Lead Adventure Forum
Other Stuff => General Wargames and Hobby Discussion => Topic started by: Adlib on June 19, 2018, 12:17:54 PM
-
What is the attraction in war gaming?
I don't understand war gaming, or how it works, or the why of it.
Please enlighten my, because at the moment It all looks pretty dim.
-
Probably slightly more attractive than trolling I'd guess?
-
Probably slightly more attractive than trolling I'd guess?
I am sorry you think I may be trolling.
Just because I don't grasp the idea of war gaming, does not mean I am a troll.
Your answer has not helped me in any way.
Thanks for trying to enlighten me.
-
To me it is usually a history project. Learning about a period. Then collecting and painting the figures as well as I can. Then hopefully some games that involve some thinking and a bit of chance.
-
...Then hopefully some games that involve some thinking and a bit of chance.
Thank you @swiftnick for your response.
Now, what games are you talking about? I know you are referring to war games, but exactly what war game? And how do you play war games?
-
What game? More a case of what rules? Some people might like a certain ruleset. Say Hail Caesar or Rapid Fire and then would research and build armies to suit the period of those rules. Ancients and World War 2 respectively. Other people may just be interested in a period in history or fantasy for that matter. So would look for a range of figures and rules that they like.
-
What game? More a case of what rules? Some people might like a certain ruleset. Say Hail Caesar or Rapid Fire and then would research and build armies to suit the period of those rules. Ancients and World War 2 respectively. Other people may just be interested in a period in history or fantasy for that matter. So would look for a range of figures and rules that they like.
Thank you for response.
Still a bit confused. At least I know that there is actually a game with rules. I will have to Internet research these two mentioned games.
Just a quick question. When you play these games, do you have to have an opponent, like in chess? If so, do you wait to see what your opponent's move is, and you respond to it. I suppose the rules will tell you how far one can respond at a time.
-
Wargames are basically a simulation of armed conflict on a tabletop, using miniatures. these conflicts can be historical, fantasy or science fiction in nature.
Most games are played between two players, like a game of chess with loads more variables. But there are also solo games and games with more players on each side. And there are many, many rules sets out there, to cater to all the different types of games.
For most of the people on this forum, it's interest in a certain period of history and its conflicts that sparked their interest. And exposure to wargaming through either magazines, friends or family that game, or some other way, made them curious and start gaming themselves. These people enjoy the historal accuracy of their games.
Then there are those who really like the modeling aspect of the hobby, started painting miniatures and eventually were exposed to the games through that. Most of these gamers value their games, miniatures and terrain looking as good as possible.
A final way of getting involved is by being really into games in general. Often starting with board games and moving on to wargaming, these people are all about the rules and can sometimes be very competitive as a result. They like their games more in a tournament style.
And of course most people are a mix of the above, leaning more this way or that.
But let's reverse the question; if you do not know anything about wargaming, what triggered you to inquire about it?
-
Most games involve two or more players but there are solo players.
Where do you live? Why don't you see if there is a gaming community in your area?
-
... if you do not know anything about wargaming, what triggered you to inquire about it?
I was looking for a modelling forum. Recently started model making, and I really like making dioramas with figurines. Since I've been in the RAAF, I am not a fan about war as such, though I am interested in strategy and tactics.
Then I came across this forum, and discovered that it's all about war games, which I do not know anything about it. I was curious as to what attracts people to war. You see, what attracted me to the RAAF was not war, but a trade, service to the country (Australia), and self-discipline.
-
Most games involve two or more players but there are solo players.
Where do you live? Why don't you are if there is a gaming community in your area?
Thank you.
I live in Australia, NSW, near Byron Bay.
Will have a look on the net for local gaming community.
-
You are interested in strategy and tactics. Also like model making so are almost there. The game itself is the hook that these are hung on.
-
Thank you all for your responses and help. Have found a few pdf downloads with game rules. Will have a read of these tomorrow. It is late where I live, and time to go to sleep.
Good night to you all.
-
Have a word with Nic at Eureka miniatures, I am sure he could put you in contact with local gamers.
-
Wargames are basically a simulation of armed conflict on a tabletop, using miniatures. these conflicts can be historical, fantasy or science fiction in nature.
