Cpl. Fields
South Africa
Hopelessly Surrounded
Isandlwana, Zululand
-
Back in December I was looking over my OCS games and came to the realization that I'd probably never play most of them. So I went on a trading spree and, in return for Sicily, DAK2 and Case Blue, I've lined my shelves with RAF, The Burning Blue, Empires in Arms, Trial of Strength, Russian Civil War and Battle of the Little Bighorn.
Looking over my new games, I realized that none of these titles was part of a series: all were stand-alone games with a unique approach to their topic. That's certainly not why I acquired these specific games, but it did make me realize how much I've come to dislike the series approach to wargames. I still have quite a few - I kept a couple of OCS games, and have several of the GMT Revolutionary War series, most of Ben Hull's Musket and Pike titles, CWB, SCS, GBoH, GCACW, GBACW, LMNOP, etc. etc.
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with the series approach per se, and I'm familiar with the arguments in favour of them: you learn the series rules once and can then quickly get into any of the titles of the series. The rules are tried and tested, and you know what to expect. Fair enough, but...
1. Series games almost invariably use the same map and counter graphics, and frankly I get bored with them. I bought SPQRin 1993, and The Devil's Horsemen in 2004. Graphically there's not much to choose between them. Call me attention-deficient, but I like a bit of variety in map and counter styles. I'm starting to get a certain "ho-hum" feeling when I read an announcement for the 37th game in the Decisive Campaigns of Whatever series.
2. The stable rules argument becomes a good deal less compelling when you're a) using version 2.1 or 3.5 or 4.57a of the series rulebook, or b) the game-specific rules are longer than the series rules.
SCS is the poster child for this last point. One game series that covers WWI strategic, WWI operational, WWII strategic, WWII operational, WWII grand tactical... Really, what does the Schlieffen Plan have in common with the German airborne assault on Holland in 1940, or the American defence of Bastogne? I mean, other than guys shooting at each other.
I'd rather see a stand-alone treatment of a battle than a series game that has to shoehorn in a lot of special rules to make the battle fit the series. It may be more work to learn a new system, and there may be some disappointments when venturing into new ground (I'm looking at you, ATO), but part of the thrill of exploring a new game is discovering how the system deals with command control or morale or combat resolution, how the terrain and units are presented graphically, and how the sequence of play captures the flow of the historical battle or campaign.
I'd like to know what others here think - are you hard-core series fans, or do you long for the unknown? Is it better to model a battle by adding special rules to an existing system, or by designing from the ground up to focus on the peculiarities of the situation being covered? Are series games an example of design laziness, or design consistency?
-
Jim F
United Kingdom
Birmingham
West Midlands
HRC - His Royal Cheekiness, Rajah Babu
-
I don't have much to say on the topic but somebody got a seriously good deal on their trade unless the games you cite where just a part of it.
-
Proudly annoying Capitalists since 1959
Cuba
Santa Clara
Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned, Nor hell a fury like a woman scorned
-
Very nice post.
I can see the appeal of series games (I just bought DAK2), but it must know it's limits.
The 2 series that come to mind, where I only here good sounds are:
Operational Combat Series
Although I understand that each has a lot of game specific rules (With DAK being the one with most ), the core rules seems to be used every where and are the true hart of the system.
Also their topic don't "range" that much. Most of it is WW2 (is only Korea the exeption?).
Another series I hear good things about:
Der Weltkrieg Simulation Series
Good thing here ofcourse is that it only covers WW1, but uses the different games to cover different fronts.
A few differences will arise when comparing the west front to the ottoman fronts, but in general the games use the same rules.
Some series are pure marketing tricks (IMHO). SCS, GBOH, etc..
I don't mind them, but it doesn't appeal to me either, and the formula can sometime backfire (I guess).
If you don't like a one of the games in the series, you're bound to NOT buy the next in line.
Cheers, Haring
-
Robert Wesley
Nepal
Aberdeen
Washington
-
 Actually, "Bighorn" were part of a Trilogy, so far as these were going. I have their prelude "Battle" to this one, with: Battle of the Rosebud; of which is a topic & subject that I hold dear, and only surpassed by events surrounding "the Alamo".
