Switch Theme:

Preferences for Miniatures Games?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in us
Infiltrating Prowler





Portland, OR

There isn't a perfect game out there, we all have our favorites and games we don't like. Some like vast squad and large encounters vs smaller individual skirmishes. I'm trying to get a better feel for what people individually prefer, as there are a lot of different variations of the same thing. There are aspects of games we do like that contain parts we may not like but overall it is a better system so we choose to play it more. Or it could simply be you play it more because those are the only options you have locally. I have definitely been in that situation. I'm just trying to get an idea of what people like or don't like about their game systems.

Ideally if you could piece your own game system taking elements of various games to somehow mash them together, what do you think your ideal game experience would encompass?

Squads vs Individual Units - What is your preference over squad based game play vs individual unit game play and what do you prefer? Which game system covers that aspect of squads/skirmish/individual units that you like? Is it just the ability to field a larger amount of troops so you can have bigger battles, vs small skirmish encounters?

Initiative and Activation - What are your feelings on initiative and activation, which game system seems to cover that aspect that you like more and why? For a rules sake, there has to be someone who will have initiative so they can move first as well making it easier to resolve certain rule conflicts. Combat usually isn't one side goes first, then another but there is a definite waiting game of deployment and counter actions to enemy movement. Some games like X-Wing can handle blind and simultaneous moving well, but for ground miniatures game that isn't necessarily the better system.

Do you like games where you can react either by movement, or firing to an opponents move? Do you think there should be times that a squad/individual should be able to return fire, in response to being shot at or simply since the other team has initiative to shoot/move first, they just get that first shot? What do you prefer or would like to see and is there a particular rule system that seems to cover that aspect that you like more?
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




UK

(Solos vs) Squads vs Individual Units

I think this one is set by the size of the game more than by personal preference, If I'm playing something with very few minis on the table I want to be able to deal with them on an individual level,

by the time there are 20-30 having some sort of squad or unit system makes sense otherwise the game takes to long to play

and by the time you hit 100+ even representing squads starts to grind (which is probably I find most large scale SF stuff awkward now, it's hard to ignore the comms & tactics that should be present, but if you play it out that way it takes so long)

Initiative and Activation

I prefer IGoUGo at to whole army initiative as long as it's tempered by some mechanism to avoid the player with superior numbers having an 'all of the rest of my units now go' block (spread them out, random draw from a bag or whatever)

I like reacting to an opponents movement/fire, but think it should be something unavailable to most troops (only elite or prepared units should be able to do so, simply to prevent games slowing to a crawl)

I'm quite fond of narrative gaming (the horror) with unbalanced forces... hold the firebase, capture the ford, escort the refugee convoy or whatever, although I realise that's not everybody's cup of tea (and pretty much impossible outside of pre-planed games with friends)

but all that said, I'm attracted to the shiney so a model set is more important than a rule set (I pretty much only game with friends now, and rules swiftly get modified to suit) and a good background is almost as important in selling me on a game too

 
   
Made in us
Brigadier General






Chicago

Squads vs Individuals, Reaction vs alternating vs igougo, etc, I actually don't necessarily have a preference. When looking at a ruleset I'm hoping to find.

-Less complexity. In general I prefer faster-moving, easy-play rulesets. Abstraction that assists gamplay is almost always a good thing in my book.

- 45-90 minute game time. A little longer is ok, but being able to fit two games into a club game night is generally preferred.

- A game should either have a good unit creation mechanic or have army lists with enough variety to cover or proxy most of the unit types of the rules genre.

- Rulesets that emphasize tactics movement over list-building. It's sometimes a hard quality to nail down, but games that focus on or reward extensive list-building have almost zero interest to me. If I wanted to list-build, I'd play competitive MTG.

- A good value. Also sometimes hard to pin down, but if the rules are going to cost more than $20 it had better be a great game, and if it's more than $40 then I'm unlikely to participate. There are exceptions, but in my experience a good game doesn't require hundreds of dollars in books.

In general these requirements to lead me away from some of the more popular systems (Warmachine, 40k WHFB, etc.) and some of the more extensive activation systems (5150), but there are exceptions.

