Cpl. Fields
South Africa
Hopelessly Surrounded
Isandlwana, Zululand
-
It's very interesting to hear the different takes on this issue, and some good points have been raised.
pete belli wrote: 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.
That's probably the most the most eloquent defence of the series approach that I've read. I do feel though that as a player, it should be more important to grasp the situation than the game system - in other words, that a well-designed game on Civil War tactical combat should present me with the same possibilities and challenges as the commander whose role I'm assuming. Assuming that both designs are valid, I should be able to play This Hallowed Ground ten or twenty times (we'll assume a lifespan of 200 years for the purpose of this argument), then play Pickett's Charge with an equal degree of success - that success being dependent on my appreciation of the terrain, armies and tactics, not on some quirk of the CRT or a special exception to rule 23.4(b).
DocStryder wrote: 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.
You know, I used to feel that way, but these days my opportunities to play are so few and far between, and my memory is becoming so poor, that I find I have to re-read pretty much the entire rulebook anyway, so it may as well be something new and fresh.
Xookliba wrote: 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.
Yup. I know it's irrational but I still find it hard to stop. For series like Der Weltkrieg or GCACW there is some logic to this, because the games can be joined; for others, like GBoH, not so much.
Ashiefan wrote: 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.
I totally would have traded DAK2 for your copy of Cheriton - pity you didn't have it on your trade list... 
leroy43 wrote: 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.
I tried CC: Europe and gave away my copy. Just not my cup of tea. So that's one series I avoided collecting. Probably a good thing for me, as they seem to be coming out fast and furious. Tactical WWII isn't really my thing anyway, but this is one case where a series approach might make sense, assuming you accept the design premise. In the case of Combat Commander (or ASL for that matter), I don't, so the question is moot.
Capt_S wrote: 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.
I strongly agree with this, and happily pre-order any M&P game as it's announced. But this upside is also the downside - so much of GMT's output is devoted to series games, and I'd rather see some unique designs and fresh approaches. Of course, when that does happen and the game is a success, they turn it into a series...
-
Cpl. Fields
South Africa
Hopelessly Surrounded
Isandlwana, Zululand
-
delp1871 wrote: 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.
Nah, unless my schizophrenia worsens I'll never play EiA. But Chandler's Campaigns of Napoleon is on my reading list for this year, and I just can't read a history book unless I have a game at hand on the same topic. I thought it might be cool to use the map and counters to follow the campaigns in the book as I'm reading.
-
Jeb Smith
United States
California
-
Another series fan here.
Benefits: Familiarity ... Minimal lost time learning rules. Maximize enjoyment. Companies can churn out a considerable number of games at a low cost to allow me many different situations with the same rules.
Issues: Sometimes the series gets extended beyond what they are good at. SCS is the poster child here with some of their smaller games not fitting well with the system. My solution ... don't buy the less successful implementation of the the game systems and sell off the titles you don't like. This is not inevitable with any series ... I have yet to find a bad OCS game.
I think the only problem with series games are if you feel compelled to buy the series 'just to complete it' otherwise why care one way or another?
-
Hunga Dunga
United States
Portland
Oregon
-
I'm surprised no one has mentioned Battles from the Age of Reason (BAR), a tight rules set, and a great variation in battles to choose from. A modified series has been created for battles in the American War of Independence.
-
Cpl. Fields
South Africa
Hopelessly Surrounded
Isandlwana, Zululand
-
Hungadunga wrote: I'm surprised no one has mentioned Battles from the Age of Reason (BAR), a tight rules set, and a great variation in battles to choose from. A modified series has been created for battles in the American War of Independence.
I like the original BAR - it's like La Bataille but you don't have to be barking mad to play it - but it required too much jerry-rigging to fit the American Revolution IMO. It's never a good sign when you have to change something as basic as the ground or SP scale. BAR is good at modeling big, professional European armies, but the smaller and often asymmetrical nature of AWI battles doesn't fit that mold.
-
Cpl. Sadler 8-0
United States
Rockville
Maryland
Hey, MMP! I want Marines, not Finns! RISING SUN NOW! HAAKAKAKAKA PALAAAAAAA LATER!
