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.

Think I might have done this one before, but it was either on Warseer, or my Search skills leave a lot to be desired.

But as the title says, describe your ideal wargame.

Personally, for me, it would the sort of variety in armies 40k and Fantasy offer. Main complaint about other games is a lack of different forces, or those forces essentially being a variation on a theme. To my mind, the more variety, the more the appeal, thus the more opponents you are likely to find.

Ruleswise, not too detailed. Although fun occasionally, I'm not overly fond of multiple day games, and overall prefer to have things wrapped up in 3 to 4 hours.

I am also fond of the more fantastical element of games, so big zappy guns, enormous flying monsters etc.

However, I do feel GW style army lists aren't the best way to achieve the variety I crave. I'd quite like a game where I can either field an almagamated army, with a wide variety of different troop types with nothing overly naughty, or specialise slightly more to gain access to more esoteric units. For instance, using Fantasy equivalents purely for example. I could field units of Dwarfs, High Elves, Empire and Wood Elfs, but would be largely limited to the basic foot troops, with perhaps support units being determined by the General. However, if I wanted to field more of an Elven force, I could be rewarded for having an Elven General, and 2 units of Elven Infantry with access to say, Dragon Princes. This to me is more or less self balancing, as it's harder to design a 'trumps most' list (ala Biker Nobz) when your opponent has that wide a choice of combinations.

I can't come up with the full details but it does entail the words "naked", "women", "saphic", "pizza", and "guiness". Possible options might entail "video".

djphranq wrote:I can't come up with the full details but it does entail the words "naked", "women", "saphic", "pizza", and "guiness". Possible options might entail "video".

BS! What the hell are you thinking? Video?!!! You give me a game with the above list of words and I want to add "live action" and "player participation".

A close, all-day Apoc game in which everybody's army does something "interesting", and winners aren't ever obvious, supported by flowing cold beverages and a proper lunch break.
____

Game *system*?

15mm "pseudo true scale", with Giant Robots and Tanks and such. Smooth rules, scalable for small skirmish in 1 hour, to all-day slugfests.

I've always wanted a more generic fantasy game, with a scale and detail between warmaster and fantasy. Basically have units made up of stands of 15-20mm models, have intersting monsters, magic, etc. Have tons of different army lists allowing you to play archtypes (wood elves, feudal knights) as well as classic alliances (good vs. evil). Include lots of neat unique and rare unit types that call back to every cool idea in history, myth, and fantasy.

I have to believe no one's ideal game is point-based, since a point-based game can never be mathematically balanced. There are too many players with too many different personalities for that to ever happen.

Yet we live in a wargames world dominated by them, so to remove points wouldn't be a great idea, as I reckon we lack the discipline to not just take tons of 'ard stuff.

Quite a few reasons I like points really. Is it ever fully balanced? Not really, but once people are used to their points values, the players themselves can agree to tinkering, for example giving Beasts of Chaos an extra 10% in points for instance is one we've used, as much in the interest of getting a good game in no matter the opponent as not seeing someone's cash investment go to waste because their book is a tad spank and outdated.

I'm not sure. I know it would have to have a miniature range and background that seize my imagination for a start.
After that, something like War of the Ring with more variety is pretty awesome.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:I have to believe no one's ideal game is point-based, since a point-based game can never be mathematically balanced.

I'm OK with points, as I recognize that points aren't a perfect solution, but merely a tool to get things in the same ballpark.

#1: 15mm scale, but on the biggish side so that the mini's would be worth painting.
#2: The background would be a cross between 40K and D&D, with all sort of armies of strange creatures, Demons, Devils, evil wizards and other interdimensional weirdness.
#3: Army lists that divide all assets into Common (Most troops), Uncommon (Heroes, elite troops and most tanks), Rare (Monsters, big stuff like titans both of the mechanical and mythological variety and such strangeness) and Unique (Names creatures, heroes and such).
#4: Gameplay that is quick like Epic but with some flavor like 40K.
#5: All plastic!!!

Battletech in 40k scale.

I wasn't trying to imply no one should ever use points, I just don't think they're ideal. Hell, on paper Communism is pretty ideal. My ideal game has no timing issues, appeals to a wide base of people, is as potentially competitive as it is generally fun, and has a huge player base that is hungry for games 24/7. I, sirs, would be in heaven.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Think I might have done this one before, but it was either on Warseer, or my Search skills leave a lot to be desired.

But as the title says, describe your ideal wargame.

Personally, for me, it would the sort of variety in armies 40k and Fantasy offer. Main complaint about other games is a lack of different forces, or those forces essentially being a variation on a theme. To my mind, the more variety, the more the appeal, thus the more opponents you are likely to find.