Games representative of my preferences include Song of Blades and Heroes, Warpath, Mech Attack, Nuclear Renaissance and others.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/13 20:13:24


Chicago Skirmish Wargames club. Join us for some friendly, casual gaming in the Windy City.
http://chicagoskirmishwargames.com/blog/


My Project Log, mostly revolving around custom "Toybashed" terrain.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/651712.page

Visit the Chicago Valley Railroad!
https://chicagovalleyrailroad.blogspot.com 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





For Sci-Fi, Striker II had an initiative system that worked quite well.

Around 2005, when I was working on updating the game to incorporate both higher and lower level game play, we managed to come up with a system that kept larger forces with higher initiative from simply waiting until the other player had moved everything, and then overwhelm them by having a smaller force be able to "tempt" enemy units into action; luring them into premature activation.

It worked pretty well for moderate Tech Levels, but from what I know from friends who work in Meta-Material engineering at UC Berkeley and Stanford, as well as AI development for military applications, we found that at higher TLs there simply was no "conflict." One AI drone fire team with a human controller in a Grav Command vehicle could devastate entire continents (basically a Grav gunship about the size of a 737 that carries 5 ground combat drones, three air combat, and a litany of drone weapons, including EMP and Nuclear). They pop an EMP over a Continent, drop a telecom drone into the computer network to shut down anything that survived the EMP, then look for anything remaining and send Combat Air Vehicle drones to bomb what remains, and then walk through each area in turn with the ground combat drones.

And this did not even include selective DNA or Nanotech based assaults, where you just dust the continent with Nanites, which infiltrate everything, and then you just flip an off switch.

And with the EM meta-materials, you get realistic invisibility across all spectrum. The only way to detect the gunship was to sprinkle it with flour, like you would a ghost (metaphorically). In reality, you need a comparable technology that can put out Nanites clouds that detect the actual volumetric displacement of the invisible vehicle, or the Directional laser it uses to rid itself of heat.

And this is based upon realistic projections of just a decade or so from now.

We had to ignore reality and pretend that even Hard Sci-Fi universes like Traveller were simply Fantasy outgrowths of the Golden and Silver Age Sci-Fi writers, and write them based upon assumptions we now simply know to be false which are a part of the game or universe.

For Fantasy.... There is basically Skirmish, and Armies.

Everything I have seen in terms of WHFB, Kings of War, etc. Is just glorified Skirmish, pretending to have "units" (but their underlying assumptions break down upon examination).

Saga, and LotR SBG are both nice Skirmish games, and I would really like to see a fantasy version of Saga (Maybe I'll get some friends in Dallas who are into it to write one).

For Armies, there are fantasy variants of Fields of Glory and DBM(M) (either DBF, or, even better, a game called Hoplon which is like DBM with units, and an actual moral system, as well as additional characteristics for armor level, missile combat, heavier weapons, or behavior like Cavalry Wedges, Infantry Shieldwalls, Professional troops, or levy untrained troops).

The fantasy variants of these mass battle games start with the assumption that a fantasy world will have the same sorts of troops found in an ancient or medieval world, and that they would behave accordingly. And that within a battle, magic does very little, unless it is some form of Strategic Magic (Usually only found in worlds like Moorcock's Young Kingdom's or Eternal Champion series, or Robert E. Howard's Hyboria - Middle-earth had some Strategic Magic in the First Age, but the Second and Third Ages were largely devoid of much magic.

But, these systems do something that things like WHFB, or Kings of War do not: Show that there were very real differences between deployment, marching, and fighting formations of different types of warriors or soldiers, and that this is represented by differences in frontages and depth for the formations, as well as differences in marching and maneuver.

And they have Set ground scales that match the unit formation size depictions and missile ranges.

MB
   
Made in ca
Ancient Venerable Black Templar Dreadnought





Canada

Many of the larger model count games is just a sneaky way of playing skirmish games.
Games like Fantasy Battle move entire groups as one "model" so a unit or single model we tend to push around some 6 to 8 odd "things" in a game.

I like it where you can design a model's load-out (Battletech) or like with large units you pick what goes in it (special weapons, characters, heavy weapons, banners... etc) like in GW games. Mind-you customization should have some kind of balance so forces of equal points should have some difficulty beating each other.

Smaller model count I like to lean towards so I can make a best effort for painting rather than a grind of some 20-odd models in a unit to push around.

Smaller model count tends to lead to more "realism" you can place yourself in that model's situation and appears more engaging (to me).

To each there own, I like the fast start-up with X-wing to get players going immediately but some customization of pretty models are always a draw to show off the hobby skills and try for better immersion.

