Well discussing wargames is sort of a ubiquitious process around these parts. But Claes started a thread over on Steam and it got me to thinking we don't have a thread discussing the merits of what a wargame is exactly.
I know that I've got some preconceived notions of what is a wargame or not. I could be convinced to reconsider some of the criteria or games I don't think of as meeting wargame requirements.
I like hexes and counters.
I like turned based.
I like historical.
I like well done maps.
I like ice cream.
I don't believe CIV is a wargame even though it uses hexes, is turned based, and has a historical flavor.
I don't believe RTS necessarily disqualifies a game from being a wargame, but more often than not it does in my book. Yeah. I'm looking at you Starcraft.
I'm not fully convinced that FPS are wargames.
Tiller games can have some ugly maps, but they are still wargames.
I don't believe sherbert should be considered as one of Basken Robbins 31 flavors of ice cream. I'm in the camp that sherbert is not ice cream even though it does contain some measurement of milk or cream in it's composition. It's like an frozen sugary fruit smoothy with some milk to give it a smoother texture.
Whether or not those are strict or validate critera for a identifying a wargame I'm not so sure. OK. Ice cream isn't a criteria but it's damned good.
Let's hash out the great wargame or not debate. It's a Groginati obligation and a million times more enjoyable to discuss than politics.
It looks like Wargame is not a genre but is generally something that a grog would like. A Wargame is a Wargame if we say it is one for whatever reason. Problem is, we grogs have different tastes. And different grogs have different levels of grogginess. Defining a Wargame other than saying it is a game about war is futile.
I pretty well have to agree with every point you make, Bison, including Civ (one of my favorite games of all time).
I grew up playing the classic Avalon Hill games, so my definition of a wargame involves hexes, historical accuracy, counters and maps. My favorite computer war games incorporate all of these elements to one degree or another; even if the hexes aren't visible, you know they are there ;) The more it reminds me of those classic boardgames, the happier I am.
I'm a guy who, if I'm watching an old war movie and they use a Patton tank, pretending that it's a Tiger, it ruins the movie for me. So while I no longer have the time or patience to memorize huge rulebooks or go the Advanced Squad Leader route, I'm not a fan of generic...anything.
And Blue Bell Ice Cream beats anything Basken Robbins has ever done. Their Homemade Vanilla is to die for. Their Orange Sherbert is pretty darn good as well :)
What if i tell you that avalon hill games aren't historically accurate?
First of all I've never heard of a place called Blue Bell Ice Cream. Therefore it requires photographic proof of it's existance.
I must confess that one of my favorite wargames has no hexes, is real time, has functional but not beautiful maps. Command Ops: Battle for the Bulge. See I'm already getting all wishy washy on my criteria.
Quote from: jomni on May 21, 2013, 11:44:32 PM
What if i tell you that avalon hill games aren't historically accurate?
Which era? Certainly not since they've been taken over by WotWC.
Quote from: jomni on May 21, 2013, 11:44:32 PM
What if i tell you that avalon hill games aren't historically accurate?
Obviously that varies from game to game as playability is a factor, as is the designer.
And Blue Bell is the best-selling ice cream in the south and southwest. I'm not entirely sure the extent of their market, but it's good stuff.
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbluebell.com%2Fimages%2Fflavorimages%2FHomemadeVanilla_box_03.jpg&hash=59f20df06ae7e71558caaa4035fa8f7c226da734)
Is Bell Blue as store or a brand sold in the supermarket?
^It's a brand sold in supermarkets. Yeah, I colored outside of the lines a little by comparing them, but I'll take Bluebell over Baskin Robbins anyday.
Well that clears up the first side bar issue...perhaps.
wargames need nazis, allies and hexagons.
Quote from: Bison on May 21, 2013, 11:18:36 PM
Well discussing wargames is sort of a ubiquitious process around these parts. But Claes started a thread over on Steam and it got me to thinking we don't have a thread discussing the merits of what a wargame is exactly.
Could you link the original discussion?
Quote from: Tinkershuffle on May 22, 2013, 01:13:17 AM
Quote from: Bison on May 21, 2013, 11:18:36 PM
Well discussing wargames is sort of a ubiquitious process around these parts. But Claes started a thread over on Steam and it got me to thinking we don't have a thread discussing the merits of what a wargame is exactly.
Could you link the original discussion?
Sure thing. http://steamcommunity.com/groups/grogheads/discussions/0/810924774519880667/ It's only 2 posts but it has a link from a discussion on the Steam forums.
Back to the topic at hand. I do think that defining a game as wargame or not can begin with classifying it's location in one of three tiers.
Tactical, Operational, or Strategic.
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on May 22, 2013, 12:49:50 AM
wargames need nazis, allies and hexagons.
So does the lack of hexes eliminate Close Combat from consideration as a wargame?
Quote from: Bison=6014.msg145251#msg145251 date=1369203780
Back to the topic at hand. I do think that defining a game as wargame or not can begin with classifying it's location in one of three tiers.
Tactical, Operational, or Strategic.
So games which cover different tiers are not wargames?
Name another tier. Those are the only levels of war that I'm familar with off hand. Not say there are others but I cannot think of one.
I very much agree with Bison but will precise my view:
A wargame's goal is a military victory (tactical or strategical) and it's not a click-fest but a game where you can still think about strategies. So Civilization is not a really a wargame in my book because you also have to work on your civilization etc. Some scenarios have what it requires (WWII etc) so the game can be a wargame if played like that. Starcraft, while it has the basics for a wargame, is too fast-paced imho to be a wargame.
That's a good definition.
So open ended empire management games that Paradox puts out are not wargames since they don't only focus on military victory. This includes Hoi? These are geopolitical strategy games.
Total War is not a Wargame because the tactical part is a click fest.
Games like HOI specifically would fall into the Strategic level of war. The strategic level is not limited to the specific use of military force, but incorperates national or multinational objectives and the implementation of multiple means of resourcing to achieve that objective. So in the case of HOI, it would be logical to assume that if one of the Allies objectives is to acquire air superiority they would focus national resources to the development of better fighters and bombers. Or an objective might be to deny the Axis ease of access to oil, so you employ your national resources to develop relationships with nations providing that oil to sway them to stop doing so in which case military actions may play no role at all.
thats covered in the review. ::)
a wargame, IMHO, has to cover a historical period of time in a mostly accurate manner and focus on the military operations of the subject matter. Homeworld isnt a wargame, its a RTS. Combat Mission is a wargame. a game of Warhammer can teach you tactics, strategy and logistics but its still an RTS. my view is of course biased, much like my love of Gus in sheer fabric, but I digress. Panzer General is a wargame but Fantasy General is a wargame simulator even though its the same game with different wrapping.
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on May 22, 2013, 02:18:36 AM
thats covered in the review. ::)
Wait. I didn't know that got published. Link or it didn't happen!
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on May 22, 2013, 02:18:36 AM
a wargame, IMHO, has to cover a historical period of time in a mostly accurate manner and focus on the military operations of the subject matter. Homeworld isnt a wargame, its a RTS. Combat Mission is a wargame. a game of Warhammer can teach you tactics, strategy and logistics but its still an RTS. my view is of course biased, much like my love of Gus in sheer fabric, but I digress. Panzer General is a wargame but Fantasy General is a wargame simulator even though its the same game with different wrapping.
I can agree with several of your points here. Specifically the bolded line.
Quote from: Anguille on May 22, 2013, 01:56:39 AM
I very much agree with Bison but will precise my view:
A wargame's goal is a military victory (tactical or strategical) and it's not a click-fest but a game where you can still think about strategies. So Civilization is not a really a wargame in my book because you also have to work on your civilization etc. Some scenarios have what it requires (WWII etc) so the game can be a wargame if played like that. Starcraft, while it has the basics for a wargame, is too fast-paced imho to be a wargame.
I would submit that being in the C3 loop of a unit in combat would make you wish for the simplicity of a C&C clickfest.
Quote from: Bison on May 22, 2013, 02:21:57 AM
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on May 22, 2013, 02:18:36 AM
thats covered in the review. ::)
Wait. I didn't know that got published. Link or it didn't happen!
Gotcha! ;)
games can be wargames but fewer games can be historical wargames. most end up being simulators of whatever level you like to play at ie, tactical, operational, strategic or national.
most like type games are marketed either as wargames or rts games. it seems to me though that those marketed as wargames are of a historical nature whereas the rest are marketed as strategy games or rts.
Combat Mission shock force is not a Wargame.
I think there is some grey area in regard to historical or not. Certainly I've read discussion on other boards that the degree to which a game portrays the historical aspects determines it's status as a wargame.
Quote from: jomni on May 22, 2013, 02:31:16 AM
Combat Mission shock force is not a Wargame.
Why? Because it doesn't not depict actual historical battles?
the first time I heard the term grognard was in a Trotter article. I read the term, turned around and looked at my bookcases and figured I was a grognard. it did much to shape my opinion of what makes a 'wargame'. Settlers or Catan makes you a gamer. AH Tobruk makes you a wargamer.
The wiki on wargaming. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wargaming Pretty interesting read actually.
Yes if the criteria is strictly historical.
A wargame is a set of rules that allows one or more participants to simulate the possible outcome of an armed conflict.
The scale of the simulated conflict (from an acre ...to a galaxy) is as fluid as the level of abstraction (from high detailed physical, historical ...to very abstract like for example chess)
The quality of the wargame to separate it form a game, is defined by how good the even abstract ruleset simulate the outcome of a given conflict in a way, that (proved, real world) strategy and tactics applied favor that participant, who utilize them in a smarter way.
it makes one wonder what sided dice the OKW used when planning and who had the loaded set.
Im guessing they were 8 sided and that Jodl was a cheating shit!
Ah by that definition, Conflict of Heroes is not a war game. No matter how I employ real world tactics, it is hard to win without gaming the gamey action point mechanics. :/
Aha, now we have a thread about it :P
I hope it's ok to just copy/paste what I said over in the 'please try the game I made' thread because I don't want to just rephrase everything to still say exactly the same. And of course that's still my/our definition, so I just move it to this debate :)
The definition and terms we use for our Homefront Wargame Center website:
QuoteWargame
A game in which players put military units in direct conflict with each other. The goal of these games is either annihilation of the opponent's units or the attainment of certain strategic conditions. These types of games will often have high thematic content and a varying degree of abstraction. (see also Miniatures Game)
The term is also used to describe a subcategory within wargaming itself and then it means games on the lower complexity scale as opposed to consims. (see Consim, Simulation)
Co(n)sim
Abbreviation for Conflict Simulation, the more accurate term for what is usually called Wargame. Within wargaming as a whole, it's a subcategory related to those games with more details and more "realism", i.e. games that do portray historical events as close as possible in a game. The opposite would be a "Fun-Wargame", i.e. a game that it's more about fun, simple gameplay etc..
