Recommend
20 
 Thumb up
 Hide
38 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

Wargames» Forums » General

Subject: What history do you look for in a GOOD wargame? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Richard Diosi
Canada
Newcastle
Ontario
flag msg tools
publisher
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I am certain there have been other threads along these lines but I haven't seen any recently...and anyway, I like the repetition

I read a caption attached to a picture about La Grande Guerre 14-18. It was a pic showing an in-game situation and the caption indicated that the Germans seemed to be progressing as per historical accuracy.

This got me to thinking (something I am neither particularly good at nor fond of), am I attracted to wargames that model the historical progress/outcome of a particular battle/war?

Let me state that I understand that a simulation is exactly that, a modelling of outcomes based on a set of variables effecting that outcome. However some of us get annoyed when simulations seem to get too far off track.

I think in my youth I would have answered that I might have had more respect for a game that generally followed loosely the predictable flow of the history it was simulating.That is not to say that I wanted a predictable outcome for the game. I think that I now do not care as much about the 'historocity' of the actual ebb and flow of the conflict as long as the game simulates the particulars well.

Let me clarify with an absurd example. I would not like a game that allowed you to recreate WW2's Winter War and through some bizarre rule/situation allowed Finland to become a dominant force in the global conflict. I could however live with a game that through good play (perhaps backed by rules that allowed for variability of the situation starting off the Winter War) marginalized the heroic Finns to somewhat less of a thorn to the USSR than they actually were or conversely, tied them down even more.

How important to you are the historical outcomes of battles/conflicts compared to the simulation outcome when playing a wargame? Do you have examples of where this was handled particularly well/badly?
9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bill Lawson
United States
Rutland
Vermont
flag msg tools
Boston Redsox
badge
New England Patriots!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The history-or simulation value needs to be plausable for me. If things get to gamey it turns me off. I know others disagree but this is my preference.
18 
 Thumb up
0.04
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rich Shipley
United States
Baltimore
Maryland
flag msg tools
badge
the liberal unsavory type
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DocStryder wrote:
How important to you are the historical outcomes of battles/conflicts compared to the simulation outcome when playing a wargame? Do you have examples of where this was handled particularly well/badly?


I was observing a development playtest that a friend was running. He said that they were thinking of having the victory conditions be ranked against the historical outcome. I asked what if the historical outcome was very unlikely, which didn't get much of a response.

To me, any particular series of events is unlikely, including the historical one. In a wargame I want the results to be plausible and the historical events to be possible, however unlikely they are. Any game that tries to script too much of what will happen loses my interest quickly.
9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jon
Canada
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mb
billyboy wrote:
The history-or simulation value needs to be plausable for me. If things get to gamey it turns me off. I know others disagree but this is my preference.


Bingo.

Plausibility is the key. If something is doable that defies logic (ie gamey)or there is a panzerbush quality to some of the mechanics then I can get my nose slightly bent out of shape. I am more forgiving when playing simple games, but even those have to remain within some bounds of reality.
14 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Cpl. Fields
South Africa
Hopelessly Surrounded
Isandlwana, Zululand
flag msg tools
<insert something pithy here>
badge
<insert something clever here>
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I could rant about this all day, but I'll limit myself to a few general observations.

First, the game must be physically accurate. That is, the map should represent the actual terrain faced by the combatants, and affect movement and combat as it did historically. The combat and movement factors of the units should accurately reflect their capabilities, both absolutely (how far a German corps can march in a week is not a design choice, it's a matter of historical record) and comparatively (the firepower of German, British, French, and Belgian divisions in 1914 should correctly mirror their historical performance in the field as well as their TO&E).

Combat abilities may be debatable and difficult to model; but movement capability, unit density, and rail capacity are easily calculated if a designer does his homework. If a unit marched six hexes in one week during the actual campaign, but has a movement allowance of four in a game with weekly turns, I'm done with that game. I can think of several examples that fail this basic test.

Second, the sequence of play must not influence the course of events. The sequence of play is an artifice; in a real war everything is happening at once, in real time. The sequence of play must be carefully thought out to reflect this. If out-of-supply units of both sides are eliminated at the end of the game turn, the side with the first player turn is at a considerable, and completely artificial, disadvantage. That's silly and ahistorical, and one reason I gave away my copy of Paths of Glory.

