Hi all,
well, I've been rushed off my feet in and out of work, hence no hobby, hence no posts. However, I am off to UK Games Day this weekend, so....
1) Hopefully I'll have photo's and reviews up on Monday
More importantly:
2) If any of you have any questions you'd like me to ask the guys at UKGD, then leave them in the comments or send me a mail- I'll do my best to get through them on the day.
I'll be floating around the stands all day, but I'll try to be by the Space Marine statue around 14:00 with Richard Harris for a face-to-face catch up with the blogosphere- I'll wear an IG beeny hat so you can recognise me :)
Cheers,
Gartenzing
Showing posts with label Other bloggers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Other bloggers. Show all posts
Tuesday, 18 September 2012
Friday, 20 July 2012
Perspectives: Realism in Wargaming
Hi all,
following on from last weeks post about game balance, I've dug up an old favourite of mine about realism in wargaming. Although this is quite an old article, it still holds true, and is one of the articles which really got me thinking about how wargames work. Enjoy.
Wargame Realism And the Psychology of Defeat by Paddy Griffith
When wargamers call for greater "historical realism" in their rules, they may mean one of two things. If they are strong and upright citizens, then they will, in fact, be seeking for greater historical realism; and all will be well. In many other cases, however, they may simply be looking for a scapegoat.
In his book "The psychology of military incompetence", Norman Dixon has explained that defeated generals often look for scapegoats, to cover their own mistakes. Napoleon at Waterloo is a fine example of this, as he was able to say that Grouchy, D'Erlon, Jerome, Ney, and Soult were each, in their way, responsible for the disaster. To believe the Bonapartists one almost has to put down Waterloo as a personal triumph for the Emperor.
In wargames, a defeated "general" often has no subordinates to blame; so he tends to turn against the rules or the umpire. If he can point to some aspect of the game which he thinks was "unrealistic" then he can take the sting out of his defeat.
This means that a lot of the call for greater realism in wargames is motivated by a rather suspect emotion. It is not really a call for greater realism at all, but a call for less painful defeats. This in turn means that when wargame rules are changed "to make them more realistic", they are usually changed in one particular direction -- that of greater control by the player over the game.
Defeat is more painful to a player who has little control over his pieces than to one who has a high degree of control. At first sight this may seem odd, since players with high control have themselves to blame for what happens -- they are directly responsible for their own defeat. In fact, however, it is easier to accept defeat when you are fully responsible for it. It is much harder to accept defeat when some of the game has unrolled outside your control. A car driver who backs into a brick wall by accident will accept the damage philosophically, and be more careful next time. A driver who has another driver crash into him will tend to be outraged and vindictive. That is the difference between high control and low control.
In wargames terms, defeated players always want more control -- which is often the opposite to most historical realism. In real battles, generals often have relatively little control over what goes on: they cannot always make their subordinates move in the right direction (e.g. the Charge of the Light Brigade), at the right time (e.g. Ney's delayed flank attack at Bautzen), or in the right formation (e.g. at Waterloo Wellington's orders to form square were contradicted by the Prince of Orange). They do not always know as much about the terrain as they think they do (e.g. the French in 1940 must have thought the "umpire had changed the rules" when the German armour came through the Ardennes), and are often quite astonished by enemies appearing at unexpected places.
Imagine a Chess game in which the player could not guarantee that his pieces would move where he wanted them to, or on the move he wanted them to. Imagine a Chess game where the kings castled diagonally, and the knights hopped eight squares at a time -- according to a dice throw outside the player's control. Imagine a Chess game where the colour of the squares was variable, and unknown to the player. All this is unacceptable to Chess players. They insist on 100% control of their games, and do not look for scapegoats when they are defeated.
I think that when they call for "greater realism", many wargamers really mean that they want a game which is nearer to Chess, and further from the uncertainties and low level of control of the battlefield. They want to avoid the mental discomfort of relying upon the arbitrary whim of an umpire or the random chances thrown up by a dice ("Average Dice", for example, have been specifically developed to limit the role of chance in wargames. For greater realism, actually, someone should develop a "Maximum Unpredictability" dice!). Especially important, wargamers want to avoid defeats which are painful -- even though in real life defeated generals have found defeat very painful indeed (e.g. The dazed Von Thomas wandering into captivity across the wreckage of his Panzers at Alamein; Ludendorff foaming at the mouth, in his fit after the battle of Amiens, 1918; or the Russian commander at Tannenberg, who felt so badly about his defeat that he shot himself). It may, perhaps, be less fun for wargamers to have low control over their games -- but it would at least be more realistic.
