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.

 Vertrucio wrote:
As a stopgap way might be to explore more asymmetrical play, where one player plays a larger force, and the players all play a smaller forces.

This was covered ages ago in SJG's Ogre game.

It also manifests in most RPGs games where the party has to take down a dragon / demi-lich / vampire / tarraasque / Elder God...

The latest video game variant is evolve.

And I'm playing a ton of Warhammer Freeblade, as the Knight Titan.

And it's not like there wasn't a Seven Samurai scenario in the WFB6 rulebook.

The thing is that not everybody likes that sort of "unbalanced" game.

Whatever kind of game you might play, someone will dislike it, because people have different tastes in game styles.

The problem I see is that 40k has homogenized the TTWG experience over the past 20-ish years, to the point that "new" games are largely reskins of 40k. FoW as the 1/100 WW2 reskin; BA as a the 28mm WW2 reskin. And so on. I think there is more resistance to asymmetric games with unequal points and unequal composition than there was when 40k2 was scrappy and small..

 Dark Severance wrote:
I would think something like Deadzone would be the easiest to achieve this with. Not necessarily the game itself but its setup and how it plays. It is a small miniature count, over a small to medium area of terrain that is broken up into squares (zones). Instead of moving by inches, it is basically zone based which gives you ability to customize AI to function within that environment. If you wanted something a bit more complex you could go as far as labeling X/Y access so if something would move to B4, that references a particular zone.

But that essentially is a boardgame.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
But that essentially is a boardgame.

I wouldn't exactly classify Deadzone or DUST Tactics as a board game. You aren't even stuck utilizing their board or terrain sprues, you just need to break up your board into grid/sectors. Otherwise you spread tokens/counters around a normal battlefield and have them trigger to flip over and reveal based on distance to it and/or line of sight.

DUST is a board game that just doesn't work for me at all. Which is weird, because, on paper, it checks all of the boxes I think I want. And yet, the final game does nothing for me.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:

 Dark Severance wrote:
I would think something like Deadzone would be the easiest to achieve this with. Not necessarily the game itself but its setup and how it plays. It is a small miniature count, over a small to medium area of terrain that is broken up into squares (zones). Instead of moving by inches, it is basically zone based which gives you ability to customize AI to function within that environment. If you wanted something a bit more complex you could go as far as labeling X/Y access so if something would move to B4, that references a particular zone.

But that essentially is a boardgame.

And the division between boardgames and miniature wargames starts getting pretty thin when you realize that miniatures are just markers. Get away from freeform movement, and what does it look a lot like (square space with sectional movement of game markers)? Take the Clix games for example. Or Axis and Allies. But that's not a bad thing at all!

 jmurph wrote:
And the division between boardgames and miniature wargames starts getting pretty thin when you realize that miniatures are just markers. Get away from freeform movement, and what does it look a lot like (square space with sectional movement of game markers)? Take the Clix games for example. Or Axis and Allies. But that's not a bad thing at all!

Without terrain interaction and true line of sight miniature games become very pretty boardgames. Which is why I've always argued that terrain interaction and true line of sight should always be in miniature games - every effort should be made to make the models feel as if they have are part of a real physical space, that they're not just pretty tokens in an abstract game.

I understand what you mean, however in a sense I am happy to play a very pretty board game, if it's a good simulation/game.

To me, the idea of true LoS is defeated in practice by the point that the miniatures are not in true scale to the game distances, are not posed as real soldiers conceal themselves, and so on.

I've played games in which each soldier was provided with three or four models, running, standing, kneeling and prone, so you can put them in the correct position. I found it a lot of trouble to constantly swap models in and out, and impossible to square the ranges with the scale of the figures (54mm) unless playing in the garden or on the beach.

In other words it can be a good game when you've got space, but it's not very practical for most tabletop games. It's more doable for small scale skirmish in a large area.

The line between "boardgames" and "wargames" is murky indeed, I usually go with guts feeling and my own criteria.

So for me the differentiation of a boardgame and a wargame lies on the rule set and the necessity of the board.

The more inflexible and streamlined the ruleset is, the more dependent on board the rule set is the more it goes to the boardgame category, the more flexible in players interaction the rule set is and not using a board the more it goes to wargame.

