Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
29 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Gaming Related » Recommendations

Subject: Trying to begin with Wargaming: Take 2 rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Fel Barros
Brazil
Rio de Janeiro
RJ
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Senior Game Developer at CMON
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I asked quite some time ago about a wargame that would make me interested in playing them. I tried the pseudo-wargames like Memoir'44, Tide of Iron, Battle Lore even Twilight Struggle.. however none of them appealed to me and the hex-and-ugly stuff/paper map board, i am out.

After all this time gap, I will try again:

1) Components. My biggest grip about wargaming always has been the poor boards and the ugly hexes. I am used to top-notch stuff from Queen Games and Michael Menzel with sturdy board, so poor drawn hexes , those ugly stuff in blocks and map boards are out for me. (If it's not ask too much, I like miniatures!)

2) Complexity: I don't want bread and butter stuff nor I want to go over a chart to check for air resistance , angle or any overly detailed stuff. Many difficult decisions is cooler than consulting for every hit.

3) I like diceless Card Driven games. Don't have an issue with dice but Card Driven is cool.

4) Perhaps the one I missed the first time. I miss the management part of the warfare more than the maneveurs. Like resources to buy more guys (this one appeals me), lack of food to feed them, logistics and mainly manage money. I really enjoy the background of warfare.

5) Historical Accuracy: I am a teacher and as such I am familiar with many history geeks. A game with a very deep history really appeals to me.

6) It makes a good 2p game. I like the 1v1 aspect in warfare.

I am looking for Britannia but don't know if it's too light? Also Successors but the components seems to be lacking? I don't like Axis and Allies nor minis games. So those are out too.

Anyone can give me some heads up?

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ryan Powers
United States
Marble
Minnesota
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Are those preferences in order, or more or less equal in weight?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Colin Hunter
New Zealand
Auckland
flag msg tools
badge
Stop the admins removing history from the Wargaming forum.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
FakeDutch wrote:

2) Complexity: I don't want bread and butter stuff nor I want to go over a chart to check for air resistance , angle or any overly detailed stuff. Many difficult decisions is cooler than consulting for every hit.
Complexity Generally makes decisions more difficult. It isn't to say you can't have difficult decisions without complexity, but complexity does often add depth.
Quote:
4) Perhaps the one I missed the first time. I miss the management part of the warfare more than the maneveurs. Like resources to buy more guys (this one appeals me), lack of food to feed them, logistics and mainly manage money. I really enjoy the background of warfare.
There are some truly superb games that look after this, but none of them are simple and non-random. The OCS series is famous for its supply rules for example, but many other games systems utilize logistics to some extent.
Quote:

5) Historical Accuracy: I am a teacher and as such I am familiar with many history geeks. A game with a very deep history really appeals to me.
Another difficulty we will have here is that randomness and complexity often allow for better historical depth, by wanting a game without these it is hard to make a good suggestion.
Quote:

I am looking for Britannia but don't know if it's too light? Also Successors but the components seems to be lacking?
Britannia is not two player and frankly neither is successors, both are good games, I'm guessing you might like Britannia. If I had to go for anything I might suggest Napoleon's Triumph, although it lacks the supply issues you are interested in. Another possibility might be something like Paths of Glory, I'm not sure how much complexity you can handle, but it has great play depth and while it uses dice a lot of this is well mitigated.

Anyway I hope you find something, your criteria are definitely hard to meet. Good luck
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bill Morgal
United States
Elkridge
Maryland
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Experiencing senility daily since... I forget.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb


Have you looked at Waterloo: Napoleon's Last Battle?

Before Richard Berg did Chainmail, he did Waterloo. The components are good, It has moderate complexity. Very interesting card mechanics drive the game just as they do in his recent Chainmail game. Oh, and no ugly hexes. You have squares instead.