Fun-Wargame
A term sometimes used for very simple wargames. The opposite of a simulation (see also Consim).
http://wargamecenter.wordpress.com/wargaming-glossary/#W (http://wargamecenter.wordpress.com/wargaming-glossary/#W)
To have a clear definition regarding what games might fit for us (for those games that don't fit this definition but are still great games we love to play we have the Off-Topic But Great sticker on the respective review):
QuoteWargames
Wargames, as defined by HFC (only), must meet the following requirements in order to be a "on-topic" game:
+ the game must deal primarily with a combat, battle, or military operation
+ the combat or military operation must be situated in a realistic (historical, current or hypothetical) or alternative (fantastic or futuristic) setting
+ the rules and mechanics must be based on historical, current or hypothetical data which support the setting
+ tactical and strategical behaviour will result in a representation of events which are congruent with the setting
+ two or more opposing parties must participate in the setting (historical, current, realistic, fictional, abstract)
+ by conducting the military operation the game will eventually result in a winning and a losing side
(cross-posting from the other thread)
So in this view of course Warhammer is a wargame, a tactical wargame, a squad level wargame whatever, it will depend on the scale. And even Call of Duty is a wargame, you are playing a soldier in a semi-realistic setting and you try to survive and win a match that is supposed to happen in a sort of war. If you would have the options avaialable to you in CoD in a traditional board game, where you are playing a single soldier in the form of a counter and you try to fight on the board while running from hex to hex, I suppose nobody would object calling it a wargame. That you have the same experience but closer to reality by using modern digital gaming sorcery doesn't change the core experience. Even in video games there's the differentiation between levels of wargames. So you have CoD on the wargame side, Battlefield more towards the sim experience and ArmA actually being a sim.
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgflip.com%2F1lvzt.jpg&hash=75dcb784f5569de2d51ee2893378dfe246a1dd43) (http://imgflip.com/i/1lvzt)via Imgflip Meme Maker (http://imgflip.com/memegenerator)
lmao - funny - but how is combat mission not a wargame? or CMSF?
i would have thought they were the very definition of wargames
agree on EU, HoI, Total War and any base building empire building game - for a general sweep - theyre strategy games
Company of Heroes isnt
Im seeing TBS as a prerequisite
Quote from: jomni on May 22, 2013, 03:02:02 AM
Yes if the criteria is strictly historical.
That would not be true. While the battle pieces are theoretical, the NATO armies represented in CMSF are very much historically accurate even if that history is very recent. And in the concept of wargaming in the military sense that too very much fits the notion of wargaming. Placing know factors (an armies men, equipment, and TTP) in a theoretical situation to play out possible outcomes.
However while I tend to much more readily view games made in a historical vein as wargames; historical is not a true/false criteria when to wargaming. Therefore in additon too the levels of war (Strategic, Operational, and Tactical), we can add another classification to the game historical or fictional (i.e. fantasy, sci-fi, theoretical history based conflicts).
Quote from: Tamas on May 22, 2013, 04:48:55 AM
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgflip.com%2F1lvzt.jpg&hash=75dcb784f5569de2d51ee2893378dfe246a1dd43) (http://imgflip.com/i/1lvzt)via Imgflip Meme Maker (http://imgflip.com/memegenerator)
Haha! This is a good one.
Grimnirsson - I like where you are going, but I'm not buying into the Call of Duty line of reasoning as a wargame....yet.
I think there is something to be said in regard to simulation however.
Damn fine topic Bison and it sounds like we're Grognards. Let me explain some things and set the record straight for everybody:
1. If you're in your late 40's/mid-early 50's or even your 60's and you started playing Avalon Hill wargames in your teens or early 20's and you still do to this day, then you are an OG. An Original Grognard. This includes playing today's board wargames from GMT, MMP, CoA, etc. But not Columbia games. Sorry, blocks stood on end that you rotate to reflect step losses are not wargames. Also, it doesn't matter if it had blue and pink counters and was very inaccurate historically; it was and is still a wargame.
2. If you're in your 30's or younger and you play games on your computer or TV screen that includes pointing and clicking; especially at space aliens or zombies, then you are a video gamer.
3. If you've often looked at game catalogs (do they still have those?) or websites with board wargames and thought "I'd like to try those one day but I have nobody to play with and/or I don't have room to set up a boardgame or my cat will destroy the game or my wife won't have that on our kitchen table" then you are a true Grognard wanting to break out. Go with your emotions and get a good board wargame and damned be the wife. You can eat dinner on the sofa for a while.
4. I agree with Steelgrave, Blue Bell ice cream (born right here in Texas) is the best damned ice cream on the planet. I kill for some Cookies'n Cream with a bit of chocolate syrup on it. Just not near the wargaming table.
Bison,
QuoteGrimnirsson - I like where you are going, but I'm not buying into the Call of Duty line of reasoning as a wargame....yet.
I think there is something to be said in regard to simulation however.
Why not? Within our HFC definition a wargame is based on a certain setting and within a specific context of actions the players do and we chose this to find the lowest common denominator and then have several possibilities to further differentiate. So in a FPS like CoD you certainly have a war portrayed, that's the back-story as well as the context the player is acting in. You are a soldier, you have weapons, you use tactics - that's what you do, nothing else, it's the sole focus of the game. All of this could also be done on a map with counters and rules for you to learn before you are able to play. The difference is purely in the means to portray the war story and to achieve the tactical mission goals. And a simulation like ArmA is just a different wargame model than say a fun-wargame (CoD, also called a military-arcade shooter for a reason), or a semi-sim game like Battlefield. In a game like Civ, where the focus is clearly on building and resources the fact that war or combat does happen is not enough to justify to call it a wargame.
Quote from: jomni on May 22, 2013, 03:09:32 AM
Ah by that definition, Conflict of Heroes is not a war game. No matter how I employ real world tactics, it is hard to win without gaming the gamey action point mechanics. :/
its an outstanding wargame ... but the
quality as a
wargame (imagine a slider to
entertaining casual game) is slightly reduced.
Well, the rule-set of a
wargame is always a compromise between:
- strict physical simulation
- 'entertainment'/balance (sales)
- abstraction level
- UI / result accessibility for an
untrained user.
i can think of an
wargame, which runs on a Blue Gene, needs a week to set up the parameter by all participants , and the results after a month run, is just a very big chart and a few diagrams.... very interesting, but not much for quitting time entertainment purpose, ...and only salable to a few (government agency) customers
Arma is also arcade you know. Vehicle operation is simplified. You can be revived from your injuries. It's just more realistic than the rest.
I think for me there are 2 keys when evaluating "wargame or not?"
1. Is the role of combat in the game central to way in which one wins the game? Seems to me that to be a 'wargame' there's gotta be a 'war' in there somewhere. It's possible to win a Civ game without ever firing a shot in anger (depending on your barbarian settings) and I know b/c I've done it. Hard to win a "Call of Duty" game without blowing something up.
2. Are the individuals sufficiently abstracted that you're not focusing on personal development of a single personality over time? To me, this is where you cross the line from "wargaming" to "role-playing". This does not mean that you don't have individual personalities in the game. You can absolutely have individuals - the squad leaders in, y'know, Squad Leader - but that the focus is on them as leaders in a distinct battle, and not on the continued progression of those leaders across a series of battles.
#1 is going to rule out Twilight Struggle and the Civs, but not Axis and Allies or Third Reich, both of which have a significant economic development model. Similarly, Eagle Games' War! Age of Imperialism was Risk with combined arms tactics and some technological development grafted on, but had combat as its central priority.
#2 is what shuffles off most FPS games, where the role of the individual in the game is marked by further development of the 'character', even if it is through military prowess.
I absolutely consider the Columbia block games to be wargames. They have a component-specific approach to tracking damage and to fog of war, but they clearly meet both of the my key considerations when evaluating "wargame or not?"
QuoteArma is also arcade you know. Vehicle operation is simplified. You can be revived from your injuries.
A simulation is still a model of reality and there will be limitations to actually portray real life situations 100%. But ArmA is designed as a military simulation (CoD is not) and therefore has a specific approach even if it is not perfect in what it does. This does not mean it's 'arcade' however. And lets not forget we are still talking about games so ArmA must have some limitations as a sim to be enjoyable as a game. I was simply using it as an example for the three possible approaches in military games today and I think CoD - BF - ArmA work well to show possible differences and nuances when we speak about war(video)games.
Incidentally, I hate the term ConSim. It was trying to rename "wargame" by removing the 2 objectionable terms of "war" and "game" from being juxtaposed in a politically incorrect way, and in using synonyms it has essentially changed the overall meaning of the word. That's an argument for a time when I don't have to feed young'uns
Quote#2 is what shuffles off most FPS games, where the role of the individual in the game is marked by further development of the 'character', even if it is through military prowess.
There's certainly to consider that these videogames like CoD have both a campaign/story and a multiplayer. The character development you mentioned is only part of the story/campaign if at all (but I wouldn't say it's enough to cross the RPG line, usually the story is paper thin to justify to go and blow stuff up) and plays no role in the multiplayer which is why most people play these games.
I tend to agree with Brant in regard to his concept of the focus on the individual and why CoD is not a wargame. However in theory a game like Arma or red orchastra could be a well orchestrated tactical sim if there is actual coordination, but since the more often than not its actually many folks attempting to be Rambo. While entertaining I tend to not buy into considering them wargames.
QuoteHowever in theory a game like Arma or red orchastra could be a well orchestrated tactical sim if there is actual coordination, but since the more often than not its actually many folks attempting to be Rambo. While entertaining I tend to not buy into considering them wargames.
But then again you are just saying because people don't get the spirit and/or the possibilities of a game and they play it without thinking guns ablaze all the time, a game that very well allows for tactical coordination and as such is a tactical sim - is in fact not one. That's like saying ASL is not a wargame because the last meeting turned into a drinking game where folks threw the counters at each other while having the hex based maps on the wall to throw their darts at. A definition of a wargame should be based on the design and the possibilities of the game, not on the actions of the players.
proposal to solve the FPS vs wargame dilemma ?
(turnbased games excluded)
If you can only direct (regardless of the view) one 'Item' (maybe switch between 'roles' in certain situations, but its mainly only one 'item') to drive the conflict forward... its not a wargame (so CoD disqualifies, also all kind of Arcades games, those can be 'crude' simulations.. like Battlezone, Red Baron, StarWars)
If you can direct several 'items' (give orders, influence there ROE, etc) at once, its a wargame.
(so Arma qualifies, you can direct unit on the map and also the AI team-members)
so the DCS World has expanded from a flight-simulation to become a wargame when you were able to not just command your single air asset, but also direct other forces on the F10 map, right ?
Mike I think you may be on to something.
to be clear - I didn't rule out all FPS games. I've got no problem with someone categorizing something like ArmA/VBS as a wargame, wherein the battle is the main focus, and the 'progression' is in the player's mind as he improves his skill at the game, rather than platforming the character in the game through artificially-acquired 'levels' or other improvements.