A board with spaces creates a "sterile" environment were the game designer can dictate all the elements of the game and calculate them, test them and be sure that the players have the same experience, on the other hand a wargame is imprecise terrain cannot fall in predetermined dimensions, movement and ranges are not predictable and player behavior is chaotic, even in predesigned scenarios.

For me both dust and deadzone fall in the boardgame category they have a board and utilize it, thye could maybe do a better work with it, but they do not have the imprecision of a wargame.

Not counting plastic toy soldiers, my earliest venture into proper lead figure games came from playing a board wargame called Star Soldier (Simulations Publications, Inc. 1977.) I bought some SF miniatures from Minifigs to represent the star soldiers, thinking this would give it more visual appeal and help me get friends and family to play it.

Science vs Pluck is a co-operative minis wargame, placing the players in the role of officers in a British expeditionary force against the Sudanese under the Mahdi in the 1880s. The game is controlled by an umpire, possibly several, who plays the Sudanese, various locals, and other officers in the force (possibly including the force commander).

The game takes place on a rolling table - a village may appear on the horizon in the morning, forcing the players to decide how to approach it -bypass it, scout ahead, talk to the locals to trade, buy provisions or secure safe passage, halt and bombard, whatever. Later in the day, the village is moved further up the table, the players will have to decide whether to garrison the village for the night , or camp outside. As the expedition rolls on to the next day the village is placed behind the players' force - do they keep scouts behind to check for forces tailing them, or concentrate on moving forwards?

The Sudanese were, historically, expert ambushers and harassers, and, fighting in their own territory, could bring huge numbers to bear quickly. A well-scouted and screened British force should be safe against any individual force, and speed and light casualties are the order of the day, not bludgeoning your way through the enemy - there's always another, unknown battle ahead. A badly co-ordinated British expedition, on the other hand, is in grave danger of being overwhelmed and destroyed in detail.

As if having to trust your fellow players to cover you wasn't bad enough, there's a strong roleplaying element to the game, should you wish. How much do you trust your flank to a fellow who owes you £100 in gambling debts, or the cad you humiliated at the regimental ball last summer?

The umpire is encouraged to be as sneaky and sadistic as possible - clouds of dust on the horizon, suspicious movements in nearby villages to keep the players scouting and on edge. It's a lot of effort and requires a goodly number of gamers to play well. It has always struck me that an AI could handle the tactical aspect, although perhaps not the roleplaying side.

Two Hour Wargames often have an excellent campaign AI, and they've increasingly brought in AI elements within-game. On the solo mode, you dice for the location and disposition of Potential Enemy Forces, and how they react to you once they spot you. The campaigns are great, although the only AI I've used in-game is All Things Zombie. Now there's a game that can be played co-operatively from start to finish, and involves negotiation, off-board base-building and the like.

I find that a competitive element arises naturally, even in games that require players to co-operate to survive. I played the old Aliens boardgame to death back in the 80s and 90s in groups including friends, housemates and girlfriends, and there was always - ALWAYS - someone who broke rank within sight of the exit to make a dash for it. On repeat plays, others started blocking them... we had some massive student house arguments over that game

FWIW, there is nothing wrong with boardgaming. I often prefer playing Battlelore (1E) to WFB, precisely because it's well-streamlined and the gameplay is more believable. It lacks the sheer spectacle of WFB, but that's to be expected of a boardgame.

Similarly, there is a lot to be said for playing Memoir '44 over Flames of War, even though, FoW is far more visually impressive. Even if the scale is utter nonsense, when tanks with 75mm guns and a known effective range of over a km.

Tabletop Wargaming with any sort of functional shooting phase absolutely needs to be in heavy cover, either deep forest, or heavily-built urban terrain. That way, engagement are limited by LOS, not weapons range.

I wouldn't necessarily say that they require the board, at least in terms to Deadzone. It utilizes 3" square so movement is on average 4". You don't necessarily need to utilize a grid. A grid just makes it easier to assign AI coordinates.

That is part of the game design process when trying to create a Co-Operative Game to meet the requirements you are looking for. To design an AI it is easier to have set locations or references. Yes it can be done without but it really comes down to what the ultimate goal is. Is the goal a Co-Operative WarGame or is it to create a Co-Operative Wargame that is designed to be a introduction targeted more towards women players?

Good question, never thought the "Introductory" part, I was more thinking on how to make a co-op wargame.

