|
Colonial Air Force posted:I don't have much interest in the period, but on the other hand, this makes me want to play it. Man I hope they do an ACW-focused ruleset at some point. My store has an entire campaign's worth of ACW miniatures, but I hate that whenever they do anything with them it's with a ruleset that has been out of print for 15 years. Grognards. 
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2012 14:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 07:39 |
|
|
There's really nothing stopping you from using Black Powder as written for ACW (or AWI), it's just that the supplement will make your work easier.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2012 14:45
|
|
|
Yeah use Black Powder- it works fine for ACW,
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2012 15:45
|
|
|
Comparison time! (okay, maybe no one cares, but I was wondering about the differences between different 6mm producers so made a few purchases of things I wanted anyway) Sorry that the photos are a bit unclear - no lightbox at the moment. Chieftan  Left to right - GHQ, Scotia, Heroics & Ros The GHQ model worked out at around twice the price of the others, and to be honest the difference is noticeable. The detail is really crisp on the GHQ tank, particularly on the turrets, tracks and the front of the tank deck, and there's minimal flash as well (not that there was too much on the others when compared to the 28mm stuff I'm used to). The Scotia Chieftan is clearly smaller than the other two models, but has better detailing than the Heroics & Ros one. The track section is a bit blurry in places on the H&R tank too. Bonus points to Scotia though, because the gun barrel is way thicker on theirs rhan the other two. This is good because white metal is soft, so as you can tell, it bends really easily and straightening gun barrels is a nightmare. Thicker is definitely better  T-55  Scotia on the left, Heroics & Ros on the right. The Scotia tank is noticeably smaller again, and the tank deck/turret is a lot less detailed than the H&R model. Curiously the whole track section of the Scotia, however, is definitely more detailed than on the H&R. The H&R T-55 also has a longer barrel but I'm not going to try to work out which is more realistic. It's worth noting that the GHQ pack had five tank hulls and five turrets. H&R sent me five of each tank hull, five Chieftan turrets and six T-55 turrets. Scotia, on the other hand, sent five of each tank hull and six of each turret. Since the turrets are probably easily lost (or barrels accidentally twisted until they won't twist back without kinks) this is nice. The lack of detail on some doesn't really bother me much, but the size difference is little annoying, since it's the kind of thing that would probably catch my eye if I was mixing different companies' products on the tabletop. That said, if you're getting upset about realism and scale in 6mm, you should probably chill out a bit. I've heard that some particular models from Scotia/H&R are really bad, while others are very good, so quality may be entirely dependent on exactly what you're ordering, which is why photos of everything would also be good in their stores, as previously mentioned!
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2012 23:23
|
|
|
Got me the new flames of war books, gonna pick me up some germans and good guys from plastic soldier co. I know all anyone plays is late war, but whats more fun, eastern front or western? I've probably read more about barbarossa than any other conflict, but everyone I plan on getting hooked probably cares more about the western front and africa... I'm thinking of getting like a panzergrenadier co and a reg infantry force to fight them, does that sound like a good plan? Also which briefing books are still valid in third edition? nuncle jimbo fucked around with this message at 23:58 on Mar 26, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2012 23:49
|
|
|
nuncle jimbo posted:Also which briefing books are still valid in third edition? All of them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2012 00:00
|
|
|
nuncle jimbo posted:I know all anyone plays is late war, but whats more fun, eastern front or western? Africa. Okay, so that's actually EW/MW, but it's still more fun. quote:I'm thinking of getting like a panzergrenadier co and a reg infantry force to fight them, does that sound like a good plan? It really doesn't matter so much "theater" as it does "nations" when it comes down to it. Just get two sets of Infantry groups - could even be two panzergrenadier groups - and go from there. If your friends are that picky, get an American Infantry box. Or hold out for whenever Battlefront releases the updated Open Fire! starter set. quote:Also which briefing books are still valid in third edition? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2012 00:27
|
|
|
lilljonas posted:There is no excuse to not have pictures up on your website of your products in the year 2012. No excuse. A lot of mini makers are still run by old men who have been playing the same games since forever and want you to feel the pain they felt when the catalogs they got in the mail were just mimeographs of price lists that had been typed up on a mechanical typewriter by an even older guy. In other words they're just lazy. Scratch Monkey fucked around with this message at 18:51 on Mar 27, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2012 18:47
|
|
|
Danger - Octopus! posted:Comparison time! I care... 6mm aint all the same. Heroics and Ros are 1/300 while GHQ are 1/285. Heroic 6mm if you like! Also have you checked out CinC? Same quality as GHQ but a little cheaper.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2012 20:59
|
|
|
Scratch Monkey posted:A lot of mini makers are still run by old men who have been playing the same games since forever and want you to feel the pain they felt when the catalogs they got in the mail were just mimeographs of price lists that had been typed up on a mechanical typewriter by an even older guy. Better times.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2012 21:03
|
|
|
Serotonin posted:I care... Where do you get CinC from in the UK? I could find American places selling it, but not UK ones..
