One of the things I've used in the past is to assign different victory conditions to each player. These conditions are to be kept secret, players on the same side may have conditions that are conflict with each other (represent the jealousy that may exist between commanders).
@@MiniatureAdventuresTV Battle field victory is not always one of the conditions. Some of the games I've done the winning of the battle is a fore gone conclusion.
I have a similar approach to yours, most likely because I have been a DM for role-playing games for some decades now. For that reason, we use a random encounter table and a randow weather effect table (adapted from several games). We do use hidden objectives, which have led to some hilarious situations, like a game without the two main forces confronting each other. I think, and the people I play with agree, it adds realism and fun. On the question of the Marshall or umpire, most of us come from an rpg background, so we tend towards narrative heavy campaings, the story being more important than who rolled what.
Various options lend themselves to adding variety, depending on the era. I find that random(ish) weather tables which are checked for better/worse results along with wind direction & strength (mainly for affecting the use of smoke) every 5 or 10 turns, work well for say WW2. For various eras (Napoleonic in particular) I might use some random event cards (like a chance deck), which are likewise drawn every 5 or 10 turns by each side, which can have random units do random things. Unusual objectives are also good to make commanders think laterally, as do the likes of delayed arrival of forces from unexpected points.
Good ideas; online resources keep improving, allowing us to more easily bring specific details to historic scenarios that give a better overall feel for the events - like original maps or names of commanders at different levels of organization
Narrative starts with setting the scene; the why, and what, and how of the game. Then, victory conditions that allow both side to claim a victory if they achieve their goals, and lose regardless numbers of enemy troops and vehicles killed or destroyed.
Unfortunately we won't be going to Hammerhead now. Had a chat with some of my mates last week and we decided to hold off heading to Newark until Partizan in May. Excuses vary from work and family commitments to the implied threat from rolling-pin wielding partners. Discretion being the better part of valour we decided to wait until the planets were more favourably aligned. 🤕
Coming from RPGs I see it likewise. I like to roleplay my general on not to play strict tactical. Especially in fantasy a dwarven general never acts like an orcish one. Ancient generals often lead by example and Longstreet let from the front. And so you can give your commander some personality and get a quite another battle experience.
I always thought that wargaming... and wargamers... had a lot in common with "improve" theater! Everyone involved is trying to tell an interesting, coherent, plausible, story! I suppose that it is something deep in human nature to try and impose order on chaos... and war is about as chaotic as one can get!
One of the things I've used in the past is to assign different victory conditions to each player. These conditions are to be kept secret, players on the same side may have conditions that are conflict with each other (represent the jealousy that may exist between commanders).
Good idea, it means both sides strive for different things, not merely defeating each other (although that is part of the equation)
@@MiniatureAdventuresTV Battle field victory is not always one of the conditions. Some of the games I've done the winning of the battle is a fore gone conclusion.
I have a similar approach to yours, most likely because I have been a DM for role-playing games for some decades now. For that reason, we use a random encounter table and a randow weather effect table (adapted from several games).
We do use hidden objectives, which have led to some hilarious situations, like a game without the two main forces confronting each other.
I think, and the people I play with agree, it adds realism and fun.
On the question of the Marshall or umpire, most of us come from an rpg background, so we tend towards narrative heavy campaings, the story being more important than who rolled what.
Good to see I'm not alone. Some great examples of what can be done.
Various options lend themselves to adding variety, depending on the era. I find that random(ish) weather tables which are checked for better/worse results along with wind direction & strength (mainly for affecting the use of smoke) every 5 or 10 turns, work well for say WW2. For various eras (Napoleonic in particular) I might use some random event cards (like a chance deck), which are likewise drawn every 5 or 10 turns by each side, which can have random units do random things. Unusual objectives are also good to make commanders think laterally, as do the likes of delayed arrival of forces from unexpected points.
Good ideas there. I've used a variation on chance cards myself.
Good ideas; online resources keep improving, allowing us to more easily bring specific details to historic scenarios that give a better overall feel for the events - like original maps or names of commanders at different levels of organization
The internet opens a window on information wargamers would never have had access to a generation ago.
Narrative starts with setting the scene; the why, and what, and how of the game. Then, victory conditions that allow both side to claim a victory if they achieve their goals, and lose regardless numbers of enemy troops and vehicles killed or destroyed.
Absolutely, a good introduction to a game can really set the tone.
Cracking video mate as I’m in the early stages of writing a scenario for a games day
Thanks, best of luck, scenario writing can be difficult to get right.
@@MiniatureAdventuresTV hope to see you Saturday at hammerhead
Unfortunately we won't be going to Hammerhead now. Had a chat with some of my mates last week and we decided to hold off heading to Newark until Partizan in May. Excuses vary from work and family commitments to the implied threat from rolling-pin wielding partners. Discretion being the better part of valour we decided to wait until the planets were more favourably aligned. 🤕
Coming from RPGs I see it likewise. I like to roleplay my general on not to play strict tactical. Especially in fantasy a dwarven general never acts like an orcish one. Ancient generals often lead by example and Longstreet let from the front. And so you can give your commander some personality and get a quite another battle experience.
Absolutely. The character of commanders needs to come across in a game.
I always thought that wargaming... and wargamers... had a lot in common with "improve" theater! Everyone involved is trying to tell an interesting, coherent, plausible, story! I suppose that it is something deep in human nature to try and impose order on chaos... and war is about as chaotic as one can get!
Some of the best games I have had have been chaotic.