-
I stopped buying things simply because they were in a series I enjoy. I love SPQR and Enemy at the Gates, so why did I never play Devil's Horseman or Case Blue? Because I still enjoy SPQR and Enemy at the Gates and they certainly don't get played enough to get bored of them.
-
Cpl. Fields
South Africa
Hopelessly Surrounded
Isandlwana, Zululand
-
BeatPosse wrote: I stopped buying things simply because they were in a series I enjoy. I love SPQR and Enemy at the Gates, so why did I never play Devil's Horseman or Case Blue? Because I still enjoy SPQR and Enemy at the Gates and they certainly don't get played enough to get bored of them.
And you call yourself a wargamer?
-
Cpl. Sadler 8-0
United States
Rockville
Maryland
Hey, MMP! I want Marines, not Finns! RISING SUN NOW! HAAKAKAKAKA PALAAAAAAA LATER!
-
Twice a wargamer because I bought both games and liked the old ones better.
-
Cheong Sang Lai
Hong-Kong
Happy Valley
None
-
I am neutral to both series games and non-series games. I like them both equally. I agree with the points the op makes but also agree to the positive points about series games as well.
A few months ago I learnt the Napoleonic 20 series from VPG and ended up playing 8 different games from the series (all new to me) in one day!! Almost impossible were it not for the series rules.
-
Wendell
United States
Arlington
Virginia
All the little chicks with crimson lips, go...
Hey, get your stinking cursor off my face! I got nukes, you know.
-
I have never bought a single game from a series. (WIF ain't a series - it's expansions.)
Mostly because they tend to be tactical, and I'm a field marshall or supreme commander not a brigade or squad leader...
-
Gary Cope
Goose Creek
South Carolina
-
I am an old time wargamer and I have hardly ever bought into a series of games. I buy them to play them. therefore if the second game subject matter after a great first game does not trip my trigger, I am not buying it.
I do own a few series games, Combat Commander being on of them. But all the parts of this series intrique me.
My best friend although is a "Completist" as he refers to his buying habits as far as wargames go. He will buy an entire series. (He is also an accomplished business man so I understand where some of this comes from).
Just my two cents on an interesting conversation!!!!!
Game this day !!!!!!!
-
Rich Payne
United Kingdom
Barnsley
South Yorkshire
-
Nearly everything I own is from a series: Panzer Grenadier, GWAS, L'n'L, MPBS and Rome at War. I suppose Prussia's Glory II could be classed as series, although I think of it as a sequel. I tend to like series for the resons already given: less time learning rules, it's easier to hand over 50 quid when you know basically what you will get, and also, in the case of Avalanche Press games in particular, as you build the series there are some great cross-over opportunities between games. I'm especially thinking of GWAS here, as I own virtually all of the boxed games, meaning I have everything to play the books and downloads, which open up some great alternative history options. Panzer Grenadier has similar potential, though I doubt I'll ever own enough of it to access some of the more obscure supplements.
The "AP" model rewards the 'loyal gamer' although it may well irritate the casual follower who finds they need to by seven boxed games, two books and a download to play an add-on on thier favourite subject. L'n'L have something similar with both Lock 'n' Load and World at War, where you nedd an add-on to play an add-on. In fact, World at War even frustrates me because each add-on requires a different base game, meaning to play the two add-ons that appeal to me, I would first need to buy most of the series.
On the other hand,series rules do mean you can compare different forces across a period of time. Again, GWAS, L'n'L and PG are great for this. And you can use your massive counter collection to model a vast range of historic or totally made-up scenarios not included in the game itself. And I like the way a series looks on my shelf, so I'll probably be a series buyer for the foreseeable future 
-
Peter Martin
United States
Oceanside
California
-
This is a timely thread for me. I'm realizing that I like the idea of a series of games that share the same basic mechanics. For example, the game systems that I play now are
Great Campaigns of the American Civil War
Operational Combat Series
Battles of the American Revolution
Napoleonic 20
For me, once I learn the system, it is easy for me to pick up any game in the series and play it - even if I haven't played in a while.
