-
Judd Vance
United States
Wichita
Kansas
Now when I say, "Who's the master?" You say, "Sho Nuff!"
-
This was discussed on the wargame forum recently. While I was going for laughs, I think I inadvertently stumbled on a solid definition that I am fleshing out, now.
For the beginner who has no idea what I am talking about, Ameri-Trash games have 4 primary components: 1) Theme, 2) Conflict, 3) Chance, and 4) Bits.
Theme is also the single most important component. No theme, no AT. If you don't understand the concept of theme, then ask yourself how come so many Euros give you a detached feeling, while a good AT game immerses you in the theme. In a Euro, you play for the balance. How come there can only be one boat built? Is there not enough wood in the world to build another? Why did that city stop producing goods in the train game? Who ever heard of a company going out of business when they have a profitable thriving business and they blow through their inventory? That is not theme.
Of course it a game rooted in conflict (usually direct player conflict, or in the case of games like Arkham Horror, cooperative conflict). If someone or something ain't eliminated, it ain't Ameri-Trash!
A good Eurogamer figures out the optimal move in his game. These gimps often complain to a new player, "Thanks for helping him win the game!!!" He says this because he sees the game 5 moves ahead. Without chance, this is easy to see.
Plastic is preferred but not required. Plastic helps you get immersed in the theme.
Still confused? Then play a game of Pandemic and then play Defenders of the Realm. How do you cure a disease by collecting cards? I never heard of a scientist "collecting cards." (Mr. Eurogamer, please spare me a lame explanation, because that's what it is ... lame...you have proven my point that the theme of a Euro is an afterthought.) Now, if you completely eradicate all minions and the boss of a certain faction, is it really hard to believe that the faction is dead? Nope.
Furthermore, one game has little wooden cubes. The other has plastic molded bad guys! How awesome is that?
In Pandemic, if your medic spends an action, he automatically heals disease. Really? I never heard of 100% success in fighting any disease. Shouldn't the common cold be gone by now? In defenders, you dice for success. There is the random component.
But that doesn't answer everything...
You see, wargames have theme, dice, and conflict. Like I said, plastic is preferred, but not required. Therefore, the lines blurr with games like The Warriors of Batak (cardboard chits) and Tide of Iron (plastic).
Is there a way to differentiate?
Yes!!!
I have come up with the 5th component: unbelievability!!! This 5th component is applied if the first 3 (or optional 4th) apply.
So if your wargame involves any of these things, it's Ameri-Trash:
- post-apocolyptic themes
- Mutants, zombies, vampires, Rubium Dragons, Troglodytes, laser-cyborg dinosaurs, or other monsters
- Space combat or combat on other planets, any moons (including our own), asteroids, comets, or any other space-thingy.
- Norse, Greek, or Roman gods
- Dwarfs, Elves, Hobbits, Wizards (not the NBA variety), Orcs, or Centaurs
- Magic, Runes, or Dungeons
- A Christmas tree with an eyeball on top or any tree that moves, fights, or daes anything other than provide a naturally stationary object to take cover behind and gain a defensive modifier.
- Time Travel or anything that violates the space-time continuum. This includes, but is not limited to (Living) Dinosaurs and Humans in the same game or Roman Centaurians fighting alongside American paratroopers.
- A game based on books by H.G. Wells, J.R.R. Tolkien, or H.P. Lovecraft
- Futuristic weapons (On the day that they stop being futuristic, then the game is allowed to change from AT to wargame).
So when you analyze Richard Borg's system, concepts such as "support" and "battle back" do not differentiate a wargame from AT (because Commands & Colors: Ancients and BattleLore use both rules.)
Likewise, neither does a wood block versus a plastic soldier. No, according to this updated definition, these are wargames: Tide of Iron, Axis & Allies, Memoir '44, Battle Cry, while BattleLore is Ameri-Trash.
I agree with the notion that "I know it when I see it," but the reason I know it is because I often shake my head and the bizarreness (unbelievability) of it, and that's when the light bulb went off.
-
Judd Vance
United States
Wichita
Kansas
Now when I say, "Who's the master?" You say, "Sho Nuff!"
-
Interesting thought:
About a year ago, I really had no interest in anything related to ancient warfare.
Then Barteus (dig the name) and I started playing Commands & Colors: Ancients on VASSAL by e-mail. We played all 20 scenarios, taking each side (40 total).
