Switch Theme:

Cooperative Wargame?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in jp
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer






Somewhere in south-central England.

War games always have been and always will be primarily competitive, because that of course is the fundamental dynamic of war.

I can see that's a drawback for people who don't like the competitive aspect that much. It's what I've often thought about some players, even if they enjoy pushing the models around and rolling the dice, they lack the 'killer instinct' that you need to be able to pile on when the enemy is at a disadvantage, or sacrifice some of your own force when it's necessary to achieve some other goal.

I'm all for co-operative war games. It doesn't matter if they don't work to draw people into what at the moment is mainstream tabletop war games, if they are interesting and enjoyable in themselves.

We've had some good ideas put forwards in this thread; mutual back-pats all round!!

I'm writing a load of fiction. My latest story starts here... This is the index of all the stories...

We're not very big on official rules. Rules lead to people looking for loopholes. What's here is about it. 
   
Made in us
Infiltrating Prowler





Portland, OR

When we were building the World of Warcraft TCG community we combated competitiveness with team events. There were two flavors that were popular, which helped served as learning platforms into competitive gaming. The main issue with competitive 1vs1 gaming, the losing player rarely learns unless the player they played is a friendly teaching type (which isn't too common).

2vs2 or what we called Two Headed Ogre events. Although still competitive, it was a team event where players communicated with their team-mate. They were able to learn more and there was more social interaction between plays. It was also great when we would pair an experienced player with a newer player but most of the time players chose their own teams.

Team Events utilized a combination of Two-Headed Ogre or groups of 3-4 players who were trying to win games to get points. You didn't have to win all the games to move forward as it was point based. Although the games could be 1vs1 or 2vs2, you were allowed to communicate with your team mates provided it didn't slow down the game.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

2-headed Ogre? Why not play 3v3 General?

   
Made in us
Infiltrating Prowler





Portland, OR

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
2-headed Ogre? Why not play 3v3 General?
2-Headed Ogre was basically like Two-Headed Giant for Magic, there were a couple differences but ultimately the same thing. There was a 3vs3 but it wasn't developed until later, we called it Hydra. There were some balancing issues that were still being worked out with deck construction around it. It is also harder for smaller stores to get enough to participate with enough to make a decent swiss pairing.

It has been ages since I played the equivalent in Magic but I think they were the same. You had a reach of one, so to attack the General you had to take out one of the Lieutenants first if I recall? In order to attack the center head, you had to take out one of the side heads first.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

If you have the players, those team games are lot of fun.

   
Made in us
Incorporating Wet-Blending





Houston, TX

This seems to be relevant:
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1508069849/picnic-panic-the-game-of-ant-warfare-and-candy-pil

Billing itself as an introduction to miniature wargaming, it actually looks closer to a boardgame to me. Thoughts?

-James
 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

OK, I looked at Picnic Panic.

The name is great, and the high concept is fine. But it's not cooperative, and it's not really a wargame as I understand wargaming. Maybe discuss it in the other thread?

   
Made in us
Battlefield Tourist




MN (Currently in WY)

Good list Dark. I think Jmurph covered most of them but he didn't really cover the last one. Except indirectly, a Co-operative game would be more than 2 people at the table.

Perhaps in addition to or besides Co-operative games we could look at multi-player formats for the game to help boost participation.

Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing 
   
Made in gr
Thermo-Optical Spekter





Greece

 Dark Severance wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
I wonder if there actually is a phobia of measuring things? It would be a serious drawback for playing tabletop wargames.
I have been told by women gamers who enjoy board games, painting miniatures that seem to have four things in common which makes them not as interested. Not just women gamers but these were brought up by XWing players who many for the first time were playing miniatures gaming.
  • The competitiveness nature of wargaming makes it hard for them to get excited for it, every game brings that feeling that someone has to win and someone loses. That makes it hard to want to learn something if you lose most of the time, that nature makes it harder to pick up the game unless you invest major time outside of playing to learn the meta.
  • Using a tape measure doesn't feel like they are playing the game. A tape measure is used to build and construct. It feels clunky to them. They don't want to have to feel like Bob the builder.
  • Assembly and painting miniatures. They like the miniatures but having to assemble them and then paint them is a put off.
  • Wargaming is a 2 player game. Even if you are in a room of everyone playing the same game, it is a two player game. It is kind of intimate in that nature, as it is one player playing with another. Yes people watch and observe, interact, but really it is two people around a table. Traditionally these games are 2-3 hours, which is why skirmish games are more inviting as they tend to be shorter.

