TheRPGSite

You know, not those with the minis in spiky armor. Those with the cardboard counters and the stacking rules thereof.

It appears I shall soon possess a copy of Squad Leader. Never played it, but I've read up on it and am positively psyched.

Which wargames, or counter-based boardgames broadly conceived (Divine Right qualifies, ditto Magic Realm, Dragonhunt, Wizard's Quest...), did you / do you enjoy most and why?

Squad Leader, Magic Realm, Victory in the Pacific, War at Sea, Ogre/GEV, Wooden Ships & Iron Men, Republic of Rome, Empires of the Middle Ages (okay, mainly via imperfect computer adaptations), Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage (oh, yass!), Napoleon, Ancients, King of Kings, Arena of Death, Voyage of the Pandora, Wreck of the Pandora, Star Trader (SPI), The Creature that Ate Sheboygan, Destroyer Captain, Diplomacy, Divine Right, Albion: Land of Faerie, Dune, Dreadnought, History of the World, Imperium Romanum II, Kremlin, Junta, Shanghai Trader (borderline as wargames go, but it's got the "spirit"), Peloponnesian War, Rommel in the Desert, War of 1812 (Columbia), Warp War...those are the ones I've played at least once and can with some confidence say I'd be delighted to play again.

I play warhammer 40k on occasion (like, twice a year or so). I also play the occasional game of Axis and Allies.

I hear squad leader can get pretty intense (especially with expansions)

Awww crap, just re-read the original post, and realized those don't count. The closest thing I play is the Awful Green Things From Outer Space.

Did a bit of Starfleet Commander when a couple of players didnt show up.

I used to enjoy quite a few of the old-style boardgames and hex & counter wargames. My favorites were:

Civil War (VG)
Vietnam (VG)
Magic Realm (AH)
Civilization (AH)
Star Fleet Battles (TFG)
Stellar Conquest (AH)
Republic of Rome (AH)
Ambush (VG)
Federation and Empire (TFG)
Paydirt (AH)

Don't play much anymore, except for Magic Realm.

I've played aroudn with a few.  Really liked Tactics II, and in theory, I like the idea of a lot of them.

But truth is, the complexity level of most hex/counter games is prohibitive for me, as is the near total lack of players.

And honestly, a lot of it just winds up feeling pretty primitive after playing stuff like Advance Wars.  

I still have a copy of Panzerblitz I rescued before my storage unit went up for auction, and maybe one day I'll actually play it.  And I'd like to get a copy of Tactics II at some point too.

Hell yes!

My friend Tom and I have played SL, many games in the Gamers TCS series, the Advanced Tobruk games, Crusader Rex, a lot of old SPI, GMT's AmRev games, Up Front, Twilight Struggle, Wilderness War, Empire of the Sun, Magic Realm, Sniper!, GBoH, King of Kings, Ancients, Totaler Krieg!, Hannibal...

The list goes on and on.  Those are just off the toppa my head.

Haven't stacked cardboard tokens in a dog's age.  I play stuff like Memoir '44 though.  Personally, I like the visuals that nice figures create ... my eyeballs have been seduced.

I regularly play the Columbia "block" wargames.  My (current) favorites are Hammer of the Scots (it's the Braveheart game) and Crusader Rex.  My all-time favorite is Rommel in the Desert.

I used to play the Civil War Brigade games from The Gamers (now done by MMP), but I have a lot less free time nowadays so I doubt those'll hit the table any time before my retirement.  But I already have plans to try out their Operation Series Korea game this winter.

I like Dune a lot, too, but it doesn't get out much anymore.

Quote from: forager23I used to play the Civil War Brigade games from The Gamers (now done by MMP), but I have a lot less free time nowadays so I doubt those'll hit the table any time before my retirement.  But I already have plans to try out their Operation Series Korea game this winter.

Tom and I are about set to give Korea a spin as the OCS rules seem to have settled in their latest round of revision.  We've been busy as hell lately and still need to finish up our Crusader Rex mini-tourney (best 2 out of 3), but we're both looking forward to something with more meat; our last few games have been decidedly lighter fare (Up Front, AmRev series, Crusader Rex).  I'd be interested to hear your experiences with Korea when you've gotten a chance to give it a spin.

I'm involved with the local wargaming club here in Calgary. These are some of the games I've played in the last seven years or so:

Totaler Krieg!
Hannibal: Rome vs Carthage
Paths of Glory
Wilderness War
WWII: Barbarossa to Berlin
The Napoleonic Wars
Twilight Struggle
Clash of Giants
Reds
Ukraine '43
EastFront
Napoleon
Rommel in the Desert
Hammer of the Scots
Crusader Rex
Chariot Lords
Pax Romana
Monty's Gamble: Market Garden
Fire in the Sky
Stalingrad Pocket II (SCS)
Fallschirmjaeger (SCS)
Drive on Paris (SCS)
Afrika II (SCS)
Tunisia (OCS)
Korea (OCS)

I don't have trouble finding opponents - loads of wargamers in Calgary. I do have trouble finding the time for the longer games. And after playing lots of euro games (I play euros more than wargames), I've found my patience for down-time is quite low. That's why I tend to prefer the quick pace of the card-driven games and the block games. My favourites are Hannibal, Twilight Struggle, and Hammer of the Scots.

Rules are another barrier. Most wargames have poorly written rules, and since I learn so many boardgames (25+ new games a year), I just can't keep the rules straight in my head. So that means lots and lots of flipping through rules.

You know, I've never found a fantasy-themed wargame that worked well as a game. Divine Right and Dragon Pass are very cool and evocative, but the gameplay is awkward and slow.

As far as the hardcore hex-and-counter wargames go, I recommend the Gamers SCS series (Fallschirmjaeger, Drive on Paris) for big-but-straightfoward play, and the Gamers OCS games (Tunisia, Korea, DAK II) for highly immersive and intense play. All the Gamers titles are multiple-session deals, though.

Quote from: KenHRI'd be interested to hear your experiences with Korea when you've gotten a chance to give it a spin.

Ditto. I didn't get much beyond setup when I played solo a few months ago. I did really enjoy Tunisia, so I know the system.

We've played a few turns of Tunisia, too, and we're veterans of a bunch of other Gamers games, so the only obstacle to playing has been time.

