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.

 Easy E wrote:

Let's not talk about the scale for Naval, Space or Aviation related stuff.

Would naval game qualify as skirmish or full battle??

Aside from very few battles in the Pacific, in WW2, I can't think of too many times where more than a handful of ships duked it out on the high seas

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Easy E wrote:

Let's not talk about the scale for Naval, Space or Aviation related stuff.

Would naval game qualify as skirmish or full battle??

Aside from very few battles in the Pacific, in WW2, I can't think of too many times where more than a handful of ships duked it out on the high seas

That would then depend on whether you were playing a game that focused on historical battles, or an open system.


War at Sea is the only naval game I have any experience with... while it does let you put in historical ship restrictions and play out set scenarios, the game system is open-ended enough to let you field as many ships as you want.

 insaniak wrote:

War at Sea is the only naval game I have any experience with... while it does let you put in historical ship restrictions and play out set scenarios, the game system is open-ended enough to let you field as many ships as you want.

Actually, I'm quite curious about naval (and by extension, navy in space) games... Does a game like War at Sea perform similar to a 40k where the rules are designed to be balanced at a certain level, but beyond that and things get ugly pretty quick? Or is it more linear and maintain it's balance across all points value games?

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Easy E wrote:

Let's not talk about the scale for Naval, Space or Aviation related stuff.

Would naval game qualify as skirmish or full battle??

Aside from very few battles in the Pacific, in WW2, I can't think of too many times where more than a handful of ships duked it out on the high seas

Historical wargames don't usually use the term "Full Battle". Especially since what sci-fantasy gamers call "full battle" is rarely actually large enough to encompass a full battle.

I think that Naval gamers would describe a given game based on what portion of a fleet was engaged.

However, "Skirmish" refers to "1 man equals 1 miniature" or "a part of a larger battle". By the later definition definition you could call it a skirmish if you were playing something like a ship v ship (or a few ships) portion of a larger engagement.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Aside from very few battles in the Pacific, in WW2, I can't think of too many times where more than a handful of ships duked it out on the high seas

It's not an everyday thing, but historically there are plenty of instances where significant numbers of ships or even entire fleets engaged. Think about England V Spain, or even sea battles of ancient times.

 DarkWind wrote:
So as we are now in the age of many options for miniatures games I was just wondering what kind of games do most miniature gamers prefer?

Is skirmish your cup of tea? Smaller more man on man based battle that seem to go at a faster pace and require a quicker way of thinking. Not to mention low cost and few models. (Examples Malifaux, Warmachine/Hordes, WH40K Kill Team, Infinity, Bolt Action)

Maybe you prefer Full Battle games. Large epic battles that come down to key moments when units are finally able to break the line or push the enemy off the objective.Large armies with lots of models. (Examples: Warhammer/40K, Flames of War, Warhmachine/Hordes (High point scale), Dropzone Commander)

Well... If WarmaHordes is a "Full Battle Game", I'd say I prefer Über-Full-Extra-Large-Super-Epic battle games: games when you actually field hundreds of minis, move and remove entire units, and often have to deal with some kind of command chain.

I also enjoy skirmish games, but somehow less than mass-battle games.

Last and least, larger-scale-but-still-somehow-skirmish-games like Warmahordes and 40k, when you have to move several dozens minis one by one. Can be enjoyable, but usually too cumbersome.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Actually, I'm quite curious about naval (and by extension, navy in space) games... Does a game like War at Sea perform similar to a 40k where the rules are designed to be balanced at a certain level, but beyond that and things get ugly pretty quick? Or is it more linear and maintain it's balance across all points value games?

I haven't played WaS competitively, just at home with friends, so I don't know how broken it can get in a more competitive environment, but we've found it to be generally not too bad. In larger games the Battleships do tend to dominate, and there was some discussion on WotC's forums about how the game seemed to be slightly skewed in favour of the British and US ships... That may have been corrected in the later sets, though... I stopped buying (only due to lack of funds) after set two, so I'm not really sure about how the game developed after that.

I'm keen on both, but have yet to find a mass battle game with dynamic enjoyable rules.

Maybe Dropzone, but its expensive and the minis are ugly as sin. Those scourge tanks... yuck

I'm a skirmish fan myself.
I like having to buy and paint fewer models as I can really focus on each one and give it a lot of character. Customizing a force, tweaking equipment, etc. on a small scale is fun too. The best part though is having each model being (generally) able to do lots of cool stuff each turn, instead of the usual move and shoot. Time to play is also a factor, as I'd rather get in multiple skirmish games instead of one mass battle game in a night. The idea of setting up a huge 4'x6' table just PACKED with models certainly looks good, but is tiring for me to think about.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

War at Sea is the only naval game I have any experience with... while it does let you put in historical ship restrictions and play out set scenarios, the game system is open-ended enough to let you field as many ships as you want.

Actually, I'm quite curious about naval (and by extension, navy in space) games... Does a game like War at Sea perform similar to a 40k where the rules are designed to be balanced at a certain level, but beyond that and things get ugly pretty quick? Or is it more linear and maintain it's balance across all points value games?

A and A war at Sea has a variety of special rules, if you play in a tournament style game there are loads of cheese. To the point where you can break the game and WotC had to change the special rules for a unit.

If you play it as just a beer and pretzels game it is very fun.

Broken combos are very, very few, the biggest issue is power creep. Such as the case with the Bismarck and the sister ship Tirpitz. For 2 points more, there is no reason why I would bring the Bismarck over the Tirpitz.


----------

As for mass battles vs skirmish, a fun game is a fun game, but all I have time for is skirmish.

I like both, but at the moment, skirmish is more my thing due to time/space constraints.

Seeing hundreds of dudes blowing each other to pieces is just as fun as checking to see if that Sniper can just see a guy through a window, a fence and another guy, though. A Cavalry charge is just as good as one man making a mad dash across an open fire lane.