THE WORLD WAR TWO GROUP discussion
GENERAL DISCUSSION AREA
>
WW2 War Games - Board & Computer Simulations
Sadly, both systems are rather obsolete (especially Europa, which stressed quantity over quantity); Flattop still has some appeal. There are a number of newer, more elegant systems that you might enjoy
Lee wrote: "Ahhhh, my favorite topic!I see "Flattop" mentioned above, that was the 2nd wargame my brother and I bought, and we played the heck out of it. I am setting up to run a double-blind game at a conve..."
Lee, Flattop was and still is a great game. Played it endless hours in college. The most intense one was Squad Leader. It almost ended a friendship. To this day, he and I still talk about that battle. Now that's gaming!
Nick, I do play newer games, but I'll disagree, I think Europa still has plenty of 'elegance.'
I'm keen to go back to the old board & dice games, sad to say I sold all my games when I left home but I am thinking I should start looking about for a second hand game and someone to play with.
Lee wrote: "Nick, I do play newer games, but I'll disagree, I think Europa still has plenty of 'elegance.'"You are certainly entitled to your opinion and I have no intention of trying to persuade you otherwise but Europa is over 40 years old with creaky mechanics and an obsolete CRT (not to mention an OoB that is questionable). On top of that, much of research upon which that game was based is obsolete and many of the mechanics have been replaced by more elegant systems.
There are still guys who regularly played Akrika Korps and enjoy the hell out of it. I doubt any of them would postulate that the game has much simulation value remaining.
Come into the 21st century, man. (Grin)
'Aussie Rick' wrote: "I'm keen to go back to the old board & dice games, sad to say I sold all my games when I left home but I am thinking I should start looking about for a second hand game and someone to play with."Rick, they are tough to come by. Half price books sometimes has a few and of course, there are the specialty game shops. I have found a few in Amazon.
If we're talking about the ol Avalon hill games such as Afrika Korps Jeff, you can find plenty on ebay. i dusted mine off a while back andthought well these should be worth something, but found
most of them selling for $10 or so. Couldn't even pretend
my stash was cash.
carl wrote: "If we're talking about the ol Avalon hill games such as Afrika Korps Jeff, you can find plenty on ebay. i dusted mine off a while back andthought well these should be worth something, but foun..."
You would be correct Carl. Just perused through ebay. Quit a selection.
Hmmm time to get on Ebay
Nick wrote: "Lee wrote: "Nick, I do play newer games, but I'll disagree, I think Europa still has plenty of 'elegance.'"You are certainly entitled to your opinion and I have no intention of trying to persuade..."
Haven't seen any of the newer games, with the updated OoB research, then?
The CRT, I'll give you, I know many players who have replaced it.
Hi Tom, thanks for that information on VASSAL. To be honest I'd love to go back to the old board wargames of the past sometimes :)
Hi Tom, links to anything that is relevant to WW2 is more than acceptable for this group, we are all keen to find and learn new things on this period of history so you can't go to far wrong :)For those interested in the software that Tom mentioned, here is the link:
http://www.vassalengine.org/
http://www.vassalengine.org/wiki/Over...
Nothing says your a War Gamer like playing Terrible Swift Sword for months on end. LOL.I have found that miniatures take the place of my old table top wargaming addiction. Well as long as someone else brings the minis.
'Aussie Rick' wrote: "Hi Tom, thanks for that information on VASSAL. To be honest I'd love to go back to the old board wargames of the past sometimes :)"
The multiple hours I spent on Terrible Swift Sword, Avalon Hill games, Enemy at the Gates, etc. bring back fond memories. For this group I would like to throw out that there is a new computer version of World in Flames. The computer version has been ten years in the making and brings what is perhaps the best World War II global simulation to the computer...so you don't have to spend a day setting it up. It's large game from many perspectives, but it is very much worth learning. Hearts of Iron III is nice, but I prefer WiF. Just my two cents.
Tom wrote: "Hello Jon,I've been fighting the urge to pick up WiF the second I saw it was released. I had an early paper version of it (might have been it's 2nd version after its initial release) way back whe..."<
10-4 on that Jon. I had the same problem.
