Motivation - History, figures or rules

[Chris Pringle]

History got me interested - but I've found a tension between areas of interesting history and interesting rules.
Many parts of history feature one dominant army or general, and it's often not much of a game playing "Romans can't lose" or "+5 for Napoleon in radius".

Hi Steve, I suggest that's a problem of scenario design rather than rules per se. Take the Franco-Prussian War, for instance, which many wargamers seem to steer clear of because they perceive it as one-way traffic with the French being kicked all the way to Paris and beyond. While that's sort of true, the individual historical battles can be made hugely interesting and entertaining games if the victory conditions are calibrated appropriately. Some of our group (me included) particularly relish the challenge of commanding truly terrible armies and trying to do better than they did historically.

That's the design philosophy that informs all our historical scenarios for "Bloody Big BATTLES!" - basically, take the historical result as the "par score", and players may still lose the battle but win the game if they lose it less badly than what actually happened - and I think it's a good one.

Chris

Bloody Big BATTLES!
https://uk.groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/BBB_wargames/info
http://bloodybigbattles.blogspot.com/

[Westmarcher]

Take the Franco-Prussian War, for instance, which many wargamers seem to steer clear of because they perceive it as one-way traffic with the French being kicked all the way to Paris and beyond. While that's sort of true .....

Yep! 

- basically, take the historical result as the "par score", and players may still lose the battle but win the game if they lose it less badly than what actually happened - and I think it's a good one.

Plus, the "loser" can come away feeling reasonably satisfied if he still "wins" the battle (albeit not so convincingly as the historic outcome). 

[Norm]

Tough one;

I wouldn't say history, but then I don't do sci fi or fantasy, so if everything else is equal, then the history must be important.

I am tempted to say the figure is my temptress, but I did just boardgamig for so many years (and still do), perhaps that is not true either.

I am tempted to say that the rules are not such a biggie for me and that I like things  fairly simple, then why do I have ASL and Lock 'n Load and Panzer type rules for my first love - tactical and why do I have multiple sets for other periods and why do I have four significant  rulesets for ancients when I don't have ancient armies (yet!)

I am tempted to say I quite like writing my own rules, but I don't. I just do that as a consequence of using hexes. I much prefer the nice productions with all the work done for me. I don't really play Black Powder much, so why do I have the rules and so many of the supplements?

I've decided I am not going to answere the question ... it is too difficult :-)

[Leman]

Dead easy for me these days. If the rules are naf the corresponding figures either don't get bought or get sold off. I witnessed another example of this in the club today. Went down for a Square Bashing game  - great fun, easy to use rules and all over in 2 1/2 hours. On a neighbouring table was a beautiful Hellenistic game using very well painted 15mm armies. The pike blocks looked superb. BUT that's the second week that game has been left up. Knowing the sessions most of the evening/Sunday afternoon players keep it is my estimation that so far that game has been running for about 8 hours. The QRS (sic) was on the table - 10 sides of A4. I took a quick glance. One table was a test to see whether a unit had panicked. Next to that another table to test whether a unit had not panicked. Surely if they pass the first test the second is superfluous. It is this style of rules that puts me right off a game, and quite possibly then colours my view of an entire period, eg. I didn't play ancients for about 15 years until my interest was reawakened by Impetus.

[mollinary]

Dead easy for me these days. If the rules are naf the corresponding figures either don't get bought or get sold off. I witnessed another example of this in the club today. Went down for a Square Bashing game  - great fun, easy to use rules and all over in 2 1/2 hours. On a neighbouring table was a beautiful Hellenistic game using very well painted 15mm armies. The pike blocks looked superb. BUT that's the second week that game has been left up. Knowing the sessions most of the evening/Sunday afternoon players keep it is my estimation that so far that game has been running for about 8 hours. The QRS (sic) was on the table - 10 sides of A4. I took a quick glance. One table was a test to see whether a unit had panicked. Next to that another table to test whether a unit had not panicked. Surely if they pass the first test the second is superfluous. It is this style of rules that puts me right off a game, and quite possibly then colours my view of an entire period, eg. I didn't play ancients for about 15 years until my interest was reawakened by Impetus.

I recognise these symptoms. I had a 20+ year hiatus with Ancients between WRG 7.596 and its Extra Heavy Light Infantry with Rhompheiai and Bow, and rediscovering fun with Command and Colors Ancients and then To the Strongest!

[Nick the Lemming]

Dead easy for me these days. If the rules are naf the corresponding figures either don't get bought or get sold off. I witnessed another example of this in the club today. Went down for a Square Bashing game  - great fun, easy to use rules and all over in 2 1/2 hours. On a neighbouring table was a beautiful Hellenistic game using very well painted 15mm armies. The pike blocks looked superb. BUT that's the second week that game has been left up. Knowing the sessions most of the evening/Sunday afternoon players keep it is my estimation that so far that game has been running for about 8 hours. The QRS (sic) was on the table - 10 sides of A4. I took a quick glance. One table was a test to see whether a unit had panicked. Next to that another table to test whether a unit had not panicked. Surely if they pass the first test the second is superfluous. It is this style of rules that puts me right off a game, and quite possibly then colours my view of an entire period, eg. I didn't play ancients for about 15 years until my interest was reawakened by Impetus.

I don't suppose you noted the name of the rules did you? You can PM me if you don't want to name and shame openly.

