Lead Adventure Forum
Other Stuff => General Wargames and Hobby Discussion => Topic started by: flags_of_war on November 15, 2019, 01:56:06 PM
-
I've been having a few interesting conversation of late with a couple of friends and I'm not sure what i want to make of it all. It's to do with a style of gaming that is becoming more and more popular but I'll be honest I don't feel it fits the period. It's mostly to do with the latest Kickstarter for Clash of Spears but for me the style of gaming doesn't fit the period.
There are more and more small scale battle or large skirmish styles games coming out but they also come with the rules that made the large battles interesting like Phalanx, War Elephants, Testudo and other formations. For me things are not for skirmish gaming and I'm wondering why it's becoming popular. I turn up to a battle with 10 guys and someone has an elephant I'm not hanging around.
Is it the case that folk just want to game for the sake of it rather than recreating a true historical game? You can't have 6 guys in a Phalanx it just wouldn't work. Ut's the same when i changed the rules for M&T into the 1745 period and folk wanted the Highland charge. ???
Yes it's cool to try it but it simply wouldn't work at that scale. I love small scale games but i always keep it the scenarios to what they would be at that scale. A daring raid, a rescue or small chance encounter.
I can't help but feel something should just be left to the big table games and let GW play with the fantasy stuff.
-
I can see an interesting scenario in ten guys trying to kill or capture a war elephant that has gotten separated from the main army...
But yeah, a four man phalanx or testudo seems ludicrous. I suppose the writers are trying to maintain a "feel" of the army by giving them a special rule or formation, but honestly these should be add-ons or options for a expanded game, not something catered to by a small skirmish ruleset.
-
It will get worse... The lardies are jumping on the ancient skirmish bandwagon as well.
-
They are all aimed at the Goldfish Gamer with no sticking power to field an army, they are just games, no more, no less.
-
They are all aimed at the Goldfish Gamer with no sticking power to field an army, they are just games, no more, no less.
Or at people who like to spend hours carefully converting each mini to make it unique and characterful? :)
I could see the historical dimension working with a sufficiently well-prepared scenario (e.g. 10 volunteers try to take out a bunker on Iwo Jima). Otherwise, I agree with a lot of what the OP says.
-
I think you put your finger on it. People do not have the time, money, space or maybe interest to produce large armies so they go skirmish.
Yet, they still want the big battle feel. Partly I also think it is because we haven't really defined what is a skirmish. Some think it is still 6-9 units on
the board. Others, like me, think it should be a handful of figures.
-
They are all aimed at the Goldfish Gamer with no sticking power to field an army, they are just games, no more, no less.
They're all just games. You're not doing any deep meaning scientific work, no matter how seriously you take your little dolls.
-
I love me some skirmish games. I do agree though that there are some very off-scale historical styled skirmish games. Skirmishes did occur in any era in history, but a lot of these companies want an excuse to sell you a $50-60 model, or appeal to the gamers who want to run that kind of thing. I've seen no end of skirmish games which start off well-intentioned, and then, six expansions later are....completely bastardized forms of their previous self.
There are more skirmish game options right now than ever before. The simplest answer is; don't play the ones that you don't like. It's really only limited to you and your gaming buddies to decide what you enjoy playing.
-
Maybe it's about time and money. Big armies take a lot of both. Skirmish games not so much. For that matter the latter are easier on storage too.
-
In my case, and in the particular case of Clash of Spears, is two things: first, that I have been long convinced that skirmishing was the most common experience of the Ancient warrior; and second, that CoS is a true skirmish game. You can close your models and field the big armored chaps, but, more often than not, being a skirmish game, your heavies will be exhausted by your opponent's lights and then killed. A bit as happened at Sphacteria with the Spartiates during the Peloponnesian War. I have playtested CoS and it is a ruleset firmly based on historical evidence, rather than in Fantasy Ancients (not that Fantasy Ancients are bad, but I like something with more flesh)
Then there is another plus: it caters my taste for different periods, but keeping it manageable. I mean, I have wanted to collect the Second Punic War in Iberia for ages, but never had the time nor the space to collect full armies. Games like CoS allows me to collect a few models, enjoy the skirmishes, and then keep my focus for big battles in the Successors period, which is the one I have invested more time (and money!) already.
-
I don't really play historical games, but a few thoughts occur to me:
1. Some of the best 'historical' games are really fantasy games: Lion Rampant (which acknowledges that it's more Hollywood than history) and Saga (which has magical effects in the Age of Vikings battleboards). They're designed to be played with historical miniatures and with period atmosphere, but they're not in any way simulations. I'm sure the designers don't believe that Norse berserks always fought in units of four, for example!
