3MA - John Tillers Squad Battles World War I

[spelk]

This weeks podcast from 3MA is about JT's Sqaud Battles WWI

https://www.idlethumbs.net/3ma/episodes/john-tillers-squad-battles-first-world-war

"April 8, 2015 The Winter of Wargaming plods forward, inch by inch, straining through the rain and grime amidst a hail of enemy artillery and rifle fire. The trenches never end, a maze of mud and blank-faced soldiers so far beyond rational thought that their only solace lies inward toward thoughts of home and hearth. But wait, who's that ahead going over the top? It's Rob, Bruce, and Troy "Who Took My Cheese Rations?" Goodfellow here to talk about John Tiller's Squad Battles - First World War. Is this entry into the venerable series the volume that finally makes trench warfare fun?"

[Boggit]

It's fairly unique in tracing the huge changes in infantry combat between 1914-1918. Apart from massive depth and some excellent scenarios, it is an educational experience. Ed Williams research on his game is a labour of love. 8)

[Cyrano]

I listen to 3MA religiously, consider myself a fan, and had the pleasure of interviewing Troy Goodfellow for this very website (can't seem to locate what I wrote though, I'm told it's lost in the aether on something called the full frontal page...sounds nasty).

A fair measure of this episode was unfettered, free-swinging bollocks.

I leave aside very small inaccuracies (HPS didn't release and never had available SB: WWI nor is the Ancient Battles series a Tiller joint) or the cavil over the question of whether there were "enough" changes to the base engine to warrant saying there are some.  As Boggit correctly points out, there are fairly substantial mechanical changes made that are particularly noticeable as the war grinds on.  During the podcast, Rob Zacny specifically asks whether Bruce or Troy noticed any and they demur.  I'll also leave aside my inquiry as to why they wouldn't take up the far more recent and truly excellent (Grogheads Digital Game of the Year for 2014) East Front '14.

What gets me nuts is the notion that there's some other game out there that SB or PzC can credibly compared to that do what they do "better".  This puts me in the particularly awkward position of seeming to criticize games I really like such as "Decisive Campaigns", "Heroes of Stalingrad", "Conflict of Heroes", &c., but, frankly, when you're building a game that's, at root, a digital implementation of a boardgame, there's going to be a certain kludge factor.  You're moving pieces over a map and indicating which of your pieces you want to attack the other side's pieces.  Of course the interface to "Ultimate General" is more elegant, but that's to confuse categories.  I was in the gym listening to this podcast and that may have affected my responses, but, between reps, I just kept saying "you're asking for a different game" or "you're comparing it to an imaginary game that exists only in your mind...which I suppose is the definition of imaginary".  There may have been swear words used as adjectives.

I thought Bruce got the closest when he said that there's a real wonder to firing up PzC Stalingrad for the first time and realizing that you've not got a map that's MUCH bigger than anything you've ever played on a tabletop, with the thousands of pieces all pre-set for you, with a rule set that the computer won't let you forget -- even if you do, and that you can leave "up" for as long as you like as you slog through it stack by stack.  He then said he no longer has the patience to play games of this type on the PC which, by the process of substitution, implies he no longer cares to play them on the tabletop.  This is, of course, his prerogative, but, heavens, it neither makes SB or PzC bad or good, just something he no longer desires.

I number the SB, DC and PzC games I've played -- including quite a few with the denizens of this joint -- as some of my best gaming experiences ever.  I couldn't bear to see the former fail in comparison to a system that does not exist.

Best,

Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)

[Father Ted]

I just kept saying "you're asking for a different game" or "you're comparing it to an imaginary game that exists only in your mind...".  I couldn't bear to see the former fail in comparison to a system that does not exist.

Completely OT, but this is what always winds me up with a lot of  the criticism directed at Battle of Stalingrad.  Before this goes too far, bear in mind that I'm only talking about its perceived technical limitations.

On topic, perhaps I'd better check this out as I bought SB: WW1 a while back but have only fired it up once...

[Al]

What gets me nuts is the notion that there's some other game out there that SB or PzC can credibly compared to that do what they do "better".  This puts me in the particularly awkward position of seeming to criticize games I really like such as "Decisive Campaigns", "Heroes of Stalingrad", "Conflict of Heroes", &c., but, frankly, when you're building a game that's, at root, a digital implementation of a boardgame, there's going to be a certain kludge factor.  You're moving pieces over a map and indicating which of your pieces you want to attack the other side's pieces.  Of course the interface to "Ultimate General" is more elegant, but that's to confuse categories.  I was in the gym listening to this podcast and that may have affected my responses, but, between reps, I just kept saying "you're asking for a different game" or "you're comparing it to an imaginary game that exists only in your mind...which I suppose is the definition of imaginary". 

I agree with what you're saying here.  After listening to the podcast I went to the forums to see what others thought.  Criticism seem to revolve around the UI - so much so that some felt the need to say it several times.   ::)  This is why I get my reviews here.

[southern_cross_116]

I am not really a big SB player, however Cyrano has piqued my interest and now I will have to find an hour to hear this, it sounds like an interesting show.

I am not really sure how anyone, after the Ancients series has been out for years and years now could blow who the designer/developer of that series but I guess the comment serves a purpose to basically set the bar of expectations.

One thing I would add though, is that the Tiller series ( the non real time ones at least) share a lot of traits with miniatures as well -sometimes I think they might share more with miniatures than they do with boardgames ... but anyway I have to hear this. :)

But I guess I might put a time stamp to my expectations: I haven't gotten any now. 