We used to play WiF at a friend of mine's house...he had the maps blown up at Kinko's and put them on metal on the walls. The counters were all in magnets, so it was pretty cool.HoI3 is fun, but I don't care for the actual combat mechanism much and I also hate playing on snooze speed and the constant stops when playing with humans. It's fun, but the pace can be tiresome.
Your are quite right that the new computer WiF does not have AI. I'm just looking forward to playing with some of my old friends, who are now geographically spread all over the U.S. and Canada, and the computer version facilitates it. There have been a lot of patches, but the books that come with the game are top notch.
I hear you about TSS. Would love to play that again someday. There was a good Chancellorsville game out in around 2005 that I played a lot.
I remember World in Flames. The first time I played it was at a convention in Seattle. Man what a game that was. I played the Germans and the guy running the game was worried cause I told him that I had never played the game before but knew what the Germans had to do. He was the Japanese so he was worried for more than just the sake of my enjoyment of the game. He was really worried when I kept sitting with my feet on the table looking like I was asleep.
He stopped worrying when I took, Leningrad, Moscow and Alexandra all on the same turn. Spain and Turkey said we luv's the Axis. LOL.
Jon wrote: "The multiple hours I spent on Terrible Swift Sword, Avalon Hill games, Enemy at the Gates, etc. bring back fond memories. For this group I would like to throw out that there is a new computer vers..."
I got my first face-to-face game of Bloody April, 1917: Air War Over Arras, France by GMT Games this weekend. A great play (a module also available on VASSAL for those unable to find ftf opponents). And if you like to read about what you are playing checkout Bloody April: Slaughter in the Skies Over Arras, 1917 by Peter Hart. Excellent coverage of what it was like to fight in the air during late WWI, the state-of-the-art technology during that time and the air campaigns. Amazing info on how airborne forward observers helped coordinate artillery fire, and the origins of airborne IMINT (imagery intelligence).
Thanks for the details on the game and the book Nick. I've read Bloody April and it is a good story of that terrible period of the air war in WW1. I am yet to read his second book; Aces falling.
and
by Peter Hart
'Aussie Rick' wrote: "Hi Tom, links to anything that is relevant to WW2 is more than acceptable for this group, we are all keen to find and learn new things on this period of history so you can't go to far wrong :)For..."
Cheers for the link downloading it as I type.
I didn't know about Aces Falling. I'll be adding that one to my list. Thanks Rick!
Nick wrote: "I didn't know about Aces Falling. I'll be adding that one to my list. Thanks Rick!"My pleasure :)
Tom,I see you are reading In the Graveyard of Empires: America's War in Afghanistan. Another great book on the history of this region is Tournament of Shadows: The Great Game & the Race for Empire in Central Asia. The focus is the West's & Russia's strategic interests and long-time involvement / rivalry in Pakistan / Afghanistan. The book was published in '99. I originally read it in the summer of '01. Reading this book will put the last decade and a half in perspective.
Totally agree that Peter Hopkirk's The Great Game is an excellent book. All this talk about wargames has got me thinking of trying to find some of the old board games and find a few willing victims to start playing again :)
by Peter Hopkirk
'Aussie Rick' wrote: "Totally agree that Peter Hopkirk's The Great Game is an excellent book. All this talk about wargames has got me thinking of trying to find some of the old board games and find a few willing victims..."Try Boardgamegeek or (better) Consimworld and you'll find plenty of folks both in your neighborhood and on line.
Thanks for that Nick, much appreciated.
Nothing better than more good recommendations for my reading pile, but I have to agree it's great reading a book about a campaign or battle you are playing. That is a good bit of advice about playing a game the way it occurred in history.
Tom wrote: "I'll second Nick's recommendation of both sites (I'm on both as well). I personally find BGG a touch more versatile with their ample links to instructional YouTube videos (can't tell you how many..."
You got that right Tom. The great generals read their opponents work for information so they had an idea what to expect in the field. But they always used improvisation to deflect attention to the main strikes, And, the best laid plans can fall victim to a few bad die rolls. I had more than my fair share.