Really, that's one of the things I like best about something like Hammer of the Scots: over the course of a weekend you can get in a couple of satisfying games (we do mini-tournaments, too, Ken).  Also, most of the people I play games with now play RPGs, some Eurogames, or WH-style mini games: I usually only get a chance to play "real" wargames when I'm visiting with my brothers.

Oh, and I forgot to mention Paths of Glory, which I also really like.  I have Barbarossa to Berlin, too, but haven't had a chance to play it.

We did a run-through of Tunisia last year.  I sucked horribly; old habits from ZOC-type games and trace supply die hard with me.  Now that I have some experience with OCS under my belt, I don't think I'll have such a hard time wrapping my head around maintaining a steady operational tempo.

Quote from: HaffrungYou know, I've never found a fantasy-themed wargame that worked well as a game. Divine Right and Dragon Pass are very cool and evocative, but the gameplay is awkward and slow.

I've found this to be true, as well.  The best I've found was the Dwarfstar game Demonlord, which strikes a nice balance between playability, detail and replayability.  Most of the Dwarfstar microgames are free for download, too, so it's worth checking out.

I think a fantasy CDG would be an instant hit, and I'm surprised no one has tried it yet.  I still have a draft copy of just such a beast that I designed, home-made counters, map, cards and all.  It was based closely on Hannibal's implementation of the system.  Still having trouble balancing the thing, though I'm happy with the magic system.  When I get the energy back to tackle it, I'm going to attempt a ground-up redesign.

That sounds like it could be a winner, Ken.

Shocking observation: So far in this thread, no love whatsoever for ASL.

Question: When does a wargame become a simulation, and which is more enjoyable?

I own Austerlitz (IIRC--some Napoleonic battle), by The Gamers, a fairly recent one, from circa 2000 or so. I did a trial run to see if it might be fun to play, and, well, not for me.

The French were a small but fast elite force, and the Russians were superior in numbers, slow, and low on morale. They canceled each other out, the fog of war rules added chaos to the stalemate, and the terrain rules got the artillery stuck in the mud and made sure you couldn't heroically charge a hilltop.

All the above is from sketchy memory, but to me that made Austerlitz too much of a simulation, and too little of a wargame:

a) narrow range of likely outcomes (minor victory for either side), modeled on historical fact

b) chaotic environment, ditto modeled on fact

I guess what this boils down to is: In a simulation you aim to repeat history, in a wargame you aim to change it.

EDIT: ROFL, just found a review of Austerlitz by what must be the Ken Hite of wargaming:

QuoteAusterlitz is one of the main philosophical pillars of the Custer-Rorke Syndrome of game design, subjects fascinating to read about and discuss which are either so one-sided or dull that they defy the intentions of even the best designers, a group in which Dave Powell assuredly resides. This is a game for Bonapartists, pure and simple.

Historically, the Allies, under the dual aegis of the two emperors - Tsar Alexander I of Russia and that Hapsburgian House of Military Horrors, Francis I of Austria - have such insolvable command problems, ranging from a non-existent hierarchy to inbred ineptness, that they stand around like a boxer whose foot is nailed to the center of the ring while his opponent - here, Napoleon at the height of his military powers - jabs, hooks, uppercuts and then simply bludgeons him onto, and then through, the mat.

Even if you eschew the historical situation and, as we did, allow the Allies to ignore and replace their original orders, you are simply delaying the fiasco. Once each of the Allied commands carries out his original set of instructions they're, once again, stuck in the mire of their command-system mud. Most Allied corps commanders need a dieroll of '12' to do any original thinking, and that's a 1-in-36 chance. Given the game is only 20+ turns, there's a good chance Original Thought will never even occur to these dolts.

One can argue till the serfs come home whether this is an accurate representation of the depths to which Russo-Austrian command had sunk or not. In game terms, it's like playing with dice which your opponent has been given two weeks to shave.

http://members.tripod.com/~RichardHBerg/brog12.html

A game should have the sorts of things that make games fun - lots of options, balanced victory conditions, opportunities for the loser to recover from a bad position, and mechanics that are constructed on the basis of what's fun or challenging for players to do rather than fidelity to history. A simulation cares about none of those things. In design conflicts between what would be historical and what would be fun for players in a game sense, simulations always side with the former. Note that many wargamers find following along a historical avenue is both interesting and fun. Simulations are often designed to be played solo.

In my experience, some designs do manage both historical insight and enganging gameplay quite decently. EastFront, Bonaparte at Marengo, and the OCS series * come to mind. I think the key there is a focus on a particular level of command, and/or an effective fog of war element to the game.

* I think the OCS series does fall down with its complex and convoluted air combat system. It's a major distraction in energy, scope, and rules bloat from the operational campaign approach of the rest of the system. The games would be better served by a more abstract approach to air power.

Richard Berg is quite his own animal.  Acerbic wit (sometimes downright mean) but one hell of a designer in his own right, though he does get a bit too fiddly when there's no one there to rein him in.

Oh, and I quite like ASL.  I just play too many other games to devote the attention to it that it requires.  I can pull out SL+ and just play.  ASL requires a thorough knowledge of the rules (and thus very regular play) to play quickly and competently.  The Starter Kits look mighty tempting, though...I have too tight a budget to get them at this point.

Quote from: Elliot WilenThat sounds like it could be a winner, Ken.

Thanks!  I'm hoping to get back to it this winter.  The thing was getting increasingly complex, which was something I was trying to avoid.  Fast-playing and on the level of Hannibal or Twilight Struggle in terms of complexity is the sweet spot.

May I suggest you cast about on Consimworld (specifically talk.consimworld.com) to see if you can find some interested collaborators? Playtesters and/or developers help a lot in making a great game, IMO.

I'm a subscriber and regular reader of CSW.  When the game goes through a few playtests here just to make sure it all works properly, I'll probably cast about for outside playtesters, or just post the thing up on a website somewhere.  Outside playtesters are definitely a major plus, and can identify problems and holes with rules much better than a designer can (witness the Empire of the Sun revisions...it was incredible under v1.0, but is now very slick and wickedly cool).