He broke down the 2nd Punic War for me and gave great intros to each scenario.
Then I went to the library and checked out a video on it.
Ever since we started playing, I had Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage on my radar. I knew it had a lot of similarities to my beloved We the People. I figured I would like it and he would love it. However, I wasn't convinced it could play by e-mail. But once I solved the conundrum, I took the plunge and October and we have been playing it ever since. It's even better than I thought it would be. Right now, it's sitting at #5 on my Top 100.
Then we played Caesar XL, Pocket Battles: Celts vs. Romans, and Conquest of the Empire. Heck, we even like playing Glory to Rome.
Now last night, I really jumped into the deep end when I ordered Julius Caesar. I knew Hannibal would rock. It's a card driven game, so it's already good (are there any bad ones? I doubt it). I figure JC will rock, also. It's a block game, and so far, I'm batting 5-for-5 with Columbia's block games, and I hear JC is one of the best.
Meanwhile, Barteus loaned me a book on the Punic Wars (next up on my reading list), and I've got my distant sights set on Caesar's Gallic War (needs a VASSAL module) and SPQR (Mark Herman designed it, so it must rule, but does it play well by e-mail? And I got to psych myself up for the cost of it).
Amazing how far you come in a year.
-
Judd Vance
United States
Wichita
Kansas
Now when I say, "Who's the master?" You say, "Sho Nuff!"
-
I'm at Sam's tonight buying Watchman on DVD. I go to the front to pay.
One line has 3 different people: each has an order.
One line has 2 people, but the 2nd has a bunch of stuff on the conveyor.
One line had 4 people, but they are the same order and they are rung up and paying
I choose option 3. This will be fast.
Not so fast, my friend.
The one person out of the four who was buying was an old lady. The cashier was trying to sell her some membership upgrade. After she got it clarified and declined, she whips out the checkbook and writes in calligraphy (or so it seemed).
I realize the futility of my choice, thinking to myself, "this old lady is a balancing mechanism. This is like a Euro."
-
Judd Vance
United States
Wichita
Kansas
Now when I say, "Who's the master?" You say, "Sho Nuff!"
-
When it comes to gaming, I consider myself 75% Wargamer, 20% Ameri-Trasher, 4% Europlayer, and 1% mixed up in everything else (sports sims, abstracts, kids games, etc).
I'm not a hard core ultra-complex gamer and I'm more Avalon Hill fan than SPI, but I'm enough wargamer to say that Twilight Struggle ain't a wargame, but not Grog enough to deny that Memoir '44 is.
So along comes A Few Acres of Snow last fall. My buddy Bart introduces it to me while we sit in the lobby while our kids are at Wednesday night church.
My first impression is a bit "meh". I was the French and it felt more like Race for the Galaxy than it did Wilderness War (the ultimate game on the French & Indian War). But it was solid enough that I was willing to give it another try, so we did. And it was pretty good. And then we played it over and over, every week.
We just got done playing again tonight. I think it was my 9th game total. I got beat again. I'm not a particularly good player at it, but my comment was that a sign of a good game is that it is one that you enjoy losing at. (The first game I attributed that phrase to was Paths of Glory, another game I never win).
I really get a kick out of that game. It's a blast watching the interaction of the cards and the management of the deck. Is it a wargame? Well, it has a theme of a war, but not a lot of direct conflict. The goal of the French & Indian War wasn't to settle land first, but to take what the the other guy has. And it has a lot of historical holes in it that are there in the name of balance (ex: The French controlled Fort. Dusquene from the beginning. As a matter of fact, their possession of this fort is what led to the war).
But if it's not a Wargame, it must be a Euro, right? But it doesn't feel like a Euro. I don't find Euros engaging. They are detached because they lack theme. They are "west coast/cool jazz" while wargames are "bebop" and Ameri-Trash is "Hard Bop" (to borrow an example from late 40s/early 50s jazz). I'll play a Euro, and they aren't bad, but after a couple of plays, they just don't do a lot for me, since it feels like solving a puzzle more than playing a game. This one doesn't give that detached feeling.
So it's kind of floating around in no man's land...
I don't think it should have received the Golden Geek for Wargame of the Year and shouldn't have been even been nominated ... any more than My Little Pony Hide & Seek. The winner of that one probably should have been No Retreat! The Russian Front. (I haven't had the pleasure of playing it, but listening to my fellow wargamers, it did get more praise than any other game I saw come out.)