How about chess?
Quote from: Gusington on May 22, 2013, 07:30:59 AM
How about chess?
Interesting. I want to say yes, but is it really? Certainly one of if not the greatest game of strategy ever.
Quote from: Bison on May 22, 2013, 07:33:53 AM
Quote from: Gusington on May 22, 2013, 07:30:59 AM
How about chess?
Interesting. I want to say yes, but is it really? Certainly one of if not the greatest game of strategy ever.
Not a wargame. Way too stylized to represent armed conflict. It's a very deep and engaging strategy game but not a wargame.
QuoteIf you can only direct (regardless of the view) one 'Item' (maybe switch between 'roles' in certain situations, but its mainly only one 'item') to drive the conflict forward... its not a wargame (so CoD disqualifies, also all kind of Arcades games, those can be 'crude' simulations.. like Battlezone, Red Baron, StarWars)
If you can direct several 'items' (give orders, influence there ROE, etc) at once, its a wargame.
(so Arma qualifies, you can direct unit on the map and also the AI team-members)
That's interesting Mike, but still...there's rarely a game in such a context where the player is only directing one item all the time...even in CoD you have your weapon, sometimes vehicles, you direct rockets via a tablet, you direct a robot for detecting bombs and so on. You can even command AI soldiers in Black Ops 2. And why would we rule out any attempt to simulate or at least portray what one soldier is doing in such a war context? There's still tactical thinking and acting within a war situation, even if the soldier could only shoot his rifle and use no other 'items'. And where's the line to be drawn? Is directing one tank directing one item? Although you may have to do different things to make the tank work in the situation the game puts you in? :)
Quote from: Gusington on May 22, 2013, 07:30:59 AM
How about chess?
http://wargamerscott.tripod.com/swordandshield/id12.html
Quote from: Gusington on May 22, 2013, 07:30:59 AM
How about chess?
I don't consider it a wargame in that even though 'combat' is central to its mechanic, its not really 'combat' but a simple space-related elimination mechanic. With no differentiation in the combat abilities of the units, there's no real 'combat'. The mechanic used to determine the 'victor' in the 'combat' is simply "who occupied the space last" and to me, that's not a combat mechanic.
QuoteHow about chess?
I would agree with Barth here, chess is a strategy game but not a wargame - for us it lacks one or more of the aspects of our definition (as it is too abstract and has no specific theme)
Great article ucg.
Quote from: undercovergeek on May 22, 2013, 07:36:56 AM
Quote from: Gusington on May 22, 2013, 07:30:59 AM
How about chess?
http://wargamerscott.tripod.com/swordandshield/id12.html
Good find and read.... but still not a wargame.
It convinced me. Chess is a wargame.
So movement cannot be considered a combat ability? I don't know about that. Movement and flanking and maneuvers and MacGyvers have always been part of combat. I think chess is a wargame.
yes - put his way it would seem to be the grandaddy of them all
Call of Duty is not a wargame.
Quote from: Bison on May 22, 2013, 07:44:20 AM
Call of Duty is not a wargame.
Agreed... and for me no FPS is a wargame. But that raises a question even for myself.... are boardgames that have single man units wargames... eg VG's Ambush, AH's Firepower, etc..... ???
Agreed... and for me no FPS is a wargame.
Ok, seems we are back what we like or don't like as the base for our personal definition ;)
I love chess, I am mediocre at it, but it is still a wargame :)
Quote from: Grimnirsson on May 22, 2013, 07:52:30 AM
Agreed... and for me no FPS is a wargame.
Ok, seems we are back what we like or don't like as the base for our personal definition ;)
Not quite, I like FPS games, I suck at them but I like playing them. Still not a wargame.
Chess I like very much and am even OK at it having played competitively when I was younger. Still not a wargame.
If we include Chess, we got to add in Checkers and Go. And if we include Go, we've got to include Pente. Ergo, Chess can't be a wargame.
But the hexes distinction is silly. Kingmaker didn't have hexes. Heck, I don't think Midway had hexes, only squares. The hex is just a convention used to denote distance. I'd be OK with a requirement that wargames need to have some unit of specifically defined geographic scale.
But requiring that those units have six sides? Seems silly to me.
Barth,
QuoteNot quite, I like FPS games, I suck at them but I like playing them. Still not a wargame.
You just state that it is so. We are discussing to find some specific aspects to define a wargame. I have given some why I think it is a wargame :)
Quote from: FarAway Sooner on May 22, 2013, 08:01:24 AM
If we include Chess, we got to add in Checkers and Go. And if we include Go, we've got to include Pente. Ergo, Chess can't be a wargame.
But the hexes distinction is silly. Kingmaker didn't have hexes. Heck, I don't think Midway had hexes, only squares. The hex is just a convention used to denote distance. I'd be OK with a requirement that wargames need to have some unit of specifically defined geographic scale.
But requiring that those units have six sides? Seems silly to me.
AH's
Gettysburg 1863 doesn't have hexes. The areas are actually much more ingenious - the counters (oblong shaped to represent the formations of the units) have to physically fit into the region to move into it.
QuoteBut requiring that those units have six sides? Seems silly to me.
It is silly. There are numerous area movement and point to point movement wargames out there, no?
I don't think that hexes are a requirement to determine a wargame. I think they are as has been stated a function method of area demarcation and a means to facilitate facing. I'm sure there are some other logics that can be assigned to the functionality of a hex.
Quote from: MikeGER on May 22, 2013, 07:00:04 AM
proposal to solve the FPS vs wargame dilemma ?
(turnbased games excluded)
If you can only direct (regardless of the view) one 'Item' (maybe switch between 'roles' in certain situations, but its mainly only one 'item') to drive the conflict forward... its not a wargame (so CoD disqualifies, also all kind of Arcades games, those can be 'crude' simulations.. like Battlezone, Red Baron, StarWars)
If you can direct several 'items' (give orders, influence there ROE, etc) at once, its a wargame.
(so Arma qualifies, you can direct unit on the map and also the AI team-members)
so the DCS World has expanded from a flight-simulation to become a wargame when you were able to not just command your single air asset, but also direct other forces on the F10 map, right ?
Then Brothers in Arms is a wargame! You are a single player, at the same time you command your squad. This includes Ghost Recon, Rainbow Six...
How about the Battlestations games? Midway, Pacific, etc?
Quote from: Grimnirsson on May 22, 2013, 08:05:35 AM
Barth,
QuoteNot quite, I like FPS games, I suck at them but I like playing them. Still not a wargame.
You just state that it is so. We are discussing to find some specific aspects to define a wargame. I have given some why I think it is a wargame :)
;D
True... ;) I'm trying to come up with something smart but all I got so far is a feeling... :P
Like I said, to me, VG's Ambush is a wargame. You have a set of units, individual men in this case. You have a set objective for the scenario. You are armed with weapons and plan to use them to further your goals. Very much a wargame.
So why doesn't Arma II feel like a wargame? To me it's a different mind set that I have while playing the game. Even though I'll try using some of the exact same tactics in each , the FPS is just not wargamey.... ???
Clearly there is a boundry between simulation and wargame. Then there is a realism factor and some other odds and ends.
Quote from: Bison on May 22, 2013, 08:13:53 AM
Clearly there is a boundry between simulation and wargame. Then there is a realism factor and some other odds and ends.
Yeah for sure! Flight sims are ... well... simulations and not wargames. For me FPS fall into this category. Thanks Bison for that nudge.
Quote from: Gusington on May 22, 2013, 08:11:23 AM
How about the Battlestations games? Midway, Pacific, etc?
No.
QuoteThen Brothers in Arms is a wargame! You are a single player, at the same time you command your squad. This includes Ghost Recon, Rainbow Six...
Sure, Brothers in Arms and especially the older GR and R6 games where you actually have command over your troops are tactical shooters and therefore wargames.
QuoteHow about the Battlestations games? Midway, Pacific, etc?
Absolutely, they may not be simulations regarding every vehicle in the game because of the more arcade nature of their handling, but you get to command your troops within the strategic/operational setting of a war situation.
Quote from: Barthheart on May 22, 2013, 08:15:41 AM
Quote from: Bison on May 22, 2013, 08:13:53 AM
Clearly there is a boundry between simulation and wargame. Then there is a realism factor and some other odds and ends.
Yeah for sure! Flight sims are ... well... simulations and not wargames. For me FPS fall into this category. Thanks Bison for that nudge.
Then first person perspective makes it a simulation (if reality is depicted adequately).
Quote from: Bison on May 22, 2013, 08:13:53 AM
Clearly there is a boundry between simulation and wargame. Then there is a realism factor and some other odds and ends.
I don't think so
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-CkljdghiHcI%2FT0_NypQd3-I%2FAAAAAAAABs8%2FtGikG70LGZA%2Fs1600%2F4GameSim.jpg&hash=77681a4e4c9c5f0e8c8a84961439d77e6d08ee2e)
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F-8o9WMotLNQI%2FT0_ODCRpAlI%2FAAAAAAAABtU%2FDjW_iCyQgiI%2Fs1600%2F4GameSimWar.jpg&hash=979264e762dc5dc7d1350de8697f2135b8f4bbb2)
much more here
http://grognews.blogspot.com/2012/03/battle-lab-games-and-sims-for-training.html
damn, those images came out a lot larger than I'd intended. Sorry.
Quote from: jomni on May 22, 2013, 08:19:06 AM
Quote from: Barthheart on May 22, 2013, 08:15:41 AM
Quote from: Bison on May 22, 2013, 08:13:53 AM
Clearly there is a boundry between simulation and wargame. Then there is a realism factor and some other odds and ends.
Yeah for sure! Flight sims are ... well... simulations and not wargames. For me FPS fall into this category. Thanks Bison for that nudge.
Then first person perspective makes it a simulation (if reality is depicted adequately).
I could quite readily agree with this.
QuoteFlight sims are ... well... simulations and not wargames. For me FPS fall into this category.
I don't get this, actually. There are of course Flight Sims that are just that - simulators/simulations of planes but the game does not put the plane or the player into a situation of warfare. So they are sims but not wargames. FPS usually have a war setting and qualify because of that as a wargame. They may be sims or arcade shooters and fall into a different category then, but they are part of the overall wargame term. Imho, of course, all imho :P
if it's not competitive, it's not a game. it can be realistic (and therefore considered a "simulation"), but it's not a game.
Brant I'll need to read that article later when I can actually process what it says.
Dang. Every time I try to reply there are a bunch of new replies I have to read.
I'm going to have to just bite the bullet, compose a reply and miss a few comments in between thinking and posting.
Quoteif it's not competitive, it's not a game. it can be realistic (and therefore considered a "simulation"), but it's not a game.
Depends on the definition of 'competition'...if you mean other players then what about Solitaire wargames? The goal is still there, the setting, the units, even the enemies, but no other player involved. :)
Yes but you are still competing to accomplish an objective.