I enjoy this game, but take that with a grain of salt; I also enjoy a lot of the games you mentioned in your post that you don't.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andrew Young
Wales
Wellesley
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
badge
And if you never have, you should. These things are fun and fun is good.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I don't think you can be pleased. Try soccer or basketball, get out more.


1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kent Reuber
United States
San Mateo
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Given your criteria, I'd consider block games. Many of these games use cards to manage action points (e.g., Richard III: The Wars of the Roses, Hammer of the Scots), you get nice wood blocks rather than cardboard chits, and Columbia's (the primary manufacturer of block games) artwork is top notch. Many aren't terribly difficult games either and play well. In addition, all the rules are on the Columbia Game site so that you can see if they suit you (http://columbiagames.com/).

If you're interested in new unit production, the term used in wargames is "strategic" scale. That is, the conflict you're simulating is long enough and broad enough in scope that there is time to raise and train new units for battle, then bring them to the front.

In "operational" scale games, you usually don't have production, but do have to worry about supply. That is, the time scale is more limited, and you don't have time to raise new units, but you have to keep your units supplied for battle and guard your flanks.

The scale below that is "tactical", where you usually don't have to worry about either supply or production. Battle is joined and you have to fight with what you have.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Leo Zappa
United States
Aliquippa
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
FakeDutch wrote:
I asked quite some time ago about a wargame that would make me interested in playing them. I tried the pseudo-wargames like Memoir'44, Tide of Iron, Battle Lore even Twilight Struggle.. however none of them appealed to me and the hex-and-ugly stuff/paper map board, i am out.

After all this time gap, I will try again:

1) Components. My biggest grip about wargaming always has been the poor boards and the ugly hexes. I am used to top-notch stuff from Queen Games and Michael Menzel with sturdy board, so poor drawn hexes , those ugly stuff in blocks and map boards are out for me. (If it's not ask too much, I like miniatures!)

2) Complexity: I don't want bread and butter stuff nor I want to go over a chart to check for air resistance , angle or any overly detailed stuff. Many difficult decisions is cooler than consulting for every hit.

3) I like diceless Card Driven games. Don't have an issue with dice but Card Driven is cool.

4) Perhaps the one I missed the first time. I miss the management part of the warfare more than the maneveurs. Like resources to buy more guys (this one appeals me), lack of food to feed them, logistics and mainly manage money. I really enjoy the background of warfare.

5) Historical Accuracy: I am a teacher and as such I am familiar with many history geeks. A game with a very deep history really appeals to me.

6) It makes a good 2p game. I like the 1v1 aspect in warfare.

I am looking for Britannia but don't know if it's too light? Also Successors but the components seems to be lacking? I don't like Axis and Allies nor minis games. So those are out too.

Anyone can give me some heads up?



Given this set of criteria, especially the ones regarding
* no hex and counter
* wants money management
* 2 player
* deep history

It would seem next to impossible to identify a good candidate. I think you are going to have to compromise - which of your criteria are most important to you, and least? Perhaps if you rank your criteria, we could find something that fits 75% of the bill.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Doc Bullseye
United States
Brownsburg
Indiana
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
desertfox2004 wrote:
It would seem next to impossible to identify a good candidate. I think you are going to have to compromise - which of your criteria are most important to you, and least? Perhaps if you rank your criteria, we could find something that fits 75% of the bill.


Well...you could always try to design one that fits...
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
E Henry Thripshaw
United States
Pacific NW
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
FakeDutch wrote:
I asked quite some time ago about a wargame that would make me interested in playing them. I tried the pseudo-wargames like Memoir'44, Tide of Iron, Battle Lore even Twilight Struggle.. however none of them appealed to me and the hex-and-ugly stuff/paper map board, i am out.

After all this time gap, I will try again:

1) Components. My biggest grip about wargaming always has been the poor boards and the ugly hexes. I am used to top-notch stuff from Queen Games and Michael Menzel with sturdy board, so poor drawn hexes , those ugly stuff in blocks and map boards are out for me. (If it's not ask too much, I like miniatures!)


