Boxes are historically the weakest component for game durability -- even considering that they get the most abuse.
Until fairly recently, game manufacturers almost invariably designed boxes primarily for their marketing suitability. And you still see the effects of this focus with the kind of family games you'll see in a discount store. Large flat boxes with garish print and flimsy construction may be OK for a game of Monopoly, Sorry or Barbie Fashion Show that's fated to end up in pieces before the week is out, but it's very frustrating for serious adult gamers who expect to get years of play out of their games. I used to hate the old Avalon Hill flat boxes. They just didn't hold up to much Geek carry at all. Invariably you ended up with split ends and if you tried stacking them more than a couple high you ended up with crushed boxes. If anything the old SPI plastic flat boxes were worse. The plastic would crack, the cardboard back would come off the tray part. Just awful.
On the other hand the Avalon Hill bookcase game format and the similar Bookshelf games from 3M were great -- especially when sleeved. I have some of those games that are more than 40 years old and still intact. While AH was in business I would sometimes order replacement boxes, although I rarely ahd to do so with bookcase boxes. On the other hand my Midway box is the third one (and it's fallen apart now).
One of the salutary effects of the German game influx has been to improve the overall quality of game boxes. Even back in the 1980s when I was stationed in Germany I was struck by how much better quality the German game components were. The boxes were much sturdier as a rule.
These days, while a few wargame makers still publish boxes that won't hold up to well, the majority seem to have realized that wargames have a long life-span and the box needs to be designed accordingly. Outstanding among the publishers is GMT with its heavy duty game boxes -- I like to call them the "armored box." These seem like they'll last many a trip to cons and game buddy houses. The squarish box design used by a lot of companies now such as Hasbro, Flying Frog, Fantasy Flight, Days of Wonder and others also seems pretty durable and stackable.
Showing posts with label FFG. Show all posts
Showing posts with label FFG. Show all posts
Sunday, June 12, 2011
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Tide of Iron -- just one thing bothers me
Tide of Iron is Fantasy Flight Games' World War II tactical wargame.
It's a stunning production, of excellent overall quality and a good play as well. It's a little more abstract than most tactical combat games, but for the most part I'm comfortable with the level of abstraction.
There is, however, one aspect of the game that feels a little off to me and that is the whole "concentrated" fire vs. "suppressive" fire thing. I'm not sure what the designer is attempting to model here, given the way it's executed.
Suppression effects are, of course, quite common in 20th century combat games. Nearly universal, in fact, as getting the other guys to "put their heads down." is a key tactic under modern conditions.
But generally the suppressive effect is a byproduct of the destructive effect or, if it's an explicit goal of the firer, the firer gets usually gets some added benefit to represent the increased volume of fire. Meanwhile the destructive effect is normally diluted somewhat because the firing units are working to increase the number of bullets headed downrange and not their accuracy.
But in Tide of Iron the difference between destructive, casualty-producing fire and suppressive, morale-reducing fire is based on the intent of the firer, not on any difference at the target end. The same number of successes that would kill a figure will pin a squad instead. The same number that would rout a squad under suppressive would also eliminate it if fired at under concentrated rules. It would seem to me that suffering casualties would tend to pin a squad down, but in Tide of Iron it's an either/or situation. That just doesn't seem accurate to me.
I'm not sure why the designer felt the need to make the distinction this way. It would seem to me more valid to have the morale effects in addition to the casualty effects and if he wanted to model keep-their-head-down effects then units engaged in THAT kind of suppressive fire should get some benefit for giving up their casualty-producing effects.
I'd be interested in hearing from anyone who thinks this system makes more sense than the typical approach seen in designs as diverse as ASL and Axis & Allies: Miniatures that integrates both effects.
It's a stunning production, of excellent overall quality and a good play as well. It's a little more abstract than most tactical combat games, but for the most part I'm comfortable with the level of abstraction.
There is, however, one aspect of the game that feels a little off to me and that is the whole "concentrated" fire vs. "suppressive" fire thing. I'm not sure what the designer is attempting to model here, given the way it's executed.
Suppression effects are, of course, quite common in 20th century combat games. Nearly universal, in fact, as getting the other guys to "put their heads down." is a key tactic under modern conditions.
