Sign in to follow this  
Rob Zacny

Episode 351: Weekend of Wargaming

Recommended Posts

Three Moves Ahead 351:

907__header.jpg

Weekend of Wargaming

In order to dispel the notion that we are all just disembodied voices generated by an algorithm programmed to please fans 82% of the time, Rob and Bruce got together - in real life - to play board games. In this extra-jumbo episode of Three Moves Ahead our duo of wargamers talk about block games, COIN games, insurgencies, and Bruce's cats.

Empire of the Sun, Churchill, Triumph and Tragedy, Rommel in the Desert, Clash of Steel, Fire in the Lake, Andean Abyss, Pendragon, Falling Sky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bruce's critique of strategic level WW2 games definitely echoed a lot of the discussion about how the Hearts of Iron series is such a weird fit for the Paradox game engine because it is so much more deterministic and fixed compared to Crusader Kings of Europa Universalis. There's definitely something odd about playing games where deviating from how history actually played out gets punished or isn't allowed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Acck !  Bruce, you inadvertently snubbed Liberty or Death in the COIN lineup.  I've been enjoying that title lately.

Nice to hear the show chat about Triumph & Tragedy.  I continue to hear really good things about this game.  I am playing my first T & T game next week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This snippet about the games that make you feel "there": we need more of this on PC. I can only name Europa Universalis as a game that tries to be both abstract and tell a story about real life even though it lacks flavor; other similar games are both less abstract and more focused on specifics. Civilization loses the feeling of real story when Antiquity passes by with no chance of anything interesting happening at the same time as you micromanage buildings and fights. Total War is even worse - thanks, Napoleon, but I don't think Waterloo was just 3000 people and 10 minutes. Wargames in generals play with toy soldiers and get away far from reality, deep into their complex systems.

 

Boardgames make it feel real, even abstract eurogames.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That "feel the Bern" made me laugh. Between that and Troy's trashing Rise of Legends' theme last episode, I'm enjoying the occasional enthusiastic jabs at pet peeve games.

 

As a listener who hasn't played T&T at all, it sounded like the atomic bomb element is exciting but awfully swingy, or at least its viability greatly depends on initial draw. Are spies enough to balance it out (letting opponents know to purely pursue conventional warfare?) I am interested in playing it to find out myself.

 

Listening to the discussion of how unreasonable actions at the end of Fire in the Lake can be viable, I long for more competitive games that are won by adhering to the wisdom in Luther's apocryphal: "If I knew the world would end tomorrow, I would plant a tree." I don't much care for cashing out in the final turn even though I recognize they can be a way to compress the final few turns into one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Craig Besinque is great (play Eastfront!, or perhaps Peloponnesian war), i might have to find someone with a copy of Triumph and Tragedy. Interestingly, there is a point of view that bucket o' dice is actually less random than other combat resolutions because odds roll out quicker. In many wargames though it comes down to how the CRT is constructed, some are very very swingy, others tend to towards a mean result.  Good to hear that Fire in the Lake plays well with 3. One of my friends has 3 COIN games (A distant Plain, Andean Abyss, and FitL). but we often lack a 4th player so this might be the way to go if it doesn't need the AI (which takes loads of time up). Also I do recommend Empire of the Sun, but it is hard, and I am bad at it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Listening to the discussion of how unreasonable actions at the end of Fire in the Lake can be viable, I long for more competitive games that are won by adhering to the wisdom in Luther's apocryphal: "If I knew the world would end tomorrow, I would plant a tree." I don't much care for cashing out in the final turn even though I recognize they can be a way to compress the final few turns into one.

 

This is always my philosophy in games. When a game ends, the state of the board is frozen, like it is at the end of history. Shitting up my empire and erasing the decisions that I have made over the course of an entire game, just to make another player's victory less complete, is absolutely inconceivable to me. Of course, most of my friends don't see it the same way, but having a reputation of being the "principled" one in a group of gamers isn't that bad...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I liked the multi-topic approach of this episode. I hope you guys can get together more regularly in the future. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bruce's critique of strategic level WW2 games definitely echoed a lot of the discussion about how the Hearts of Iron series is such a weird fit for the Paradox game engine because it is so much more deterministic and fixed compared to Crusader Kings of Europa Universalis. There's definitely something odd about playing games where deviating from how history actually played out gets punished or isn't allowed.

 

Although the same can be said of EU, at least in EU IV and some countries. I loved CK and picked up EU expecting to be able roll my own version of history as CK allows you to do, bar the odd fixed event like the wretched Mongols. But when I played as Castile however I managed things there was an unavoidable (and historically correct) civil war that I couldn't dodge and could never win. The received wisdom on the Steam forums was that I should deliberately lose the civil war as quickly as possible and jump horses to the winning side. Never felt right to me and I stopped playing EU as a consequence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Huh that is a bummer! I remember Castile was the first country I played, and I rolled over Spain, and didn't face that issue, but that was back when the game was first released so I suppose they must have patched out that possibility since then. Yeah, Paradox is sometimes weirdly heavy handed about certain outcomes. One reason I am looking forward to Stellaris is the sci-fi setting means there won't be awkwardly forcing certain events to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bruce's critique of strategic level WW2 games definitely echoed a lot of the discussion about how the Hearts of Iron series is such a weird fit for the Paradox game engine because it is so much more deterministic and fixed compared to Crusader Kings of Europa Universalis. There's definitely something odd about playing games where deviating from how history actually played out gets punished or isn't allowed.

 

I always felt that games like CK and EU consistently fail to produce interesting wars because wars aren't meant to be the interesting part of the game because players will almost never declare an interesting/balanced war.

 

I'd love to see a strategic level ww2 game that could randomize everything but still be focused around a war that should be interesting on either side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this