Why game / preference: suspend disbelief, transport your mind to a galaxy far.. <ahem> "somewhere" and do cool things.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/13 20:31:39


A revolution is an idea which has found its bayonets.
Napoleon Bonaparte 
   
Made in us
Infiltrating Prowler





Portland, OR

A lot of good information, thank you everyone. It is definitely interesting to see the reasons and the preferences that individuals have when playing.

I tend to flip flop between liking large squad based games vs small skirmish games. Most players in the area play WH40K and Warma/Horde so there aren't a lot of other options out there. Once I finished the gaming tables and terrain setups, I'll probably start regularly gaming with some friends in the area more. It is usually easier to setup games at the house than the game store, but I do miss the interaction at the game store with everyone.

I enjoy painting miniatures a lot, which is probably why I get involved in a lot of different games. The miniatures draw me in initially, there are miniatures from almost every line that I like. I still haven't found a rule system that seems really intuitive to me, probably because I'm also trying to get my wife involved and she tends to be more picky about her miniatures. Infinity has definitely come pretty close to seeming to get that flow of combat properly but it is skirmish, so you only get individual models vs a squad based and unfortunately it doesn't scale up too well to a squad type game without heavy modifications. I haven't really found a squad based that I like but my experience with that is limited.

I don't like being penalized for rolling bad on initiative and most games seem to be a win initiative, move/shoot first so your opponent has no response window. It is always hard to sit there because of a bad roll and watch a squad or two vanish without a return fire. I do understand that sometimes that is just part of the game as well as even real life encounters.

That probably makes it the hardest to explain to my wife when we've played, it doesn't feel natural to her. Oddly she has an issue with Infinity where you can shoot in response to your opponents move. That is more of a "left brain" thing as she explains it to me. A player moves and places their miniature, but it's silly to her that someone says I'll shoot when you pass between those two buildings. I've tried to explain it as a cinematic type event but that hasn't helped.

   
Made in us
Brigadier General






Chicago

 Talizvar wrote:
Many of the larger model count games is just a sneaky way of playing skirmish games.
Games like Fantasy Battle move entire groups as one "model" so a unit or single model we tend to push around some 6 to 8 odd "things" in a game.

I take your point about games usually having few actual elements, but aren't all large scope games that way? Large games would be rather unmanageable if one were making decisions for every soldier rather than every unit.

...game / preference: suspend disbelief, transport your mind to a galaxy far.. <ahem> "somewhere" and do cool things.

Agreed, all good gaming should start from this point!

Chicago Skirmish Wargames club. Join us for some friendly, casual gaming in the Windy City.
http://chicagoskirmishwargames.com/blog/


My Project Log, mostly revolving around custom "Toybashed" terrain.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/651712.page

Visit the Chicago Valley Railroad!
https://chicagovalleyrailroad.blogspot.com 
   
Made in us
Infiltrating Prowler





Portland, OR

 Eilif wrote:
 Talizvar wrote:
...game / preference: suspend disbelief, transport your mind to a galaxy far.. <ahem> "somewhere" and do cool things.

Agreed, all good gaming should start from this point!
That is usually what draws me in, the lore, the miniatures before rules. You tend to see more "generalized" discussions on games though about rules not being realistic. Some games see less of that, which is interesting. I wonder if it is just more the lore accounting for the decisions better or maybe not being engaging enough that they can't suspend disbelief enough.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/04/13 21:06:53


 
   
Made in au
Anti-Armour Swiss Guard






Newcastle, OZ

The figures bring me into games.
The rules keep me there.
The fluff distracts me for a time, then gets ignored mostly.

I prefer the smaller figure count games (so no more than 30 figures) but WHFB is only there for me when I can't find a game of anything else.

I'm OVER 50 (and so far over everyone's BS, too).
Old enough to know better, young enough to not give a ****.

That is not dead which can eternal lie ...

... and yet, with strange aeons, even death may die.
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




I rather like the DZC method of grouping units together for alternating activations.

That said, my ideal game would have:

DZC quality minis
WM/H quality rules
40K quality fluff and market penetration

The minis part should be obvious...they're gorgeous and go together easily.

The rules part means that I want a tight and logical rules set (I shouldn't have to guess intent with the rules) that doesn't rely on regional interpretations.

The fluff part just means that there's decades of fluff to dig through and debate.

