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 am curious to know if there was a perfect 1:1 version of whatever your favorite TT games are...would you still play the TT version? Some kind of top down 3d rotatable camera perspective, with mouse select to issue orders and such keeping everything turn based as it would play out on a table. There is quite a few advantages if this was actually something that could be played right now... and made by a talented team of developers who understand the game well.

- Can play online vs anyone in the world at whatever time suits you from the comfort of your home.
- No setup times or storage requirements needed for the TT game
- Cheaper than buying all the models and terrain and everything else...
-The game can enforce correct rulings and give good demonstration tutorials to beginners.
- If you are not into the painting and modelling aspect of the game and just enjoy the mechanics of the game and the world they are set in then the devs take care of all 'hassle' of that side of the game. Personally i love that aspect and often buy some models to paint from games i don't intend on even playing. E.g kingdom death
- Balance changes can be applied by the devs via downloadable patches to the game instead of a re-release of all the rules/stats in book form and lots of data could be collected/analyzed through online tournament play so they have a good idea of exactly what tweaks are needed.
- The models come to life with animations and sounds etc
- Mods that the community could produce to add to the game

I'm probably missing some other pro's but off the top of my head that list is pretty appealing to me.


I sometimes think to myself the reason why this hasnt been done already by games workshop and other company's, when the tech is clearly there to do so, is due to the fear it would destroy their TT sales? And perhaps it would eat into those profits some but IMO they would recoup those loses and then some if they did invest heavily into a digital representation of the game and this was available through a popular gaming service like steam.

This is all well and good for people who purely wargame for the actual gaming experience. And for those people, I suspect the answer to your question would be 'No' - they wouldn't play the TT version if there was a perfect digital recreation. But bear in mind there are just as many people, if not more, who wargame because they enjoy collecting, painting, modelling etc not to mention the sheer tactile experience of owning miniatures. You might as well ask why, if there are perfect digital books, people still buy physical printed media; the advent of digital books hasn't killed real books off - the two can co-exist in the same space as they appeal to difference groups. I suspect the same can be said for wargaming. Personally, I would love to see a modern and up to date recreation of Epic, a la Final Liberation, but owning and playing it would in no way make me stop wanting to play the 'real' thing.

I'd play it in the same way I play most video games; for entertainment and a challenge. But in no way would that stop me from playing the real game, as it could never replace the social experience of having a game and a laugh with good friends, it could never match the variety of armies/models/conversions/paintjobs, and I also think it would be all but impossible to play non-tournament style games. If people can expolit imbalance against real people with physical books, then they're certainly going to do so once it's all in code, and they don't have to have any remorse for annoying the opponent.

It would suffer from one huge flaw: in a game like 40k, you'd be stuck with the dev's interpretation of the rules.

Personally, I like the minis, and hate online video games, so it's a pass for me.

No. Primarily because I don't own a computer (posting from a shared laptop) and have no intention of buying one. No matter how fancy they can be computer games just don't interest or impress me nowadays.

Secondly because I enjouy making my models and painting them as much as playing the game not to mention I like being around my friends. The whole point of tabletop games IMO is being around your friends.

The thing to bear in mind is that there have been computerised representations of 'war' which involve strategy for pretty much as long as computer games have existed.

There must have been dozens of games about the war on mainland Europe during WW2. Has this stopped people playing tabletop games to represent the same thing? Absolutely not.

I don't think there is any difference regardless of the setting - be it science fiction or fantasy. As described ably above, the TT experience offers a lot of things that computer gaming can't: the tactile experience, the community, the art & creativity, the imagination.

I agree there is certainly some cross over - it's possible that computer gaming has stolen potential fans, but then that is true for every other pastime, be it hobby-related or not.

But, if anything I think we might start to see more and more crossover in the future - online campaign maps and living stories that develop as people play games, up-datable player bases, rule-writer feedback forums - there is massive potential there, it just needs a company with the will (and the financial and manpower resources) to try pull off one or more of those elements.

anab0lic wrote:
I am curious to know if there was a perfect 1:1 version of whatever your favorite TT games are...would you still play the TT version? Some kind of top down 3d rotatable camera perspective, with mouse select to issue orders and such keeping everything turn based as it would play out on a table. There is quite a few advantages if this was actually something that could be played right now... and made by a talented team of developers who understand the game well.

