Grognard Wargamer Thread!

Free stuff has always been an issue, yes, but back then, it was actual stuff. Now, it’s bits and bytes. The consumer still has to pay (sometimes as much as they would for physical goods, if not more) but the cost to provide those things has pretty much disappeared, as there is no direct cost of goods. So publishers can go out and give as much or as little as they want without regard to actually producing or shipping anything, while potential less than stellar reviewers have an incentive to do whatever it takes to save having to buy a game.

Ah, now I see your point, the friction of logistics there has gone - you are totally right. And there is a parallel with music writing… Tickets for gigs, free drinks and hanging out with cool people have also very little friction: all you need is a list of names.

BTW, for anyone interested, the next Panzer Battles game from John Tiller Games is now out. North Africa, Greece, and Crete. $39.95.

I will probably pick it up just, well, because I guess, even though the central game system doesn’t really jazz me up any more. Sometimes I’m in the mood for counter pushing and these games are good for that. I’m also sort of interested in the 25 Crete scenarios.

Well, let me say that @tomchick and I troll each other pretty mercilessly, but (for me anyway) it’s a friend thing and out of respect. Tom does apply Critique to his reviews, hold designers and…oh lemme copy paste and alter:

Except Zombies. And Phil Ecklund games. He is pretty insufferably biased about that stuff.

I’d just like to point out that I pay all my writers for the work they do. They’re not volunteers, but a lot of them are ‘from the hobby’ because i’ve found articles are better from people who know what they’re talking about. You can’t fake that kind of knowledge, and I’d choose expertise over any kind of ‘critiquing skills’ any day. Alas, this niche has few who possess both.

Speaking to other comments, it has nothing to do with wanting to get “free stuff” or not wanting to ruffle feathers.

We’ve had negative coverage go up plenty of times this year, and it even happened when we were owned by Slitherine, about Slitherine games (albeit rarely).

I accept that a certain amount of genuine critique is useful so as Editor I should try and instil that more in coverage, but I can’t force it and it would be inappropriate to do so.

I got the email and for .005 second thought about it for Crete, and then remembered the last time I jumped in the lake on this one. Never again, JT. Never again. :) You and your 1998 code…

I think we have all, for some time here, been talking about how the hobby is covered, not The Wargamer in particular.

I get that, but we are part of how the hobby is covered so it’s hard to talk about one without the other.

Personally, I think the myriad of individual Blogs, YouTubers, podcasters etc have really moved into the driver’s seat when it comes to Board Wargame coverage, reviews, etc.

Tactical Simulations, Wargame HQ, The PlayerSaid, View from the Turret, The Big Board, Clio’s Board Games, Moe’s Game Table, Historic Gamer, Low Player Count, Rally in the Valley, Harold on Games, @Brooski (aka Wild Weasel). And 15-20 others I am leaving out. These are who I think of off the top of my head when I think of Grognard Wargames.

For reference:

I find the above to be a good, useful review of a computer war game. The lack of a campaign, suspect AI, and no multiplayer are reasons why I wouldn’t buy it in it’s current incarnation, and why Mr Stone isn’t giving it a WGOTY sticker.

That review does put it on my radar though. The Wargamer review did not.

Just to offer a different perspective than @Navaronegun who is looking for different (but totally valid) things out of wargames reviews than I do.

I AM looking to be convinced a game is worth buying or if I have bought it I want to be reassured I made a good purchase and be shown how to have fun with it.

I come into every game skeptical already, I dont really need another voice to save me money from buying a game. I am looking for someone to convince me to buy more.

Wargames are a hobby of mine, like some kinds of music or science books, I go to reviews to find new stuff to enjoy.

That said I understand the desire to have more highbrow Criticism in wargames. I want that too. But that doesnt require a negative review for me. If anything a consumer advocate review (feature by feature breakdown with a value proposition at the end) is slightly at odds with a serious work of Criticism. It would be a bit like Apollinaire focusing on the sale value of paintings rather than how they move the medium.

Knowing that your enemy is likely to send tanks right into the heart of VLs, even if those VLs are in dense woodland or urban areas, encourages counter tactics that probably wouldn’t work against the kind of living, breathing COs the game currently doesn’t support.

My emphasis. Brilliantly phrased by him.

Well Mr. Stone is very good at what he does. If I could afford him I’d love to have him write for us. We did talk about it once or twice.

I think we agree overall , actually Rod. But that desire (so typical of designers) to NOT want “negative reviews” is balderdash. If everything is good, nothing is good.

Everything shouldn’t be received negatively. But some things should be, if the reviewer is being honest.

And if comparing three different games on Tunisia at the Operational Scale is “highbrow Criticism”…well, I think you need more exposure to the highbrow in life, my friend. :)

I love High Frontier and I enjoy the orbital puzzles of Children of a Dead Earth. Should I delete my account?

He has an intolerable positive bias for those things, so you should be good… :)

Ecklund = Genius.

Zombies = Genius.

In my experience the most negative review you can give a game is silence. No negative review needed :)

And if comparing three different games on Tunisia at the Operational Scale is “highbrow Criticism”…well, I think you need more exposure to the highbrow in life, my friend. :)

Oh but I think it could be. Take any axis you like. Allied cooperation, the changes in the US army during the Tunisia campaign, how Hitler changed the outcome, the supply war. Any single one of those threads traced across three comparable consims could be very highbrow imho.

We just dont get too many such pieces (except as you note @Brooski does so this when he has something in his sights).

Anyways yeah (The utility of negative reviews aside ) I think we broadly agree.

Good discussion!

Well, if we don’t discuss the negative, and just use silence, then we never hear out loud what didn’t work. Or why something worked in one game but not another.

Then this is not Discourse. No Dialectic. We just talk about sunshine. Even great games can be looked at critically and have some of their flaws examined. The game may still be great. But we all learn, in a discourse, about what the game did well and what it didn’t do. Maybe some things were sacrificed in favor of other things in the game. This stuff is interesting. But if you don’t risk the “negative” it never gets discussed.

Ya’ll need thicker skins Rod. :)

I fully expect someone will shit all over Attleboro on BGG. That’s fine. It’s the aggregate that matters. Everyone can’t be pleased.

And I’ll say this…if, when done, someone says nothing but positive things about it? They’re blowing smoke up my patoot.

Oh, it could go the Military Studies route if desired. True, that could get academic. But that’s OK. Gels well with the hobby’s audience.

All systems nominal, initiating orbital transfer maneuver in 3, 2, 1…

Remember this is in Tom-land. Not Pat-land. I think he is meh. and a tad arrogant.