Yikes this is worse than listening to the Geeks at works argue about what is heavy metal or not... :o
Quote from: bayonetbrant on May 22, 2013, 08:19:21 AM
Quote from: Bison on May 22, 2013, 08:13:53 AM
Clearly there is a boundry between simulation and wargame. Then there is a realism factor and some other odds and ends.
I don't think so
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-CkljdghiHcI%2FT0_NypQd3-I%2FAAAAAAAABs8%2FtGikG70LGZA%2Fs1600%2F4GameSim.jpg&hash=77681a4e4c9c5f0e8c8a84961439d77e6d08ee2e)
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F-8o9WMotLNQI%2FT0_ODCRpAlI%2FAAAAAAAABtU%2FDjW_iCyQgiI%2Fs1600%2F4GameSimWar.jpg&hash=979264e762dc5dc7d1350de8697f2135b8f4bbb2)
much more here
http://grognews.blogspot.com/2012/03/battle-lab-games-and-sims-for-training.html
Chess is then not a wargame by these diagrams......
Also what is the lower right quadrant? Sex?
Everyone gets a trophy sporting concepts would be my guess for the lower right quadrant.
Quote from: Tuna on May 22, 2013, 08:33:04 AM
Yikes this is worse than listening to the Geeks at works argue about what is heavy metal or not... :o
Motorhead is heavy metal. Poison is not.
Quote from: Bison on May 22, 2013, 08:37:42 AM
Quote from: Tuna on May 22, 2013, 08:33:04 AM
Yikes this is worse than listening to the Geeks at works argue about what is heavy metal or not... :o
Motorhead is heavy metal. Poison is not.
Bingo!
Quote from: Barthheart on May 22, 2013, 08:34:41 AM
Quote from: bayonetbrant on May 22, 2013, 08:19:21 AM
Quote from: Bison on May 22, 2013, 08:13:53 AM
Clearly there is a boundry between simulation and wargame. Then there is a realism factor and some other odds and ends.
I don't think so
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-CkljdghiHcI%2FT0_NypQd3-I%2FAAAAAAAABs8%2FtGikG70LGZA%2Fs1600%2F4GameSim.jpg&hash=77681a4e4c9c5f0e8c8a84961439d77e6d08ee2e)
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F-8o9WMotLNQI%2FT0_ODCRpAlI%2FAAAAAAAABtU%2FDjW_iCyQgiI%2Fs1600%2F4GameSimWar.jpg&hash=979264e762dc5dc7d1350de8697f2135b8f4bbb2)
much more here
http://grognews.blogspot.com/2012/03/battle-lab-games-and-sims-for-training.html
Chess is then not a wargame by these diagrams......
Also what is the lower right quadrant? Sex?
That's why Barth doesn't show up for
WARlock some nights!
Quote from: Barthheart on May 22, 2013, 08:38:34 AM
Quote from: Bison on May 22, 2013, 08:37:42 AM
Quote from: Tuna on May 22, 2013, 08:33:04 AM
Yikes this is worse than listening to the Geeks at works argue about what is heavy metal or not... :o
Motorhead is heavy metal. Poison is not.
Bingo!
Lol.. I just can't believe some of the guys say Sabbath ain't!!.. I'm not a huge Metal Head.. but Sabbath and Deep Purple were my Metal... 80's stuff most of it was glam... but just funny listening to the 'kids' at work argue about it..
First, I love this stuff. We get to discuss the merits of an issue that doesn't matter to anyone but us. :)
Second, let's talk about wargames.
For better or worse I have to make this decision every year when we do a Game of the Year or Readers' Choice. It doesn't mean I'm right or that I have more authority, but it does mean I have to put my money where my mouth is and potentially catch flak for mis-categorizing a game.
Brant's four dimensional definition is a good starting point. A competitive simulation is a generic description of a wargame. I think there's more to it than simulating something and being competitive, though. A NASCAR racing game simulates driving a race car. It is not a wargame.
A game that simulates some aspect of war is a wargame.
OK, how about Rome: Total War?
That's a tough call. The Total War series has "war" in its name. For some folks that settles the debate there. (not for me) Total War is actually two games in one. It has a great tactical layer which looks a whole lot like an honest-to-God wargame and it has a turn-based strategic layer that is a solid economic, political, and military strategy game. It *could* be called a wargame on both the tactical and strategic layers. However, I don't have it compete in the wargaming category.
Why?
Probably first and foremost because its sheer popularity would crush companies like Battlefront, Slitherine, and Shrapnel. They'd never get a good shot a winning the niche wargaming title up against games with colossal budgets and fantastic production values.
But also, while Total War's tactical game is pretty close to a real wargame, the strategic layer feels more gamey than sim. And I have a bias - I tend to look at Total War games as more strategic games than tactical, although there is plenty of room for discussion about that. In my view, Total War games are then strategy games.
What about Call of Duty? Definitely not a wargame.
Why? Where to start? It's not a simulation. Despite the huge investment in modeling weapons, sounds, rate of fire, and penetration values, a simple glance at the mechanics tells you it's not "real." In many cases it takes two or three bullets to put down an opponent. Looking back to WWII versions even the BAR took at least two direct hits to take out an opponent. Not real. Period.
Red Orchestra? Yes, from the ground up it was designed to be realistic. However, for the sake of consistency I place it in the FPS category. Could it be placed into the tactical wargaming category with Command Ops Battles from the Bulge? Yes, but it shouldn't.
So now we get closer to the heart of things. Within the wargaming genre there are still sub-categories. Generally I create two: tactical and strategic. If a year sees a large number of releases of wargames sometimes I'll divide things into real-time and turn-based.
For better or worse, the map design has no bearing on my decision to include a game in the wargame category. Close Combat, Combat Mission, and Steel Panthers all qualify as wargames in my opinion. Naval War: Arctic Circle does not. It attempted to be a naval wargame but ended up more as a strategy game. It wasn't quite real enough for me to be a true wargame.
Generally speaking then to be a wargame I need to see three things: history, accuracy, armed conflict. Within those broad definitions things can vary widely, but the more a game offers of each of them the more likely it will be considered a wargame in my eyes.
QuoteMotorhead is heavy metal.
Sorry to disagree here as well - as a big Motörhead fan! - Motörhead is not heavy metal, it's in fact hardrock, rock'n roll on speed. Ask Lemmy :)
QuoteOn being labeled a "heavy metal" band:
Lemmy: "We were not heavy metal. We were a rock 'n' roll band. Still are. Everyone always describes us as heavy metal even when I tell them otherwise. Why won't people listen?"
Ok, back on topic :P
Quote from: Barthheart on May 22, 2013, 08:34:41 AMAlso what is the lower right quadrant? Sex?
BOGSATs and tabletop exercises...
...thinking about chess brought me to another aspect of discriminating
wargame from strategy game
If the wargame does not 'have a dice' (some kind of randomisation build in) its a strategy game.
(because the results are always strict reproducible, and winning the game can be reduced to just solving a very complex mathematical problem... like chess)
on the other hand: If a strategy game 'have a dice', its not automatically a wargame.
(because, the randomization may not be directed to fights, or the main purpose of the game is not the fighting, and the battles are only strawn in for the flavor and customer expectation)
....i will declare the strategy game Chess a Wargame honorary ;)
LongBlade,
QuoteWithin the wargaming genre there are still sub-categories. Generally I create two: tactical and strategic.
That's interesting, I mean you also think we must have sub-categories in an overall wargame category to not have it too broad a term actually saying nothing. I agree of course but I completely fail to see why you then ignore a possible differentiation of wargame vs sim, or the other way round to stick more to the 'figure' of the word itself, of 'war' vs 'game'. To say that a wargame must be a simulation to count as one is shortening both the term and the subject. That's why we think it's quite useful to have under the general Wargame term (used because it's widely known) both the easy game variants, that put more focus on the overall picture of a warfare situation calling them 'wargames' (with the emphasis on the term 'game') and 'consims', still games for sure but having the focus on the details and the accuracy. Which brings me to...
QuoteWhat about Call of Duty? Definitely not a wargame.
Why? Where to start? It's not a simulation. Despite the huge investment in modeling weapons, sounds, rate of fire, and penetration values, a simple glance at the mechanics tells you it's not "real." In many cases it takes two or three bullets to put down an opponent. Looking back to WWII versions even the BAR took at least two direct hits to take out an opponent. Not real. Period.
Real is difficult to define here, what's real? As I said even in a detailed simulation you still have a model of reality and while one may come closer to portray the real thing than another one, it's still not real. In Axis & Allies it's certainly not real how the units move and such but it's a wargame, very easy entry level, more the big picture, no details, no simulation, all game - but still with strategy, in a World War 2 setting, with military units, a military goal and resources only used for the build up of the military and compared to chess not abstract. A Panzer Pusher.
And it will always depend where the focus of simulation actually is. A shooter may very well be a detailed simulation of the weapons used in the game still being a run and gun orgy without any tactical or strategical value or approach. or it may have more generic weapons but allow for deep tactical thinking and giving the players ways to communicate and coordinate like real soldiers in the field. So actually 'a simple glance at the mechanics' is perhaps a bit too short-sighted for defining terms with regard what we discuss here. That's all too subjective and based too much on 'hm, don't know it just doesn't...feel right to me' - having definitions for these things only makes sense if you get a game and can judge it based on the definition and it works more often than not in giving you a satisfying answer whether it fits into the wargame genre or not. And to have such a definition it must use more layers of differentiation than just saying 'it must be a sim and then you have tactical and strategy, that's it'. :)
Grimnirsson I think that is why we see an ever increasing vocabulary of adjectives used to differentiate and catagorize wargames.
I should add that my favorite adjective in discribing a wargame is Beer and Pretzels.
The reality is that because there is no overarching controlling authority on "what is a wargame?" there will never be any sort of official definition. This does not mean we are having a useless discussion. But let's just be careful that we don't stray into attacking other people for disagreeing.
{/pre-emptive mod mode}
Do events like the World Boardgame Championships catagorize the games? Or are they just done by game without regard to catagorization?
Quote from: Grimnirsson on May 22, 2013, 09:23:08 AM
LongBlade,
QuoteWithin the wargaming genre there are still sub-categories. Generally I create two: tactical and strategic.
That's interesting, I mean you also think we must have sub-categories in an overall wargame category to not have it too broad a term actually saying nothing. I agree of course but I completely fail to see why you then ignore a possible differentiation of wargame vs sim,
I generally place simulations in their own category. A flight combat sim like DCS A-10 Warthog goes in its own category - different than Combat Mission.
QuoteQuoteQuote from: LongBladeWhat about Call of Duty? Definitely not a wargame.
Why? Where to start? It's not a simulation. Despite the huge investment in modeling weapons, sounds, rate of fire, and penetration values, a simple glance at the mechanics tells you it's not "real." In many cases it takes two or three bullets to put down an opponent. Looking back to WWII versions even the BAR took at least two direct hits to take out an opponent. Not real. Period.