- Can play online vs anyone in the world at whatever time suits you from the comfort of your home.
- No setup times or storage requirements needed for the TT game
- Cheaper than buying all the models and terrain and everything else...
-The game can enforce correct rulings and give good demonstration tutorials to beginners.
- If you are not into the painting and modelling aspect of the game and just enjoy the mechanics of the game and the world they are set in then the devs take care of all 'hassle' of that side of the game. Personally i love that aspect and often buy some models to paint from games i don't intend on even playing. E.g kingdom death
- Balance changes can be applied by the devs via downloadable patches to the game instead of a re-release of all the rules/stats in book form and lots of data could be collected/analyzed through online tournament play so they have a good idea of exactly what tweaks are needed.
- The models come to life with animations and sounds etc
- Mods that the community could produce to add to the game

I'm sorry, I'm having difficulty interpreting what you're asking. Are you describing a basic computer game, or something more akin to Star Wars Holochess? Because if it's just a TT game that takes place on a computer, you're describing one of gajillions of computer games. If it's more holochess, then the setup and projector would have to be incredibly cheap before I'd look at it.

Yea, absolutely, 100%.

I do miniatures games because I like miniatures. I would probably play the video game too.

I have direct experience with this in the form of BloodBowl.

The Cyanide games are literally directly in line with the TT rules. Yet I still built several teams out of heavily converted models, built a giant, fully modeled stadium, made several portable roll out pitches, started a league, and printed up my own Mordheim Comets jersey.

I'd be yelling at the computer too much blaming the programming for the dice rolls

I'd probably play the digital version quite a bit, but I'd still play the tabletop game.

While I'm primarily in this for the gaming and have never bought a model I didn't intend to play a game with, I still like building and painting those models, I like playing games with people face to face, and there's something satisfying about physically moving models around and rolling dice.

40k: hell no. The models are the only thing that make the game even remotely worth playing. The rules suck, and if someone made a perfect video game clone of those rules I'd wonder why they wasted obscene amounts of money on making a terrible game instead of making a good game in the 40k IP. It would be like making a movie out of a self-published novel and praising the movie's accuracy because it includes every typo from the original book.

X-Wing. Probably not, based on experience. A pretty good copy of X-Wing already exists and I have no interest in playing it, so improving the graphics a bit probably won't change my mind.

I would not play the computer game to be entirely honest.

A computer game simulating 100% the tabletop experience fails dramatically to take into advantage the reason why you would make a computer game in the first place, adding on top of that cumbersome controls to give the fast intuitive feeling a human been has around a physical tabletop the game will be a disaster to play with.

This is by setting aside the collecting, customizing and creating "oddball" one off scenarios which would add even more problems to the program.

A computer game is to take advantage of the different medium to bring forward a more "live" interpretation of the world it describes, or to make difficult calculations fast, or both, a good example would indeed be 40k and Dawn of War, especially 2, where, in my opinion, the computer game conveys the "fluff" better than the actual tabletop, if the game (same graphics, same animations) was a 100% faithful representation of the tabletop game it would be a terrible game, instead it takes advantage of the medium it has (and its limitations) and creates a fluent game that is both entertaining and challenging.

Physical wargaming and digital are two different realms that can coexist as each brings into the table different things and occupy different niches, but one stepping into the territory of the other is usually disastrous for the attempt.

Yes, I game because I like miniatures and want something to play with them and enjoy the social aspect.

I already play computer games and they generally have a better game than a lot of miniatures games I've played. However they lack in the other aspects so there is room for both.

Most of us are in it for the miniatures(painting and converting) as much as the "playing aspect"... so No I would not stop playing the TT version.. Would I also play the digital computer game? Yes I would.. But there are many aspects of he TT game that the computer game could not do, The hobbiest side, the face to face interaction etc..

Living card games on the other hand I personaly think work as good in a digital format, and we have seen that market grow alot the last few years... Playing the same cards(that you cant change) on a computer screen or in IRL makes little diffrence to most people I think...

Yeah it would be perfect for me if this was the case because I could still paint and play with miniatures but also arrange and learn games online.

I'd definitely still play the TT. Painting and modelling aside, I think Space Hulk is a perfect example of this. The most recent computer release is pretty much an exact digital copy of the real thing, but I'd still much rather sit and play with friends than sit in front of a computer screen.

My computer would never be good enough to play the software you describe.

I would still play on TT ... it is more about getting together with friends and talking smack than it is about the game.

Computer games are awesome, but they cannot replace the social aspect, and it's hard to add your own conversions and home armies/rules to a computer game.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Computer games are awesome, but they cannot replace the social aspect

This.

Gaming for us is less about the actual game and more about getting together with people we don't see often enough to do something fun and shoot the gak for a few hours.

