spacerumsfeld

So, you're sure they didn't have X-ray vision or laser eyes, or anything?

Games can use very different mechanics to represent the same thing, and where one game might assign specific combat factors to each unit, another may not use numbers in this way at all. For example, the game Ici, c'est la France is about the Algerian War for Independence against France (and an excellent game, by the way) and each unit is rated for both strength and morale. Strength determines how many dice you roll in combat, while morale determines if you get any modifiers to the roll. The result of the roll determines whether you inflict a "hit" or not. By way of contrast, in the game Colonial Twilight, which uses a completely different system to simulate the same conflict, units don't have numbers at all. There are just cubes which represent troops or police (depending on color) and cylinders that represent guerrillas. Troops can eliminate guerrillas anywhere, while police can only do so in cities. How many guerrillas they can eliminate is influenced by terrain but is usually just 1:1 or 2:1. The guerrillas, on the other hand, simply roll a die, and if the roll is equal to or less than the number of attacking guerrillas, they are successful. So in Colonial Twilight, the representation is very abstract. Other games might make combat even more mathematical, and incorporate different types of combat results (disruption in addition to outright elimination, etc.) Many games have no hexes. There are about as many ways to represent offense, defense, and movement as ways you can combine dice, hexes, cards, and cardboard Sorry for the coyness - we really didn't want to ruin the surprise we have in store. You'll get a very low-level breakdown shortly!

Mygaffer, you just listened to the teaser! In the interview Mark explains that this was a game to test a new deck and that Richard Garfield's cards consisted of blank cards with things written directly in them. So it wasn't a standard card that was a 20/20 Trample, it was some experimental card Richard Garfield made. Ok, no more spoilers from me!

I absolutely love that the first thing to which Rob can compare the Empire/Alliance conflict is the First Indochina War! Loved your discussion of this sadly neglected game. Rob, had you been born when Rebellion was released? jk! "Neptune's Pride," eh?

That's a great point - thanks for articulating that. Maybe being able to ask questions is sufficient for Patreon purposes? And everyone could listen? Other backers have thoughts?

I asked Mark and he recommends American Warlords by Jonathan W. Jordan. http://www.nyjournalofbooks.com/book-review/american-warlords I would recommend The Big Three: Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin in Peace and War by Robin Edmonds. http://www.historytoday.com/max-beloff/big-three-churchill-roosevelt-and-stalin-peace-and-war Either one is a great starting place.

I doubt you're going to need to vote on this.

As far as I know it's just threemovesahead.net

I did mention it once, but it's probably easy to miss. Thanks for posting the link.

King of Dragon Pass is currently 50% on all platforms except GOG. Here is a Steam link for those interested: http://store.steampowered.com/app/352220/

I think the Dominions series has actually solved this problem

The observation about how we didn't really know how bad we were at these games (for most people - Tom Chick taught me very quickly how bad I was at these games) because that information was masked by the lack of multiplayer is a great point. Furthermore, I think the base-building model is an inherently turn-based mechanic, because it is much more interesting to actually see each decision a player makes based on roughly equal resources: oh, I started building this resource enhancer, but he is using an equivalent number of resources to make a bunch of piddly military units. Oh, I don't have adequate defenses to counter that. That's much more interesting to see in process than it is to just see your base all of a sudden under attack.

Lords Management/Lords Management are not RTS. They are fighting games. You control one unit and you perform various moves, just like in BlazBlue: Continuum Shift. The team fight aspect, equipment trees, and minion generators are included because of historical accuracy.

Wing Leader is much, much more approachable than Downtown. Not just because of the rules, but because of the fact that there are many fewer moving parts.

Seamus, while there are several games about the Irish civil war, I do not know of any games about The Troubles. However, if you listen to my interview with Dave Kershaw from last year (https://www.idlethumbs.net/3ma/episodes/vietnam-solitaire-with-dave-kershaw) who also has done an Irish civil war game, you can hear about the game he designed about the Orange Order marches.

I love how Tom pronounces "alchemist" like he is in olden tymes and everyone is referred to by their profession: "Joe Baker" "Frank Miller" "Al Chemist"

Like many Wikipedia articles, that one is poorly sourced, so I'd question whether they were actually fewer 3.7-in guns in North Africa in late 1941 than there were 88s. Also, by late 1942 the question was settled: the British had problems handling the Germans in North Africa from early 1941 through mid-1942. So I would argue that a solution found in late 1942 did not solve the acute problem. Yet the 6-pdr didn't appear until Gazala, (I think), so again, this is an example of a problem being solved later. And I would argue that the fact that a tank "could be penetrated" by a given gun is not that significant in itself - it depends on the range at which the penetration takes place. The big advantage of the 88 was the long range at which it could penetrate British armor, so that British tanks could often not effectively engage the AT guns. Also, the 88 was used very effectively in offensive operations in North Africa by capturing ground and then fighting defensively on the ground occupied. This was the essence of German combined-arms tactics and I don't think was matched by the Allies in the war. However, this was also largely due (I think) to the wide, flat terrain which allowed fighting at maximum effective ranges far greater than on the Western Front. This is all of course debatable, but I think the point is that it is hard to talk about any "technical superiority" without taking into account a lot of other factors that might not be considered strictly "technical" according to some people's definitions. And the applicability of that to this episode is that how you internalize these facts, and to what extent, very much drives the way in which you perceive a game like this as being "historically accurate."