The following are areas in which lower levels of control could be introduced into wargaming:
a) Wider variations of results, due to dice throws: i.e. fewer "average dice".
b) More active umpires, "interpreting" (or even inventing) the rules as they go along, so that players cannot claim infringements of a stated set of rules. Only the umpire should know the rules.
c) More concealment of enemy units, and of terrain, when it is in "dead ground".
d) More possibilities for units under a player's command to "disobey orders", or at least to move late.
e) Fewer possibilities for players to make low-level decisions for each and every one of their sub-units. The Army commander should not be responsible for the tactical formation of each battalion; when each skirmish company opens fire, etc., etc. Decisions of that sort usually originate no higher than the Brigade commander.
f) Longer reaction times and command delays. It is amazing to see the effect on a wargame if there is just one turn's delay imposed between the player making a decision, and the action being taken e.g. in Second World War games, try adding a rule that vehicles must take one "slowing down" turn, between moving at speed and halting to fire.
g) More possibilities for morale panics to spread, out of control. Also longer rallying times.
All these things would deprive the wargamer of some of his "Chess-Player" control over the game. They would add to the historical realism of the model battle.
©
Paddy Griffith set out to create games that were both playable and realistic. The philosophy of games that animates his design, or designs, is that game rules must never be dogmatic, and the author expresses his mistrust of lawyers who play a game by hunting for loopholes in the rules (like W.C. Fields in the Bible).
following on from last weeks post about game balance, I've dug up an old favourite of mine about realism in wargaming. Although this is quite an old article, it still holds true, and is one of the articles which really got me thinking about how wargames work. Enjoy.
Wargame Realism And the Psychology of Defeat by Paddy Griffith
When wargamers call for greater "historical realism" in their rules, they may mean one of two things. If they are strong and upright citizens, then they will, in fact, be seeking for greater historical realism; and all will be well. In many other cases, however, they may simply be looking for a scapegoat.
In his book "The psychology of military incompetence", Norman Dixon has explained that defeated generals often look for scapegoats, to cover their own mistakes. Napoleon at Waterloo is a fine example of this, as he was able to say that Grouchy, D'Erlon, Jerome, Ney, and Soult were each, in their way, responsible for the disaster. To believe the Bonapartists one almost has to put down Waterloo as a personal triumph for the Emperor.
In wargames, a defeated "general" often has no subordinates to blame; so he tends to turn against the rules or the umpire. If he can point to some aspect of the game which he thinks was "unrealistic" then he can take the sting out of his defeat.
This means that a lot of the call for greater realism in wargames is motivated by a rather suspect emotion. It is not really a call for greater realism at all, but a call for less painful defeats. This in turn means that when wargame rules are changed "to make them more realistic", they are usually changed in one particular direction -- that of greater control by the player over the game.
Defeat is more painful to a player who has little control over his pieces than to one who has a high degree of control. At first sight this may seem odd, since players with high control have themselves to blame for what happens -- they are directly responsible for their own defeat. In fact, however, it is easier to accept defeat when you are fully responsible for it. It is much harder to accept defeat when some of the game has unrolled outside your control. A car driver who backs into a brick wall by accident will accept the damage philosophically, and be more careful next time. A driver who has another driver crash into him will tend to be outraged and vindictive. That is the difference between high control and low control.
In wargames terms, defeated players always want more control -- which is often the opposite to most historical realism. In real battles, generals often have relatively little control over what goes on: they cannot always make their subordinates move in the right direction (e.g. the Charge of the Light Brigade), at the right time (e.g. Ney's delayed flank attack at Bautzen), or in the right formation (e.g. at Waterloo Wellington's orders to form square were contradicted by the Prince of Orange). They do not always know as much about the terrain as they think they do (e.g. the French in 1940 must have thought the "umpire had changed the rules" when the German armour came through the Ardennes), and are often quite astonished by enemies appearing at unexpected places.
