In Lieu of Figures

Miniature wargaming remain a hobby with a high entry threshold. Aside from purchasing and learning the ruleset (and possibly army lists), potential players must also buy and paint the figures necessary to play. This daunting challenge can dampen established wargamers’ enthusiasm for trying new systems or genres and can deter newcomers from entering the hobby. (All this assumes players don’t already have a collection of appropriately scaled and based minis for the period.)

Some miniature wargamers might balk at the thought of anyone playing the game with anything but fully painted miniatures; but alternatives should exist to remove one obstacle in encouraging those seeking to enter and pursue the hobby, at least so they can play among their friends, become familiar with the rules, and begin forming some basic strategies of their own.

Miniature wargame players can try several strategies to create their own “pieces” to represent individual figures or stands of figures used in a game:

Flat: A flat piece can represent the area covered by a particular unit or individual figure (depending on the game system requirements). Mounting it on cardstock or corrugated cardboard can make it easier to maneuver than simple paper. Flat pieces remain the easiest to create, print, and mount.

Tented: Create a three-dimensional piece made from paper or cardstock folded three times into a “tent” with an appropriately sized base. These stand up from the playing surface, making them easier to handle and giving them more of a presence on the gaming table. They can also serve to hide their true nature in games using “fog of war” rules with the unit designation printed only on one side of the tent, with a blank side facing the opponent.

Cardstock Figures: Using a properly sized flat base (corrugate or foam core work best), mount a crowd of individual cardstock figures by sliding them into slits in the base, gluing or taping them in place, or using some other method of affixing them upright. This method is useful if the game rules require removal of figures from the unit base to show reduced strength.

Graphics on these pieces can vary depending on the amount of time invested and personal play preferences. The more time spent creating pieces, the better they look on the game table:

Tactical Symbols: Use standard military symbols to denote the nature of various units…infantry, cavalry, artillery, tanks, mechanized infantry, etc. Most military history books (such as the fantastic publications from Osprey) use these symbols to show unit movement during historical battles, so they have some air of martial legitimacy.

Mass Graphics: Though a single illustration representing the unit might suffice to clearly mark a piece (and would work for a piece representing a single soldier or vehicle), a graphic showing the mass elements of the unit looks more authentic on the tabletop. Printing, mounting, and cutting out cardstock figures to insert into a flat base takes mass graphics option one step further.

Illustration Sources

Searching online for “military symbols” brings up a wealth of resources, enough knowledge to players to create their own symbols for pieces. The more search-engine savvy might look for free fonts featuring military unit symbols or silhouettes for various soldiers and vehicles.

The Junior Generals website offers a host of figures -- both to cut out and mount on pieces or top-down views – for nearly any historical period. The site also provides wargaming scenarios using the pieces with basic rules intended for teaching young people about different historical eras.

Patrick Crusiau’s figures page archives a host of his past creations, all full-color figures intended to cut, glue, and base (and he includes a handy PDF guide illustrating this process). He offers an extensive variety of figures evenly distributed across historical periods (Greek, Roman, medieval, Renaissance, American Civil War, Napoleonic) and popular genres (medieval fantasy, science fiction, pulp, horror, consipiracy).

The Models and Miniatures in Paper Archive presents a range of figures, mostly for fantastic genres but including a few historical, including soldiers, ships, and even three-dimensional vehicle models. The quality sometimes vary, but the figure sets display a healthy diversity. History gamers might enjoy figures for Zulus, the War of 1812, samurai, and World War II forces.

Cardboard Warriors Forum offers a community for cardboard figure aficionados where one can also find links to sites with other figures, tips and templates for creating original ones, and discussions, advice, and requests about the hobby.

Miniature wargaming remains inherently a richly visual medium, one which stands out at conventions by the sheer scope of the terrain and military forces arrayed on the playing surface; creating original pieces to represent units not yet purchased and painted enables players to dive into a new game with minimal preparation and fuel their enthusiasm for full outfitting their armies.

Boardgame Scott Moves

One of the leading and most prolific game scholars, Dr. Scott Nicholson, associate professor at Syracuse University’s School of Information Studies, recently wrapped up his popular Boardgames with Scott video blog series to move onto other endeavors: pursuing other scholarly projects related to games and contributing his academic insights to Boardgameinfo.com.

Dr. Nicholson’s Boardgames with Scott series ran for five years and produced 70 videos during which the jovial game enthusiast honestly evaluates game contents, offers an overview of game rules, and gives his opinion on who might best enjoy the particular kind of gameplay. Each episode provides a firsthand look at games people might want to try playing. All 70 videos remain archived on the Boardgames with Scott for future reference; regrettably Dr. Nicholson won’t produce any more, but he remains involved in gaming scholarship through venues accessible to everyone online.

