Why Do You Game?

By Podsy McPod

Why do you game?

Sorry I am jumping ahead.  Perhaps you don't game, you just like to collect and paint models.  That is fine, glad to have you on board as part of the hobby but you are not who this article is aimed at.  My target audience is people who actually use their model collections to play games.

About a year ago and about thirty five years since I started gaming I was struggling to find enjoyment in my gaming. This culminated in a sci fi game against a dear friend where I was beaten without being able to offer any real opposition and I threw a strop.  Yes a full on five year olds strop.  I apologise again to my opponent who luckily is still a good friend.  I was playing with beautiful models using a rule set I liked.  Afterwards for the first time in years I sat down and seriously asked myself why did I game.  I even contemplated giving up gaming.

The first thing I realised was I certainly did not game just for the sake of winning.  Sometimes when demoing a game to a new player I have wanted to crawl under the table as sheer good fortune meant I thrashed my opponent.  If you counted all my wins and losses over the thirty five years I am sure the losses would exceed the wins, so it could not be that. 

I used to play in the local competition circuit for ancient and medieval wargaming, travelling quite a bit to play.  I enjoyed it for many years but towards the end I began to realise there seemed to be competitors who just wanted to show how smart they were rather than being interested in the game.  I got the feeling they would have been equally happy to compare educational qualifications or bank balances to decide who won.  I saw some crazy things.  One novice competitor was playing in a game with two classical period pike armies.  His pike were better quality than his opponents so he rushed them to engage the enemy pike.  His experienced opponent tilted a unit at a bizarre angle and said this prevented the two lines engaging.  The referee confirmed this ruling.  Of course this was absolute historical nonsense.  Two lines of pike would not fail to engage because someone was not standing absolutely straight.  This was an example of how the leading players won not by using better tactics but by exploiting their superior knowledge of the foibles in the rules.  Eventually I decided this scene was no longer for me.  If your reason for gaming is solely to win, good luck maintaining a supply of opponents.

So if winning was not my reason for gaming, what was?  Very quickly I realised there was only one possible answer, fun!  So the real question became what made gaming fun for me.  There are different answers for different people.  As already discussed some people find fun in winning by doing whatever it takes.  Some people just like to throw figures on the table and see what happens.  I remember playing in one large fantasy game where people just opened their carry cases and threw out what they liked on table.  I nearly fainted on the spot, no army lists, what the heck was going on!  If your fun is found in games like that great, I wish I could, but for me things have to be a little more organised.  So what does make a game fun for me?

Playing opponents you like beyond the gaming table.  It may sound harsh but I have realised people whose company I enjoy or would enjoy on a social level make the best gaming opponents.  Life is too short to play against people you have a personality clash with, even for the sake of getting a game.  For years I struggled to find opponents but the advent of gaming communities on the internet means I now have to limit the amount of potential games I could play so that I still have some time for other things.

Games should have an element of luck.  Chess is not for me.  I love it when lady luck smiles on me and I am able to win a game that looked lost.  It also means I have something to blame for defeats when things do not go to plan.  Skill should outweigh luck.  Snakes and ladders is not my game of choice either.  In general the player using the better tactics should have the highest chance of winning.

Games should make sense within their own lore.  If I am playing a fantasy game a dragon should have more chance of destroying a mob of pitch fork armed peasants than the other way around.  It can be problematic for games without historical evidence to back up how things work but I think we all know pretty quickly if something feels right or not.

Having deeper pockets to buy more stuff should not give a better chance of winning.  I deliberately avoid games with their own dedicated model lines.  I have seen a lot of games that launch with balanced factions only for the balance to be lost when new models are released.  I can see why manufacturers do it.  They have to give you an incentive to buy their latest release but it is something I am very wary of.

Army lists and army building should influence but not decide who wins.  I fully admit to having spent hours over the years tweaking and developing army lists.   The advent of computer based army builders makes this even more fun, but a good army build should not guarantee victory before a game starts.

My ideal game is one that is closely fought with victory going to the player who has the better tactics or occasionally better luck.  Tactics are important to me.  A game that offers deep and real tactical choices is one that appeals to me above all others. Unfortunately for me at least the opportunities to play this sort of game seem to be ever decreasing.

I am amazed at how game design has improved since I started gaming.  The first rule books I used were small, closely typed in black and white with few if any illustrations.  I remember one world war two rule book that had a shooting table that involved looking for the technical name of a particular gun in a paragraph of about twenty names with ten or more paragraphs.  No one thought to give all the guns in a given category a numerical value and then put that in a table.  The quality and choice of rules and models has grown and improved enormously especially since the advent of the internet.  Not only have games improved themselves but we now all have computers and printers to make life easier.  I remember when affording to pay for photocopying out of pocket money was a real concern.  Photocopying was expensive in the early eighties!