-
M Stumptner
Australia
Unspecified
-
I like series because they allow me to compare and contrast. Armies vs armies, situations vs situations, maps vs maps. However, there are two caveats.
First, care must be taken to not push the envelope of the system too far. Der Weltkrieg, CWB, TCS and OCS work, IMO, because they are used within a consistent period. (Any there are many other series I would say that about.)
But you always see people suggesting things like an OCS Guadalcanal, or a TCS on some city siege. I think they overlook the design parameters that make these series workable.
Second, there is the very real question of being able to play one's way through a series. Unfortunately, all three series above are far too detailed for me to have a chance to do that. There are no CWB games where a full battle would be playable below 10 hours; the typical TCS campaign takes 20 hours or more (although there are some shorter games out there). OCS is way beyond good and evil for me. I suspect that if you need an eternity to get through a series, you have way more time to get bored with it. I am a sharp critic of VPG's Napoleon 20 series (I like to call them "Napoleonic pinball" due to the bizarre way in which corps bounce around ZOCs in there), but likely no one who likes that series gets bored for the, say, 6-8 hours that it takes to go through all of them once.
I agree on the need for stability, by the way. I've been buying TCS since the early 90s. There was a five-to-six year period in the 90s when I just did not buy them, because I was waiting for the constant rules churn to end, and an 8-year period after 200 when I bought but did not . play waiting for 4.0. Now my play is on hold waiting for 4.1. Modification is fine but the more complex the rules, the more disruptive it is.
Now, your comment on SCS is well made. I think SCS is a shotgun marriage to many of its topics. It's very mobile and very exciting and so it has many fans but many of the games in the series have little historical feel to me. Also, several have special rules that are longer than the series rules... that sort of seems to fly in the face of the concept.
Quote: 1. Series games almost invariably use the same map and counter graphics, and frankly I get bored with them.
I think that depends on the publisher - the look of the TCS games has changed fundamentally over time in multiple ways, and usually for the better although there are certain changes I've never agreed with. 
Quote: 'd rather see a stand-alone treatment of a battle than a series game that has to shoehorn in a lot of special rules to make the battle fit the series. It may be more work to learn a new system, and there may be some disappointments when venturing into new ground (I'm looking at you, ATO), but part of the thrill of exploring a new game is discovering how the system deals with command control or morale or combat resolution, how the terrain and units are presented graphically, and how the sequence of play captures the flow of the historical battle or campaign.
I think there's space for both - but when I have discovered a system that works well for an era, I'll be more likely to want to be able to use it so I can compare how different battles relate in size, tactics, forces etc., rather than throw myself blindly in the arms of the next experiment that comes along. There are far too many new games out there that don't improve the state of the art. Of course there are also some long-lived series that have remained frozen at the state of the art of the 1970s, and so I see lots of publisher money spent on long lines of games that I have zero interest in. There's no such thing as a free lunch.
-
Joe Thompson
England
Winchester
-
There is something very nice about opening a new box and instantly being able to understand the counters and map.
I like my map porn; like you I'd be disappointed if the publishers used the fact that it's part of a series to avoid innovating on the graphical front.
Series rules do evolve over time. But this can be an advantage since it allows you to amortize the development costs among many games.
Would the excellent OCS 4.0 rules exist if they were just for a single game?
For smaller games you have a point, often I'd rather have a single rulebook, rather than series rules + game specific rules that heavily modify it (Clash of Giants II and the SCS games spring to mind here).
-
Pete Belli
United States
Florida
-
A carefully crafted series game offers what might be on of the best psychological simulations of military command.
Experienced military commanders from the time of Alexander the Great to the modern era already had a solid understanding of the distances a unit can move, how units fight, the importance of accurate intelligence, and the supply requirements of their forces.
These generals and admirals – with some historical exceptions like the Allies in France 1940 – typically do not need to consult a new set of rules before each campaign. Certain paramount elements could be viewed as universal constants that remain relevant throughout a leader’s military career – and often throughout military history.
When wargame players are able to plug their knowledge of a game system (similar to the advantage provided by military experience and established doctrine to an actual leader) into a new situation they can begin to understand the true burden of command.