Most games are played between two players, like a game of chess with loads more variables. But there are also solo games and games with more players on each side. And there are many, many rules sets out there, to cater to all the different types of games.
For most of the people on this forum, it's interest in a certain period of history and its conflicts that sparked their interest. And exposure to wargaming through either magazines, friends or family that game, or some other way, made them curious and start gaming themselves. These people enjoy the historal accuracy of their games.
Then there are those who really like the modeling aspect of the hobby, started painting miniatures and eventually were exposed to the games through that. Most of these gamers value their games, miniatures and terrain looking as good as possible.
A final way of getting involved is by being really into games in general. Often starting with board games and moving on to wargaming, these people are all about the rules and can sometimes be very competitive as a result. They like their games more in a tournament style.
And of course most people are a mix of the above, leaning more this way or that.
But let's reverse the question; if you do not know anything about wargaming, what triggered you to inquire about it?
Very good answer to the inquiry Daeothar
-
H. G. Wells who wrote the first set of rules for wargaming "Little Wars" said "Little Wars A Game for Boys from twelve years of age to one hundred and fifty and for that more intelligent sort of girls who like boys' games and books." :D :D He also made the point in his little book that playing at war was a lot better than actually waging war.
The appeal of wargaming is broad. Most of us as stated here have an avid interest in History. Wargaming gives us a means of replicating events and seeing if we could have changed the outcome. Many of us probably started with more abstract portrayals of warfare like chess. Wargaming is a way to portray conflicts more realistically. There is the appeal of modeling which you have indicated is what lead you to inquire about this hobby. We get to research and paint military units and equipment. We get to build terrain and buildings to make our games more interesting. (Eye appeal is important :D )
There are many rule sets out there to cover almost any period of history. There are also rules to cover fantasy and Science fiction ideas. You can even find some free online. There are many manufacturers of soldiers models and the things needed to play just look for a local shop or jump online. The more you look the more you will see what makes this hobby so appealing. Take a look at the thread "Post a picture of the last game you played" here to see just how vast our hobby is
Finally, we could add the idea of a friendly competition where horrific events can be examined without any real cost because we wage barbaric warfare "with soldiers of tin, lead and wood, with the weapons of the wild, with the catapult, the elastic circular garter, the peashooter, the rubber ball and such-like appliances - a mere setting up and knocking down of men." H. G. Wells "Little wars" pg 2
-
Pew pew pew and dakka dakka dakka. ;) lol
Since a serious, proper answer has already been given... I'll see myself out...
-
This wiki tells you a bit around the hobby and elements of wargaming, as a serving member of the armed forces you will possibly be taking place in an exercise which could be part of a larger wargame.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wargaming
below is a link to how the MOD and almost all other nations military use wargaming
https://paxsims.wordpress.com/2017/08/04/uk-mod-wargaming-handbook/
what is notable above is that wargames rules writers contributed to this publication, Richard Clarke of too fat Lardies (a company that produces rules for gaming with models
-
Be aware that there are LOTS of ruletsets, for all sorts of different eras / genres, and for all sorts of different games. And you have complete freedom to choose which ones you want, adjust and change them how you want, or make up your own rules!
Let's take the example given earlier of Hail Caesar. This is a 'massed battle' game, so is best for BIG games featuring hundreds of models on a large gaming table. For this sort of thing, collecting and painting the armies and making the table / battlefield / gaming surface with associated terrain / scenery is a big undertaking, hopefully a labour of love, which may well take several years of work before your first game is played! Perhaps you'll be working on it with other people, or perhaps doing it all yourself and inviting friends to play the game / project you have proudly constructed.
Hail Ceasar is a historical game, used for 'ancients' and medieval warfare. Basically anything BC to roughly 1500 AD. There are similar rulesets from the same company (Warlord Games) for later periods - Pike And Shotte (1500-1700) and Black Powder (1700-1900). All three games use the same basic rules, but are somewhat different as suits their respective eras. Warfare in 1400 would be VERY different to warfare in 1700, and so one ruleset wouldn't really cover both periods. But if you are familiar with Hail Ceasar, you would adapt to Pike & Shotte very quickly for example.