For a long time I thought I just needed to demo games with greater tactical depth to get people interested.  I actually feel nervous when I give a game demo now.  If it does not go really well the system will never be played by that player again.  Why would they when there are so many alternative choices out there.  I realise now I was wrong in thinking that demo games would be enough to interest players in a given system.  With the multitude of games and systems available I realise most people only play the same game a handful of times in a year.  A single demo game is not enough for anyone to see the tactical depths of a given game. My current choice of sci fi rules is not decided by which rules give the greatest tactical depth but by the criteria of whether they can be understood by someone who plays the game casually a couple of times a year.

On the one hand this vast array of gaming products undreamt of in my youth is a huge blessing.  On the other it is a curse.  Barely has one system been brought to the table before people lose interest distracted by the latest game launch or kickstarter.  If you only play a given system a few times in a year you will not see the hidden delights it has to offer.  Now I do not wish to disrespect or discourage all the wonderful people in the industry bringing out new products.  If people are going to play your system I wish they would play it a bit more.  Neither do I wish to try and dictate to people what they do with their gaming time, but my suggestion is this, slow down.  If you are going to take the time to play any game, play it more than once.  Give it the time needed to fully understand the rules and explore different tactics when playing.  With the fantastic products we now have available I am pretty sure you will find there is more to the game than you thought at the end of your first game.  Who knows you might even have more fun.

Editorial - The Future of Troop Carriers

As 15mm Sci Fi continues to grow, we see an ever-increasing variety of miniatures.  Infantry, buildings, aircraft, mecha, and especially ground vehicles, are being released every month.  The variety suits us well.  Those of us who play in this scale have a huge variety of backgrounds, influences, life experiences, and expectations of our hobby.  But there is one thing  that we all have in common...

We all spend time thinking about the future.   

Yes, I know it's fairly obvious.  It's called science fiction.  We think, we conjecture, we guess, and we invent.  But more to the point - we disagree.  Sometimes it's friendly debates, and sometimes we get downright angry and combative about defending our ideas.  :)  So, in the vein of the previous discussion about prone figures, I thought it might be interesting to hear a few different ideas about future combat systems.  Our first subject?  Armored Personnel Carriers.

If you've ever ridden in one, you'd understand why
they're running out so quickly!

Discussions about vehicle design and size turn downright hostile sometimes.  Which is great in some ways - it means 15mm gamers are getting very passionate about their armies.  But turning a personal opinion into some kind of fact (which, again, we're talking Science Fiction) contributes nothing to our growing hobby.

If they look too small, and you just can't visualize them with your troops - fine!  It's your army, and there are plenty of larger vehicles.  But please believe that the designers and manufacturers know what they're doing when these vehicles are produced.  They are considering both passenger space and the ability to transport these vehicles from theater to theater.

Similarly - what's wrong with liking a vehicle, but giving it a different role?  Example: you think a Combat Wombat LAV or GZG 6-Wheel MICV feels too small to be an APC in your force, but you still like its design.  What about using it for a scout car?  Fire support or retrans vehicle?  Or on the other side, you think a Khurasan Caiman or RAFM Grav APC is too large to be a single-squad transport.  Could it be a platoon carrier?  Or a mobile Tactical Operations Center?

Getting back to the subject, let's take a look at three iconic APCs from popular science fiction.  I'm going to personally match offerings from various 15mm manufacturers with these iconic vehicles to form some general categories.  These opinions, of course, are completely mine.  :)

*     *     *     *     *

First, let's take a look at a simple battle taxi - a futuristic version of Cold War-era APCs.

Going by Games Workshop's rules and background fluff, the Rhino is a basic workhorse in the 41st millennium.  Sure, it has a few advances over today's vehicles... it can operate in a vacuum, the crew can make many basic repairs, etc.  But at its core, this isn't much different from, say, an M113.  Here's the basic facts about this type of APC:

• Armed only for self-defense
• Lightly armored
• Crams its passengers in like sardines
• Small and light enough to be transported by air/sea/space craft

However, it's fairly obvious that simple "battle taxis" are going by the wayside.  Modern armies are equipped with Infantry Fighting Vehicles instead of APCs.  The key difference?  Offensive capability - these are designed to stay with the troops instead of dropping passengers and returning home.  But modern IFVs still cram their passengers into very confined spaces; it is absolutely imperative that they can be transported to the theater of battle.