Imagine a Chess game in which the player could not guarantee that his pieces would move where he wanted them to, or on the move he wanted them to. Imagine a Chess game where the kings castled diagonally, and the knights hopped eight squares at a time -- according to a dice throw outside the player's control. Imagine a Chess game where the colour of the squares was variable, and unknown to the player. All this is unacceptable to Chess players. They insist on 100% control of their games, and do not look for scapegoats when they are defeated.
I think that when they call for "greater realism", many wargamers really mean that they want a game which is nearer to Chess, and further from the uncertainties and low level of control of the battlefield. They want to avoid the mental discomfort of relying upon the arbitrary whim of an umpire or the random chances thrown up by a dice ("Average Dice", for example, have been specifically developed to limit the role of chance in wargames. For greater realism, actually, someone should develop a "Maximum Unpredictability" dice!). Especially important, wargamers want to avoid defeats which are painful -- even though in real life defeated generals have found defeat very painful indeed (e.g. The dazed Von Thomas wandering into captivity across the wreckage of his Panzers at Alamein; Ludendorff foaming at the mouth, in his fit after the battle of Amiens, 1918; or the Russian commander at Tannenberg, who felt so badly about his defeat that he shot himself). It may, perhaps, be less fun for wargamers to have low control over their games -- but it would at least be more realistic.
The following are areas in which lower levels of control could be introduced into wargaming:
a) Wider variations of results, due to dice throws: i.e. fewer "average dice".
b) More active umpires, "interpreting" (or even inventing) the rules as they go along, so that players cannot claim infringements of a stated set of rules. Only the umpire should know the rules.
c) More concealment of enemy units, and of terrain, when it is in "dead ground".
d) More possibilities for units under a player's command to "disobey orders", or at least to move late.
e) Fewer possibilities for players to make low-level decisions for each and every one of their sub-units. The Army commander should not be responsible for the tactical formation of each battalion; when each skirmish company opens fire, etc., etc. Decisions of that sort usually originate no higher than the Brigade commander.
f) Longer reaction times and command delays. It is amazing to see the effect on a wargame if there is just one turn's delay imposed between the player making a decision, and the action being taken e.g. in Second World War games, try adding a rule that vehicles must take one "slowing down" turn, between moving at speed and halting to fire.
g) More possibilities for morale panics to spread, out of control. Also longer rallying times.
All these things would deprive the wargamer of some of his "Chess-Player" control over the game. They would add to the historical realism of the model battle.
©
Paddy Griffith set out to create games that were both playable and realistic. The philosophy of games that animates his design, or designs, is that game rules must never be dogmatic, and the author expresses his mistrust of lawyers who play a game by hunting for loopholes in the rules (like W.C. Fields in the Bible).
Comments, as always, are welcome.
Thursday, 24 May 2012
Warhammer Historical Is No More!
Hi all,
Just saw over at Jon's Toy Soldiers that Warhammer Historical has closed its doors!
I've just been over to website, and all that exists now is the following announcement:
Warhammer Historical Has Now Closed
We can no longer accept any further orders for our products
We would like to thank our customers who have purchased our publications over the years and hope you will continue to get many more years of gaming enjoyment from them
If you have any queries regarding orders that have been placed with Warhammer Historical please
contact the Forge World Customer Service team
Email address:
forgeworld@gwplc.com
Phone number:
0115 900 4995 from the UK
011 44 115 900 4995 from the US/Canada
00 44 115 900 4995 from Europe
We would like to thank our customers who have purchased our publications over the years and hope you will continue to get many more years of gaming enjoyment from them
If you have any queries regarding orders that have been placed with Warhammer Historical please
contact the Forge World Customer Service team
Email address:
forgeworld@gwplc.com
Phone number:
0115 900 4995 from the UK
011 44 115 900 4995 from the US/Canada
00 44 115 900 4995 from Europe
I can't believe that the staple game of my Historical gaming has vanished! I am simply stunned!
Was anyone else aware of this? Will someone else buy up the rights (or, indeed, will Rick Priestley get them back?)
Sunday, 22 May 2011
Best of the Web This Week 22/5/11
Hi all,
A bit of humour to warm everyone up...
Well, this week started off with news that I'm sure you are all aware of:
- Games Workshop announced their Resin Finecast range, and the latest prices rises with it
- Then news broke about the "Embargo" on foreign trade by GW
In all honesty, I was starting to get a little concerned about all this, until GW released a response to all of the letters and e-mails later in the week
It might have taken a while, but at least it doesn't go against my post last week about GW's philosophy!
I'm not going to comment on this subject at any length- the one piece of advice I have to all the readers in the Antipodes is find someone in Europe who will buy GW product for you and then pay for the postage yourself. Not ideal, but maybe workable.
Right, now that's out of the way :)
Ron's been busy over at From the Warp-
- Talking about the best way to build and paint a Drop Pod. (Wish I'd read this before I started painting mine a few weeks ago!)
- Talking about how to paint Freehand on models
- Finally, talking about how to pull off the Glowing Eyes effect
Some more painting talk from Nicolai Nielsen, as he finally settles on a colour scheme for his Dark Eldar
The last bit on putting brush to plastic :) RavenGuard85 reviews the "7 Day Army Painter"
RebelGrot has advice for anyone using a Camera (I found this useful at least!)
Aaron Aelong talks a little about event organising, and BlackBlowFly gives us a few ideas on creating scenarios for them
Over at House of Paincakes, there was an interesting take on different types of gamer
I discovered "Game Over"- check it out!
Also have a look over at Statues of War, and...
Rounding off- Fritz is getting ready for tournaments with Tyranids, Kirby's trying to fix Tanks in 40K, there's some good general advice for Bloggers over at N++, and this months Army List Challenge ended over on Warpstone Flux- check it out to see who won.
So even with all the discussion about GW's business decision making, it's still been a week of good posts and entertainment in the Blogosphere!
That's it for another week! Oh, OK, a quick video to play you out...
Thanks all- comments are welcome here, or even better comment on their sites!
Sunday, 15 May 2011
Best of the Web This Week 15/5/11
Hi all,
So, what's caught my eye on the web this week?
Well, this stirred up a fair bit of discussion:
- Grey Knight FAQ that's not an FAQ
Interesting that GW have released their staff to talk about rules in a public forum.
I've also found a Podcast that I enjoy listening to- check it out!
Also- their Blog's really worth checking out. It's only been up a few weeks, but plenty of bits that interested me
OK- there's been some funky modelling work over the last 7 days:
- Beastman Gorgon, from Company of the Damned
- More Skaven from Psychosis
- These Fish-Dar were bought to my attention (Cheers Mr.Harris!)
- And Brian's been up to some great Warmachine pieces
There have been a few posts about plastic kits in the hobby (apart from Brian talking about Privateer's oily plastics :))
- Steve Buddle talks about the technical process of casting
- Smurf asks whether plastics are a good thing?
Rules wise, there's been:
- New Fantasy FAQ's from GW
- Bryss asks what happened to original Troops?
- There's a free game for all you spaceship fans
- Goatboy and Mr.Black have a bit to say about how to cheat!
- Finally- everyone should go sign this petition!
A few more to wrap up:
- Loquacious talks about his experience as a Games Store Owner
- Lauby's Battle Report talks about how to resolve awkward gaming moments
- James S has some honest questions for GW
- and Wolves of the Wolf God have a giveaway for their 100th post
Finally, I haven't mentioned these for a while, but go support them:
That's it for another week!
Thanks all- comments are welcome here, or even better comment on their sites!
Sunday, 8 May 2011
Best of the Web This Week 08/5/11
Hi all,
So, what's caught my eye on the web this week?
First off, let's have a little light comedic relief
- Roll a D6 courtesy of Screaming Heretic!
Everyone feeling happy and relaxed now? Good, because quite a lot of ranting was levelled at Games Workshop this week:
- Stelek had his say
- Many people had their say
- and Tabletop Gaming News are worth a mention too
I get quite passionate about this sort of vitriol being levelled unrelentingly at GW's doorstep, and over the next week I'll be putting together an article putting over my perspective on the whole thing. I don't expect it to change any opinions, but I'll feel better for doing it.
OK, besides all of that, there has been quite a lot of cool hobby content on the web this week. :) There's been quite a bit of discussion about repetition and redundancy in list building:
- SandWyrm went back to school to think about it
- which got a response from Kirby
- then Spaguaratyne joined in
All makes for interesting reading. we'v also been treated to a few scenery articles (more of this please, oh mighty Blogosphere!)
- talking about it and
- doing it with Lego
Two product articles caught my eye as well:
That basically ends the "themes" for the week- there are a few more I'd like to bring to your attention:
- I'm a sucker for well-painted Xenos, and these are breathtaking!
- There's a challenge for everyone over at Warpstone Flux
- Ian!! discusses one of my favourite Marine units
- Rascal King has some good ideas
And finally- I started with comedy, so let's finish with Nostalgia:
- treat yourself to a few hours on this blog!
That's all for another week. Note- I didn't bother posting up the links to all the Necron rumours out there- you've already seen them :)
Thanks all- comments are welcome here, or even better comment on their sites!
Sunday, 1 May 2011
Best of the Web This Week 01/5/11
Hi all,
Another week, another set of posts.
First up- Jawaballs talking about the army he's building for Heroes of Armageddon:
Blood Angels by Jawaballs
Ian at Quarantine World talks about Space Marine Techmarines, and the differences between Chapters
Ron at From the Warp gives us the rundown on his re-built Chaos Lord
Hurricane Girl puts a Tyranid list together using her favourite models at Craftworld Iybraesil
Kirby talks about his views on list optimisation on his site
How your choices make people perceive you is discussed by GMort on Paincakes
Kevin Barrett shows off his Romans
Black Matt's been playing Malifaux, and gives us the rundown
There's an Army List Challenge on Warpstone Flux for everyone to take part in
Stelek has some ideas for vehicles in 40K
Finally, Zorcon's found some cool painting accessories at Zorcon's Word
Thanks all- comments are welcome here, or even better comment on their sites!
Tuesday, 26 April 2011
Best of the Web This Week 26/4/11
 |
| This seemed appropriate :) |
Hi all,
This is the first in what will hopefully be a regular series, talking about the articles I've enjoyed from others in the Blogosphere over the last 7 days (although, in this case, it will be from the last 11, going back to Sat 16th April.)
Please bear in mind that these are other peoples blogs- there may be explicit language or "unsuitable for youngster" material on them, or in the comments sections.
MWC: Livestrong Wargaming Project
Heroes of Armageddon- Visit it, let People Know, Donate
These two relate to the same thing- the Heroes of Armageddon Project. A collaboration between Dave Taylor , Jawaballs , Man Boy Genius , and Goatboy , it's a charity drive to support Doctors Without Borders. Follow the links above, or click the Heroes of Armageddon logo when you see it, and donate.
3++ Imperial Guard: Mobility- by Kirby
Kirby always puts out good-quality articles, and this was my favourite from last week- Guard players, check it out. In fact, everyone, check it out!
Imperius Dominatus. Theorist vs Realist- by Mercer
This article kicked off various trains of thought for me, and as soon as I figure out how to make them coherent and readable, I'll be posting something here. In the meantime, read what Mercer thinks about Math-hammer, Theory -hammer, the dangers of them and how to best use them. Interesting stuff!
The Brown Paintbrush: What is Life?- by Yermom
This just made me chuckle.
Fritz 40K: Tyranid 3*3 Devastator- by Fritz
Fritz has been trying to come up with a way to use the Tyranids Codex to good effect since it was released. these are his latest thoughts, and hopefully this time Games Workshop won't FAQ his ideas back to the drawing board!
From The Warp: Tools for Sponge Weathering- by RonSaikowski
Ron's done the hard work and tested various different tools for sponge weathering- check out his experiences, and recommendations.
Blood Angels by Jawaballs: Maximising HQ's- by RonSaikowski
Here's Ron showing a slightly more devious side- thinking about converting your H.Q. for advantage.
I See Lead People: Pizza Box Terrain- by Eli Arndt
For anyone that thinks they can't build terrain- check this out! Absolutely inspired (and a good excuse for junk food while gaming!)
Mik's Mini's: Clash in the Afghan Highlands- by Gyro
I really like the look of this gaming table, and the armies as well. Hopefully they'll take it to more conventions, so that I can get a look first-hand.
All Things 40K: Painting Gold- by Master Darksol
A handy, quick guide to painting large areas of gold to a tabletop standard.
Duke's Inferno: Elemental Armies- by Duke
An interesting new way to think about list building, inspired by the 4 elements. This time, fire.
Blood of Kittens: Meat for Meta- by TastyTaste
I've already put this up as a separate post, but I've included it here for completeness. Also, check out the other "Discussion" articles on Blood of Kittens.
Thanks all- comments are welcome here, or even better comment on their sites!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)