But what if you don't like these rulesets, for whatever reason? Perhaps they are too informal, as they are more suited to a friendly narrative game rather than a hyper-competitive game. Perhaps the scale of game is too daunting, and you want rules that will allow you to play games within just a month or two of starting a project (depends on how fast you paint!). Perhaps they are too complex and the games take too long, and you want something more abstract and quick to play. Or perhaps the opposite - you want something with more 'crunch'. Well there are LOADS of alternatives.... Let's say you are interested in the middle ages. Well you could try Lion Rampant, or Sword & Spear, or To The Strongest, to name just a few.... Or you could write your own rules! All have their pros and cons, and all give very different sorts of games. There will be a myriad of different rulesets for (almost) every historical era. Some are very professionally produced by big wargames publishing companies, others are more one-man-band operations. Some will be very well-known and widely played, some will be more obscure.
And that's just historical 'mass battle' games! There are all sorts of fantasy and science fiction games, and things which are hybrids of different genres. And many on much smaller 'skirmish' scales, with just a few dozen models a side, or even fewer, where every model is a unique character.
Wild West?
Victorian Science Fiction?
Steampunk?
Tolkien / Lord Of The Rings / The Hobbit?
Adventure gaming?
H.P. Lovecraft?
Take a look at some of the individual boards on this forum for a flavour of the obscure little corners of history and the imagination that some gamers decide to go into.
What are you most interested in? What would appeal to you most?
-
Wow. Thank you guys for all that information. Much appreciated. Got me thinking that maybe I am in the wrong place.
I still can't get into war itself. The closest thing that comes to mind, of what I might like, is racing. Where it is me against others trying to reach a goal. Any warring on my part would be defensive (blocking, diversions). My offensive part would be to not be there (outwit, cloaking, to be seen but not to be seen, outrunning, breakaway). Both require strategy and tactics without actually going against the other head-on. However, if I cannot avoid head-on, my goal is always to stop it as quick as possible - I give no quarter.
So in a weird way, my warring is to avoid war.
To me, war is about trying to get the other to stop warring. It's counter-productive. Much like shouting back at an angry person. The only reason for anger to arise is fear of not coping with change. So, in reality the angry person is fearful. To shout back at a fearful person only makes them more fearful and angry.
So, where would I fit in here?
-
Nobody is really warring. It's pretend. It's play. Everyone is there because they enjoy playing games with little toys, that's all there is to it. No ulterior motive, no blood lust, no joy in violence. It's a game.
-
Yeah, I know that.
I'll read more about war gaming and play a simulation of my own and report back.
Thanks again for all the help.
-
So, where would I fit in here?
Perhaps some of the more 'adventure' orientated miniature games? Though admittedly they are not something I know much about, others here can enlighten you.
Rather than man making war on man, how do you feel about more fantasy / sci-fi things? When the goal could be more 'save the world' against some sort of evil? I dunno, stop the bad guy opening some sort of portal or something....
-
Stopping the potential enemy from being the enemy is more to my liking. But I also like the idea of racing to the portal to shut it down.
Thanks for that idea.
-
Adlib, like you wrote you started doing models so i think you could start with that.
This forum has lots of people building houses and structures usefull both for war games and dioramas so you can start searching for them using the theme threads or workbench.
There are always people charing techniques, materiels, etc.
-
You might want to look at Maximillian or Circus Maximus for racing. Admittedly 2 different eras but similar goals in a way.
Wow. Thank you guys for all that information. Much appreciated. Got me thinking that maybe I am in the wrong place.
I still can't get into war itself. The closest thing that comes to mind, of what I might like, is racing. Where it is me against others trying to reach a goal. Any warring on my part would be defensive (blocking, diversions). My offensive part would be to not be there (outwit, cloaking, to be seen but not to be seen, outrunning, breakaway). Both require strategy and tactics without actually going against the other head-on. However, if I cannot avoid head-on, my goal is always to stop it as quick as possible - I give no quarter.
So in a weird way, my warring is to avoid war.
To me, war is about trying to get the other to stop warring. It's counter-productive. Much like shouting back at an angry person. The only reason for anger to arise is fear of not coping with change. So, in reality the angry person is fearful. To shout back at a fearful person only makes them more fearful and angry.
