If you had to pick, computer or board....

[MrsWargamer]

I'm curious, if you seriously had to choose computer wargames, or board game war games with the provision it was ALL one or the other, no niggling inclusions one or the other, what would you pick?

Tonight, while fiddling with some operational scale computer war games, while pondering, "do I really want to set up board game war games?", I was left dealing with the usual issues.

Computer war games, yes, they don't gather dust, but, does it run on your current machine, with your current OS? Does the interface confuse/confound you? Can you really tell what's actually going on? Does it feel as good as a board game war game?

Board game war games, do you have the battles available that you have in computer war games?
Do you have the space to set it up?
Does it play adequately solo.

I tried War in the East, graphics hassles with the interface.
World in Flames, same thing.
Battles in Normandy, just too many colours actually.
TOAW III, ok it seems more intuitive to run than the others at least.

I know Advanced Third Reich like the back of my hand. Troubles with secrecy in some elements though.
The Longest Day will require me to create a custom surface to set it up.
I have a great Russian Front and Western Front and Mediteranean Front operational board game of easy to manage physical size.
It's not like I have a large stack of titles, but, you can only play one game at a time. And the reason I still have the ones I have, is they are the best of the best from my years of playing.

I'm starting to wonder, is 100 computer war games that I never really play, superior to 10 war games I can set up and play easily without a learning curve or need to fret over computer environment hassles?
The whole "need for an opponent' angle isn't one of my problems. And dust, it isn't really that big of a deal. I don't have a cat, or even any other humans here. It will be safe to set it up indefinitely.

To answer my question, if I had to pick, and that means, what would stay and what would go, I'm tonight, right now, siding I guess with board game war games.
As much effort as it will take to set up The Longest Day, learning how to run the interface, and just needing to use the interface of a computer war game is actually a bigger barrier.
War in the East is an incredible simulation. But playing my Russian Front board game, is just as rewarding.

I think tactical is the only area where computer war games are in the lead.
But I like operational games more than tactical in the end.

[rico21]

I believe that available brain time a day sets the new deal.
For me it is at 2:30 per day.
It suits me well because I can finish a game of tactical wargame in this period of time.
Otherwise I would spend my nights, in my mind, playing the next moves![:D]

[warspite1]

Mmmmm.....

Pluses and minuses on both sides.

Board Games

I love having the board games around. There's something about the smell of a brand new game, the pristine, pre-punched counters, and (depending on the game of course) the incredible OOB's.

Computer Games

One doesn't get any of the above BUT recently more and more games are coming with proper, hard back, full colour, incredibly well presented manuals - so that scratches an itch.

Board Games

The biggest downers are the practicalities - finding an opponent is not always easy, the inconvenience of setting up somewhere semi-permanently and perhaps the biggest obstacle of all - failing eyesight in my frail dotage.

Computer Games

Easily accessible opponents and fewer logistical set up issues. Eyesight can still be an issue but most games (Aegod take note [:-]) cater for this by making font size and zoom levels sensible - World In Flames take a bow [&o]

Both board and computer games have issues - how many board games were issued without the need for errata? Computer games with bugs. But of course (depending on the game and the maker) code improvements and fixes are easier to update on a computer game than finding out about changes to a board game and then manually altering counters or rules etc.

Overall I would have to go with computer games, although as a technophobe I don't appreciate it when games are released that require one to have knowledge of files and folders and all that cobblers - World In Flames take note with the auto updater not working and TOAW IV with a lot of the scenarios needing to be imported or whatever [:-]. I've paid my money now I want a game I can plug in and play.

But ultimately what is the test? The test is that since finding the Matrix website I've actually been playing wargames again - something I hadn't done for many many years as real life commitments took over and my board games became sadly redundant.

