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 do you think a wargame without movement might look like?

One of the things I like least about minis games is the movement phase - it takes too long, and I hate the brinksmanship aspect of trying to stay just outside your opponent's range while getting close enough to use your own goodies. So, I've been doing a thought experiment about what a wargame that doesn't have a movement phase might look like.

As far as games without movement go, I can think of three examples off the top of my head: tic-tac-toe, that dots game, and Go. Out of the three, two are terrible and make me think that this isn't a very interesting experiment at all. But Go makes me think there maybe is something there.

So I'm thinking about what a wargame might look like where miniatures (or units of miniatures) are deployed at the point of contact with the enemy.

The object of Go, to control as much territory as possible behind your line of stones, doesn't feel compelling or "realistic" for a wargame, so what about a game where there are objectives on the field? Maybe each player has some units that can attempt to control the objectives by being on them (a la ObSec). They also have some units that can remove/neutralize their opponent's ObSec pieces, but can't control objectives themselves. Maybe there's a counter-play to the counters too, although I feel like that kind of relationship chain has to loop back around at some point.

To keep it from being a simple piece-laying exercise, we could assume that different unit types have different resource costs (which implies there's a resource pool). These resources accrue in some fashion that's a bit random to keep there from always being a "right" order in which to deploy units.

In order to keep it from turning into a big pile-on around a single point, there are multiple objectives scattered across the map, so that sometimes the right move for a player might be to open up a new front rather than to keep piling more resources onto an existing scrum.

Anyway, I'd be interested in hearing anyone's thoughts on what a wargame like this might look like. In particular, are there any games you've played (either war themed or not) that have a mechanic like this? It feels a bit like a bidding mechanic, but I don't play a ton of board games like that so I'm really interested in what's out there already. I'm sure if I'm thinking of it, it's not such a novel idea.

You might want to take a look at Neuroshima Hex. It is a battle themed boardgame, with varied factions and is both deeply strategical and deeply tactical, and has no movement phase (ability to relocate after initial placement is rare commodity), but "terrain" and placement do matter a lot. Playing it actually feels a lot like a very abstracted version of a miniature wargame.

nou wrote:
You might want to take a look at Neuroshima Hex. It is a battle themed boardgame, with varied factions and is both deeply strategical and deeply tactical, and has no movement phase (ability to relocate after initial placement is rare commodity), but "terrain" and placement do matter a lot. Playing it actually feels a lot like a very abstracted version of a miniature wargame.

Thanks! I actually had this game way back when on an old iPad, but I downloaded it onto my new phone. What a terrible tutorial!

But you're right, this looks really interesting. I also realized that Batt'l Kha'os[1] has some elements of what I'm thinking about too.

[1]: https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/42444/battl-khaos

From what I can read from description on BGG, Batt'l Kha'os uses the same principle of automatic resolution when there is no more decision making to do as Neuroshima does.

And while agree, that tutorial is a bit lacking, the gameplay of Neuroshima itself is very strategic and tactical and AI is pretty hard opponent. You might want to download Neuroshima Puzzles (or whatever the actual name for this variant is) - this is a set of 100 Neuroshima "problems" to solve with limited tiles - very educative on what full game actually has to offer in terms of tactics and strategy.
With multitude of additional factions, all playing totally different, I was not bored with Neuroshima through literal thousands of games.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
One more thing to add about Neuroshima - because it is highly abstracted but still utilizes all wargame concepts (placement, mobility, ranged and CC attacks, strenght and resilence, terrain, terrain modification, initiative, artilery attacks, barrage, interuptions, reactive fire, modifiers, healing/regeneration/ablative wounds, fortifications, factons, faction specific strategies and limitations, gunlines etc, up to wholly alternative mode of play (Dancer faction)) I find it very educative in wargame design principles, especially balance questions/faction uniquness questions. I higly recommend studying in-game interactions and choice trees in this game for anyone into game design.