By the Numbers: Collection analysis and classification by divers methodologies – Part III

  

Note: This is the third part of my indulgent – and questionable in value – analysis of my wargame collection. In Part I, I broke the collection down by publisher (spoiler alert, GMT was the clear winner, but Compass. Worthington and dark horse Legion Wargames are making headway), and historical period (based on the 2022 Charles S. Roberts Awards divisions, which I take issue with, but we work with what we have). In Part II, I broke it down into One-off games, Series rules, and Expansions (items dependent on another complete base-game).

In this final part, I’ll look at the collection through the lens of Mode (introduced as categories in the 2023 Charlies), and, perhaps most tellingly, player count. I was a little surprised by the first, though I shouldn’t have been when I thought about it. The second confirmed what I had suspected.

 

I’m not partial to the term “mode” for use in defining the general scale of a game, in reference to whether a game I broadly tactical, operational or strategic, or residing in a grey area somewhere between. But “scale” is inappropriate too because you can’t assume a divisional level game plays out operationally simply because of the scale of the formations involved. Gradation would not work for the same reason while hierarchy wrongly hints that each level up is somehow more important or more serious. I’m beginning to see why the Charles S. Roberts Awards selection committee went with Mode. But I am glad they introduced this tier of awards. Hmm. Maybe “Tier” would work? Let me get back to you on that.

My favourite mode of game of play would be Operational, but I don’t seem to get the chance all that often. There are Strategic games I really enjoy (I’d put more abstract strategy games into his group as well), and I’m trying to expand my experience in this area as well. I play Tactical games quite a lot, but I wouldn’t have said they were my go-to.

Armageddon War, a really clever and engaging game, and back with a second printing.

Imagine my surprise when I added up the break-down figures and saw that Tactical games make up a whopping 58% of my collection by title. To be fair, this count includes all the supplementary titles for base tactical games like Panzer (GMT Games, 2012) and Combat Commander: Europe (GMT Games, 2006). While much of the Commands and Colors family may strictly be Grand Tactical, the system still plays like a purely tactical game (something the games share with their spiritual antecedent, miniatures wargaming). Still, I wouldn’t have thought that it would come to as much as it does. Then I started thinking about what made up that list.

When I think of tactical games (Besides C&C), I think of WWII games. I sold my original Squad Leader sets on a couple of years ago to a local fellow who will put them to better use than I could, but I still have a couple of volumes of Old School Tactical (and their attendant expansions – Flying Pig Games), three stand-alone volumes of Band of Brothers (Worthington), nearly the full kit of Combat Commander: Europe (I passed on the tournament scenarios), three boxes of Conflict of Heroes (Academy Games), and four stand-alone Undaunted (Osprey Games) titles, as well as Panzer (GMT Games, 2012) and its first four expansions, and Tank Duel (GMT Games, 2019), along with the North Africa expansion (GMT, 2021).

Beyond these, I also have MBT (GMT, 2016) and its three expansions, Great War Commander (Hexasim, 2018) Armageddon War (Flying Pig Games, 2018), ’65: Squad-Level Combat in the Jungles of Vietnam (Flying Pig, 2016), Assault (GDW, 1983), and Platoon Commander Deluxe: The Battle of Kursk (Flying Pig, 2018), which really belongs with the other WWII tactical games, but I only just remembered it.

Like I said, by preference, I’d play an operational game, but there’s a reason this blog has its name; the majority of my gaming opportunities tend to  a couple of hours snatched out of a week-night, As a rule, operational games don’t especially lend themselves to a 150 minute slot, and we simply don’t have the luxury of space to leave a game set up for a week or two at a time. Tactical games, on the other hand, lend themselves brilliantly to shorter play times.

