Why is historical wargaming so shit compared to 40k?
>no listbuilding
>strict organization tables
>"Command and control elements" which just means sometimes your units don't do what you want them to do, which is shitty
>pointless "patrol/reconnaissance phases" and "forward observers" and other meaningless shit that isn't needed in a game
>reliance on "flanking" and "force morale" etc instead of complex, tactical special abilities, metacurrencies and strategems seen in games like 40k
>focus on needlessly immaculate tables instead of simple pickup game tables with LOS blocking terrain due to an autistic focus on the moronic concept that is "narrative wargaming"
>filled with old people who are usually commies
Why? Why would anyone play these?
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
Here’s what (you) wanted
I don't necessarily think they are bad I'm just not interested in their setting and models. If I want WW1 or WW2 vibes I can always get 40k Imperial Guard and still shoot at aliens.
Is shooting at aliens worth the shitty gameplay and awful tank designs though?
I like the tank designs and since the ratio of time spent building and painting models to playing is 1:10 I'll take it. That said, as much as people shit on GW games (much like on 5e) for being popular, the few historical rulesets I've looked into didn't look particularly good either.
Chain of Command.
What is it that makes it so good? Why should I play that?
Many reasons.
>the patrol phase and deployment better represent the fog of war
>command and control elements are well-represented, your men are not automatons and you are not a god, you are a commander
>force morale matters
>good sniping rules
>good ambushing rules
>good tank rules
>good suppression rules
>focus on scenario play
>good sniping
>good tank rules
>good suppression rules
Only these interest me in any way. Could you give me a run-down?
>good sniping
Snipers can't be shot at unless a unit is on overwatch facing the sniper when the sniper shoots and rolls a 6 on a spotting die, and can relocate anywhere on the board if he isn't killed by this. They also inflict double shock (morale damage) and have a better chance than other units to kill unit leaders.
>good tank rules
Tanks have an armor value. They're weaker on the sides and rear. Only anti-tank weapons can hurt them, although MG fire can deal shock damage to the crew. Tanks damaged have to roll on a table based on how much damage they took, and can potentially just bail out of a heavily damaged tank before it is actually destroyed. Anti-tank weapons are very effective. However, a tank in the right spot with the right support can effectively win an engagement.
>good suppression rules
Units hit with enough firepower can and will be pinned down by enemy fire and rendered combat ineffective, though the unit's experience rating does make a unit less likely to actually buckle under fire
anon, OP is a based Chain of Command player just baiting GWdrones.
But anon chain of command is shit
>no space marines
>no xenos
>no chaos
Why would I play any wargame if it's not set in the 40k universe?
https://www.ioandaviesjohn.com/fangames-mods
>space marines
>chaos
>admittedly only orks the best xenos
You forgot to note that units can take zero combat losses but be so demoralized by enemy firepower that they end up retreating anyway.
Battlegroup
>no listbuilding
This is good, because real militaries don't "listbuild" at the scale 28mm wargames emulate. You get what you get, you MIGHT get some outside support. That's war.
>strict organization tables
See above.
>"Command and control elements" which just means sometimes your units don't do what you want them to do, which is shitty
Soldiers aren't gaming pieces you control from above, they're people who might be slow to act, might make a mistake, might mishear you, might be cut off from command in the immediate moment and be left to their own devices and just have to rely on the mission briefing and their training. That feeling is what a lot of more recently made historical wargames try to emulate
>pointless "patrol/reconnaissance phases" and "forward observers" and other meaningless shit that isn't needed in a game
You're moronic
>reliance on "flanking" and "force morale" etc instead of complex, tactical special abilities, metacurrencies and strategems seen in games like 40k
You're VERY moronic
>focus on needlessly immaculate tables instead of simple pickup game tables with LOS blocking terrain due to an autistic focus on the moronic concept that is "narrative wargaming"
You're SUPER moronic
>I can always get 40k Imperial Guard and still shoot at aliens
Fair enough though I prefer using alternate rulesets like xenos rampant rather than whatever sloppy shit GW puts out these days
>>no listbuilding
False.
organization tables
False.
>>"Command and control elements" which just means sometimes your units don't do what you want them to do, which is shitty
Is this bad? Even non historical wargames have this.
"patrol/reconnaissance phases" and "forward observers" and other meaningless shit that isn't needed in a game
Adding flavour and variations other than deployment is a fullfilling experience.
on "flanking" and "force morale" etc instead of complex, tactical special abilities, metacurrencies and strategems seen in games like 40k
There's probably less differences between different units in historicals. This kind of games go more for tactics rather than combos. It's a matter of taste.
on needlessly immaculate tables instead of simple pickup game tables with LOS blocking terrain due to an autistic focus on the moronic concept that is "narrative wargaming"
I don't even know what this means.
with old people who are usually commies
Old people? Yes. Commies? Hell no.