Quote from: KrakaJakI hear squad leader can get pretty intense (especially with expansions)

Things may have changed, as hinted by Ken's mention of ASL Starter Kits, but my experience/impression is that:

a) If you just play original Squad Leader, there's a ton of game there for the time/money, and the rules are fed to you in very digestible chunks. BTW, there's an alternate "sequence" for learning the rules (plus offering a new set of "learning scenarios" if you dig around at advancephase.com.

b) If you play SL+gamettes, things are still manageable up through Cross of Iron, and don't really get crazy until GI: Anvil of Victory. Crazy in terms of both layers of complexity, and in terms of backwards incompatibility--with vast numbers of original counters being replaced, and many American tanks being represented on a different scale of detail from the German tanks they're fighting.

c) If you play ASL, you get a "clean sheet" implementation of a complex but integrated version of SL; unfortunately, it's all-or-nothing in terms of cost and learning curve (including skill maintenance). When you play ASL, your hobby is no longer "wargaming", it's "Advanced Squad Leader".

For this reason I dabbled in acquiring some of ASL, then decided I'd never really get round to playing it much, and sold it off. I still have my original game plus the three gamettes.

I think I read somewhere that there's a group of people who are trying to develop a set of rules that use the SL components and basically work from CoI as a standard. That would ultimately be the game for me.

Quote from: J ArcaneI've played aroudn with a few.  Really liked Tactics II, and in theory, I like the idea of a lot of them.

For a while, not sure now, game companies were coming out with "beginner's games" like the Smithsonian Series; unfortunately while many of these probably were nicely streamlined and easy to learn, I suspect they don't have the depth of the AH "Classics" such as Tacticts II, Afrika Korps, or D-Day--which also had pretty brief (and fairly standard) rules, but simply by virtue of having more counters and smaller hexes/squares, were more "meaty".

QuoteI still have a copy of Panzerblitz I rescued before my storage unit went up for auction, and maybe one day I'll actually play it.

Panzerblitz would have made my list but I also haven't played it quite enough. I think I like the small innovations added to Panzer Leader (mainly opportunity fire), but when you think WWII tanks, Eastern Front is the main show.

Go to this site (http://www.imaginative-strategist.layfigures.com/) for tons of Panzerblitz goodness: new maps, new countersets, etc.  All of this was vetted by Alan Arvold, an old grog of SPI vintage who wrote several articles on Dunnigan's methodology for rating the units in the original games.  It opens up virtually all of WW2 for the system.

I still kinda want to try the Lock and Load series, especially Vietnam.  It seemed from what I saw of the demo game and such, that they've done what is essentially a much more approachable Squad Leader.

I also really want to try adapting the Stargrunt II rules to hex and counter.  They're really just about the best ruleset for modern combat I've ever found anywhere.  Realistic feel, but dead simple to understand and learn.

Lock'n'Load is okay, but the games just didn't capture the SL magic for me.  I found the systems clunkier than SL, actually, and the map graphics (the "hex halo" that obscures hexside terrain...which can be very important!) were really distracting and ugly to my eye.

And JA, if you really want to try a good hex-n-counter wargame on an operational scale, I'd avoid Tactics II.  It's fun for seeing where the hobby came from, but it's not a great game; the situation bogs down rather quickly and it becomes an attritional battle.  For just a *pinch* of added complexity, I'd go with The Russian Campaign (old versions of which can be found on eBay or thru online retailers for a song...there's a newer version with nicer graphics out, but they increased the size of the map to something larger than my dinner table can hold).  It's a great game that allows both sides to take the offense and gives a great feel for the deep penetrations and swirling battles on the eastern front.

Mixed feelings on Berg. I think I've enjoyed some of his games (e.g. Shogun Triumphant) and others look like they'd be good if I had a chance (e.g., the old SPI The Crusades) but he has a reputation for layering on the chrome and pumping out unplayable crap. It may come as heresy to some but I think one of his worst offenders is the Great Battles of History series; admittedly, the system is as much the responsibility of Mark Herman, whom I consider a very solid designer, but when criticisms of GBoH (http://patriot.net/~townsend/GBoH/gboh-critique.html) appeared, it was Berg who engaged in a very silly defense campaign.

About simulation vs. game, to begin with I disagree with the wording that a simulation is intended to repeat history; rather I'd say that the most "simulative" of simulations try to put the player in a definite role by representing the constraints on information and control that the role could exercise. By "role" I mean a person or a close-knit group the speed of whose internal communication and decision-making process gives it a unity relative to the scale of the game. Because of this, some simulations make lousy games--I do not think I would enjoy playing a tactical simulation of Agincourt more than once; same would probably apply to Gaugamela and, it seems likely, Austerlitz. The commander(s) of one side or the other simply had very little influence on the battle once it had been joined. Since a number of battles were basically lost from the outset, simulations of these battles will tend to repeat history. They might be useful as dynamic illustration of a thesis ("why did Henry V win at Agincourt?"), and so have some value...but not gameworthy enough to justify the bookshelf treatment that SPI's game got.

However, there are historical situations where the decision makers had enough latitude and enough control that a simulation of them is also a very interesting game, as long as it doesn't get bogged down in details. Agincourt was a blowout, but the Hundred Years War (or a portion thereof) could be an extremely interesting military-diplomatic simulation. (I own an operational game called Black Prince that was published as part of the Book of Sandhurst Wargames, and a "big view" HYW game that was published in S&T a while back, but I haven't had a chance to try either one.)

Basically, what Haffrung said.

I used to play a ton of stuff, not so much lately.  In the last 2 years, nothing at all.  In the 2-3 years before that, a couple of games of OCS Tunisia, and a half-finished game of Empires in Arms.  I've still got a boatload of OCS games and some TCS and a few other select games (Empires in Arms, f'rex)...I'm moving to Seattle soon and I have to sort through my games this weekend and decide what to keep and what to ebay.  I already gave away my extensive Europa collection when I sold my house and moved into an apartment.

I´m a World in Flames, Empires in Arms, Imperium Romanum II strategic person. These are games!

I never understood the appeal of single battle gaming(, until BattleLore). Although I´m inclined to look into some of them as a research tool for my 1453-1648 campaign.

Battle Lore, while played often at my place, is not a wargame. It has enough hooks for exploration of historical themes, though. Being easyer to set up and find players for, it´s my choice for writing historical scenarios for. The read about a battle, write scenario, play it several times circle is way better and rewarding, than searching out some fiddly quad game from 1957 for $1000, only to find that nobody wants to play it.
My next purchase will definitely be Commands & Colours Ancients

Though I cut my teeth on Sniper! and some other sqad level games, we couldn´t wrap our heads around the orange binder (ASL) one  of my gaming buddies bought.