[panzerde]

I've logged a lot more hours in Tiller games than I have with Paradox games, to the point that I've stopped buying them. Does that mean they're bad? Absolutely not, it just means they don't really work for me.

And yet this is the same group that waxed lyrical a year ago about the wonders of the old SSG games like Korsun Pocket. I don't mean a little bit, either, they went on about it for over an hour. While I like those games, they are nowhere near as detailed or as playable as SB: WWI.

Ah well, I suppose consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds or some such.

[Boggit]

I just kept saying "you're asking for a different game" or "you're comparing it to an imaginary game that exists only in your mind...".  I couldn't bear to see the former fail in comparison to a system that does not exist.

Completely OT, but this is what always winds me up with a lot of  the criticism directed at Battle of Stalingrad.  Before this goes too far, bear in mind that I'm only talking about its perceived technical limitations.

On topic, perhaps I'd better check this out as I bought SB: WW1 a while back but have only fired it up once...

Great game - and phenomenally bloody in the early war battles where they fight like Napoleonic units with "modern weapons". Let me know if you fancy a pbem game sometime.

[Cyrano]

OK, I thought I knew, but I clearly don't which is profoundly discomfiting...

Which "Battle of Stalingrad" game is being referred to?

Best,

Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)

[southern_cross_116]

So far I have listened to about maybe 40% of this. Of course a lot of focus is on the interface (which ... well, it hasn't been the first time that has been said, so in one sense I understand it -although I guess from a broadcasting sense, maybe a little too much time was spent on that - but hey ... that's their deal ;).

Ok I can say, though, that as far as feedback goes, I would much rather get constructive, critical feedback, as much as anything else, so some parts were pretty good.

I don't necessarily know if the helicopters thing was - but it does point out that maybe some things might be greyed out or something - but that all is dependent upon how much time there is to edit a given set of documents.  Fwiw, you can find helicopter references in the Naval Campaigns series user guide (leastwise I am pretty sure that I did.)...

There is a Notes.pdf file that is more specific for a title -and SB:FWW has one of those - now whether a user agrees that something stated in the notes, is happening or not ... well, that is for the user to determine -but the statement that, 'essentially this is the same title as all of the rest'  - that isn't correct according to the design notes.  In fact it shouldn't even be correct for scenarios set in 1914 when compared to scenarios in 1918 (or any other year) -as there is supposed to be a structural evolution thing going on there if I read things right (caveat: it has been awhile since I skimmed the notes.).

The line referring to the 'moving hex by hex' (paraphrased to use standard wargaming terminology) -that soldiers '... pretty much only shoot and move ... so am not clear about why the extra activity.'   Technically, there is also a third thing that they do (and maybe a 4th thing too) - they take fire ( opportunity fire, if you will), and react to it.  Ok, I do think I can maybe translate that - why can't you point to a hex and move there and have whatever is happening on the way automatically happen?  I don't have an answer; -it doesn't just like the gui, you either accept it or you don't... my point being I don't think it is invalid insofar as criticism goes although I think it has probably been covered by others before.

I do understand that reviewing series titles (of any type) can be a tough ask -fwiw, I once was supposed to review Campaign: Peninsula for a magazine that recently ceased printed publication, about a million years ago (actually I think it was 10) -and despite having a transcontinental flight to consider how to go about writing it, I never did do it. I sort of hit upon a sort of Cliff's Notes sort of way to do things, in that I added a series page (which is supposed to be updated with documentation) that supplements a title page ... well, that was the theory at the time I created it - but really the changes are in the documentation ... the series user manual (in this case the one that the guys got fixated on helicopter references :D ), the notes, and then any read me files from updates.

I'll keep listening to it, because I would rather have the entire picture... that being said, I thought there were some interesting comments that got me thinking on how I might do things -in this case it won't be happening because I am not on any SB teams ... but that is not to say that some of the material might not have been general enough to take on board.

One thing is clear, though, and that is that good designer notes are a must (well for me they are at least). I wonder if maybe separating them into a historical background, and then other more technical areas - like say, separate pdf files might be a way of handling this -but at the same time, if no one reads them, then the information stays where it was. 

[Father Ted]

OK, I thought I knew, but I clearly don't which is profoundly discomfiting...

Which "Battle of Stalingrad" game is being referred to?

Best,

Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)

...the flightsim one which seems to get a few people round here somewhat wound up.

@Boggit thanks for the offer, but unfortunately the game is pretty far down my list of games to learn, so it'll be a while...

[Cyrano]

Ah, yes, THAT BoS...gotcha.  Not much of a flight sim feller myself...although I did love the heck out of IL-2 Sturmovik...

@Boggit:  Anytime you care to play through the Gallipoli sequence, just let me know ;).

Best,

Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)

[Boggit]

@Jim

I'll PM you my email. Returns won't be too fast as I usually have a couple of MP games on the go, plus writing, plus a young family that eat up time, but if you can deal with that, we're good. :)

[Cyrano]

Absolutely...hear from you soon...

Best,

Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)

[Boggit]

And for those of you that are interested -  :o

Jim is off to a good start, pinning the 1st Battalion, Royal Australian Wallaby Fanciers (the "Manley Pals") down on the beach. We're looking for rocks to hide behind, but Johnny Turk has the advantage of the heights, and Major CR O'Dyle (OC) has mislaid one of his platoons straight onto the wire. Pasha Jim is laughing his socks off, and I've left the boomerang and the blueies back in the boat. Crikey! What's a cobber to do?