In an ideal wargame, the higher skill player should win what percent of the time?

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.

**small_gods**

Nithaniel wrote:
Breng77 wrote:

As to those saying there is no skill in wargames, that is 100% false, there are plenty of games where model positioning matters, quick assessment of chance of success matters, strategy with regards to the mission matters, etc

We are definitely missing an agreement on what skill is. Its all of the above and then some. In high level games the variability in lists should be minimal like tournament final tables so what is the difference in skill? Part of this is making mistakes. I've played a lot of chess and as the game develops the end winner is the one who didn't make as many or any mistakes. A perfect example of this is the LVO 2018 final between Nick and Tony which was iirc a mirror match. In this game Tony made a mistake in order of processing stratagems with movement and lost him a game that he looked like he was going to win. At the time Nick was touted as the best player in the world (debatable) but he was losing before the mistake.

Assuming lists are not skill, what separates the higher level players from the intermediate is their abilities to make mistakes under pressure.

I find this to be a vastly underestimated part of the game. A lot of people at tournaments have a reasonably high skill level but it is the ability to keep all that in your head whilst trying to think through then next steps you need to make where the real skill lies.

A lot of people can screen well, play the objectives well, have decent target prority and know how to limit your opponets options. But to be able to do all that simultaneously, under a time pressure, after playing over long periods is where the real skill lies.

**small_gods**

Yeah second that from me. I've always enjoyed the challange of playing competitively but understand that's not what everyone wants.

I have a friend who will only play single codex and no named characters as he finds it unrealistic that Ahriman would be fighting small skirmishes with just a handful of thousand sons and some plaguebearers. And this will ruin the enjoyment of the game for him.

The benifit of 40k is it allows for both those perspectives if both people playing are on the same page.