If you don't like Tide of Iron or Memoir '44, your only other option short of actual miniatures is something like Axis and Allies miniatures.

FakeDutch wrote:

2) Complexity: I don't want bread and butter stuff nor I want to go over a chart to check for air resistance , angle or any overly detailed stuff. Many difficult decisions is cooler than consulting for every hit.


bread and butter stuff? Look, it's either dice like Axis and Allies or Memoir or it's consult a chart.

FakeDutch wrote:
3) I like diceless Card Driven games. Don't have an issue with dice but Card Driven is cool.


How about cards only?

FakeDutch wrote:
4) Perhaps the one I missed the first time. I miss the management part of the warfare more than the maneveurs. Like resources to buy more guys (this one appeals me), lack of food to feed them, logistics and mainly manage money. I really enjoy the background of warfare,

5) Historical Accuracy: I am a teacher and as such I am familiar with many history geeks. A game with a very deep history really appeals to me.

6) It makes a good 2p game. I like the 1v1 aspect in warfare.

I am looking for Britannia but don't know if it's too light? Also Successors but the components seems to be lacking? I don't like Axis and Allies nor minis games. So those are out too.

Anyone can give me some heads up?


I'd say you're not a wargamer. Nothing wrong with that. You say you like miniatures, but you don't like miniature games. Charts are too complex, but Axis and Allies is out and Tide of Iron is a "psuedo-wargame."

I honestly don't think you know what you want. Why not just read about historical interests and play games you like? I don't think you'll find what you've described here.

It shouldn't be this hard to make something work for you. It's either fun or it isn't. From the sounds of it, you haven't found anything fun yet because they are not your style of games. That's just my opinion.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Fel Barros
Brazil
Rio de Janeiro
RJ
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Senior Game Developer at CMON
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Yeah, I sounded like an annoying moron in my OP that can't be pleased. Let me clarify:

The most important factor is by far, number 4. A game about the economy warfare/management of troops (either via logistics, recruiting or resource scarcity) is my main goal.

I am really annoyed by paper mapboards so that would come as a runner up for "weight decision".

I'd like to have a player aid with necessary info rather than 10 different charts.

Being Card Driven, historically accurate and not hex would be the bonus. I like good looking games. If they can make hex and counter looks good, I am in. Same for blocks.

I really liked the comment "you are not a wargamer". Indeed I am not nor I want to be on the heavier side, however, I get fed up very easily and most of the eurogames aren't cutting the deal anymore. I'd like to try something fresh for a change.

By no means it needs to be 2p only as long as it works good for 2p!


Thanks everyone so far for the heads up ! I am reading about Waterloo now
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andrew Young
Wales
Wellesley
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
badge
And if you never have, you should. These things are fun and fun is good.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
How about Hannibal: Rome versus Carthage using the battle card method to resolve battles?

 

2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
No Cat - No Cradle
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
badge
Meoww
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I think I know where you are coming from.

Richard III: The Wars of the Roses was mentioned previously, but I thought I would point you to this review which should give you a pretty good indication whether it appeals to you or not.

Review

I cannot comment directly as mine is in the mail...I'll get back to you.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Leo Zappa
United States
Aliquippa
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
medievalbanquet wrote:
How about Hannibal: Rome versus Carthage using the battle card method to resolve battles?


+1
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andrew Young
Wales
Wellesley
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
badge
And if you never have, you should. These things are fun and fun is good.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
desertfox2004 wrote:
medievalbanquet wrote:
How about Hannibal: Rome versus Carthage using the battle card method to resolve battles?