What purpose does ASL have?
What is it trying to accomplish?

Quote from: SettembriniI´m a World in Flames, Empires in Arms, Imperium Romanum II strategic person. These are games!

You know how privileged you are?

If it wasn't fantasy-themed, most of my friends wouldn't play it. That did give us some inspired hours with Divine Right, Magic Realm and such, BUT...

QuoteThe read about a battle, write scenario, play it several times circle is way better and rewarding, than searching out some fiddly quad game from 1957 for $1000, only to find that nobody wants to play it.

Yes yes, very reasonable, whatever. But look at this--it's the pretty:

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/911

*swoon*

I'm telling you, I'm getting SO BORED with RPG talk, especially 4E related (talk, mind you, not the actual games), I have half a mind of becoming a wargamer in my olden days.

My problem:
There´s a certain mindset that is needed for ongoing wargames, like EiA or WiF. As I´m the best player around here, it´s a bit hard to actually encounter a challenge (or to keep monster games from beng cancelled by some wussy who have a low tolerance for frustration).
I play RPGs more and more, because of their non-zero-sum nature. It´s way easier to get players excited about a game were they can work together.

I think this part of the fundamental "superiority" of RPGs over Wargames, broader player base.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityYou know how privileged you are?

If it wasn't fantasy-themed, most of my friends wouldn't play it. That did give us some inspired hours with Divine Right, Magic Realm and such, BUT...



Yes yes, very reasonable, whatever. But look at this--it's the pretty:

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/911 (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/911)

*swoon*

I'm telling you, I'm getting SO BORED with RPG talk, especially 4E related (talk, mind you, not the actual games), I have half a mind of becoming a wargamer in my olden days.

Empires of the MA would actually a very easy sell for the people I know. It´s more a boardgame than a wargame in my book.

RPG talk is:
poisoned by the Forgers
poisoned by the Fetishists
poisoned by the huge amount of people talking about them, without understanding them fully (which actually incorporates the two points before this one)

So yes, RPG talk is boring and inane most of the time. Wouldn´t it be for my self-adopted mission for educating people, I could stop it without losing anything. Still, my anger sometimes overrides my educative qualities. Sort of a catch-22. Educating the ignorant and oblivious is motivated by anger, but the anger gets in the way of reaching people.
Good thing I´m not a teacher in RL.

Quote from: SettembriniWouldn´t it be for my self-adopted mission for educating people, I could stop it without losing anything. Still, my anger sometimes overrides my educative qualities. Sort of a catch-22. Educating the ignorant and oblivious is motivated by anger, but the anger gets in the way of reaching people.
Good thing I´m not a teacher in RL.

Ah now that one's easy. To be a great teacher all you need to do is a) focus on the positive only--don't waste your time attacking others, state your own case; b) have smarter things to say about your field than everybody else; c) do not ever look down on the kids, it's not THEIR fault they know nothing, they're here to learn; d) let THEM entertain YOU; e) stiff upper lip.

That simple!

The problem is, that I´m assuming online participants are adults.
And I don´t have patience with adults, if I take them seriously. But who can take the likes of TonyLB seriously? Still, you don´t know beforehand who is thinking and who´s a bozo. The process of finding out is tedious and I see less and less value in it.

Now in RL, the power and knowledge distribution is clear. That makes it way easier in my experience, even when educating adults. They came to learn from me (or I from them), so there is none of that online bullshit of "it´s just your opinion, everybody´s opinion is sacred".

EDIT: Back to Wargaming. Explain ASL to me, what´s it´s purpose?

Quote from: SettembriniEDIT: Back to Wargaming. Explain ASL to me, what´s it´s purpose?

I'm hardly qualified to wax about the subject, but ASL is a consolidation of the basic SL game plus its massive "gamettes," which expanded but also partly contradicted the SL rules and each other, into a single comprehensive unholy tome. As if 3E had been 2E plus every single kit and options book rolled into one.

But I'm sure you know that, so... is there an underlying point here?

Quote from: Pierce InverarityYou know, not those with the minis in spiky armor. Those with the cardboard counters and the stacking rules thereof.

It appears I shall soon possess a copy of Squad Leader. Never played it, but I've read up on it and am positively psyched.

Which wargames, or counter-based boardgames broadly conceived (Divine Right qualifies, ditto Magic Realm, Dragonhunt, Wizard's Quest...), did you / do you enjoy most and why?

Played many, haven't played one for awhile but my son is getting to the age where it will happen.  He already wants to the rules are a bit beyond him at the moment.  Looking to play more.

Squad Leader was one I first got serious about.  Beware "open ground" comrade.  And Russian off-board artillary just s*cks, because the radios s*uck. :D

Blitzkreig was maybe the first I played.  Titan is one of my current favorites along with Britannia (probably my favorite overall) and Black Beard.  Only Britannia lends itself well to two-player play.  BattleFleet Mars is also a great two player game, I could go on and on as I remember more.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityI'm hardly qualified to wax about the subject, but ASL is a consolidation of the basic SL game plus its massive "gamettes," which expanded but also partly contradicted the SL rules and each other, into a single comprehensive unholy tome. As if 3E had been 2E plus every single kit and options book rolled into one.

But I'm sure you know that, so... is there an underlying point here?

What is the purpose of the game itself?
Why should I go to the lengths of ASL-Rulopedantry?
What do I get in return?

Quote from: SettembriniWhat is the purpose of the game itself?
Why should I go to the lengths of ASL-Rulopedantry?
What do I get in return?

If you've seen the rules they are highly specific and ASL I believe includes erratta.  You can certainly get the gamettes and just choose which version to use.  You don't even need the gamettes but they give you more nations, counters, and options.  The refined rules may also provide greater simulation.
Squad Leader by itself is a very playable game, played many a game.  Oh I wanted the gamettes, just could never afford them.

The purpose of the game itself?  You mean why did they make ASL?  To consolidate and update the game.
Do you mean the purpsoe of Squad Leader?  It is small unit tactics, to answer the question how well would you have done as a small unit leader.  Most games are played as scenarios, with points for certain acheivements, the number of points determine victory level.

