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.

Different people have different approaches to the game - some people enjoy cutthroat competition, some are into it for beer and pretzels (soft drinks for minors ). I'm imagining that hardcore competitive gamers are more near the top, and more casual gamers are further down the scale, but I'd be interested to see what the range of opinions are.

(obviously it depends on the size of the skill difference, but for a baseline consider the people who show up at your local FLGS)

I was particularly thinking about this while listening to a tournament podcast - the ITC rules seem pretty efficiently designed as a sorting algorithm for selecting tournament winners (allowing for matchup etc.); much shade is thrown on maelstrom for being too random (although not just for that), but maybe it's just a question of horses for courses.

somewhere between 80-90%. it is a dice game, but skill still matters above all else. The only chance the lower skill should have is if they built thier list and its a counter to the more skilled player. IE skilled player came armed for imperial knights and leman russes and the opponent brought 260 grots, 3 wierdboys, ghaz, badruk and mad dock... liek what are you going to do.

Honestly any wargame that doesn't allow the higher skilled player to win most of the time is likely a game running so much random that players are left with far fewer actual input and choices in the game, esp in critical moments of the game.

In theory if the armies are balanced points wise then a higher skilled player will typically bring a better designed army, deploy it better, play with it better and generally win most games.

In contrast a less skilled player is going to be worse in all those areas and likely lose most of the time.


For a wargame where part of the game is making choices this is how it should be. Because its putting the weight of the game in the choices you make. In contrast a game like Snakes and Ladders is purely one of chance. There's no control or thinking involved; you roll the dice and see where you land.
Could a wargame work like that, eh possibly but it might come off as feeling rather bland if not down right boring or just lacking any form of engagement.


A game of pure chance isn't bad; a game of pure skill isn't bad; but in a wargame I think that skill is the greater of the two. Chance is part of it, but if you put your archers in the front line and the enemy charges them with heavy cavalry then those archers should be dead. Straight up dead - they might get lucky and take down a rider or two; and there is where the chance comes into play, but overall they should be cut to bits.

Otherwise the game starts to lose meaning and connection to what its trying to represent.




Also note "high" and "low" skill are terribly vague terms for wargames since there is no standard testing or metric by which gamers can measure themselves. So some of the variation in answers is going to be influenced by how people interpret those terms. Is that low skill a beginner or a gamer who has been gaming for years, but never worked on improving their game. Is that high skill player just someone who knows the rules well or someone who wins multiple major tournaments

I voted 90%. The game should mostly be about skill on the table IMO.

 Overread wrote:
In contrast a game like Snakes and Ladders is purely one of chance. There's no control or thinking involved; you roll the dice and see where you land.

Funnily enough, I was going to put "snakes and ladders" in as the 50% option.

Also note "high" and "low" skill are terribly vague terms for wargames since there is no standard testing or metric by which gamers can measure themselves. So some of the variation in answers is going to be influenced by how people interpret those terms. Is that low skill a beginner or a gamer who has been gaming for years, but never worked on improving their game. Is that high skill player just someone who knows the rules well or someone who wins multiple major tournaments

Yes.

Its still a rock paper scissors game. If your list is the paper to the other players scissors your higher skill level doesnt really matter much. And the dice gods also have a word in this. I would say 60-70%.

Lower skill players are generally lose not because of dice, but because of lack of knowledge. They forget threat zones, act without knowing opponent's abilities, open up for tri-pointing, make wrong range between screening units and valuable ones, concentrate more on wrong/less valuable/risky mission goals.

On the other hand skilful players mostly lose because of dice (theirs' or their opponents').

So I think 80-90% is a reasonable enough rate in ideal conditions. But rock-paper-scisors nature of armies bring actual rate closer to 60% i guess.

Equally good armies that are tuned against each other, the higher skill player should win almost every time. Like 80% of the time. Random luck can happen, but if everything is equal except the skill, higher skill should win.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Equally good armies that are tuned against each other, the higher skill player should win almost every time. Like 80% of the time. Random luck can happen, but if everything is equal except the skill, higher skill should win.