So, where would I fit in here?
-
Racing Games :o Try Formula D and Thunder alley two of my favorites :D
-
An alternative idea are the ever-popular football-derived games, such as Blood Bowl and other fantasy- (or sci-fi- ) themed football tabletop games.
-
I still can't get into war itself. The closest thing that comes to mind, of what I might like, is racing.
There are several types of games that fall under the 'tabletop gaming with miniatures' umbrella without being wargames. Eureka Miniatures (Australia) make two of my favorites, "Wagers of Sin" (velociraptor racing, player blocking) and "Pig Tickler" (unicycle sports, player blocking). Both are hilarious and not really about war.
I read another thread (maybe here on LAF) in which a player wanted to get some family friends into gaming, but they were pacifists and didn't like the war aspect. If I recall they ended up using a game normally used for dinosaur hunting and instead the players controlled photographers that were competing to 'shoot' the most dinosaurs. Pretty clever.
I used to be huge into model making, but after discovering the tabletop gaming hobby I really couldn't get back into painting and assembling kits just to sit unused on a shelf just to be gazed at. That's what my drawings and oil paintings are for ;)
-
Forgot about those two - The Eureka Minis games are great fun and have unexpected quirks/
I'm with you, Dr M, started as a modeller, now a gamer and very infrequent assembler. lol lol
There are several types of games that fall under the 'tabletop gaming with miniatures' umbrella without being wargames. Eureka Miniatures (Australia) make two of my favorites, "Wagers of Sin" (velociraptor racing, player blocking) and "Pig Tickler" (unicycle sports, player blocking). Both are hilarious and not really about war.
I read another thread (maybe here on LAF) in which a player wanted to get some family friends into gaming, but they were pacifists and didn't like the war aspect. If I recall they ended up using a game normally used for dinosaur hunting and instead the players controlled photographers that were competing to 'shoot' the most dinosaurs. Pretty clever.
I used to be huge into model making, but after discovering the tabletop gaming hobby I really couldn't get back into painting and assembling kits just to sit unused on a shelf just to be gazed at. That's what my drawings and oil paintings are for ;)
-
In ‘real life’ I think war is a disgusting holdover from primitive times that we can’t seem to shake off, but the history of it is all very interesting and the pretend-play conflict of miniature battles (even when based on reality) gives you a good chance to exercise the tactical part of your brain. Bloodlust rarely comes into it.
As someone said earlier, it’s like ‘chess with more varuabbles’ And chess started as just a more abstract war game I suppose.
There are plenty of different settings if you want something less historical which might make you feel more comfortable e.g sci-fi and fantasy.
-
On the theme of wargames without 'war' there are paintball-player and snowballer figures out there...
-
What trade are you mate, if you have an interest in aircraft that may be an angle to explore
-
I would reiterate the comments about modelling. Once you have made that tank, plane or building etc. wargaming gives you an outlet to use it rather than it just gathering dust.
-
Also, if it's specifically war that puts you off, another idea is "adventure" type games, such as those in a Pulp setting (Doc Savage, The Shadow, etc.), which can feature tactical combat (between heroes and goons, or even just competing groups), but are fundamentally structured more around goals and forming a story.
Which is to say, there are many ways to skin a cat, without any actual skinning of cats being required. ;)
-
What trade are you mate, if you have an interest in aircraft that may be an angle to explore
How hard would it be to adapt Wings of War or something similar into a Red Bull Air Race...?
Could do some lovely modelling projects for that...
-
Glad to see you got allot more useful responses after the first lol
Wise asses unfortunately are in this hobby as much as any other
-
If you like race games you could try Gaslands without using the weapons in the cars. I have played like that while introducing players and we had some enjoyable games.
Another option could be Palaeo Diet: Eat or be eaten. There the players must colaborate to hunt some animals in a prehistoric setting.
Just a couple of ideas ;)
-
Glad to see you got allot more useful responses after the first lol
Wise asses unfortunately are in this hobby as much as any other
In all fairness that was a first ever post by a new member which proceeded to describe the whole idea as dim.
I suppose I could have added a smiley or something, but didn’t really feel like it.
