chouzar

Simulating physical rolls actually could be more fair (than throwing "real dice"), since the objects have no different weight on each side (unless the dev also wants to simulate that), a good "physics engine" with no randomization involved could do the job perfectly. In the video I think when you pick up the dice, their faces are changed randomly, maybe it was a design decision to evade to a degree "skill rolls". I would still prefer a button so the dice are thrown for me, with the memory capacity and processing power of computers today I don't worry too much about randomization, a sophisticated algorithm might do a really good job at that. That article has interesting results, maybe the manufacture of the mold makes the dice denser by one side? I have no idea. That part was just so "meta", it would be interesting to "re-balance" a game by using weighted dice. Or... you could make another mini-game into the system by drafting random dice you might think have "better" rolls

Well, I think it gives you the time to understand a system, you can take days or weeks to complete a solitaire game, nothing is stopping you from analyzing every situation. In multiplayer games, especially if you're learning the game... its usually an excersice in thinking faster to better resolve the puzzles at a given time. (I could be totally wrong but...) Good multiplayer play is usually born when all players have similar skill or experience with a given system, when all the basic puzzles are resolved and the only thing left is the unpredictable actions of your team/opponents. I like randomness, it doesn't matter if the format is digital or physical. Of course, understanding a dice, and the probabilities to be succesful at a certain action is easy, especially if you have the dice in hand (For a digital port of a boardgame, players should be always warned of the "objects" you're using to determine results), Armageddon Empires, was a really satisfactory game for me (after learning the basics) because it displayed all results clearly. The only thing that was somewhat frustrating were the "invisible rolls" used for scouting, since I didn't know how that system worked (or that it existed) until I read the manual. Edit -- This "boardgame engine" looks very good: https://www.youtube....d&v=8WD0gMu0LDU

"Elder Miskatonic School Gils in Trouble" ha! I have the same problem with those two girl titles. I have played some Arkham Horror, works as a device to create a story with a small group of people, but all the bookeeping and managing tons of components during play substracts the desire to play it, for what the game mechanics are I don't feel the reward of going through a full game. I bought not so long ago "Boots on the Ground" it selled itself as a game you might play Solitaire, Cooperaively, Cooperatively-Competitive or Competitive. Sounds Great! Sadly the game rules feel "incomplete" basically when playing solitaire you make the decisions for the board, there really are not proper rules to follo for the "cardboard-opponent", so you end up playing two sides. And competitive play is just so dry... there are just not enough decisions for one of the players.

Whenever I heard Kriegspiel mentioned at the podcast I always thought of this: http://r-s-g.org/kriegspiel/about.php But it seems the version I had in mind is more modern (1977). The picture looks great, appropiate for the discussion. Reminds me of what Bowen Simmons defines as "the look" in his Napoleonic wargames, I thought "Napoleon's Triumph" and "Bonaparte at Marengo" were the prettiest boardgames in existence but that board of Kriegspiel is just excellent.

Really fun episode, but I have a question, what is the picture depicted at the "listen" page?

The only "full fog of war" games I know are the Airbone Assault Series, anyone knows any other title that uses fog of war to that degree? Sounds interesting, good luck with the brainstorm

That sounds like X-Com to me but unfortunately, a user later claims that is a bug: "As it stands however, panicked soldiers will in fact go out of their way to shoot teammates." I played 3 sessions of the original X-COM, only 3 campaings where I was fully invested in beating the game. Early I understood that the only way to play X-COM was by never reloading, never (even if I mis-clicked). My small brother on the other side played for perfection, if he missed a shot he reloaded, if a soldier died he reloaded, if the shot didn't killed the alien at the moment he wanted he reloaded, im my opinion that made for a really dull experience; still what my brother loves about games is winning experience, new perks, upgrades and stuff (he's addicted to League of Legends) so he passed more time configuring his army with the latest tech, leveling up his soldiers in the process. I never won an X-Com campaing (I don't expect to)... but I will always have awesome stories to tell my grandchildren about.

For the Take Command games, I also disliked your capacity as a commander to draw dots on a map inmediatly... I mean, it would be waaay more fun to let you make your own scrawls on the map based on what couriers told you or what you could observe. Also disliked the capacity to "Take Command" of individual troops disregarding your position in the line of command, but thats another topic. This discussion tended to talk about team-games, I have never tried this but always wanted to try and boot an old RTS (like Age of Empires) that let you control 1 sole base/civilization/faction with multiple players. So games could be 1 vs 1 (but each faction actually controlled by multiple players), each player could have a specific role "The Economy guy", "Frontline Combat guy", "Ability Caster guy", "Scouting guy"... etc. Sounds good on paper. And that could be leveled up by having each player within the same faction having their own Field of View, so the Scouting guy would always report to the other players by words (or drawing on a map ). Supreme Commander sounds perfect for this kind of play on the larger maps.