That is true. Equal armies do show you who is the better player, not the player who can build (or copy) the most efficient mathematical list.

So the reason I was thinking about this is the idea of having different game types for different purposes, without getting into the whole "ways to play" thing with Narrative.

If you're running a tournament, or the ITC, then you want your game to be as close to a pure contest of skill as you can get them - the whole point is to find the "best" player (or the best on the day at least).

If OTOH you're just playing for "fun", you might think it's a feature that anyone has a chance of winning every now and then, so they don't get discouraged, and get their occasional day in the sun. (I scare-quoted "fun" because some people really get a kick out of competitive play, and I don't want to imply that it's not fun )

I voted 90%, but 80% wouldn't offend me either.

Honestly though, it's less about how random the game is for me about how much army composition matters that I wish would change. I feel like Army Composition and Matchup is probably the biggest determining factor in games rather than actual player agency in a lot of circumstances.

80-90% IMHO, voted 80. Most of the time, but there should always be those unexpected luck/lucky maneuver type things where a lower skill player should win.

Less than 50%, preferably less than 25%. WAAC TFGs should be punished.

 p5freak wrote:
Its still a rock paper scissors game. If your list is the paper to the other players scissors your higher skill level doesnt really matter much. And the dice gods also have a word in this. I would say 60-70%.

I don't think even with a list designed to beat Nick N or Juice (among others)'s genesteelers they would still probably find a way to beat me. I regard myself as a above average (but barely probably top 60ish%) player but watching their games while i am looking a turn ahead on predictions/averages they seem to be looking all the way to the end game beyond what I pull off.

That depends on the level of skill difference. There should be good enough odds that the "underdog" can win if they take advantage of key opportunities.

That depends on how you define wargame.

40K is barely a wargame if we decided a wargame should represent actual combat (even in a fictional setting). If we use the term wargame loosely (as we most often do) what we're really discussing is an advanced form of a chess. A balanced, even game based purely on skill. But then, Chess doesn't really represent war or combat at all.

40K has only the slimmest trappings of "chaos" that would be present in a real battlefield, just enough to allow the occasional mistake or lucky win by the underskilled player. Sure, it's a dice game but you can reduce that impact pretty strongly. So, as a non-real-wargame I'd say 80% of the time, giving the 20% to crazy dice swings.

It's funny, because while if you poll the community you'll get a strong showing for less randomness - in practice strategy games with a decent amount of randomness generally have broader appeal.

A big part of this is because people generally overestimate their ability to play games. Randomness allows you to be worse than you think you are, but still win games a reasonable amount and have something external to blame even when it actually was your fault you lost.

It's a situation where what people think they want doesn't really bare out in the data of what people collectively do.

Pretty much every gaming group has that person who is probably a nice guy but just isn't very good at playing. They'll more than everyone else, but they'll pull out a win every so often, and be really happy about it! Imagine cutting their wins in half, or even less. They probably would stop playing fairly quickly.

All this isn't to say that the game couldn't be improved with regards to randomness. It certainly could. But there's more you can do than simply adjust the winrate. Some types of randomness feel worse than others, so the key is leaning more on the feel good randomness - and a lot of it is down to how overt the randomness is as opposed to being a bit more obfuscated.

Define wargame and define skill.

Realistically an "Ideal" game the only thing that should determines the win should be the choices in game you make. aka terrain, and target or objective priorities.

But since dice rolls the stats and chances should generally even out so that your choices are the only things that make victory.
imho.

I voted 70% for what it's worth. The worst player in the shop winning only 1/10 games is unacceptable in my opinion. 1/5 still not great. 3/10 seems ok.

Man I'm reminded daily why I don't get along well with modern game design lol.

how MUCH better are we talking? are we talking a little better, a lot better? In my opinion ideally the better player should win almost every time but only if he's much much better

As Desubot said and I referenced in an earlier response...define "Wargame".