Military leaders do not have an opportunity to play the same game twice; they do not refight their battles with the benefit of the learning experience provided by a previous engagement. However, they do learn the “rules” of warfare. Grant did not refight the Rebel breakout at Fort Donelson or the logistical disaster Holly Springs, but he did carry the lessons of those campaigns on the march to Vicksburg.
Even the best wargames provide a mere shadow of the realities of command, but a wargamer playing a new game with a familiar system is in a situation similar to an experienced general conducting a new campaign. The commander already knows the “rules” and applies them to a new strategic situation. Even if this commander encounters a new wrinkle (the compound bow, chainmail, rifled muskets, trench warfare, the blitzkrieg, atomic weapons) he still knows the basic rules. The leader must adapt to this fresh challenge or face defeat.
-
Cpl. Fields
South Africa
Hopelessly Surrounded
Isandlwana, Zululand
-
Ashiefan wrote:
I don't have much to say on the topic but somebody got a seriously good deal on their trade unless the games you cite where just a part of it.
Sicily --> Empires in Arms
DAK2 --> Burning Blue and RAF
Case Blue --> Trial of Strength, Russian Civil War, and Little Bighorn.
To be honest, I've never been much interested in whether a trade was balanced or not. If I have a game I know I'm not going to play I'll happily trade it for one I will, or failing that, just give it to someone who wants it.
I still have Guderian's Blitzkrieg II and Korea, which is probably more OCS than I'll ever get around to playing.
-
Cpl. Fields
South Africa
Hopelessly Surrounded
Isandlwana, Zululand
-
M St wrote: Der Weltkrieg, CWB, TCS and OCS work, IMO, because they are used within a consistent period. (Any there are many other series I would say that about.)
I would add the Musket and Pike series, which deals with a very specific and narrow subject, as well as having the most stable rules. I do have a slight issue with CWB - I'm not convinced that the command model, which suits the trained armies of '62-'64, fits the amateur mobs that fought at Bull Run. For that reason I found Three Battles of Manassas the least satisfactory of the games, at least the First Bull Run scenario. For that battle I prefer Iron Crown's Manassas.
Quote: But you always see people suggesting things like an OCS Guadalcanal, or a TCS on some city siege. I think they overlook the design parameters that make these series workable.
Someone posted a thread here the other day suggesting an OCS game on Vietnam.
Quote: I am a sharp critic of VPG's Napoleon 20 series (I like to call them "Napoleonic pinball"
Quote: Quote: 1. Series games almost invariably use the same map and counter graphics, and frankly I get bored with them. I think that depends on the publisher - the look of the TCS games has changed fundamentally over time in multiple ways, and usually for the better although there are certain changes I've never agreed with.
This is true. I remember though the howls of protest over the attempt to redo the Barren Victory map:
So perhaps gamers themselves are to blame for that. When you think about it, game graphics in general haven't advanced much over the past 15-20 years.
Quote: ...but when I have discovered a system that works well for an era, I'll be more likely to want to be able to use it so I can compare how different battles relate in size, tactics, forces etc., rather than throw myself blindly in the arms of the next experiment that comes along.
I feel that way about the M&P series, and will continue to buy new games in that line. I used to feel that way about CWB, but after 20 years, too many titles, and too many changes, the blush is off the rose. I'd really like to try something different.
Der Weltkrieg isn't so much a series as a giant game being sold in pieces (and I mean that in a good way).
-
M Stumptner
Australia
Unspecified
-
zuludawn wrote: I do have a slight issue with CWB - I'm not convinced that the command model, which suits the trained armies of '62-'64, fits the amateur mobs that fought at Bull Run. For that reason I found Three Battles of Manassas the least satisfactory of the games, at least the First Bull Run scenario. For that battle I prefer Iron Crown's Manassas.
I can see how this could be argued to be "outside the basic parameters". Certainly, as an orders system fan, even I quail at the notion of writing orders for every brigade. But I probably would slot this in under "out of scope" rather than a problem with the series approach - we are talking one battle out of three in a box that is one of, what - fifteen?