Real is difficult to define here, what's real? As I said even in a detailed simulation you still have a model of reality and while one may come closer to portray the real thing than another one, it's still not real. In Axis & Allies it's certainly not real how the units move and such but it's a wargame, very easy entry level, more the big picture, no details, no simulation, all game - but still with strategy, in a World War 2 setting, with military units, a military goal and resources only used for the build up of the military and compared to chess not abstract. A Panzer Pusher.
I'd put Axis & Allies in a strategy game category first. Then I'd go to "strategic wargame." And if I had enough games in a Game of the Year nomination I'd make it "best entry level strategic wargame."
QuoteAnd it will always depend where the focus of simulation actually is. A shooter may very well be a detailed simulation of the weapons used in the game still being a run and gun orgy without any tactical or strategical value or approach. or it may have more generic weapons but allow for deep tactical thinking and giving the players ways to communicate and coordinate like real soldiers in the field. So actually 'a simple glance at the mechanics' is perhaps a bit too short-sighted for defining terms with regard what we discuss here. That's all too subjective and based too much on 'hm, don't know it just doesn't...feel right to me' -
First, the quick glance test isn't the only criterion used. However, it's sufficient for ruling out Call of Duty.
Second, the way I see it, I can either be hidebound by definition or I can use common sense.
Red Orchestra might be a decent first-person war simulator but it doesn't get to be called a wargame in my book. Why? For the same reason you don't go to the grocery store and look for tomatoes next to the apricots. It may technically be a fruit, but is neither prepared nor eaten as a fruit. There is a good reason why applesauce isn't used as a topping for pizza.
So it is possible in my judgement to be somewhat subjective and loose with these definitions. And I think that's as it should be.
Slightly off topic but apple pizza is delicious. Seriously I'm not making this up. Apple pizza is fantastic.
Quote from: GJK on May 22, 2013, 06:05:14 AM
Damn fine topic Bison and it sounds like we're Grognards. Let me explain some things and set the record straight for everybody:
1. If you're in your late 40's/mid-early 50's or even your 60's and you started playing Avalon Hill wargames in your teens or early 20's and you still do to this day, then you are an OG. An Original Grognard. This includes playing today's board wargames from GMT, MMP, CoA, etc. But not Columbia games. Sorry, blocks stood on end that you rotate to reflect step losses are not wargames. Also, it doesn't matter if it had blue and pink counters and was very inaccurate historically; it was and is still a wargame.
2. If you're in your 30's or younger and you play games on your computer or TV screen that includes pointing and clicking; especially at space aliens or zombies, then you are a video gamer.
3. If you've often looked at game catalogs (do they still have those?) or websites with board wargames and thought "I'd like to try those one day but I have nobody to play with and/or I don't have room to set up a boardgame or my cat will destroy the game or my wife won't have that on our kitchen table" then you are a true Grognard wanting to break out. Go with your emotions and get a good board wargame and damned be the wife. You can eat dinner on the sofa for a while.
4. I agree with Steelgrave, Blue Bell ice cream (born right here in Texas) is the best damned ice cream on the planet. I kill for some Cookies'n Cream with a bit of chocolate syrup on it. Just not near the wargaming table.
I'm just catching up with my morning Grogheads reading and this thread was just at two pages when I went to bed last night! But I'm digging what you said, GJK about "OG"'s, Original Grognards. I like it :) By the way....I lmao when I hear kids used the term "OG" for Original Gangsters....I mean, my grandmother hung out with Pretty Boy Floyd. HE was an OG 8)
Good morning, world.
Quote from: Bison on May 22, 2013, 10:21:07 AM
Slightly off topic but apple pizza is delicious. Seriously I'm not making this up. Apple pizza is fantastic.
Heresy.
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1081.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fj349%2Flongblade%2Fkeep-calm-and-burn-heretics_zps902efbbe.jpg&hash=0640e5e8a810adceb6e87dc92770333977ce533f)
Quote from: LongBlade on May 22, 2013, 10:36:24 AM
Quote from: Bison on May 22, 2013, 10:21:07 AM
Slightly off topic but apple pizza is delicious. Seriously I'm not making this up. Apple pizza is fantastic.
Heresy.
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1081.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fj349%2Flongblade%2Fkeep-calm-and-burn-heretics_zps902efbbe.jpg&hash=0640e5e8a810adceb6e87dc92770333977ce533f)
QFT! >:(
Quote from: Steelgrave on May 22, 2013, 10:27:06 AM
Quote from: GJK on May 22, 2013, 06:05:14 AM
Damn fine topic Bison and it sounds like we're Grognards. Let me explain some things and set the record straight for everybody:
1. If you're in your late 40's/mid-early 50's or even your 60's and you started playing Avalon Hill wargames in your teens or early 20's and you still do to this day, then you are an OG. An Original Grognard. This includes playing today's board wargames from GMT, MMP, CoA, etc. But not Columbia games. Sorry, blocks stood on end that you rotate to reflect step losses are not wargames. Also, it doesn't matter if it had blue and pink counters and was very inaccurate historically; it was and is still a wargame.
2. If you're in your 30's or younger and you play games on your computer or TV screen that includes pointing and clicking; especially at space aliens or zombies, then you are a video gamer.
3. If you've often looked at game catalogs (do they still have those?) or websites with board wargames and thought "I'd like to try those one day but I have nobody to play with and/or I don't have room to set up a boardgame or my cat will destroy the game or my wife won't have that on our kitchen table" then you are a true Grognard wanting to break out. Go with your emotions and get a good board wargame and damned be the wife. You can eat dinner on the sofa for a while.
4. I agree with Steelgrave, Blue Bell ice cream (born right here in Texas) is the best damned ice cream on the planet. I kill for some Cookies'n Cream with a bit of chocolate syrup on it. Just not near the wargaming table.
I'm just catching up with my morning Grogheads reading and this thread was just at two pages when I went to bed last night! But I'm digging what you said, GJK about "OG"'s, Original Grognards. I like it :) By the way....I lmao when I hear kids used the term "OG" for Original Gangsters....I mean, my grandmother hung out with Pretty Boy Floyd. HE was an OG 8)
Good morning, world.
Glad that gave you a chuckle.
By the way, shouldn't this thread be in the
boardgaming forum instead? I mean,
board wargames are the
real wargames! Not to put yet another slant on what constitutes a wargame and what doesn't. ;)
A pox on chits and counters, I say! They're relics of a bygone era. They're the velvet Elvis cave paintings of the genre. I spent too much money on this PC to play yet another VGA era Tiller rehash. I want high res, full 3D maps and units, not a digital recreation of a board game.
Quote from: Barthheart on May 22, 2013, 10:37:59 AM
Quote from: LongBlade on May 22, 2013, 10:36:24 AM
Quote from: Bison on May 22, 2013, 10:21:07 AM
Slightly off topic but apple pizza is delicious. Seriously I'm not making this up. Apple pizza is fantastic.
Heresy.
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1081.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fj349%2Flongblade%2Fkeep-calm-and-burn-heretics_zps902efbbe.jpg&hash=0640e5e8a810adceb6e87dc92770333977ce533f)
QFT! >:(
It's like a pie! OMG!!! Sweet, delicious, goodness.
OK. Distant Worlds. Wargame or not? It's a good example of something with components of what has been discussed so far and is something outside of the historical catagory.
Quote from: Bison on May 22, 2013, 10:45:34 AM
Quote from: Barthheart on May 22, 2013, 10:37:59 AM
Quote from: LongBlade on May 22, 2013, 10:36:24 AM
Quote from: Bison on May 22, 2013, 10:21:07 AM
Slightly off topic but apple pizza is delicious. Seriously I'm not making this up. Apple pizza is fantastic.
Heresy.
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1081.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fj349%2Flongblade%2Fkeep-calm-and-burn-heretics_zps902efbbe.jpg&hash=0640e5e8a810adceb6e87dc92770333977ce533f)
QFT! >:(
It's like a pie! OMG!!! Sweet, delicious, goodness.
Peh - the only fruit for a pizza is pineapple
And there is no ice cream but ben and jerrys cherry garcia
QuoteThe reality is that because there is no overarching controlling authority on "what is a wargame?" there will never be any sort of official definition. This does not mean we are having a useless discussion.
No, there's no official definition but we could end up with one :P
QuoteBut let's just be careful that we don't stray into attacking other people for disagreeing.
Not really sure, was that directed at me? If so I am not aware of attacking anyone here but if something came across this way unintentionally then... sorry :(
Quote from: Bison on May 22, 2013, 11:04:54 AM
OK. Distant Worlds. Wargame or not? It's a good example of something with components of what has been discussed so far and is something outside of the historical catagory.
Not a wargame. Same for any 4x game. The main focus of the game is not war. War is not required to win the game.
Quote from: Grimnirsson on May 22, 2013, 11:11:09 AMNot really sure, was that directed at me? If so I am not aware of attacking anyone here but if something came across this way unintentionally then... sorry :(
Not directed at anyone. I just want to make sure we don't get out of hand. Probably not a necessary warning, since this isn't BGG or CSW.
OK. Apple pizza does not involve a tomato based pizza sauce. Usually like a cinnamon base, like apple pie. It has apples, like apple pie. I has a crust, like apple pie. It doesn't have a crust cover, which is different from apple pie. It has a light cheese sprinkle topping, which is different from apple pie. It's damned good.
Quote from: Barthheart on May 22, 2013, 11:18:19 AM
Quote from: Bison on May 22, 2013, 11:04:54 AM
OK. Distant Worlds. Wargame or not? It's a good example of something with components of what has been discussed so far and is something outside of the historical catagory.
Not a wargame. Same for any 4x game. The main focus of the game is not war. War is not required to win the game.
Hmmm....see I struggle with 4X games. I guess that's why there is the concept of a grand strategy game, which could or could not be catagorized as a wargame.
Apple pizza?? That's a pastry not a pizza. And an abomonation. Weirdo!
Quote from: Bison on May 22, 2013, 11:25:01 AM
OK. Apple pizza does not involve a tomato based pizza sauce. Usually like a cinnamon base, like apple pie. It has apples, like apple pie. I has a crust, like apple pie. It doesn't have a crust cover, which is different from apple pie. It has a light cheese sprinkle topping, which is different from apple pie. It's damned good.
So its a tart?
Quote from: Bison on May 22, 2013, 11:25:01 AM
OK. Apple pizza does not involve a tomato based pizza sauce. Usually like a cinnamon base, like apple pie. It has apples, like apple pie. I has a crust, like apple pie. It doesn't have a crust cover, which is different from apple pie. It has a light cheese sprinkle topping, which is different from apple pie. It's damned good.
Then just eat a pie! :P
Quote from: Bison on May 22, 2013, 10:45:34 AM
It's like a pie! OMG!!! Sweet, delicious, goodness.