While gaming has headsets and the ability to speak to each other, it's really not the same thing.

If the thing also allowed solo play (so you could scale challenge, army lists, scenarios, etc.) then my minis might wind up on the Dakka Swap Shop.

Anyone who's ever played Brand X games, worked super long hours/other busy schedules or tried to get games in an insular playing community, being able to get a game in playing what you want, when you want becomes really valuable.

privateer4hire wrote:
Anyone who's ever played Brand X games, worked super long hours/other busy schedules or tried to get games in an insular playing community, being able to get a game in playing what you want, when you want becomes really valuable.

The error here is assuming that everyone that meets those criteria is exactly like you.

I have a busy schedule, work long hours, and my gaming group takes forever to get in the mood to try a new game. Yet I wouldn't trade physically playing a tabletop game for a computer game at all, for the above mentioned reason - social interaction.

Not everyone is in this hobby for the simple act of playing a game. The hobby has broader appeal than that for a lot of people.

Not an error. I agree that the hobby has broader appeal than playing a game to a lot of people.

I said being able to do that (play what/when you wanted) would be valuable to people in those situations.

Didn't say everybody would quit playing their tt versions but that I personally would be tempted to sell off my stuff if such an option were available.

 Jimsolo wrote:
It would suffer from one huge flaw: in a game like 40k, you'd be stuck with the dev's interpretation of the rules.

On the upside we'd actually learn what the dev's interpretation would be

But I tend to think most TT wargames make pretty bad games when viewed in isolation. What makes them fun is assembling an army and playing them with other people in the flesh more than the games themselves.

Just look at Space Hulk, the video game was a perfect recreation of the table top game, but the video game is pretty awful and the table top game is fun.

privateer4hire wrote:
Not an error. I agree that the hobby has broader appeal than playing a game to a lot of people.

I said being able to do that (play what/when you wanted) would be valuable to people in those situations.

Your error was attributing it to anybody in that situation. Again, not true at all and completely subjective.

 -Loki- wrote:

privateer4hire wrote:
Not an error. I agree that the hobby has broader appeal than playing a game to a lot of people.

I said being able to do that (play what/when you wanted) would be valuable to people in those situations.

Your error was attributing it to anybody in that situation. Again, not true at all and completely subjective.

I would think anyone in that situation could see the value of being able to get a game of what you want when you want... doesn't mean anyone would prefer to play a video game to a TT game, but I would think anyone could see the value in it.

Either way I think we're wasting vastly too much reading too deeply in to a sentence that probably only had minimum consideration when it was written

Fair enough.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 -Loki- wrote:

privateer4hire wrote:
Not an error. I agree that the hobby has broader appeal than playing a game to a lot of people.

I said being able to do that (play what/when you wanted) would be valuable to people in those situations.

Your error was attributing it to anybody in that situation. Again, not true at all and completely subjective.

I would think anyone in that situation could see the value of being able to get a game of what you want when you want...

Again, no. For the same reason I don't play pick up games with random people at the store. I play with my group, because they're all people I know well. Family, and friends I've known for nearly 20 years. The value of the game comes from spending time with those people. Getting a game at 8pm on a worknight with some random person halfway across the world who I don't know and my only form of communication is a headset? I'll save that for Counter Strike where I can put a virtual bullet between their eyes and I don't need conversation.

I would play both. It's why I play and enjoy games like X-Com. I don't see it happening any time soon, though.

 -Loki- wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 -Loki- wrote:

privateer4hire wrote:
Not an error. I agree that the hobby has broader appeal than playing a game to a lot of people.

I said being able to do that (play what/when you wanted) would be valuable to people in those situations.

Your error was attributing it to anybody in that situation. Again, not true at all and completely subjective.

I would think anyone in that situation could see the value of being able to get a game of what you want when you want...

Again, no. For the same reason I don't play pick up games with random people at the store. I play with my group, because they're all people I know well. Family, and friends I've known for nearly 20 years. The value of the game comes from spending time with those people. Getting a game at 8pm on a worknight with some random person halfway across the world who I don't know and my only form of communication is a headset? I'll save that for Counter Strike where I can put a virtual bullet between their eyes and I don't need conversation.

Wait so you can't see the value in something while not necessarily it being your thing personally? Sounds a bit short sighted to me. I can see the value in a lot of things I myself am not necessarily interested in or care about

And to quote what I said earlier...

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Either way I think we're wasting vastly too much reading too deeply in to a sentence that probably only had minimum consideration when it was written