Cops and robbers. Cowboys and Indians. Someone has to play the bad guys…but when we do so, is it fun, challenging, contentious or educational? Do you consider the OPFOR role as a useful tool to expand our understanding of wargaming (and dare I say military operation) perspectives? Are there some OPFORS you don’t want to play for personal or political reasons (the SS, Vietcong, Taliban, Hamas, etc.)?
It has often been said (well, by me at least) that there is no shortage of good ideas. The difficulty comes in execution. What are some examples of games that you thought or hoped would be great, but turned out to be disappointmenting? What made them thus? And did you or the gaming community respond with house rules to make it better?
Digital gaming introduced an entirely new sensibility to wargaming: sound. While we may admit to having uttered the occasional “raawrrr – – – taka-taka-taka” whilst playing our favorite air war board games, there is no doubting that the sound-scape of most new generation computer games adds an entirely new and important dimension to the war gaming experience. Which begets a few questions: 1) Do you play with sound on or off? 2) How important is sound to your gaming experience? and 3) how much does “bad” sound detract from gaming?
Mention “wargame” and most of us traditional grogs think of hex maps, cardboard counters, dice and CRT’s. But a number of wargames are entirely card-based. What’s your opinion of card-based wargames? Do they measure or even surpass traditional board-based games? Or do they offer an entirely different experience? Any favorites or dislikes?
Although we often tend to think of warfare as conflict between two opposing armed forces, military operations have often been directed at civilians. Sometimes this is done to eliminate support or demoralize an enemy, but sometimes it is because civilians are a source of lootable resources. This in turn leaves the moral wargamer designer / gamer with a critical choice: should civilians be designed into a wargame, and if so, how? If one army is to protect a civilian body, should the opposing force to rewarded to destroy it? Or are civilians just to morally complex to include the wargame paradigm?