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2012 22:23
|
|
|
http://www.wargamesemporium.co.uk/
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2012 23:19
|
|
|
Interesting article on the ever controversial topic of points systems and historical wargaming. http://toofatlardies.co.uk/blog/?p=811
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2012 08:51
|
|
|
Its been a while since I painted some of my 28mm WW2 figures. After counting up my "to do" pile I have: 2 boxes of plastic Bolt Action British infantry (for Italy) 1 platoon worth of metal Bolt Action British infantry (European style helmets) 1 platoon worth of metal Bolt Action German infantry 1 6pdr ATG 2 Universal carriers (Still on order from the UK) Oh dear. So I decided to paint the 6pdr as it was a relatively easy job. However the model didn't come with instructions and I only found out after I had glued some of the bits in the wrong place. The 3 crew it came with were wearing the European style helmet so I cut the helmet down on one figure and removed the head from the other. I replaced brain cases with parts from the plastic kits. I also needed a crew of 4 for the ruleset we are using for 28mm (Rules of Engagement) so I made up another figure from the plastics. I also added a few bits and pieces to the base, Tommy gun, SMLE rifle, shovel and rocks. I also tried to cut down some of the shells so the looked like APDS ammo. I gave up after 1 as the tools I had weren't up for it. So here they are:    
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2012 12:17
|
|
|
Looking really nice, I love making those sort of units dioramas. Much more fun.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2012 12:47
|
|
|
Just curious if there is a place that sells Sherman turrets. Like, I want to buy some M4A3 tanks, but I want to have a second set of turrets to swap out to make them 76mm without having to buy a second set of tanks. Or am I screwed and I just need to learn how to cast this stuff? Also, serotonin, interesting read about IABSM. I have found out that my LGS hosts a second group of wargammers (not-40k and not-FoW) who alternate between various historicals and stuff. They are planning on running IABSM soon, and I've already talked to one of the members about joining in. And yes, this is a different set of people altogether than the FoW group. Though they've been going at it with some civil war system (Old Glory, I think) which looks interesting.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2012 15:08
|
|
|
nuncle jimbo posted:Got me the new flames of war books, gonna pick me up some germans and good guys from plastic soldier co. I know all anyone plays is late war, but whats more fun, eastern front or western? I've probably read more about barbarossa than any other conflict, but everyone I plan on getting hooked probably cares more about the western front and africa... I'm thinking of getting like a panzergrenadier co and a reg infantry force to fight them, does that sound like a good plan? Whatever you find more interesting. As long as you remain in the same era, your forces are balanced for play. I expect most people are more interested in the western front, but that doesn't mean anything. I say this as a player with a Finnish infantry company. The two forces is a good idea. The advantage of going with a panzergrenadier is the Herr fought everywhere, so you can use many of the same minatures in different forces. The lists may be different, but an MG42 with crew is still an MG42 with crew.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2012 17:46
|
|
|
Got two boxes of Wargames Factory ashigaru, and as I put the spearmen together I'm actually a bit impressed. It seems like a lot of my reluctance has been because of people putting them together in a bad way or from the (horrible) CGI box art, when it's actually a nice kit. Some of the faces are not perfect, but I'll see what I can do in the painting stage. Otherwise, I'm a lot happier with them than I thought I would be.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2012 20:05
|
|
|
YF19pilot posted:Just curious if there is a place that sells Sherman turrets. Like, I want to buy some M4A3 tanks, but I want to have a second set of turrets to swap out to make them 76mm without having to buy a second set of tanks. Or am I screwed and I just need to learn how to cast this stuff?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2012 21:54
|
|
|
Yeah but that introduces the issue of scale difference. Is there a decent site out there that does good comparison of contemporary products?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2012 22:30
|
|
|
Scratch Monkey posted:Yeah but that introduces the issue of scale difference. Is there a decent site out there that does good comparison of contemporary products? Plastic soldier review has 'em, but I think they mostly do infantry.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2012 00:34
|
|
|