For an example of his more academic work with games, check out the Gaming in Libraries course Dr. Nicholson produced and offered online in June 2009. The video “classes” examine various elements of running games at libraries, both traditional “analog” games with boards and pieces, and “digital” games on computers and electronic gaming consoles. The website archives all 22 classes (plus several follow-up videos). Even for those who aren’t interested in running gaming programs at libraries, the course shines a light on aspects of gaming players don’t often consciously consider but which remain part of one’s gaming experience. Dr. Nicholson took the scholarship developed for the course and expanded on it in a book, Everyone Plays at the Library.

Dr. Nicholson now publishes new material at BoardGameInfo.com as “The Game Professor,” one of several series exclusive to the site. In his video introduction, Dr. Nicholson outlines his hopes to use this feature to showcase how board game design can serve as an educational tool and offer a forum to present aspects of his current scholarship regarding gaming. Thus far his contributions have consisted of two posts, “Games and Game Experiences” and “The Cult of the New and Game Design Implications,” plus links to videos featuring several of Dr. Nicholson’s academic presentations.

Dr. Nicholson’s presentations -- whether in text or video, game overview or course lecture -- bring the scholarship of game design and experience to a level everyone can understand. Many concepts bring his audience to some realization about games, a subtlety just below the surface of the conscious game experience but one that makes perfect sense. For instance, in “Games and Game Experiences,” when confronted with the question of his favorite games, he explains it’s not simply the physical game in the box that matters, but a “game experience,” in his words, “a combination of the game, the players, and the context in which the game is played.” It’s a simple concept, but one gamers don’t always consciously realize; and when players bear this in mind, they can take it into account in improving their own game experience.

BoardGameInfo.com seems like a newer website providing news, articles, and reviews of board games; at first glance it seems to have a similar mission as Boardgamegeek.com, though with decidedly different approaches. At the very least it provides a venue for Dr. Nicholson to share his valuable scholarly insights into the world of board games with the general, internet public.

Nostalgia for B-17

B-17 Queen of the Skies was an innovative game for its day, combining solitaire play with a basic war game that, despite relying heavily on die rolls, managed to simulate the daunting hazards Allied aircraft crews faced during World War II daylight bombing raids.

An area theater recently screened Twelve O’clock High and I managed to get the night off to watch it on the big screen. The film focuses more on the human cost of the American daylight bombing raids on Germany, with pre-mission tensions running high and ground crews waiting to see how many planes return; but toward the climax the movie includes some intense sequences for the only bomb raid depicted, a narrative collage of studio-filmed action merged with actual period aerial combat footage.

The film reminded me of the old Avalon Hill game, B-17 Queen of the Skies, and I gave in to my nostalgia to pull the slim-boxed game off the shelf and reminisce over its contents. I bought it way back when I was in high school and played it a few times. Solitaire games in general can sometimes serve as little more than exercises in game mechanics, but with compelling stories or settings can momentarily immerse a single player in the game world for an entertaining experience.

B-17 Queen of the Skies simulates daylight bombing missions over occupied Europe, with the solitaire player in command of a four-engine B-17 bomber and its crew. The game’s basic mechanic randomizes the number, location, and type of enemy aircraft assaulting the player’s B-17, modified by how deep into enemy territory the mission takes the formation and whether escort fighters help engage enemy forces on the way to shorter-range objectives. A host of charts, die rolls, and effects tables leads the player’s crew through flak and fighter attacks, all plotted on mission and campaign logs. This element of record keeping (tracking target accuracy, aircraft damage, and various gunners’ kills plus their own injuries and deaths) gives players the feeling of keeping a captain’s log book. Looking at the campaign record shows the imprecision of daylight bombing, the low number of enemy fighters downed during missions, and the high rate of crew injury and death.

My feelings for B-17 Queen of the Skies remain nostalgic, but one could see how playing the game in a classroom setting, even flying multiple bombers on missions, might demonstrate on a personal level the hazards of daylight bombing in World War II.

B-17 Queen of the Skies stands among the first board games to offer entirely solitaire play (roleplaying games and non-game “pick-a-path” adventure books having tread there only slightly earlier). Other war games often provided a rating for “solitaire suitability” or gave alternate rules for playing solo, but few catered solely to single person play. Only a handful of other solitaire wargames reached the market, most notably Victory Games’ Ambush! and West End Games’ RAF: August 1940, The Battle of Britain, both designed by John Butterfield.

Where roleplaying games rely on “programmed” adventures, sending players to different entries based on their choices and die rolls, solitaire board games rely on internal mechanics to run adversaries, obstacles, and other challenges. The concept has been ported to “cooperative” games where all the players struggle against a common adversary; one of the best, most recent examples of these remains Gamewright’s Forbidden Island.

