Why skirmish versus larger games?

[Galloping Major]

I love this forum.  
An excellent question and brilliant resposes, covering everything I was going to say, and more.  
I enjoy a big battle once in a while, especially if friends do all the hard work of painting big armies and invite me along to play with them. But I agree with the other contributors, skirmish games just have so much more charm and character for me, and more of a sense of the 'personal'.
Not that I want my western games to be limited to shoot outs in a street, and agree with LTD etc, there's a shortage of mounted/dismounted versions, something I hope to remedy for my own offerings as time goes on.
FifteensAway - The sorts of scenarios you mention are just what I like, but I still consider them skirmish games, probably using different rules to those most people choose for a shoot-out between two gangs of a handful of figures. I really enjoy my FIW games when I get time for them, but even fairly large engagements are played with skirmish rules, even when the "mechanics" enable the use of a good number of units, that personal element is still much more present than in most battle games.
I have to say though, that my first wargames back in the late 70s were western gunfights using "Once Upon a Time in the West" rules, so perhaps that's why I'm still so engaged by skirmish games. Additionally, and this may well be down to the people I've associated with over the years rather than any general rule of nature, but I find that in skirmish games, the gamers are often far more interested in taking part in the unfolding of a story (hence the Hollywood connection guys   ), than in winning at all costs .... as I say, that may be more a thing of personal experience  

Cheers,
Lance

www.gallopingmajorwargames.com

[Elk101]

As I stumble through the start of my Old West setting I'm planning a series of locations other than the main town. There will be a smaller secondary town, two ranches, a silver mine, a ruined homestead, an abandoned town, a railway line and a cemetery. I didn't just want to fight over the same street continually and thought it would be good to get players to direct scenarios; I.e. the sheriff player decides he's had enough of the outlaws and gathers a posse to flush them out. There could easily be 5-15 or more figures per side in a 28mm 1:1 skirmish like this (or way more at 15mm). As others have said there is something about the Old West setting that makes narrative play both appealing and easy (it almost writes itself when the figures and locations are introduced!).

[Elbows]

Fifteens, it looks like you're more curious about the type of game rather than the scale.

I have no plans to continue simply gunfights in typical towns.  I have an adobe town which is almost useable and eventually I'll finish my train.  I'll be working on a mining complex too at some point.  Plenty of scenario options.  Most of my convention scenarios get a bit simplified.  I save more interesting scenarios for people who know the game system.  Up until recently I didn't have enough "wilderness" terrain to effectively cover the board.

I think the typical Old West town gunfight is iconic...and is, somewhat unfortunately, the default game of Old West gamers (particularly those who only break out the stuff once a year or so).  It's akin the nauseatingly boring "Normandy" setting in WW2 which everyone defaults to, or Gettysburg when someone wants to play the Civil War, etc. 

[katie]

"maybe the large battle expansion from LoTOW"


Actually LotOW scales reasonably well as it is as long as you engage in some habits...

One is; don't have too many types of figures/weapons within a unit. What slows things down is multiple lookups for things like ranges. If all the figures in a unit (except the captain) are identically armed and statted, things can speed up.

Make dice for "in the way" type rolls, so each shot can be a single handful of dice and resolve the Shootin' dice, any "in the way"s and also the wounding dice all in one go.

With those two then it's "these three guys shoot at that guy"".. "bang, roll, hit the terrain", "bang, roll, hit but didn't wound", "bang, figure dead".

Use tokens for things like "reload needed" and "moved too far to shoot" because any other way of doing it is a pain.

Split the sides into smaller units of a dozen or less figures. Then you can do things like shoot all of A at B and then B makes all their 'dive for cover' and pluck checks in one go, without having too much state for everyone to remember. (And this then solves some of the IGOUGO problems, because now it's P1, P2, P2, P1, P2, P1...)

[abu iskander]

Though I own it, I haven't tried their rules for the Alamo, expansion 3 IIRC. Does it work pretty much as you've written or are those your house rules?

[Cory]

Urban architecture can set the time and place better than wilderness terrain. False front buildings shout old west while trees don't so much, especially if they are the same trees the gamer uses for ancient Rome through alien planets.

