Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Wargamers have abandoned their roots!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by jeffthewookiee
    One thing that's always relegated chess to second-class wargame status in my book is the distinct lack of randomness. The initial set up is always the same, the initial forces, and you know exactly what moves are available to your opponent at any given time. I regard probability as a key component of a good wargame as it simulates the uncertainty of the battlefield. This generates a rich realm of decision making when things go wrong or like you don't expect, and rewards generals who can think on their feet and react just as much as though who can plan.
    I think thats a fair arguement to getting away from chess. After looking around in Chessmasta 9000 it seemed there were just so many certain moves you could do that to be the best you just need to know them all, meaning the game can easily follow a repetive pattern.

    Then again I want to say Chess still should be played. Maybe not much so your both noobs to it so after playing a game with someone and you keep losing you can challenge them to chess, whoever wins is a better general as all say it. For Chess does have no randomness. No dice rolls. You can lose some games to dice rolls. Or you can ruin a lot of games to not noticing its not always the rolls.
    yeah!

    Comment


    • #32
      Jeez guys, i cant even skim your posts their so big. How is someone like me supposed to read them?

      From what Ive read and skimmed my conclusions of chess being abandonned is.

      1. Not even changes in it, you can see whats coming not much to even fear if you know what your doing and played enough

      A.That only comes to those who have played a lot, and that it looks boring. Then again I feel any game can be boring it depends how you play it. IF you freak out scream as things happen yell, jump up and down, pray to some dice god, do something stupid like eating some candy and saying MMM TEHSAE CANNDDIES ARE FREAKING DECLISOU OMGS i NEED MOREE111!1ONE!1!!. The game will become fun or derail and stall you.


      B.If you just are bored, occasionally laugh, smile show emotions. It will look boring, or it will be boring if your not rapped up in what your gonna do.

      Im option B. If its a game I dont want to play I will goof off and make it fun (and annoying to others) or do that and purposely derail other players cause the outcome of myself is indifferent to me. (Gosh, I hope that made sense.)
      yeah!

      Comment


      • #33
        ahh chess, not only a game, its an experience.....sitting opposite your opponant, planning your next three moves, watching the drip of sweat course its way down the worried face of your adversary.......looking at the clock and knowing your only a few short steps from victory, you can almost hear the clanking armour of the knights, the nervous chatter in the front lines of your foot soldiers. The bishops bless the assembled while in the distance the looming shadow of the castle reaches deep into the hearts of the willing.
        And whats that, its their royal highnessess - the king and queen come to further the morale of the fighters, then without warning the king raises his gloved hand and yells "CHARGE !!"

        Like I said its an experience............

        Comment


        • #34
          I really have to separate Chess from wargames completely.

          Chess is a great strategy game. You attempt to beat only the other player. The variables are based on strictly on moves. The victory condition is always the same.

          Meanwhile, most of the wargames I play are some sort of historical simulation.
          I might be attempting to defeat multiple players. The variables can be based on many different factors such as weather, terrain, visibility, supplies, morale, etc. There is also the randomness of the dice roll in most of the games. The victory conditions are always different, as is the time frame in which these objectives are to be acheived.

          So I really see them as two entirely different animals.

          Personally, I have always loved both...each in their own way.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Magnusmagic View Post
            I really have to separate Chess from wargames completely.

            Chess is a great strategy game. You attempt to beat only the other player. The variables are based on strictly on moves. The victory condition is always the same.

            Meanwhile, most of the wargames I play are some sort of historical simulation.
            I might be attempting to defeat multiple players. The variables can be based on many different factors such as weather, terrain, visibility, supplies, morale, etc. There is also the randomness of the dice roll in most of the games. The victory conditions are always different, as is the time frame in which these objectives are to be acheived.

            So I really see them as two entirely different animals.

            Personally, I have always loved both...each in their own way.
            THere's always Nightmare Chess.
            AHIKS - Play by (E)mail board wargaming since 1965.
            The Blitz - Play by Email computer wargaming.

            Comment


            • #36
              LoL! Yes, there is always Nightmare Chess. The cards do make things very unpredictable...but it is still a game and not a simulation game.

              Comment


              • #37
                ChessHere

                Open for challenge: Jim Moreno
                Stay Alert, Stay Alive!

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Magnusmagic View Post
                  I really have to separate Chess from wargames completely.

                  Chess is a great strategy game. You attempt to beat only the other player. The variables are based on strictly on moves. The victory condition is always the same.

                  Meanwhile, most of the wargames I play are some sort of historical simulation.
                  I might be attempting to defeat multiple players. The variables can be based on many different factors such as weather, terrain, visibility, supplies, morale, etc. There is also the randomness of the dice roll in most of the games. The victory conditions are always different, as is the time frame in which these objectives are to be acheived.

                  So I really see them as two entirely different animals.

                  Personally, I have always loved both...each in their own way.
                  Chess is a stylized battle. It's abstract enough that concrete details like "weather, terrain, visibility, supplies, morale, etc." need not be covered explicitly; the player can take for granted that they're all "factored in" somewhere.

                  Being a stylized battle, it's hard to pin chess down to a particular time or place -- so it can be said to represent a battle of most any size in most any time or place. Yet it's not so abstract that we can't see it as a battle at all; most of us do. So, it's just "realistic" enough to be seen as a wargame.

