Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
8 Posts

Sekigahara: The Unification of Japan» Forums » General

Subject: How's this compared to Shogun? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Tony W
United States
Long Beach, CA
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
See topic.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Was George Orwell an Optimist?
United States
Corvallis
Oregon
flag msg tools
Abdullah Ibrahim and Ekaya - Sotho Blue
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Depends on whether you mean Shogun, Shogun or Shogun. Then again, it's a block wargame and plays different from any of those.
12 
 Thumb up
0.01
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tony W
United States
Long Beach, CA
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
Sphere wrote:
Depends on whether you mean Shogun, Shogun or Shogun. Then again, it's a block wargame and plays different from any of those.


The 2nd one.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Was George Orwell an Optimist?
United States
Corvallis
Oregon
flag msg tools
Abdullah Ibrahim and Ekaya - Sotho Blue
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
iGotGame wrote:
Sphere wrote:
Depends on whether you mean Shogun, Shogun or Shogun. Then again, it's a block wargame and plays different from any of those.


The 2nd one.

The second one's a euro. It's a clever euro, but still a euro. Other than thematic similarity, it really has nothing to do with Sekigahara. Are you looking for a euro for 3-5 players, or a wargame for 2?
9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Darrell Hanning
United States
Jacksonville
Florida
flag msg tools
badge
We will meet at the Hour of Scampering.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Shogun is an adaptation of Dirk Henn's Wallenstein (first edition) to the setting of feudal Japan. As such, it is (IMO) arguably a wargame, as the primary focus of the game is the prosecution of war, against opposing armies. Other gamers differ, of course, some by looking at the superficial elements of cube usage, combat resolution methodology, and so on, rather than what's actually transpiring in the course of the game, or perhaps insisting on a higher simulative element being present. (Odd, considering both Wallenstein and Shogun require you to actually feed your armies, where a great number of wargames blithely ignore such requirements.) Anway, that's just my opinion.

Sekigahara uses blocks for armies instead of cubes, and these blocks have hidden from the opponent both their strength and affiliated faction. So, this presents a hidden information element not found in Shogun. (Conversely, Shogun uses hidden information in its orders system.)

Where Shogun uses the famous cube tower for combat resolution, Sekigahara uses a system of card-based commitment of forces to arrive at final combat strength, prior to deterministic resolution. That is, you may have forces present for faction A, but if you do not have the cards in your hand to commit forces from faction A, they instead stand idly by, and watch as the remainder of your force does all the heavy lifting. There is something of an anecdotal flair to this system, which can conjur images of warlord forces standing on hillsides, trying to decide whether or not to commit to combat. It's a nice touch, without which the game would suffer tremendously. There is also room in this system for defection, which can make the most promising combat odds get turned upside down.

Like Shogun, victory in Sekigahara is also based on territorial possession, although in Sekigahara it is an absolute criteria, rather than a relative one. Where territorial acquisition in Shogun is Risk-like - growing your forces and expanding to adjacent areas - Sekigahara moves us a step further away from abstraction, requiring the players to move their armies great distances across the map, to control locations, moreso than areas.

Of course, Sekigahara is also only designed for two. One thing I find ironic is that the average game of Sekigahara - considered by most a wargame - takes less time than the average game of Shogun or Wallenstein - not considered by most a wargame.

The army pieces for Sekigahara are very nicely done in wood, with stickers for the unit identification being a decent match to the colors of the painted wood. Very handsome game in play, and the quality means it should last a lifetime.

Aside from the profound and obvious difference in number of players the two games support, they also provide different spins on the same topic. I personally find Henn's system more suitable for its original topic of the Thirty Years' War (albeit only a snapshot of the entire war), and Sekigahara likely not only more accurate in its rendition of the subject matter, but also more romantic*, at the same time. I think this has a lot to do with why it has won the Golden Geek award for Best Wargame of 2012.

*Romantic - imbued with or dominated by idealism, a desire for adventure, chivalry, etc.
28 
 Thumb up
1.02
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dan Williams
United States
Doral
Florida
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
What Darrel said.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Darrell Hanning
United States
Jacksonville
Florida
flag msg tools
badge
We will meet at the Hour of Scampering.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I get no kicks from champagne or bubble baths.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
The root of all evil... but you can call me cookie.
United States
Gainesville
Florida
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
DarrellKH wrote:
Shogun is an adaptation of Dirk Henn's Wallenstein (first edition) to the setting of feudal Japan. As such, it is (IMO) arguably a wargame, as the primary focus of the game is the prosecution of war, against opposing armies. Other gamers differ, of course, some by looking at the superficial elements of cube usage, combat resolution methodology, and so on, rather than what's actually transpiring in the course of the game, or perhaps insisting on a higher simulative element being present. (Odd, considering both Wallenstein and Shogun require you to actually feed your armies, where a great number of wargames blithely ignore such requirements.) Anway, that's just my opinion.

Sekigahara uses blocks for armies instead of cubes, and these blocks have hidden from the opponent both their strength and affiliated faction. So, this presents a hidden information element not found in Shogun. (Conversely, Shogun uses hidden information in its orders system.)

Where Shogun uses the famous cube tower for combat resolution, Sekigahara uses a system of card-based commitment of forces to arrive at final combat strength, prior to deterministic resolution. That is, you may have forces present for faction A, but if you do not have the cards in your hand to commit forces from faction A, they instead stand idly by, and watch as the remainder of your force does all the heavy lifting. There is something of an anecdotal flair to this system, which can conjur images of warlord forces standing on hillsides, trying to decide whether or not to commit to combat. It's a nice touch, without which the game would suffer tremendously. There is also room in this system for defection, which can make the most promising combat odds get turned upside down.

Like Shogun, victory in Sekigahara is also based on territorial possession, although in Sekigahara it is an absolute criteria, rather than a relative one. Where territorial acquisition in Shogun is Risk-like - growing your forces and expanding to adjacent areas - Sekigahara moves us a step further away from abstraction, requiring the players to move their armies great distances across the map, to control locations, moreso than areas.

Of course, Sekigahara is also only designed for two. One thing I find ironic is that the average game of Sekigahara - considered by most a wargame - takes less time than the average game of Shogun or Wallenstein - not considered by most a wargame.

The army pieces for Sekigahara are very nicely done in wood, with stickers for the unit identification being a decent match to the colors of the painted wood. Very handsome game in play, and the quality means it should last a lifetime.

Aside from the profound and obvious difference in number of players the two games support, they also provide different spins on the same topic. I personally find Henn's system more suitable for its original topic of the Thirty Years' War (albeit only a snapshot of the entire war), and Sekigahara likely not only more accurate in its rendition of the subject matter, but also more romantic*, at the same time. I think this has a lot to do with why it has won the Golden Geek award for Best Wargame of 2012.

*Romantic - imbued with or dominated by idealism, a desire for adventure, chivalry, etc.


Well dammit I was going to say that EXACT same thing.

(except I would have left out that "romantic" comment.)
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
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.