  • Momotaro wrote:
    Come to think of it, there's a whole sub-genre of co-operative "adventure games" on the market already - Descent, Imperial Assault, Mice and Mystics. Although basically boardgames, with the core simplicity and structure that implies, these are also miniature wargames. If I have a complaint about them compared to, say, the old Aliens boardgame, it's that the first two in that list are very heavily structured, to the point where a single wrong move can spell disaster for the party. I like a co-operative game to have the leeway for players to disagree and have competing goals.
    There is a large number of growing cooperative miniatures board games. Those have been a boon but unfortunately don't really serve as a gateway into miniatures wargaming. Their mechanics are simplified for streamline game play, which isn't particular bad. They however don't teach someone the basics for wargaming, other than a turn. Most war games have phases, line of sight and cover that aren't translated when playing the co-operative board games.


    That is what I wanted to hear, any mentions on theme or genre of theme?
       
    Made in us
    Infiltrating Prowler





    Portland, OR

     PsychoticStorm wrote:
    That is what I wanted to hear, any mentions on theme or genre of theme?
    Theme or genre don't usually come up in the conversations at conventions as choices of why they like or dislike something. The story can be compelling part but that is all pretty subjective as some people like fantasy, some like scifi, some like modern.
       
    Made in gr
    Thermo-Optical Spekter





    Greece

    The more I work on it (and not working on projects I was working before) the more I turn it into a hybrid, do you think designing requiring a mat is a bad thing? do you think a play area of 60x90 cm (roughly 3x3 A4 sheets, a bit smaller than a 2x3) is a good play area for such a game?
       
    Made in gb
    Dakka Veteran




    Lincoln, UK

     Dark Severance wrote:

    Momotaro wrote:
    Come to think of it, there's a whole sub-genre of co-operative "adventure games" on the market already - Descent, Imperial Assault, Mice and Mystics. Although basically boardgames, with the core simplicity and structure that implies, these are also miniature wargames. If I have a complaint about them compared to, say, the old Aliens boardgame, it's that the first two in that list are very heavily structured, to the point where a single wrong move can spell disaster for the party. I like a co-operative game to have the leeway for players to disagree and have competing goals.
    There is a large number of growing cooperative miniatures board games. Those have been a boon but unfortunately don't really serve as a gateway into miniatures wargaming. Their mechanics are simplified for streamline game play, which isn't particular bad. They however don't teach someone the basics for wargaming, other than a turn. Most war games have phases, line of sight and cover that aren't translated when playing the co-operative board games.


    Sorry, only just seen your reply.

    Have you seen the like of Imperial Assault? It has all the elements you list, and includes a head-to-head skirmish mode where you build your forces using the points costs provided, then battle it out in a scenario. It's a cunning move...

    Streamlined mechanics are streamlined mechanics regardless of their provenance, although I take your point about boardgames being different in essence from minis games.

    You make a very important point though - are these gateway games? There's a danger that they're too complete - someone looking at the requirements for a tabletop minis game - space, terrain - after playing Imperial Assault may just say "I'll stick with this".

    This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/04/16 10:49:10


     
       
    Made in jp
    [MOD]
    Anti-piracy Officer






    Somewhere in south-central England.

    I don't see board war games with miniatures as a gateway into full tabletop wargames.

    A game like Imperial Assault gives you a complete game in a box with the possibility of adding supplements and painting the figures if you want.

    Most "real" tabletop wargames give you a set of rules and leave you to get on with everything -- assembling armies, building terrain, creating scenarios -- by yourself.

    GW's advantage is offering all this add-on stuff along with materials and advice, right there in the shop. Possibly someone who bought the 30K boardgame might come back and get interested in full 40K, and start to buy figures. It's more of a stretch to think that someone who bought Gears Of War might become interested in Vietnam skirmish games or something as a result.

    I'm writing a load of fiction. My latest story starts here... This is the index of all the stories...

    We're not very big on official rules. Rules lead to people looking for loopholes. What's here is about it. 
       
    Made in us
    Terminator with Assault Cannon





    Wasn't the assassins game produced by 40k basically a co-op war game?
       
    Made in gr
    Thermo-Optical Spekter





    Greece

    I did not see it as a wargame, not sure were I would classify it.

    Co-op infiltration game?
       
     
    Forum Index » Game Design
    Go to: