Why You Should Try Wargames and What You're Possibly Missing Out On (Part II)

[Gerald]

So, you've read thru the first article, and hopefully found enough merit in it to continue on reading the second part of my meandering. 

I'd like to thank those who commented (either via post or PM) and would like you to know that I appreciate both the praises and the constructive criticisms.  Hopefully, in the next couple of articles, you guys will keep chiming in and helping me along.

Why am I writing this (and past/future articles)?  Well, many may not know it but I was a culinary student.  When my teacher first told me about Foie Gras (Goose Liver), I empathically said there was no way I'd eat it.  It sounded disgusting.  When I saw it... well, it didn't really help... it looked disgusting.  But then I figured I was already in culinary school (never even heard of Foie Gras while studying Legal Management in UST) I might as well try it.  After all, a trash bin is never too far away in a kitchen.  So tried it I did... and wow... just wow!  It was buttery and decadent and all sorts of delicious.

Since then, I've vowed to try any new dish at least once (with the exception of cooked insects).  I've tasted alligator meat, kangaroo meat, horse meat, monkey brains, maggoty cheese and all sorts of stuff.  Admittedly, some I've regretted (never gonna try monkey brains again)... but for the most part I've loved it.

So I'm writing these articles to help in my own small way in trying to get YOU to try out a wargame.  Who knows?  You may end up loving it as much as I do.  And if you don't... then at least you now firmly know what you don't like, eh?  Whether you end up loving it, hating it or feeling lukewarm about is besides the point.  What matters is at the very least, TRY it. 

In the previous article, we discussed what I believe to be the first obstacle in getting people/gamers to try wargames.  I delved a bit on how some preconceptions of what a wargame is (or isn't), don't necessarily apply anymore.  If you want to re-read the previous article, you can click here.

As promised, in this article I will be discussing what I believe to be the second hurdle that needs to be overcome in order to be able to garner the interests gamers to try out wargames... and that is TIME.

Time, time, time, time, time. 

These days, its rare for "people on the go" to find the time to sit down and enjoy a crossword (some of us barely even have time for Sudoku).  Society seems to equate productiveness with the number of tasks done instead of the quality of the job.  We are bombarded with "instant" this and "instant" that.  Heck... even my microwave that only used to be for reheating leftovers can now be used to cook bacon and to bake cakes and breads.  Time, time, time, time, time.  And with all this pressure on time and productivity, its no surprise that when people hear that a wargame can take longer than five hours to finish (some might last several days), they scurry back to their iPod's and their PSP's.

Now I will not argue over the proper use of time... what you do with yours is up to you.  But, I do have some great news.  Wargames have come a long way and a lot of newer (heck, even slightly older) wargames can now be played for as long (or as short) as you would like.   

This is where we will take our customary segue.  I'll list a couple of wargames that I think are beginner friendly and don't take up more than an hour or two of your time.  Of course, in discussing these games, it cannot be avoided that I also touch upon their mechanics (traditional or otherwise) which, now that I think about it, serves as a nice connection with what I consider to be the first hurdle.

The first game I'll be talking about is Hearts & Minds.  Hearts & Minds is a card-driven wargame covering the American buildup of troops and arms in Southeast Asia and the decision to begin troop withdrawal: 1965-1975.  This game utilizes counters and areas (the map is divided into manageable sections) as opposed to hexes.  It also uses cards to represent events that happened during the game's era/time span.  The cards can be used as events, action points or as support during battles.

What makes Hearts & Minds special (in the time department at least) is that you dictate how long the game will go.  You can play just one year or two years... or you can play all ten years (a year can go anywhere from thirty to sixty minutes).  The game provides victory conditions for either side depending on what year you choose for the game to end.  Not only that, you can also choose what year you want to start.  Want to begin your game in the middle?  Go right ahead and start at 1970!  Just want to play the final years of it?  You sure can!  This flexibility allows you to control how much time you're willing to spend on a game.  The victory conditions are all balanced and attainable, so there's no discernible loss for cutting a game short.

Other examples of fast-playing card-driven games include: Commands & Colors: Ancients, Storm Over Stalingrad, Hellenes, etc.