+1


My work is done here. Good night, I'll be here all week.

goosaurongoo
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ed Nageotte
United States
Seven Hills
Ohio
flag msg tools
I personally like Lock and Load Band of Heroes as a wargame for 1 or 2 players but I also enjoy most wargames including Memoir 44, Risk, Axis & Allies and the various miniature games such as Flames of War.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Anto Mano
msg tools
War of the Ring (First Edition)
Prince of Chaos: Battle for Tae Orn

Will satisfy most, but not all, of your criteria. Superb components, resource management, no dice in PoC, complexity, 2p; both non-historic, however.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Buhl
United States
Leeds
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
FakeDutch wrote:


1) Components. My biggest grip about wargaming always has been the poor boards and the ugly hexes. I am used to top-notch stuff from Queen Games and Michael Menzel with sturdy board, so poor drawn hexes , those ugly stuff in blocks and map boards are out for me. (If it's not ask too much, I like miniatures!)


How about blocks? The game I'm recommending isn't super glitzy, but the blocks and stickers are pretty high quality. Unless memory fails me, the maps are mounted, but you should check on that.



FakeDutch wrote:
2) Complexity: I don't want bread and butter stuff nor I want to go over a chart to check for air resistance , angle or any overly detailed stuff. Many difficult decisions is cooler than consulting for every hit.

3) I like diceless Card Driven games. Don't have an issue with dice but Card Driven is cool.

4) Perhaps the one I missed the first time. I miss the management part of the warfare more than the maneveurs. Like resources to buy more guys (this one appeals me), lack of food to feed them, logistics and mainly manage money. I really enjoy the background of warfare.

5) Historical Accuracy: I am a teacher and as such I am familiar with many history geeks. A game with a very deep history really appeals to me.

6) It makes a good 2p game. I like the 1v1 aspect in warfare.


Consider



Other than liking cards, I feel much the same way about war games as you describe here (except I like them a lot, like hex and counter games, and don't mind paper maps if they look good). This is one of my very favorite games, ever.

In a later post you say #4 is the most important. There is a CRT that minimizes the dice rolling (or you can have 130+ dice in some attacks, if you want exercise). Resource management is huge in this game. Do you spend for new units, replacements, flak, subs, ASW, navy?

The game with the standard rules more or less forces each nation to follow the historical path of WWII. You can't just invade France, Poland, Denmark, Belgium, Norway, Spain all at once. You are funneled into a historically accurate approach to the war (as the Germans anyway). You still have lots of options to do different things, but not wildly ahistorical ones.

It is a great two player game, and can be nicely expanded to three.

It has lots of difficult decisions, about strategy, tactics, resource management. It's a pretty deep game, not terribly complex. I found the rules pretty easy. I can't remember how good the player aids were, but we got through it pretty well.

There are no cards, so it doesn't fit the bill there. Otherwise, if I'm reading you right, it's a good fit.

And, if you like it and want to go bigger, there's a way to combine it with another game to make the whole war!

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Axel
Austria
Salzburg
Salzburg
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Try Friedrich!

1) "Components": Beautiful


2) "Complexity": Very few rules (taught in 15 minutes or less), but complex gameplay. See this review: Sum of its Parts: Okay, I admit I was wrong

3) "I like diceless Card Driven games": Combat is done with cards, very simple while still engaging

4) "I really enjoy the background of warfare": Friedrich is very low on management, but still you have to support your troups with a supply unit which adds lots of decisions

5) "Historical Accuracy": Friedrich presents a very thorough view on the seven year war

6) "It makes a good 2p game": Sorry, Friedrich is best with 4. And basically it is a 3 vs 1 game
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Judd Vance
United States
Wichita
Kansas
flag msg tools
Every Man a (K-State) Wildcat!
badge
"Just get that sucka to the designated place at the designated time and I will gladly designate his ass...for dismemberment!" - Sho Nuff.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I'd recommend Washington's War.

You said:

1) Components. My biggest grip about wargaming always has been the poor boards and the ugly hexes. I am used to top-notch stuff from Queen Games and Michael Menzel with sturdy board, so poor drawn hexes , those ugly stuff in blocks and map boards are out for me. (If it's not ask too much, I like miniatures!)

It's a beautiful & sturdy board showing the 13 colonies and Canada.



