Colonial Campaigns Club (CCC)

Intersting point I wanted to make in comparing boardgames and computer games.

1. I have a group that likes to play Everquest on the computer but wont touch a Tiller computer game (or other wargames on computer for that matter such as ADC2 for boardgames). They like face to face for WARGAMES (considering EQ as RPG). Wont even do LAN games or consider a MP PBEM game. Alot of old timers fall into this category. The old timers also liked to play miniatures alot in the old days. Computer wargames do nothing for them.

2. Whereas boardgames have some really nice game systems computer games dont take advantage of many of the nice turn sequencing that we now see. Has to do with the fact that it would take so many PBEM files to do one turn that it wouldnt be practical. Example is GMT's line of games that use chit pulls to determine which formations move next. On the other hand some of the boardgame ideas for command and control are lacking in computer games. Such a shame as we have such a wonderful tool to take advantage of the nuances found in the boardgames.

3. Boardgame conventions are fun. You get to meet folks from afar (Joe Amoral will be at MonsterCon this weekend by the way - if you are there look him up). It would be nice to have a LAN Weekend of games online once a year for our games. Sign in via a virtual website and play some of the HPS games online. I can remember playing Wellington's Victory for 20 hours straight at a convention. Talk about wiped out!

4. Computer games have it all over boardgames when it comes to hiddent movement and the element of surprise but I find somethings that board games have in that dept. to be enjoyable. Example: some of you may have played SPI's Panzergruppe Guderian where the units had unknown values - even the Soviet player didnt know what he had in front of him until combat occured.

5. Reinforcements in boardgames could be yours or your opponent's units. You put a marker at the entrance hex and neither of you knew who's it was. When the time came and you rolled the right die roll you flipped the counter and onto the board came Grouchy instead of Blucher! Thus the Reinforcement dialog in our games could optionally be cloaked such that by the Scenario Designer's choice you DIDNT know what TIME your units could come on. A courier would arrive a few turns before announcing their presence or other options abound.

6. Am playing the GMT game Sweden Fights On - Musket and Pike series Vol. 2 solo and find that some of the morale and formation rules are nice. Terrain breaks up the FORMATION a bit but not the morale. We have that occur on the Line Movement Disruption option of course but units in the GMT series have a formation status as well as a morale status.

7. Training and Morale - in several boardgames I play you have ratings for both. Thus units that have great training usually have good morale as well. They execute maneuvers much better. Example: in the ACW at Antietam the large Yank regiments were doing well if they could just get them into some sort of line. Forget the idea of doing any kind of complicated maneuver. Had to do with the SIZE of the unit as well as its training of course. Add in that they were GREEN and you get the picture. Example: in 1776 you have Americans that have good morale but marching in formation is not their forte. Thus morale B, training C is my guess. Average British unit, morale B, training B. And so on. Training grades would affect the MP cost to make a move (based on formation of course).

And I am sure that there are more examples.