It's really hard to separate these things, though. The "one-radio-per tank" was more than just that - the French Char B was technically a good tank, able to stand up to a Panzer III, it had a one-man turret, so the commander had to serve as loader, gunner, and radio operator. Even if the French had had radios in every tank, they couldn't have used them as effectively. The Matilda was an adequate tank, but was quite slow because it was designed to support infantry. Whereas the German combined arms doctrine in the desert was so far ahead of the British that it is almost impossible to imagine the Matilda functioning in the system the Germans used. But you're right that it's about so much more than the equipment by itself. I think the following quote from Correlli Barnett's superlative The Desert Generals shows how much perception can be driven by external factors: [t]he British also had a magnificent anti-aircraft gun, the 3.7-inch, no more of a conspicuous target than the 88 mm., and of even greater penetrative power. In November 1941 there were in North Africa more 3.7’s than 88’s. But the British never used them in an anti-tank role, either in Crusader or in later desert battles. It was a depressing example of a streak of conservatism, rigidity and departmentalism in the twentieth-century British mind. The 3.7 was an anti-aircraft gun. It was to be used therefore to shoot at aircraft. The two-pounder was supplied to shoot tanks. And that was that.

This is related to the "myth of the Eastern Front" and you're right, I think it does have a lot in common with the Lost Cause. http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/history/american-history-after-1945/myth-eastern-front-nazi-soviet-war-american-popular-culture?format=PB We did an episode on this I think, but can't find it right now.

Heck, you can already play IN SPACE! https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=430170977&searchtext=

I kept delaying replying to this because I thought I would get to play enough that I could have a comment, but I have not been able to, yet. Just too much work right now, unfortunately.

The long-awaited update is out!

I love that picture. I wish someone would make a game out of it.

Don't worry about being that guy. I understand what you mean. But I think you misunderstood my point. My objections weren't about "realism," or as I understand realism. Rather, they are about theme and mechanics. The question was about how the game worked as a Pacific Theater game. That's a very different question from "how realistic is this game." As you rightly point out, no wargame is "realistic" because no one dies. I think it was Kevin Zucker (former designer at Avalon Hill and for a long time now the head of his own company that makes beautiful, interesting games: Operational Studies Group) who said: the only way to make a wargame "more realistic" is to play it with the firm understanding that the loser will be shot. So I get that. But wargames have to be about something, or there is no point in setting them anywhere, or calling the units "infantry" and "artillery." A game may be a great game, but if your Japanese infantry could just as easily be called Roman legions, or Confederate cavalry, or my cats, then there isn't really any point in setting it in the Pacific. That's what I was discussing My point about War in the Pacific is that it really captures what the Pacific war was essentially "about" which was the effective distribution and stockpiling of supply. But to me, that makes it pretty tedious. Up above, SamS says that the payoff is that after all that preparation, the combat is especially satisfying. That's a completely legitimate (and frankly exciting) take on it, and I'd love to be in a position to experience it. I play wargames because I love history (and games), and playing games about history is all about touching history in a way I can't do with books or documentaries. So for me, if I play a historical game, that game has to do something that captures the particular historical moment. Games can do this with simple mechanics (like War at Sea). War at Sea is an amazing game, completely "ahistorical" in the sense that it gives the Germans far too good a chance to win, but with very simple mechanics (having them move second, and giving them faster speeds which then factor into the disengagement mechanic) do a great job of demonstrating the essential problems of the North Atlantic campaign. And I could teach it to a 10-year-old. At the end of the show, I specifically mentioned that Troy didn't need to "apologize" for liking the game, because even though I don't think he was, it might have sounded like I was making some pronouncement about it. I wasn't. I was simply saying that as someone who loves history and how games depict it, I didn't find any particular history in the game beyond the fact that there were Zeroes and Kates and aircraft carriers and jungles. Because the mechanics in Order of Battle: Pacific so poorly (in my opinion) evoked the historical period, I didn't like it. Troy didn't find this to be as much of an obstacle, so he did. That's why we're both on the show. Thanks for listening, and for your regular posts/comments.

I 53% believe you.