Reply To: Please Change my Mind and Point of View

[oriskany 60771xp 1]

Thanks for the replies @crazyredcoat and @admiralandy .

I would agree with Andy that “consim” games are on all “Four Levels of Wargaming” – tactical, command tactical, operational and strategic.  Examples:  Battletech started as a hex-driven game on the tactical scale.  Command Tactical is anything from Valor & Victory to GDW Assault (literally thousands of titles here).  Operational could include Napoleon’s War: Hundred Days, Overlord, Gribsby’s War in the East, or Waterloo … and Strategic could include Middle Kingdom to rise and Decline of the Third Reich, and hundreds of others.

Nor do consim games exclude miniatures.  GHQ Microarmor is a miniatures game, and tactical (Level Two).  Fistful of TOWs is probably another good example.  The aforementioned Napoleon’s War: Hundred Days is an operational game that comes with 3D pieces, that I see some players enjoy painting to enhance their set.  To be fair, such games do not exclude miniatures, minis are never the primary focus.

It’s just a different philosophy, or emphasis, where the game, the tactics, the strategies, the units, the history (or other lore) are the primary focus, not the miniature.  Players who enjoy this kind of game seek something else, a depth and immersion that the rule sets of miniature games just don’t (or can’t) support.

“People like their tiny fighting men …” Actually, not all of us.  This was a big reason I was so happy when Beasts of War became OnTableTop, it seemed to signal the broadening to all kinds of wargaming.  Again, the “team” tried, the “community” didn’t follow along quite as much.

“Is it also due to the fact that kind of gaming is not as suited to casual fun play and requires more commitment to trawl through a badly laid out and maybe even flawed system rulebook?”  I agree and disagree with this in equal measure.  Yes, I would completely agree that this kind of gaming does not suit “casual” play.  But I wouldn’t consider casual to equal fun.  To me, casual games not fun.  They are often aggravating and I find them a waste of my time.

Also, the rule books for these games are not badly laid out.  In fact, I find the reverse to be the case.  Companies that crush out quickly-produced rule books simply to get you to buy their miniatures, and which have way more annoying and obstructive fluff than … oh, actual rules … THOSE are the ones that are badly laid out.  If we need proof, just look at how many miniature rules sets are offered for free.  I don’t think most companies will spend much time refining a component product from which they will drive no revenue.

Again, not better or worse … just different.  Consim games are all about the GAME.  100% of the development, testing, marketing, packaging, and delivery is the GAME.  Minis would only be a distraction.  So their rules books are usually much better.  Of course there are some stinkers out there in any gaming medium.

The rule books are much longer though.  I’ll definitely cede that point.  😀

“Quelle Affair!” was definitely fun.  Although to be fair it’s pretty much a remake of Jim Dunnigan’s (yeah, that guy again) “Napoleon at Waterloo” from Avalon Hill in 1971.  Nothing new under the sun, and all that.

Star Fleet Battles was definitely awesome.  I played Star Trek Tactical Combat Simulator myself (not a video game, despite the confusing title), but I have many friends who were SFB fans as well.

Anyway guys, I definitely appreciate the replies and the ideas.  If a certain type of game is not popular on a certain website, there are other websites where the reverse is true.  It’s all fine.  I only brought this up earlier to cite examples in making a counterpoint on the whole “exclusion” thing.