Wargame is a somewhat confusing sobriquet. Is it a recreation of a conflict or a normal game using war as the genre/setting? Warhammer 40K is obviously the latter. You could replace all of the weapons with paintball guns and replace all the terrain with inflatable bunkers and the end result would more or less be the same. While there are nods to the historical wargaming genre, it's more competition/tournament/normal game based than anything else.

I would argue that an ideal game (not necessarily wargame) would of course be dictated by skill, or luck depending on whichever one is involved in the game design. Consider a normal boardgame. It's probably a mix of skill and luck (and very intentionally so). Consider chess, it's more skill than luck, etc.

A lot of competitive players decry the use of dice or "randomness", because that's more a function of a real wargame than chess. A narrative or historical gamer will appreciate the reality of dice/randomness more. However these two players have vastly different aims in most situations.

My ideal "wargame" is always Side A vs. Side B vs. Chaos (Chaos = weather, unforeseen events, random occurrences, things outside of the player's control etc.)

That means that my ideal wargame would never fit in a tournament or competitive setting because there would be too much teeth gnashing, and that's fine. So, as bizarre and fake as a game like 40K is (with matched armies played on little terrain with no environmental impacts, and a God-like mastery of your units) I'd still say an 80/20 is probably about right. Maybe as much as 90/10 if the rules/codices were better written.

LOL. What kind of skills are we talking about?
If it's something like kicking a ball or swining a bat. Something that is actually difficult and requires practice it should be about 100%. In a wargame though. There aren't real skills beyond the learning curve for the game.

In a game where you know the rules and your opponent doesn't you shouldn't even be trying to win that. You should be teaching them to play. If they know the rules but just suck at strategy in general you should win probable about 80%.

Outside of that anything more than a 60% WR should be unreplicatable in a game where everything else is equal but your "skill" if dice is involved.

Chess is a game that is actually difficult, and requires practice to play.

I know my win rate is over 0% versus people who are better than me, and below 100% versus people who are worse than me.

So, clearly, even in an extremely difficult and skill-intensive game, even one with no random factors, there's still an element of chance.

Higher skill doesn't mean you always play the better game; good players have bad games sometimes, and vice versa. And dice are important to mix different elements up so things don't become stale. I'd say 75% is a decent average.

 Xenomancers wrote:
LOL. What kind of skills are we talking about?
If it's something like kicking a ball or swining a bat. Something that is actually difficult and requires practice it should be about 100%. In a wargame though. There aren't real skills beyond the learning curve for the game.

In a game where you know the rules and your opponent doesn't you shouldn't even be trying to win that. You should be teaching them to play. If they know the rules but just suck at strategy in general you should win probable about 80%.

Outside of that anything more than a 60% WR should be unreplicatable in a game where everything else is equal but your "skill" if dice is involved.

There isnt that much "skill" involved in wargame. but there are things that you can do outside of list building to increase your odds.

proper positioning, use of terrain and cover, focusing priority targets (say the opponents main anti tank), planning out your moves to win the objectives and also quick math on odds to make better choices. non of these things besides maybe the last one is dice dependent.

its not a physical skill like boxing or juggling, but it is a mental skill that can be practices. not that any of these are particularly hard or exclusive to only the best of the best.

I voted 80%, but my real number is probably 85% or so.

Skill should matter a lot more than luck, but players make mistakes and dice can turn against you.

Level of skill difference is clearly important - a little bit better might mean that you are still likely to make almost as many mistakes that you can't recover from compared to the other person, a lot better means that the ratio of mistakes made will be heavily in your favour, and that it is very likely the other person will make the mistakes before you.

Dice may or may not be important, dice can be rolled quite a bit but the nature of the game means what you roll at any moment in time will not be that decisive for a good player. In others they may have a larger influence (or their may be random card draws etc which are in essence 'dice' in terms of a random element). In some games the key skill is not about having a plan (they are 10 a penny), but having a backup plan you can actually execute if it goes wrong and not just blaming the dice for your plan's failure.