The second game I'll be talking about is Conflict of Heroes. Conflict of Heroes merges the elegance of streamlined Eurogame rules with deep strategic wargames. The series was designed to create a tense and highly interactive game play experience.  The game is squad/platoon based, meaning you control a small group of men as opposed to entire armies.  While the game does use the traditional hex-and-counters, it does so with flair, providing the gamer with high quality components rarely seen in other wargames.

What makes Conflict of Heroes "fast", is that the designer included bountiful scenarios to use as you play the game.  These scenarios range from learning/introductory to complex/heavily involved.  The beauty of having scenarios however, is that you get to choose what type of game you feel like playing.  Want to play defensive?  Play Scenario A.  Want to play blitzing offense?  Play Scenario D.  Also, having set scenarios (and scenario end conditions) puts you in control of how much time you want to spend on any given game on any given day.

Other examples of games that come with multiple scenarios (some or most of them quite short) include: Combat Commander, Advanced Squad Leader (ASL) Starter Kits, Lock 'n Load: Band of Heroes, etc..  There're actually a lot of games that come with multiple scenarios, but I chose to give just a few examples as to not overwhelm people with unnecessary choices.

So far, we have discussed perception (that what people MAY think a wargame is, doesn't necessarily always apply) and time.  So what other obstacles are there that I feel need to be overcome? 

Wait, wait... I see someone raising his/her hand.  Yes, you, the one in the back.  What's that?  Fulls?  Speak up please, I can't hear you... no need to be shy.  Rules?  Is that right?  Did you say rules? 

That's the third AND fourth obstacle that need to be overcome.  Rules and rulebooks.  Why did I separate the rules from the rulebooks?  Patience grasshopper...

I know I started off by saying rules, but I think it'll make more sense if I started with the rulebooks and then move on to the rules. 

Now, I understand why some wargame rulebooks can make people cringe... after all, some rulebooks are thicker than the morning newspaper (heck, some rulebooks can get thicker than encyclopedias, but that's another article).  Therein lies the problem.  Most gamers who usually play euros and AT games are used to rulebooks that're either two to seven pages long... or are filled with tons of images detailing examples of play.  So its understandable when the thought of plowing thru a 24-page rulebook (often times in two or three columns per page) makes them hesitate. 

It wouldn't matter as much if it was just sheer length... I'm sure most of us have read lengthier books.  The problem sometimes lie in the rules itself.

This is where I'll end this article.  Again, thank you so much for reading thru my mutterings.  I've decided that this article will span four parts, so I appreciate that you've now read thru half of it.  In the third part, I'll delve more into what I perceive to be a hurdle that needs to be overcome when it comes to rules and move on to the fifth obstacle as well.

This is a repeat of what I've already said, but, I realize I have left a lot of things unsaid.  This is because I'd like our other, more notable and esteemed wargamers to chip in if possible and help fill-in the blanks.  So please, chip in, let the ideas flow (we don't really need more game examples, but kindly discuss the merits of what has been written and what you think can be added to it).  I refuse to believe that wargamers are a dying breed... I'd like to think that wargamers are simply waiting to be born/converted. 

I've tried to use more simple terms as well, to ensure that the reader doesn't necessarily need to have a boardgame background to understand what my twisted mind is trying to express.

Also, and I will reiterate this in every article I write... there're a lot of seasoned wargamers (heck even newbie wargamers like me) who're more than happy to teach you how to play.  Don't hesitate to approach them and talk to 'em.

Until the next article!

[catch8088]

When I was talking to my daughter to about eating blood stew, she said it was gross.  Then our family sat down to eat dinuguan at Goldilocks.  She liked it then and it became one of her favorites.  For the same reason, I wouldn't have offered to translate foie gras before someone tasted it.  Just say it's an expensive delicious French dish.

One way to get people to like conflict simulation is to give it to them in a palatable manner.  In this case, since A Song of Ice and Fire is the in thing at the moment, luring people in with A Game of Thrones would be a good strategy.  Getting a fish to bite the hook is the first step.

Most people are wary of leaving their comfort zone.  It's a common thing to fear the strange.  It's also more common to stay mainstream and hate to be one of the geeks.  The nice thing now in this day and age is that it is commonly known that the average geek makes more money in his lifetime than the average jock.  Hence, geek is in.  And that's a good thing for boards.

[vladsee]

Nice article, Gerald!  Your posts have me thinking about the wargaming hobby in the Philippines...

