01 June 2011

GameTalk - Details, details, details

How important are the 'details' to you? Do you want/need the historical designations of the units that hit the beach at D-Day, or do you just want to know that there's a crapload of joes unloading into Normandy? Do you want unit symbols, icons, or portraits? Leader names, or just leader counters?

By: Brant
Posted by Brant at 14:16
Labels: , ,

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

Sigh - again, it depends on the design itself. For most wargames, especially the simpler ones, things like unit historical designations don't really matter. In more complex designs, e.g. those that rely heavily on command and control procedures or reward unit integrity, they are important.

Icons are sometimes OK for tactical games, from individual to say platoon level. Above that, NO. Learn some NATO symbols; I learned mine when I was ten and I still think they're cool.

Leaders - agian, depends on the design. Above the tactical or low-operational level (up to battalion, say), an individual person has little realistic input or direction on the battle. Moving down the scale to individuals, yes, small-unit leadership is everything.

01 June, 2011 17:05
Rex Brynen said...

It depends on the game. If I'm wargaming D-Day, I want unit designations. If I'm wargaming the Western European campaign... not so much.

01 June, 2011 18:17
Guardian said...

Itmurnau nails it again! I love the comment about learning NATO symbols when he was ten. I was a little older when I learned them, but they are now just as clear as the Latin alphabet.

Now if I just could learn the Greek alphabet and various mathematical symbols as well...

-- Guardian

01 June, 2011 20:58
Anonymous said...

Thanks Guardian! My dad had the edition of This Kind of War, T. R. Fehrenbach's fat book on the Korean War, with the maps in it with NATO symbols. There was a guide to them in the back. Finally I understood what "Army maps" looked like.

02 June, 2011 16:53
Anonymous said...

I love detail.

And I can't stand NATO symbols. They entirely remove the sense of melieu that draws me into playing a game in the first place. Is that NATO infantry marker close to the "Moscow" city hex a winter-weary Imperial French army, a Czarist Guard fighing Leninists, a steely Werhmacht division sure of victory, a hastily organized Soviet brigade defending against rebels, or a rag-tag formation of mongolian raiders? I don't know because it's just a boring X.

In simulation games (flight, tank, etc), detail (albeit perhaps adjustable detail) creates depth. Losing fuel, oil, hydraulic, electrical, flight control surface, targeting system etc, provides a much more compelling experience. This plays out on the computer (IL-2) or the tabletop (B-17, Patton's Best).

For tactical combat games (on the PC...think CM, CC, etc; on the table think ASL, WSIM, etc) detail is the thing that makes me care about my units. Faces, names, action stances, etc, are things I can relate or associate with...and that makes gameplay more engaging. Almost everyone I know who has played Close Combat can tell you of a game where they watched (with no small amount of emotion) as a PIAT team knocks out a tank with their final round. IMHO, no rectangle-and-oval icon can provide that kind of engagement.

For me, wargames are and always have been about the mano-a-mano struggle for survival. The closer I get to the boots/sandals/treads/hoverskirts on the ground, the more engaged I feel.

I think it was Stalin who said the death of one man is a tragedy...the death of a million is a statistic. I would rather play the tragedy than the statistic.

Yours in gaming,
Jack Nastyface

07 June, 2011 00:49

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)