Common Ground in Wargaming

[bayonetbrant]

(another thread I'm trying to rescue from the old country)

OK everyone, "back in the day" there were a handful of 'common-ground' games that everyone had played at least once, and offered a frame of reference to define wargaming discussions. 
You could always use PanzerBlitz or Squad Leader as a basis for comparison, if nothing else, even if only to say "this is totally unlike PB in that it..."

Something I've noticed in gaming circles today is that the common ground for wargamers is completely lacking.   
I think the closest we might get is ASL, but even there you have those who prefer ATS or LnL or CC and won't touch ASL.   
PanzerGrenadier seems to have replaced PB as the platoon-level game of the masses, but I know a LOT of people who are completely turned off by Avalanche's business practices and won't deal with them at all (to be fair, I never had a problem with them, but I only had a few small orders).

What are our "common ground" games today?  What should they be?   

M'44 as the 'first wargame' we should be using to teach any newbie/young'un who wants to know what "wargames" are?
PG for it's wide availability?
LnL/W@W for the graphical beauty to grab people and suck them into the game?
Combat Commander for the ease of card play?
Something else from GMT as a rock of the industry?
Something from Columbia, where the basic combat mechanic is widely shared and allows for people to learn new games quickly?

Or do we need to try to launch a new title as a common ground for wargamers to learn and play and share and have as a basis for conversations with each other going forward?

[Rekim]

This is an easy one for me to answer; all of my wargaming buddies own or know how to play ASL. Most of them do not play regularly, while others play ASL exclusively. I even know a couple of people with large ASL collections who have never played a game  :o

[Staggerwing]

I own more Avalanche Press games than any other publisher. What's the issue with them, other than that they are almost always hanging on by a thread financially?

[GJK]

The common (mis?)perceptions about AP is that their rules writing is horrendous and their map artwork is usually atrocious while at the same time having some of the most beautiful counters in the industry.  They really irked players however when they absolutely refused to allow any electronic versions of their games (VASSAL et al) though they have since relaxed that policy.

As to the topic, ASL is the standard around here since there are at least 3 large ASL groups that play on a regular basis within the area

[bayonetbrant]

I originally wrote that post back in 2010. So take any specific mention of any particular company with a grain of salt. I did not edit when I brought it over from the other place.  All I did was cut and paste it here

[DicedT]

Looking for a common wargame nowadays is futile. SL/ASL became a wargaming staple because there were enough gamers in the 1970s and '80s, and with enough free time to play, that chances are you would run into ASL at the local game store or college game club. Now there are too few wargamers with too little free time to play, and lots of wargames being published (most of which are collected rather than played).

It pains me to say it, but the hobby is just too small and fragmented for an overcharging board game. You would probably have better luck going with a computer game like Civ 5.

Michael

[GJK]

From a wargaming perspective, I think that may be true though it's interesting to note that more board wargames are being published today than ever before.  Perhaps they are being collected and not played or played as much as they were in the 70-80's.  I actually think that more people are playing today as well; or at least it would seem so since now I frequent a couple of FLGS's that always have games going and I never saw that back in the day.

If you talk about board/tabletop dominance though; Magic and WH40K would be my picks.  There's at least 4 FLGS's within driving distance of me and on any given day or night, you can walk in and see some kids playing either of those two games.  And these are kids that I would guess that you used to see sitting home alone playing xbox online instead.

[Mad Russian]

There are two common threads in wargaming.

1) The dedicated turn. Chess like mechanics that allow for well thought out moves.

2) Chaos gaming. These usually have impulses to varying degrees and force the gamer to adjust their plans/play on the fly.

I am much more a chaos gamer. I much prefer games with impulses and a considerable amount of unexpected actions that take place during the game.

Good Hunting.

[GJK]

To the extremes of those two that will "kill" the game for me:

1. The chess like game where if you learn the combo-move that guarantees a win or victory every time.  No good.

2. Chaos in games that is so chaotic that there is absolutely no pattern or predictability so it all just basically becomes a pure luck game.  Might as well roll a pair of dice (in a chaotic fashion) to see who out rolls the other.  No good either.

Then there's the greats that have a mixture of both; precision movements with enough chaos/luck/randomization in order to keep you on your toes.

[MengJiao]

(Or do we need to try to launch a new title as a common ground for wargamers to learn and play and share and have as a basis for conversations with each other going forward?

I think the idea of a game has expanded and it is this expanded idea of what a game is that is the new common ground.  For example, I happily played ASL for years, but almost any tactical WWII computer game is likely to be more satisfying than ASL from a simulation point of view.

And I guess that's the other thing -- I got tired of gamey games like ASL and looked for games that simulated things that can be more reliably or interestingly simulated -- WWII games at roughly company level (where most of the combat units are companies).  And there is some common ground in the area of game design since about 1995 for grand tactical games from say Battles from the Age of Reason (the BAR system) to the Grand Tactical System (Devil's Cauldron, where Eagles Dare and Bir Hakiem).  In these systems, command and planning are sync-ed (or not) to a range of unpredictable events.

So for me, the common ground is that tactically, you use the computer and for Grand Tactics you use a fairly sophisticated board game.

For some situations (air) I have combined a board simulation with a computer simulation (CLOD + The Burning Blue was an interesting combination and even Elusive Victory + Third Wire had its moments ).