Serotonin posted:Interesting article on the ever controversial topic of points systems and historical wargaming. Ha, just talked to the guy looking to run IABSM at my local store. That article was in response to him. Hopefully we can get a game going soon. My work might be putting me on nights soon, and his group meet during the week.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2012 04:16
|
|
|
YF19pilot posted:Ha, just talked to the guy looking to run IABSM at my local store. That article was in response to him. Hopefully we can get a game going soon. My work might be putting me on nights soon, and his group meet during the week. Haha awesome. If you can get agame in of IABSM, do it. It's my favourite WW2 game now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2012 07:16
|
|
|
This game has come out of left field and got me curiously excited. Its also got the best title for a wargame ever. Maurice. http://www.sammustafa.com/honour/maurice/ Its a ruleset for the wars of the 18th century- Wars of Spanish Succession, Seven Years War, Great North War and of course the American Wars of Independence. It looks really good. Theres a 'lite' version of the rules for playtesting and a pdf with lots of info about the game on here: http://www.sammustafa.com/honour/downloads/ Its a card driven game, but a very different slant on it from TFL. Basically you have a hand of cards, much like Magic, or more like Memoir 44 and you use these in two ways- to activate units or groups of units, or to modify the actions you can do with those units. Your opponent can also use their cards as 'instants' in response to things you do. Your opponent charges and you play a card that might mean the ground in front of them becomes difficult terrain (That's Not on the Map is the card iirc) slowing their advance, or you might boost your volley fire in the firing phase. Each nation has unique cards and you are free to mix these in as you need. There's also a very clever campaign system with the emphasis on developing your commanders and officers to improve their ability. Its also the first wargame I've seen that there are actually rules (well a instant card to play before the battle) for gout! There's a points system for those who like that sort of thing, and standard games seem to be about 100 points, which seems to me from looking at AAR and blogs to be roughly about 15 units. You can use any scale as the whole game measurement system is based on 'base widths' (a unit is 4 bases usually). I know quite a few people doing this in 15mm with 20mm bases with 8 figs on, so the figure count is not high. There's no casualty removal so it suits 28mm with larger diorama type bases too. Heres a guy I know from another forums British army (hes using two 40x20 bases instead of four 20x20- looks pretty good)  Im beginning to regret selling off that SYW army (unpainted and still in baggies) I inherited. Serotonin fucked around with this message at 13:21 on Apr 1, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2012 11:50
|
|
|
Yeah, once that was announced I knew I had held on to all my Baccus 6mm SYW figs for a reason. I'm currently in the process of painting up a pair of armies while I wait on my copy to ship. I never really liked card-driven mechanics but I guess I've become a true Sam Mustafa fanboi because as soon as I played the lite rules I was hooked. That man can do no wrong I tell you. Every period he touches turns to my favourite 
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2012 12:37
|
|
|
lilljonas posted:Got two boxes of Wargames Factory ashigaru, and as I put the spearmen together I'm actually a bit impressed. It seems like a lot of my reluctance has been because of people putting them together in a bad way or from the (horrible) CGI box art, when it's actually a nice kit. Some of the faces are not perfect, but I'll see what I can do in the painting stage. Otherwise, I'm a lot happier with them than I thought I would be. Sweet, was hoping you would pick some of these up, as I have been dying to know what your opinion of them were. $20 for 25 is a steal (even better if you can get a discount), and I was inspired by your thread to consider making a Samurai Nippon army for WHFB using Empire rules as well (since the new book will be out soon), interspersed with Perry Miniatures and perhaps even some Clan War miniatures. If you could post some pics of your progress and let us know how you've gone, that would be fantastic. I have to restrain myself, as I jump into armies far too quickly I find, but this may just be my second WHFB army in the making (if Chaos Warriors don't jump out and steal my soul come August, that is). Edit: How do the plastic yari's compare to the steel ones from Perry Miniatures? Which would you recommend if I wanted to buy some of these troops? The Dark Project fucked around with this message at 19:15 on Apr 1, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2012 14:30
|
|
|
Update on my Nam project. Here are 3 hooches I've just finished and some GI's for scale. Now done 2 full platoons and just based and undercoated a third. Want to get the Yanks done before I go to Salute and pick up a sack full of VC and NVA!
