[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / agatha2 / animu / doomer / jenny / mde / sw / vichan / x ]

/tg/ - Traditional Games

8chan's leading board in actual discussion
Winner of the 75nd Attention-Hungry Games
/caco/ - Azarath Metrion Zinthos

March 2019 - 8chan Transparency Report
Comment *
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Show oekaki applet
(replaces files and can be used instead)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, swf, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.

/tg/ sister boards
[ • /quests//cyoa//erp//monster//his//wh40k//arda//builders//sw//strek/ • ]

File: 61a2f685d718943⋯.png (6.11 KB, 312x162, 52:27, images.png)


What are your reccomendations for military strategy board games? I'm not talking about figurine based games, I mean proper games that use tokens and are actually deep and don't require me to spend 50 bucks on a starter set. The only one I know of is Stratego and Chess. Can't consider Risk a strategy game because winning because you got a good roll isn't strategy.



>military strategy

Besides the unit names and looks chess is hyper abstract to the point where it no longer resembles any real military past or present.



>Besides the unit names and looks chess is hyper abstract to the point where it no longer resembles any real military past or present

I don't remember where I read/heard it first, and the article/person could have been talking right out of their ass with little to no actual evidence behind it, but I recall that Chess actually isn't a game about military strategy but actually a game about diplomacy and politicking. Essentially the entire idea of the game boils down to "giving gifts" for a better position(i.e. sacrificing game pieces for better board advantage) until the opposing king is trapped and unable to perform another action. Which is why we don't kill the opposing king as expected.

Again it's probably completely bullshit but at the very least it's a theory that's fun to play around with.



Makes sense. Goes with the idea of the gentleman's wars of the middle ages. More about exacting ransoms of territory and gold than killing.



Hence why around WW2 almost every war involved nation invented their own version of chess adopted for the time.


File: d17fb37c5c816bd⋯.png (2.87 MB, 1000x1000, 1:1, Jiaocheng province turn 8.png)


It's fun, it's a real military strategy training tool and it was used to simulate and win the Franco-Prussian war before it happened for real.

You can find various versions on the web and even purchase some sets, or you can use a little brain power and construct your own. The most fun I've ever had running a tg was playing a basic version of Kriegspiel over 8ch; set in Warlords Era China, the players knew the approximate location of their forces but had to guess and politick for the location of others, deal with supply lines, stealth, fortifications etc. It got very involved and I ended up running a few turns every few days, rather than the traditional real-time variant where you have an umpire and aides running around giving bits of paper to different people in different rooms, but was a great experience.



How the fuck do I get people to play that with?



Do you still have the rules to your version of the game, anon? I'd love to give them a look over and run the game for a couple of my wargaming buds over play by post.


File: fc3b2bf65215d03⋯.png (125.07 KB, 434x396, 217:198, 17c chinky englander.png)


either online or if you're lucky you'll have local gaming groups, I had a whole club of ex-Ministry of Defence wargamers nearby at my previous home.


I'll sort out my notes in a mo, I wouldn't recommend using this version though as it was far too involved for one GM - I was tracking individual soldiers and ammo counts, letting players split companies from battalions, perform nonstandard actions etc, with the idea that the game wasn't a campaign-level kriegsspiel but a single battlefield.

Working on a proper set of rules for an Ancient Briton version which should be a lot faster to run.


File: a552d2b7532ef93⋯.png (7 KB, 492x300, 41:25, Dadao Night Raid.png)

Note that this was an experimental game and rules were being changed and created during play, this is just a tidied up sample of my notes, all of the rules and lists and some examples of play. It should be enough to get a basic idea but is definitely not something to follow 100%.



YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

Take the whole lot as a rough example of what an internet kriegsspiel can be like, I recommend building a rigid set of rules first, possibly using the official kriegsspiel rules, but it's probably easier and cheaper to make your own.






YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

That last article contains an overview of the basic ideas and mechanics of kriegsspiel and is a must-read.


File: ea69ad114c55a5e⋯.png (67.63 KB, 600x660, 10:11, 600px-Xiangqi_Board.svg.png)

Xiangqi, Chinese chess. Unfortunately, the pieces are wooden disks with Chinese characters on them, so if you don't know Chinese, you'll have to memorize your way through the game. It's descended from the same game as chaturanga and western chess. Plays similarly, but the pieces are different.

Even though the writing is different for the different sides, the pieces are the same. Here's how to play:

Just like chess, you're trying to checkmate the king, or 'general,' the piece in the bottom center.

See the 2x2 box with the 'x' in it that the king's at the back of? That's the castle. The king can't leave the castle, ever, and can't move diagonally and can only move one space. The two pieces next to it are the guards, who can move one space diagonally and also can't leave the castle.

The pieces right next to the castle are the elephants. The elephants can move exactly two spaces diagonally, but, see that empty row in the middle? That's the river. The elephants can't cross the river. They also can't jump pieces and must move two spaces to capture, too, so if an enemy unit is one space away, diagonally, the elephant just can't move that way.