As introductory games -- there are some pretty decent Medieval games like Agincourt that would work, but maybe a more nebulous idea of simulation would work as well (for example, my daughter likes a few minutes of Sword of Rome or a few of CLOD or half an hour of Mister Squirrel spins for the correct collection of objects in his tree stump).

[GJK]

If I'm to use my 14yr old son as a case in point for any kid that may be interested in wargaming, then what I have found is that they prefer tactical to operational or strategic and they prefer miniatures to counters and FPS or RTS will win over a turn based game every time when playing on the computer. 

Also, you have to categorize the type of play; solitaire, vs AI or vs another opponent.

You also have to categorize the type of game that you're playing; is it a "game" that has a war-theme wrapper on it or are you "playing" a simulation?

I happily played ASL for years, but almost any tactical WWII computer game is likely to be more satisfying than ASL from a simulation point of view.

Let me throw out this: I was watching some YouTube videos of ARMAII.  These guys were good and it looked and sounded like they were in a real life, modern day situation.  I want some of that!  Picked up the $10 version of the game, went through the "boot camp" (which I sucked at) and promptly get killed right off the bat in any mission if I try to do anything.  It's a simulation and perhaps very realistic but it's not much fun- at this point at least.  Looking to satisfy my FPS itch that I briefly had, I loaded up Red Orchestra 2 and played for hours.  Not very realistic (self-healing and spawning) but it was fun! 

My son is really getting in to miniatures.  We're planning on playing some Force on Force this weekend.  I guess that's obvious; he was just playing with "men" and GI Joe's only a couple of years ago (heck, still even).  Now having an actual combat system that goes with the mini's - now that's cool.  It might get too tedious for him though and he may die very easily and then to scratch his "itch", we may just resort to rolling rubber balls into the formations to see who "lives" and who "dies". 

The only "common ground" board wargame that I can think of is Risk and perhaps Axis & Allies.  Kids today start with computers and consoles.  If they play board games, it's maybe Monopoly or Risk with the family.  I think that it takes us that grew up with Avalon Hill and SPI to introduce them to true board wargaming or if it's more easily accepted, miniature gaming.  Lots of (geeky) kids are getting in to Magic and then perhaps WH40K.  It's an easy jump to Dust Tactics and then perhaps Flames of War.  THEN perhaps you can set up some ASL with them.  :)

[MengJiao]

Let me throw out this: I was watching some YouTube videos of ARMAII.  These guys were good and it looked and sounded like they were in a real life, modern day situation.  I want some of that!  Picked up the $10 version of the game, went through the "boot camp" (which I sucked at) and promptly get killed right off the bat in any mission if I try to do anything.  It's a simulation and perhaps very realistic but it's not much fun- at this point at least.  Looking to satisfy my FPS itch that I briefly had, I loaded up Red Orchestra 2 and played for hours.  Not very realistic (self-healing and spawning) but it was fun! 

   Computer FPS and tactical games vary a lot of course.  I was thinking of something more like Graviteam's things.  Even the crappiest solo round of Graviteam is more immersive than even the best round of ASL -- I think.
   On the other hand even the crappiest moments of boardgames like Where Eagles Dare are better than the best moments of Grand tactical games like Conquest of the Aegean -- I think.
   So the question of what's common is really more the question of what interests you.  For me, the purely tactical is the realm of the computer (such as for me ARMAIII these days) and the editor while the grand tactical is more of a boardgame experience.
    So if I had to introduce people to games, I would introduce them as simulations.  And for me what interests me in the realm of board games is simulating grand tactical events and particularly the range of choices commanders had at the time.

[Mad Russian]

For me it comes down to choices. The choices I get to make as a gamer.

Tactical level combat has lots of choices for the gamer to make. Every piece is generally important.

Operational level combat is not so well laid out. If you look at the Battle of Anywhere/Anytime you will find after a few playthroughs or reading a book or two what is required to win. Take Little Round Top or Bastogne.

Strategic gets back to there generally being lots of choices to make. Especially in theaters like the Pacific where you have land, sea and air involved.

I think one reason tactical is so well liked is the ability to visualize yourself in that situation. That's harder to do at higher gaming levels.

Again, I think the reason that miniatures are so well liked is that they are visual.

Good Hunting.

[GJK]

   Computer FPS and tactical games vary a lot of course.  I was thinking of something more like Graviteam's things.  Even the crappiest solo round of Graviteam is more immersive than even the best round of ASL -- I think.
   On the other hand even the crappiest moments of boardgames like Where Eagles Dare are better than the best moments of Grand tactical games like Conquest of the Aegean -- I think.
   So the question of what's common is really more the question of what interests you.  For me, the purely tactical is the realm of the computer (such as for me ARMAIII these days) and the editor while the grand tactical is more of a boardgame experience.
    So if I had to introduce people to games, I would introduce them as simulations.  And for me what interests me in the realm of board games is simulating grand tactical events and particularly the range of choices commanders had at the time.

I can dig that.  I think it obviously comes down to how serious the person is about the subject matter.  If WWII was "something that they taught me in 8th grade history class", then you *might* get them to play Battlefield or Medal of Honor on their XBox.  If you find them at a book store browsing through "Small Arms Tactics of the Soviet Army: 1941-45" then well may get them to sit down while you teach them ASL or even more likely, ARMAII/III.

[bayonetbrant]