So ypu play prepackaged scenarios to learn how you would have fared as a Squad Leader in WWII?
Is it that?

And the realism-bloat is the method to lend credibility to the outcome , i.e. your player skill, or even your squad leader skill?

EDIT:

My point is also: why aren´t they playing a historical tabletop? Why aren´t there Minis for ASL?

Quote from: SettembriniSo ypu play prepackaged scenarios to learn how you would have fared as a Squad Leader in WWII?
Is it that?

And the realism-bloat is the method to lend credibility to the outcome , i.e. your player skill, or even your squad leader skill?

EDIT:

My point is also: why aren´t they playing a historical tabletop? Why aren´t there Minis for ASL?

From your questions I take it you haven't played a Squad Leader game nor come from hex and counter wargaming?

Squad Leader is a historical table-top game and it does have "minis".  
The use of hexs is to regulate movement and remove the need for a ruler and all the fighting that can cause.  Unlike squares the distance between hexes is the same in any direction, hence the hex and not square grid.  
It does have minis, the counters.  Minis being representational pieces for units.  Counters are a much cheaper alternative for providing large numbers of units and allowing for the scale of squad leader.  Each "mini" representing a squad (13 men in the US in WWII).  The game is about the tactics not the playing pieces.

When it comes to historical accuracy, Squad Leader and others of it's ilk go much further than most of their lead mini predecessors or children.  They are of the military war game lineage, that is, the little numbers on the counters are based on actual data of squad effectiveness, equipment reliability etc.  The "test" of these systems has always been given actual battles, employing the actual tactics used, the outcomes on average are the same.   This data is actually available form the US Army.  The work of Dupuy in "Understanding War" is a great example what they are after.  

There is a lso a reason it's called Squad Leader, leaders are very important.

The scenarios come with the game, 44 IIRC came with Squad Leader and they are laid out so you can run a campaign that takes you from 1940 to 1945.  Some of these are modeled on actual battles.  They are also laid out from using few rules in the first to adding in more units and rules by the end.  The game also gives you a point value for each unit so you can design your own scenarios and gives you examples of victory conditions for various levels of force imbalance.

It would be nice to think Squad Leader can give you an idea of how you would have fared as a WWII squad leader, but I thnk most wargamers would caution not to take it too far.  For what it does and can do, it gives a good feel for squad level tactics and the relative strengths and weakness of actual WWII units.

Oddly, Squad Leader was the first RPG I played.  Yes we made up rules for our leaders to get better as we progressed from scenario to scenario (+1 to +2 etc.) and would empathize with and curse said same leaders when they rallied broken troops or fired a LMG to deadly effect.

I love love love SL, but I won't vouch for its realism, really.  The game affords you much more control and knowledge of the battlefield than historically possible.  But the system has a wealth of detail (that contributes to a perception of realism) that facilitates choices for players: do you Defensive Fire on that advancing stack?  If you do, you might hurt it, but you might roll a Cower result.  Double-time those guys on your left flank to reach the objective a bit faster?  Better watch your enemy's LOS (and hope he doesn't have any hidden forces) and remember that they'll be CX (exhausted) for a turn.  What type of ammo does your Sherman fire to take out that Panther?  etc.

The rules bring your player skill to the fore, definitely.  The whole system is designed "for effect," that is, not to replicate history, but to give the player the "feel" of fighting out a battle at this level.  The original SL is the best example of design for effect produced, and it generates a level tension beyond most games I've played, even other tactical games on the same scale.

Interestingly, the system started out as a miniatures ruleset, but AH wanted a boardgame.  John Hill made 1" = 1 hex and went from there.

ASL does have miniatures, or did at one point.  The Deluxe ASL modules featured huge hexes sized for 1/285 minis.  Many folks use ASL as a tabletop game, as well.

Xanther, the game's scenarios are not set up as a campaign, and John Hill admitted to "eyeballing" the numbers in the system to gain effect rather than historical accuracy (you want its contemporary Tobruk by Hal Hock for precision data...that's a great game, too, but for different reasons).  Additionally, I think you haven't read Sett's posts to this thread and many others.  He's quite a seasoned wargamer from what I can see.

Quote from: KenHRI love love love SL, but I won't vouch for its realism, really.  The game affords you much more control and knowledge of the battlefield than historically possible.  ...

Agreed.  Fog of war and command and control is a hard thing to do and not something I think SL was intended to do but there were some fog of war rules for hidden units.
 

QuoteThe rules bring your player skill to the fore, definitely.  The whole system is designed "for effect," that is, not to replicate history, but to give the player the "feel" of fighting out a battle at this level.  The original SL is the best example of design for effect produced, and it generates a level tension beyond most games I've played, even other tactical games on the same scale.

Exactly, but I think the test of such games is given historical set ups the results are not too far out of line with what happened, at an abstract level.

QuoteInterestingly, the system started out as a miniatures ruleset, but AH wanted a boardgame.  John Hill made 1" = 1 hex and went from there.

Interesting, good decision by AH, could never have afforded the miniatures,

QuoteXanther, the game's scenarios are not set up as a campaign, and John Hill admitted to "eyeballing" the numbers in the system to gain effect rather than historical accuracy (you want its contemporary Tobruk by Hal Hock for precision data...that's a great game, too, but for different reasons).  Additionally, I think you haven't read Sett's posts to this thread and many others.  He's quite a seasoned wargamer from what I can see.

I thought the scenarios were in chronological order, but going purley from memory here.  I do recall we set them up as a campaign, not a campaign in the sense that units carried over from one scenario to the next but keeping track of victory points.

My recollection is John's "eyeballing" comments were to counter criticisms about various guns made by the serious hard-core statistics guys.  Really where can you get statistics for the American Hero unit?  I guess I'm confusing game company desire, various games, and my own wishful thinking with facts.  

Nevertheless pretty good "eyballing" I'd say.  Maybe it comes out of the design for "effect" which in a way is just what Dupuy did, start with the effect/outcome and work backwards to combat value, although the goal is eventually to work forward.

Tobruk, the naval combat and base of operation Pacific theater game?  Man I'd forgotten about that one, a great game.