For all my stated preference, Operational games make up a mere 30% of my collection, but among these are some of the most curious and engaging games in the collection. Won by the Sword (GMT Games, 2014) is an interesting game, combining the operational and logistical aspects of the conflict (allowing the player to use excessive-foraging as a defensive weapon) with set-piece tactical battles played out on a separate battle board, but the game wasn’t without its critics. It was meant to be the first in a series covering, I believe, the entirety of the 30 Years’ War, but only the first volume was ever published. I’ve only played it two-handed, and not for a while, but I remember having fun with it. I’m interested in the period, and while it gets some love from game designers (there is a new game coming out from Compass, No Peace for Thirty Years, which is slated for release in 2024 or early ‘25), it’s no American Civil War.

Activation chits from Brothers at War, 1862 (Compass Games, 2022), another
astonishingly good tactical game, but entirely unrelated to the Second World War.

Another interesting approach to operations is Tonkin: The First Indochina War(Second Edition) (Legion Wargames, 2012), with its supply dumps that are located on the board like units and can be spent (exhausted) for a major offensive operation but can also be overrun and destroyed by the enemy. This is a tricky and immersive game that deserves more of a spotlight. I’ll try to put a review together sometime soon.

I have a couple of games from the Levy and Campaign series. The system that started with Volko Ruhnke’s Nevsky: Teutons and Rus in Collision 1240-1242 (GMT Games, 2019), replicates the difficulties faced by medieval warlords in conducting operations any sort of distance from their power base, and raised the matter of supply to practically its own character in the unfolding drama. You really have to ensure your lords will come to the party when you seek to act, and you need to be sure you can feed all those soldiers on your campaign, for the whole campaign, and if you’re successful, you’d better hope there’s enough plunder to go around to get everyone to stay at the party a little longer, or you can find yourself abandoned and deep in enemy territory.

Napoléon 1807 (Shakos, 2020). Strictly operational in scope, but feels tactical. 

Then there are all those Mark Simonitch 19XX games. Operational games, in short, generally offer a satisfying level of crunchiness beyond simple manoeuvre and combat without slipping into the issues of production and manpower. Realistically, though, I get far fewer opportunities to get operational games to the table, unless I’m playing solo. Extra participant availability is low at this point in my life. I maintain the hope that as we all get closer to retirement age, more opportunities to play longer games will open up.

Strategic level games tend to be similar to operational level games in terms of the time-commitment required, but not always. Some games like Medieval (HGN Games, 2018), Hitler’s Reich (GMT Games, 2018), Lincoln (Worthington Publishing/PSC, 2018) and it’s spiritual descendent, Struggle for Europe 1939-1945 (Worthington Publishing, 2019), can play out inside of a couple of hours. These are fun games and good options to have available for a week-night game. Deeper strategic-level games like The U.S. Civil War (GMT Games, 2015), require a much deeper commitment in time and table space. These days I’m much more willing to buy a game if it has shorter scenario options.

Medieval (the 2018 re-release of the classic card game). Reputedly, this was
Richard Berg's favourite of his own designs to play.

I added a fourth category to this list. Abstract wargames are (by my definition) games that are strongly themed to a particular conflict, but are resolved in less direct ways than what would, typically constitute a wargame (again, my list – my rules). I only have three games that I would place in this category, but they all warrant a mention. Agamemnon (Osprey Games, 2016) is a combination of worker placement mechanics and a fever dream of Achilles. It requires you to build paths for your troops to help them circumvent the paths of your opponent’s men, and the paths are akin to the threads spun and sheared by the Fates; everyone dies in the end, but those with the longest threads receive the most glory. Personally, I couldn’t think of a truer metaphor for ancient combat.

Caesar! Seize Rome in 20 Minutes! (PSC, 2022) lives up to its name. It is a challenging game where you take turns placing markers in an effort to surround the provinces of the Roman Empire and take control of them, while frustrating the efforts of your opponent. You can find an unboxing article here, and a review of the game here.

Lastly, The Barracks Emperors (GMT Games, 2023), is a trick-taking game where the players aim to secure as many emperors as possible before Rome falls to the invading Barbarian hordes. The game plays fluidly, and is probably best with four players, but will accommodate two very well. The production is outstanding and, as game-y as it obviously is, it does feel like a contest between factions trying to out-orate each other while the world burns around them. A game for our times. (You can find an unboxing post for The Barracks Emperors here).

