PC Wargaming Design Risk Aversion

When a writer sits down to create a fictional piece they first decide on the method of execution. All concepts can be told in a variety of ways, from very brief poems to massive novels, but which method ultimately needs to complement the original idea. Focusing on a single event may work best as a short story, while focusing on an entire range of events would be best served as a novel.

This is true of really all creative processes. If as an illustrator you have an idea to showcase a lovely spring day you’d want to do it with bright, vibrant colors, right? So you’d chose to paint your idea rather than do a pen and ink drawing. A musician trying to convey emotional loss would look to work in a somber tone. How a film maker uses lighting, perspective, and more all can affect the outcome on the viewer.

Games are no different. Yesterday I had a lot of fun playing The Hell of Stalingrad from Clash of Arms, a card game (there are also counters, but they are used as markers). Expect to see a snapshot review in the next Frag!, our monthly newsletter. (If you don’t already received it sign up here. Besides allowing you to catch up on all the latest events with Shrapnel you can read about current in print wargames and save money with special discounts on Shrapnel products available only for newsletter readers.)

The battle of Stalingrad has been gamed numerous times in many different forms: tactical, strategic, hex based, area based, miniatures…and then within each form several sub-forms. Tactical by way of platoon, tactical by way of squad, tactical by war of individual soldier, et cetera. Each designer chose the way he wanted the game to play based on what the core idea happened to be. Want to showcase the brutal house to house fighting? A skirmish level game would be best. Perhaps you want to make clear why the obsession with Stalingrad damaged the overall effort into Russia…make the game a strategic level one, with Stalingrad occupying a few hexes out of hundreds.

As a card game even before opening the box you should be able to assume a couple of things about The Hell of Stalingrad. One, there will be abstraction. Two, it will play relatively quick.

Card games are inherently abstract because the mechanics don’t allow a great deal of precision. You’re gaming ideas and areas, not fighting from hex 1017 to hex 1118, moving counters. They play quick because usually once you understand what the cards mean you have 90% of the mechanics down. The cards are often the rules, after all.

The Hell of Stalingrad is definitely abstract (and ‘gamey’), but it gets the feel of the battle across. Stalingrad was a slaughterhouse, one in which saw thousands and thousands of troops destroyed (sometimes by their own side!) and as players continually throw units into battle only to see them eliminated a moment later by their opponent’s card, it’s easy to understand the escalation that went on. One of the mechanics in the game revolves around who has what remaining when it comes time to ultimately determine the battle, and so feeding troops into the grinder is simply what you do in order to try and win. Interestingly, in games with specific OOBs and counter mixes players often hesitate at this, being victims of analysis paralysis and the min/max effect.

Now why is it that while in the world of board gaming designers are happy to explore all types of mediums for their messages when it comes to computer gaming designers stick to the tried and true? The possibilities that a computer offers a game designer are amazing, and yet few seem willing to push the boundaries. Not that there’s anything wrong with “classic” gaming styles, just that so much more can be achieved.

Wargaming on the table top has always offered new and exciting methods of play (i.e. the Combat Commander series, Battleground, Bonaparte at Marengo). I wish wargaming on the computer would take more chances.