Making in an introductory wargame brings its own set of challenges and I like that.

So to go from that what do you think are the essential elements of wargaming that should be introduced?

I use wargaming here, but in reality I should be saying tabletop wargaming, because as mentioned Memoire, battlelore and many other are wargames too, they just are boardgame wargames.

Essential elements?

I think a wargame is defined by the core activities:
- Command
- Movement
- Shooting
- Fighting

It is possible to simplify things somewhat by merging Shooting & Fighitng into unified Attacking, while Command can be implied:
- Run
- Gun

After defining what a player can do, it's a question of why? And that is where objectives come in. I prefer grabbing over grinding, and that seems to be the modern thing to do.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
Good question, never thought the "Introductory" part, I was more thinking on how to make a co-op wargame.

I had initially thought the main question of the Co-Operative game was because it was to be a "Gateway" game to miniatures wargames.

There are usually a couple factors which can make some people not interested into wargames initially... the primary reason we identified as competition, which was why the answer was a Co-Operative game. The competitive nature of 1vs1 can be intimidating to people, there is often a winner and loser, and some people do not do well with losing especially if it is conceived as always losing (which happens to new players due to lack of knowledge). The other factor is the complex nature that comes with wargames. To many of us they seem simple after you've gone through them a few times but an onlooker it looks like a complex set of rules. Things like tape-measures tend to not be related to gaming, they are essential to wargames but they can seem offset to a few people. My wife hates measuring so anytime a tape-measure comes out, she is done with the game. This can help be mitigated with range-bands, it is one thing that helped XWing because it didn't suddenly make it feel like you were about to start a wood working project.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I think a wargame is defined by the core activities:
- Command
- Movement
- Shooting
- Fighting

A good introductory game definitely should teach the base core mechanics for wargames. Command, Movement, Shooting, Fighting are definitely a good start. If you utilized a range band like XWing that gets rid of the need to measure distances for combat and you can use that to help determine line of sight. Designing something that runs a player through the motions, in an objective based game isn't too difficult. Movement can utilize the range band (distance 1) or you could even go the route of MERCS utilizing a Stat Card as the movement template. Either way all the tools other than dice are provided there.

Then it is a matter of figuring out how you want to the enemy or opposition to run. If you didn't want to utilize a game board or grid of any sort then you have a few options. Although they tend to be known scenario setups. It isn't technically a bad thing but play-ability might become stale. Are they static "emplacements" that you are assaulting to achieve an objective? Are they unknown objectives that when you get closer and identify, become enemy models? It could also be as simple as setting up enemy emplacements, troops and objectives with certain rules like being X apart, near or away from terrain. Maybe they don't move at all but they do respond to movement within Line of Sight. You could make it a bit more complicated giving the AI some other responses but then you have to decide does that still fit within what the goals of the game is supposed to be.

I still think that a grid is the better options. Only because instead of assaulting, you now introduce the ability to stealthy move around patrols instead of just an assault. You also have the ability to create spawn points that aren't as predictable. The grid options allow you to give a bit more randomness and form to AI functions. You can even introduce a type of grid-less direction, although again you have to ask is that going to create a larger complexity. Simply assign the for sides of your game table a direction or symbol (N, S, W, E) and your AI moves in those directions. It is a bit rougher and can be gamed more, but there are a couple options to make it work. For example movement, if no one is LoS, it moves E towards the closest objective, if cover nearby it will move into cover.

So, Mercs copied having the 2" & 3" range bars from Pirates of the Spanish Main?

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
So, Mercs copied having the 2" & 3" range bars from Pirates of the Spanish Main?

Sort of but not quite.


The half-circles represent the directions and end positions a model can move. You place the base of your activated model, then rotate the card to figure out where you cna move. Each card movement costs a movement point (red circle at the top left). Some of the units have templates, the cards are laid out to create the templates to create a firing lane.

People either love or hate the card template, as players would prefer to utilize a ruler or tape measure. While some people like just taking, miniatures, dice and cards and play a game anywhere type of thing. I understand the reasons behind the cards and it had some potential but I don't think they capitalized, since I think all the cards are the same in terms of movement positions (I could be wrong, been awhile since I played. I mostly just paint the miniatures).