And the last part is just for being able to play it anywhere.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Talizvar wrote:
Many of the larger model count games is just a sneaky way of playing skirmish games.
Games like Fantasy Battle move entire groups as one "model" so a unit or single model we tend to push around some 6 to 8 odd "things" in a game.


This was basically my point about WHFB, or WAB. Even Warmaster has problems, but it at least makes as errors effort to address the problems (BTW, I discovered an easy mod to Warmaster - both Fantasy and Historial - that allows for units of two to six stands in size. This makes it easier to convert 15mm and 30mm armies to Warmaster Armies. Turns out that the Mod is already a part of the game)




I like it wehere you can design a model's load-out (Battletech) or like with large units you pick what goes in it (special weapons, characters, heavy weapons, banners... etc) like in GW games. Mind-you customization should have some kind of balance so forces of equal points should have some difficulty beating each other.

Smaller model count I like to lean towards so I can make a best effort for painting rather than a grind of some 20-odd models in a unit to push around.

Smaller model count tends to lead to more "realism" you can place yourself in that model's situation and appears more engaging (to me).


Model count, to me, is a function of the scale being played.

For Sci-Fi platoon level games, I prefer to see a smaller model count on tables that are essentially the same as I normally see people playing 40K with 100 models on each side, plus vehicles.

I can from the Avalon Hill Squad Leader school, where a platoon action was a big deal.

But by the same token, I can take Striker/StrikerII and play a game with a Company to a Battalon on each side. Although both of those games make it hard to mix armor and infantry, due to the movement distances of the Grac Vehicles being essentially able to just re-position themselves anywhere on the table.

I TRIED to like Battletech but I just found I was not able to stand their flaws game physics.

The only FASA game I took a liking to was the Renegade Legion Fighter game.

I tried to like Leviathan but, again, it has some flawed physics and game assumptions that made a great idea unplayable (I am trying to re-write it using the assumptions Ron Moore had in BSG, where Capital Ship combat takes place at ranges of five to 100 kms with each hex being one km - the ship's being one to ten hexes in length. And weapons limited to impactors - when we did the math for what a 50MT thermonuclear explosion would do in a vacuum to a ship with 30 meters of armor.... It made it very clear that the weapon needed to be either IN the ship, or directly in contact with it - to about 100 meters - to do any real damage).



To each there own, I like the fast start-up with X-wing to get players going immediately but some customization of pretty models are always a draw to show off the hobby skills and try for better immersion.

Why game / preference: suspend disbelief, transport your mind to a galaxy far.. <ahem> "somewhere" and do cool things.
.

As much as Star Wars Physics are flawed, X-Wing remains one of the best space games out there. It has close ranges, and assumptions about the ship's engines being able to "fix" on the Higg's field (out of which the Higg's Boson emerges), which would allow the ship's to move as if they were in an atmosphere.

MB
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




UK

Ah FASA's Interceptor, that was great fun (although the original damage allocation flowchart was a bit odd)

I liked Centurion with it's damage templates too

but I never got on with Leviathan

 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





P.S.

I want figures, for games with "people" in them, that have the proportions of a Renaissance master painter or sculptor' and the minimalist detail of Tom Meier for the vast majority of genres.

I never caught on to the Steampunk/Sci-Fi of the later 40K, nor to the cartoonish Historical figures, which chunky proportions.

I do like a lot of the fantasy figures out there that would be appropriate for a Hyborian, or ANY Swords&Sorcery genres.

But currently, even excluding GW's Lord of the Rings/The Hobbit lines, there really exist ONLY Tom Meier's fantasy minis as what I consider to be an appropriate Middle-earth themed genre of miniatures.

I am, of course, working to remedy this by adding to this style of sculpting to produce a line of miniatures to complement Tom's' and hopefully show him that his style of Fantasy, and the current line s he produces can be profitable iff ("iff" spelled correctly) the lines are complete enough to allow people to field an entire "army," whether that army be a massed formation of warriors, acting in units, or a warband for tabletop skirmishes and small scale encounters between larger acting armies.

Tom Meier has just suffered the problem of not ever completing a line sufficiently to be able to produce an entire army (even his Wood Elves and Greater Goblins/Orcs from Thunderbolt Mountain barely have the figures to make an army).

MB
   
Made in us
Battlefield Tourist




MN (Currently in WY)

A good solid turn sequence/sequence of play is very important to me. Generally, I am not a fan of IGOUGO but have overlooked it and played many fun game using said system. It all depends on wha the game is trying to represent and it if succeeds in doing what it sets out to do.