In our modern times, of course, computers can simulate opponents in many games, giving rise to an unstoppable horde of computer games players can enjoy on their own in a trend that further endangers the survival of “analog” board and war games.

Know of an interesting solitaire or cooperative game with innovative systems to handle adversaries? Drop us a line so we can investigate and profile it.

Games with the Best Replay Value

Games today often come with high price tags; gamers can feel somewhat disappointed when they play a new title only a few times before it becomes stale. For some, replay value stands high on their list of requirements for new game purchases.

Many board games have limited replay value. Gamers can mix play styles and participants to vary the action, but the base rules, elements, and goals remain the same. Similar problems accompany most traditional wargames, unless the game covers a wide scope of battle scenarios (see “Battle Games” below). Even collectible card games have limitations among deck combinations and opponents.

Several game genres deliver the best replay value for the game’s price:

Battle Games

Battle games like Memoir ’44, Battle Cry, and Battles of Napoleon create extended replay value by offering different engagements gamers can play. The rules contain a host of scenarios covering the most important clashes from a period; two players can replay numerous battles from the rulebook, create their own skirmishes, or find fan-designed engagements online, extending the game’s replay life beyond a basic two-player board game.

Battle games are extremely light versions of traditional wargames and miniature gaming, combining the most basic wargaming concepts with components and rules more suited to board gamers. Rules for these games seem very comprehensive, but overall gameplay isn’t any more complex than most Euro-style board games. Many come with a price tag higher than an individual board game, but they include everything needed to play a series of battles: high-quality components like full-color boards, cards, terrain tiles, illustrated rules abounding with examples, and detailed, sculpted plastic pieces portraying units on each side (much like miniature army men). These do not require additional work painting miniatures or crafting terrain like their miniature wargaming cousins. Some games (notably Memoir ’44) sell expansions to add new forces and terrain, further increasing replay possibilities.

Invest in a battle game from a period that interests the players; it’s a good way to learn about the history, technology, and tactics of the era through extended campaign play.

Why Not Miniatures Games? Miniatures games offer great replay opportunities, particularly when one considers the wealth of historical or hypothetical engagements to recreate; however, the buy-in for such games remains high, often including expensive rulebooks, army books, and miniatures, plus the time spent painting miniature and crafting terrain. Miniature wargames remain a great hobby, but require a bit too much cash, time, and effort for the casual gamer to undertake. For those wishing to check out this hobby, joining a game at a convention (and playing with someone else’s toys) is the best option.

Collectible Miniatures Games

Games like the Axis & Allies Miniatures Game and Axis & Allies: War at Sea provide great looking components and good replay value given the different combinations of forces one can muster. The basic sets include rules, maps boards, and units sufficient to play a few engagements, and booster packs add random components for all forces involved in World War II. An online community and product support offers a wealth of historical scenarios to play. Players can create customized forces from their armies to face off on different terrain maps using unit point values.

The rules are a little more complex than battle games, and they don’t always include scenarios, since by the games’ collectible natures, players don’t always have a common set of components to run battles. Most rules offer some objectives and victory conditions applicable to almost any engagement between different forces; online scenarios for historical battles often require players to posses specific units.

At first these games don’t seem to have the huge price tag of battle games, but as collectible miniatures games, players must buy booster packs to get a random selection of units to further enhance the basic set components. This can add up, especially when considering the random nature of booster packs; players never quite know if they’ll get the components they want. For instance, if players want to run tank battles in North Africa, they gamble that they’ll get  English and German tanks and not Russian infantry, French artillery, or American marines.

Roleplaying Games

Roleplaying games have the best replay value since, by their nature, they rely more on the participants’ imaginations rather than physical components one must purchase. With just the basic rulebooks good gamemasters can create their own scenarios and campaigns without additional supplements (though those can certainly enhance the play experience).

Although prices for basic rulebooks vary, at most they cost about the same as popular Euro-games. Roleplaying games cover the vast range of genres to interest players, often with mechanics ranging from moderate to complex. Most roleplaying games today have a wealth of online resources, from official support at publisher websites to fan sites with forums, PDF files, and unofficial optional rules.

Roleplaying games require a bit more work than most board games. Players must familiarize themselves with the game rules and universe, though choosing a familiar or licensed setting can help. Gamemasters must invest greater effort either in creating adventures or becoming well-versed in the setting to run off-the-cuff games.

Roleplaying games don’t fall into the familiar concept of games most average folks maintain; they expect boards and pieces, not books, character sheets, and funny looking dice, with action taking place through conversation and imagination. They require a bit more rules knowledge, character acting, and general openness to new gaming paradigms, but the replay value remains the highest of other games.