Rules Cogitations

[FreddBloggs]

As a long time wargamer I have tried many fads and seen many styles of wargame rules come and go.

As an amateur historian I have edged more towards the simulation rather than the pure game end.

But these days have found some are so close to simulation they can give a poor game, even if a better reflection of actual possibilities. So veering back to towards the game end, but not so far as the rules that are period defined by the figures, not the actual wars (yes Bolt Action, looking at you).

These thoughts were mostly defined by looking at ww2 rules, I like IABSM but the cards need streamlining, CoC I have found gives weird results and is not a good solo set, O Group just doesn't fit, Bolt Action is Science Fiction with the heroes and serial numbers filed off, Flames of war are ok, like Rapid Fire, but I find the actual games tend to be Meh.

In the end I found an odd solution, Operation Warboard, with simplification of the artillery grid and LMG/HMG template (removal of both) and a little tinkering with ranges it does what I want, in a way that runs nicely, easy to understand and still gives a feel of WW2 while playing a game.

Anyone with their own thoughts?

[Etranger]

Nothing wrong with Operation Warboard. Old school (literally, it was the only wargames related book in the school library), but always gave an enjoyable game.

[Panzer21]

My first "proper" wargames rules, made the MG template out of clear plastic from kit and other packaging and selotape (found it fairly recently not bad for teenager).
You don't say what level game, I'm guessing around battalion level ( so manouvre units of squads / troops) from the rules mentioned.

I used to play a lot of Command Decision; the whole game v simulation appeared in that. "Good" troops would simply tear through poorer ones. There was a certain amount of predictability about them, that turned games into cerebral exercises. They only worked if both players "knew" the rules. They required investment, which few people were prepared to commit to, so were difficult to teach and/or pickup. They also had lots of "fiddly" assets, regimental guns, battalion mortar stands, HQ CS tanks etc which IMHO didn't match the scale of game - a regimental / brigade or even divisional CO worrying about single support stands?

I have played many others, Spearhead in particular, but after a while I've moved to higher level games which become more abstract. I'm currently searching for the perfect operational set while occasionally toying with writing my own set.

I think getting a set which hits the sweet spot between game and simulation is a bit of a holy grail. There are lots with some good ideas, but few that are without problems or lack of explanation.

Neil

[FreddBloggs]

Basically reinforced company to reinforced battalion level, but in 6mm so close to a 1 to 1 figure/vehicle scale.

Manoeuvre units are weapons teams/sections/squads.

[Paul]

I settled on the "game" end of the spectrum fairly quickly for two reasons:
Firstly there is no way that we could realistically recreate the horror that is real war and;
Secondly I wouldn't want to.

Abstracting it all to a boardgame can give a more acceptable simulation due to the scale but anything tabletop has to be a game first and foremost IMHO.

[Penda]

Firstly there is no way that we could realistically recreate the horror that is real war and;
Secondly I wouldn't want to.

I'm definitely in the same camp, it's a game rooted in history, but still a game. For WWII I'm an occasional Rapid Fire!2 player, though at Phil's I mangle various Battlegroup games. Not a fan of CoC at all, too much faff for my taste. I do play Bolt Action, but try to avoid the dafter edges. As an aside it works well in 1:1 Pulp gangster games!

[tim.w]

Firstly there is no way that we could realistically recreate the horror that is real war and;
Secondly I wouldn't want to.

I'm definitely in the same camp, it's a game rooted in history, but still a game. For WWII I'm an occasional Rapid Fire!2 player, though at Phil's I mangle various Battlegroup games. Not a fan of CoC at all, too much faff for my taste. I do play Bolt Action, but try to avoid the dafter edges. As an aside it works well in 1:1 Pulp gangster games!

Yes, on the same page here. RF is better in 20mm and below, nice in 10mm! 28mm I use Bolt Action but havent done in some time, the release of the 2nd Ed and most local players being too gamey with ridiculous army compositions has put me off. Above 28mm it's my homegrown stuff. I'm playing a beefed up One Hour Wargames when I can and hope to try RF reloaded and Charles Grant's Battle soon. Played CoC in the club and never enjoyed it. I do want to try Crossfire soon too.

[FreddBloggs]

Crossfire is fun, but nervous.

I do not want to recreate the horrors, when simulating I am trying to get close to why things happened.

[grizzlymc]

I think the simulation end is not about creating war, it is about seeking to ensure that the consequences of an action are what they would be in reality. This may be inimical to a good game, after all, who hasn't wanted to dash across open ground covered by fire without suppression or smoke, I know I have.

Whilst it may be better tactics to whistle up some artillery and drop smoke on the enemy position before advancing, there may only be two turns before it's time to pack up. One has to decide which is more important.

[Paul]

I think the simulation end is not about creating war...

Doesn't this mean it's not a simulation? Kind of like making a simulation of a human but in classic "android" form. It looks like a human, sort of acts like a human but won't , ultimately, follow the same exact "life" paths.

Think about how much it would effect the hobby if you could only use figures until they'd been "killed". After that you have to melt them down and never see them again. It would be a depressing place but would help to more accurately simulate the full range of decisions commanders must take in the field.
[Turns on melting pot and makes threatening glances towards those troops that never hold the line]