I tend to like games that are looser and less structured and are scenario based. I also prefer minimal book keeping and very few tokens/counters ont he table. I do prefer linked games and campaigns a lot more than stand alone one-off encounters.

Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing 
   
Made in ca
Ancient Venerable Black Templar Dreadnought





Canada

BeAfraid wrote:
I TRIED to like Battletech but I just found I was not able to stand their flaws game physics...

...I tried to like Leviathan but, again, it has some flawed physics and game assumptions that made a great idea unplayable (I am trying to re-write it using the assumptions Ron Moore had in BSG, where Capital Ship combat takes place at ranges of five to 100 kms with each hex being one km - the ship's being one to ten hexes in length. And weapons limited to impactors - when we did the math for what a 50MT thermonuclear explosion would do in a vacuum to a ship with 30 meters of armor.... It made it very clear that the weapon needed to be either IN the ship, or directly in contact with it - to about 100 meters - to do any real damage)....

... It has close ranges, and assumptions about the ship's engines being able to "fix" on the Higg's field (out of which the Higg's Boson emerges), which would allow the ship's to move as if they were in an atmosphere.
Ah, again the "suspension of disbelief" I find we all have differing levels of tolerance.
I recently had some lively discussions of "house-ruling" a few things in "Robotech RPG Tactics" because certain things made no "sense" based on what elements are "reality" like flying models should not block line of sight.

In the latest Battletech rules release they do identify multiple areas where they had to go against "reality" in order for a fun game to be had rather than a simulator.

I think as long as the piece of fiction that is that publisher's universe is consistent, the immersion can be easier.

The various sound effects in space from Star-Wars is a fine example where we KNOW it is not possible but would rather not watch dogfighting in dead silence (or keeping a momentum in one direction and then pivoting on your axis... not as epic for maneuvering but some game systems do that well...).

It all boils down to the esthetic of it all, we are there for the drama of a gazillion models on the table in formation, finely detailed skirmish miniatures all exuding character, a few models of whimsy all elegant and carefully presented, or a big rocking physics engine with a multitude of finely balanced construction rules... like with the multitude of movies our there, we come to games with differing interests.

This is why I like all the different games: my tastes DO change much to my surprise.

A revolution is an idea which has found its bayonets.
Napoleon Bonaparte 
   
Made in gb
Lieutenant Colonel




The most important thing for me is synergy throughout the game.

EG it does what it says on the box, in a clear and concise way.
The narrative,background , game design, design notes, rules, and player experience are all in synergy.

What really irks me is needless complication in the rules, and rules writing that is so counter intuitive it breaks the narrative of the game play.(WTF moments.)

I am happy playing games of all sizes and genres. If the game play is good and the rules straightforward , and I like the setting.I am all over it!
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Talizvar wrote:

The various sound effects in space from Star-Wars is a fine example where we KNOW it is not possible but would rather not watch dogfighting in dead silence (or keeping a momentum in one direction and then pivoting on your axis... not as epic for maneuvering but some game systems do that well...).


Again, Rom Moore came up with a rather astonishing, and epic solution for the 'sound effects" in space:

Radio noise.

What you hear in the BSG space-battles is the EM waves generated by the various items in a shot.

The Guns from a Viper are what the pilot hears as the gun rattles through the frame of the ship.

Engine noises are the EM interference on wireless.

Explosions, likewise.

This is why he went with that muted sound effects.

There are a few scenes where you see absolute silence, such as when Lee Adama has ejected from the Blackbird, and the battle around the Resurrection Ship rages in complete silence.

Ron Howard ran into this same problem in Apollo 13, where he wanted to do as Kubrick had done in 2001 and have the space scenes in absolute silence.

But he found that the noise was necessary to draw in the audience to the immediacy of the action (whereas Kubrick wishes to show the complete isolation of the Discovery Crew on the way to Jupiter (Saturn)).

Ron Moore found that he wanted to convey both: Both isolation, and immediacy, and pretense with the action. Thus, he has the noises as a muted presence, as if heard over the microphone of the "Documentary" camera's crew (BSG introduced this "Documentary style" camera and film effect, to create an objective, shaky camera look, as if it was being capture spontaneously by a cell-phone camera).

So... yes, I understand certain things need to be done for certain reasons.

But there remain things that are just "broken" about some games (they are neither internally, nor externally consistent, and defy the in-game assumptions, as well as external physics).