Mind you, all that aside I still can't wait for World In Flames Collectors Edition that should be arriving soon [:)] If I could've afforded it I would gladly have bought two - one so that I never need to unwrap the box [8D]

[zakblood]

pc wargames all the time, when i was younger i did board games and the war games i had were really good and special, but always on my own, now with the pc, i have a AI, which for me is a great leap forward from playing on my own,

and while i don't play online or ever against others in war games, for many reasons, but first and foremost i'm just not that good at them, but i enjoy the level and ability and skill i have and also enjoy it more than enough on most war games against the AI, win or loose makes no difference to me as long as i enjoyed it.

the only down side is the costs of keeping it working and up to date, which at times with some getting more and more complicated, at times with pc war games, it's always like your more up to date than they are, and i'll give an example,

when i used to play board games, each and every module worked and was better than the last one mostly,

pc games for first person shooters etc, are looking great and are ahead of the hardware most own, eg Battalion 1944 or with the looks of this one

Code: Select all

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=7&v=yFKNSu_aI5I

Code: Select all

https://store.steampowered.com/app/736220/Post_Scriptum/

while yes it's a FPS, but one day hopefully someone will make a pure war game which also looks like this, a dream, GG Total World War 2, makes for a good title,...[;)]

where still most war games because of limited buyers and budget look like something we could still play on 10 year old pc's, which does make for less eye candy and less limiting appeal for newer buyers also imo.

so ups and downs[:(]

[RFalvo69]

Does "PC wargames, including VASSAL" count a a valid answer?

[HunterICX]

PC Wargames, for the simple reason that I could only enjoy a Wargame Boardgame and find the effort to set it all up if there was someone across the table of me like with normal boardgames.

[Cataphract88]

Give me a good board game over a pc game any day of the week.

[Saint Ruth]

ORIGINAL: Cataphract88

Give me a good board game over a pc game any day of the week.

Give me a good board game over a pc game any day of the week, as long as the opponent is in the same room. [;)]

[hapshott]

Computer wargames. I find it difficult to find anyone which want to play a board Wargame. Other boardgames like catan is no problem. But a Wargame is a No.

I also cannot commit myself to play online. Health issues, work and family are such that This is just impossible. I think that this holds for a lot of people.

So a Computer Wargame with an AI is the best solution for my Wargame itch. That’s why for me a good AI is a must when I buy a Wargame.

[Orm]

If I must choose then I would select computer games. Mostly because I can then keep several different games going at the same time.

[Alan Sharif]

Another vote for PC Games here, no contest. When I brought my first PC I never brought an another board war game, ever.

[Zap]

PC Wargames only. Left playing board wargames so many years.

[rsallen64]

There was nothing quite like the feel of getting a new board war game back in the day. When I bought my first ones in the 1970's and set them up, that was opening up a whole new world I had only ever dreamed about. A computer war game has never captured the same feel. Squad Leader was the best, hands down. Played it for endless hours.

But the problem with a board game is the space, and I don't have that anymore. I used to sit in the basement for hours. Married for decades now, and that's not going to work. Computer war games give you the option of being able to switch between multiple games without the need for additional space. And I would never be able to have enough space to play something like WITP-AE, which is a literal dream come true in the war game genre. Playing with others was never really an option for me. I couldn't really find the people back then, and haven't played against anyone since.

Although like I said, nothing captures the feel of a board war game, I would have to go with computerized ones now. That's just my reality in the 21st century, and as an geezer in my fifth decade.

[demyansk]

I just bought a bunch of games from DVG. Guess what? B17 Flight Leader is still sitting on the table- not played. As well as all the others which still behave the wrapping around the box.

I guess it's easier with the computer, plus I don't need to read the directions.

[MrsWargamer]

6 days vs 6 minutes (or less).

This mess is what the planning/set up stage looks like for the game The Longest Day. I'm going to make an attachment to the table such that the upper left corner of the map will be supported. The map has a panel (buried under stuff at the moment) that extends off to the upper left. This is the Cotentin Peninsula region of Normandy France.

This set-up process, that is required to play the game, generally takes me about 6 days. Yes, I said 6 DAYS
Hey, it's a board game, not a computer game. You don't just click an icon on a screen.
Why do I like board game wargames enough to work this hard to play them? Glad you asked. Well, look at the table, this game runs on it just fine. That's an OS joke. Look at the screen view, notice how I don't need to scroll my eyes to see the whole map (that's another computer joke). I do actually have additional maps photo-copied so I can study the terrain sans counters. I also have a set that is reduced in size for easier handling.
Yeah, there are downsides. I can't eat dinner on the table or build models on it or paint a painting on the table while the game is there. Fortunately, I have other tables eh. It's not like a computer able to run multiple programs at the same time is without competition ya know.