Not all games have anything to do with list building, some may even have set scenarios (ASL) or a list building phase where there really isn't a huge difference beyond 'flavor'.

The only game I played enough to gauge win rate on a personal level was a certain tactical spaceship combat game based on star trek, which I played every week for some 5 years with a local group, plus online games/tourneys. Once past the newbie level luck didn't really play a large part in that game despite the dice, so any skill difference could be significant. In my local group my win rate was about 96-98% and a couple of those losses were uneven battles in campaigns, online tourneys probably about 75-80%? I wouldn't have said my local opponents were bad, and they certainly didn't lack experience, but it was very much a game that would see a quick ramp up of win ratio as the skill difference increased, not unlike chess.

 Stux wrote:
I voted 70% for what it's worth. The worst player in the shop winning only 1/10 games is unacceptable in my opinion. 1/5 still not great. 3/10 seems ok.

Assuming that the worst player is genuinely a terrible player (and not just the guy who only finishes in the top 10 of major tournaments instead of winning them like the rest of the group) why shouldn't they lose 90% of the time or more? For a terrible player to win 30% of their games you have to have a game where RNG thoroughly invalidates player agency. And at that point why bother playing? Your decisions won't matter very much, so why not just roll a bunch of dice and see who rolls better?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Elbows wrote:
My ideal "wargame" is always Side A vs. Side B vs. Chaos (Chaos = weather, unforeseen events, random occurrences, things outside of the player's control etc.)

I will never understand the appeal of this. Sure, a heavy RNG element for environment/random chaos/etc may make a more accurate simulation of a battle, but it's a miserable experience as a game. When that kind of RNG is significant enough to bother with including you have a high chance of ending up with games where RNG determines a winner and playing out the game is pointless. So yeah, it might be an accurate simulation if half of your 40k army is consumed by a warp storm before the game begins, but then what is the point of playing 2000 points vs. 1000 points once RNG has decided that you lose? You might as well declare the winner at that point, set up another game, and hope that the RNG lets you actually play it.

I will never understand the appeal of this. Sure, a heavy RNG element for environment/random chaos/etc may make a more accurate simulation of a battle, but it's a miserable experience as a game. When that kind of RNG is significant enough to bother with including you have a high chance of ending up with games where RNG determines a winner and playing out the game is pointless. So yeah, it might be an accurate simulation if half of your 40k army is consumed by a warp storm before the game begins, but then what is the point of playing 2000 points vs. 1000 points once RNG has decided that you lose? You might as well declare the winner at that point, set up another game, and hope that the RNG lets you actually play it.

Undoubtedly you know that is pure hyperbole (as a response to what you replied to).

The first SPI game I got at the age of 12 was Rostov: The First Soviet Counter-Attack (german vs soviet 1941). It had random weather per day, random reinforcements, heck the soviet player didn't even know the value of his own units until they fought the first time - was the hastily thrown in infantry division going to melt away at first contact or be heroes of the soviet union. Plenty of random reflection of reality.

It was not in any way a miserable game, it was still a good game with plenty of tactics and strategy. The germans needing to race against an increasing soviet buildup and worsening weather starting from an overwhelming start position. The random elements reflected certain aspects of the operation - you knew the likely weather, but not what it would be day to day, you knew you were getting that armor division, but would it arrive tomorrow or in 2 days time, you knew another russian formation had been thrown in and the sort of range of values it might have but until first contact couldn't be sure what it would be.

These are issues which a good player can handle and plan for, just because you can't plan for a division arriving this turn doesn't mean you can't plan for it arriving at all. As noted above what can separate the good from bad player is the ability to have plans AND backup plans. If you didn't plan for the delay in extra troops you were fully aware was a 33% possibility that is your fault, if you were crippled by the snow that had a 50% probability today that was your fault.