Reviewing Wargames

[nikharwood]

A quick heads-up on a project I'm involved in as part of Germy's review team:

Reviewing Wargames was launched in August 2010. The idea of setting up a review service covering wargaming and related products, came to light during an internet discussion amongst a group of gamers. Growth in the number of blogs and websites by gamers and companies has given the wargaming hobby a higher profile. Many of these blogs and websites (both good and bad) cover the specific interests of the owner. Although they can be very informative they also contain a lot of opinion over the products featured. What we felt was missing was a review service which simply stated 'what you get' preferably with some nice big pictures to help gamers appreciate exactly what they can expect from a product.

The Charity Idea
But Reviewing Wargames doesn't stop there. We hit on the unique idea of auctioning off all items sent for review and donating the money raised to charity. All of our reviewers are giving their time for free and we have been lucky enough to have been offered support to cover the costs of hosting this website. So the charities can benefit from 100% of the auction price raised

Link is here: http://www.reviewingwargames.com/index.html

[capthugeca]

Sounds like a brilliant idea, Nik.
I hope that it takes off.

[nikharwood]

Thanks [not my idea I must point out - this is Germy's baby  ]

If you have a look here, you'll see companies supporting this already: http://www.reviewingwargames.com/about.html

And here's my review of the Dungeon: http://www.reviewingwargames.com/wargamereviews/pendrakendungeon.html

[OldenBUA]

And here's my review of the Dungeon

So typical. Of all the heaps and mound of Pendraken goodness you have accumulated, you had to choose this one for a review.  NIK again.

But I agree, it's a very nice product, and looks even better painted up.

[nikharwood]

I am the Evil Tempter, eh? 

[Paint it Pink]

But you know what, I quite like informed opinion about new products, note informed.

[nikharwood]

Latest round of reviews are now up: http://www.reviewingwargames.com/

[Sandinista]

Interestinly Nik, I've just beeb trawling through the site looking for ECW references reading through the WM adaptations you mentioned previously in other threads. Therefore I read your ECW review with interest as this may well be the next period I dip my toes into.

In many of your posts on here you say that command and control such as in WM & BKC are important to you in gaming, this is important to me too, how does the Polemos set compare in this respect?

Also I see from the pictures posted on the review that pike and shot are an the same bases, the other WM varients have separate bases for pike and shot in mixed units. Which works best in your opinion?

[nikharwood]

Interestinly Nik, I've just beeb trawling through the site looking for ECW references reading through the WM adaptations you mentioned previously in other threads. Therefore I read your ECW review with interest as this may well be the next period I dip my toes into.

Cool - it's a great period I think - loads of flavour...and some really interesting battles.

In many of your posts on here you say that command and control such as in WM & BKC are important to you in gaming, this is important to me too, how does the Polemos set compare in this respect?

I think, for me, without anything resembling a regular opponent (99% of my gaming is solo), Polemos doesn't accommodate solo play - so that's a disadvantage straight-off. I simply can't 'bid' Tempo Points against myself!

It's an interesting mechanism, but I don't necessarily think that it's as good as WM et al for giving the uncertainty of C&C; it's different - and I would have to defer to those that have played it with others - but for me, it's not as elegant a system. It is preferable to the simple IGO-UGO though...

Interestingly enough, I've just received the FPW Polemos rules for reviewing...so I'll give it some more thought!

Also I see from the pictures posted on the review that pike and shot are an the same bases, the other WM varients have separate bases for pike and shot in mixed units. Which works best in your opinion?

Yes - this is a little clunky for me: Polemos has an interesting way of dealing with the different ratios of troop-types within units; they do say that figure representation is unimportant, but then give examples of how to do it on the bases...So with infantry you've actually got five categories: Shot, Shot-heavy, Mixed, Pike-heavy & Pike. For cavalry it is varied by Swedish Tactics [offensive tactics] & Dutch Tactics [defensive tactics] - and, again, base representations are suggested as different.

I think I prefer the separate bases for WM etc - both for the visual aesthetic - and because it allows for some differentiation in-game with the unit & its positioning etc in a way that Polemos doesn't necessarily as the unit is on a single base.

I must note, though, that I have settled into a nicely comfortable groove of WM etc variants for all my gaming because I love the 'core' mechanics and find them adaptable across all my gaming...so it'd have to be something pretty special to change my inherent natural bias! I do try to be objective with my reviews though as this is what will make them useful for others.

I think that Polemos, if played with good opponents, can give a good game - and will probably be fairly fluid & fun. Howzat? 

[Sandinista]

Like you I am comfortable with WM type rulesets, but from what you say it is worth a punt  cheers

[nikharwood]

Cool - to be honest, even if the rules themselves don't prove to be to your liking, I think there is enough there to justify a purchase: scenarios are good [great maps] and background / overview info is really useful too...

You might want to keep an eye on the Reviewing Wargames site - to see when the auctions go live - you might get this copy for a bargain! [& proceeds to charity too  ]

[kustenjaeger]

Greetings

I'll have a look at my notes and may have a word with Pete Berry about solo play with Polemos ECW - I'm sure we talked about it at some point during the development of 1st edition. 

Regards

Edward