 

And so, to player-count. The biggest segment of my collection is comprised of strictly two-player games, 69% all told. There are several reasons for this, and not all of them are about me. From their beginnings, games of skill (as opposed to games of chance, like card games or casting lots) have nearly always been two player pursuits. Senet, chess, hnefatafl, backgammon and draughts (checkers) are all two-player games. The kinds of subjects covered – until quite recently – by wargames have tended to be two-sided interactions, regardless of theme; Alexander and whomever he was conquering that week, Napoleon and the rest of greater Europe, the Axis and the Allies, the Jets and the Sharks. With that in mind, it shouldn’t be too surprising that more than two thirds of my wargame collection is made up of two-player games.

I also have a personal preference for two-player games. There is the simple math of one opponent means less down-time between turns – unless your rival is given to fits of analysis paralysis, you should have enough time while they are taking their turn to appraise the situation and decide on your next steps and be ready to execute your turn with the same brevity. I also like matching wits with someone who is roughly my equal in skill and experience or better/more experienced (metal sharpens metal), without the distraction of other players. Sometimes – this happens a lot in miniatures games – I find myself having to carry a partner to a degree, because they aren’t as experienced or invested in the game.

The majority of games with dedicated solo rules (e.g., Chancellorsville,1963 (Worthington Games, 2020)) or some kind of baked-in solo option (Pacific Tide: The United States Versus Japan, 1941-45 (Compass Games, 2019)) are essentially two player games as well, though some of these have been introduced supplementary to existing games, like Panzer Exp. 4: France 1940 (GMT Games, 2019) or Undaunted:Reinforcements (Osprey Games, 2021). These make up 13% of the count, so roughly 9% could be added to the two-player games, and the remaining 5% to multiplayer games.

The multiplayer games I do own share one common quality. None are knock-out games. Games that whittle down the number of layers at the board like some kind of ludological battle-royale are anathema to me. I’d I have to play with four or five at the table, then I want everyone to feel like they can at least make a contribution to the outcome or vie for a ranking rather than be denied a place early on and have to amuse themselves while the remaining players duke it out. I put it down to an early experience with Monopoly (Parker Brothers, 1935), which nearly put me off boardgames for good. I think the best multiplayer games offer multiple avenues to victory and limit the opportunities to curtail your opponents through direct action. My favourites are probably Dominion (Rio Grande Games, 2008), Orléans (dlp games, 2014), Win, Place and Show (Avalon Hill, 1977) and Rail Baron (Avalon Hill, 1977), none of which made it to the wargame list (for obvious reasons), but are nonetheless a lot of fun, and all scalable from two to five or six players without becoming too unruly. As for wargames, Time of Crisis (GMT Games, 2017) and the Great Statesmen series from GMT (starting with Churchill (GMT Games, 2015)) fit the bill admirably.

Rail Baron. More fun than it looks.

I’ve played two-player games double-handed for years, and not only to teach myself how to play them, but I only really came around to dedicated solitaire games quite recently. My earliest experiences were (surprise, surprise) two Worthington games, 1759: Siege of Quebec (Worthington Publishing, 2022 – my review can be found here) and Tarawa, 1943 (Worthington Publishing, 2021). The analysis tells me I currently have nineteen dedicated solitaire games (around 9% of games owned) and I really enjoy all of them. I still didn’t think of myself as a solitaire game player until my back-to-back purchases of two Legion releases, Skyhawk: Rolling Thunder, 1966 (Legion Wargames, 2022) and Aces of Valor (Legion Wargames, 2022). These days I’m much more open to pulling out a game purely for my own enjoyment, instead of just learning a new game t teach to others.