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2012 14:32
|
|
|
Serotonin posted:Interesting article on the ever controversial topic of points systems and historical wargaming. IMHO he's missing the point of Point Systems. They allow me to show up at the weekly FoW meet after work and get in a game against a guy who may field anything against me on a table that was probably constructed with whatever left over terrain bits were lying around because it takes me 40 or so minutes to get there.. I also don't have to spend a week planning the game beforehand and become an amateur historian. The game will be fair, note I don't say balanced because worrying about "balance" is pointless and stupid. As for power gaming, Welcome to the real world where people care about winning? Given the option any gamer is going to go for the choice that they believe will result in their victory. Its part of being a gamer. What is the difference between me passing on a battery of 6pdr's in favor of a 17pdr (much better vs any late war tank) and me not leaving some unit in the open and instead putting it into cover(more likely to live if something shoots at them)? I see no difference between the two, but I don't see many(there is always somebody who thinks that "fair" means we line up our armies in the open and shoot it out) people complaining about me powergamming when I use tactics to minimize my losses and maximize theirs. But apparently fielding 17pdrs knowing that they are bringing the big cats is "power gaming." What once again, is the goddamn difference? YF19pilot: My Advice to your friend is that the Germans are far more beatable than they appear. When I started playing I was with a group of other players who were very new and we were being tutored by the more experienced players. They constantly told us this but we didn't believe them. The guys with Germans (I was one of them, Tiger I company) would win every time. The Allied players just couldn't win against our Panthers, Tigers and Fearless Infantry units. I would direct you friend to read this series of articles http://www.wwpd.net/2012/03/flames-of-war-statistics-101-pt-1.html Also to read up on direct fire smoke and the hit allocation rules. There is a lot more to it than that but around here people think British are "Uber and bullshit" because of the above.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 02:32
|
|
|
Numlock posted:IMHO he's missing the point of Point Systems. They allow me to show up at the weekly FoW meet after work and get in a game against a guy who may field anything against me on a table that was probably constructed with whatever left over terrain bits were lying around because it takes me 40 or so minutes to get there.. I also don't have to spend a week planning the game beforehand and become an amateur historian. The game will be fair, note I don't say balanced because worrying about "balance" is pointless and stupid. The difference is you want to play a points based game, and some historical wargamers want to play scenario games where not every german company of infantry has a platoon of tigers or panthers in support. Not every historical wargamer wants to play warhammer 40k set in 1945.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 03:41
|
|
|
Devlan Mud posted:The difference is you want to play a points based game, and some historical wargamers want to play scenario games where not every german company of infantry has a platoon of tigers or panthers in support. But a points system doesn't stop them from playing custom scenarios if they want to. It just seems a bit of a cop out to say "it's too hard" when asked for a point system when this is the easiest way to play a vaguely balanced game without both sides sitting down together to assemble their army lists and checking that they look similarly powerful.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 04:08
|
|
|
Devlan Mud posted:The difference is you want to play a points based game, and some historical wargamers want to play scenario games where not every german company of infantry has a platoon of tigers or panthers in support. Then play scenarios with the rules provided. I don't see what's so hard about this, and I see this feeling everywhere. It's not like point-based systems demand that you play pointed forces. And I bristle at the implication we want to play 40k in 1945. Using the lists presented in the books I've seen, you'll normally wind up with something resembling an actual combat force. I see a distinct lack of Daemon Princes wielding the trapped souls of thosands, backed up with 10,000 year old warriors attacking my dug-in Finnish infantry.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 04:34
|
|
|
