The NEW New Boardgames Thread

[The Brain]

On the other hand you don't have the WW2 problem of "France must fall or the war is a dud". But I certainly think that a successful WW1 sim likely will have to focus on the inner workings of battles and nations and not on the drama of great movements on the map.

[11B4V]

Der Weltkrieg

[11B4V]

I think it just comes down to the relative inflexibility of the conflict itself; when the shooting starts, there's no realistic plausible opportunities for alternative strategic courses of action like there is for WW2.

[Habbaku]

Der Weltkrieg

Only problem with the DW series is that it is focused on each theater.  Some of the theaters can be connected, apparently, but it isn't a strategic-scale game at its core, but more operational.  Or am I mistaken?

I think there could be a very good political-strategic game for The Great War out there somewhere that heavily abstracted the fighting a la Churchill, but I'd probably have to design it myself...

[11B4V]

I think it just comes down to the relative inflexibility of the conflict itself; when the shooting starts, there's no realistic plausible opportunities for alternative strategic courses of action like there is for WW2.

Death Ride: Verdun

Scale: Company
Hex=500 meters
Turn= 4hours

[CountDeMoney]

MAH DEAD PILE

[Ed Anger]

I think it just comes down to the relative inflexibility of the conflict itself; when the shooting starts, there's no realistic plausible opportunities for alternative strategic courses of action like there is for WW2.

Death Ride: Verdun

Scale: Company
Hex=500 meters
Turn= 4hours

I'd buy that.

[Delirium]

I don't know about strategic alternatives, off the top of my head you could include

a, speed and location of mobilizations as a hidden factor (How much force does Germany project in the East? A-H everything against the Serbs? Russia slower than historical? Britain waivers longer?)

b, Ottoman Empire variable war entry

c, Italy switching sides (more than once?)

d, obviously Russian revolution (not to mention uprisings in France and Germany)

e, Arab uprisings against Ottomans and/or against Brits?

f, Churchill's sideshow strategy in the Med or every effort in France?

g, US entry

h, the war in Africa with Lettow-Vorbeck running the gauntlet for four years undefeated

I think one problem with WW1 on a global scale is that the "action" is on levels so disparate that it is hard to include them in the same game. Japanese landings in German Asia? German ascari? Senussi uprisings? All of those in the same game as being able to portray the Somme offensive. On the other hand you have that problem of scale/attention in WW2 as well with the war in China and the Eastern Front too often taking up the same space as a few divisions fighting in Egypt. And there is the possibility of a naval conflict, but usually there is none...

Just thinking out loud here really.

About Der Weltkrieg, I have been interested in that for a long time, but that is not the right level of simulation, as Habs said each front is its own separate game...needs a basement floor to set up the whole war and even then will have gaps all around Europe. On that operational level I get my fix from 1914: Twilight in the East, one of the best wargames I ever played, but not the grand strategy we want.

[Delirium]

Anyway, my two latest additions are The Supreme Commander (to continue investigation of strategic ETO) and 1805: Sea of Glory (Napoleonics and naval warfare in one). Both games heavily questioned but I want to form my own opinion of them.

[The Brain]

Got Blue Cross, White Ensign, because it has the Swedish navy. Nice to see Swedish Rättvisan (Justice) and Russian Retvizan on the same counter sheet (a Swedish ship Rättvisan was captured by the Russians in the GNW and the name remained in both navies, IIRC the last Russian Retvizan was lost in the Russo-Japanese War).

[The Brain]

One good thing gamewise about WW1 I think is that historically the advantage seemed to go a bit back and forth. In WW2 there's a tidal wave that reaches its maximum and then retreats. I find the first situation more interesting from a game perspective.

[Tamas]

One good thing gamewise about WW1 I think is that historically the advantage seemed to go a bit back and forth. In WW2 there's a tidal wave that reaches its maximum and then retreats. I find the first situation more interesting from a game perspective.

Yes ww1's outcome was open up until the commitment of the USA. WW2's outcome, in terms of The Axis winning or losing, was a given from Day 1

[Delirium]

Brain, good point, that is an advantage that WW1 has broadly speaking of course.

Tamas, I'll bite on WW2 outcome and rephrase to: "given a, hindsight knowledge that neither Churchill nor Stalin would surrender in a desperate situation, so that b, industrial output would determine the outcome of a long war", then yes, it was a given from day 1. Otherwise, no.

[Tamas]

Brain, good point, that is an advantage that WW1 has broadly speaking of course.

Tamas, I'll bite on WW2 outcome and rephrase to: "given a, hindsight knowledge that neither Churchill nor Stalin would surrender in a desperate situation, so that b, industrial output would determine the outcome of a long war", then yes, it was a given from day 1. Otherwise, no.

First of all, I am not saying "given" as in there was no need of great effort to achieve victory, of course.


And yes that is a good point, except that I can't see a UK, especially a Churchill-led one surrendering. They had difficulties but being able to bomb the south-eastern tip of your country does not surrender make.

And I maintain that if your starting point is 3rd of September 1939 i.e. when France and UK joins the war, the outcome is a given.

[Tamas]

But anyways.

I have had a couple of solitaire tests of Balance of Powers but unfortunately no f2f play. It has very clever system, the land combat in particular is very elegant in mixing mobile and trench warfare with a couple of simple points. The only weak point there is the Tactical Innovation (namely that being reckless and getting away with it can land you in post-trench 1918-style fighting as early as 1916) but the latest living rules have an optional rule that I think solves that.

The naval rules are also nice and give period feel, although I don't think it could give me the same feeling of Dreadnought-induced dread like when in a La Grande Guerre PBEM me and my teammate decided to ship the combined Italian and Austro-Hungarian fleet out to the Med, and we risked a National Will nightmare if we bumped into a heavy Entente presence.
But it is a nice system I think.

Overall I also like the diplomacy rules. They don't come close to show you political and diplomatic goals and conditions of the time like the LGG rules but they are also much much simpler than those, and they still get the job done.

What I miss from BoP is LGG's system on political instability. In BoP it feels too binary. In LGG national will, once unstable, is fickle and can be very unpredictable, which makes you think about how to try and manipulate it. Both yours and the enemy's. In BoP it's like an on/off switch really.