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.

What system do you think is the most realsitic and why (e.g LotR, Warhammer fantasy or 40K) Think about the characters as well

GW exclusivly?

Inquisitor then. Of course, Inquisitor is also a massive clusterfeth. Cool ideas though.

Well, if you're looking for realism, I don't think that Lord of the Rings or either flavor of Warhammer is really where it's at. Magic, Space Marines, and chainsaw swords aren't terribly "realistic".

Through playing each of them, I think Lord of the Rings played the most like a historical game. Then again, it's been a good long while. The figures are at least closer to reality, as they're based on actors and the like.

Realism in a game is a slippery concept. Firstly it depends on what the game is trying to simulate.

Warfare isn't just about weapons and to hit chances, it's about intelligence, command, control and communication, and logistics. Some of these things are more strategic than tactical.

If you want to try a 'realistic' game, Warhammer Ancient Battles is similar to WHFB but there is no magic or monsters.

It must be said, though, that lots of Ancients players think WHAB is rubbish and they prefer rules like De Bellis Antiquitatis or Field of Glory.

Infinity....GW "wargames" are cartoon and Hollywood. Great for a laugh, but don't train you future fighting force on their "tactics"

Edit: Oh look, I get an Austrian flag....I guess because I'm using an Austrian based terminal.....coolio

WotR and BFG have my top votes, at least the models look "normal"

OTOH, Fantasy is pure FAIL at realism, which is why it's called Warhammer *Fantasy* Battles, rather than Warhammer *Realistic* Battles...

LotR SBG is rather realistic as skirmish games go. Obviously excluding the magic and such but as a way of simulating small medieval era engagements it really works rather well. The historical crowd have taken a shine to it as a result.

Warmaster does a fairly good job of representing command and control. Something which is often overlooked in GW games despite being a critical aspect of warfare.

Controlling a large scale battle it really a matter of forward planning, certainly before the invention of the radio anyway. A commander can create an overall plan and issue this to his subordinates but once the battles kicked off then reacting to the enemy becomes slow and ponderous as all a general can do it send messengers and hope they don't get killed on route or that the sub commander doesn't misinterpret or just plan ignore his new orders.

Many mock that in WotR or Warmaster the wrong dice roll can see your units simply refuse to fight or sit at the back of the battlefield twiddling their thumbs. In a real battle however there is a very real chance of a unit doing just those things.

Too much realism can be a bad thing in a game however. In the 70's and 80's Wargames rules where famous for laborious attention to detail and as a result Wargaing was a hobby that was only for those with far too much time and their hands!

Rather than realism it was trying to find realism through minute detail that caused those type of games to be stagnant.

There was a kind of theory that like modelling the weather, if you modelled in detail the small components of war, such as the range, to hit and to wound chance of weapons, the speed of couriers and the chance of they getting lost, you would end up with a realistic simulation.

De Bellis Antiquitatis dumped all of that and modelled basic troop behaviour without worrying about the details. It also had a random C&C system. At the start of your round you rolled a D6 and that was how many units you could move. People do argue about DBA but nearly 20 years later it is still seen as a revolution in game design and has much to recommend it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
There is a similar argument about modelling combat; For instance, in Napoleonics you can let a player move his battalions into square when cavalry approach, and if they have time, they will be in square and get a bonus when they are attacked.

Or you you simply compare the attacker's and defender's dice rolls, and assume that if the attacker beat the defender by a big margin, it must be because the infantry did not get into square in time.

I'd back up Warmaster. It's been ported to include ancients as well as WW2/Modern warfare. I'd also throw Epic:A out there as well for a true modern system since it relies on fire and maneuver as well as superiority/suppression.

AT-43. I was watching a demo a while back, and as an Iraq veteran at my FLGS put it, "This has the best rules for a firefight I've ever seen".

As Game approaches realism, game length approaches life.

The most realistic game system is life, which takes on average 80-90 years. However it is VERY realistic.

Checkers. When I jump over you, you die and I become King, just like in real life.

None of them are very realistic at all. If you are looking for a game that feels realistic you will need to pick up a more "serious" historical wargame. And I do not mean Flames War.

For me fog of war is a prerequisite. None to be found in GW games. I play Piquet when I don't what to have a clue of what's happening.

Double-blind Advanced Squad Leader for modern, "guns available" stuff.

The Riddle of Steel is THE gold standard for a game that models how swordplay really works - knowing that stuff is my job, and I can't find any fault with TROS's system. Heck, the Association of Renaissance Martial Artists (by far the best historical combat recreation society in America) officially endorses it.


Among purely GW games? 54mm Inquisitor with a mandatory GM who is concerned about realism over cinematics. Without the GM, all of 'em are pretty bad, but Warhammer Fantasy isn't "horrible", especially if you're fighting infantry-heavy Empire vs infantry-heavy Empire with no magic in play. Then it actually does a decent job of modeling circa 16th century medium-scale warfare.

I think you're talking about WAB - Warhammer Ancients Battles, which is indeed essentially infantry Empire vs infantry Empire with no Magic...

Definitely "Crossfire", but in terms of GW gaming, "Epic Armageddon" and "Warmaster", respectively.

Squad leader or Stargrunt.

Stargrunt is much more abstract but most details are largely irrelevant. What it does is take the two most critical elements (troop quality and psychology) and build the whole game around them.

RussWakelin wrote:As Game approaches realism, game length approaches life.

The most realistic game system is life, which takes on average 80-90 years. However it is VERY realistic.

The Sims is better.

I'll throw in another vote for Warmaster if only going by GW.

If not GW than I have to say Star Fleet Battles, of course. Playing a battle between two ships would last 5 weeks as you had to control every aspect of the ship, including what was for dinner that evening. Of course to do so you had to reference 3.4.71 to 8.3.8, assuming you had needed books.

Ahtman, SFB is wargaming for accountants...

If SFB is wargaming for accountants, then Air War is wargaming for rocket scientists.

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/1629

Uncharted Seas seems pretty realistic.

The best tabletop game I know for Fog Of War is Avalon Hill's Up Front.

Probably the one from that new movie "Gamer." That one is sure to be a box office record-setter.