2) Complexity: I don't want bread and butter stuff nor I want to go over a chart to check for air resistance , angle or any overly detailed stuff. Many difficult decisions is cooler than consulting for every hit.

It's more complex than Memoir, but uses about 2 charts. The difficulty in decisions is that it is a card driven game, so how you play your cards and respond to your opponent is always a challenge.




3) I like diceless Card Driven games. Don't have an issue with dice but Card Driven is cool.

We the People was the first CDG. Washington's War is We the People updated. The deficiencies have been corrected, so you should love this aspect about it.



4) Perhaps the one I missed the first time. I miss the management part of the warfare more than the maneveurs. Like resources to buy more guys (this one appeals me), lack of food to feed them, logistics and mainly manage money. I really enjoy the background of warfare.

In this game, you are spreading political influence. The same cards that spread influence are the same cards that allow you to bring in reinfocements. There is a give and take. If you are the British, you have to make sure your troops are south of Virginia or otherwise in Winter quarters, or you'll lose half your armies due to winter attrition. You do not manage supply lines, but you have to make sure your spheres of influence do not get cut off.



5) Historical Accuracy: I am a teacher and as such I am familiar with many history geeks. A game with a very deep history really appeals to me.


The event cards are taken straight from the history of the war. The game does not perfectly simulate the battles, but does give you the feeling of the concept of fighting for indepenedence (the army is a means of meeting your political objectives, because the U.S. lost far than we won in that war, but still managed to win the war).


6) It makes a good 2p game. I like the 1v1 aspect in warfare.

It's a 2-player game.

2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Peter Collins
Canada
Prince Rupert
British Columbia
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
kentreuber wrote:
Given your criteria, I'd consider block games. Many of these games use cards to manage action points (e.g., Richard III: The Wars of the Roses, Hammer of the Scots), you get nice wood blocks rather than cardboard chits, and Columbia's (the primary manufacturer of block games) artwork is top notch. Many aren't terribly difficult games either and play well. In addition, all the rules are on the Columbia Game site so that you can see if they suit you (http://columbiagames.com/).

If you're interested in new unit production, the term used in wargames is "strategic" scale. That is, the conflict you're simulating is long enough and broad enough in scope that there is time to raise and train new units for battle, then bring them to the front.

In "operational" scale games, you usually don't have production, but do have to worry about supply. That is, the time scale is more limited, and you don't have time to raise new units, but you have to keep your units supplied for battle and guard your flanks.

The scale below that is "tactical", where you usually don't have to worry about either supply or production. Battle is joined and you have to fight with what you have.


I can't say it better than Kent. If you're to have any hope of enjoying wargames, you're best bet is to go with the block games. The blocks are fun, there's fog of war and something pleasingly tactile about moving them around. For supply, if you can swallow hard and accept the hexes, I recommend, of course, Rommel in the Desert.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave Daring
United States
Palatine
Illinois
flag msg tools
Warriors of God
area movement
senior citizen counters
meeple

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andy Leighton
England
Peterborough
Unspecified
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
fatgreta wrote:
FakeDutch wrote:


1) Components. My biggest grip about wargaming always has been the poor boards and the ugly hexes. I am used to top-notch stuff from Queen Games and Michael Menzel with sturdy board, so poor drawn hexes , those ugly stuff in blocks and map boards are out for me. (If it's not ask too much, I like miniatures!)


How about blocks? The game I'm recommending isn't super glitzy, but the blocks and stickers are pretty high quality. Unless memory fails me, the maps are mounted, but you should check on that.





I think memory (and observation skills) has failed you. That picture quite clearly has plexiglass over the map - that wouldn't be needed if it was mounted. I think EE has the thicker card board but it isn't a proper mounted board.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Buhl
United States
Leeds
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
andyl wrote:
fatgreta wrote:
FakeDutch wrote:


1) Components. My biggest grip about wargaming always has been the poor boards and the ugly hexes. I am used to top-notch stuff from Queen Games and Michael Menzel with sturdy board, so poor drawn hexes , those ugly stuff in blocks and map boards are out for me. (If it's not ask too much, I like miniatures!)