MB


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lanrak wrote:
The most important thing for me is synergy throughout the game.

EG it does what it says on the box, in a clear and concise way.
The narrative,background , game design, design notes, rules, and player experience are all in synergy.

What really irks me is needless complication in the rules, and rules writing that is so counter intuitive it breaks the narrative of the game play.(WTF moments.)

I am happy playing games of all sizes and genres. If the game play is good and the rules straightforward , and I like the setting.I am all over it!


EXACTLY!

I am just a particularly hard customer in that regard.

MB

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/15 20:42:52


 
   
Made in jp
Fixture of Dakka





Japan

First warzone ruleset was the one i enjoyed the most, alternative activation and 3 action per minatures made it a very tactical game.

Squidbot;
"That sound? That's the sound of me drinking all my paint and stabbing myself in the eyes with my brushes. "
My Doombringer Space Marine Army
Hello Kitty Space Marines project
Buddhist Space marine Project
Other Projects
Imageshack deleted all my Images Thank you! 
   
Made in ca
Dakka Veteran






Canada

I generally like smaller scale games because they are faster to play, easier/cheaper to get into, and you can really devote time to painting each miniature.
I find 28mm mass battle games have a hard time having models be anything but wound counters, so it seems somewhat pointless to need 100 figures that do the work of 10.

My main hope for an activation system is that the player is involved fairly regularly. I don't find this happens as much with UGO-IGO (where you might have 30 minutes of downtime), but that doesn't mean I'm totally against UGO-IGO, it just has to be done right. For example D&D has some really nice mechanics, but it can take far too long to get back to your turn.
In general though alternating activations, with a quickly switching initiative (closer to real time, basically) fits this hope best. The downside is tracking who has acted and who hasn't (unless orders are communal like Infinity).

I think flexibility in actions is nice too. Not being pigeonholed into move THEN shoot for example. Reactive fire can be interesting, but if the activation system is fast enough it can also just be unnecessary complexity.

One feature I don't see mentioned a lot is the combat resolution system itself. I strongly dislike 40k for their roll to hit, roll to wound, roll to save (with chart lookups as part of the process). Ideally the system resolves in a single roll, with enough depth to allow unit diversity and exciting different outcomes (ie: not just a generic "roll 3+ to kill regardless of stats").

Movement is important to, namely having lots of it, as well as a motivation/reason to move. I find it's all too easy to end up with a system that bogs down into a shootout or roll-off because sci-fi games naturally lend themselves to hunkering down.

All in all the hobby is in a great state to try dozens of different rulesets!

Author of the Dinosaur Cowboys skirmish game. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 bosky wrote:


One feature I don't see mentioned a lot is the combat resolution system itself. I strongly dislike 40k for their roll to hit, roll to wound, roll to save (with chart lookups as part of the process). Ideally the system resolves in a single roll, with enough depth to allow unit diversity and exciting different outcomes (ie: not just a generic "roll 3+ to kill regardless of stats").


This is the biggest downer for why I never really caught on to WHFB/40K.

Skirmish games roll for every model.

Unit based games have a unit-unit combat mechanism.

But even in Skirmish games, I found their system to be too fiddly.

GDW managed to create several different mechanisms that worked worlds better than the WH/40K system.

One that I particularly liked was a system whereby the type of weapon, and its penetration value determined the injury to a target.

The weapon might have a high damage value for unprotected targets, yet against protected targets it would hardly do anything, even if it did penetrate the armor. Other weapons were made specifically to damage armored targets (the projectile ricochetting around inside the armor).

Energy weapons were the only thing that gave me pause. They tend to just knock a hole straight through a target and if the beam is not large enough, then all you do is have a pin-hole that goes straight through the target.

I think a later version of the game solved this by giving bore diameters to the energy weapons, where a larger bore would do more damage (but also required vastly more energy to shoot).

MB

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/25 00:01:37


 
   
Made in us
Drone without a Controller




My preferences come down to this:
Simple rules that scale well, be it 100+ units or 10.
I like mass-battle, but some smaller-more skirmish stuff as well.
Clearly written, concise rules that explain exactly what they do.
Well-detailed, cool minis that take at least some realism into account. (GW doesn't do this.)
I want a wide variety of units, but not niche units.
I want a game that can take customization somewhat well.
I want good fluff where everyone isn't a complete idiot on a daily basis. (I'm looking at W40K here.)
   