                  Chess is also (IMO, of course) better than most any wargame I can think of. Better? Well, yeah, it's a matter of taste really. But if there were some way to objectively grade board games on overall quality, I think chess would get a top score -- and most wargames would struggle to be on the list at all. Why? Because wargames are too big, too long, too complicated, too slow; and for all their increased size and rules complexity, they're usually less challenging than chess. Half the time it's pretty obvious what moves you have to make in a wargame; the only challenge is executing the plan, given all the rules and dice rolls. But chess is so challenging that a decent computer program can beat us all.

                  But can you learn anything about warfare by studying or playing chess?

                  Not about the concrete details -- the terrain effects, morale factor, weapon systems, and so forth. But about the kind of think and counterthink that military commanders do? Sure. If chess is a stylized battle, chess tactics are abstractions of military tactics.

                  But which is more fun -- chess or a more complex and realistic wargame? Depends. Some say chess is boring; others have called it the most exciting game in the world. It's a question of your attitude toward it.

                  Then there's the argument that the chance element of warfare is not represented in a deterministic game like chess. I think it is. I think winners make their own luck anyway, and a good commander tries not to leave things to chance. The chance element in chess is your opponent's move; he usually has several choices, and you can never be sure which he'll make.

                  Chess, to me, is a classic wargame. A timeless wargame that will long outlive most of the games we call wargames.

                  OTOH, it's a very tough game. I can enjoy playing it against a fellow novice or against a computer set to a novice level. Beyond that, it's like beating my head against a brick wall. And before I do that I'll turn to a game where I can push some cardboard around, calculate odds, roll dice, and pretend to be a battlefield general.
                  --Patrick Carroll


                  "Do all you have agreed to do, and do not encroach on other persons or their property." (Richard Maybury)

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Wargamer Scott View Post
                    How can one call himself a wargamer, a master of kriegspeil, when you do not play the oldest of all wargames?
                    I played chess for a little while (I was a champ back in High School). Then I found 'historical' wargames. These wargames (at least the better-developed ones) give you all the challenge and decision-making that is in a game of chess in a more intuitive medium.

                    Also, having to constantly balance the varying effectiveness of your forces (ie, your decisions +/- the effects of dice or other mitigating effects), I think is a much more engaging process than a straightforward number-crunch game such as chess.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      And that's not all,

                      Originally posted by Overseer View Post
                      Warning: I ended up writing and rambling far more than I meant to, if you want just jump to the end.

                      No, I do agree. Chess is a complex enough system that you don't see a transparent solution per se. The fact is chess is a great balance. The more simple the system the more obvious the optimum play is at any given point (great example is tic-tac-toe the system is so great that the result is going to be a tie because the optimum play is so clear). Too complex a system and it's just annoying to deal with and not worth the time. Chess combines a good balance of the two.

                      In case my avatar and past posting hasn't made it abundantly clear, I could happily spend 40 hours a week playing poker - a system that is ultimately buying and selling probabilities. It has ridiculous amounts of strategy and complexity involved that all can go out the window because of a single card coming against all odds. It can be the most frustrating experience in the world, everything going completely right, and then the only card in the deck that can turn everything against you falls. But ultimately, that's what makes the game successful. If it was a perfect game of no chance (ignoring the fact that it couldn't be) it would ultimately be like chess. No one would want to sit down against a much better player (at least not for money). The complexity allows for superior players to come out on top over time, while keeping less skilled players coming back.

                      Looking at it from an "academic" standpoint, on the one hand chess is an interesting game because it's purely skill based. On the other hand, that means it's pretty much the least effective model of the real world in anyway whatsoever. Nothing works that well in real life! You know that piece of paper you drop will fall to the ground, but figuring out how it will is so exceedling complex it's ridiculous. In my opinion, using the comparison of poker to chess again, watching a poker table is a great abstraction of the real world (a capitalist economic system specifically). Chess in my opinion is too abstract and ultimately too simplistic (even for its vast complexity) to be a great model of anything. Yes, it's clear that in principle is an example of combined arms tactics, but I feel it does little to relate to the same principles in real life (again, that's only my opinion - I know some people will argue just the opposite).

                      Now all that said, it's a game. It is a great game (obviously, it's been around so long). It doesn't need to be a model of anything whatsoever to be a great game (and yes, it is to some extent a model of warfare arguments to the accuracy of it aside). And seeing as I wrote entirely too much and probably rambled while doing so, I'll wrap this up...

                      From the one standpoint, I can see it being a valid argument that Chess is the greatest game design ever made. It's just my opinion that the removal of chance from the system spoils it in some ways as a competitive game (as paradoxical as that sounds). The more skilled player in a chess game should technically never be behind in the game (assuming he's playing to the best of his ability). In another type of game, the more skilled player might have something so ridiculously stupid happen to him that's he setback significantly - and then has to pull himself back out for the win - that to me is real skill (besides it makes for great excuses when you lose).
                      that is wrong with chess. You can "see" all your enemy pieces in front of you. This same flaw is in many wargames, for instance, at a tabletop game upon finding the scale is some 2000 yards to the enemy and yet, lo and behold, there they all stand in their trenches, boy are they goin' to surprise me! And the players, all standing over the table, like God in the clouds, looking down and checking out all the enemy pieces! How real is that???

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Really?

                        And here I thought chess was as popular as it always was! Is there some sort of statistical information about this?

                        But, I'm with you! Sometimes the originals are the best (Go, circa 548 B.C.?)!
                        But whats 1100 or 1200 years among enthusiasts, time sure flies, seems like just yesterday......

                        Dennis

                        Comment

                        Latest Topics

                        Collapse

                        Working...
                        X