It's a shame you don't like them. But hey, anyone has different tastes regarding wargames. Enjoy your favourite ones. I'm happy playing both.
tards are actually biting this dumb bait baka
>bait
Yes and no. A lot of/tg/tards think the very same as OP. This is mostly due to ignorance.
The complaints are mostly valid even though OP is bait and the answer is obvious to anyone (historical games seek to simulate real battles that actually happened instead of trying to be fun as games). It is widely agreed by me that the most entertaining part of any wargame is designing your army list the way you'd design a Magic the Gathering deck or a D&D 3.X character, and other aspects are kind of unnecessary (playing the game is usually boring and painting is even more boring). It makes me wonder if it were possible to make a wargame that consists entirely of listbuilding and has none of the other parts.
It is widely agreed by me that your points are objectively wrong.
>the worst part of [miniature wargame] is the miniatures and the game
>the fun part is number crunching to find the mathematically strongest combination of statlines
Lol just play Excel you autistic homosexual
Excel is not a ttg. Excel is vidya.
not if you print sheets.
>It is widely agreed by me that the most entertaining part of any wargame is designing your army list the way you'd design a Magic the Gathering deck or a D&D 3.X character, and other aspects are kind of unnecessary
Oh good, the containment games are still working as intended
Please play a good game.
>listbuilding is the only good part of the game
What the frick are you playing, man? I am sickeningly curious.
Warhammer. At this point you build the list and the game practically plays itself. It's like candy land with guns.
Saved for future trolling and baiting purposes. Thanks anon. Have a (You).
warhammer 40k is a cringe kitchen sink setting.
it's edgy darkbad content for desperately insecure manchildren.
it's okay to like it but it's not cool.
>it's not cool
Yes it is, but also no it isn't. It's cool in the same way any grimdark pulp fiction is, which is to say it's not actually cool but it FEELS really cool and if you're willing to just let yourself be part of the goofiness it's fun.
>no listbuilding
What? Most historicals have listbuilding, unless your game is literally all preplanned scenarios you pretty much need rules for pick up games, even FFOT has points.
>strict organization tables
Depends heavily on the system and era. Either way I like strict organizations, even in 40k I don't take whatever I have pre-organized sub-units which I take in whole until I need to fill up points. Eg. three skitarii demi-companies make up a skitarii company, I won't take four skitarii demi companies unless I need to fill a gap.
>"Command and control elements" which just means sometimes your units don't do what you want them to do, which is shitty
I will agree with that honestly, needing to roll after you give an order is a shitty mechanic, even in games with command and control having a limited number or range of orders is superior to "see if the order goes through or is misunderstood"
>pointless "patrol/reconnaissance phases" and "forward observers" and other meaningless shit that isn't needed in a game
Patrol/recon phases are dumb and far from universal, forward observers makes sense and games with NLOS artillery should implement such mechanics.
>reliance on "flanking" and "force morale" etc instead of complex, tactical special abilities, metacurrencies and strategems seen in games like 40k
Ah it's a shitpost. I still think you made some legitimate points
>focus on needlessly immaculate tables instead of simple pickup game tables with LOS blocking terrain due to an autistic focus on the moronic concept that is "narrative wargaming"
This is entirely on a group by group basis. I've played historicals where that pile of books is a hill and those coasters represent woods, and of course there's 40k an BT groups who have good terrain.
>filled with old people who are usually commies
Honestly I will take that, generally older and a lot more liberal than you'd expect a group of boomers obsessed with war to be. Still more pleasant to talk to.
>Still more pleasant to talk to.
It's so odd because, at least in my experience, historical players at local shops and big get togethers are generally swell people, but historical players online tend to be some of the most bitter c**ts I've ever seen. Same deal with OSR groups really. Makes me wonder if it's just younger people trying to larp as bitter grogs for internet cool kid points.
>reliance on "flanking" and "force morale" etc instead of complex, tactical special abilities, metacurrencies and strategems seen in games like 40k
Meta currency are dogshit and you should be shot and killed like the DnD 4e World of Warcrap-loving Black person that you are.
Low IQ boomers would have a mental breakdown attempting to pilot even them most simple armies. All they do is play games with a handful of abstracted stats and throw units at each other in a mindless dice fest. Their systems are unnecessarily overly complicated for how little they can accomplish.
>All they do is play games with a handful of abstracted stats and throw units at each other in a mindless dice fest.
They play 40k?
Low quality bait
Si many replies to a bait thread
>Implying people dislike bait and shitpost
What I don't like is that as a military history enthusiast, I have no interest in being a general at a certain historical battle
I just want to paint miniatures with the correct uniforms and make them fight other miniatures whilst rolling tons of dies
Nice bait
My LGS would yell at me if I gave all of my IG dudes Union Jack Flags and called my opponents chaos marines Mahdists.
Also Perry Brothers do multipart while GW is moving away.
>while GW is moving away
Why is this a meme? It's literally not true.
I just can never get into Napoleonic or similar historicals, WW1 and 2 Historicals are my shit. Rank and file just never quite hit it for me, but I understand the appeal.