Tom wrote: "Jeff, honesty compels me to own up to the fact that, while I've also lost enough games due to bad rolls and mimicking historical pathways of battles, I've most the vast majority for a completely di..."Tom, that's priceless. I can so relate. The mention of Squad Leader throws me back to college days. That was the most intense game my partner and I played. It almost cost us our friendship. Luckily, we were able to find our wits and regroup. Nothing like having your squad perish in a fortified building by Russian who went berserk! We only survived when we reread the rules and determined neither of us could have performed the actions. Oh, it took two weeks to sort it out.
Thanks for the information and link to the new game; Heroes of Stalingrad. I think a few members here will be keen to check it out as well.
Hi Tom, thanks for your excellent post and the details on "No Retreat - The Russian Front." It has me thinking about getting back into wargaming which may not impress my wife too much!
Aah, reminds me of when the Red Baron computer game first came out, endless hours flying missions till 4-5am in the morning! I am actually thinking of going back to the old board type war games. I will have a lot more free time soon and will explore what is available locally.
I will be checking Vassal out soon, thanks for the tip Tom :)
Last week, I attended a small wargaming convention. Like Tom, above, I had a reunion with a game I thought was just OK-- GMT's "Battle for Normandy". In the previous two games I had played, the Allies did very poorly, and we concluded the game was at least a little broken. Its revised rules made things much better, it was possible for the Allies to do well. Both rulesets were simple enough that we were able to teach several gamers the system quickly, and had them running sectors. Everyone that played said they enjoyed it. It will likely make a return appearance at next year's convention.
I will let you in on a little secret. Almost all Wargames are a little broken. And here is a great quote on why that is:This comes from the British military history on the Battle of Salerno:
"In the land of theory...there is none of war's friction." "The troops are, as in fact they were not, perfect Tactical Men, uncannily skillful, impervious to fear, bewilderment, boredom, hunger, thirst, or tiredness. Commanders know what in fact they did not know...Lorries never collide, there is always a by-pass at the mired road-block and the bridges are always wider than the flood. Shells fall always where they should fall."
This statement applies to war games with an amazing accuracy. Very few games address any of these issues, I have never seen one that addressed them all.
Lee wrote: "Last week, I attended a small wargaming convention. Like Tom, above, I had a reunion with a game I thought was just OK-- GMT's "Battle for Normandy". In the previous two games I had played, the All..."
Dj wrote: "I will let you in on a little secret. Almost all Wargames are a little broken. IMO, that's what the dice are for, to simulate varying degrees of uncertainty and friction.
If I can push the counters in a reasonably historical fashion, and achieve a reasonably historical result, then I think the game is unbroken enough for me.
I'm the same Lee and for me it was always about fun as long as the game didn't veer too far away from history but then again aren't we playing the game to try and beat history?
Good evening all, A question for the night. A week ago I met with my arch nemesis. We wore our Panzer Leader. He wanted to know if anyone every won the Patton scenario as the Germans. I bet we played that one forty times. He came within one counter of obtaining a marginal victory. It was a true blood bath. Every time I called in artillery support I would roll a SIX, scattering the fire right onto my armored infantry. Yes the die hit wall more times than the board.
LOL, I said that there were games out there that had addressed some of those issues. My favorite wild Artillery round was one in World War II MicroArmour The Game. I was aiming to hit some Infantry that was blocking the road, it went wide, high and to the left, ended up hitting an HQ behind a hill. A shot that would have been amazingly invalid if I had been trying since nothing I had as spotters had a LOS on it. But that is a fairly rare miss. Tom wrote: "That historian has obviously never watched me try to land spotting rounds close to any target in wargames I've played. ;-)
Dj wrote: "I will let you in on a little secret. Almost all Wargames are ..."