Quote: Someone posted a thread here the other day suggesting an OCS game on Vietnam.
No comment....
Quote: This is true. I remember though the howls of protest over the attempt to redo the Barren Victory map:
I agree that fan conservatism plays a role, though from what I remember, part of the complaints were due to the fact that it was supposed to turn into a three-mapper from a two-mapper - I know many gamers for which that would have meant buying a game that (unlike the previous edition) they could no longer play in full.
Quote: I used to feel that way about CWB, but after 20 years, too many titles, and too many changes, the blush is off the rose. I'd really like to try something different.
And that's perfectly understandable. I've been more of a cherry-picker, have probably only played half of them, and so I'm still interested in trying out the odd one that comes along, such as the Atlanta playtest kit that surfaced a couple of years ago (complete with a rather charming retro-style map reminiscent of the first couple games in the series).
Quote: Der Weltkrieg isn't so much a series as a giant game being sold in pieces (and I mean that in a good way).
Yes, I see the construction kit nature, and if that means more people buy it I'm all for it. But I can't see myself ever playing the Duration Game and since I first played The Schlieffen Plan, 14-15 years ago, I've been quite willing to play the modules on their own. The only one so far that was really too restricted to make replaying it interesting was IMO Galicia. And I haven't tried Italian Front yet...
-
Richard Diosi
Canada
Newcastle
Ontario
-
It's funny that you post this as I am moving in the opposite direction to you. I am currently in the throws of picking up almost exclusively series games in exchange for putting one off mediocre games on the funeral pyre. I am doing it because I cannot realistically expect to read through and remember the rules to 50 different games. I find solace however in a series where once read (well almost) the rules only change minorly between battles within that series (well again...almost). Good one off games are still worth keeping because...well...they're good
After reading this I am now hoping that I don't experience your situation after playing the series games over a period of time...but if I do I'll be too old to care 
Haring wrote: Another series I hear good things about: Der Weltkrieg Simulation SeriesGood thing here of course is that it only covers WW1, but uses the different games to cover different fronts.
This one was actually designed to cover both the WW1 and WW2 conflicts in the geographic area (hence the funky hexes and detail to terrain which didn't change much from between 1914 and 1945). I believe the designer has stated that he probably won't get to any WW2 engagements though in his lifetime.
-
Jeff Kuhn
United States
Garner
North Carolina
-
Great topic. Unfortunately, this is also an entirely subjective topic. I do not think there is any clear objective answer to this question. One can easily point to a series (such as East Front Series) which consistently models the battles in the series and does it damn well. Others, as the OP pointed out, maybe not so much. I am sure that fans of the series are very happy with the fact that new titles can be produced at a much greater pace because of the series framework which has been laid.
On a subjective note, one thing not pointed out about series is the "collective" pressure that they seem to exert. I have found myself (against my will and better judgment) becoming somewhat of a "completist" in that I must own a significant portion, if not all, of the series. I find that I have in fact dumped some of the series I owned because of this phenomenon, mainly because they were not seeing any play time, and consuming a non-commensurate part of my extremely tight gaming budget.
I have so far resisted this urge with the CC series, because I am not all that interested in how the French or Italian card decks model those forces inherent weaknesses (although I am sure it is a fascinating topic). But perhaps tactical scale games are a different beast, most are series with the individual games more or less simply providing more scenarios, which only seems right.
-
Ben Delp
United States
Franklin
Tennessee
-
zuludawn wrote: Back in December I was looking over my OCS games and came to the realization that I'd probably never play most of them.
I want to know what made you think that Empires in Arms was going to get played. And I don't mean that as a smartass, either: If you have enough players around for a 7-man Empires in Arms game, I'm moving to where you are (not Spain, I know). Because the UMP rules stink, as I learned the hard way.
Edit: More to the point, though, I like the series games because I can play new games and not go through the personal upheaval of having to learn an entirely new ruleset every single time. I'm in a wargaming group right now, and because there are 4-5 of us, we take the opportunity to play every "big" game we can. Sort of like "reading the clasics" for wargamers. But whenever we start a new game, I have that feeling of being a poor teammate/opponent and diminishing the others' experience because I don't know what the hell I'm doing until the game is nearly over. Rinse and repeat.
