Serious wargame?

[e_barkmann]

I'd be interested to read z1812's thoughts on the game after a few days...

[markhwalker]

even if there is no area fire

Ha, well-played.

THE BOARDGAME WHICH MUST NOT BE MENTIONED

LOL,you're learning[;)]

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

Yes it is. What it is not is a simulation of wargame simulations. What it IS is a simulation of the chaos of conflict. What I did not do is design a game so that owners of THE BOARDGAME WHICH MUST NOT BE MENTIONED could run down their checklist of features as compare it to LnL. 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.

[z1812]

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

My goodness, area fire mentioned in the same breath as calibers and armour thickness?.........It must really exist.........[;)]

[TheWombat_matrixforum]

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.

[markhwalker]

well said, Wombat.

[Missouri_Rebel]

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.

Quite brilliant and a feeling I share as well. I buy a lot of games. I MEAN A LOT. Some good. Others not, but very few are actually fun to play. To me this game is extremely enjoyable. Refreshingly so. Yes it makes sense. Yes there are abstractions. Yes it strikes a good balance and yes, it is fun.

What more can one expect from their purchasing dollars? I feel mine have been well spent on this occasion.

mo reb

[76mm]

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.

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

[markhwalker]

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

[:)]

Okay, then we can agree to disagree.

[fran52]

Reading all this discussion i say that this game could be a good base for a simulation.Also ASL could not be a simulation,some compromise must be adopted to save the playability.If simulation mean real time game ,i hate real time because is not possible to have a control of all units in the same time.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.

[markhwalker]

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.

Yes, that is what Tom and I thought too.

[tyrion22]

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.

What's a serious wargame, anyway? There are games that have more accurate simulations of hit probabilities, penetration values etc., but Lock'n Load has different armor values for front, side and back, and different values for hull and turret. Weapons have penetration values and hit probabilities for three different range bands. Compared to many games, that's quite detailed. As a board game it's very detailed, unless you compare it to THE BOARDGAME WHICH MUST NOT BE MENTIONED , but compared to some really grognard computer games, there are major abstractions. I think it has a slight war movie feel, but so does THE BOARDGAME WHICH MUST NOT BE MENTIONED, from what I've been told, so grognard board gamers are used to this. Rather than asking whether it's a serious wargame or not (to me as a board gamer, it definitely is), you should ask yourself if you can live with board game type abstractions.

Although there are more detailed games out there, I wouldn't call them better simulations, though. No game comes close to being a simulation anyway, as long as you have a god-like view of the battlefield. No amount of detail will compensate for how unrealistic this is. In real life, commanders don't even know exactly where their own forces are.

[fran52]

In real life, commanders don't even know exactly where their own forces are.

And again in real life the luck play an impotant role rappresented by the dice role.Wold not be seriuos if with one MG you are able to kill a T34.

[Grotius]

Player omniscience is, of course, a hazard of our hobby! One I don't mind at all. I think LnL does a great job of mitigating player knowledge with random events like hero generation.

Some games do reduce or eliminate omniscience. "Scourge of War", a Civil War game sold here by Matrix, does some radical stuff to reduce player omniscience. In the most hardcore mode, you are locked into a first-person view as a leader on a horse, and you have to ride around to see your units, give order by courier, deal with time-delays in orders, and manage units that refuse to obey your orders. It's really a neat system, and it's sort of humbling for a traditional wargamer.

And I guess some sims also put one in the eyes of a combatant, like submarine sims and aircraft sims, including the one I'm playing right now, "Wings Over Flanders Fields."

Anyway, I generally prefer games with omniscience, like LnL and The Game That Shall Not Be Mentioned. They make me think.

[USSLockwood]

ORIGINAL: oivind22

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.

What's a serious wargame, anyway? There are games that have more accurate simulations of hit probabilities, penetration values etc., but Lock'n Load has different armor values for front, side and back, and different values for hull and turret. Weapons have penetration values and hit probabilities for three different range bands. Compared to many games, that's quite detailed. As a board game it's very detailed, unless you compare it to THE BOARDGAME WHICH MUST NOT BE MENTIONED , but compared to some really grognard computer games, there are major abstractions. I think it has a slight war movie feel, but so does THE BOARDGAME WHICH MUST NOT BE MENTIONED, from what I've been told, so grognard board gamers are used to this. Rather than asking whether it's a serious wargame or not (to me as a board gamer, it definitely is), you should ask yourself if you can live with board game type abstractions.

Although there are more detailed games out there, I wouldn't call them better simulations, though. No game comes close to being a simulation anyway, as long as you have a god-like view of the battlefield. No amount of detail will compensate for how unrealistic this is. In real life, commanders don't even know exactly where their own forces are.

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.


What's a serious wargame, anyway? There are games that have more accurate simulations of hit probabilities, penetration values etc., but Lock'n Load has different armor values for front, side and back, and different values for hull and turret. Weapons have penetration values and hit probabilities for three different range bands. Compared to many games, that's quite detailed. As a board game it's very detailed, unless you compare it to THE BOARDGAME WHICH MUST NOT BE MENTIONED , but compared to some really grognard computer games, there are major abstractions. I think it has a slight war movie feel, but so does THE BOARDGAME WHICH MUST NOT BE MENTIONED, from what I've been told, so grognard board gamers are used to this. Rather than asking whether it's a serious wargame or not (to me as a board gamer, it definitely is), you should ask yourself if you can live with board game type abstractions.

Although there are more detailed games out there, I wouldn't call them better simulations, though. No game comes close to being a simulation anyway, as long as you have a god-like view of the battlefield. No amount of detail will compensate for how unrealistic this is. In real life, commanders don't even know exactly where their own forces are.

A serious wargame should, at the very least, present an accurate, or at least a historically possible, Order of Battle. I doubt if zombies were ever used below the corps level on the eastern front.

[Grotius]

The zombies are an optional fun feature, not part of the core game. The core game has a realistic order of battle.

[Gizuria]

It's a serious wargame alright. The scope of the game extends to the battles of 1943 as well as Stalingrad. How can any serious wargamer complain about that [&:] Perhaps it might have been better if the extension was sold as a seperate DLC to avoid annoying the grog purists.

As for Zombies and Vampires,etc, I haven't seen them yet but I won't mind having a bit of a laugh playing a scenario or two with them if it is a fun one. Their inclusion is just because the designer has a sense of humour, something that is missing from a lot of wargaming people. It's not good to take games too seriously [:D]

[Barthheart]

Just a quick note.... there are no zombies in this game. None.

[markhwalker]

No zombies. Where did anyone get the idea that there were zombies? What do you think this is, Call of Duty?[;)]

What's a serious wargame, anyway?

A wargame that doesn't joke around.

[Numdydar]

A game that has no commitment issues [:)]

[erichswafford]

It's a damn serious Wargame and frankly it depicts squad-level combat a lot more realistically than anything else I can think of on the PC. Combat Mission and Panzer Command Ostfront are standouts as well, but they're 3D and this is a traditional hex and counters Wargame.

I judge a Wargame by how well it rewards proper tactics and how much it punishes poor decisions. There's also a "feels right" factor that's important to me. Having played just about every squad-leader-type game since 1980, I think this is the most fun system I've played. And for me to think it's fun, it needs to be pretty realistic. You're talking to someone who slept on the floor for a month in high school because I had set up Victory Game's "Pacific War" on my bed.