There have been a number of interesting threads on twitter and some blogs discussing or raising issues with various game mechanisms in Chain of Command with regards to dice. Essentially around the situation where one party takes a pre-game barrage or Stukas and the other fails to deploy or have a meaningful impact on the game. I have found them very interesting and to my mind it raises the question of tactics and friction, and realism.
I have had one experience of a particularly frustrating in-game barrage (here) and at the time I got rather annoyed at it. I felt I was beaten by a game mechanism rather than my opponent. When I reflected on the game later, what beat me was my own attitude. I ran out of ideas or my brain shut down and I couldn't/didn't think through the problem. Was the game an enjoyable experience? at the time no, but on reflection it was. I got to spend time with my mate, play with my toys and terrain that I spent ages working on. I got beaten by my own attitude, and my opponent utilising sensible tactics to assault a position.
So when I read about issues on enjoying a wargame when things are going badly I now feel it is down to that person and their attitude.
If you want realism in your games you have to accept that if you put yourself in the position of a commander with a very difficult task, expect that things may well go against you, and sometimes in a catastrophic way. In war you don't always get to do what you want, sometimes the enemy is more effective than you and that is before we even consider friction.
It is a natural reaction to be annoyed/irritated etc when things don't go our way, and I suspect the easiest reaction is to blame the dice, game mechanisms, over-powered units than to perhaps admit that our own attitude was found wanting. I doubt many will agree with me as it is easier to blame the abstract such as an ability to roll dice or a mechanism that prevented me deploying.
There is a reason that in the British Army, good humour is prized. Being cheerful in woeful situations is more useful than being the fastest, strongest or best shot. Too Fat Lardies rules really emphasize this on the table, perhaps it is worth thinking about that as we stand by those tables. Your mood turning sour can ruin your opponents game, is it really worth bringing down what should be a fun time because you aren't getting your own way?
And let's be clear, that is what it comes down to. It may be framed as bad dice, poor mechanics or inadequate rules, but regardless of those the one thing we can bring to any game or rule set is a positive disposition. Yes we all want to be competitive but it is not hard to be good humoured in defeat. If things are going well for your opponent and not for you, smile, chin up and let him enjoy it. By all means keep thinking and planning about how to ruin it, but let that happen on the table and not your face.
You may feel like nothing is going your way and the game itself is broken. So what. The commanders in history faced worse and kept plugging away. There are few things more toxic in leadership than a poor attitude.
Maybe we need to reset our outlook, because frankly shit happens and war is not fair.
I have had one experience of a particularly frustrating in-game barrage (here) and at the time I got rather annoyed at it. I felt I was beaten by a game mechanism rather than my opponent. When I reflected on the game later, what beat me was my own attitude. I ran out of ideas or my brain shut down and I couldn't/didn't think through the problem. Was the game an enjoyable experience? at the time no, but on reflection it was. I got to spend time with my mate, play with my toys and terrain that I spent ages working on. I got beaten by my own attitude, and my opponent utilising sensible tactics to assault a position.
So when I read about issues on enjoying a wargame when things are going badly I now feel it is down to that person and their attitude.
If you want realism in your games you have to accept that if you put yourself in the position of a commander with a very difficult task, expect that things may well go against you, and sometimes in a catastrophic way. In war you don't always get to do what you want, sometimes the enemy is more effective than you and that is before we even consider friction.
It is a natural reaction to be annoyed/irritated etc when things don't go our way, and I suspect the easiest reaction is to blame the dice, game mechanisms, over-powered units than to perhaps admit that our own attitude was found wanting. I doubt many will agree with me as it is easier to blame the abstract such as an ability to roll dice or a mechanism that prevented me deploying.
There is a reason that in the British Army, good humour is prized. Being cheerful in woeful situations is more useful than being the fastest, strongest or best shot. Too Fat Lardies rules really emphasize this on the table, perhaps it is worth thinking about that as we stand by those tables. Your mood turning sour can ruin your opponents game, is it really worth bringing down what should be a fun time because you aren't getting your own way?
And let's be clear, that is what it comes down to. It may be framed as bad dice, poor mechanics or inadequate rules, but regardless of those the one thing we can bring to any game or rule set is a positive disposition. Yes we all want to be competitive but it is not hard to be good humoured in defeat. If things are going well for your opponent and not for you, smile, chin up and let him enjoy it. By all means keep thinking and planning about how to ruin it, but let that happen on the table and not your face.
You may feel like nothing is going your way and the game itself is broken. So what. The commanders in history faced worse and kept plugging away. There are few things more toxic in leadership than a poor attitude.
Maybe we need to reset our outlook, because frankly shit happens and war is not fair.
