Game 1 - Sign up and discuss here

This was such a good idea. Sometimes I get very peeved at the liability of things like this to mass disinterest. For all I know this could die out, and it would be a shame. :angry:

 

This was a very good idea.
I think one of the reasons it fluked though was the team setup.
The allied team had nobody who actually knew squab about the units. :S
Also, I for one was a bit confused as to in what style to present our orders, if we had managed to decide on them.

 

Can I make a suggestion or two?

A clearer plan of events etc is needed. Teams are given a map with their units on, and asked to provide orders by a set date. If no orders are received, it is assumed that they are not moving.

 

Yes.

I was keen, but did not know what was expected of me.

 

More defined intelligence for sure. And locates for our own forces.


And better communication bewtween team members *glances pointedly*

 

I guess we have a chance of setting this in motion after all.

 

I can only (belatedly) agree with Ricky here. Any such wargame should be treated as a primary school level story writing exercise, that is you need a Start, Middle and End.

The Start should dictate the units available (However that is decided, a Points Value system, Historically available detachments, an Alternate History scenario or whatever other system is to be used) and limits of deployment.

The Middle should include whatever methods are used to determine the outcomes of the combats and unit movement rates once the game begins.

The End needs to include victory conditions. What are the objectives and timescales? What losses of men or material are acceptable or are these irrelevant in the grand scheme so long as you capture objective A and B?

Unless players know what they have to begin with, where they are supposed to get to and how they are supposed to get there any game will founder. Imagine playing a game of Snakes and Ladders where everyone can start wherever they want, can move however they want (Providing the overseer says it's OK), no-one knows which square they're supposed to get to and no-one knows where the other pieces are. That's what this game looks like from the outside. :cry: That might just be down to what I can't see as an outsider though.

I once played a particularly inactive tabletop wargame as a teenager and when I complained that it was spectacularly dull (We actually achieved 4 hours of game movement in 5 real hours!) one member of my group said "War is supposed to be 90% movement and 10% action", I replied "Aren't we supposed to be playing that 10% though?"

If it's a wargame, try and keep it in the "10% action" and the players will enjoy it, but you've got to have a basic system of Start-Middle-End behind it otherwise players wont know what's expected of them.