Let's Talk: Wargame or Not

[GDS_Starfury]

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. 

[Bison]

The wiki on wargaming.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wargaming  Pretty interesting read actually.

[jomni]

Yes if the criteria is strictly historical.

[MikeGER]

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.


   

[GDS_Starfury]

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!

[jomni]

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. :/

[Grimnirsson]

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:

Wargame

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

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):

Wargames

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.

[Tamas]

via Imgflip Meme Maker

[undercovergeek]

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

[Bison]

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).

[Bison]

via Imgflip Meme Maker

Haha!  This is a good one.

[Bison]

 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.

[GJK]

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.

[Grimnirsson]

Bison,

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.

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.

[MikeGER]

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