Yes I think you're right, they used ASL as the example. I have a really vague idea of how an ASL session unfolds, so I don't know if all those rules really make the game more "deep" or the appeal of ASL is just learning new rules "to see what happens in a certain scenario" and see "who remembers to apply special and obscure rules". Still, a game with tons of rules may generate more "game states" than a simpler one, one example maybe Die Macher? (Haven't really played it, but it seems to be a deterministic game with a lot of variables to handle at once). During my early days with strategy games I used to perceive "complex games" as "strategic", there was a certain appeal at learning all the interactions in a system, I remember playing "Empire: Total War" amazed at the "strategic map" because of all the stuff that was happening, I wanted to know how economy worked and balanced out, until I discovered that basically "the more stuff you build, the more gold you get", and the economic layer of the strategic campaing ended up being quite dull for me (the learning process was fun, but the automating option is there for a reason). Have never been too interested in EUIII games, there seems too much micro to do, too much roles to fulfill. But, from what I understand it is an "open game", you start with a nation and you set all your objectives, maybe it is possible to take a certain rol in the game? Politics, Economy, War... and let the AI do the rest. Too bad about the new-ish Civilization boardgame, a friend has it on the shelve because "its too fidly, too heavy of a game".

From what I understood, it was having a "more complex game" not necesarilly "complex rulesets", chess and go usually have tons of options and a certain state of the game can be very complex (deep).

Excellent discussion, I'm trying to make my mind of some key points (criticism and disagreements are welcome): I think one way or another, every scenario or game system has a solution, with enough time to calculate every move we could reach a conclusion of "what is the best action to take" at a certain moment; even if other person is controlling a side, its posible to calculate posible moves or outcomes (quite hard with poor data). Still, time is a scarce resource and one just may take actions on what is available, ocasionally... the player with most experience, technique or capacity to process information will end with positive results. Also during discussion I think Julian mentioned that if you remove luck from a game, in exchange you will need to offer the player lots of options. I agree, but this problem may be tackled by using a simple "game system" + "unpredictability". Maybe games like Stratego, Confusion or Engage could describe better what I'm trying to say, games where you really don't need to "compute" a lot of stuff other than "what will my opponent do next?". Still... I guess having lots of options will make a game more unpredictable, since a given player has more stuff to do. Also, while discussing Tide of Iron Rob mentioned how some scenarios are just so focused on very specific objectives, and how... for a game that tries to depict an historical scenario... it makes the player forget about other important aspects of "combat". I recall a similar argument made by Lee Brimmicombe during the Bomber Command Episode, he explained that sometimes players are just too optimistic with their resources, a player may blatantly sacrifice armies in other to win the game. Thematically that may work for Advance Wars but in more "serious" wargames playing for points can make a game dull. Loved the deviation of "What a wargame can be".

I have the steam version, wich required to install the patch 3 from the support page of MadMinute Games: http://www.madminutegames.com/support.htm

Was the first Hist War ever finished? I was under the impression that the first ended in alpha/beta.

Great episode, I think the "Take Command" series just nails everything I want in a wargame, specially the sequel "Scourge of War": Taking the perspective of the commander. Couriers take their time carrying orders to different units. Using couriers to communicate with teammates. Advancing/Retreating in combat. Rotating units during combat feels great (concentrating fire is not the best option in most cases, keeping a battleline is crucial). Marching to a destination takes time and quite a bit of organization. Maneouver and coordination with teammantes. Trusting the friendly AI, knowing its not min-maxing everything. I just love when a game gives me a role and all mechanics are in place. If I'm commanding an entire front of a war I should not be able to micromanage every move of every division on a map to execute perfect orders, I consider the lack of information something essential a wargame should do more often (or in different ways). There are just a couple of things that I don't like from this series: The "Take Command" mechanic wich (for me) reduces the importance of couriers and fog of war. The engine consumes all resources of my PC. For more modern times I think the "Command Ops" series also takes into account the fog of war to an impressive level, but the feel of just watching a map makes it another beast. Note: I bought the game on steam a year ago, but it appears the title is not available anymore. For some reason the steam version had some serious bugs and you would need to apply an "unnoficial patch" from MadMinute Games.