Sorry Sett, I haven't read many of your posts or threads.  I'd assumed the question on why not minis and historical table-top was coming from seeing SL as incompatible with the use of minaitures or a hexless table-top.  I also just wrongly assumed every wargamer knows of and/or played SL, it just seemed to be the game (besides Panzerblitz) for so long.  No insult meant.  I apologize for making those assumptions and being defensive.

I certainly will agree with you on the realism-bloat, and I'd say rule-bloat.  I love SL but the rules detail and conditional rules made it quite an effort to play beyond infantry.  But what did I know back then, we just thought that's the way it was done so we memorized the 6 point font books so the game moved along.

Xanther, you don't remember SL well enough to be commenting on it. Sett, please take Xanther's comments with a grain of salt, he's (unintentionally) muddying the waters.

It doesn't help that Settembrini is being contrary. If you have a point, Herr S., why don't you, like, MAKE IT?

What is a great squad-level game according to you, or do I hear you say all squad-level games are shit?

No, no, I´m not contrary.

But as my question after the purpose, or mission statement, of ASL wasn´t answered, I was uttering some of my questions, which I know stem only from lack of knowledge.

The squad games (Sniper! and some WEG game I fail to remember) we played were nothing special. You could play scenarios, and we also had some experienmce and campaign rules. But it seemed so focused on individual playing pieces, that we wondered why not to play an RPG instead.
There was no point for us in playing these.

And as many people really love ASL, I´m sure I´m missing something. And as I don´t know what I´m missing, I can´t verbalize it.

Do you play tournaments?
Campaigns?
Published campaigns?
Self made ones?
GM or no GM?
Wouldn´t "realism" YELL for double blind play?
Is there a community?
Can you tell your tall stories from Scenario XY and everybody will relate to it?

Quote from: SettembriniNo, no, I´m not contrary.

But as my question after the purpose, or mission statement, of ASL wasn´t answered, I was uttering some of my questions, which I know stem only from lack of knowledge.

The squad games (Sniper! and some WEG game I fail to remember) we played were nothing special. You could play scenarios, and we also had some experienmce and campaign rules. But it seemed so focused on individual playing pieces, that we wondered why not to play an RPG instead.
There was no point for us in playing these.

Tactical warfare.  Some folks, myself among them, enjoy the chaos and up front and personal nature of tactical gaming.  While SL/ASL do not recreate the actual fog-of-war from the battlefield, the system has tons of chaos and a bit of hidden placement/concealment that gives you some of that.  Winning in spite of all the random things that can go wrong makes for a great story.

Quote from: SettembriniDo you play tournaments?

You can, yes.  There are several national tournaments in the US, and quite a few in Europe.

Quote from: SettembriniCampaigns?

Yes.  There are modules for that purpose.

Quote from: SettembriniPublished campaigns?

Yes.  See above.

Quote from: SettembriniSelf made ones?

Yes.

Quote from: SettembriniGM or no GM?

None, but people do have their own double-blind systems that use GMs.  GMs are also used at tournaments for rules adjudication.

Quote from: SettembriniWouldn´t "realism" YELL for double blind play?

Yes, but the system's not about "realism."  It's about offering a complex set of choices.

Quote from: SettembriniIs there a community?

Yes, a very large, vocal and dedicated one.

Quote from: SettembriniCan you tell your tall stories from Scenario XY and everybody will relate to it?

Yes.

Quote from: XantherTobruk, the naval combat and base of operation Pacific theater game?  Man I'd forgotten about that one, a great game.

Errr...no.  Tobruk.  North Africa.  Nowhere near the Pacific.

MG-Btl 8 for the win!

Quote from: SettembriniWhat is the purpose of the game itself?
Why should I go to the lengths of ASL-Rulopedantry?
What do I get in return?

I'll try to start fresh.

The original game is tactical scenarios focusing on infantry combat; the main actors are squads and leaders; everything else (machine guns, tanks, etc.) is supplementary, though of course MGs are damn important. The main hooks of the game are, first, the morale & leadership system, and second, the interactive sequence of play (something that's often overlooked). While some other games have "pinned" or "disrupted" results for fire combat, SL elaborates on the concept by making it (generally) quite hard to kill a unit outright. Instead an effective attack (bera in mind this is tactical, therefore ranged, combat) is usually going to cause a "morale check" on the target. Different units (mainly a function of nationality and elite status) have different morale values, so some will break more easily than others. Breaking causes a unit to seek cover (if it isn't already in it) and to sit there, cowering, until a leader rallies it. Leaders are also rated for personal morale (they can break under fire, too), as well as leadership value. The latter gives them a bonus for rallying units; leaders can also improve the performance of units they're stacked with, though at some risk since if a leader breaks, the morale effect on stacked units is severe. Between basic fire values, morale, and the availability of (good) leaders, the tactical quality of German, Russian, and American armies is represented vividly, if somewhat "impressionistically". So the Russians are hordes with limited resilience due to a small number of leaders; Germans generally have good flexibility; Americans tend to wither away in the face of fire, but they have good leadership, excellent firepower themselves, and due to a special rule they also tend to rally more quickly.

Beyond that, the presence of various levels of crunchiness (from SL through the gamettes, and then on to ASL) in terms of representing terrain, hardware, types of troops, tactical options--such as snipers, land mines, calling in artillery, etc.--simply provides a very colorful experience. Heck, IIRC there's a Cross of Iron scenario featuring partisans, cavalry, and paratroopers!

Where I stepped off was around the third gamette; I'd already only been able to play the first two gamettes solitaire, and GI: Anvil of Victory reached the point where the rules were both overly complex and somewhat incoherent due to the introduction of concepts that overlapped or clashed with earlier design elements.

ASL basically takes the whole thing and re-engineers it from a clean sheet; however the cost is that you don't get a simple, basic (and reasonably priced!) game to start from. In my very biased opinion, the purpose of the game is to meld the basic SL engine, which in itself yields very dynamic play, with the historical miniaturist-cum-hardware-fetishist fascination with detail--so you can enjoy seeing the difference between minor PzKfW IV variants, or play a scenario featuring a Churchill Crocodile, and later one featuring a Flammpanzer 38(t). And also you simply get a huge variety of "stuff" to play with, so on the off chance you tire of scenarios based on the invasion of Belgium, you can play out an ambush in Yugoslavia, and it'll feel different because not only are Belgian troops different from Yugoslav partisans, there are even different counters for top-notch and lower-quality German infantry.