LOL, yeah that would be a great way to settle arguements, but I find Squad Leader to be more in the realm of rules lawyers now. I liked it when it first came out with the gradual learn as you go system, but know it is like bringing a mystic tome to a cooking class. We once tried doing Terrible Swift Sword as a double blind system with no table talk about the game, orders had to be sent to the commanders with a chance of their getting lost or misdirected. And we (well those at Corps or Army Command on the Southern Side) actually had to write them out or move over to the unit in question and deliver them. I was so livid when I hit part of 11th Corps and when they cleared the path I found the Iron Brigade waiting for me. The lack of satellite view of the map really changed the flow of the game.
I wouldn't ever suggest that anyone attempt it, we didn't get past the first day and had been playing for almost four months. It is hard to get that many people in the same place at the same time.
Of course if you want realism there is that massive SPI game about Rommel in the Desert, where you have to keep track of how much water you are using. I talked to someone that used to work there and they told me that was a game that was made to force those that wanted more realism in the game to admit that it was more cumbersome than fun.
Tom wrote: "I understand the point you make, Dj, and appreciate you raising it. I think that the lively debate of "Realism vs Game" in wargaming is always a compelling dialogue.
I think it comes down to what ..."
I broke a die once playing Terrible Swift Sword, they were dead set against me that night. I would either role routs or ammo deplete. And even worse when I did role good 11th Corps decided to stand it's ground and get wiped out in the open. I threw the dice and one hit the fire place and broke. I am pretty sure it must have had a flaw in it, since I don't think I can throw that hard.
Jeff wrote: "Good evening all, A question for the night. A week ago I met with my arch nemesis. We wore our Panzer Leader. He wanted to know if anyone every won the Patton scenario as the Germans. I bet we play..."
Dj wrote: "I broke a die once playing Terrible Swift Sword, they were dead set against me that night. I would either role routs or ammo deplete. And even worse when I did role good 11th Corps decided to stand..."I never broke one, but they show the scars of many a bad roll!
To be honest and fair. I don't play war games for complete realism. I look for two things now days. Ease of play and lack of arguments about the rules. Nothing spoils my night more than having to sit around and wait for tens of minutes while some obscure point in the rules are debated (sometimes very heatedly). It takes all the joy out of it.
"We once tried doing Terrible Swift Sword as a double blind system with no table talk about the game, orders had to be sent to the commanders with a chance of their getting lost or misdirected. "THE GAMERS (now part of MMP) had a whole series of games featuring an orders system (Brigade level). The orders concept, itself, was fairly simple \; the fun came in watching it play out as orders were delayed, went missing, were sometimes misinterpreted, etc.
One serious problem with wargaming boils down simply to the fact that players have too much knowledge and control over their units. In manual simulations (e.g. board games) this is almost unavoidable, especially if you want to play solitaire (and a large percentage of the hobby is solitaire). You always know where your own units are (read Barrie Pitt's description of El Alamein to see how difficult this can sometimes be) and you have far too much knowledge of where, and what, the enemy is.
There are a lot of reasons why folks come to the hobby. Most, I suspect, like the illusion and don't want to get involved with some of the more mundane, but vital, aspects of conflict. (As the saying goes: "Amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics.") I'm not making a value judgment, here - just a statement of fact.
Still, you can get more of a feel for the actual problems faced by the participants (at whatever level you are looking at) from a well-designed game than you can from reading a whole bunch of books. (Recognizing, of course, that game designers have a point of view as do authors). The problem comes in because a lot of games bear only a vague resemblance to actual events.
There's nothing wrong with simply pushing cardboard, treating the game as a game. I've done this myself, many times. But you have to be careful to separate lessons learned from these types of games from those of actual history. But I also note that "games" designed by professional military personnel are often just as lacking in insight. It is interesting, to me at least, that the best predictor of the Irag War was not anything designed by the military but a commercial wargame.
Playing Terrible Swift Sword I once got a lesson in Commander Fatigue, we were pumped about playing and had the whole weekend and went for nearly twenty hours straight, with the set up and getting the game off to a start we made it almost all the way through the first day. After getting a five hour nap I went into the basement and looked at the map and sat there eating breakfast trying to figure out why Pinder was nearly to Big Round Top. Hanging out there all by his lonesome. I am sure at two in the morning it seemed like a good idea, but in the light of day, I couldn't imagine what it was.