Finally, the design should not straitjacket me into a course of action dictated by the designer's notion of how the game should play out. It should present me with the same physical and political realities faced by my historical counterpart, and allow me the same level of freedom to direct events. In Empires in Arms, England and France cannot form an alliance. In Grand Illusion: Mirage of Glory, 1914, the German player cannot enter coastal hexes in France, under any circumstances, until a specified game turn. In the case of Empires in Arms, the restriction quite properly reflects the political realities of the Napoleonic Wars. British opposition to Napoleon is an historical given, an underlying premise of the period being portrayed. In the case of Grand Illusion, the rule is in place because the designer really, really wants the German player to go for Paris, and the game won't work unless he does. It's a artificial constraint in place to mask a poor design.

All of these things really come down to the same basic issue: I don't want to play a game that causes me to say, "that couldn't have happened in real life." When that happens, the suspension of disbelief is broken, and so is the game.

22 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Leo Zappa
United States
Aliquippa
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
To join the chorus, a wargame is a good wargame if the historical result is possible, but other plausible alternative outcomes are also possible. Any game whose design precludes the historical result, or mandates the historical result, or allows for unrealistic outcomes, is not, in my opinion, a good wargame.

Having said that, I am more forgiving of such faults in a game that is meant as a lighter treatment of a given subject, such as Memoir '44. If a game has hexes, counters, a CRT, and is packaged/marketed as a serious consim, it better adhere to the points made above regarding the historical outcome.
17 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jim F
United Kingdom
Birmingham
West Midlands
flag msg tools
Where the heck did this interest in WW1 come from?
badge
Ashwin in front of Tiger 131
Avatar
mbmbmb

Going off at a slight tangent - although I'm not a big fan of PoG I learnt a great deal about World War One through the playing of event cards (and curiosity forcing me to subsequently research them).
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andy Daglish
United Kingdom
Cheadle
Cheshire
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DocStryder wrote:
...and anyway, I like the repetition


many Geeks put this

Quote:
This got me to thinking (something I am neither particularly good at nor fond of),


but not this

Quote:
However some of us get annoyed when simulations seem to get too far off track.


Case Blue

Quote:
I think in my youth I would have answered that I might have had more respect for a game that generally followed loosely the predictable flow of the history it was simulating.That is not to say that I wanted a predictable outcome for the game. I think that I now do not care as much about the 'historocity' of the actual ebb and flow of the conflict as long as the game simulates the particulars well.


William had several horses [or ponies] killed under him at Hastings. Had it been the other way round, European, western & world history would have developed along very different lines, and how likely is that?

Quote:
Let me clarify with an absurd example. I would not like a game that allowed you to recreate WW2's Winter War and through some bizarre rule/situation allowed Finland to become a dominant force in the global conflict. I could however live with a game that through good play (perhaps backed by rules that allowed for variability of the situation starting off the Winter War) marginalized the heroic Finns to somewhat less of a thorn to the USSR than they actually were or conversely, tied them down even more.


During Barbarossa the Finns could have caused the Soviet war effort in the north far more damage than they actually did. Why didn't they? Political effects may not have any apparent substance in the present. For example, a person of no particular importance may be favoured by the powerful because they know that one day he is likely to rise to a position of consequence, and of course its best to establish bonds in preparation for that possibility.

Quote:
How important to you are the historical outcomes of battles/conflicts compared to the simulation outcome when playing a wargame? Do you have examples of where this was handled particularly well/badly?


They are important as they establish a control for the range of outcomes seen in the game, however I'd suggest the game's level determines its honesty in this respect. A western gunfight between two men on Main Street will be clearly delineated to the satisfaction of all. Back with Case Blue or say Napoleon's Last Battles and the unit counters are not influenced by behind-the-scenes deterministic political realities, rather at first they engage the juiciest enemy targets with vague regard for the victory conditions. I note that in The Game of France, 1940: German Blitzkrieg in the West German infantry corps are 7-6 and French ones are 6-6. Clearly they move the same.

One can't assume the "historical outcome" is acknowledged by all. Victors will brush under the carpet the defeats and the mistakes. Nor can you assume the game's design is any good. Its not impossible for a bad design to get a good historical result accidentally, occasionally.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dan Taylor
United States
Berryville
Virginia
flag msg tools
badge
Just Another Washed Up Wargamer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
A good wargame, for me, is a machine. This is a machine that accepts a series of inputs ("attack on the left, defend on the right. Artillery fire for defense") and produces a result. Ideally this game will have a series of dials and levers similar to the dials and levers of the command level its simulating. (It can't simulate everything, so the controls need to take that into account.)

My favorite games are ones that allow me, when I put in historical inputs, to get historical outputs. Better yet, to show me that the historical output wasn't the most likely outcome and what might have happened instead. It will also allow me to pull levers and put in some alternate inputs and see what would have come out.

