Tell me /tg/ what makes a good tabletop wargame?
Playing it with friends
>>97361819Damn./thread
>>97361819What about with cousins at horseguards?
>>97361859Only if you all are having a good time
>>97361746The ability to play three rounds an hour, in any club.
>>97361905That's also depending on the individual players sadly. I could get two games finished in one session with someone, while others couldn't even finish one.
>>97361746Balanced armies and units, at least no overpowered faction or unit that can steamroll.Good design and setting.Engaging, understandable rules.
>>97361911Sounds like they should be flogged?
>>97361746
>>97361746Probably a few different things.I like to break shit down to a three-factor analysis just to get a good spread.In no particular order;- Ease of play; including speed and interpretation of rules. - An exciting theme or narrative to contextualize why the little plastic men fight- Variation in play format; a wargame with little variation in scenario setup is a glorified boardgame
>>97361968I liked the actor for Wellesey.What else is he in?
>>97362043Warhammer 40k: Fire Warrior
>>97361746The rules of the game need to be simple enough to use in play without becoming a burden. The more lookup tables you need to reference as part of every action, the worse the game plays. The more in-between steps that need to be resolved to handle something that only might happen in some fringe case every time you take that action, the worse the game plays.Like, look at 40k. Attack, wound, armor, invulns... thats so many steps for a basic fucking attack that you need to roll over and over and over again. Its bloat and slows the game down to a crawl, especially since unless you have the tables memorized you are probably needing to reference the book for some of those outcomes. You want resolution mechanics that do their job well with the minimum amount of bullshit getting in the way of it.In addition, the mechanics need to applicable enough that their outcomes are not effective pre-determined. You do not want the game to be easily 'solved' where a given meta calcifies the game, and there also needs to be room for the players to do things that feel clever. They don't necessarily need to be actually be clever, nobody at the game table is Zhuge Liang, but part of the appeal of any strategy game is to come up with your own plan and see if it wins. If the logic of the game is too simple and straightforward, you remove elements of choice. For every strong strategy in the game, there needs to be a viable counter, and ideally that counter should be tactical rather than a unit-check. "I deployed Varmitguard Charnelcarriages, if only you had brought their natural predator the Spezzorgagiban Grenadiers you might have stood a chance" isn't strategy, its pay2win designed to force you to buy more models. Instead, you should have things were unit placement trumps unit model in terms of importance. Let squads support each other for bonuses within a certain range, creating opportunities out of combinations that, if the enemy can disrupt them, denies you an advantage.
>>97361905Now that's gaming!
>>97362124> Hey Gronk, design me a game based on these principles
>>97362297> hey grok shitpost on my behalf
>>97361746It should facilitate storytelling and leave just enough to luck that even the underdog can win
>>97361952The average wargamer is a brute beast in a coating of dorito dust, he needs the lash!
>>97362453>Fifty I got for selling me dice>Fifty for selling me minis>If ever I list for a wargame again the devil shall be me sergeant
>>97361746Fun.
>>97361746The ability to roll three dice a minute, sir.
>>97361746A perfect balance of luck and skill and fun and depth with sweet ass miniatures and a solid theme
