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.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
This discussion on Space Marine, Epic and Epic Armageddon got me thinking about a key element for me of what makes a Good Wargame - flavour. This might be related to the old gaming concept of chrome.

Epic deliberately stripped out the flavour of Space Marine/Titanicus. The mechanics were tight and dare I say innovative, but it was like eating a bowl of sand compared to the old game in terms of flavour. Battlefront did a similar thing to Flames of War when they transitioned to V4 from V3.

I liked Epic, but I couldn't get the Space Marine/Titanicus players to engage. I kept all my stuff and would happily play, but they killed the system with the 97 reboot.

For me Epic A captured brilliantly the flavour of certain armies. I think it reflects how systems lend themselves to certain styles and flavour.

I have yet to see for example a better implementation of Space Marines in one of GWs wargame (not space hulk) systems. I could launch a combined arms aerospace attack by hitting an area with orbital bombardment, drop pod down and support with thunderhawk inserted troops and teleporting terminators. If I wanted to harass the enemy I could teleport in terminators, then extract them by thunderhawk, then reinsert the next turn on a different area of the board. I could also with a small supported unit of marines 'clip' a larger formation and rout it in an assault, winning assaults where I was outnumbered 4-1.

Tau were also handled brilliantly, delivering an army that was a real combined arms force and of course have the option to orbital drop Manta (who had a fantastic UFO hovering like vibe)!

But other armies didn't have the flavour people expected. For me for instance I like Epic A Orks, but some 2nd players didn't, I think because the randomness was removed to streamline them.

The game also 'broke' at the extremes, handling armies of a few tough units poorly and armies with a horde of resilient units even worse. Some armies like feral Orks could rarely win, but equally would often draw without losing. You couldn't do the horde of units you could in 2nd, in practice the game could only handle 100 odd models a side (tanks or bases of troops).

There are a few rules tweaks I would love to do, streamline the save system into a -/-/-, have an alternative mechanic for barrages (as games without them were so much faster movement and deployment phases) and solve the activation numbers issue. Still it remains my favourite GW wargame system for delivering the feel for me of the background in a fun tactically challenging game. Warmaster comes a close second, but that really only delivers a feel of command decisions and not always the army differences.

Personally, I like short easy to get into rules with some tactical options. Tho I still enjoy things like 40k, Infinity, Warpath.

Good?

Which ever wargame satisfies my value requirements.

Rules that make sense is top.

 Pacific wrote:

That actually brings forward another consideration which is the importance of imagery and atmosphere created, especially for Fantasy and Sci-fi games. I know a lot of people still enjoy 40k because of that very strong imagery and the universe that has been created for the game, and want to be involved with it despite the game mechanics and any impendence they create for the experience (I was certainly in that category for some time!)

Less of a consideration for the most part in historical games as most of us have grown up watching WW2 films and don't have to think too hard to imagine a Tiger vs. Shermans or Vikings pillaging a Saxon village.

This is a huge aspect of successful games. I still love a good thick rulebook with great pictures and art.

For myself however, once I began to really get into building terrain the universe and imagery provided by a game became somewhat less important. I'm more interested in what the table and miniatures look like than what a book shows and when I'm not constrained by mass-produced terrain or a proscribed miniatures line what's on the table is mostly up to me.

Thus my choice of wargame goes back to the aspects I mentioned earlier related to speed, streamlined gameplay and meaningful decision making among others.