I don't mind rules that hamstring a player (don't move into the coastal areas in WW1) as long as the designer is clear about why. "The politics of the time and the plan as laid out precluded such a move." Ideally, this rule itself could be waived and (in a bonus) waived secretly, so that your opponent was never certain if that lever was pulled or no. (Much like in... history. )
12 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
401k? More like .357
United States
Baltimore
Maryland
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
zuludawn wrote:
All of these things really come down to the same basic issue: I don't want to play a game that causes me to say, "that couldn't have happened in real life." When that happens, the suspension of disbelief is broken, and so is the game.


I agree.

Sometimes a historical outcome can be changed, but only to a certain degree, and within a certain context--usually drilled down to the tactical level.

The larger the scale, the more difficult it is--or it should be--to achieve an ahistorical outcome, as there are sooo many more factors involved beyond the scope of the game.

Can the British be overrun at Rorke's Drift? Certainly.
Can the illegal and immoral forces of evil defeat the Union at Gettysburg? Maybe, on a really good day.
Can the Japanese sweep the USN from the Pacific through 1945? Put down the bong and slowly back away.

Sometimes, a victory for a player is merely exceeding the expectations of a historical defeat. That's why I have no problem considering, say, Germany holding out beyond May 1945 in a strategic level WW2 game as an Axis victory. They may fall in July 1945 instead, but they still fall. Plausible yet still realistic, and the Axis player gets kudos for exceeding historical expectations.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Columbus
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Why are you wearing that stupid man suit?
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
CountDeMoney wrote:
zuludawn wrote:
All of these things really come down to the same basic issue: I don't want to play a game that causes me to say, "that couldn't have happened in real life." When that happens, the suspension of disbelief is broken, and so is the game.


Sometimes, a victory for a player is merely exceeding the expectations of a historical defeat. That's why I have no problem considering, say, Germany holding out beyond May 1945 in a strategic level WW2 game as an Axis victory. They may fall in July 1945 instead, but they still fall. Plausible yet still realistic, and the Axis player gets kudos for exceeding historical expectations.


Agreed. That makes the strategic games playable beyond the historical point that the outcome was in doubt. Take No Retreat! The Russian Front for example. If the Germans don't win a sudden death victory by the time the initiative marker flips to the soviets, then the war, as simulated, is a lost cause. But the game can continue to 1945 and be believable for both sides. The German player merely has to hold the Soviet player to less than historical gains and they can still claim "victory" at the end. This is even though the game's "victor" and the simulated war's "victor" are completely disconnected. Without that disconnection there is no point in playing beyond the Case Blue period in the war (in this example). An undetermined winner long past historical realities makes for longer and more tense games.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Dockter
United States
Minnesota
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
What history do you look for in a good wargame?

Generally, something that is "accurate" regarding the start of the war and then allows players to explore a wide range of plausible historic alternatives. Doing that, I get a better understanding both of why history played out the way it did and what reasonably may have been the alternative.

Regarding a game at the strategic level:

1) Dynamics: Contains the historic political and economic dynamics surrounding the conflict; without that, I'm not interested...may as well play chess (which I hate).

2) Start point: A start point that reflects the historic start point (although I do also like the ability to pre-game that start point and come up with something totally different)

3) Scenarios: Allows players to explore historically plausible scenarios to what actually happened - but those scenarios must pass the giggle test - and contain some cost for exploring them. A good model of the trade-offs; especially as it relates to the political dimension.

4) Chaos/Randomness: Needs to be a lot of things (all with some historical basis) outside of the players control that forces him/her to handle the unpredictable nature of these conflicts....otherwise, play chess (which I hate).

5) Story: Needs to reflect all the key personalities/factions/political divisions that existed in the conflict
12 
 Thumb up
0.02
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steven Mitchell
United States
New York
New York
flag msg tools
badge
I don't know what you have to say, it makes no difference anyway: whatever it is, I'm against it!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I ask two questions:

1) In a given situation, are the options available to the player representative of the options that would have been available historically?

2) Is the range of results for each of those options representative of the consequences those options would have historically resulted in?

The first question can get a bit tricky, since there's two ways of looking at the question. Does one include options which were theoretically possible but which were prohibited by, say, doctrine or strategic objectives? Or does one only include those options which could have plausibly occurred? E.g., what does it mean to ask whether the decision for France not to execute Plan XVII in Fall 1914 was a real option or not? Theoretically, France absolutely could have opted not to execute the plan; plausibly, perhaps it's not really an option.

The latter perspective perhaps requires more interpretative judgment and can lead to all sorts of historical debates on CSW and here. On the whole, I usually prefer rulesets that allow for all theoretical options, plausible or not, because I'm mostly interested in the 'What If's?' and plausibility isn't as much as a concern for me.