Edit: Looks like in the 2.0 version they changed the rules a bit. MERCS can move a number of cards up to the number of movement points. This is referred to as a movement string. The MERCS begins their move in the larger half-circle located on the bottom of the card. They can move to any of the smaller half-circles at the top of the card, or any location underneath the card, if the entire base is covered by the reference card. Any movement whether a full card or moving within a card counts as a movement point. As before, snapping to cover is NOT considered a move, but the MERC must have cover within base range.

Oh, it's like Star Wars... but more flexible.

Functionally, it's just a 2.5" range ruler.

I wonder if there actually is a phobia of measuring things? It would be a serious drawback for playing tabletop wargames.

Back on topic, MERCS, although it uses a clever movement/stats mechanic with the individual cards, is still a normal, competitive skirmish type of game.

I've been trying to think of some more cooperative ideas. Someone mentioned Red November (Fantasy Flight Games, 2008.) the card game involving a submarine crewed by gnomes.

How about a WW2 naval game in which the players are different crew sections of a cruiser; helm, radar and sonar, fire control, heavy anti-aircraft, light anti-aircraft, torpedoes, damage control and medical.

The umpire controls your own task force movement and attacks by ships and aircraft. The players must cooperate to fight back and save the ship when it gets damaged. I see this as a more elaborate variation of the B-17: Queen of the Skies (Avalon Hill, 1981.)

 Kilkrazy wrote:
How about a WW2 naval game in which the players are different crew sections of a cruiser; helm, radar and sonar, fire control, heavy anti-aircraft, light anti-aircraft, torpedoes, damage control and medical.

The umpire controls your own task force movement and attacks by ships and aircraft. The players must cooperate to fight back and save the ship when it gets damaged. I see this as a more elaborate variation of the B-17: Queen of the Skies (Avalon Hill, 1981.)

That's the (not-)Star Trek crew simulator, and it's better when it's computerized.

http://artemis.eochu.com/

There are several boardgames that follow that theme, IIRC FFG announced a new boardgame were players are at different stations of a submarine.

I strongly hated the Mercs card movement mechanic, but in general I despised Mercs gameplay, it felt as a boardgame in a tabletop wargame clothing, the snap to cover was a half measure to deal with the fact that the card movement mechanic was so restrictive and clunky in actual terrain, plus the game was really designed for 2D terrain.

The new rules seem to try and address this, but I feel as Dark Severance said, fail to fully utilize the concept of having the statcard as your measuring device.

To be sure, it's a fairly common theme, and there are games like Pandemic, too.

I am trying to put an element of war into things, since this is a wargame site.

Agreed, I feel the subject is becoming more complex and interesting than I originally anticipated.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
FWIW, there is nothing wrong with boardgaming. I often prefer playing Battlelore (1E) to WFB, precisely because it's well-streamlined and the gameplay is more believable. It lacks the sheer spectacle of WFB, but that's to be expected of a boardgame.

Similarly, there is a lot to be said for playing Memoir '44 over Flames of War, even though, FoW is far more visually impressive. Even if the scale is utter nonsense, when tanks with 75mm guns and a known effective range of over a km.

The Commands and Colours games are good examples of "gateway" games. Play them on a hex board (either bought or home-made) with scenic pieces and painted miniatures and you have a tabletop miniatures wargame.

Come to think of it, there's a whole sub-genre of co-operative "adventure games" on the market already - Descent, Imperial Assault, Mice and Mystics. Although basically boardgames, with the core simplicity and structure that implies, these are also miniature wargames. If I have a complaint about them compared to, say, the old Aliens boardgame, it's that the first two in that list are very heavily structured, to the point where a single wrong move can spell disaster for the party. I like a co-operative game to have the leeway for players to disagree and have competing goals.

Tabletop Wargaming with any sort of functional shooting phase absolutely needs to be in heavy cover, either deep forest, or heavily-built urban terrain. That way, engagement are limited by LOS, not weapons range.

Crossfire is about the only game I've seen that attempts to model the gentle undulations of "flat" terrain as blocking LOS. And infantry are taught to take ANY cover - the value of a 6" kerb at the side of the road is not to be underestimated. Depends what you want from the game though - I've read plenty of accounts from WWII of shallowly dug-in troops surviving hours and hours of mortar and machine-gun fire almost unscathed, but where's the game in that?

