An Universal More Systematic Wargame Review: How?

[Leftblank]

Blog. First thoughts.

"What I aim to devise is a set of standards for a comparative review of different wargame rulesets. The reviews that I read are often based on one single battle, driven by fashion (I recently bought the new XXX by ...). And written by fans, who bought the new system because the didn't like their older books anymore ('out with the old, in with the new'). They can't hide how satisfied they are with their new rulebook. If I could find a set of factors that are more or less the same for every wargame, I can more systematically describe and review and compare a (historical) wargame ruleset with other sets. Not a single factor, but a combination thereof."

See full blog on our club site: http://amsterdam6shooters.nl/node/857
What are your thoughts? What should be part of a lab test battle?

[Elbows]

I'll be honest...I'd say it's borderline impossible.  People enjoy different things.  I've played many a game in a genre I wasn't invested in.  While I didn't dislike the games, I would never be able to appreciate much about them if I'm not really "into it".  It will always colour an opinion (i.e. review).

You could, of course, review boring aspects of any game: quality of the materials, how solidly the rules are written, how well supported the product is, how quickly/reasonably the company responds to inquiries, how widely available it is, how cost-efficient is may be compared to similar titles, etc.  Rating a game's quality though is pretty darn tough.

There are games which are almost universally adored that I find completely mediocre (lookin' at you Frostgrave!), so I just don't know how you could systematically test a wargame to deliver anything useful beyond the above logistical aspects.

[Connectamabob]

I agree with Elbows. All the traits/questions you listed as example criteria are either highly subject to individual preference, and/or can only be assessed in terms of how they interact with the rest of the rules rather than in isolation. I have a hard time thinking of alternate criteria/elements that would fit into an objective measuring system like you want.

I agree with your criticisms of other reviews, but I don't think what you're proposing is the right solution. TBH, this approach has feint whiffs the spreadsheet strategies large movie studios use to try and "engineer" successful films.

It's no mystery what makes a good or bad review. It's not a problem that needs a radical new solution, it just requires more reviewers to actually think about what they're doing and want to improve, instead of using "I'm doing my own thing" or "as long as I'm getting clicks, I must be doing it well" as excuses. Same as with any other kind of writing.

[Leftblank]

Still thinking. For example, I could put an infantry unit on a hilltop, attacked by an infantry opponent. And then compare: a Hail Caesar attack, a DBA-attack, a Field of Glory attack.
The judgment would be personal, but the situation the same. I would be forced to compare movement, attack, defense and difficult terrain mechanics/modifiers.

[Khadrin Stonetooth]

I think you could also grab a group of "experienced" players and ask them to tell you what is their view about this or that aspect of the games. Because the way I see it is that they are so many game rules that is seems almost impossible to do just by yourself. And it will be less biased if done by a group of peole vs a single person.

[Elbows]

Yeah I think the best way to really do this is to gather four or five groups of gamers around the world (who have different interests) and make it a monthly thing.  In other words, one month ask all of the gaming groups to run say...three games (minimum) of a certain rule set and then provide feedback to you.  Do your best to ensure that each gaming group is different enough in make-up/interests and that they're willing to partake.

It's useless if all five gaming groups are British Napoleonics players over the age of 60, etc.  You want to spread out the demographics.

[Leftblank]

New Blog. I have a skeleton topic list. What do you think? Full blog here http://amsterdam6shooters.nl/node/891

The combination of a topical review and a standardized battle ith a pro/contra list should have added value. The test battle should be varied, not all infantry, or all cavalry, and with standardized situations, like "mediocre troops defending difficult terrain", "flank attacks", "elite vs poor troops", "heavy steamroller cavalry vs prepared infantry" or "fighting while outnumbered". Not that not the whole scenario should be historical or even 'realistic' (if you can say such of playing with little toy soldiers) but it should have some basic situations that in most wargames occur.

[Norm]

I did a fairly detailed comparison of tactical WWII games, but in may respects the focus was on a narrow genre and within my field of interest. The categories of importance in which differences will matter are unlikely to pertain to other game types and certainly other periods would be outside my comfort zone in feeling able to critically review. I think one can be much more forgiving of 'secondary interest' periods without even realising it.

Link if interested -  http://battlefieldswarriors.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/comparing-lower-complexity-tactical.html

[Leftblank]

Nice! I like your systematic approach.

[Hobgoblin]

One of the metrics that matters most to me when comparing games is "time to table". How long does it take from deciding to play a game to actually manoeuvring and rolling dice? I think that is something that you can compare directly and fairly across systems.

The games that rate highest on this are things like Hordes of the Things and Battlesworn, where each player has access to identical unit types. If you have a batch of suitable elements, you can pick sides in about a minute .

HOTT has units costing 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 points, but most units cost 2 points, and you're forbidden from having more than half of your 24 points in more expensive units than that. So it's very easy to go (for example) 2 x blades (@2), 4 x warbands (@2), 1 x hero (@4), 1 x behemoth (@4), 1 x magician (@4) = 24 points.

Battlesworn has 12 "slots", with most units costing 1, others costing 0.5 and some costing more. Again, you can choose a side visually in about a minute.

Then you have games that are a bit more complex on the surface, like Dragon Rampant or Song of Blades. DR can be as simple as HOTT, but has lots of potential upgrades and downgrades. So, if you use those, it takes slightly longer. But not much. SBH in theory is much more complex, as you can build any profile you like. But in practice, you can get a side together in a few minutes, even if you build some of its elements from scratch, because of the excellent online warband builder and because there are only two main stats to go with the many traits. And if you're using standard profiles from the book, you can usually knock out (say) a band of orcs in a minute or so.

Obviously, there's a huge range of complexity beyond that. I think Brent Spivey's excellent games Havoc, Mayhem and Rogue Planet have the drawback of very high "time to table". Rogue Planet is the best in this respect, because it involves relatively few models and handles groups in a very clever way (you make one profile and then pay extra points to make it a group of four). The others, though, really require an hour or so once you know the system. So, while they're brilliant games, they are less immediately playable than the others. Fine for a game you know you're going to play on a given date; less good for pick-up play.

I'm sure there are loads of other gradations here, and I do think it is one of the most important ways to assess a game objectively - not least because it determines how much a given game gets played!