The second question is usually more straightforward and is governed by tables of various sorts, if the outcome is to be uncertain. I don't think there's quite as much to say here, as those tables are usually devised through some sort of statistical reasoning. So the debate over this sort of thing is less interpretive and less interesting (to me).
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Peter O
United States
Oakland
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
What about games portraying UNLIKELY outcomes? When history went the way of the improbable how far should games go to make the improbable possible?
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Columbus
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Why are you wearing that stupid man suit?
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
tranenturm wrote:
What about games portraying UNLIKELY outcomes? When history went the way of the improbable how far should games go to make the improbable possible?


Axis and Allies was always fun for exploring the historically impossible (Germany commences armor production in India, story at 11:00!).

But I digress, sticking to actual war "simulation"...

I think you can take the "improbable" pretty far. Take a Vietnam game for example. Could you (or would you) design a game to allow the American player to increase the troops in-country way beyond historical levels? It would be a cool "what if," but hard to model accurately since there is no historical event to compare it against. As a designer you'd be guessing on how that affects the overall military (and political!) outcome. At that point gamers might be eploring an alternate universe, but maybe that would be as much fun?

So a related question: how much freedom do you give the player in the highest level decision making in a strategic level game? (How many soldiers to send to Vietnam, vs. that being decided for them.)

Back to the Eastern Front. Are the players Hitler and Stalin squaring off with all possible decisions in their hands? Or does the game make them a high commander with the top leadership influencing in the form of random events like forces released from Stavka reserves, or Panzer Divisions being pulled from the front and sent to France?

I think the higher the decision making authority a player is placed at within the game, the less historical it may become due to our hindsight being able to correct well-understood mistakes in history. That "supreme leadership" engine in a lot of games keeps it at least recognizable compared to the historical event.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andy Daglish
United Kingdom
Cheadle
Cheshire
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
CountDeMoney wrote:
Can the British be overrun at Rorke's Drift? Certainly.


Its been said that many African countries should have a machinegun depicted on their flag. The lack of one at Rorke's Drift was in this sense relatively unusual, compared to the years immediately following 1879.

The British casualties say it all: around 15 killed and the same number wounded, out of 150. I think more than half the casualties were the victims of rifle fire from the hill; a few hospital patients were killed, either escaping or in their beds. This and the 500 or so Zulu bodies gives a good idea of what happened. I recall the number of shell casings on the ground suggested that each man fired thousands of rounds on average, probably through 2-3 different rifles, which shows the advantage of defending a supply base.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
401k? More like .357
United States
Baltimore
Maryland
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
lol, I knew I'd get feedback on that one.

I said, "can". However, the mere presence of Colour Sergeant Bourne would never allow that to happen, so the point is moot.

The point I was attempting to make was that ahistorical outcomes in gaming are more plausible, and therefore more attainable, on the tactical level.

I humbly beg Her Majesty's forgiveness for such a poor example.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joseph
United States
flag msg tools
badge
Today, we're all Spaniards!
Avatar
DocStryder wrote:

How important to you are the historical outcomes of battles/conflicts compared to the simulation outcome when playing a wargame? Do you have examples of where this was handled particularly well/badly?


Field Commander Rommel, and the "Super French" in the first scenario, serve as an example of depiction that didn't go particularly well. Some might argue that the game accurately portrays the potential of the French resistance, rather than its actual performance, but I dunno if I buy that explanation.

Basically, the first scenario comes across as more of a puzzle than a simulation. Once you crack the code — waiting to acquire additional forces before attacking — the situation develops satisfactorily. The French are frightfully powerful during that first play.

Personally, and I don't know the historicity of my idea, I would have made the French a bit easier; it was an introductory scenario, after all. Took me 6 tries to complete the thing.

Did I get my money's worth from the game? Prolly, although the puzzle aspect was a bit of a turn-off.

Joseph
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steven Mitchell
United States
New York
New York
flag msg tools
badge
I don't know what you have to say, it makes no difference anyway: whatever it is, I'm against it!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
tranenturm wrote:
What about games portraying UNLIKELY outcomes? When history went the way of the improbable how far should games go to make the improbable possible?


An unlikely outcome is often worked into the CRT or whatever. E.g., many 'unlikely outcomes' can be easily recreated by rolling boxcars on key combats. After all, rolling boxcars twice in a row is a 1:1296 probability.