Agree that understanding and utilising LOS - fire lanes, interlocking fields of fire - is key, and that modern(-ish) small arms can fire off the tabletop at pretty much any scale.

The theoretical maximum range of modern weapons is almost never used in practice.

Most infantry firefights take place at ranges under 200 metres, partly because it's surprisingly hard to see and sight accurately at longer ranges, if there's any cover, haze or dust, or if you're being shot at.

However this is getting a bit off the topic of cooperative games.

To go back to my B-17 idea, the original game isn't really designed for co-operative play, but it shows the kind of things players might need to decide to do working as individuals within a team. If you are the crew members, you might be simultaneously presented with the following situations:

Fire broken out in the oxygen system and needs to be extinguished.
Seriously wounded pilot needs help.
Enemy fighter approaching in the sector that your gun covers.
Bomb bay doors jammed and the plane is on the bomb run.
Tail gunner has run out of ammo and needs resupply from someone else's gun position.

Which problem do you tackle first, and how can your other crew mates help?

Imagine this kind of scenario applied to a destroyer or cruiser in the middle of a battle with an enemy fleet, where each player is the officer in charge of a team of crewmen that he can allocate to his own tasks, or to help other teams, or to ad hoc tasks (clearing debris, carrying stores, running messages, etc.)

https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/38453/space-alert

Does pretty much what you're looking for. Not played it, but friends have and love it.

The threats come on a CD with 16 pre-recorded missions. As well as announcing the newest threats, each mission soundtrack also acts as the game timer - a game is 10 minutes long.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I wonder if there actually is a phobia of measuring things? It would be a serious drawback for playing tabletop wargames.

I have been told by women gamers who enjoy board games, painting miniatures that seem to have four things in common which makes them not as interested. Not just women gamers but these were brought up by XWing players who many for the first time were playing miniatures gaming.

The competitiveness nature of wargaming makes it hard for them to get excited for it, every game brings that feeling that someone has to win and someone loses. That makes it hard to want to learn something if you lose most of the time, that nature makes it harder to pick up the game unless you invest major time outside of playing to learn the meta.

Using a tape measure doesn't feel like they are playing the game. A tape measure is used to build and construct. It feels clunky to them. They don't want to have to feel like Bob the builder.

Assembly and painting miniatures. They like the miniatures but having to assemble them and then paint them is a put off.

Wargaming is a 2 player game. Even if you are in a room of everyone playing the same game, it is a two player game. It is kind of intimate in that nature, as it is one player playing with another. Yes people watch and observe, interact, but really it is two people around a table. Traditionally these games are 2-3 hours, which is why skirmish games are more inviting as they tend to be shorter.

Momotaro wrote:
Come to think of it, there's a whole sub-genre of co-operative "adventure games" on the market already - Descent, Imperial Assault, Mice and Mystics. Although basically boardgames, with the core simplicity and structure that implies, these are also miniature wargames. If I have a complaint about them compared to, say, the old Aliens boardgame, it's that the first two in that list are very heavily structured, to the point where a single wrong move can spell disaster for the party. I like a co-operative game to have the leeway for players to disagree and have competing goals.

There is a large number of growing cooperative miniatures board games. Those have been a boon but unfortunately don't really serve as a gateway into miniatures wargaming. Their mechanics are simplified for streamline game play, which isn't particular bad. They however don't teach someone the basics for wargaming, other than a turn. Most war games have phases, line of sight and cover that aren't translated when playing the co-operative board games.

So, if those are the identified problems:
1) Cooperative option seems like a good solution. Especially as an introduction, AI need not be complex- something as simple as enemies will move to nearest enemy in LOS if not in range staying in cover if possible. If in range they fire. If no enemy in LOS, have them move randomly to cover if possible.

2) Measuring sticks/markers ala SOBH? A gridded surface would also work.

3) This is kind of a core feature of a lot of miniature wargaming. Maybe just use preassembled/painted minis or use a simple 1 color scheme (IE blue= friendly, red = enemies).

4) Time length can be controlled by limiting scale and having a streamlined system. Multiple players can usually be pretty easily built into the rules. If each player controls a figure, you could easily do several players v. enemy. Even with a small 4-5 man fireteam, more than 2 players shouldn't be an issue.

Really, though it seems like if those are the major issues, maybe a boardgame/hybrid would be a better fit.