2. I wonder if the growth in the sort of skirmishes the OP describes has something to do with a reduced willingness to accept large figure-scales in massed-battle games. I really like the HotT/DBA/ADG sort of game, but I think more people struggle to accept that three miniatures are 300 men (or whatever) than perhaps they did in the past. I suspect that ultimately stems from the influence of Warhammer, which - as acknowledged by Rick Priestley - did some very odd things with units that were part 1:10 and part 1:1. It also had units of, say, 20 men wheeling and forming other strict formations that such small units would never need to undertake. And it very much blurred the skirmish/massed-battle distinction.
3. As a result of that, I think that a group of models that - 20 years ago - might have formed a DBA army or equivalent is now more likely to be used in a 1:1 skirmish game. I know DBA is still popular, and ADG seems to be too, but I suspect that there are more gamers now who are more comfortable with a 1:1 figure ratio. (I could be completely wrong on this!)
4. Warhammer and related games have popularised the idea of 'factions' with special rules and special powers. It's a recurrent theme on this forum and elsewhere that many gamers don't like the idea of all armies having access to the same troop types (it's a common complaint against the Rampant rules and HotT). And if you're not happy with the same rules representing both an orc spearman and a dwarf spearman, might you not also be keen to have mechanical distinctions between an Anglo-Dane and a Viking? There's nothing wrong with those preferences, but I suspect that Warhammer, et al, have helped to create a bigger appetite for 'flavour' - which might encourage game designers to throw in testudos and phalanxes even when there are too few men to form them.
-
There's nothing wrong with those preferences, but I suspect that Warhammer, et al, have helped to create a bigger appetite for 'flavour' - which might encourage game designers to throw in testudos and phalanxes even when there are too few men to form them.
I think that's true, but I recall arguing with my brother that my Waterloo Highlanders absolutely MUST have the Highland Charge rule, despite basically just being bog standard line infantry, based on nothing more than the fact that I loved them and thought they were really cool looking. This was before we'd ever played Warhammer!
We like our toys and we choose our models based on some sort of flavour or style that interests us and it seems natural for us to try to reflect that in our games, probably too strongly for accuracy, but it is just about fun and games after all.
After all, there's probably some deep meaning to the way the pieces move and attack in chess, but I've only once seen the Queen slide rapidly diagonally across a parade ground from one side to the other, and that was because her horse stepped on an icy patch of manure that hadn't been cleared up. Coincidentally, someone with a knighthood narrowly avoided being hit by leaping two steps sideways and one backwards.
-
Historical skirmish is a challenging genre. You can't please everyone, and it's amazing how differently two people can interpret what is being represented.
Had a weird moment with a friend where, after many games of Sharp Practice 2, it suddenly dawned on us that we were both viewing the battle in very different ways. To me, everything was 1:1 scale, whereas to him it was a more vague scale playing out a small battle. To him, 24-30 troops using various formations and drill in such a way was inconceivable, and in his mind each group of 8 was at least 80 men.
I didn't bring up that once you get vague about the unit scale, things like buildings, true line of sight and various other skirmish considerations break down. This all cropped up because in his mind's eye, a 12 pounder cannon was killing hundreds of men in one shot!
Ultimately, somewhere down the line, I think there became a demand for games at 1:1 scale but with nods to the battlefield characteristics that might be displayed by the various belligerent of the period. How far those nods go will obviously result in attracting different types of players. People just need to be honest with themselves about what they want. If the entire concept doesn't work for your understanding of the era then best to stick to big battle sets. Happy to let others have fun however they wish!
-
It will get worse... The lardies are jumping on the ancient skirmish bandwagon as well.
Not sure that's fair. From what I have read about the game they're making, they seem to be making it at a scale where you're essentially "zoomed in" on the actions of an actual tactical manoeuvre unit, such as a Roman Century. This is different, I think, to what is commonly represented in a "skirmish" where multiple tactical units are represented by small groups of individuals.
-
I think the predominance of skirmish at present is an inevitable effect of 28mm's aggressive marketing, combined with the legacy of fantasy (and Bolt Action, though I wonder what kind of gamer plays that one twice). I regret that, given my age, I'm unlikely to live long enough to see real wargames return.
-
Maybe it's about time and money. Big armies take a lot of both. Skirmish games not so much. For that matter the latter are easier on storage too.
I do 10mm, and can get a decent army of 500+ figures for what a fantasy nut I used to know would spend on one giant battle robot. About 50 such armies fit, with their terrain (including four castles) fairly easily in my storage cupboard, which is around the size of a deeper bedroom bookcase.
-
I think wargaming is all in the eye of the beholder, you see what you want to see in a particular set of rules or size of game and every wargame has a degree of abstraction.