It's not
like a pie. It
is a pie.
And pie != pizza.
As an aside - it's hilarious that we're discussing the definitions of wargames as if this were the Oxford Debate Club, but we're about to go nuclear over putting apples on pizza 8)
Quote from: Barthheart on May 22, 2013, 08:01:07 AM
Not quite, I like FPS games, I suck at them but I like playing them. Still not a wargame.
that depends. Steel Beasts is most definetly a wargame whereas World of Tanks is not.
who the hell puts apples on pizza!
I am proud of apple pizza. I like apple pizza. Therefore I must invoke my 5th amendment rights regarding any more questions involving apple pizza.
He's not nuts there is such a creature.....
http://www.marthastewart.com/894507/apple-pizza
But it's still weird and an abomination! :P
Quote from: Barthheart on May 22, 2013, 11:37:02 AM
He's not nuts there is such a creature.....
http://www.marthastewart.com/894507/apple-pizza
But it's still weird and an abomination! :P
Martha Stewart? Seriously? That's the best you got to defend Bison?
You might as well put him in a dress with panty hose.
Quote from: LongBlade on May 22, 2013, 11:45:17 AM
Quote from: Barthheart on May 22, 2013, 11:37:02 AM
He's not nuts there is such a creature.....
http://www.marthastewart.com/894507/apple-pizza
But it's still weird and an abomination! :P
Martha Stewart? Seriously? That's the best you got to defend Bison?
You might as well put him in a dress with panty hose.
Well... that's what I was going for.... ;)
Order in the kangaroo court!
World of tanks is definitely not a wargame.
Quote from: Bison on May 22, 2013, 01:29:24 PM
Order in the kangaroo court!
World of tanks is definitely not a wargame.
Agreed.
Oh, honey? I think you have a smudge in your lipstick.
Forget the wargame debate for a moment...
Quote from: GJK on May 22, 2013, 06:05:14 AM
4. I agree with Steelgrave, Blue Bell ice cream (born right here in Texas) is the best damned ice cream on the planet. I kill for some Cookies'n Cream with a bit of chocolate syrup on it. Just not near the wargaming table.
:o Good grief, man! How high is your bodycount? How many have died in some weird blood ritual so that you may eat your frozen treat?!
^If you'd ever had Blue Bell Cookies and Cream....you would understand 8)
And guess what I just freakin' forgot to pick up at the grocery store.... >:(
Quote from: GJK on May 22, 2013, 10:41:27 AMBy the way, shouldn't this thread be in the boardgaming forum instead? I mean, board wargames are the real wargames! Not to put yet another slant on what constitutes a wargame and what doesn't. ;)
as much as I agree with you, I am willing to admit that you and I are swimming against the tide on that one
Quote from: GJK on May 22, 2013, 05:27:07 PM
And guess what I just freakin' forgot to pick up at the grocery store.... >:(
a chess board
Quote from: bayonetbrant on May 22, 2013, 06:04:20 PM
Quote from: GJK on May 22, 2013, 10:41:27 AMBy the way, shouldn't this thread be in the boardgaming forum instead? I mean, board wargames are the real wargames! Not to put yet another slant on what constitutes a wargame and what doesn't. ;)
as much as I agree with you, I am willing to admit that you and I are swimming against the tide on that one
See my new thread in the boardgaming section. :)
Quote from: undercovergeek on May 22, 2013, 06:21:29 PM
Quote from: GJK on May 22, 2013, 05:27:07 PM
And guess what I just freakin' forgot to pick up at the grocery store.... >:(
a chess board
Remember when you could find
Blitzkrieg,
Luftwaffe and
Richoften's War at your local five&dime? The good ole' days! Of course now you can find
Call of Duty next to other Wii and PS2 games at most grocery stores these days....
Now console or PC that's a completely different debate entirely. Much fire damage has been caused by that flame war over the years.
might as well unsticky this
The discussion continues. Slight derailments to the side. We know so far strategic/operational/tactical are levels of a wargame although there is some suggestion of perhaps a higher than strategic level. We know that they can be historical/ahistorical/fictional. I think all things considered there has been some pretty good debate so far.
Quote from: Bison on May 22, 2013, 01:29:24 PM
Order in the kangaroo court!
World of tanks is definitely not a wargame.
You better tell that to wargaming.net.
We can argue all we want about the definition but people outside our circle have their own definitions as well so whatever we come up here will not be up held in the overall scheme of things.
Quote from: jomni on May 22, 2013, 08:50:48 PM
Quote from: Bison on May 22, 2013, 01:29:24 PM
Order in the kangaroo court!
World of tanks is definitely not a wargame.
You better tell that to wargaming.net.
We can argue all we want about the definition but people outside our circle have their own definitions as well so whatever we come up here will not be up held in the overall scheme of things.
Wargaming.net used to be published by Matrix. They had a cool little sci-fi game called Massive Assault. I'll bet they well know what a wargame is by our definitions. That they would choose to disagree because the name sounds cool and they make more generalized action games these days doesn't mean they don't know what a grog's definition is :)
Quote from: jomni on May 22, 2013, 08:50:48 PM
Quote from: Bison on May 22, 2013, 01:29:24 PM
Order in the kangaroo court!
World of tanks is definitely not a wargame.
You better tell that to wargaming.net.
We can argue all we want about the definition but people outside our circle have their own definitions as well so whatever we come up here will not be up held in the overall scheme of things.
But that's not the
point. No one here is claiming to be the ultimate authority on what is or is not a wargame (for my money, World of Tanks is entertaining but NOT a wargame), we are simply debating what a wargame is to
us. It's about as harmless a debate as asking if you prefer chocolate or vanilla.
Or cookies and cream. Darn you for starting the thread off with ice cream, Bison!
Quote from: Steelgrave on May 22, 2013, 09:22:08 PM
But that's not the point. No one here is claiming to be the ultimate authority on what is or is not a wargame (for my money, World of Tanks is entertaining but NOT a wargame), we are simply debating what a wargame is to us. It's about as harmless a debate as asking if you prefer chocolate or vanilla.
FWIW I consider this site to be the authority on commercial entertainment-grade wargames. We may not agree, but this body of gamers is probably as close to you'll get as an "ultimate authority" on the topic 8)
Quote from: LongBlade on May 22, 2013, 09:29:59 PM
Quote from: Steelgrave on May 22, 2013, 09:22:08 PM
But that's not the point. No one here is claiming to be the ultimate authority on what is or is not a wargame (for my money, World of Tanks is entertaining but NOT a wargame), we are simply debating what a wargame is to us. It's about as harmless a debate as asking if you prefer chocolate or vanilla.
FWIW I consider this site to be the authority on commercial entertainment-grade wargames. We may not agree, but this body of gamers is probably as close to you'll get as an "ultimate authority" on the topic 8)
I'll go you one better and say that we could do a better job of running the country than the idiots in charge. Well....we would have to find an important sounding but ultimately meaningless position for SoM just to keep him out of our hair while we strip mine and dig oil wells 8) But I'm sure we can think of something.
Quote from: Steelgrave on May 22, 2013, 09:38:10 PM
Quote from: LongBlade on May 22, 2013, 09:29:59 PM
Quote from: Steelgrave on May 22, 2013, 09:22:08 PM
But that's not the point. No one here is claiming to be the ultimate authority on what is or is not a wargame (for my money, World of Tanks is entertaining but NOT a wargame), we are simply debating what a wargame is to us. It's about as harmless a debate as asking if you prefer chocolate or vanilla.
FWIW I consider this site to be the authority on commercial entertainment-grade wargames. We may not agree, but this body of gamers is probably as close to you'll get as an "ultimate authority" on the topic 8)
I'll go you one better and say that we could do a better job of running the country than the idiots in charge. Well....we would have to find an important sounding but ultimately meaningless position for SoM just to keep him out of our hair while we strip mine and dig oil wells 8) But I'm sure we can think of something.
LOL
Then it's settled. He'll be Vice President.
^SNORT! Awesome, just awesome. 8) But ummmm......live long and prosper, President Longblade.
Anyway as I stated on my very first post in this thread:
No matter what the type of game is, as long as a majority of grogs approve (for whatever inconsistent reasoning) then it is a Wargame.
Quote from: LongBlade on May 22, 2013, 09:29:59 PM
We may not agree, but this body of gamers is probably as close to you'll get as an "ultimate authority" on the topic 8)
and boobs.
Quote from: LongBlade on May 22, 2013, 09:29:59 PM
Quote from: Steelgrave on May 22, 2013, 09:22:08 PM
But that's not the point. No one here is claiming to be the ultimate authority on what is or is not a wargame (for my money, World of Tanks is entertaining but NOT a wargame), we are simply debating what a wargame is to us. It's about as harmless a debate as asking if you prefer chocolate or vanilla.
FWIW I consider this site to be the authority on commercial entertainment-grade wargames. We may not agree, but this body of gamers is probably as close to you'll get as an "ultimate authority" on the topic 8)
Bravo! I am proud to be a member of that body.
To me a wargame is a cardboard map with hexes printed on it with square counters that represent panzer divisions or motor rifle brigades. The setting of course is the eastern front during world war 2. The paper bound rulebook must be 100 pages or more and there should be text in it discussing LOS, out of supply conditions, unit dispersals, etc. One must reread the terrain effects modifiers sections many times and still not understand them until the errata sheet gets mailed to your house. One must be able to derive extreme joy out of separating the counters from their sheets (and those counters need to have panzer divisions on them) or it is not a wargame.
Earning a STEAM achievement on a computer for winning a game with a female civilization leader or sailing around the world first in a rickshaw is not a wargame.
The endstate of what is a wargame is not necessarily to identify a strict specific definition of "This is a wargame...This isn't a game...because of x,y, and z factors". That being said, I don't think it's as ambiguous as saying any game someone wants to call a wargame is a wargame.
If someone starts to ask about wargames and recommendations, what are the first questions you start to ask? I think therein lies the basis of what is or is not a wargame. Here are some questions I know that I'd ask right off of the bat.
What era of conflict are you interested in the most?
Do you like turn based games or real time games?
What level of war most interests you?
Quote from: Bison on May 23, 2013, 08:07:42 AM
The endstate of what is a wargame is not necessarily to identify a strict specific definition of "This is a wargame...This isn't a game...because of x,y, and z factors". That being said, I don't think it's as ambiguous as saying any game someone wants to call a wargame is a wargame.
If someone starts to ask about wargames and recommendations, what are the first questions you start to ask? I think therein lies the basis of what is or is not a wargame. Here are some questions I know that I'd ask right off of the bat.
What era of conflict are you interested in the most?
Do you like turn based games or real time games?
What level of war most interests you?
That's a fine start. I'd also toss in that, depending on the forum, it could be electronic, board game, or minis.
Three games, one question.
Is each a wargame? Why or why not? Twitter answers only, i.e., 140 characters or less.