Made in us
Brigadier General






Chicago

krystalking wrote:
My preferences come down to this:
Simple rules that scale well, be it 100+ units or 10.
I like mass-battle, but some smaller-more skirmish stuff as well.
Clearly written, concise rules that explain exactly what they do.
Well-detailed, cool minis that take at least some realism into account. (GW doesn't do this.)
I want a wide variety of units, but not niche units.
I want a game that can take customization somewhat well.
I want good fluff where everyone isn't a complete idiot on a daily basis. (I'm looking at W40K here.)


A great list, most of which I agree with.

Still, I would caution against ever expecting a truely scaleable ruleset. I've never found a ruleset that works as well with vastly different scopes of play as rulesets designed for a specific scope. Rules are designed with a scope in mind and if you multiply that by 10 (or reduce it to a tenth) you'll almost never get a game that plays as well. Apocalypse is a great example. 40k is already a bit rules heavy as it is a platoon level ruleset that has been stretched to company level, but it works OK. However, when they scaled it up from company to Battalion level (Apocalypse), did they streamline the rules to make the game function better at a larger scope? Nope, they simplified nothing and actually added more rules resulting in games that take a day to play, as though that was a positive thing!

All this to say if you want to play a given scope, it's usually best to find a set of rules written specifically for that scope.

Chicago Skirmish Wargames club. Join us for some friendly, casual gaming in the Windy City.
http://chicagoskirmishwargames.com/blog/


My Project Log, mostly revolving around custom "Toybashed" terrain.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/651712.page

Visit the Chicago Valley Railroad!
https://chicagovalleyrailroad.blogspot.com 
   
Made in us
Infiltrating Prowler





Portland, OR

I'm not sure of any ruleset that really scales well from 10 to 100. It would be interesting to see but I think to handle 100 would mean a larger rule system that may be daunting to those wanting only 10 miniatures.

I have seen games scale decently goes from 5 miniatures t o 30, moving from single units to squad based. Once you start adding a lot more squads though, the rule-sets don't tend to be robust enough.

WW2 era style games could handle that type of scaling well because there is a limited set of technology and weapons in play compared to a modern/scifi genre. You could limit the weapons to put it on par but then it starts to pull away from the ascetics of that genre.
   
Made in us
Brigadier General






Chicago

 Dark Severance wrote:


WW2 era style games could handle that type of scaling well because there is a limited set of technology and weapons in play compared to a modern/scifi genre. You could limit the weapons to put it on par but then it starts to pull away from the ascetics of that genre.


I think historical players would strongly disagree with you. Changing the scope of play is not really made easier by the lack of technology or long range weapons. Rather its a function of how well the mechanics of the game function at a given scope. Scaling up (or down) a WW2 game without modifying the rules (activation, command and control, artillery, ground scale, etc..) accordingly is just as problematic as scaling up a sci-fi, medieval, fantasy, ancients, ACW, ECW, etc, or any other genre or era of game.

Having a specific scope of play is one of the most important aspects of a ruleset as it sets the tone for much of the rest of the ruleset.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/29 23:15:43


Chicago Skirmish Wargames club. Join us for some friendly, casual gaming in the Windy City.
http://chicagoskirmishwargames.com/blog/


My Project Log, mostly revolving around custom "Toybashed" terrain.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/651712.page

Visit the Chicago Valley Railroad!
https://chicagovalleyrailroad.blogspot.com 
   
Made in us
Infiltrating Prowler





Portland, OR

The people that prefer IGoUGo types of games. There are different styles of that method from. Player A moves army, then Player B moves army. Player A shoots, then Player B shoots. There is also Player A moves and shoots whole army, Player B then moves and shoots whole army.

Why do you prefer those over alternating activation or movement?

When you are the player waiting for the other player to move and/or shoot, Do you feel that you are watching, that keeps you engaged as you plan your moves? Or is it just a waiting game until you can move, so if against a slower player, you basically read rules or just wait.
   
Made in us
Brigadier General






Chicago

 Dark Severance wrote:
The people that prefer IGoUGo types of games. There are different styles of that method from. Player A moves army, then Player B moves army. Player A shoots, then Player B shoots. There is also Player A moves and shoots whole army, Player B then moves and shoots whole army.

Why do you prefer those over alternating activation or movement?