Still, from such unlikely beginnings has grown a decent thread. Who knows, maybe it needed a little manure on it to kick things off?
-
I'm not sure the OP meant "dim" in the sense of stupid, Keith, but I can see why you might have thought so. I read it that way at first. I think he/she was trying to convey their lack of illumination on the subject, but it was vague enough language to easily misconstrue. Someone coming on to a forum and saying "I don't see the appeal of wargaming, I think it is stupid" couldn't really complain at being called a troll.
Seems to me we might just have an unfortunate misunderstanding there.
-
Yep, bad reading on my part so apologies to the OP.
And I can confirm first-hand that wargaming is better than trolling ;)
-
It's a blood bath without the blood, and sometimes without the bath :D
-
Can't say for others. To me is just an excuse to pass time with my mates and my son, moving around the table beautifully painted miniatures, while pretending we are cunning generals/warlords. Wargaming is to war, what Fifty Shadows of Grey is to literature.
-
Keith, for what it’s worth I am in your trench.
-
I suppose if you want tactics without the war, set up a game setting based on military manouvres. :)
-
I would like to add my couple of cents, if I may. Wargaming is a complex hobby involving many different sides, like others have before me pointed out: modelling and collecting figures and terrain, studying and researching the history, the strategy and the tactics, having fun with buddies while collectively exercising our brains to best each other at the game.
To me there is still one more thing, which is the most important: creating stories. When I play, I see a story unfold before my eyes, whether the game is set in an historical or fantastic setting. This is why I mostly enjoy campaign games, where this story can grow and evolve through multiple engagements and become more akin to a saga or a full feature movie.
This is the part I find more enjoyable of the whole hobby and also the reason why I dislike tournaments and the "win at all costs" mentality that comes with them.
-
I have to agree with Humakt,
From the off its passive aggression. Hollow justifications,every remake is a rework of the 'I only buy Playboy for the articles' Defence.With the inference of a moral high ground through service. Not single comment rings true.It shouts ulterior motivate.
I think the way you gentleman have been open and inclusive has reaffirmed my belief this is a forum for grown ups.
-
Well, I should point out that the OP has stopped commenting altogether and hasn't visited LAF since his last posts on June 19th/page 2. I rather think we're speaking to an empty hall.
-
Fram,
I'd already twigged ;)
No my tuppence was an observation more on the response of members.As always its more interesting to read the musings of others.
I must admit I did chuckle at the notion of a pacifist strategy for a game. I wonder what the stats would be ?(No winner only prizes for everyone at the end of the day?)I don't supposed you have as many dice to roll either. ::)
-
Well funny. 😬
-
Fram,
I'd already twigged ;)
No my tuppence was an observation more on the response of members.As always its more interesting to read the musings of others.
I must admit I did chuckle at the notion of a pacifist strategy for a game. I wonder what the stats would be ?(No winner only prizes for everyone at the end of the day?)I don't supposed you have as many dice to roll either. ::)
Wargaming sans war I can reasonably imagine, but no dice? That's crazy talk and fightin' words, man!
-
:o
Christopher!
All this talk of violence :'(
Can it be....that he was right.....and I,I was wrong.... :(
You are all 'WAR FAN BOYS !!!
-
Could be research for a student wanting to do an essay on the subject or something.
-
Wargaming sans war I can reasonably imagine, but no dice? That's crazy talk and fightin' words, man!
(https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/galaxyonfire/images/3/38/Challenge_Accepted.png/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/612?cb=20130821025554)
Seriously though, given that the most common wargame bar none (Chess) has no dice, I think with enough cunning it is entirely possible...
As for the OP, I have no idea...
-
There are a few games that use other methods for chance instead of dice (Tribal, Wings of War/Wings of Glory, etc), but then there's monsters in that group too - like Diplomacy, the game that everyone should play with friends and family at least once. With complete disregard for consequences.
-
I would point the original poster in this direction for some ideas on how he might advance his theories. It's a great story.
Saki, The Toys of Peace
http://www.eastoftheweb.com/short-stories/UBooks/ToysPeac.shtml (ftp://www.eastoftheweb.com/short-stories/UBooks/ToysPeac.shtml) First two paragraphs below. Though alas, neither the ending nor the ending of the author are terribly encouraging. Saki (H.H. Munro), he was killed on the Western Front in November 1916.