Personally, I tend to not like games where it's obvious you are just shuffling counters around so games like DBA or a lot of other Ancients rules don't turn me on much. For that level of abstraction the rules have to be very good as a game. I like Blucher because it works very well as a game and fits my perception of a Napoleonic battle even though units are really just big counters.
However, I much prefer games where it feels like I'm playing with toy soldiers and where the narrative is clearer to see on a more personal level. That's why my favourite ancients rules are Warhammer Ancient Battle. Likewise, although I like some big battle black powder rules I probably enjoy skirmish or crunchy skirmish rules like Muskets and Tomahawks or Sharpe Practice more.
I don't think there is anything wrong with having rules for (as Lardy Rich describes it) crunchy skirmish. I went in on the Clash of Spears kickstarter because it might be an an affordable way to do games involving Romans. My Warhammer armies are Dark Age and I don't have the time to paint the new big classical Warhammer armies I'd like. I don 't enjoy painting figures smaller than 28mm any more and I don't like ancients rules with what I think have too much abstraction like DBA, despite their low figure count, so I hope Clash of Spears will hit the sweet spot for me. I don't plan on doing Clash of Spears with Macedonian Phalangites or elephants but rather Roman auxilia against celtic warbands but if some people want to do that it's up to them.
To be succesful in today's gaming climate rules have to appeal to as many potential players as possible so they sometimes incorporate rules for things that some people think are inappropriate. You can still play these games and they might still be very good, you just need to be selective in your army and scenario design.
-
Most people don't want to limit themselves to one massive collection of a single battle. It's all very well having an interest in Napoleonic gaming but the vast majority of people don't want to spend the rest of their gaming/hobby life recreating Waterloo. By being able to play games at a smaller scale it allows you to dabble in a wider range of periods and types of models which in turn allows more variety in the miniatures that are manufactured which obviously allows more small companies to stay open. There is a place for both types of games but at least the modern 'large skirmish' game has a better aesthetic than say DBA/DBR which used fewer figures and managed to look awful while trying to recreate large scale battles.
-
I think there are two angles here.
One is about skirmish games.
The other is about what a historically accurate skirmish game should look like.
Now, I am already considering the rumoured Saga: Age of Hannibal. But rather than use 28mm, I will multibase a smaller scale on 25mm bases to be a better reflection on the size of units.
I think there are quite a lot of factors in regards to the popularity of skirmish games. A major one is time. Then you have the likes of 28mm becoming more popular over recent years, possibly due to size and the amount of scope in terms of model making you have with a 28mm compared to say 15mm as well as level of detail on the painting, but also possibly because of the number of hobbyists coming into the hobby via GW etc. The issue with 28mm is that if you play mass battle games with them, you need a lot of space. You need a table at least 6x4. You need to have several terrain set ups worth so the storage for all of that. Some folks are lucky enough to have this, others are not - especially from a UK perspective.
What is realistic in skirmish? Elephants could be stretching it. As are Phalanx successfully holding a formation with only a handful of men. But skirmishes did happen, and they were nearly always more common. Especially by the time you hit the roman era. Patrols, tribal battles. Even some large battles involved skirmishes upon their periphery.
-
They're all just games. You're not doing any deep meaning scientific work, no matter how seriously you take your little dolls.
Dolls? Dolls !?! I’ll have you know they are Toy Soldiers!
-
Fun...
there was a chap who raised hell here, on a SPQR discussion, on the Phalanx matter... o_o
I tend to agree with Antonio J. Carrasco, there were more skirmishes than large scale battle in the ancient and medieval world. The large scale pitched battle is something that had been ingrained into us by the myth of the decisive battle coming from XIX century rather than sound scholarship.
Said that, skirmish gaming is one of those terms that are open to plenty of interpretations. It is worth noting that TFL (and despite the gratuitous and undeserved dig, Rich and Nick are some of the most talented rules designers around here... gratuitous counter-dig :P ) in their original Sharp Practice supplement for the American Civil war recognized that and provided different level of gaming. I play both Sharp and Patriots and usually consider a single unit a company (so usually the player command a regiment more or less). Lion Rampant (yes it is partly Hollywood but a far cry from historical-fantasy...) also works well with this approach.
So no, there are no styles that does not fit the period if for style we consider gaming level. If for style we consider 25pdrs with ranges that are basically the same of rifle...
-
If for style we consider 25pdrs with ranges that are basically the same of rifle...
