SITREP Podcast: What Makes The Perfect Wargame?

September 29, 2019 by stvitusdancern

Today Jim "Oriskany" and "G" talk about what makes the perfect wargame. Do we currently own it or is it something still off in the distance? Come join us and let us know what you consider the perfect wargame.

What is your idea of the perfect game?

Supported by (Turn Off)

Related Categories

Related Tags

Content: Podcast Period: Modern

Supported by (Turn Off)

16 Comments

oldest

newest most voted

Inline Feedbacks

View all comments

elessar2590

6 years ago

Great podcast.

Got to side with G Lord of the Rings is my pick for the best game on the market.

Want to play a Narrative Campaign? There’s dozens of books for that. Want to play a Warband level skirmish game with progression and RPG elements? There’s a book for that and it uses the same mechanics as the proper game. Want to play Rank and File Mass battles? There’s an expansion for that. Want to play Cowboys/Gangsters/Pirates? There’s a book for that. Want to play the Alamo? There’s a book for that.

No saves to worry about, Might is HUGE letting you modify dice and interrupt the enemy’s turn, different types of weapons have different attacks (although I question how often these are actually used), Plenty of character (Legolas and Gimli have to keep a kill count and the loser gets buffs) and heaps more it’s really a great game.

For future content Gulf War sounds good, Soviet’s in Afghanistan would be cool but there’s not really much to cover it could probably just go into an “Afghanistan” series with Soviets, Northern Alliance (including the Special Forces right after 9/11) and Enduring Freedom.

oriskany

Reply to elessar2590

6 years ago

Thanks, @elessar2590 – Yeah, we could do Gulf War 1991, War on Terror 2001-2011, or Soviets in Afghanistan 1979-1989 … we just wouldn’t be able to do them all … much less back to back. Any of these topics could easily fill a four-part “series” of Ops Center. I just worry that if we did them all consecutively they would start to feel repetitive.

Maybe intersperse some of these topics with 1992-99 Balkans and 2014-present Ukraine.

elessar2590

Reply to oriskany

6 years ago

Balkans would be cool but as you said it’s a very tricky one what with the ‘unpleasantness’ of the war.

Korea would also be cool to see but I’m not sure if it’s different enough from WWII to warrant being called “Modern” even though it technically fits into that era.

oriskany

Reply to elessar2590

6 years ago

The more I think about the Balkans the more I’m inclined to try it. I hate to say it, but a big part of what decides what I do for Ops Centers comes down to what miniatures I have for photos. Suffice it to say I just spent a little money on two whole new armies, though! 😀 😀 😀 Stay tuned!

templar007

6 years ago

So many options that to into a great game.

I enjoyed hearing the SITREP Team discuss the possibilities.

oriskany

Reply to templar007

6 years ago

Thanks very much @templar007 ! 😀

unclejimmy

6 years ago

I have to say that Force-on-Force is just about perfect. Well, for me! Easy to learn (once you free your mind from other games) and awesome to play. The rules have adaptations for just about every ‘modern’ theater you imagine…they even do Sci-Fi.

There are a few other modern wargames I have meddled with, and a quite cool to play, but FoF is my favourite.

@elessar2590 – FoF has a supplement covering Operation: Enduring Freedom, but the basic rules would be fine for staging games in Afghanistan during the 1980’s. Unlike the game you mention with FoF all your narritive/campaign rules are included – and are really effective too. No need for more books.

elessar2590

Reply to unclejimmy

6 years ago

@unclejimmy FoF is great. A friend of mine introduced me to Modern Wargaming with the Soviets in Afghanistan doing exactly what you said.

FoF is tricky for me since about a year ago a friend of mine got a hold of a beta 2nd Ed and we had about 20+ games of it so my opinion on the game is in limbo. I have to say though I loved the games we had so if a 2nd edition drops I’ll be all over it.

oriskany

Reply to elessar2590

6 years ago

Force on Force is still my favorite miniature-based moderns game (although to be honest I haven’t had a chance to try UltraCombat Moderns yet or Skirmish Sangin) … The “secret sauce” is the distinguishing rules sets between regular and irregular forces. The two players are literally playing different games, with different rules sets.

This is the truth of asymmetrical warfare. Not “few against many” or “quality against quantity.” In such games, both sides are still trying to achieve reciprocal / antithetical objectives. But there is still a clear winner at the end.

In asymmetrical warfare (i.e., MODERN warfare) the two sides are trying accomplish different objectives in different context (i.e., rules sets). These objectives do not collide on a one-one basis. So yes, it is possible for both sides to win, and both sides to lose. Because, you know, the outcomes of modern war are NEVER murky or unclear. 🙁

WITH THE SYSTEMS I HAVE TRIED SO FAR, FoF seems the best at this. It was definitely an influence and inspiration when I redesigned Valor & Victory for modern settings.

unclejimmy

Reply to elessar2590

6 years ago

PM me with your email and i’ll send you some things…

torros

6 years ago

Finally got round to listening. Not sure I have a perfect wargame. But for design,simplicity and elegance along with engaging gameplay it would have to be Blue Max by GDW

oriskany

Reply to torros

6 years ago

Almost anything by GDW is definitely a step in the right direction. 😀 😀 😀 I still love their Assault series for experienced wargamers and their Team Yankee “First Battle” series from 1988-89.