"Harvey," said Eleanor Bope, handing her brother a cutting from a London morning paper of the 19th of March, "just read this about children's toys, please; it exactly carries out some of our ideas about influence and upbringing."
"In the view of the National Peace Council," ran the extract, "there are grave objections to presenting our boys with regiments of fighting men, batteries of guns, and squadrons of 'Dreadnoughts.' Boys, the Council admits, naturally love fighting and all the panoply of war . . . but that is no reason for encouraging, and perhaps giving permanent form to, their primitive instincts. At the Children's Welfare Exhibition, which opens at Olympia in three weeks' time, the Peace Council will make an alternative suggestion to parents in the shape of an exhibition of 'peace toys.' In front of a specially-painted representation of the Peace Palace at The Hague will be grouped, not miniature soldiers but miniature civilians, not guns but ploughs and the tools of industry . . . It is hoped that manufacturers may take a hint from the exhibit, which will bear fruit in the toy shops."
-
There are a few games that use other methods for chance instead of dice (Tribal, Wings of War/Wings of Glory, etc), but then there's monsters in that group too - like Diplomacy, the game that everyone should play with friends and family at least once. With complete disregard for consequences.
The other reason to play Diplomacy (apart from its being one of the most exciting boardgames ever, and a wonderful way to lose friends) is that it shows how an excellent wargames campaign can work without needing all the minutiae of bookkeeping and counting supplies of bullets and hard-tack.
I've used it as the basis for a five-player east European 17th century campaign, with great success (victory went half and half to the Turks and the Swedes; game called off out of compassion for the Cossacks and the Poles, who were clearly never going to get off the floor, and the Muscovites, who were on their knees with little prospect of promotion back to standing on their feet).
-
The thing to realise about Diplomacy is that it's not a wargame. It's a negotiation game that happens to take place on a map of Europe with armies and fleets; you won't get far in the game if you don't understand that.
The other thing is that to do well you need to be trustworthy 90% of the time; it's the timing of the other 10% that is critical. You need to stab at just the right time, which is usually one move before your erstwhile ally was going to stab you.
Great game, and a great way of improving your persuasion and negotiating skills. The first time you get a solo win in Diplomacy you really feel you've achieved something!
-
The thing to realise about Diplomacy is that it's not a wargame. It's a negotiation game that happens to take place on a map of Europe with armies and fleets; you won't get far in the game if you don't understand that.
The other thing is that to do well you need to be trustworthy 90% of the time; it's the timing of the other 10% that is critical. You need to stab at just the right time, which is usually one move before your erstwhile ally was going to stab you.
Great game, and a great way of improving your persuasion and negotiating skills. The first time you get a solo win in Diplomacy you really feel you've achieved something!
Despite the lack of combat stages, Diplomacy is by far the most brutal game I have ever played. I plan my therapy sessions ahead of each game.
-
Never played Diplomacy but always wanted to. A friend who had played and said it was brilliant refused to play it with us 'incase it got out of hand'. That obviously made us want to play it even more. Another very tense and very stressful game is Twilight Struggle. Absolutely loved that.
-
Never played Diplomacy but always wanted to. A friend who had played and said it was brilliant refused to play it with us 'incase it got out of hand'. That obviously made us want to play it even more. Another very tense and very stressful game is Twilight Struggle. Absolutely loved that.
Diplomacy is so, so good.
Important note for new players: Playing as Austria-Hungary is hard mode.
-
A group of us used to play Diplomacy at school during lunchtimes with our history teacher, great game. Agree, if you got a reputation as a backstabber you didn't last long. Russia was also a pig of a country to play as IIRC.
-
Austria-Hungary either goes out early or does well.
Turkey and England often survive the game but can get boxed in. Turkey in particular can be hard to break out form the corner.
Russia can win very quickly against disorganised opponents, but can also go down fast.
France is probably the easiest country to play, as it has Iberia to itself.
Germany is tricky but once it gets going can avoid most of the stalemate lines.
If you win with Italy, you are doing very well; only ever managed it once.
