Whats Wings of War board game like?

[acbw]

dglewwe. I have been a wargamer for the last 45 year and 15 years in the military engaging in peace keeping and active service. Yes it is quite true that wargaming does not accuratly reflect the true experience of war, and I am glad of that or I would not be able to enjoy the hobby. Having said that, the theaters I saw peace keeping and active sevice in I cannot game. I am also quite sure that there are other gamers who could not play in a game which they saw service in. Furthermore for the same reason I do not engage in computor shoot them up games or play paint ball. For me wargaming is a (to put it in military terms) a tactical exercise without troops. Something I do for fun. I enjoy the WoW miniatures game for what it is, a game.

[dglewwe]

I guess my retraction didn't occur soon enough --thank you, Angiolillo, for reading past the snarkiness and taking little harm from my ill-chosen words.

To be clear: I have absolutely no problem with the fun of WoW, and do not in any way mean to give that impression. Many/most players have stated their feelings in those terms, eg:
"I enjoy the WoW miniatures game for what it is, a game."
...and I believe that debating that declaration to be futile (and more than a bit silly).

It's when I see statements like:
"These are the best aircraft rules I have used. They...do simulate WW1 air combat."
...that my interest spikes and I wonder (as both a flying and gaming enthusiast) : Okay...why is it the best? What aspect of WW1 aircombat does it simulate?

Aside from the trappings (ie: pictures and/or models of the era) the similarities elude me. This, of course, doesn't mean they don't exist: it's just that I can't see them --so I'm asking for other's insights/POVs to guide my eyes.

The motivation for this questioning comes from a discussion on a gaming site regarding vague declarations of "historical accuracy" that fail to identify/highlight the specifics that are being modelled and/or point to the source(s) of those features. It is pretty much agreed that no game can do all things (much less do them all well), but it's difficult to judge its success if the aim of the design is unknown.

This is a bit different in that it is the players' opinions of historical accuracy --rather than those of the designer-- that are the subject of discussion. If Angiolillo wants to weigh in, great! -but it is mostly the impressions of the game's users that interest me.


To be fair, I will state upfront that I'm not much of a fan of the "point and shoot" style of flight-sim aircombat game --I believe way too much of players' energy/gametime is wasted on the bootcamp-level tedium of flying the aircraft-- so I will need to keep kicking myself to avoid dismissing the idea out-of-hand and keep an open mind: if I fail, a gentle nudge on my rear is recommended!

ps- in the interest of fairness (re: equal-opportunity criticism) those who wish to take me to task for my own effort (albeit amatuer) in design can do so at http://www.miniaturewargaming.com/in...ewthread/1403/

[Evzone]

For what its worth, we have a small group that meets once a week at work during lunch breaks and we adore the game. We treat it as a game, a distraction from reality for an hour or two and have fun doing it, swapping stories and laughing at those whose fate befalls the explosion card

[dglewwe]

"...adore the game...treat it as a game..."

Exactly my point: it's a great game! It's the "simulation" claims that I'm curious about.

It's similar to the concurrent discussion on "best sim/game" --I can recognize and respect ratings for games, but have trouble with the simulation accolades, especially for a computer game. Though my experience is very limited, I still feel that "flying" a WW1 sim is to the real thing as dryer lint is to sex: either you've not experienced the latter or, if so, had encountered a very poor example of it. Therefore, the "best" computer flight sim is still, IMO, a hopelessly bad representation of flying (in regards to open-cockpit stuff of the era).

As to gaming: I believe that, as a player, the mental challenges faced by the pilot are more interesting than the physical ones. Therefore, a game should highlight those (by making them the chief task/time-occupier for the players) and keep the tedious, mechanical process of pointing the aircraft to a minimum. Just my opinion, of course, YMMV.

[sightreader]

Originally Posted by dglewwe

Exactly my point: it's a great game! It's the "simulation" claims that I'm curious about.

OK, I think this might be a good time to stop and take a deep breath... you're starting to perseverate! LOL...

[dglewwe]

LOL

...just a voracious learner, that's me. ; )

...was an annoying child with lots of questions, and now an annoying (sort-of)adult --the process never ends.

[acbw]

dglewwe as a Sociologist may I surgest that you read Pierre Bourdieu (1979)Distinction - A social critique of the judment of tast please understand that I am not mocking you by surgesting this book, I honestly belive it may answer your questions

[Lt_Cheerios]

WoW as it is often called by players and those fond of acronyms, is a medium difficulty tabletop card/minitures game which uses maneuver decks of different ratings, and attack/defense decks (A & B) for fighters and two-seaters. The cards are drawn ahead in secret (3 cards) by each player and then revealed one at a time, to create a new position for all aircraft on the board.
If there is really a board game type version of this game, I am completely ignorant of it. Miniatures are available for a selection of the planes, already painted and ready to use representing many if the famous aces in one of their favorite aircraft types. Damage decks and markers are used to resolve gunfire resulting from shots of opportunity.
This is a well defined game, though it leaves out some details and vastly simplifies deflection and vertical arcs of fire, in fact to the point of nearly eliminating altitude considerations in the basic game. The stands do not allow the planes to be posed, and the minitures are expensive and in limited production. On the PLUS side, it plays fast and allows for a large number of players and different types of aircraft to be used in the card version of the game.
I've played it and it is defintely worth buying one or more of the basic sets if you have any interest in gaming World War I dogfights.

Tag me back if you have more questions on WWI gaming or minitures in 1/285, 1/144, or 1/300, as I have a lot of original model products. Happy flying!

[dglewwe]

"... as a Sociologist may I surgest that you read Pierre Bourdieu (1979)[U]Distinction..."

Dunno...the book is about tastes: which I interpret to mean opinion --and in that regard I have no dispute with those who post their likes (or dislikes) concerning WoW as a good game.

As a (hobby) game designer interested in the simulation aspect of the genre, I am specifically curious about the posts/claims made regarding the historical accuracy/representation made by the game --not how fun it is.

The two qualities (fun and simulation) are, perhaps, mutually exclusive: but I believe that adding a bit more of the latter (without harming the former) is a good thing in game design. Again I will state: a game need not have any "accuracy" in order to be a good game --but I am sincerely curious about the hows and wheres that people use to support their contention that (in this case) WoW is a stand-out representation of simulation/accuracy.

In a nutshell: Good game? Yes --it only requires enjoyment during play to qualify for that, and WoW has that in spades. But good simulation? That's where I draw a blank, and ask those who've made such claims (and any other interested bystanders!) to point me to sources/thinking that will help my (admittedly slow) mind grasp the ideas and understand the workings --if for no other reason than to give me the chance to insert those qualities into my own games to make them better!

This, and all other board games, especially tabletop and RPGs, are a colossal waste of time. Grow up, fer Chrissake.