Grognard Wargamer Thread!


Good point about VG’s Korea! Still not sure I buy into the notion the stalemate was pre ordained but regardless Fire & Ice looks good I may pick it up.

In other news this bad boy tempts me. Do I REALLY need another monster game I wont play though? But sooo tempting…

edit switched out image to show its a boardgame

edit: well apparently you cannot select “united states” when ordering so I guess thats the gods way of telling me not to buy it :) If only I lived in Tuvalu or a similar country I could have it shipped to me. Sigh.

edit edit: sold out in the USA. That explains that. Oh well.


Yes, it is just the 1st year:


That looked like a screenshot of a computer game. I’ve been tricked.


Sorry :)


Vassal module maybe?

Spiritual successor to SPI’s the Next War. Nice. When will we see a @Brooski playthrough on twitter??


You guys are making it really hard to not jump back into the boardgames.


They printed 200 copies for the US and basically sold them out on BGG before the game even arrived as people posted “reserve one for me” posts.


Bummer, looks like a really nice job on the production.


Now I cant have one, I want a copy. Whats wrong with me? :) It DOES look good tho.


Nothing is preordained, I suppose, but the only remotely possible outcomes in 1950-51 were pretty much the UN gets run off the map during the NK offensive, the Chinese don’t intervene (very unlikely) and the UN takes over NK up to the Yalu in late 1950, the Chinese run the UN off the peninsula in early 1951, or, well, stalemate. No matter how you slice it, it’s decided by mid 1951, really. At least, I’ve seen very little that suggests even a remote possibility of significant military operations after the front stabilizes. We simply did not have the combat power to do it, from our end, and the Chinese simply didn’t have the logistics.

Now, if you wanna get all WWIII on it, then we got some interesting possibilities.


But we had THA NUKES

Ty Bomba, please call your office.


hmm, I think I am wrong. Edited it :)


Yeah… It’s 160€ in Europe. That’s way too much for somehting I will certainly not play that much due to size/table space.


It’s now part of the 20th C. political “gospel”. Disbelieve at your peril.


I think people are open to divergent interpretations; that’s how history works, after all. It’s just that no one has presented any arguments built on strong evidence, in good historiographic fashion, to disrupt the now-accepted narrative. I mean, we’re talking about events that were to a large degree driven by fairly objective realities, like numbers of troops, logistical constraints, and geography. If someone can build a case that the UN had the capacity to break that stalemate short of a nuclear war, or that the Chinese had the capacity to do so, that would be cool. So far, as far as I know, no one really has.


Maybe so, Wombat. But I’m also now aware of historical dogma being enforced.

Funny that when I was in college “radicals” would wear buttons stating “Question Authority”. Now, the word on campus from the same types is “Don’t Question Authority”. AmIrite?


I’m not active in that sort of academic environment, so I have no insights really. Though military history of this sort has rarely been popular with the types of academics who are really political, from what I have seen. There’s simply no profit in “enforcing dogma,” as you say, on a topic like this, which is of interest to a tiny minority of academic historians.

But in general, yes, there have always been arrogant jerks in academia who are more concerned with defending their position than with actually creating knowledge. History as a field has had its share or more, for sure. In truth, though, I’ve rarely seen any good academic shut down questions or skepticism in students. I’ve seen a few crappy professors do it, though.


Dunno if I agree. The example of Mark Moyar always gets brought up.

Btw his book is great.


I wish I knew more about the Korean war so I could argue my case, but I dont really. So I guess I should hit the books :)

What I edited out a few posts above though was my speculation that if the USA was going to use nukes in Korea is was likely to have done so during the Pusan perimeter battles. So I assume that it would not have done so regardless of whether it would lose the entire country or not. However I am speaking from a position of ignorance here, I don’t know how hairy Pusan got, it LOOKS hairy from the maps but I dunno. So I toss it out there in the hopes I can be educated a little.


Speaking of that, what books do people recommend? I think I have a Tolland book, and a Hastings book (sitting on the shelf waiting to be read).

Edit: I think Halberstam is here somewhere as well.