Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: doktor

I am interested in this game but I am concerned about reports of Tiger tanks at Stalingrad, to say nothing of vampires and werewolves. Is
this a East front simulation or a 'beer and pretzels' game? A fast and fun game has it's place, it's just not what I'm looking for.

quote:

ORIGINAL: markhwalker

What?! Werewolves? There aren't any werewolves in this game. Not.a.single.one. You're thinking of the "Monster" scenario that I designed for the board game.

quote:

But there ARE vampires, right????

quote:

ORIGINAL: doktor

I am interested in this game but I am concerned about reports of Tiger tanks at Stalingrad, to say nothing of vampires and werewolves. Is
this a East front simulation or a 'beer and pretzels' game? A fast and fun game has it's place, it's just not what I'm looking for.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tom Proudfoot

We should make a list at some point. It's not much:

- Snipers are placed by the scenario, not interruption moves by player
- New flanking fire modifier

That's all I remember. Barthheart can probably remind me if there are any others.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ioticus

If that's all the changes there are it doesn't sound too bad. I still wish there were an option to get a 100% board game experience though.

quote:

ORIGINAL: doktor
Is this a East front simulation or a 'beer and pretzels' game? A fast and fun game has it's place, it's just not what I'm looking for.

quote:

even if there is no area fire

quote:

THE BOARDGAME WHICH MUST NOT BE MENTIONED

quote:

This game is certainly fast and fun, and not a simulation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: markhwalker
Not calibers, armor thickness, or area fire.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheWombat

There are many ways to do a simulation. Chess, with its very abstract approach and units, is a simulation. SteelBeasts is a simulation, though it's very different from chess. A designer has to choose which things she or he simulates, and what approaches to use. By necessity, some things get simulated well, some not so well, and some not at all. Even gargantuan games like WitE generate volumes of posting discussing gaps in the simulation or perceived problems of fidelity.

Everyone has their own threshold of simulation goodness. For some, this feature or that rule is essential, and any game that doesn't have these fails to pass muster. For others, those same features are not required, but a third feature or rule is. There is no universal standard for an acceptable level of simulation.

For me, the best way to approach all these games is to take them as they are, and treat them as simulations of certain aspects of war, rather than as all-encompassing models of all aspects of whichever scale of warfare they are working with. Above all, I like to look holistically at the game--does it, overall, deliver a believable and satisfying representation of the subject, where the player's decisions can be based on reasonable assumptions and where good decisions are rewarded and bad ones punished? Does it capture the essence of the time period and scale of the conflict? Does it, ultimately, teach generally believable lessons about the conflict? Beyond that, eh, it's all gravy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: markhwalker
What I did do is design a game that models chaos, cowardice, bravery, and the human element. The stuff that war turns on. Not calibers, armor thickness, or area fire.

quote:

Well I would agree with you there (other than area fire...).

quote:

What like me in LnL,that could be for others a boredom,is the dices role.In this way you can,like a normal board game,understand why your unit has success or not in his action.Other PC wargames have all this data hidden and is difficult to understand what is better to do to win a battle.