In order to win you also need to know where the stalemate lines on the map are, so that you can breach them before the remaining players unite to block you.
-
Also, the Balkans are about as much of a quagmire in Diplomacy as they are in real life... lol
-
Played it many many times. Was quite successful at it. Sad to admit it suits my character lol
Not a game to make friends and influence people though, since it should really be called ‘Treachery’ not ‘Diplomacy’.
But totally agree - a game of pure skill and strategy, not a dice or any other random element in sight.And yes, the corner nations of England and Turkey are easiest to play, and can win well. Austria-Hungary has it the hardest in my experience, then Italy. I’ve played many games where Russia, Germany or France have won though.
But it’s a long old undertaking to give it the time it needs for striking deals and planning your stabs. And it really does need the full 7 players. The dynamic is much the poorer for playing with only 5 or 6.
Right, I really must organise another game. Haven’t played for a few years. A couple of my regular board gaming friends actually refuse to play it. They find it too stressful and upsetting >:D
-
I think the player numbers was another reason we didn't play it, not enough of us. I take it it's not a Friday night BLAM game then?
-
I take it it's not a Friday night BLAM game then?
It could be. 8) 8)
-
I played a few games of Diplomacy through the WebDiplomacy website. Works really well.
-
I stopped playing Diplomacy (and Machiavelli!). I am unable to take well betrayal, even in a game. Neither I am able to betray someone with who I have reached an agreement. I suck at this game. Badly. And on top of that, I always became angry. So I decided, a couple of decades ago (yeah, it has been that long!) to stop playing Diplomacy. I don't regret it.
-
I never have played the game.
I have very few gaming friends. :o
Want to keep the ones I have. lol
-
I have not played Diplomacy for over 30 years. Had a group in 8th grade and the beginning of high school that played it frequently. Brutal sessions. Same group played chess constantly at school. Sadly we broke up due to family moves over time. Never had as much fun playing diplomacy with other groups - they tend to take it personally for some reason. My current gaming group never plays diplomacy. I think we are too laid back to get into it now.
-
I too haven't played Diplomacy for years (about 50!)
Post A level exams we were allowed board games. I forked out the unheard of high price of
50 shillings (£2.50) when you could get Monopoly etc for under 10 shillings (50p)
The Diplomacy time had to be reduced to a maximum of 5 minutes, even then we rarely got a full result, and used to total up the provinces of the allied camps. One game led to the total equalling
more than the number of provinces on the board. Only then did we discover that for over four hours of play the Germans had convinced BOTH big alliances that he was a loyal member. We had to give him the honours of the day. He was a Diplomat.
(Definition of a Diplomat = Someone who can tell you to, 'Go to Hell !' in such a way that you actually look forward to the journey)
-
Only then did we discover that for over four hours of play the Germans had convinced BOTH big alliances that he was a loyal member. We had to give him the honours of the day. He was a Diplomat.
I imagine that fellow has had a tremendously successful career in public life! :P
-
(https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/galaxyonfire/images/3/38/Challenge_Accepted.png/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/612?cb=20130821025554)
Seriously though, given that the most common wargame bar none (Chess) has no dice, I think with enough cunning it is entirely possible...
As for the OP, I have no idea...
Dice Chess (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dice_chess)...
I've got a pair of CHESS=IZER™ Dice (http://www.gamescience.com/CHESSIZER-DICE_p_82.html)...
Has someone already mentioned Chess Boxing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_boxing)? One night in Bangkok...
-
No dice? Well cards would substitute but if you want to take away ‘random’ completely wasn’t there a committee-style game using argument/counter argument ie “I will win this melee because I gave my men a rousing speech beforehand, they have two-handed weapons and they’ve had three Weetabix for breakfast”.
Mega-games don’t always use dice either.
-
As an aside, does anyone else remember WRG's Decline & Fall, the first asymmetrical board game
(each player had different objectives & ways of winning) that I ever played, also their Sea-Strike game (a board-less board game) with various 'Missions', alternatives & budgets.
And another fun game, 'Junta'
-
No dice? Well cards would substitute but if you want to take away ‘random’ completely wasn’t there a committee-style game using argument/counter argument ie “I will win this melee because I gave my men a rousing speech beforehand, they have two-handed weapons and they’ve had three Weetabix for breakfast”.
