Any wargamers here?

Does Risk 2210 AD count?
 
Well if its anything like regular Risk then it most certainly does. Risk was what got me into wargaming in the first place...ah, the memories come flooding back! Fumbling with an ancient set trying to work out how many blue counters there were...trying to figure out what the dotted lines on the oceans were supposed to be...Great fun!:)
 
Then I highly recommend 2210 AD. It's an updated version of the game for the future and has expanded gameplay to include all sorts of things, like generals, moon colonies, and nuclear weapons. Nothing like wiping out an opponent with the Armageddon card. :goodjob:
 
Advanced Squad Leader here. It is the most indepth thorough study of WW2 infantry tactics available.

You know how they say marijuana can lead to heroin? Well the same applies with Risk. It can lead to more addicitive and time consuming strategy games much like ASL or Civ 3.:D
 
I blow WWII stuff up. But I get annoyed about over simplified rules and when stuipid stuff happen. I want to get it as realistic as possible. I might want to expand into WWII, and WWII air and naval soon.
 
Sorry, the above post was made by me, but the last person to be signed on, whom I shall not name, forgot to sign out.
 
I prefer simpler rules; in general they result in quick fun games, with a minimum of messing around with 120 sided dice and whatnot.
 
I play WW2 Rapid Fire and the GW LOTR game, mostly. Rapid Fire aint the most realistic or detailed but it results in a fun game with a WW2 feel. LOTR is a bit too simple, but still a good game.

I have only played 40k once, and didnt really like it much.
 
A list of the wargames I play.

- Conquest of the Empire ( with a modified catapult rule )
- Shogun/SamuraiSwords
- Axis and Allies
- Fortress America
 
Conquest of the Empire! :eek: :cry: :love:

I remember that game now! I tried it ages ago and had my first romance with a board game. I would love to play that again. Having made a search on the internet, I have discovered that Eagle games http://www.eaglegames.com/ are going to publish it again by spring 2005, woohoo! :king: :cool:
 
I used to wargame. Closet full of old Avalon Hill games and Strategy&Tatics mags, most games unpunched. Every once in a while I'll pull out The Alamo or Battle of the Bulge and lay it out for a week or 2.
 
Simple rules lead to improbability, and unfairness. E.g, Shermans being almost as good as Tigers.
 
Actually many relatively simple rulesets can give complex results, such as chess for example.

As I said, I dont mind Shermans being as good as Tigers if the game itself is fun. First and foremost I wargame for fun; not to flawlessly recreate historic scenarios.

For every detail you put into a ruleset, their is more messing around with dice and tables and less actual playing. But on the flip side, less detail can equal less strategy. The perfect ruleset should find a happy medium between detail and playability. Of course everyone's idea of that happy medium is different, which is why some wargamers prefer simpler rules and others more complex ones.
 
I like rules that allow flexability and common sense (such as rules for Russian minedogs I have been thinking of).
 
I play or have played these games alot:

Axis & Allies, Risk, Statego, The Russian Campaign,
Battle of Bulge, Africa Corps & Tobruk.

I also play Panzerblitz & Panzerleader by mail &
E-mail.

Lots of fun but takes a long time to finish with
dropouts and RL issues.
:soldier:
 
Back
Top Bottom