I think it all boils down to interest and there is very little interest for wargames in the Philippines.  If the interest is there, the time factor, long and complex rules and less than appealing components won't be a hindrance to someone who wants to at least try to play wargames.  There are already lots of wargames out there that look nice with plastic bits and colored map, simple and fast playing that can attract the euro and thematic game players.  However, if there is no interest, then even the best looking components and simplest and funnest of rules will not attract anybody.   

During the kickstarter event, Mark and I brought a couple of these wargames that are nice to look at, fast and fun but nobody even wanted to try despite us offering to demo for them.  We ended up playing against each other the whole day.  Maybe we should have brought games with better bits and pieces like Conflict of Heroes or Axis and Allies, Tide of Iron? 

I believe the greater challenge is how to get the gamer to try more complex wargames?  Its great that people try C&C:Ancients, Memoir 44, War of the Ring, etc and games that cater to the cross-over gamers are very available.  Those games are just the tip of the iceberg of wargames. A majority of the really and truly great wargames that have more complexity and less eye candy have yet to be played.                       

[Gerald]

During the kickstarter event, Mark and I brought a couple of these wargames that are nice to look at, fast and fun but nobody even wanted to try despite us offering to demo for them.  We ended up playing against each other the whole day.  Maybe we should have brought games with better bits and pieces like Conflict of Heroes or Axis and Allies, Tide of Iron?

I was greatly saddened when you first told me about this... part of the reason that prompted me to release the second part of my article(s) a bit sooner than planned.

I mean, I can understand if people tried and didn't understand... that'd be acceptable.  Heck, it'd sting but I'd even understand if people tried and didn't like it.  But to simply not try at all is just saddening.

In a hobby where we all try to get the "non-geeks" to step out of their comfort zones to try something new, we often forget how stubborn we ourselves can be to step out of our own comfort zones to try something different (not aiming this at anybody... just whining).

I believe the greater challenge is how to get the gamer to try more complex wargames?  Its great that people try C&C:Ancients, Memoir 44, War of the Ring, etc and games that cater to the cross-over gamers are very available.  Those games are just the tip of the iceberg of wargames. A majority of the really and truly great wargames that have more complexity and less eye candy have yet to be played.

Very true Vlad.  Very true.  Perhaps we can make video tutorials (maybe even in partnership with Gaming Library) or conduct online tutorials via Vassal or Cyberboard?

[vladsee]

I believe the greater challenge is how to get the gamer to try more complex wargames?  Its great that people try C&C:Ancients, Memoir 44, War of the Ring, etc and games that cater to the cross-over gamers are very available.  Those games are just the tip of the iceberg of wargames. A majority of the really and truly great wargames that have more complexity and less eye candy have yet to be played.

Very true Vlad.  Very true.  Perhaps we can make video tutorials (maybe even in partnership with Gaming Library) or conduct online tutorials via Vassal or Cyberboard?

While I'm not familiar and comfortable with video presentations and editing, I do like your idea on the online tutorial!  I'm very familiar with VASSAL since I use it to play ASL with other people abroad almost every day.    Are there any particular games you would like to demo?  We can schedule an online tutorial with people logged on at VASSAL and Skype at the same time so we can talk while playing so people can follow along.     

[JP]

hmm...

am taking a stab at this from the historical perspective.

perhaps not a lot of people are interested in history?

I mean, for lets say a Euro or a AT(did i get that right?), theres the instant gratification of just sitting down, reading the 2-10 pages of rules (maybe even being taught the mechanics), understanding the (simple?) objective of the game and enjoying it right then and there.

As an example for wargamers (of the historical conflict simulation persuasion), I enjoy historical wargaming because i like history, the simulation of the conflict presents a historical analysis of what has transpired and even place the players into the position of what decisions the leaders/commanders at the time had to make.

it makes for a different experience to those who appreciate history as compared to say just playing a straight forward Euro or AT game.

I dont want to be misunderstood here, there's nothing wrong with euro or at games, it just falls on what the player/s enjoy most.

but i do agree that laying out the more simple historical wargames is an easier introductio to this niche in boardgaming, placing the understanding of the 'why' and the 'what is the objective' would possibly take a little historical story telling.

just my 2 centavos

kudos to the threadstarter tho for shedding more light on wargaming to the community!!

cheers!

JP

[Mark Humphries]

Most boardgamers today are looking for a few minutes of light fun, boardgame snacks if you will, wargames are not for them.