Ruleswise, not too detailed. Although fun occasionally, I'm not overly fond of multiple day games, and overall prefer to have things wrapped up in 3 to 4 hours.

I am also fond of the more fantastical element of games, so big zappy guns, enormous flying monsters etc.

However, I do feel GW style army lists aren't the best way to achieve the variety I crave. I'd quite like a game where I can either field an almagamated army, with a wide variety of different troop types with nothing overly naughty, or specialise slightly more to gain access to more esoteric units. For instance, using Fantasy equivalents purely for example. I could field units of Dwarfs, High Elves, Empire and Wood Elfs, but would be largely limited to the basic foot troops, with perhaps support units being determined by the General. However, if I wanted to field more of an Elven force, I could be rewarded for having an Elven General, and 2 units of Elven Infantry with access to say, Dragon Princes. This to me is more or less self balancing, as it's harder to design a 'trumps most' list (ala Biker Nobz) when your opponent has that wide a choice of combinations.

If you want to have creative fantasy-units with all possibilities open to you and still a simple rules system, then try Hordes of the Things. Do you know it? It´s a tabletop-game, where units aren´t described in detail, but generically. So you´ve got Infantry, and if you model them as killer-tomatoes, elves, or US-army doesn´t matter at all. They´re just classed Infantry. Easy rule system; everything possible modelling-wise.
http://www.btinternet.com/~alan.catherine/wargames/strong.htm

Can you describe Battletech otherwise pls?

Biggest selling point for me:

The game's universe and its models which is kind of what GW does (except it runs on the latter than the former although both are related). If the models and universe aren't cool then there's little chance of it being successful or attracting players such as myself. On top of that the universe should be scifi-ish such as 40k and Star Wars since these type of universes attract more fans than their sword and board counterparts; and I'm just biased towards 'em.

The rules are secondary to the 'rule of cool' like mentioned above but having a balanced and clearly written system with free clarifications would be great. It'd be really awesome if there were free rules available online along with game designer interaction on forums.

Next up would be having a strong and plentiful community so that players can readily find opponents at local venues and aspire to compete at larger scaled, company sponsored venues.

GW covers most of these bases and their philosophy of models first, rules second has done relatively well for them....hell they've got most of us didn't they?

I would love to have a Battletech game in 15mm with some more streamlined rules. It would have to have full rules for infantry, vehicles, aircraft and battlesuits also.

A battle of wit's with lots of dynamic squad vs squad fighting and thing's exploding!!!

Me and my friend made a Exterminatus game it's like a countdown until the map explodes it was epic.

Beer and pretzels at my house with friend then they leave and my girlfriend pretends to be a sister of battle and I dress up like a priest then we bring the dog out dressed up like a squig..

Any game where I can bathe in the tears of a 'holier than thou' casual gamer.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Any game where I can bathe in the tears of a 'holier than thou' casual gamer.

Mine's similar except I bathe in the tears of a power gamer who prepped for a MEQ list and then got smashed by a Horde or vice versa.

MDG it really sounds like CSM is your army... You take monsters -> greater daemon and daemon princes... Big guns -> vindicators and defilers. Everything gets blown up by the end of the game.

G

For me the perfect game system is Epic. The main rules are perfect IMO. Now if only theyre wasnt codex creep...

H.B.M.C. wrote:Any game where I can bathe in the tears of a 'holier than thou' casual gamer.

Never happen, we're not the ones who do all the crying.

Retracted.

The 40k game where i beat a competitive player on turn 1 with a all fluff based army

Ok, I see what I've started here with what was meant to be a humerous remark that lampooned the idiotic labling that goes on at this site (for the record I'm neither a tournament or a casual gamer), so I'm going to retract my second post.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Ok, I see what I've started here with what was meant to be a humerous remark that lampooned the idiotic labling that goes on at this site (for the record I'm neither a tournament or a casual gamer), so I'm going to retract my second post.

Come on HBMC, being a member of the CGM is Serious Business. They don't have time to laugh at your jokes, you filthy power gamer.

Nothing is better than vindication. I'll be a gracious winner and leave it at that.

mikhaila wrote:

djphranq wrote:I can't come up with the full details but it does entail the words "naked", "women", "saphic", "pizza", and "guiness". Possible options might entail "video".

BS! What the hell are you thinking? Video?!!! You give me a game with the above list of words and I want to add "live action" and "player participation".

By video, I meant that we'd document the exploits which would very much include participation. WHO WANTS TO PLAYTEST ?!

warpcrafter wrote:Nothing is better than vindication.

You prove my point...

How's the view from that high horse?