Devlan Mud posted:The difference is you want to play a points based game, and some historical wargamers want to play scenario games where not every german company of infantry has a platoon of tigers or panthers in support. Sorry my post is all over the place, took me a hour of revision to get to that mess, the twofatlardies article got me thinking. My main opinion on the Points vs Not Points is the first paragraph. Both are legitimate ways to play historical games. People advocating the more traditional scenario based war gaming approach tend to be doing so because they are elitists who feel threatened by their hobby becoming more accessible to other types of gamer. This is clearly evidenced by the constant comparisons of FoW to Warhammer 40k in ways that are clearly meant to be negative as though there was something wrong with being popular and successful. I notice that when people complain about power gaming in FoW they almost always mention something about Germans and always taking Panthers. I know why they do this but it got me thinking about what power gaming really meant. At what line does "normal gaming" become "power gaming?" When deciding weather to take a unit of panthers over panzer IVs I am considering which option will benefit me the most. Many German players go with the Panther for the same kinds of reasons the Germans fielded as many as they could in the war and used them over panzer IV's whenever they could. Now in the game I generally want my panthers in cover, which the rules of FoW encourage as it makes them harder to hit. I am weighting the benefits of having them in cover vs not having them in cover(there may be situational benefits to not having them in cover). Now what I'm unclear on is the difference in those two decisions. Clearly my decision to place them in cover (making them harder to hit) couldn't be taken as unfair or power gaming but my decision to take the panthers in the first place is. In the end it seems like one of those apocryphal stories about Generals being offended about their enemy not fighting "properly" but in this case its people offended that their opponents making sensible choices about what forces they bring to the table. On the specific example I don't believe that Germans are overpowered or that FoW favors any one faction over the others. But it is true that new players will have trouble against them because they don't have a good handle on the mechanics of the game.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 05:08
|
|
|
I am a huge FoW advocate. I have written and submitted lists and articles for their website and I have my name in the V3 rulebook under support. I also play lots of other game systems. The topic of points vs non points has plagued Wargames for a long time. It's a topic you simply cannot change anyone's mind on. I personally like a points system. It limits the size of forces needed to have a typical game. If I started a new system it's easy for us to collect forces if we know we are aiming for a defined points total. Points are great for pickup games that don't require any organization. Scenarios require more planning but can be more rewarding. Flames of War doesn't have to be played with a points system at all. So saying FoW is bad because of a points system isn't really a well thought out argument.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 05:21
|
|
|
KSAF Staff Report posted:I see a distinct lack of Daemon Princes wielding the trapped souls of thosands, backed up with 10,000 year old warriors attacking my dug-in Finnish infantry. This unironically sounds amazing FYI. Warp Incursion during WW2, all hell breaks loose.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 05:59
|
|
|
Mikael Kreoss posted:This unironically sounds amazing FYI. Warp Incursion during WW2, all hell breaks loose.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 07:58
|
|
|
LintMan posted:So saying FoW is bad because of a points system isn't really a well thought out argument. Im not sure anyone is saying that. I think theres a cultural issue too- in the UK the majority of historical wargaming is done via clubs. Gaming at LGS and Cons is very much secondary. Tournaments are less common and are pretty much only FOW and FOG, DBA (not so much these days) here- all games that have a point system and are pretty much designed for tournament play. The need for pick up games isn't as pressing as clubs often organise campaigns, scenario play etc. The reliance of pitching up to a store with your 1000point take on all comers well rounded army in the hope someone else has a 1000 point army for that system isnt as necessary. Also Im confused at Numlocks attitude when it comes to the bit about scenarios and army lists and 'I dont want to become an amateur historian'. Surely that's a large part of the fun of historical gaming? Why bother playing historical wargames if you aren't interested in the history, the army orders of battle/TOE's, the campaigns/battles (even if its a what if) etc? You might as well be playing 40k/WFB/Warmaching (this ain't a criticism of those systems before anyone gets upset). quote:As for power gaming, Welcome to the real world where people care about winning? Given the option any gamer is going to go for the choice that they believe will result in their victory. Its part of being a gamer. Again dont agree. Everyone likes a win, but its the narrative thats the fun part for me and most of the wargamers I hang out with and play with, thats what we 'care' about. Ive had just as much fun losing in an exciting battle as I have winning. Maybe again its self selecting as I wouldnt chose to play with people whos only interest is winning. I want players who are as interested int he period etc as me and want to see a good story unfold on the battlefield. Hence again why I much prefer scenarios- either re-fights of real battles or what ifs, doesnt matter as long as its a fun game with interesting objectives other than 'kill all the enemy'. To be fair when I first started wargaming and played GW games mainly (and when I first moved over to historical games) I 'cared' about winning but that attitude has changed with time. Serotonin fucked around with this message at 08:52 on Apr 2, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 08:45