And if you want the improbable to be near-certain in a specific case, but not generally across the entire game, that's what special rules are for.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andrew Laws
Canada
British Columbia
flag msg tools
designer
"I play to win, as much or more than any egoist who thinks he's going to win by other means. I want to win the match. But I don't give in to tactical reasoning as the only way to win, rather I believe that efficacy is not divorced from beauty."
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
UniqueRabbit wrote:
Take a Vietnam game for example. Could you (or would you) design a game to allow the American player to increase the troops in-country way beyond historical levels? It would be a cool "what if," but hard to model accurately since there is no historical event to compare it against. As a designer you'd be guessing on how that affects the overall military (and political!) outcome. At that point gamers might be eploring an alternate universe, but maybe that would be as much fun?


You don't need to compare it to historical events. Just find out the real-life constraints that prevented the US from increasing it's troop presence indefinitely and model those into the game. I have a hunch it would have something to do with public opinion, and presidents wishing to be re-elected.

So.. model US public support for the war and tie it to commitment in troop numbers. Things like US troops dying, bases being over-run, NVA and NLF victories etc. all negatively affect public opinion. Then simply disincentivise(even a word?) the US player for having troop commitment exceed public opinion. -1vp per turn say. He can then push his luck and take a short-term hit to get the number back up at the risk of losing vps, or withdraw troops accordingly.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paul Cornelissen
United States
San Antonio
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
To reinforce the historical context of certain wargames, I'm starting to track down and print up maps to store in the game boxes.

For example, I have this one...



... tucked in Ardennes '44, and this one...



... will be added to It Never Snows once it arrives.

Helps to visually remind me of how a game fits into the larger picture of the war.
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
"L'état, c'est moi."
Canada
Vancouver
BC
flag msg tools
admin
designer
Roger's Reviews: check out my reviews page, right here on BGG!
badge
Caution: May contain wargame like substance
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
HarlemMimeSchool wrote:
UniqueRabbit wrote:
Take a Vietnam game for example. Could you (or would you) design a game to allow the American player to increase the troops in-country way beyond historical levels? It would be a cool "what if," but hard to model accurately since there is no historical event to compare it against. As a designer you'd be guessing on how that affects the overall military (and political!) outcome. At that point gamers might be eploring an alternate universe, but maybe that would be as much fun?


You don't need to compare it to historical events. Just find out the real-life constraints that prevented the US from increasing it's troop presence indefinitely and model those into the game. I have a hunch it would have something to do with public opinion, and presidents wishing to be re-elected.

So.. model US public support for the war and tie it to commitment in troop numbers. Things like US troops dying, bases being over-run, NVA and NLF victories etc. all negatively affect public opinion. Then simply disincentivise(even a word?) the US player for having troop commitment exceed public opinion. -1vp per turn say. He can then push his luck and take a short-term hit to get the number back up at the risk of losing vps, or withdraw troops accordingly.

You have to a great extent described the design process and constraints present in Hearts and Minds: Vietnam 1965-1975.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Dockter
United States
Minnesota
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Some very interesting dynamics in how this was modeled in Vietnam 1965-1975 VG. Discussed the game on Episode IV of Guns, Dice, Butter: Nick Karp the designer and Nels Thompson playing the epic beast.

As long as the improbable carries the costs that leaders decided they couldn't bare, I like to see it included in the list of options.

For example, regarding Vietnam war, why not just invade the North and end the sanctuary? U.S. political leaders didn't trust military leaders that the Chinese wouldn't intervene (Macarthur had promised U.S. political leadership the Chinese wouldn't intervene in Korea...oooops...never again.) I'd guess you would have to have a land war option vs China then and related escalation. I like games that have those scenarios much better than just saying, "No, you can't do that because it didn't happen".

World in Flames/Days of Dis does a great job of this; allowing players to explore the exotic scenarios without getting into the silly land of Axis & Allies (Germans take India!)
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Roger Hobden
Canada
Montreal
Quebec
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
patton1138 wrote:

An unlikely outcome is often worked into the CRT or whatever. E.g., many 'unlikely outcomes' can be easily recreated by rolling boxcars on key combats. After all, rolling boxcars twice in a row is a 1:1296 probability.

And if you want the improbable to be near-certain in a specific case, but not generally across the entire game, that's what special rules are for.



Can't wait to see a "The year it Snowed in September" scenario for Combat Commander: Europe.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
. .

Apex
North Carolina
msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
I simply prefer a game that knows what it's good at doing and then does it to the 9's.

For example...

C&C:E says it's all about battlefield chaos. The cards certainly simulate that chaos.

Fields of Fire is about command and control and the majority of the systems in the game deal with that.

Washington's War is about the political struggle as much as armed struggle of the Revolutionary War and keeps it to that.

Things like CoH gets a bit lost. Their focus was on streamlining the tactical game system and while the game plays really well...what you get feels like a hollow Euro math problem most of the time.
5 
 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.