But generally the suppressive effect is a byproduct of the destructive effect or, if it's an explicit goal of the firer, the firer gets usually gets some added benefit to represent the increased volume of fire. Meanwhile the destructive effect is normally diluted somewhat because the firing units are working to increase the number of bullets headed downrange and not their accuracy.
But in Tide of Iron the difference between destructive, casualty-producing fire and suppressive, morale-reducing fire is based on the intent of the firer, not on any difference at the target end. The same number of successes that would kill a figure will pin a squad instead. The same number that would rout a squad under suppressive would also eliminate it if fired at under concentrated rules. It would seem to me that suffering casualties would tend to pin a squad down, but in Tide of Iron it's an either/or situation. That just doesn't seem accurate to me.
I'm not sure why the designer felt the need to make the distinction this way. It would seem to me more valid to have the morale effects in addition to the casualty effects and if he wanted to model keep-their-head-down effects then units engaged in THAT kind of suppressive fire should get some benefit for giving up their casualty-producing effects.
I'd be interested in hearing from anyone who thinks this system makes more sense than the typical approach seen in designs as diverse as ASL and Axis & Allies: Miniatures that integrates both effects.
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Will FFG's BattleLore be fish or fowl -- or remain a platypus?
Clearly the sale by Days of Wonder of all rights and inventory for the BattleLore game system to FFG won't result in any immediate changes in direction. The next expansion is produced already and existing inventory of the rest of the inventory is apparently adequate.
But DOW seems to have struggled with what direction to take BattleLore, although that struggle hasn't hurt its popularity. But there have been several changes in direction and it's unclear whether a final direction was ever decided on.
On the one hand, BattleLore is a fantasy wargame. The Lore system is the aspect of the game that most distinguishes it from its sister Commands & Colors games.
But on the other hand, it was much like a historical wargame. Creatures made little more than cameo appearances in a few scenarios. There were two non-human races -- goblins and dwarves -- with interesting characteristics, but neither was so far removed that they couldn't stand in for humans in "historical" scenarios.
Indeed, I found the whole faux historical scenario presentation kind of odd. The game seems neither fish nor fowl to me. Not enough fantasy to really be a satisfying fantasy wargame, but way too much for a strictly historical game either. Instead it resembles more of a platypus-like theme, with a strange juxtaposition of elements.
FFG will have a chance to assess the direction the game ought to go from here. The company could take it either way, as it has both history-based and fantasy-themed games in its line already. Or it could leave BattleLore a platypus, I suppose.
My sense is that players want a more fantasy-oriented game, though. There are already several more history-oriented Borg games available with Memoir '44 and C&C: Ancients (plus maybe a Napoleonic one and an updated Battle Cry) so de-emphasizing the medieval elements may be well-received. It certainly wouldn't bother me.
But DOW seems to have struggled with what direction to take BattleLore, although that struggle hasn't hurt its popularity. But there have been several changes in direction and it's unclear whether a final direction was ever decided on.
On the one hand, BattleLore is a fantasy wargame. The Lore system is the aspect of the game that most distinguishes it from its sister Commands & Colors games.
But on the other hand, it was much like a historical wargame. Creatures made little more than cameo appearances in a few scenarios. There were two non-human races -- goblins and dwarves -- with interesting characteristics, but neither was so far removed that they couldn't stand in for humans in "historical" scenarios.
Indeed, I found the whole faux historical scenario presentation kind of odd. The game seems neither fish nor fowl to me. Not enough fantasy to really be a satisfying fantasy wargame, but way too much for a strictly historical game either. Instead it resembles more of a platypus-like theme, with a strange juxtaposition of elements.
FFG will have a chance to assess the direction the game ought to go from here. The company could take it either way, as it has both history-based and fantasy-themed games in its line already. Or it could leave BattleLore a platypus, I suppose.
My sense is that players want a more fantasy-oriented game, though. There are already several more history-oriented Borg games available with Memoir '44 and C&C: Ancients (plus maybe a Napoleonic one and an updated Battle Cry) so de-emphasizing the medieval elements may be well-received. It certainly wouldn't bother me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)