|
|
|
Serotonin posted:Also Im confused at Numlocks attitude when it comes to the bit about scenarios and army lists and 'I dont want to become an amateur historian'. Surely that's a large part of the fun of historical gaming? Why bother playing historical wargames if you aren't interested in the history, the army orders of battle/TOE's, the campaigns/battles (even if its a what if) etc? You might as well be playing 40k/WFB/Warmaching (this ain't a criticism of those systems before anyone gets upset). Some people just want to shoot nazis or push tanks around or whatever and don't really care about what actually happened in a given battle. They're interested in something like Flames of War because they liked the Call of Duty games or Band of Brothers or whatever and it's an alternative to what they normally play. A lot of this comes down to gaming culture wherever you play, I think. I was introduced to historicals through Flames of War pickup games, and having X point armies was the easiest way to find a quick game on minis night at the local store when you want to play something besides 40k. Now that I've found some other people with interests in stuff like Napoleonics, that's changing a bit, but that's all because I met people that were basically part of a group within the larger pool of gamers. Until you jump past that social gap (for lack of a better term), it's just a lot easier to find games when you know that everyone's going to have an army that conforms to some sort of standard that you can just throw on the table and have a go with no fuss. I don't really think one (points v scenarios) is better than the other, or that people should make arguments to claim one is. They scratch different itches and appeal to different types of people.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 09:23
|
|
|
The UK's club culture is really weird though. I've seen all kinds of horror stories about the bad ones, but the good ones seem to be all kinds of awesome.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 13:32
|
|
|
I love points games, but I'm not sure why it matters as much as others seem to think. I like them for the reasons Numlock stated, but I also recognize that Too Fat Lardies can do what they want and I can either not play them, or come up with a system of fairness on my own.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 13:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 07:39 |
|
|
Serotonin posted:Also Im confused at Numlocks attitude when it comes to the bit about scenarios and army lists and 'I dont want to become an amateur historian'. Surely that's a large part of the fun of historical gaming? Depends on the person. Me? No. quote:Why bother playing historical wargames if you aren't interested in the history, the army orders of battle/TOE's, the campaigns/battles (even if its a what if) etc? You might as well be playing 40k/WFB/Warmaching (this ain't a criticism of those systems before anyone gets upset). I can only speak for myself but I like Tanks and Tank combat and Flames of War fits that along with the fact its already well established. No other game is as popular or appeals to me aesthetically. The force books essentially take care of ensuring that the forces I field or face are at least historically plausible. This doesn't count Battletech which I am keenly interested in and that is a game that is all about scenarios and TOE's and stuff. The point systems for it are ether stupid or flawed and should be avoided. quote:Again dont agree. Everyone likes a win, but its the narrative thats the fun part for me and most of the wargamers I hang out with and play with, thats what we 'care' about. Ive had just as much fun losing in an exciting battle as I have winning. Maybe again its self selecting as I wouldnt chose to play with people whos only interest is winning. I want players who are as interested int he period etc as me and want to see a good story unfold on the battlefield. Hence again why I much prefer scenarios- either re-fights of real battles or what ifs, doesnt matter as long as its a fun game with interesting objectives other than 'kill all the enemy'. There is a huge difference between making an honest attempt to win (which I assume you do) vs being a huge dick and whining about anything that hurts you but trying to bend the rules in your favor. Aside from being a huge dick trying to win by pissing me off to the point of quiting just so I could stop interacting with them, not playing seriously against me is about as insulting and unfun a thing to do as I can imagine. Two people playing to the best of their ability is what makes the game fun and forms the narrative of it. quote:To be fair when I first started wargaming and played GW games mainly (and when I first moved over to historical games) I 'cared' about winning but that attitude has changed with time. You know what I did too, then I grew up a bit and I enjoy a loss generally as much as a victory, and I don't go around blaming "balance" or "power gaming" for my poor play.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2012 00:55
|
|