Friedrich: http://www.simmonsgames.com/products/Friedrich/index.html
Battle Cry: http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/551/battle-cry
Axis and Allies: You know what I'm talking about.
This discussion covered an entire trip from Milwaukee to GenCon a couple years ago. It seems to me that these three are as good a test as any for a proposed "wargame"/"not wargame" taxonomy.
Best,
Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)
I don't know the first well enough, but the other two I can do, and I would consider them wargames:
Battle Cry: combat-focused mechanics that require battlefield success to win, and do no focus on 'platforming' individual abilities for continued success later in the game
A&A: Although the economic components are necessary for continued battlefield success, victory is not possible without winning in combat
To me, the real 'acid test' is Diplomacy. Do you consider the 'combat mechanic' of that game to be a sufficient measure of "winning a battle"?
Axis & Allies = wargame
Diplomacy != wargame
How about Twilight Struggle? For me it's like Diplomacy in that combat is not the main winning ingredient so not a wargame.
Battle cry = tactical level wargame
Axis and Allies = strategic level wargame
A couple of issues that seem to crop up are the mechanics a game uses and the complexity.
I don't think complexity should way in on wargame or not.
LnL's Tank on Tank is a very simple game but is definitely a wargame.
Mechanics of the game I think are a component on what makes up a wargame.
I don't think complexity should be a driving factor either, but there are those who view it as a break down in creating accuracy.
Quote from: Bison on May 23, 2013, 10:38:42 AM
I don't think complexity should be a driving factor either, but there are those who view it as a break down in creating accuracy.
I recall a conversation somewhere where I was told that during the 70's wargame designers were happy if they could produce real-world results accurately 60% of the time. Toss Panzer Blitz into that conversation and you have a pretty good idea where "classic" wargames and accuracy meet.
Today we might hope for more information to produce better accuracy; certainly the tools available to us are more robust, at least with regard to electronic wargames and the ability to research and number crunch on the tabletop side.
I'd say that in general playability of a game is for more people a consideration than realism.
It was the complexity = accuracy ergo = wargame issue that caused so much fuss in my car....
Friedrich (a game everyone should own) brilliantly if abstractly captures the challenges faced by the great king. It has one of the best combat resolution systems I've ever encountered, but has little to do with the tactical warfare of the period.
Battle Cry is as abstract as they come, but strikes me as doing a good job of depicting those red and blue blocks pushing at each other in the West Point Atlases.
I dislike A&A a great deal -- considering it an unnecessarily complicated version of Risk -- but I certainly understand the appeal to some of moving hordes of men across the face of the world.
I have always -- since I bought Starship Troopers from Gimbel's Department Store in the 8th Grade -- equated complexity with "wargame". It strikes me as strange that it's taken this long to begin unlearning this evidently inaccurate proposition.
Best,
Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)
Quote from: bayonetbrant on May 22, 2013, 06:04:20 PM
Quote from: GJK on May 22, 2013, 10:41:27 AMBy the way, shouldn't this thread be in the boardgaming forum instead? I mean, board wargames are the real wargames! Not to put yet another slant on what constitutes a wargame and what doesn't. ;)
as much as I agree with you, I am willing to admit that you and I are swimming against the tide on that one
Let's suppose there's some essential element that makes a game a real war game. If we take that essential element to be some representation of the options some level of command had during some real war then most supposed war games don't come anywhere near possessing that essential element. Moreover a boardgame is just as likely as a computer game to have that element.
On the other hand computer games -- if they get close to that element -- seem to be inherently more convincing as experiences.
Yet, if I work with a boardgame (or set of boardgames -- I'm reaching the point where it takes 3 to game a situation -- eg. PQ-17 to do the naval and air operations, Invasion Norway to do the ground fighting and Command at Sea to check on any fishy aero-naval results) I can usually analyze a situation more convincingly because the elements of the particular narrative are easier to manipulate.
What's worse, the problem with computer games isn't that they aren't gamey, it's that they are too much like boardgames. For example, a computer game could have many map-like representations of a situation and hide the real situation well away from the player. So for example, I (as the player) could have a situation map in my simulated HQ that might be almost useless since either I can't get there or the HQ staff has fled or been called elsewhere. I might have to make my orders on the fly: I stop the jeep and hail a fleeing peasant and ask him what the next railway station east is. Then I get on the radio and tell my remaining mobile formations to meet me there ASAP. Of course the enemy (simulated obviously) might very well pick up that transmission, but then my own forces might not...etc.
Quote from: Cyrano on May 23, 2013, 11:47:03 AM
I have always -- since I bought Starship Troopers from Gimbel's Department Store in the 8th Grade -- equated complexity with "wargame". It strikes me as strange that it's taken this long to begin unlearning this evidently inaccurate proposition.
Best,
Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)
Obviously I disagree. It seems to me that the complexity of the ideal war game should be so horrifying that the complexity alone should be enough to overwhelm the player before the enemy even so much as sends up a distant puff of smoke.
I can remember spending several days to setup Guns of August and just sitting there thinking ok now WTF?
Quote from: Bison on May 23, 2013, 12:08:24 PM
I can remember spending several days to setup Guns of August and just sitting there thinking ok now WTF?
Which is why a computer game is potentially so much better. Imagine you are a simulated von Kluck in early
September trying to make sense of orders from von Bulow and radio messages from the Imperial HQ
when you get orders to fall back and find out that everybody is blaming you for losing the war.
In game terms the complexity would be hidden, but to win you have to come up with some way of
representing it to yourself and convincing others -- yes! even von Bulow! to act on your reading of
complex events.
Quote from: Bison on May 23, 2013, 12:08:24 PM
I can remember spending several days to setup Guns of August and just sitting there thinking ok now WTF?
For me,
Up Scope was that mystifyingly complex game. 20 pages of five point font rules. I think it took me a year to read it cover to cover because I was so overwhelmed. Of course being 12 years old didn't help.
The mmp regimental series uses written orders to activate actions that subordinate leaders and units can take. If it isn't specifically written in the order, the unit cannot take an action.
And for lack of degrading this conversation to a boardgame vs computer wargame expose, I'll add that to me I agree that computers do a better job at simulating a combat situation (generally) because of the obvious; they can process so much more information and handle so much more than a player sitting at a boardgame could or would want to do. That said, that is where I have a disconnect with most PC wargames - the computer IS doing so much for me behind the scenes that I honestly can't say what the hell just happened during the turn with any degree of certainty. Certainly not as precise as if I had done the whole turn manually on a board. Take for example the fine game "The Operational Art of War". If you load up a scenario and begin play, you have a great sense of control of what you're doing; moving pieces along, assigning this unit to do that, etc. But when the computer does it's thing and it runs through it - suddenly the turn is over and it's the start of your next turn and all you see is that now suddenly you're farther away from the objective here, but closer there and so the question is "what did my opponent (AI) just do to me?". Now that is probably much more realistic - as the big commander, I don't have all the specifics on what casualties every unit of mine took and exactly how far back they had to retreat but in a gaming sense, I feel disconnected from the game because all of that is taken out of my hands. So maybe for me at least, a PC wargame does the better job of simulating a historical battle or war, but a board wargame gives me a better sense of actually battling that battle or fighting that war. That doesn't make the board wargame any better, but it gives me a more enjoyable gaming experience overall. Does that make sense?
QuoteDoes that make sense?
Absolutely! I have exactly the same feeling...
Yeah but...where are the Panzer Divisions? :P
Quote from: Steelgrave on May 22, 2013, 04:25:58 PM
^If you'd ever had Blue Bell Cookies and Cream....you would understand 8)
The homemade flavor vanilla is good enough for me. :D
Makes sense GJK.
Quote from: Barthheart on May 23, 2013, 09:48:05 AM
How about Twilight Struggle? For me it's like Diplomacy in that combat is not the main winning ingredient so not a wargame.
Ah the Cold War. A historical/actual war without direct armed confrontation between superpowers. :)
So gaming the Cold War like Twilight Struggle or Balance of Power is not a wargame? Maybe not in my books. It's a geopolitical simulation.
But the multitudes of games playing out hypothetical a WW3 scenario are wargames.
Quote from: jomni on May 23, 2013, 09:29:46 PM
Quote from: Barthheart on May 23, 2013, 09:48:05 AM
How about Twilight Struggle? For me it's like Diplomacy in that combat is not the main winning ingredient so not a wargame.
Ah the Cold War. A historical/actual war without direct armed confrontation between superpowers. :)
So gaming the Cold War like Twilight Struggle or Balance of Power is not a wargame? Maybe not in my books. It's a geopolitical simulation.
But the multitudes of games playing out hypothetical a WW3 scenario are wargames.
While I'd tend to agree with you, wargames are about war. War is a specific kind of conflict. War and conflict aren't always the same.
To GJK's point, knowing why things happened is more satisifying and immersive to you than the uncertainty modeled by the outcome of your orders given in a computer game. And the computer games outcome better simulates the vagaries of war and the implementation of your orders. Then couldn't you transfer your sense of satisfaction at seeing your orders played out to the computer game? Or is it just a board v. PC thing?
I think it's a matter of whether you like to push counters or pixels more tbh.
ahhh...
but!
I like my counters to be pixels.
somewhat saves on the attack of the pet mucking things about.
I appreciate the tactile gratification of actually groping a set of physical counters personally myself.
I also appreciate being able to see the whole map at once and being able to take in the entire situation without scrolling.
I very much also appreciate being able to calculate the odds, with modifiers and seeing a table that shows me what my range of results is going to be as I'm anxiously juggling the di(c)e in my hand.
Some of the most enjoyable moments has been the look on my opponent's face when the die finally settles and we both look at that chart to see what the outcome is. It has also been some of the most heart-breaking of moments.
I like "assembling" my board wargames. Laminating charts, clipping counters (yes, an OCD masochist when it comes to my wargames), putting the map under plexi-glass. I even convert all of the rulebooks to e-books and have my laptop handy when playing so that I can easily reference rules.
A downside to boardgaming is that you have to read the rules in order to know how to play the game; unless you have a very eager opponent that wants to teach you how to play but even still, you really need to at least glance through the rulebook. On the upside, you are very connected to the game because you have to do everything manually. A 6-8 hour day playing an ASL scenario always leaves me with a headache from all the thinking that I had to do. Yet the gaming experience will be talked about for years to come.
####
What I appreciate about a computer wargame is common to us all: I can easily start (and even sometimes finish) a game.
I can play it any time that I want, against an "opponent" of sorts.
I can get bored, pause the game, go to the Grogheads forum to see what new posts are there, refresh my drink and then resume the game without worrying about an impatient opponent or even leaving my chair - as long as the mini-fridge is right here.
I don't have to worry about my Nazi cat jumping on the table and showing me his attack orders.
