Calandale
Mockingbird
Wyrd
Forum Malcontent
Offline
Posts: 983
I mock you
Badges: (View All)
|
|
« on: July 10, 2014, 03:12:12 pm » |
|
Are there any games that you feel so nailed a design that they are really the best that can be done with it?
I'm looking at Guelphs & Ghibellines right now, and it looks as though it may be the best one can do with the MOI (and to some extent GBoH) framework. Strongly considering paying heavy shipping costs on other games by this designer.
Obviously, something like Go is such a pinnacle, but it gets tougher when the game is trying to actually express a subject matter and generate a good playable game at the same time.
|
|
|
|
|
usrlocal
Magnificent Bastard
Forum Malcontent
Offline
Posts: 448
Tony Clifton's love child
Badges: (View All)
|
|
« Reply #1 on: July 10, 2014, 05:38:12 pm » |
|
I have a tough time with this one. Wargames have so many variables, so many moving parts. I have trouble thinking of a single wargame that doesn't have a flaw of some sort. And that's not a dig at the designers - they're just so *difficult* to design well in the first place.
That being said, I think 'Up Front' nails WW2 tactical combat. 'Paths of Glory' almost nails it, but its draconian supply rules blow it in the end. Perhaps the most 'perfect' CDG I've played so far is 'Mr. Madison's War'. I need to give it some more play time (which will be soon!), but I think that Balkoski's 'The Korean War' nails the operational wargame. Strategic? Probably 'Decline and Fall of the Third Reich'.
|
|
|
|
|
Calandale
Mockingbird
Wyrd
Forum Malcontent
Offline
Posts: 983
I mock you
Badges: (View All)
|
|
« Reply #2 on: July 10, 2014, 05:58:46 pm » |
|
but I think that Balkoski's 'The Korean War' nails the operational wargame.
Yes. I think this is another one. More surprising, is that this isn't some sort of constant refinement process. The Gamers' series' (OCS, CWB) seem to catch the quality too - but they are building on so much prior work. The Korean War is just so shockingly fresh.
|
|
|
|
usrlocal
Magnificent Bastard
Forum Malcontent
Offline
Posts: 448
Tony Clifton's love child
Badges: (View All)
|
|
« Reply #3 on: July 10, 2014, 06:08:39 pm » |
|
The Korean War is just so shockingly fresh.
That's also my impression. I'm surprised that some designer hasn't yet appropriated that system for a new wargame on a different topic. I'd be all over it.
|
|
|
|
kira1y
|
|
« Reply #4 on: July 10, 2014, 06:31:27 pm » |
|
The Korean War is a good choice. I was really surprised by how well that game was done.
Twilight Struggle would be my choice for the pinnacle of CDGs.
|
|
|
|
usrlocal
Magnificent Bastard
Forum Malcontent
Offline
Posts: 448
Tony Clifton's love child
Badges: (View All)
|
|
« Reply #5 on: July 10, 2014, 06:47:19 pm » |
|
Twilight Struggle would be my choice for the pinnacle of CDGs.
I really need to give TS another chance.
|
|
|
|
Calandale
Mockingbird
Wyrd
Forum Malcontent
Offline
Posts: 983
I mock you
Badges: (View All)
|
|
« Reply #6 on: July 10, 2014, 07:07:23 pm » |
|
Twilight Struggle would be my choice for the pinnacle of CDGs.
Feels too broad a category to me. I really do like TS, but there are ones which do things that it cannot - so it's really tough to boost it ahead of all others. Would you be satisfied if all CDGs used that same system?
|
|
|
|
kira1y
|
|
« Reply #7 on: July 10, 2014, 08:45:37 pm » |
|
Feels too broad a category to me. I really do like TS, but there are ones which do things that it cannot - so it's really tough to boost it ahead of all others. Would you be satisfied if all CDGs used that same system? The thing I like about TS (and alluded to in a different thread) is that it doesn't try to mix CDG mechanics with 'classic' wargame mechanics. It's a 'pure' CDG, which is why I would classify it as the pinnacle CDG. I have yet to play a game that has mixed the two to my satisfaction (although PoG comes close). Funny thing is that if you pulled the wargame mechanics out of Washington's War and tweaked a few things you might make a half-way enjoyable game out of it. What do you think that other CDGs provide that TS doesn't?
|
|
|
|
Calandale
Mockingbird
Wyrd
Forum Malcontent
Offline
Posts: 983
I mock you
Badges: (View All)
|
|
« Reply #8 on: July 10, 2014, 10:00:22 pm » |
|
The 'purest' CDG I've seen is 1955. It's pretty damned boring because of that purity.