Outside that are the knights (the writing means 'horse'). They move just like in western chess except that putting a piece adjacent to it can block its movement. For example, in the opening position, the knights cannot move in front of the guards, because the elephant blocks its lateral movement. If a piece were placed in front of one, it would be stuck. Like the elephants, a knight cannot capture a piece blocking it.

Outside that are the rooks (Chinese means 'chariot'), which move just like chess rooks.

The pieces across the front are the pawns. They move just like chess pawns with two exceptions: They capture the way they move (so they can't block each other), and a pawn that has crossed the river can move sideways (but not backward). Pawns cannot be promoting in xiangqi.

The other two pieces are the cannons (originally catapults). They move like rooks, but they must jump over one, and exactly one, piece to capture, meaning in the starting picture, they can capture the knight on the other side of the opponent's cannon, but cannot capture the opponent's cannon, nor can they move past a piece in the way without capturing something on the other side.

The only other weird rule is the 'flying general' rule. If two generals are across from each other with no intervening pieces, the general whose turn it is may leap to the other side of the battlefield to capture the opposing general. In practice, that means you cannot make a move such that the two generals are facing each other in this manner, as per the rules for not putting yourself in check.




>tfw Go is abstract enough to have universal appeal, not just western appeal

>tfw weebs shill for this and shogi instead because Go isn't weeb enough

All it would take is a proper translation of all the specialized weeb jargon.



I can play Stratego instead. Instead of mice and elephants you have Marshalls and spies.


File: 0fc223af995da9b⋯.jpg (18.25 KB, 570x206, 285:103, 20180826.jpg)

File: 1c82a99b9a41427⋯.jpg (158.89 KB, 850x1204, 425:602, 20180827.jpg)

File: a885e41d3b9f19d⋯.jpg (46.87 KB, 510x688, 255:344, 20180902.jpg)


>Can't consider Risk a strategy game because winning because you got a good roll isn't strategy.

That's the RISK. Haha



Fuck off with that shitpost.



Conquest of Nerath is solid, until you figure out how dragons work. But making a house rule or two can help fix it.

Does anyone know if Cthulhu Wars is any good?


File: 0fbcda3bf59ccb9⋯.jpg (40.88 KB, 400x425, 16:17, finnishman.jpg)

>all this fantasy gay shit

I just want a fucking good wargame damn it.



Welp, if fantasy holds good wargames, then you've got your wish! :^ ]



You mean that piling all your units in a single country and steamrolling retards that actually try to play tactically is not a viable strategy?


File: c8d7bc09d78e5ad⋯.png (1.13 MB, 1357x765, 1357:765, Wario gets swole.png)


If the game allows me to do actual strategy, espionage, guerrilla, production is not a dumb thing where all you do is buy factories the first moment you can and just wait 3 turns to get your money back, there's actual logistics instead of the half-assed shit you get all the time, intelligence (as in knowledge of the enemy's strength/qualities/position/resources...) is a big deal and makes splitting units rather than having them all in the same spot a viable strategy (obviously depending on the context of the moment, to split up is not wise when one is going to confront directly the enemy, but it can be good for flanking and not getting obliterated by artillery and bombarders), then I can consider that an actual strategy game, be it a video game or a board game. Main reason I consider fucking Worms more of a strategy game than Risk, for example.

Risk has to be the board game with the least amount of strategy I have ever fucking played, even Pokémon is deeper for fuck's sake.





>I had a whole club of ex-Ministry of Defence wargamers nearby at my previous home.

You lucky, lucky, lucky bastard! I would kill for a group like that.



Look at the modules for VASSAL, most of those are some sort of strategy, most of the rest some sort of tactics.


Birthright as RPG/strategy has economy, politicking and random events (and some character-scope adventuring) between and during wars as such.


Invidious embed. Click thumbnail to play.


You do more then just roll dice.


Holy shit all you fags don't know what good wargames look like.


Check out Paths of Glory (card driven wargame about WW1, 2 player), Cuba Libre (4 player, about the Cuban Revolution), Command & Colors Napoleonics (2 player block wargame about the Napoleonic Wars), and Combat Commander Europe (hex and chit wargame about WW2, 2 player)


YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.


What /tg/ game does fog of war well? After all, communication breakdown is a prelude to invasion...


I've been patiently waiting ever since this thread was made for someone to mention axis and allies. I was raised on that game, and I know in comparison to risk, it has far more strategy to it. Only drawback is keeping hold of all the pieces. There's hundreds of little men/tanks/ships/planes and when you have four people playing is just too easy to get a piece or two knocked off the table. I played the original, but found out a few years back they made smaller instances, like The Battle of the Bulge, for faster sessions. I'd guess you're looking at a four hour match, seeing as the OG version took around 10-20 depending on how many players and nations you had in the mix.



Love that map!

How had you done it? Can you share the original file?

[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / agatha2 / animu / doomer / jenny / mde / sw / vichan / x ]