I wish that more PC wargames showed me the odds column. I say more- I can only think of one that did that and it was Decision Games' War in Europe II PC conversion of the boardgame. It shows you the odds column and then displays a Vegas slot machine like graphic going up and down the odds column until it finally settles on the result. Alas, it has no AI opponent and 1000's of pixel counters to move around. Gets too boring too quickly. Pbem is ok though.
This is funny: so I'm getting ready to set up an old favorite boardgame of mine that I haven't played in YEARS, Carrier. I remembered that Enrico did a video replay series on the game. So I start to watch it throughout the day yesterday. This "episode" is so classic I had to show my son. This is a boardgamer that is about to explode over the complexity and silliness of looking up rules and charts just to finish a single phase of a long game:
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/video/26664/carrier/coral-sea-3b (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/video/26664/carrier/coral-sea-3b)
What's funny is that by episode 8, he's pretty much got the rules down and is really having an enjoyable experience. Will probably never play the game again, but I'll bet he never forgets the experience. :)
Quote from: Bison on May 22, 2013, 07:43:07 AM
It convinced me. Chess is a wargame.
What about Stratego?
Quote from: Staggerwing on May 24, 2013, 06:33:17 AM
Quote from: Bison on May 22, 2013, 07:43:07 AM
It convinced me. Chess is a wargame.
What about Stratego?
Hmm...I don't know about Stratego. It's more like a game of chance. Sure I remember it being fun, but I'm not sure I'd call it a wargame game.
Quote from: GJK on May 24, 2013, 05:51:16 AM
I appreciate the tactile gratification of actually groping a set of physical counters personally myself.
Pushing pewter is even more gratifying. There's nothing like feeling the weight of a Tiger as you move it across the terrain. One of the buddies I used to game with actually had a sight off of a German tank. We'd pass it along to verify LOS and it was a lot of fun.
QuoteA downside to boardgaming is that you have to read the rules in order to know how to play the game;
That's a plus in my book and I call it transparency . I love learning rules because I can get into the game this way with a solid idea of what it is about, what I can do or can't do and so on. But this also means I'm not belonging to those 'relaxed' gamers who play a game based on what they think a rule could mean or use just a house rule if something is missing or not working properly. I have very high expectations when it comes to rules and 'black holes' are something I consider sloppy work on the designers and/or playtesters side and that can really piss me off. If it is a game we play for a review (as is currently on the table and has got exactly this problem), that will make the score drop quickly...
Quoteso I'm getting ready to set up an old favorite boardgame of mine that I haven't played in YEARS, Carrier.
Ah...Carrier...that one is sitting on my shelf for a number of years now and I never had it set up for play. Problem is when your wife is as eager for wargames as you are and you always play something together there's less need and time for a solitaire game. Yes, I know that's complaining on a high level :P
So let me get this straight. Grimnirsson is complaining he doesn't get to play with himself more...huh.
I too love reading rules and learning new games and I'm like you Andreas, I'm a rules-lawyer type. I LOVE procedural games and I think that's why I enjoy ASL and enjoy Carrier and the like. Very structured. Some (a lot?) of people hate that though.
I think that PC Wargaming produces "relaxed" players. For good or not, it's easy to figure out almost any PC wargame. They have tutorials (great stuff) or if you click around enough you can figure out how to do things. I guess if you're really, really into the game, you actually read any manual that comes with it so that you can learn what the program is actually doing. You can't take that shortcut in a boardgame.
Miniatures is something that my son is wanting to get into. We have Wings of War/Glory and he loves the models. We've been to our FLGS and have eyed some ACW mini's and Flames of War. I keep seeing $$$$ flying out of my wallet and hours upon hours painting. The painting would be very enjoyable but being anal about my gaming, I wouldn't take shortcuts so yeah...lots of hours just painting the things. We have the table space so yes, I'm seeing miniature gaming in my near distant future as well.
Quote from: GJK on May 24, 2013, 09:12:10 AM
We've been to our FLGS and have eyed some ACW mini's and Flames of War. I keep seeing $$$$ flying out of my wallet and hours upon hours painting. The painting would be very enjoyable but being anal about my gaming, I wouldn't take shortcuts so yeah...lots of hours just painting the things. We have the table space so yes, I'm seeing miniature gaming in my near distant future as well.
Yes, minis gaming can be expensive. And time consuming.
There are shortcuts.
If you're not interested (yet) in investing copious amounts of time and money, GHQ has Microarmor (http://www.ghqmodels.com/pages/military/index.asp) which allows you to get a whole lot of minis for not much money. I've seen guys play flames of war with them on an area about the size of a chessboard. The major complaint I hear about using a small scale like that on a 4' x 8' table is that it's easy to lose sight of the tiny little figs. Especially if you're painting them with good camo. They also have a line of ACW minis on their website. I don't think I've seen them personally, though.
That can get you into the game fairly cheaply. Once you decide you like it then you can look at something like Flames of War. Also, there are alternative to Flames' minis. The cheaper minis' quality isn't as good as Flames, but many gamers find the tradeoff for quality made up by the price. Flames' tournaments are gradually requiring the use of their proprietary minis, but there's no reason you can't get into a friendly game with them. Most guys I know have a mix of the cheap and expensive minis. And Flames is like Warhammer: it's a "good enough" game system to be fun and if a store has a historical minis community someone will be playing Flames. Realism can take a back seat sometimes - I have qualms with the realism. But the trade off is that you can push a lot of pewter and blow up a lot of stuff in the course of a three or four hour game.
Quote from: GJK on May 23, 2013, 02:49:54 PM
And for lack of degrading this conversation to a boardgame vs computer wargame expose, I'll add that to me I agree that computers do a better job at simulating a combat situation (generally) because of the obvious; they can process so much more information and handle so much more than a player sitting at a boardgame could or would want to do. That said, that is where I have a disconnect with most PC wargames - the computer IS doing so much for me behind the scenes that I honestly can't say what the hell just happened during the turn with any degree of certainty. Certainly not as precise as if I had done the whole turn manually on a board. Take for example the fine game "The Operational Art of War". If you load up a scenario and begin play, you have a great sense of control of what you're doing; moving pieces along, assigning this unit to do that, etc. But when the computer does it's thing and it runs through it - suddenly the turn is over and it's the start of your next turn and all you see is that now suddenly you're farther away from the objective here, but closer there and so the question is "what did my opponent (AI) just do to me?". Now that is probably much more realistic - as the big commander, I don't have all the specifics on what casualties every unit of mine took and exactly how far back they had to retreat but in a gaming sense, I feel disconnected from the game because all of that is taken out of my hands. So maybe for me at least, a PC wargame does the better job of simulating a historical battle or war, but a board wargame gives me a better sense of actually battling that battle or fighting that war. That doesn't make the board wargame any better, but it gives me a more enjoyable gaming experience overall. Does that make sense?
Not really. For me, ultimately computer games will eventually be much better than boardgames because the computer games can simulate very complex stuff and show you the effects. Which is what you'd see if you were say actually commanding an army: you'd see your staff, maybe some not-very accurate maps, talk to division commanders, see some artillery fire and get some reports. In a sense you would never exactly know exactly what was going on. A computer game can reproduce this floating out-of-control relation to information pretty easily.
At the moment I prefer board games because they work better in terms of analysis. I'm not sure what is wrong with most computer games but they seem to be simulating old boardgames rather than actual battles.
VERY interesting subject fellog grogheads.
I'm an Hex head as well as many here, but reading this thread i now find myself asking if the following games can be labeled as wargames (please forgive me if i have missed seeing anyone mentioning any of these):
- Hearts of Iron and Europa Universalis series;
- Superpower 1 & 2;
- Star Wars Rebellion.
QuoteFor good or not, it's easy to figure out almost any PC wargame.
Perhaps a difference is that 'black holes' in the rules have different effects in traditional wargames (card, board, minis) and PC wargames. If you are the rules-lawyer type of player and you encounter something weird, a missing rule that should be there to explain something, a mechanic that is clearly broken etc. then you come to a cold stop. We don't bother with house rules (one exception: Marvel Heroes Boardgame), we play with the RAW and if they suck the game is rated accordingly because in a wargame the game is the rule book. But you could or can come up with an agreement or a house rule to make it work for you. In a PC wargame a black hole is actually called a bug in the worst case or at least an imbalance and if it's a serious one the cold stop is there too but you can't come up with an easy solution (unless you are a talented modder, because the rules are coded into the game itself, into it's UI etc.) but have to wait for the game to be patched.
Well I'd say it safe to call Hearts of Iron a wargame. Europia Universalis could be but I'm not sure that it's military focus is high enough to qualify, but the arguement could be made for it to qualify.
Never played Superpower.
Star Wars Rebellion - I'm inclined to say yes.
Quote from: Staggerwing on May 24, 2013, 06:33:17 AM
Quote from: Bison on May 22, 2013, 07:43:07 AM
It convinced me. Chess is a wargame.
What about Stratego?
Yes it is. It's not a very
good one, but I think you have to call it a wargame as it hits at least as many of the 'wargame checks' as Chess does.
Hmm...I'm not sold on Stratego.
Stratego is blind chess. No luck factor involved there. It just has a realistic element of Fog of War added (that most other board wargames don't have).
Quote from: Bison on May 24, 2013, 01:15:08 PM
Hmm...I'm not sold on Stratego.
I'm curious why not - no way you could consider Chess a wargame and Stratego not a wargame.
I guess I always felt like Strageto was really more about random chance of how you lined up your pieces. I guess there is a strategy of sorts, but not much. But to be fair it's been nearly 30 years since I've played.
Quote from: Bison on May 24, 2013, 10:27:55 PMI guess I always felt like Strageto was really more about random chance of how you lined up your pieces.
lining up your pieces is completely non-random.
Quote from: Bison on May 24, 2013, 10:27:55 PMI guess there is a strategy of sorts, but not much.
80-90% of the strategy is in your initial deployment. A good setup, and the other guy has a loooooong row to hoe to beat you. But you still have to execute.
Quote from: Bison on May 24, 2013, 10:27:55 PMBut to be fair it's been nearly 30 years since I've played.
Dust it off and give it a try. Honestly, I think with 2 simple rules fixes, it could be a much, much more enjoyable game by giving the players some asymmetric capabilities. I'll open a new thread for this one in the tabletop area (http://grogheads.com/forums/index.php?topic=6062).
I think racing might be a wargame even if it doesn't have any weapondy at all.
Quote from: Bison on June 05, 2013, 08:40:55 AM
I think racing might be a wargame even if it doesn't have any weapondy at all.
But the best racing games incorporate weapons.
I often find myself thinking if only this car had a pair of Ma Deuces mounted; I'd be winning.
It is of my opinion that the best wargames on the market are HPS/JTS developed. How about them apples?
Quote from: Bison on June 15, 2013, 12:35:16 PM
It is of my opinion that the best wargames on the market are HPS/JTS developed. How about them apples?
If only the graphics were updated and more screen resolutions were available (along with more zoom levels) they could be so much better.
Stratego is a wargame.
So is Jagged Alliance 2.