews. Fonts and readability is part of the layout.