Board games don't have computer AIs. So what. When was the last time you met an AI that wasn't a moron? I'd rather just play both sides of a board game if my choices are me vs me or me vs a moron. Computer games having an AI being better than board games because board games don't come with an opponent is essentially just a lie we have taught ourselves to believe. You can lie to yourself if it makes you feel better. I'm not interested in lying to myself.
Board games require you to learn the game, FIRST, or you can't play it. The advantage here is you actually don't have to wonder what the game is doing while it is running. No interface to master. Your brain and your senses and your hands are the interface.
No, errata isn't the end of the world.
6 days from now, I'm going to be playing this. Maybe a little sooner. It only takes me 6 minutes to be ready to go to play Battles in Normandy, one of several computer wargames I own. But it isn't the same. I also prefer to read real books, and like buying hardcovers. Some people have unyielding preferences.
Yeah, a human opponent would be nice. I'd like to find a husband for a lot of other reasons too
But I don't have the opponent, and I don't have the husband, and I've learned to deal with it. Well living without the wargaming opponent is a lot easier admittedly.

But there ain't no cat here and no other humans. The only one to complain about me using up the dining table for a long span of time is me.
Even if I was forced to share my day with that nuisance called 'work', it's not like I couldn't play the game plenty enough.

image of of my game being set up
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-KqncDscfkZY/ ... 064616.jpg

[zakblood]

that's one hell of a large map and area

[MrsWargamer]

ORIGINAL: zakblood

that's one hell of a large map and area

2k to the hex.

Fire in the East sits on a map that comes out as 6'x8' actually, and isn't even the entire eventual complete map
In the 90s I had a buddy that bought it. The idea being one of us had to. The other being the usual opponent.
But he never got around to setting it up, but then who even has 6x8 rooms available to work with.

I had toyed with getting the 9x21 map set that was made for World in Flames, but, I've only experienced one example of a place where a friend lived and had a 9x21 sized wall. He lived above a store in what was called a 'loft' apartment which really was just the attic floor and a single massive storeroom to a point. Sucked as an apartment, but he was also a cliche 20 something single at the time too. He didn't care if he lived in a largely unfinished box.

[Erik Rutins]

The answer for me is really both, but if I had to pick just one or the other it would be computer wargames.

If real life, space, time and arranging for an opponent were not an issue, the choice might go the other way but there are too many practical advantages to computer wargaming. As it is, I can and do play a computer wargame (or more accurately play test) every day, while I tend to be able to make time for playing one of my board games once per month. That's about a 30:1 advantage to the computer wargame and I think that would hold even if I did not happen to have my current job. Before we started Matrix, my "unplugged" gaming tended to consist of miniature wargaming, which again seemed to be able to fit in once or twice per month even when I was younger, had no children and had a more flexible schedule, whereas I played computer games of some kind almost every day.

With the amount of time I spend on the computer, I do enjoy getting off it and playing a tabletop game, either board or miniatures, as often as I can and that's why I would never choose one or the other. For me having both allows for variety, which as they say is the spice of life. [8D]

Regards,

- Erik

[Zorch]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

The answer for me is really both, but if I had to pick just one or the other it would be computer wargames.

If real life, space, time and arranging for an opponent were not an issue, the choice might go the other way but there are too many practical advantages to computer wargaming. As it is, I can and do play a computer wargame (or more accurately play test) every day, while I tend to be able to make time for playing one of my board games once per month. That's about a 30:1 advantage to the computer wargame and I think that would hold even if I did not happen to have my current job. Before we started Matrix, my "unplugged" gaming tended to consist of miniature wargaming, which again seemed to be able to fit in once or twice per month even when I was younger, had no children and had a more flexible schedule, whereas I played computer games of some kind almost every day.

With the amount of time I spend on the computer, I do enjoy getting off it and playing a tabletop game, either board or miniatures, as often as I can and that's why I would never choose one or the other. For me having both allows for variety, which as they say is the spice of life. [8D]

Regards,

- Erik

Likewise.

[AbwehrX]

Nothing compares to an 8 player WiF Final Ed boardgame. Especially when you win as the Axis 3 times. [:D]