How about blocks? The game I'm recommending isn't super glitzy, but the blocks and stickers are pretty high quality. Unless memory fails me, the maps are mounted, but you should check on that.





I think memory (and observation skills) has failed you. That picture quite clearly has plexiglass over the map - that wouldn't be needed if it was mounted. I think EE has the thicker card board but it isn't a proper mounted board.


Yes, you're right. And I do remember now that when we played we also used the plexi. So, sorry OP, this game doesn't have a fully mounted map board. It's still a crackin' game.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
p55carroll
United States
Minnesota
flag msg tools
Smooth seas make the voyage more pleasant.
badge
A ship in port is safe, and that's just what ports are for.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
As a longtime wargamer, I'd just like to mention that my views on the points listed are just about all the opposite:

FakeDutch wrote:

1) Components. My biggest grip about wargaming always has been the poor boards and the ugly hexes. I am used to top-notch stuff from Queen Games and Michael Menzel with sturdy board, so poor drawn hexes , those ugly stuff in blocks and map boards are out for me. (If it's not ask too much, I like miniatures!)

While I appreciate the aesthetic appeal of a fine chess set, I've learned not to care about aesthetics when it comes to wargames. I've never seen one that looked that good to me, with or without miniatures; so if it's functional, I'm fine with it.

Quote:
2) Complexity: I don't want bread and butter stuff nor I want to go over a chart to check for air resistance , angle or any overly detailed stuff. Many difficult decisions is cooler than consulting for every hit.

I prefer "consulting for every hit." That kind of intricate detail is what pulls me imaginatively into the immersive experience of wargaming. Makes me feel I'm really there. If I just wanted "difficult decisions," I'd take up Chess or Go. It's rare for a wargame--or any real-life military situation--to involve decision making as deep as what players routinely go through in chess or go.

Quote:
3) I like diceless Card Driven games. Don't have an issue with dice but Card Driven is cool.

I used to like Up Front pretty well. I've dabbled at Battle Cry for light amusement. But I traded For the People away, and I've never cared for games where card play substitutes for detailed, hands-on manipulation of military units.

Quote:
4) Perhaps the one I missed the first time. I miss the management part of the warfare more than the maneveurs. Like resources to buy more guys (this one appeals me), lack of food to feed them, logistics and mainly manage money. I really enjoy the background of warfare.

The background of warfare is not warfare per se. IMO, wargames are all about warfare per se. Me, I've never liked political or economic games, and I don't like seeing those features woven into a wargame design. Basically, I just want to move little guys around the map and make them fight.

Quote:
5) Historical Accuracy: I am a teacher and as such I am familiar with many history geeks. A game with a very deep history really appeals to me.

I look for historical accuracy too, but not "very deep history." A wargame is a simulation, and I want the simulation to be as realistic as possible while still being playable. But I couldn't care less if the game purports to teach me about various problems of command, logistics, production, politics, and so forth. To me, that just means I've got to put up with the designer's opinions while I play the game. I can form opinions of my own, thank you very much, so just give me the facts.

Quote:
6) It makes a good 2p game. I like the 1v1 aspect in warfare.

I think most all wargames are good for that; military engagements have two sides, so it's always one-on-one in a sense. But I myself am far more interested in re-creating historical scenarios than in competing with another game player. If I just wanted satisfying head-to-head competition, the last type of game I'd ever choose would be a wargame. I'd play Backgammon or Cribbage or something like that.

To each his own. I'm just surprised to find someone looking for a wargame but expressing a desire for things very different than what I've always enjoyed about wargames.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Darrell Pavitt
United Kingdom
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
medievalbanquet wrote:
I don't think you can be pleased. Try soccer or basketball, get out more.




The dude's from Brazil. They already know about football.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.