1/100 Science Fiction vehicles that I'd personally throw in this category (feel free to disagree):

• Antenociti's Workshop Hunchback and Karbardin, most of Ground Zero Games', Brigade Models', and Combat Wombat's great APCs, the Rebel Minis Wolverine, RAFM Imp, Old Crow's Claymore, Glaive, and Trojan, and Ravenstar Studios' Blazer, and Khurasan Miniatures' Yozhik, Cafferata, and Karkwagon vehicles. 

From this list, I really want to draw attention to GZG, Antenociti's Workshop, and Combat Wombat.  We sometimes see these vehicles described as "too small" for 15mm figures.  To put it bluntly - they're not.  If you've never had a chance - head to a military museum or display and stand next to modern APCs and IFVs.  They are far smaller than you may realize.  They would appear especially small if you had a 190cm diameter, 15-30cm thick disc glued to your boots!

*     *     *     *     *

On the other end of the APC design spectrum...

Let's think about the AT-AT purely in terms of the films... no Expanded Universe fluff necessary for today.  Basic facts about this type of vehicle:

• Integrated command and communications suite - a fully-fledged General has no limitations commanding the battle from one of these and staying in contact with higher headquarters
• Packed with troopers, with up to platoon-level support equipment (educated guess from the tripod laser cannon seen inside Echo Base)  
• Armor is capable of withstanding direct hits from many high-power weapon systems 
• Main armament is capable of devastating large structures.  

It's also fairly safe to say (again, excluding Expanded Universe sources) that this vehicle is designed as much for intimidation as it is utility.  Simply put... This vehicle has no contemporary Earth equivalent.  You won't see this archetype outside of science fiction (the Space Marine Land Raider being another example).

Very few equivalents in 15mm sci fi, at least so far.  Khurasan Miniatures' Alligator Assault Transport, in my opinion, is the perfect example of this archetype.  The Garn passengers are well protected by the shielding, and it clearly has enough firepower to level a small town!  I could also see the Khurasan Lion or the Old Crow Lancer as filling this role, but they could just as easily be in the next category...

*     *     *     *     *

So those are the extremes when it comes to future design philosophies.  Let's split the difference - combining what we know works today with what we think will best support military forces of the future.  Modern vehicles like the Stryker are starting to assume this role - keeping every soldier connected to a realtime battlefield grid.  This makes each vehicle a dedicated mini command center, rather than requiring separate "command post" variants of each APC.  Most of the technology for this is within our reach... I think we'll see vehicles following this design format in the next 15-30 years.  The most iconic example:

Again, we're going to ignore sources other than the film itself.  What we saw:

• Transported and protected a squad  
• Fully integrated command, control, and communications system
• Plenty of spare room for long-term sustainment, such as food, weapons, maintenance parts, and medical supplies
• Weaponry with a significant offensive punch

The movie script refers to it as an APC (Armored Personnel Carrier), which is fairly unbelievable to anyone with a reasonable level of military knowledge.  Even in the 80s, a vehicle with this design philosophy would have been designated as an IFV.  Using "APC" in the script really only leaves a few options.  It could have been a deliberate "update" of an old military term.  It could simply be slang or an informal definition (compare a 16th-century "handgonne" to a modern handgun for a good analogy).  Or, far more likely, it was a mix of the screenwriter's creative license and ignorance of basic military terminology.  

But this "APC" presents a unique blend of what's tried and tested in the 20th century, what we think early 21st century equivalents present (or should present), and what we think likely to come in the coming centuries.  Its design isn't simply to get troops into combat and then return to a base.  It's designed to stay with them, offer a mobile shelter/command post and increase their offensive capability.

I think these 15mm offerings fit this type of vehicle pretty well:

• The Khurasan Caiman is the highlight of this category... I just don't personally see it firing a few shots, dropping the troops off, and being done with its mission.  However, Khurasan Miniatures does market this vehicle as a high-tech 13-man APC, not as anything more.
• The Khurasan Atlas is another vehicle that could be seen following this design philosophy, along with the Old Crow Lancer and Critical Mass Games Kaamados transport vehicles.  Even the Critical Mass Arc Fleet transports are pretty large, and could easily serve as more than a common battle taxi.

*     *     *     *    *

Now I turn it over to you (manufacturers and sculptors - please jump in as well).  How do you like your troops to be transported?  Crammed into basic transports, neatly packed into a vehicle with some support weapons, or spaciously riding a vehicle that keeps them fully integrated with each other and their higher echelons?  What are your ideal and favorite 15mm transports?

Cheers,

Chris