Quote from: SettembriniThe squad games (Sniper! and some WEG game I fail to remember) we played were nothing special. You could play scenarios, and we also had some experienmce and campaign rules. But it seemed so focused on individual playing pieces, that we wondered why not to play an RPG instead.
There was no point for us in playing these.

No, but that's just it, at least for me who a) is coming to SL as a roleplayer, b) hasn't yet received his ebay copy so doesn't know what the hell he's talking about, but still--yes, it does sound RPG-y. There's even a BGG thread on "Wargames with RPG elements," and SL is right up there. But that's a good thing!

I was going to start a thread about hybrid RPGs/wargames. What's the diff, really, between SL on one hand and a game like Behind Enemy Lines (by Keith) on the other? As soon as you have named counters you start caring for them.

The appeal to me is how an RPG-like adventure emerges from tactical play and randomness.

I'm sure that was part of the appeal of all those fantasy wargames as well. In Divine Right you get to be both Tolkien and Napoleon (if I may indulge in a little hyperbole :D ).

I don't think that makes these games either bad wargames or bad RPGs. They are their own thing.

Quote from: Elliot Wilenso you can enjoy seeing the difference between minor PzKfW IV variants, or play a scenario featuring a Churchill Crocodile, and later one featuring a Flammpanzer 38(t).

You say that as though it's a bad thing! :haw:

QuoteASL basically takes the whole thing and re-engineers it from a clean sheet; however the cost is that you don't get a simple, basic (and reasonably priced!) game to start from. In my very biased opinion, the purpose of the game is to meld the basic SL engine, which in itself yields very dynamic play, with the historical miniaturist-cum-hardware-fetishist fascination with detail--so you can enjoy seeing the difference between minor PzKfW IV variants, or play a scenario featuring a Churchill Crocodile, and later one featuring a Flammpanzer 38(t). And also you simply get a huge variety of "stuff" to play with, so on the off chance you tire of scenarios based on the invasion of Belgium, you can play out an ambush in Yugoslavia, and it'll feel different because not only are Belgian troops different from Yugoslav partisans, there are even different counters for top-notch and lower-quality German infantry.

This makes a LOT of sense. Now I can relate to it.
I know some model builders who´d kill for a game like this, and go on a killing spree for a game like this invloving airplanes.

PzKpfW IV variants, the military enthusiasts form of talking about vintage wine!

Quote from: SettembriniI know some model builders who´d kill for a game like this, and go on a killing spree for a game like this invloving airplanes.

I'd suggest they look into the Airpower series from GDW/Clash of Arms, and related games by J.D. Webster (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/designer/1465). (I have Speed of Heat myself.)

Quote from: KenHRErrr...no.  Tobruk.  North Africa.  Nowhere near the Pacific.

Sorry I'm thinking Truk and a Pacific naval game where it featured prominantly.

I'm not going to post anymore while sleep deprived or go off recollection, although I can recollect many games and strategies, at least Russian ones.

Basically if you see me posting at 3am after a 17 hour day at work, followed by waking up at 7:30am to do it all over and posting again, whatever I say should be ignored.  Since 17 hour work days are not unusual in my life that could be a common occurance.

Quote from: XantherSorry I'm thinking Truk and a Pacific naval game where it featured prominantly.

I'm not going to post anymore while sleep deprived or go off recollection, although I can recollect many games and strategies, at least Russian ones.

Basically if you see me posting at 3am after a 17 hour day at work, followed by waking up at 7:30am to do it all over and posting again, whatever I say should be ignored.  Since 17 hour work days are not unusual in my life that could be a common occurance.

:D

I hear yah.

Truk...hmmm...it was very important, but there is one game where it can be utterly decisive...would that be Victory in the Pacific?  Great, simple, playable, but wonderful game based on War at Sea?  I taught my older brother how to play that a few years back when he wanted to see what my wargame obsession was all about.  We spent an entire summer playing it...until I started reading strategy articles like Alan Moon's infamous TKO In Three.  Jim didn't get that into wargaming, and when he saw me using those strategies, he stopped playing.

(We did work up a Scrabble obsession that persists to this day soon after, though...)

Hah, TKO in three is garbage! (Spoken in the same vein as a chess-geek arguing over the merits of the Nimzo-Indian.)

The wonderful thing about VitP: first you learn to play the game, then you think you've hit the perfect strategy, then you think you've found the perfect counter-strategy, then you realize that there's no perfect strategy that beats understanding the game. Sorta like Jeet Kune Do.

Hehehe, yeah, I have the rebuttal articles as well (General mags are collectible crack for me), and told Jim to read them.  He had no interest in it.

Man, I really, really still am searching for the EiA and Civilization issues of The General. Some very neat strategy articles.

The Revolutionary scenario and advanced naval rules are pure gold!
Nice simulation and nicely put into fun subsystems.

"Madame Guillotine!"
Linear vs. Melee tactics!

The World in Flames strategy articles and designer´s notes are also compulsary reading for anyone trying to actually accomplish anything in those games.

Good times, indeed.

I don't play many hex-and-counter games, but I still play a LOT of *historical* miniatures.  No spikes!

Mostly WW2 and Medieval.

Quote from: Old GeezerI don't play many hex-and-counter games, but I still play a LOT of *historical* miniatures.  No spikes!

Mostly WW2 and Medieval.

Cool!  I also play a lot of historical miniatures.  Oh, and I do play with some spikey miniatures every once and a while, but not very often.

What rules do you usually play?  I may be totally mistaken, but I seem to recall that you live in England.  Here in the States WW2 is currently almost monopolized by Flames of War, and Warhammer Historicals is one of the most popular Medieval rules, at least in Central Texas.  Frankly, I find both playable and fun, but they are missing something for me...can't really put my finger on it.

A friend and I are currently doing the most grognard of all activities - designing our own rules set for Napoleonics!  :emot-rock:


TGA

Quote from: The Good AssyrianWhat rules do you usually play?  I may be totally mistaken, but I seem to recall that you live in England.  Here in the States WW2 is currently almost monopolized by Flames of War, and Warhammer Historicals is one of the most popular Medieval rules, at least in Central Texas.  Frankly, I find both playable and fun, but they are missing something for me...can't really put my finger on it.