-
Jim F
United Kingdom
Birmingham
West Midlands
HRC - His Royal Cheekiness, Rajah Babu
-
zuludawn wrote: Ashiefan wrote:
I don't have much to say on the topic but somebody got a seriously good deal on their trade unless the games you cite where just a part of it.
Sicily --> Empires in Arms DAK2 --> Burning Blue and RAF Case Blue --> Trial of Strength, Russian Civil War, and Little Bighorn. To be honest, I've never been much interested in whether a trade was balanced or not. If I have a game I know I'm not going to play I'll happily trade it for one I will, or failing that, just give it to someone who wants it. I still have Guderian's Blitzkrieg II and Korea, which is probably more OCS than I'll ever get around to playing.
I totally understand your point of view - a game that isn't getting played has very little value. I'm just sore because I wasn't the one that traded with you, esp for DAK 2 which I've been outbid on ebay style more than once.
-
Sean McCormick
United States
Brooklyn
New York
-
Xookliba wrote: Great topic. Unfortunately, this is also an entirely subjective topic. I do not think there is any clear objective answer to this question. One can easily point to a series (such as East Front Series) which consistently models the battles in the series and does it damn well. Others, as the OP pointed out, maybe not so much. I am sure that fans of the series are very happy with the fact that new titles can be produced at a much greater pace because of the series framework which has been laid.
On a subjective note, one thing not pointed out about series is the "collective" pressure that they seem to exert. I have found myself (against my will and better judgment) becoming somewhat of a "completist" in that I must own a significant portion, if not all, of the series. I find that I have in fact dumped some of the series I owned because of this phenomenon, mainly because they were not seeing any play time, and consuming a non-commensurate part of my extremely tight gaming budget.
I have so far resisted this urge with the CC series, because I am not all that interested in how the French or Italian card decks model those forces inherent weaknesses (although I am sure it is a fascinating topic). But perhaps tactical scale games are a different beast, most are series with the individual games more or less simply providing more scenarios, which only seems right.
Well, the EFS is actually taking a very narrow focus. Same front and, importantly, same year for every module, so you have similar army capabilities and doctrines being exercised with different terrain and force distributions.
Tactical games are likely best suited to the series treatment as you say.
-
Patrick Carroll
United States
Carver
Minnesota
"If a thing is worth doing, it is worth doing badly." (GK Chesterton)
"That's how the light gets in." (Leonard Cohen)
-
zuludawn wrote: I'd like to know what others here think - are you hard-core series fans, or do you long for the unknown? Is it better to model a battle by adding special rules to an existing system, or by designing from the ground up to focus on the peculiarities of the situation being covered? Are series games an example of design laziness, or design consistency?
I don't know what's better from a designer's perspective, but I'm lazy about learning new rules--especially when there are as many rules as a typical wargame (of even moderate complexity) has.
I was wishing for what became known as series even in the early 1970s, before such things existed. It annoyed the heck out of me that each new game had a whole new set of rules. I was so thankful for the SPI quad games and for copycat games and expansions to popular games. More to enjoy, less to have to learn.
Sure, I was disappointed when only one game in an SPI quad was very good. But as long as the others didn't totally suck, I was still ahead.
In the end I've taken more and more to tactical wargames. I had always envied miniatures wargamers for being able to do so much with just one set of rules. With a good tactical wargame series, I can do the same thing. (I'm not going back to ASL, though; sometimes learning just one set of rules can be as bad as having to learn many different sets.)
-
-
+1 for laziness. I like series games.
-
Hunga Dunga
United States
Portland
Oregon
-
If you're interested in a particular era or grand campaign, it makes a lot of sense to use the same rules, with necessary add-ons in case of special situations.
On the other hand, I'm not sure that SCS is supposed to be using them same rules so much as providing different games at a relatively similar level of complexity.
-
"L'état, c'est moi."
Canada
Vancouver
BC
Roger's Reviews: check out my reviews page, right here on BGG!
Who let this guy become wargame subdomain moderator anyways?