When you are the player waiting for the other player to move and/or shoot, Do you feel that you are watching, that keeps you engaged as you plan your moves? Or is it just a waiting game until you can move, so if against a slower player, you basically read rules or just wait.


I don't necessarily prefer IGOUGO, but I like it in the right situation, and alternating phases (what you're describing) isn't always the right option.

Some games are fast enough playing that IGOUGO works just fine. Kings of War for example is a fast moving game where IGOUGO doesn't slow the action. It's also designed to be played with as chess clock, so that makes IGOUGO almost inevitable as a player completes his entire turn and then punches his clock.

Other games such as Song of Blades and Heroes have a gambling activation mechanic where you're constantly "betting" on your activation rolls to keep your your turn. This also works best with IGOUGO, though some recent iterations of the game such as "Fighting Fungi" and "Of Gods and Mortals" have a reaction system so the opponent sometimes gets to butt into your turn briefly. Like KoW all these games are very fast moving, so IGOUGO doesn't hurt the experience of the other players.

All this to say that almost any game mechanic you can think of will work in the right situation.

Chicago Skirmish Wargames club. Join us for some friendly, casual gaming in the Windy City.
http://chicagoskirmishwargames.com/blog/


My Project Log, mostly revolving around custom "Toybashed" terrain.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/651712.page

Visit the Chicago Valley Railroad!
https://chicagovalleyrailroad.blogspot.com 
   
Made in us
Tzeentch Aspiring Sorcerer Riding a Disc





Orem, Utah

I'm a painter first, so I prefer games with low model counts and lots of character to the individual minis.

I play quite a few games already, and the main thing I look for in a new system is something sufficiently different.

I also prefer games with more emphasis on individual actions then on list building. With some games, what you do each turn is pretty straight-forward, so all of the strategy is about what you bring. I prefer to make difficult decisions that decide the outcome in the middle of the game.

 
   
Made in us
Brigadier General






Chicago

 odinsgrandson wrote:

I also prefer games with more emphasis on individual actions then on list building…
... I prefer to make difficult decisions that decide the outcome in the middle of the game.


A thousand times yes. I want to be rewarded for in-game tactics and maneuver, rather than maths and deck-building.

Chicago Skirmish Wargames club. Join us for some friendly, casual gaming in the Windy City.
http://chicagoskirmishwargames.com/blog/


My Project Log, mostly revolving around custom "Toybashed" terrain.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/651712.page

Visit the Chicago Valley Railroad!
https://chicagovalleyrailroad.blogspot.com 
   
Made in us
[MOD]
Madrak Ironhide







I want a fun background. It doesn't have to be groundbreaking, but
it has to be fun.

DR:70+S+G-MB-I+Pwmhd05#+D++A+++/aWD100R++T(S)DM+++
Get your own Dakka Code!

"...he could never understand the sense of a contest in which the two adversaries agreed upon the rules." Gabriel Garcia Marquez, One Hundred Years of Solitude 
   
Made in us
Infiltrating Prowler





Portland, OR

 Eilif wrote:
 odinsgrandson wrote:

I also prefer games with more emphasis on individual actions then on list building…
... I prefer to make difficult decisions that decide the outcome in the middle of the game.


A thousand times yes. I want to be rewarded for in-game tactics and maneuver, rather than maths and deck-building.
I can definitely agree with that. I think that is part of the issue's I tend to have with IGo move army, UGo move army style game plays. I would like to see something with simultaneous action, which is one of the reasons I love X-Wing. It is possible to do something with ground games but I think it becomes too limited.

That is why I like games where players alternate, but not for their whole army. I love Infinity but it was one thing I don't like about it is one person goes, then another. I do like there is interaction with ARO's but I don't feel it generates a strong tactical feel. I would prefer something where a person activates 1-2 units/squads, then the next player moves 1-2, etc until they are done. Allowing someone to try to flank, another person to make the decision to reinforce the flank or focus more on an objective or another approach. It isn't quite simultaneous but I feel gives a more emphasis on tactics and maneuvering.

With that in mind, the reason I was asking the players who prefer IGoUGo is I'm trying to gauge what is appealing about that for them. If they feel there is a lull that they don't feel like there is interaction or they are engaged. And why they tend to prefer that over say an alternating method. Trying to understand the preference if it simply comes down to personal taste, if it was because that is all the games they've played or if there is something I missed for the preference behind it.
   
 
Forum Index » Dakka Discussions
Go to: