Friday 28 August 2015

Ditch the Army List

I have been spending a lot of time recently playing solo wargames and doing small scale test games with my 6mm Desert Raiders forces. Because they are tests I haven't been abiding by official army lists as such, just building forces from assorted platoons that help me explore a particular aspect of a rule or particular scenario. The result has been that I have played half a dozen small scale solo games with wildly asymmetrical forces producing some very interesting results. Each game has presented unique challenges and forced me to 'think outside the box' (a horrible turn of phrase but it aptly describes the situation). The question is, why aren't I/we doing this more often?

LRDG, Outnumbered and out-gunned...just how they like it.
The Angry Lurker once said to me "its your game, play it how you want to" and as loath as I am to agree with the old bugger he was right. I'm not a competition wargamer so I'm free to break the 'official' army lists as much as I like. I've been using the platoons as described in the various FOW campaign books but I'm not really worrying about company/army lists or the points totals as described in the books. Often I just want forces that suite a particular historical scenario and that rarely means both sides being equal.

The concept of Asymmetry in a game isn't a new idea. A Scandinavian board game from the Middle Ages (Hnefatafl) featured forces of different quality and scale. The result is a game where each player must fight in a completely different way to his opponent to use the resources he or she has to the best advantage. Many modern co-operative boardgames also feature asymmetrical forces (games like Axis and Allies for instance) although usually these try to balance the sides by conferring advantages or disadvantages to the forces available. (Check out this post on Tiny Hordes for a more detailed discussion about Asymmetry in Wargames)

"Zulus - thousands of 'em."
Most, but by no means all, wargame rules seem to revolve around points systems and balanced forces. This is particularly evident in those game systems that have an active tournament circuit where forces need to adhere to strict compositional rules and official army lists. But there are also plenty of rule sets out there that have shied away from fixed points values for units. My personal view is that asymmetrical wargames are quite possible in either type of system, providing you stop thinking about points values and instead concentrate on the scenario and its objectives. This is much easier if you are recreating a historical encounter with accurate orders of battle because real army commanders (if they are any good at their job) will be constantly striving for the most asymmetric encounter possible to achieve victory. Concentration of force has been a central principle in military thinking for thousands of years so it should be incredibly rare for two sides of equal strength to end up facing each other, yet that is exactly what happens on games tables time after time.

Its also seems to me that there is far too much talk about 'Balance' in wargames rules. Defining what is balanced and what isn't seems to be an incredibly hazardous undertaking based largely on the viewpoint of the observer (or rule writer in this case). Warfare cannot be reduced to a series of perfect calculations that measure quality or effectiveness, there are too many variables (which is where the dice come in). What I'm trying to say is that any points system aimed at achieving balance is by its very nature a compromise and almost certainly inaccurate, so why get hung up on balance when its a myth in the first place?

Of course if you do decide to ditch the army lists and ignore balance you and your players will have to accept that playing the game is more important than just winning it? Don't get me wrong, I enjoy a victory as much as the next man, but if winning is the be-all and end-all of wargaming then tournaments, points systems and official lists are definitely for you (there's nothing wrong with that, its just not my primary motivator). For me wargaming has always been more than just an elaborate game of chess with a simple victory or defeat outcome. I enjoy researching the history, crafting and painting my forces and of course I enjoy the comradeship that comes from wargaming with other players. But whether I'm playing solo or with my friends I just enjoying playing the game and when I think about the things I love about my hobby, winning games actually comes fairly low on my list.

I've rambled on a bit but I guess what I am trying to say is you should consider throwing caution to the winds, ditch the army lists in favour of more 'realistic' encounters and embrace inequality with open arms. At the very least it'll make for a more interesting game.

19 comments:

  1. 5 minutes of uninterrupted applause.

    Yup, I came to this same conclusion a couple years ago. I've designed a couple of games of my own and neither of them espouse a "points" system - specifically for the reasons you've mentioned.

    It's more fun to buy and paint two armies and then force your gaming on other people than it is to try to convince other people to buy into some new game that may or may not be worth a darn.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Points systems have their place, and I'm not saying I'll never resort to using them in the future. But my recent game have opened my eyes a little.

      Delete
    2. I have been working on a Naval (WW2) game for the past 2 years and ended up having to step into the realms of using points. However the point system is only there to control your really on list composition. You have (at a basic level) 10 points, for this you can choose to take 3 battleships or 2 battle ships, 2 cruiser, or 5 cruiser, 10 minesweepers...etc the combos are not endless but enough to provide a good mix so if someone wishes to try their luck with little boats versus the big boys then go for it. I even introduced a random element so that, for example if you wish you can save 1 or 2 points for a random roll in a specific round (i.e rnd 3). This could reveal a battleship, cruiser or something else that comes over the horizon. Perhaps a different approach to points usage in wargaming and provides a good element of surprise or disappointment......I rolled a fishing trawler once :(. Interesting discussion point

      Delete
  2. Bravo.. it's where the fun is... just make your victory conditions "different"....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Being outnumbered has never been so much fun.

      Delete
  3. Asymetry has its joys! once in a Napoleonic campaign, my Austrian force had the mission of clearing a wood of "some" Frenchmen. I quickly discovered that "some" Frenchmen was several units of Old Guard!> Heavily outclassed in numbers and quality, I spent the entire game trying to extricate my force (this was a campaign and there might be some use for them later). I never had so much fun as I had in that game. I managed to get about 60% of my force away.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As Steve said we make our own victory condition and in this case escaping with a viable force is definately an objective!

      Delete
  4. Couldn't agree more o'l chum,' but agreeing with what Fran said??? That's going a bit to far for my liking!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I hang my head in shame.

      Delete
    2. Not heard from Fran for a while.. he alright??

      Delete
    3. Last I heard he was 'off the grid' living in the wilds of Ireland with no electricity, phone or internet. Basically we think he's gone feral.

      Delete
  5. I couldn't agree with you more!

    ReplyDelete
  6. "but if wining is the be-all and end-all of wargaming" Hear, hear! Boozing and gaming is the best mix of all.

    What's that? You meant "winning"? Well, given your terrible dice luck, I can fully understand your position as my dice luck is usually atrocious too :)

    ReplyDelete
  7. Yep, it's Google to be free. I have never been a fan of lists or points, glad you have seen the light!

    ReplyDelete
  8. I can think of very few battles that were fair and equal.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "The Angry Lurker once said to me "its your game, play it how you want to" and as loath as I am to agree with the old bugger he was right."

    The man is a genius!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Point systems are good but so is not using them.
    The bottom line is we are playing a GAME! An objective must be met to win the game!
    If destroying X amount more points of other army is the objective to win than that's how you win.
    It gets interesting though when you introduce points for doing something else....move off table edge, get within an inch of X terrain piece, collect the loot/prisoner etc.

    Of course we are not playing board games but war games which means we usually focus on tactical game play as the means to pull out a win.

    I totally agree on 'It's your game'. Once you buy a set of rules you are free to use it as you wish.
    The problem with points is how game makers calculate them. Basically every revision of a Wargame these days seems to be MOSTLY about revising the point worth of units too powerful or under powered. Clarifying rules or rewording them to also balance those points.

    interesting.
    cheers

    ReplyDelete

Thank you for leaving a comment. I always try to reply as soon as I can, so why not pop back later and continue the conversation. In the meantime, keep rolling high!