-
zuludawn wrote: 1. Series games almost invariably use the same map and counter graphics, and frankly I get bored with them. I hear you there. I don't get bored per se, but it's nice to see the Musket & Pike series with different map graphics at least as the series has worn on.
Quote: 2. The stable rules argument becomes a good deal less compelling when you're a) using version 2.1 or 3.5 or 4.57a of the series rulebook, or b) the game-specific rules are longer than the series rules. This.
Quote: I'd rather see a stand-alone treatment of a battle than a series game that has to shoehorn in a lot of special rules to make the battle fit the series. How do you feel about games like the Combat Commander Series? The battle packs all have some idiosyncrasies, but they've all made sense in the context of the scenarios. Then again, I feel that scenario packs/expansions to games is different than "Volume x of the American Revolutionary War series".
Quote: I'd like to know what others here think - are you hard-core series fans, or do you long for the unknown? Is it better to model a battle by adding special rules to an existing system, or by designing from the ground up to focus on the peculiarities of the situation being covered? Are series games an example of design laziness, or design consistency? I generally like the idea of series and applaud systems that work well (Combat Commander fits that mould for me). That said, while there are some series I just keep buying (Musket & Pike), on the whole I'd prefer to have the great game about ____; which game that is depends entirely on personal preferences naturally. I think the best thing is probably to ignore series (unless or perhaps especially if you're the kind who simply must have everything in the series) as series and simply get the one or two games in a series that sings out to you.
-
Jon Williamson
Canada
Calgary
AB
-
I am not sure if it has been mentioned in this thread, but one plus for me regarding series purchases relates to the P500. I am completely comfortable forking over money for a game sight unseen if it belongs to a series that I enjoy.
M&P is the standout for this line of thinking. Same for many of the GMT series.
-
Jim F
United Kingdom
Birmingham
West Midlands
HRC - His Royal Cheekiness, Rajah Babu
-
Capt_S wrote: I am completely comfortable forking over money for a game sight unseen if it belongs to a series that I enjoy.
M&P is the standout for this line of thinking. Same for many of the GMT series.
Agreed. Played 'Accursed Civil War' solo after owning it for over a year and thought - what took me so long?
-
Lance McMillan
United States
Lakebay
Washington
-
I like series games because many of my friends aren't regular gamers and we only get together a couple times a year. If a game uses a system that they're already familiar with, I don't have to take up a lot of time teaching them how to play, they already know and understand the basics. Series play also minimizes the experience they need to get their play up to a reasonably competitive level. If I introduced a new game system to them every time, play for them would be tedious (having to learn something new every time) and boring for me (since they wouldn't be able to really offer me much of a challenge).
I can certainly appreciate how constantly replaying the same game system over and over could lose its alure for some, but I don't play often enough for that to be an issue.
-
Andrew Heath
China
Liaoning
-
The problem I have with series games is that, at least for me, they create a tremendous inertia that is very difficult for me to overcome.
I have Eric Lee Smith's masterpiece The Civil War sitting on my shelf unplayed, and I am in love with it, but it's just soooo easy to throw another PG scenario on the table!
Thank Buddha wargames don't "go bad" ! 
-
Sim Guy
United States
Albuquerque
New Mexico
-
Another Series fan. As I've gotten older, those thick rulebooks have lost their allure. What I used to revel in as a wealth of detail, just seems tedious to me now - and it takes away from my limited gaming time. If I'm going to invest time into reading a heavy rule book, and I still do on occasion, more often than not it is probably a new game series.
At the tactical level, more series games just means more pieces, maps, and scenarios - and I love big games.
-
4.1 Rules
United States
Rutland
Vermont
Drop the dice and step away from the table!
Move along, nothing to see here!
-
I never used to be big on series until the last few years. Now I am an Operational Combat Series and Der Weltkrieg Simulation Series player. I love both series. Recently I have also started buying some Civil War, Brigade (CWB) Series games, with the intention of getting into these to.
As far as Standard Combat Series goes. I like some of these games very much and others not so much. I agree with many of the criticisms on the series in this thread but I do think there are several gems here.
-
|
|