Mega-games don’t always use dice either.
Matrix Games (http://www.wargamedevelopments.org/matrix.htm)?
Wargames Illustrated, issues prior to ~#100, had a number of articles about Matrix based campaigns, one being the Balkan Wars. Seemed like an alien language, but gradually I became intrigued, though no idea where to look for it, so forgot about it until now.
-
Matrix games - that’s the bunny:
http://www.wargamedevelopments.org/matrix.htm
And Megagames are here:
http://megagame-makers.org.uk
There’s also Inherent Military Probability although I always used percentage dice for that, not having a gaggle of Brigadiers to argue with.
-
The latest episode of the Wargames, Soldiers & Strategy podcast (http://wsspodcast.libsyn.com (http://wsspodcast.libsyn.com)) is all about Matrix Games. It got me really intrigued - I would like to try something like that, even though I'm not sure it's that fun :)
-
The latest episode of the Wargames, Soldiers & Strategy podcast (http://wsspodcast.libsyn.com (http://wsspodcast.libsyn.com)) is all about Matrix Games. It got me really intrigued - I would like to try something like that, even though I'm not sure it's that fun :)
Why deny the inevitable? ;)
I'd rather take part in this than getting into an argument over from where to measure 2 inches...
-
Okay, time to chime in... (even if I had bad vibes about the original poster the discussion turned our rather well!).
It think there are two elements in play. What wargames are, what wargaming is about.
Well, defining wargames is easy:
'Wargame is a warfare model or simulation whose operation does not involve the activities of actual military forces, and whose sequence of events affects and is, in turn, affected by the decisions made by players representing the opposing sides.' [ Perla, The Art of Wargaming]
'they are based on the military capabilities of some past or present antagonists, and entail a degree of research to ascertain the key characteristic involved. They attempt to simulate aspects of a real or imaginary armed conflict involving such military forces, and this in the form of a game, which players can win or lose by making decisions which need not be the same as those of actual commanders.' [Sabin, Simulating War]
first definition is more theoretical, second bring forward the game aspect. Important to note none of the two specifies the medium. Miniatures are not necessary (I have more than 1k map and counters wargames do not argue on this with me lol ). From an historical standpoint almost every game we play derives from Reisswitz Kriegspiel, either map based, miniature, or computer. Diplomacy is not a wargame by any stretch, but Junta is.
The hardest part is deciding what wargaming is about. Wargaming is an hobby, and each of us has different reasons to participate in a given hobby. In my case I enjoy the historical and learning aspect first. Wargames are paper time machines that allow, within boundaries, to explore military history and military operations in general. Second I like the modelling aspect of miniature wargames too. What I search in wargaming is more understanding of a given military event. I think on the hobby as a whole, historical curiosity is more or less the primary motivator, in the miniature wargaming sub-area I think the modeling aspect is equally if not more important. This explains why there is much more tolerance for simplistic or gamey mechanics in miniatures. But I also reckon that everyone is different and had different motivators.
Matrix games... I have seen them, and I know some people who swore by them... I am utterly unconvinced by them. More often than not they ended up in being reliant on the adjudicator/master/referee/whatever he or she want to be called. They are quite popular with political science people and some military personnel. Too often ended up in a form of 'you are my referee so I order you to...' (no this is not happening only with Clint Eastwood!). You really need extremely competent adjudicators and extremely balanced ones. Too often the adjudicator let his or her own bias. It is a form of soft or open gaming, where results of action could be adjusted to the audience. for those experienced in the original IASBM from TFL it is similar to adjudicating the difficult of a shot in these rules. I prefer rigid gaming because you have to follow rules rather than the whim of the adjudicator. I can disagree with the results but at least these results are part of a system rather than fudges. In the end even if the system is wrong it is still better than continuous fudges. Rigid systems are also less obscure to understand and it is easier to see potential bias and assumptions.
As a side note Paddy Griffith was fond of using similar system, he used them in his big Sea Lion game (the one with Dolfo Galland...) but again there was a bias in that game and a lot of results were in the end decided to follow accepted notions in turn reducing the value of the game as an analysis of a what if.