[Heisler]

So really the question isn't about larger games vs skirmish games its about using different western settings rather than the classic false front western town. Everything described is really different scenarios for a skirmish game. I'm sure they have been done, in fact there was an AAR not to long ago describing a outlaws holed up in an farm house when the posse arrives. They have been done just not publicized very much.

[Legionnaire]

So really the question isn't about larger games vs skirmish games its about using different western settings rather than the classic false front western town. Everything described is really different scenarios for a skirmish game. I'm sure they have been done, in fact there was an AAR not to long ago describing a outlaws holed up in an farm house when the posse arrives. They have been done just not publicized very much.

Think that might've been mine. Also did a couple of wilderness AAR's involving cattle rustling before I folded that particular campaign. Been thinking about a train robbery one, need to get that stagecoach from Sarissa, pursuit of wagon train...

I love the old west gaming but have ebbs and flows in the hobby, sometimes I do a lot and then there are months passing by without anything done. I only play skirmish games in the games I own myself, purely because I don't have time/ energy to paint x100's of minis to have an "army" and the storytelling aspect, which is really important. Very rarely I play a large game at my club with people doing WWII.

[FifteensAway]

Glad to see this topic engaging so many.  For me, I am looking at both larger scale games - as in more figures in the game, lots more in my case - as well as a greater diversity of scenarios within the genre.

My long term goal for this period, which I may have mentioned before, is a very large - as in an outright monstrosity - that I've dubbed: The Whole Wild West, All At Once.  That is a convention mega-game event.

While not all painted, I have more or less enough figures to do the game mentioned earlier in this thread for a particular set of rules.  I have those rules but they don't quite work for me.  Still hunting about for the set that will work for what I want to create - though that is the closest in scope I've found so far.

Not all of my gaming will be large here.  I will be able to run pretty much any scenario you can think of - except ones requiring Mexican cavalry or infantry.  Otherwise, I'm well set for the gamut of options.  Or would be if I had it all painted.  Next in line behind the French And Indian War collection but competing for my attention as my American Revolution figures are calling my name loudly, too.  Too many figures, too little time - and not enough money to pay someone else (several someones, really) to get it done.

But, hey, I bought my MegaMillions ticket so keep your fingers crossed! 

[Deedles]

I think it is partially due to the fact that the Western genre is very much character driven.  Whether Historical, Hollywood, or Iconic, it is the characters that stay in our minds. 

Very much my take on genre.

 But also for me it is a sheer range of possible scenarios that don't require 100's + of figures. It works great for a multi player campaign, where if a player can think of it then that can drive a game.

[NickNascati]

That being said, I would like to be able to game Range wars and similar larger action with 20 or so figures per side.  Bit playing mostly solo, I don't know what rules would allow me to do that.  Of course I could always tinker with "The Sword and the Flame".

[Cory]

The problem with range wars is most tables are far too small for the typical long range bushwacking. To counter the open nature of the country one must focus on places where the opponents can be found and both sides must negotiate tight quarters terrain. This usually  brings us back to the towns.

[NickNascati]

I'm also looking at the "Wars" in Lincoln and Mason county.

[FifteensAway]

Cory,

Spatial situation gets vastly better with 15 mm figures.  And these days the variety of options within 15 (and 18 mm) is astonishing. 

Nick, wish I could point you to rules but I'm on the hunt myself so I will be following your new thread (just checked it out) with considerable interest.  Hope to hear of rules other than the Usual Suspects always mentioned.

[Sendak]

I like Skirmish.

Skirmish,which I take to mean small unit to small army rencounters. Here are my reasons:

1.) I handle small(er) numbers of units better than large(r) numbers units,

2.) a good mission is enticing to me, I get more 'mission' oriented games with skirmish/small unit games, and

3.) I can make both sides for a skirmish game;  I can find an opponent easier than I can find someone to play who also has an army, or any sort.

edit

4.) Given the short duration of a "game's popularity" cycle I must be flexible. Therefore, Skirmish is the best option for me, see #3.

I have exceptions to the first three reasons. A large unit game can fulfill my reasons just as well as can a Skirmish game. Number four reason is one of genetics, only gamma rays will change my chums and me.