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.

I think women might enjoy the committee type of game where the idea is to explore the decision making process behind an unfolding campaign or event, rather than to game it out in tactical detail.

I think men might enjoy that type of game too.

It is easily done in basic concept; for example, a Vietnam jungle patrol scenario in which each player controls a squad, vehicle or aircraft on the US side, while the NVA are controlled by some mechanism or an umpire.

Solo games are a good basis for working out a co-operative game, since the 'AI' for the enemy has already been worked out for you.

I can only suggest ones I've played, of course. These games use a variety of methods for generating the opponent decisions; dice tables, card draws and chit pulls.

B17: Queen of the Skies
https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/1032/b-17-queen-skies

RAF (by West End Games)
https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/3202/raf

Space Infantry
https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/66781/space-infantry

Space Hulk: Death Angel
https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/71721/space-hulk-death-angel-card-game

Silent War
https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/17484/silent-war

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

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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.)

War games always have been and always will be primarily competitive, because that of course is the fundamental dynamic of war.

I can see that's a drawback for people who don't like the competitive aspect that much. It's what I've often thought about some players, even if they enjoy pushing the models around and rolling the dice, they lack the 'killer instinct' that you need to be able to pile on when the enemy is at a disadvantage, or sacrifice some of your own force when it's necessary to achieve some other goal.

I'm all for co-operative war games. It doesn't matter if they don't work to draw people into what at the moment is mainstream tabletop war games, if they are interesting and enjoyable in themselves.

We've had some good ideas put forwards in this thread; mutual back-pats all round!!

I don't see board war games with miniatures as a gateway into full tabletop wargames.

A game like Imperial Assault gives you a complete game in a box with the possibility of adding supplements and painting the figures if you want.

Most "real" tabletop wargames give you a set of rules and leave you to get on with everything -- assembling armies, building terrain, creating scenarios -- by yourself.

GW's advantage is offering all this add-on stuff along with materials and advice, right there in the shop. Possibly someone who bought the 30K boardgame might come back and get interested in full 40K, and start to buy figures. It's more of a stretch to think that someone who bought Gears Of War might become interested in Vietnam skirmish games or something as a result.