-
Steven Mitchell
United States
New York
New York
-
Sorry, I didn't read through the entire thread, so my apologies if I'm being redundant. The reasons I like series is similar to what I think Mark was saying in his first post.
The prime advantage is the series approach seeks to distill commonalities and differences. The series rules are a way of theorizing, 'This is what the essence of this period's doctrine was.' Then the specific rules are a way of theorizing, 'These are the particular problems to which the standard doctrine had to adapt.'
For example, if you're designing a few games about European WWI, and it doesn't result in something like series rules, then you arguably haven't actually captured the essence of WWI warfare. For the purposes of why I wargame, such a WWI game will be ultimately useless, because it has become so particularized to such-and-such front, that you've lost sight of the era's military doctrine. And a large part of the reason I game is to understand doctrine and its applications. (Lest anyone think I'm saying otherwise, DWk is an instance of a series that, by and large, does this right.)
Or take OCS. The reason why I find it a success is because the series rules do attempt to describe the way that military doctrine might have been taught. Because the European fronts were the main focus of military theory, it's proper that the European modules have nominal special rules. Contrariwise, it's proper that DAK be a different beast, because desert warfare was not in the forefront of the minds of theorists.
As for SCS, I think labeling it a series is a bit of a misnomer; really it is forcing a square peg into a round hole, in order to fit into The Gamers' series-based line. Yes, there is a series rulebook, but really, the series rules are nothing more than standard Classic Wargame boilerplate.
-
Richard Irving
United States
Salinas
California
-
There is NO real difference between "expansions" and "series game". The difference comes to a question of manufacturing costs.
If the "new" game using the same rules as an earlier game requires entirely new map (or a series of maps), entirely new set of counters (if units ID's are important either for gameplay or flavor (Bulge just isn't the same if defended by Russian units from a Stalingrad game), etc.), that the publisher has to give you almost everything for a complete game anyhow--the "new" game will become part of a series.
If the "new" game using the same rules as an earlier game can be implemented through a few scenario cards and maybe an isomorphic map to add to your collection or a small counter sheet--the "new" game will be presented as an expansion.
Some systems like ASL or Combat Commander use both styles. Introduction of new nationalities or a new theatre become "modules" or "volumes". Whereas smaller expansions simply include a series of scenarios (possibly ones that related) as marketed as "scenario packs", i.e. "only" an expansion.
-
Wendell
United States
Arlington
Virginia
All the little chicks with crimson lips, go...
Hey, get your stinking cursor off my face! I got nukes, you know.
-
rri1 wrote: There is NO real difference between "expansions" and "series game". The difference comes to a question of manufacturing costs.
Yes there is. I challenge you to play Planes in Flames without having World in Flames.
-
Steven Mitchell
United States
New York
New York
-
rri1 wrote: There is NO real difference between "expansions" and "series game". The difference comes to a question of manufacturing costs.
False, though I would define them differently than Wendell. I would say that 'expansions' are a subset of 'series', such that the former is a 'series' with relationships of dependence.
Regardless of how one relates the two, there is a load of difference between buying Yanks and not having any other ASL releases; and buying Brandywine and not having any other BAR releases. That is pretty much exactly the difference between 'expansion' and 'series'.
-
Steve Arthur
Australia
New South Wales
-
I'm hoping that Mark Simonitch's excellent games Normandy '44 and Ardennes '44 are the precursors to some sort of series...I really like the mechanics that these games have in common...
-
Jon Williamson
Canada
Calgary
AB
-
I tend to view "expansion" as it equates to dependence, so jive with Wendell's and Steven's definitions. Generally, you cannot play an expansion without a previous product (normally some nodal originator game). Both the parent game and the offspring expansion use a common rule set, but the latter may add to and/or modify it.
A "series" uses a common rule set applied to all games within it and each member normally has a subset of rules unique to it in some way. Any game in the series is standalone so ownership of a parent game is not required.
However, this is just an exercise in semantics and individuals will define these differently. Somewhat like the "what is a wargame" question only less contentious. Less vague too.
I think "series" as set up in the OP could apply to either a series or an expansion as I define them. In essence, a family of games. I think this because the same question applies.... do you like game series / games with expansions or no? It is the purchasing path that is at question here.