[Leman]

TBH I didn't clock the name, but they did look as though a Phd in Dry as Dust was a requirement to play use them was necessary.

[steve_holmes_11]

This is one reason I play Saga and Dux Bellorum - Saga is a fun quick game of thirty lads out on the rap having a scrap with a similar sized gang. Dux Bellorum has armies of at least a few hundred men so the shield wall becomes a meaningful formation.

It's a good point, my oldskool wargamer vision struggles to see 30 models as 30 individuals, imposing a traditional ratio and interpreting it as a 20 ship raiding force.

I do love Dux Bellorum, hits my sweet spot for force size and "attitude".

[steve_holmes_11]

Hi Steve, I suggest that's a problem of scenario design rather than rules per se. Take the Franco-Prussian War, for instance, which many wargamers seem to steer clear of because they perceive it as one-way traffic with the French being kicked all the way to Paris and beyond. While that's sort of true, the individual historical battles can be made hugely interesting and entertaining games if the victory conditions are calibrated appropriately. Some of our group (me included) particularly relish the challenge of commanding truly terrible armies and trying to do better than they did historically.

That's the design philosophy that informs all our historical scenarios for "Bloody Big BATTLES!" - basically, take the historical result as the "par score", and players may still lose the battle but win the game if they lose it less badly than what actually happened - and I think it's a good one.

Chris

Bloody Big BATTLES!
https://uk.groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/BBB_wargames/info
http://bloodybigbattles.blogspot.com/

Ta Chris.

I avoid a lit of the "Hyphenated wars" for a different reason.
There are only 2 teams involved, and I prefer a bit more diversity.

[Chris Pringle]

I avoid a lit of the "Hyphenated wars" for a different reason.
There are only 2 teams involved, and I prefer a bit more diversity.

Hmm, well, that's not strictly true for most of them. And any given army can usually choose from several historical opponents, albeit in different conflicts. Eg Prussians fight Danes, Austrians, Bavarians, Saxons, Hanoverians, French (Imperial and Republican). Austrians fight French, Italians, Danes, Prussians. French fight Russians, Austrians, Prussians, Bavarians, Italians. Turks fight Serbs, Russians, Rumanians, Greeks. Etc etc.

Each to his own, though. Which are the more diverse conflicts that light your candle?

Chris

[Cavillarius]

Depends how far we go back really...

As a kid, it was figures first, but that got me interested in history, an interest that outlasted my love for the toys. Recently, after 35 years of history books, I've rediscovered the toys. Rules are interesting, but always frustratingly flawed versions of history.
So: history, figures, rules, in that order!

[kabrank]

Oddly for me the first interest is the Technology involved in the period and how this influences the conflicts.

Particular interest is in periods of transition between dominant technologies and how this shapes the associated conflicts.

Love a nice figure but scale has to be suitable for the scale of game and conflict and hence quiet transition to 10mm for many areas [not sure what to do with my 20mm WW2 massed armor!]

BBB has inspired the group I play with to look more at 19 Century and we will be looking in at the Warfare game on Sunday [Just did and ACW test with BBB and loved it!]

Kelvin

[Chris Pringle]

BBB has inspired the group I play with to look more at 19 Century and we will be looking in at the Warfare game on Sunday [Just did and ACW test with BBB and loved it!]
Kelvin

Happy to hear that, Kelvin - looking forward to meeting you at Antietam aka Warfare in Reading on Sunday!

Chris

Bloody Big BATTLES!
https://uk.groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/BBB_wargames/info
http://bloodybigbattles.blogspot.com/

[kabrank]

Hi Chris

Will look forward to meeting you and several of my players will be along as well I suspect.

I would appreciate a little chat on using BBB for smaller actions as we try to stick to a minimum number of Rule sets and there is some interest in multi using ACW figures for Pacific war etc.

Also looking at possibly some WW1 desert.

Kelvin

[Chris Pringle]

Will look forward to meeting you and several of my players will be along as well I suspect.
I would appreciate a little chat on using BBB for smaller actions as we try to stick to a minimum number of Rule sets and there is some interest in multi using ACW figures for Pacific war etc.
Also looking at possibly some WW1 desert.

That will be great. Have you joined the BBB Yahoo group? You will find a ton of scenarios for all manner of different conflicts in the group files. For War of the Pacific there is a small scenario for Tacna, and a bigger one for the twin battles of Chorrillos & Miraflores - complete with naval gunfire support, minefields, machineguns, railway guns, and other colourful stuff.

Chris

[kabrank]

Hi Chris

Not rejoined Yahoo since Oath took over as I use a work PC and they seam to want cookies etc.

[Womble67]

For me at least it was Airfix soldiers (21 pence per packet) which got me interested in the Second World War

Take care

Andy

[skywalker]

I was a kid in the 1960,s and my favourite toys were my wooden castle with Britians and Timpo 1/32 scale figures, and of course my Action Men ;DI was introduced to wargaming at senior school back in 1973, Airfix figures being the cheapest way to feed my addiction, mainly WW2 and Napoleonics. Nowadays it is my love of history first, figures second and rules a close third,

[Leman]

I have to admit to being mystified that some  will play a game with any old rubbish rules just because they like the figures. All that painting, and for what?

[FierceKitty]

I have to admit to being mystified that some  will play a game with any old rubbish rules just because they like the figures. All that painting, and for what?

If people haven't read up on the history, too often they may not realise how bad some rules are.