Many boardgamers cannot countenance chaos or randomness, wargames are not for them either.

Many boardgamers must have figures, meeples, or other plastic, wood, or metal bits to play with, they naturally gravitate towards Ameritrash games and Miniature Wargames rather than Board Wargames.

For the rest I think the most intimidating aspect of wargames as compared to other genres is the apparent open-endedness of the gameplay.

I'm not a fan of crossover games, they try to combine the tropes of multiple genres and end up being neither fish nor fowl. Coaching someone through a streamlined low complexity traditional wargame can get them comfortable with the open-endedness and possibly develop a taste for the genre.

[zhenxiao]

The articles are very interesting.  However, I'm a bit confused on what the author is considering a wargame.  Especially a wargame that has few players, as some of the examples given seem to have a great number of players involved.

If the author is talking about people not playing the more traditional chit and hex map type wargame, then I would agree.  Not many people play these games.  It was always my belief that these games were never truly a popular style of game.  I always thought they were marketed and sold to a specific niche.

If the author is talking about a game that uses war as a theme, then most people play, and own, a wargame of some sort.  I've often seen people playing games with a war theme, but mechanics from another genre of game.

But, the articles, in my mind, raise a valid question, "what is considered a wargame?"  Do we consider the mechanics, theme or components?

For example, I have a ccg, that one builds a deck with soldiers to combat an opponent. The game obviously uses ccg mechanics and components, but the theme is war.  Is this a wargame? 

I also have a fantasy collectible game that uses pogs, called Clout.  The game is centered around building an army out of pogs (not figures, not cards, not chits) and destroying your opponents army.  While its collectible, it uses a mechanic that centers around dexterity, and has unique components, would this be considered a wargame?  Its theme is war.

Are the miniature games, such as Warhammer or even MageKnight considered wargames?  The theme is obviously all about war.  MageKnight easily fits into the Ameri-Trash category, but, hey, many Ameri-Trash games are centered around a war theme. 

Even Civilization has elements of war in it.  The goal being to reach the iron age first, but war happens as a player tries to expand his territory.  Would this be considered a wargame?  It isn't specifically centered around war, but it has definite themes of war.

I'm not trying to start any arguments, I simply like that the articles are discussing wargames, and think this is a great topic to debate/discuss/generally chew the fat over.

[Gerald]

Discussing what makes a wargame a wargame is a potential can of worms I wouldn't wanna get into, specially since I'm a relative newcomer to the wargaming scene.

But, as I hope can be seen from most of the examples I gave, I'm focusing more on the historically based wargames... whether they use counters, hexes, blocks, cards or what have you.  This is what I'm hoping my articles can entice people to try.

[Mark Humphries]

It was always my belief that these games were never truly a popular style of game.  I always thought they were marketed and sold to a specific niche.

They were once the most popular type of hobby boardgames since they originated the hobby. The Origins convention started out as a board wargaming convention for example.

If the author is talking about a game that uses war as a theme, then most people play, and own, a wargame of some sort.  I've often seen people playing games with a war theme, but mechanics from another genre of game.

But, the articles, in my mind, raise a valid question, "what is considered a wargame?"  Do we consider the mechanics, theme or components?

Boardgame taxonomies aren't clear cut. It's easy to discern what is a CCG. What is a Euro is a tougher question. Is Mille Bornes a Euro? Is Acquire? Is 1830? What was the first Euro?

For Board Wargames theme is necessary but not sufficient. I expect a good wargame to provide deeper insights than I would ever expect from a war-themed Euro or Ameritrash game. Memoir'44 for example is a War-themed game, but does it provide any meaningful insights into WW2 tactics or operations? A good wargame should be a useful companion to a scholarly book or article on its topic.

It's all about how different priorities drive various tradeoffs and compromises. A Eurogamer tends to care more about mechanics and gameplay. An Ameritrasher tends to care more about nifty and trendy components. An Adventure boardgamer tends to care more about story and experience. A board wargamer would tend to be more interested in how well the game reflects the salient aspects of combat in the particular era and situation, and the quality of the research that went into the order of battle and the map (even if the topic is fictitious, Star Fleet Battles for example).

Board Wargaming is not the only simulation oriented boardgaming genre of course, Phil Eklund games tend to have similar priorities even though their topic focus is not necessarily war.