Nope, Minnesnowta, USA.

WW2 is usually Command Decision, and for medieval it's a set of homebrew rules geared for fast play.  As in, reach a decisive conclusion in 4 hours with over 1000 figures.

Quote from: Old GeezerNope, Minnesnowta, USA.

Hmmmm...I wonder where the hell I came up with England! That's exactly what I get for relying on my memory.  :p

Quote from: Old GeezerWW2 is usually Command Decision, and for medieval it's a set of homebrew rules geared for fast play.  As in, reach a decisive conclusion in 4 hours with over 1000 figures.

Cool!  I am a Command Decision fan from way back.  We played a lot of CD 2 and 3 over the years at the University of Texas historical wargaming club.  I remember complaining about the speed of the game, but when I joined the club in the early 90s there was a general trend locally to play monster games of CD.  In one memorable case we actually had two full Soviet divisions attacking a river line.  In that particular game after four or five hours of play (including preparatory artillery bombardments) the lead assault units had barely gotten over the river and every other Soviet player had just been sitting around waiting for something to do.  Then, magically someone suggested that we should really take Chadwick's word in the design notes that the game should be played on the battalion level.  Once we strictly enforced the one player = one battalion model the games went smooth as silk and CD remains one of my favorites.

Have you seen or played Command Decision 4?  I have read a bit about it, but don't quite know what to make of it.


TGA

I have played CD 4, with a referee.  I've never read the rules.

I don't know them well enough to comment, other than they seem to follow the general principles of WW2 combat.

We mostly do small-level engagements -- 5 to 10 vehicles per side or so.

Where can I find out how Wargames are designed?
There surely are tons of articles on that, no?

How and which sources to dig up, how to operationalize the variables etc.
Construction Kits?

Quote from: SettembriniWhere can I find out how Wargames are designed?
There surely are tons of articles on that, no?

How and which sources to dig up, how to operationalize the variables etc.
Construction Kits?

You should read consimworld.com.  It's a big wargame forum, several designers hang out there and talk quite a bit about their design processes and research.  Boardgamegeek has some threads on the same subject (warning: if you think rpg.net is saccharine and full of hoity-toity snowflake-types, you might want to stay away from this site.  I stopped posting there after a gigantic thread about pics featuring women.).

For research, there are a wealth of resources available.  Nafziger (sp?) sells OOB information.  Many books (Jane's catalogs, Ian Hogg books, WW2 Handbook of German or Japanese Forces, to name a few) have hardware info.  There are tons of websites with AFV statistics of varying quality.

Anything specific you're looking for?

1. http://www.hyw.com/Books/WargamesHandbook/Contents.htm
It´s free, online and has some neat numbers in it!

2. Thanks for the comment, Ken! I leave the WWII and Contemporary stuff to the pros, I´m interested in Pike & Musket era conflicts, with my left eye on the Hundred Years War and the right eye on the Seven Years War.

Sett, if you poke around Consimworld at all, look for posts by Ben Hull.  He's the designer of GMT's Musket & Pike series of games and seems to be a sort that likes picking apart the particulars of his designs.  Unfortunately, I know very little about that era myself (ancients and modern-era are my current obsessions, with a little AmRev thrown in).

I have a hard time navigating that site. Ben Hull, I´m coming for you!

Just thought of this.  GMT has a lot of their rules available for download.

http://www.gmtgames.com/living_rules/tacwplay.pdf

That link goes to the rules for This Accursed Civil War, which has a decent bibliography and designer's notes.  Unfortunately, the only other M&P series stuff available for download from GMT is the series rulebook and charts, which don't have design notes.

But it might give you a start.

Awesome link to that Dunnigan book!

I've been asking myself the exact same question--is there something like a theory forum for wargames? I'll check out that consim thing.

Ken, that pdf is super!

look pierce, there is hope  for us:

Quote"This Accursed Civil War" (TACW) was
originally published as a Desk Top Published
(DTP) game in September of 1999.
It started with a new found interest in the
16th and 17th Centuries. I started doing a
good bit of reading and collecting games
from that period, not that there are very
many. GMT's "Lion of the North" (Lion),
3W's "Royalists & Roundheads" (R&R),
SPI/DG's "Thirty Years War Quad" made their way into my
hands. If you have played any of those, you may recognize some
of the concepts from each. The idea of doing my own game
came from many engaging discussions on the ConsimWorld
discussion board. I noticed that the designers of Lion and R&R
both had gone the DTP route and I figured that instead of arguing
about their mechanics, I would have a go myself.

That sounds like something I´d like to and feel able to do, too. Without publishing of course, just for my own pleasure.

That´ll be fun.
But first, there´s still a WoWiAdvWriMo module to finish...

But the research and game collection part should be a fun start.

If you wade through Consim, there's lots and lots of good, practical advice on designing your own games and do-it-yourselfing components (CSW is responsible for me getting a Fiskar's rotary cutter, lots of adhesive paper and foam sheets to make my own maps and counters).

Boardgamegeek has some good discussion as well, if you avoid the Euro-snoot crowd (BGG's "Swine" equivalent).

Again, Euro-focused, but http://www.bgdf.com/tiki/tiki-custom_home.php has some very good discussion and advice if you're looking to do your own designs.

In addition to Dunnigan's book, off the top of my head I'd recommend a visit to  Alan Emrich's Principles of Game Design (http://www.alanemrich.com/PGD/PGD_Directory.htm).

Mighty fine stuff, Commodore!

Seconded.

Thirded!  Great link, Elliot.

Another book I could recommend is Wargame Design (http://www.amazon.com/Wargame-Design-Strategy-tactics-staff/dp/0882545833/ref=sr_1_1/102-8968651-7953703?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1190815632&sr=8-1) written by the staff of Strategy & Tactics magazine in the glory days.  I also enjoyed a neat little book called Pentagon Games (http://www.amazon.com/Pentagon-Games-Wargames-American-Military/dp/0060961309/ref=sr_1_1/102-8968651-7953703?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1190815845&sr=1-1) by John Prados which covers how wargaming impacted the American military establishment.


TGA

Thanks for the pointer to Pentagon Games, Good Assyrian.  I was aware of the other books and sites mentioned, but not this one.