-
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)
-
Atraxrobustus wrote: I'm hoping that Mark Simonitch's excellent games Normandy '44 and Ardennes '44 are the precursors to some sort of series...I really like the mechanics that these games have in common...
I've held off so far, but if he comes out with a Holland '44 to fill the gap, I'm sold on all three (because then all my dad's major WW2 actions would be covered).
-
Warren Bruhn
United States
Portland
Oregon
-
Used to collect the Squad Leader series up into ASL, but gave it up and sold them off a couple of decades ago. Collected almost all of the GBACW SPI/TSR series and played several of them, but the only ones I'm tempted to keep are Bloody April and Corinth. I'll probably sell off the whole lot though. No longer makes sense to keep a lot of games around that will never be played.
Not into collecting cardboard games anymore, series or not. A giant black hole for my money and space came along a decade ago. The black hole is called "miniatures."
Zuludawn, I hope you get to play that Empires in Arms game. It's an interesting experience if you find 7 of the right kind of players.
-
Steve Arthur
Australia
New South Wales
-
Patrick Carroll wrote: Atraxrobustus wrote: I'm hoping that Mark Simonitch's excellent games Normandy '44 and Ardennes '44 are the precursors to some sort of series...I really like the mechanics that these games have in common... I've held off so far, but if he comes out with a Holland '44 to fill the gap, I'm sold on all three (because then all my dad's major WW2 actions would be covered).
Now THAT would be a winning trifecta...
-
Paul Cornelissen
United States
Phoenix
Arizona
-
Capt_S wrote: [O]ne plus for me regarding series purchases relates to the P500 [system].
I can't think of a better litmus test before purchasing. An "old" game coming back with 500 pre-orders before reprinting is a virtual guarantee of money well spent -- and that doesn't even count the mounted maps often included in those new editions.
SimGuy wrote: 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.
I realize there are some extraordinary folks out there who can compartmentalize dozens of rule books in their cranium, but I can't. I have no time or patience for "lifestyle" games like ASL and the other super-series games mentioned in this thread. That's why I stick to mini-series games like CC and CoH.
Not to be a bugger, but most of the super-series games listed throughout this discussion don't crack the top 50 war games on BBG (Case Blue and DAK2 are two exceptions). Doesn't that really tell the whole story?
-
Jason Smith
United States
Capitola
California
-
I'm a sucker for series games. Once I invest the time and effort to learn a game system that I like, I'm hooked. I don't see much point in learning a new game about a particular battle or war that is covered by a series I already know. I suppose that if there are huge differences that will significantly improve my gaming experience, I might look into a new system, but I have neither the time nor the inclination to master fifty different game systems. I always ask myself, is a new system worth the extra time and effort to learn when a system I already know works fine? For example, I've finally gained some mastery of the Musket and Pike system. I like this system. At this stage it doesn't make any sense to me to buy any tactical treatment of the English Civil War other than This Accursed Civil War. I've invested a lot of effort into learning this system. So, regardless of what other tactical games about English Civil war exist, I've placed my pre-order for This Accursed Civil War, and will not buy any other tactical English Civil War game. There might be a "better" tactical English Civil War game out there, but This Accursed Civil War is the one I will buy and play.
I also have to admit that the collector in me tends to influence my decision to buy more games in a series. Of course, if I buy a game in a series that I don't like, I'm not going to buy more games in that series, but if I like a game, there's a strong chance that I will want the other games in the series, even if the subject matter of these other games would not normally pique my interest. I don't think a tactical treatment of the Scanian wars would normally grab my attention, but that did not stop me from buying Nothing Gained But Glory.
-
Steven Mitchell
United States
New York
New York
-
Largo68 wrote: Not to be a bugger, but most of the super-series games listed throughout this discussion don't crack the top 50 war games on BBG (Case Blue and DAK2 are two exceptions). Doesn't that really tell the whole story?
If BGG told the whole story, maybe, but it most certainly doesn't. Sooooo....
-
|
|
Posted Thu Feb 9, 2012 4:41 am