Since COVID, a lot of game companies have doubled-down on providing specially prepared solo rules for their multiplayer games. GMT now has a whole team on the job, GMT-One, ensuring that most of their games have some kind of dedicated solo-gaming option, and the weaponisation of Stuka Joe’s CDG solo system has opened up a swarth of games to alone-time play. Okay, that sounded better in my head.

 

Redvers' Reverse: the Battle of Colenso, 1899 (Legion Wargames, 2016). 

Conclusions

I haven’t always made smart decisions in my wargame collection development. When I was a struggling university student living pretty much hand-to-mouth, I nonetheless chose to, over the course of about a year, buy a brand-new, still in shrink, set of Squad Leader (Avalon Hill, 1977) and its three boxed expansions (at an overall cost of about a month’ rent). I think I did this to connect myself to my gaming past (this was my second set, the first set thankfully left in the care of a friend before I left town, so it didn’t get thrown out with all my other game stuff). I didn’t know anyone at that stage who played wargames, let alone Squad Leader – ASL had been out for nearly ten years by then. A few years ago, I sold those four boxes, three of them unpunched, to a guy rebuilding his own collection from his youth.

These days, I have to be much more circumspect about what I buy, due mostly to the space restrictions of living in a smallish apartment. I haven’t quite got the point of having to instigate a one-in/one-out policy, but I can see that day coming. There are a few bits and pieces that I would be happy to part with, but most of the games I was indifferent about have already gone to eBay or to friends and family.

Now I try to buy things I know I will be able to get to the table. Two maps are about my comfortable limit; I can set up and play The Russian Campaign, Fifth Edition (GMT Games, 2023), but not The Korean War: June 1950 – May 1951 (Compass Games, 2021). Longer duration games I can play over consecutive nights by setting it up on a sheet of board and carefully transfer it from the table to the floor in the next room when we need the dinner table for, well, dinner. I have a very understanding and indulgent wife.

As I’ve mentioned here before, I feel quite fortunate for having two regular game nights a week, one (most weeks) with my brother-in-law, and one with the Wednesday night crew. One-on-one games with T, I realise now, have almost always been tactical games, and that has had a much bigger impact on my collection development than I had ever realised. Wednesday nights are divided roughly equally between wargaming and roleplaying games, with a sprinkling of ameritrash thrown in for leavening. There has been a subtle influence there as well; I think I’ve felt beholden to bring some games to the table that will accommodate four or five players to bring something to the table for the group’s edification. I probably would have still bought Plains Indian Wars (GMT Games, 2022) and The Barracks Emperors for myself (it helps both have rules or guidelines for solo play), but I may not have gone as far as Border Reivers (GMT Games, 2023), which, to be honest, I haven’t got around to punching and reading though yet.

Rebel Fury (GMT Games, 2024). Expect to see more of this here in coming months.

I have been putting more consideration into what I choose to bring into the fold, which is another way of saying I’m being more cautious over what I spend my money on, or what I’m willing to give space on my shelf to. They are all factors. I haven’t articulated a collection development policy yet, but if I had, I think I’d find it hard to stick to diligently. There will always be games that I just want to own, with some vague plan of getting it to the table in the nebulous future (Downfall: Conquest of the Third Reich, 1942-1945 (GMT Games, 2023) springs to mind; the game looks amazing, but I haven't even bothered looking at the rules yet because I can't envisage a time in the next eighteen months when I might be able to get it to the table), but now I recognise when I’m doing it, and I’m okay with that. These are my aspirational purchases, and they come from a place of hope. 

But around two years ago, I realised I’d only played about one in five of the games I owned. There’s nothing wrong with being a collector, but it was something I’d slipped into without noticing.  That was when I first started to think about kinds of games I wanted to play, and started focusing on acquiring games that I would make the time and opportunities to play. I used to have a nagging guilt about buying new games when I hadn’t played so many that I already owned, and it’s still there a little, but the percentage-played metric is slowly rising, despite the new titles entering the collection. Generally I’m buying a little less, laying a lot more, and I get to write about it in the blog, which is its own singular pleasure.