For example, I have a ccg, that one builds a deck with soldiers to combat an opponent. The game obviously uses ccg mechanics and components, but the theme is war.  Is this a wargame? 

I wouldn't, sounds pretty generic to me.

I also have a fantasy collectible game that uses pogs, called Clout.  The game is centered around building an army out of pogs (not figures, not cards, not chits) and destroying your opponents army.  While its collectible, it uses a mechanic that centers around dexterity, and has unique components, would this be considered a wargame?  Its theme is war.

I know nothing about pogs or pog warfare so I can't really comment.

Are the miniature games, such as Warhammer or even MageKnight considered wargames?  The theme is obviously all about war.  MageKnight easily fits into the Ameri-Trash category, but, hey, many Ameri-Trash games are centered around a war theme. 

Warhammer is an Fantasy Miniature (a.k.a Figure) Wargame, not a board wargame. I am not familiar with Mageknight.

Even Civilization has elements of war in it.  The goal being to reach the iron age first, but war happens as a player tries to expand his territory.  Would this be considered a wargame?  It isn't specifically centered around war, but it has definite themes of war.

Civilization (the original, not the Sid Meier stuff) was traditionally considered a multi-player simulation game.

I'm not trying to start any arguments, I simply like that the articles are discussing wargames, and think this is a great topic to debate/discuss/generally chew the fat over.

I love to chew the fat about the hobby, would love to get together over a coffee or a beer.

[vladsee]

  Very true Vlad.  Very true.  Perhaps we can make video tutorials (maybe even in partnership with Gaming Library) or conduct online tutorials via Vassal or Cyberboard?

Hi Gerald,

Sayang we weren't able to meet last sat to have a game and discuss this.  Here is a link to the games that are available on VASSAL.  Just click on the starting letter of the game and see if its available for download. 

http://www.vassalengine.org/wiki/Category:Modules

If there are any wargames there that you think might interest people, available on VASSAL, and the ones where we have the rules, kindly create another thread for the poll you had in mind. 

I was thinking we could try Commands and Colors: Epic. Upto 8 players of ancient combat fun!  The rules can be downloaded from GMT, VASSAL may have the "Epic" cards included in the module.  Just have to look for scenarios na lang...        

Problem Solved for rules, and scenarios:  http://www.ccancients.net/ 

[Gerald]

Great idea Vlad... I'll just have to read the rules for C&C: Ancients.  I was also thinking about the Napoleonic 20 line, because of the low counter density and relative ease of rules/explanation.  What do you think?

[vladsee]

The Napoleonics 20 series is also ok with me!  Its even easier than C&C and a lot less memory load required. 

[paenggoy]

Board wargames do not necessarily reflect the prominent aspects of combat or of the historical period involved, are not usually open-ended, and do not usually deal with randomness. Rather, they have to deal with the limitations of the medium and of players, which doesn't matter because they are meant more to entertain than to inform.

[vladsee]

I beg to disagree. 

Board wargames (at least the well designed ones) tend to show the tough decisons that the commanders of each force had to take thus simulating the prominent aspect of the battle, campaign, etc.  For example, in Pacific WW2 games, the Japanese side is given superior strength at the start with the element of surprise but with limited resources to work with.  The Allied side usually get suprised at the start which weakens its naval capability.  It has to conserve its forcess while waiting for the buildup of its forces.  In the meantime it cannot sit around and let the Japanese take control of Asia.  These are fairly accurate historical situations presented to the players and the decision on what to do next is up to the players.

In this example, you can see how open ended it is with several possible strategies that can be taken.  How much forces to allocate in invading countries is left to the players. Which countries to invade first and where to put up bases to position the ships, aircraft and infantry is all up to the players.  There is nothing that will dictate what you should do first.  Although, there are some strategies that will work better than others.

Randomness is a big part in most wargames.  Dice are rolled or cards are drawn during certain times to determine random effects of combat, weather, events, etc. 

Admittedly, wargames cannot capture completely the entire detail of a particular historical conflict.  There are just too many variables and conditions to do that.  All games, whether euros or ameri-games are limited this way actually.  Despite these limitations, you can still learn a lot of things (as well as be entertained in recreating/reliving these conflicts) from wargames especially the tactics and strategies involved.  You also get a deeper appreciation for history as well as the human sacrifice involved in each conflict.