Nick wrote: ""We once tried doing Terrible Swift Sword as a double blind system with no table talk about the game, orders had to be sent to the commanders with a chance of their getting lost or misdirected. "
..."
Wargames and whether they are a relevant model of the battlefield is really determined by the wargame itself. There are so many variables in the real world which influence the battlespace they cannot all be modeled simultaneously by a game - either computer based or cardboard. Instead what you see a game do is model specific aspects of the battlespace while the rest are abstracted. For example, Combat Commander focuses on the challenges of disrupted command and control to the decision / execution cycle while abstracting time on the battlefield. Advanced Squad Leader focuses on combat firepower and its effects within a rigid spatial / temporal space while abstracting command and control at the unit level. The Operational Combat Series (OCS) by The Gamers is one of the best game systems if you want to understand how supply impacts a mobile combined arms force on the 20th Century battlefield, but this impacts the playability by forcing the gamers to keep notes and understanding fairly complex rule systems.The best thing to do is find a game you like playing and play it because you like it. Don't get too hung up on whether it is a realistic simulation - unless of course you are working for DoD in the simulations department :)
Well put Nick! My early experiences in play war games would indicate that I'm a crap general but I just enjoy playing the game :)
The Operational Combat Series (OCS) by The Gamers is one of the best game systems if you want to understand how supply impacts a mobile combined arms force on the 20th Century battlefield, but this impacts the playability by forcing the gamers to keep notes and understanding fairly complex rule systems.Actually, much of the OCS logistical system is based on the old "trace any route to a supply source" principal. I've actually found the supply system acts as much as a command system as a logistical one. If you keep your mechanized divisions operating together, supply becomes a restraint rather than a restriction. But if you break them up, in the pursuit of the extra factor (or three) to move the combat ratio up a column, then yes, supply can become close to a nightmare. As well it should. After you get familiar with it, iof you don't overthink it, the supply system becomes almost routine.
The best thing to do is find a game you like playing and play it because you like it.
Absolutely
MMP has just issued a "starter" game: Reluctant Enemies, dealing with Operation Exporter - the Allied Invasion of Syria in WW II. Reportedly about 60-70 counters, it is meant as an introductory game for people with little/no experience with the system. I suspect it is pretty unbalanced but also is probably excellent for solitaire play as well.If you can get a decent second-hand copy of Tunisia, this is probably the next-best introductory game since it starts with a small number of counters on the map (and builds from there)
Most of the other games in print have numerous smaller scenarios that will serve as well. As a newbie, I would probably stay away from Burma because the mindset needed to play the Japanese is different from just about any of the other games in the series.
I've enjoyed a few of the SCS series - particularly "Fallschirmjager" - but that system has left me wanting just a bit more
FJ is probably the most historical of the SCS games, which are generally designed as light games. This doesn't make them bad, per se; I have a number of them. But the game quality varies pretty widely. But on the plus side, if you like FJ, I suspect the OCS will not be that tough to take on.
THE WORLD WAR TWO GROUP
Books mentioned in this topic
The Great Game: The Struggle for Empire in Central Asia (other topics)In the Graveyard of Empires: America's War in Afghanistan (other topics)
Tournament of Shadows: The Great Game & the Race for Empire in Central Asia (other topics)
Bloody April: Slaughter in the Skies Over Arras, 1917 (other topics)
Aces Falling: War Above the Trenches, 1918 (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Peter Hopkirk (other topics)Peter Hart (other topics)
Peter Hart (other topics)
I see "Flattop" mentioned above, that was the 2nd wargame my brother and I bought, and we played the heck out of it. I am setting up to run a double-blind game at a convention in February, and am playing that by email currently.
We played some of Avalon Hill in the '80s, but bypassed them quickly for GDW's games. The "Europa" series, derived from the "Drang nach osten" is still one of my favorites. I am in an email game of it now.
I played a lot of miniatures games in college (other people had the rules and minis, I just had to roll dice and make plans), but now only at conventions.
I dabble in newer games whenever the budget permits, but I still return to my old favorites a lot.