I think TS fails to provide the kind of exciting multi-player game that Here I Stand or Sword of Rome can. I think it fails to adequately express the Seven Years War in the way that Clash of Monarchs does.
TS may well be a pinnacle game, in the sense that it does what it tries to do as well as you (or I) could imagine. But it's impossible to be a pinnacle (IMO) of such a broad category as CDGs.
|
|
|
|
sparty
I can't wait to play that ... someday...
Forum Curious
Offline
Posts: 90
Badges: (View All)
|
|
« Reply #9 on: July 10, 2014, 10:34:02 pm » |
|
TS seems like the pinnacle of reminiscing the oddball and scary events of the cold war rather than the pinnacle of CDGs. For people who lived it, or enjoy (even in passing) the nature of the cold war, it has a very nostalgic theming that I suspect helps carry some of the deficiencies of the gameplay itself. The whole space race mechanic to me is a good example of this. It's a safety valve to some degree and you're not chasing it for national pride or willpower per se, but rather it just sort of happens because ... well ... it happened during the cold war.
|
|
|
|
stemcider
|
Ambush! is the pinnacle of two categories.
Its the pinnacle of paragraph-driven games (though the competition is thin).
Its also the pinnacle of solitaire by design games, IMO. Its got everything I could want in a solitaire game. The RPG-like elements and the narrative-driven focus make it the most exciting solitaire game ever made.
As far as its replayablity issues, I don't really see it as being much of a problem. While the "ambush"/surprise story elements might be removed after the initial playthrough or two, how the story unfolds can change drastically. You could lose 3 men in one game and none in another. The replayability is very much driven by a "I can do better this time" attitude, which isnt much different than most solitaire by design games.
Best game ever.
|
|
|
|
capt_s
|
Are there any games that you feel so nailed a design that they are really the best that can be done with it?
I imagine the answer lies in just what you want out of the game. For that matter, what the design intent was. Hmmmm.... Repeating myself a bit here, but once I figured out the La Bat rules I thought it captured tactical Napoleonics about as well as you could do it. I refer to the meat and bones of getting units into formation, moving them and then employing them. There are times when you really have to ponder just how to do those three things, even when just getting a group of units over some terrain. And the flexibility the system provides in letting you try different brigade/division formations is pretty outstanding. If you ever look at books dealing with Napoleonic era tactics it is amazing to see just how flexible something like a divisional deployment could be. Some battalions in column, some in line, positioned just so, etc. I think La Bat allows that very experimentation which I think captures the period nicely. As far as the CDG debate is concerned, I have come around to the thinking that Clash of Monarchs captures that war nicely. And removes that somewhat-annoying-common-in-CDGs weather (or other chance) cards from the players' control. It is slow (at times), pondering and frustrating, but it sure does feel right.
|
I should have been a pair of ragged claws Scuttling across the floors of silent seas.
- TS Eliot: The Love Song of J Alfred Prufrock.
|
|
|
Sluggonics
|
I agree that La Bat is a very good system, especially since the rules have been refined into two versions - your "heavier" rules and the "lighter" Marie Louise rules. But it's the pinnacle of grand tactical Napoleonics - I'm not sure where the pinnacle of strategic or operational Napoleonics lies. Do we break the pinnacle games down into those categories? Or do we look at whole subjects? Or is it just a comparison of systems? For example, is Eric Lee Smith's Civil War the pinnacle Civil War game, or is it simply the pinnacle strategic Civil War game? Sort of a "If you only play one game about the American Civil War..." scenario.
|
Look out honey, 'cause I'm using technology!
|
|
|
Calandale
Mockingbird
Wyrd
Forum Malcontent
Offline
Posts: 983
I mock you
Badges: (View All)
|
. Do we break the pinnacle games down into those categories? Or do we look at whole subjects? Or is it just a comparison of systems? For example, is Eric Lee Smith's Civil War the pinnacle Civil War game, or is it simply the pinnacle strategic Civil War game? Sort of a "If you only play one game about the American Civil War..." scenario.
I was using the term for a development line - so a single system/style. G&G is not, btw, what I would call a pinnacle. At first blush, it seemed the mix of MOI & GBoH that I wanted, but it leans too far in the MOI direction. I think some more little tweaks could be accomplished. Civil War is simply the BEST strategic ACW game. There is clearly room for major changes in the leaders, therefore it cannot be a pinnacle as I meant it.
|
|
|
|
usrlocal
Magnificent Bastard
Forum Malcontent
Offline
Posts: 448
Tony Clifton's love child
Badges: (View All)
|
Every time I see this topic, I think it's about a company. 'Pinnacle Games' would be a great name for a game publisher.
|
|
|
|
|