Be careful... you can open a whole can of worms here! lol
-
I noticed a similar thing with wargames mags and the reason I stopped buying them. If you compare a magazine from the 80's or mid 90's with magazines now you can see a definite dumbing down. The articles are light weight with little to offer in the way of research and they a plastered with pictures taking up pages that used to include good articles. In general the hobby is dumbed down with little or no research carried out in ones army or as they are called (factions) of choice. A lack of depth in terms of period knowledge is just the general state of the hobby at the moment. Rules, Magazines the lot. Its better to write your own rules.
-
I’m quite sure I can’t write rules as good as any of the Lardies, or Fire and Fury or many other sets I can mention. As for the idea that gaming is dumbing down since your (and possibly my) day, I think the only response is ‘ok boomer’ :)
I’m not sure I see what the original problem is. There are, historically, way more skirmish level engagements than set piece battles as McFonz says and the idea of gaming them or small isolated actions within bigger battles, say taking on an elephant with a handful of troops, seems perfectly ok to me. As to the idea that 4 men represents a phalanx, well DBA went down that route and while it doesn’t have the spectacle of a thousand figures a side, it’s strength for me was in the campaign system, a campaign you could fight in a day and even collect all 6 armies for and get them painted in a year.
Different strokes for different folks.
-
I would say that the lardies are one of the exceptions who take the history seriously, remind me when Fire and Fury was written? I don't know what a Boomer is. Its all toy soldiers at the end of the day but I think, with a few exceptions it is dumbed down these days.
-
I'll chime in here and say that what everybody calls dumbed down, might also be seen as 'abstracted' or 'streamlined'. It's a common word in games design lately, with new editions being streamlined, but basically made simpler to play faster in these hectic times.
I myself welcome lots of skirmish games as it ipens the possibility to play all sorts of periods, but could not go on without my big battle games as well. There is nothing more satisfying as a table filled with 20-30 napoleonic batallions! But being realistic, i have big armies for said napoleonics, quite big forces for the ACW, a big wwII collection and quite recently made reasonable size forces for the punic wars. I cannot do that for every period.
So skirmish games allow me to look at things that interest me historically, without taking away lots of precious time (and money) from my main projects.
You just have to find the rules that you think get it right!
-
Defintiely there is an element of dumbing down, but is not something new. Streamlining and abstraction have always been with us. Just yelling 'they are all toy soldiers' or 'the hobby is dumbing down' is not helpful.
Magazine 'kay there is some dumbing down here and there. I think wargames illustrated is a good example, but sometime you also found really good articles. WSS is a clear cut example of mixed articles. In every issue there are good ones, and crappy ones... but it is something I have seen not just in miniature wargamign magazines. Academic journals have also experienced a lot of this... as everything. But there is a downside of the coin. Often is not the writers dumbing down... is us getting more and more acquainted with a topic (or being perverse, some writers assuming the readers are dumb and know nothing of the topic...). Bascially you must accept that in a magazine not all the article will be up to your standard by default. Then you decide if the editorial line and the overall content are for you (I did balancing WSS and WI, WSS won).
Rules and games... of course there are dumbing down. My favorite pet-peeve. Dan Verssen and his new edition of Thunderborlt Apache Leader. I love the the original fro GMT I gave the new shiny edition from DVG away for free (okay I gave it to Phil Sabin, who gave me some books and treated me to dinner more than once... and his wife is a great cook...!). I saw the same with Down in Flames, DVG dumbing it down to ridiculousness (and crap art) but GMT keeping it a decent game and building on it. But there is a difference between abstraction and dumbing down. In the word of Dr. Velicogna (me) to the students 'abstraction is when you take something and subsume it in the system, omission is when you just remove it.' Abstractions are necessary even for accurate simulations and I am not against them. Oversimplification and omissions... well beside being hallmark of a bad design, sometime they crop up.
There is a strong argument against directly representing every single rivet... (you get ASL, and then you abstract basically C3I...). On the other hand abstracting too much is not a solution. On top of it, usually if the abstraction involves something we think is important we tend to react unfavorably. Maybe we are seeing a bit of the latter in this discussion... just maybe...
-
I have my doubts about "combined arms" ancient skirmishes, but would still game them. More historical ancient skirmishes with only one or two troop types on each side could become boring rather quickly...
-
They're all just games. You're not doing any deep meaning scientific work, no matter how seriously you take your little dolls.
As a counterpoint:
http://www.wargaming.co/professional/details/professionalhandbook.htm
-
Bridge is just a game; but there have been murders of partners over errors in bidding (and quite rightly so - passing an opening two-club, by God). Chess is just a game, but playing it blindfolded has been illegal in Russia for decades, the mental stress is so dangerously intense. And the body count in Game of Thrones was exponential at the end.
Games are serious things, I tell you.
-
As a counterpoint:
http://www.wargaming.co/professional/details/professionalhandbook.htm
Good book by the way :)