But I don't care that it's not a real wargame. It's one heckuva fun game, and I can't wait to play it next week.
-
Judd Vance
United States
Wichita
Kansas
Now when I say, "Who's the master?" You say, "Sho Nuff!"
-
Every one has a different rating system. Personally, I think the definitions on BGG are silly and unrealistic. By their definition, really no game gets more than a "7" because there is no game that I ALWAYS want to play and there is no game that I'll never turn down. If you ask me to play Empire of the Sun at family board game night at church, I'll turn you down cold: we don't have 20 hours to play, ya know?
I base my ratings on a grade-scale like we had in school.
10= A+
9 = A
8 = A-
7 = B
6 = B-
5 = C
4 = C-
3 = D
2 = D-
1 = F
So a 4 or a 5 isn't as bad as it may appear. I compare my games to each other. That means a great Euro will never be a "10" because I don't believe the best Euro can ever compete with the best wargame. I appreciate that a good Euro is elegant, is easy to learn, plays quickly, and has high quality, but even though a game like Ticket to Ride is really incredible, it will never be able to touch a game like the aforementioned Empire of the Sun. I'll play TTR 30 times or more and I'll probably be lucky to reach 5 on EotS, but the latter is a 14+ hour monster vs. a 45 minute light filler, and winning EotS is so much more satisfying because of what you put into it.
Well, at least that's how I see it.
When I rate a game, in my comments, you can tell if I like it or not, more than the rating. So on my last long drive, I got to thinking about what do I look for in a game and what is the best that I can expect to rate a game? (Hey, ya got to have something to ponder on those long drives -- it beats listening to the Barbie movie playing on the DVD in the back seat, right?) Without further adieu, here is what I look for:
PARTY GAMES:
Call me a party pooper, but I'm really not into them. A party game will probably get a 4-5 rating from me. A 6 would be an achievement. If I'm at a party, I would much rather play a 5-player Euro than play a party game. If it's easy (like TTR), I can teach it and it will be fun for all. But with that said, Euros usually go 2-6 players, and that may not be practical. So what do I want in a party game?
a) Short: 30-45 minutes. No need to have anyone suffer if they aren't getting into it. That means no Trivial Pursuit where some one with a mastery of useless trivia proves the point while everyone sits around wondering why I (ahem) ... he ... doesn't have enough of a life that he sits around and memorizes useless trivia.
b) Common Knowledge: Again, no Trivial Pursuit. Pictionary? Sure, everyone can draw, even if its bad. Charades? Maybe.
c) Generates a laugh: You are there to have fun. Winning is not as important as the funny stories you take from them. In other words, Bang! is out -- as the Analysis Paralysis players ruin it for everybody else.
What fits the bill:
Mug Shots (6) - A rare oldie, but with a few house rules, it's a blast.
Apples to Apples (4) - A bit on the long side, but could be house-ruled to fit a comfortable time slot.
Scattergories (4) - If you got enough people who want to play ... sure.
EUROS:
To me, Euros are like Twinkies. They kind of taste good, but they don't fill you up, and ultimately leave me feeling unsatisfied. Still, Twinkies were a real treat in the lunch box at grade school, right? They were fun for awhile, but really have no long term value and the last time I ate one was ... 
I don't think it's possible for a Euro to get a 10 from me. An 8 is possible and I think I can imagine a 9, but the Twinkie factor prevents complete gaming satiation.
Here's what I want:
A) Time: 45-60 minutes is ideal. I will play longer ones if they meet the other criteria.
B) Accessibility: You take a game like Agricola, and a beginner will not have an idea what the good strategies are. In my case, it sucked so badly that I don't want to play enough to learn the strategies. I'd rather eat broccoli. Another dog? Race for the Galaxy. I even took the time to learn those idiotic symbols and decided it wasn't worth learning how to play well. A good Euro is short enough that you are willing to play it a couple of more times and when you do, you should be good enough to hold your own.
C) Balance & Decisions: If you balance this and accessibility (B), then it is truly elegant. If I can see the interactions on my first play, and it was short, then you have done something.
D) Topic: The "theme" in a Euro is so phony that I generally feel insulted that a designer would think I could stretch the limits of disbelief to accept it. (Ex: Ra). If you put in a good topic, I will forgo the time limit of "A" (above).
What fits the bill:
Evo (8): It's a Euro on sterroids because it pushes the legal limits for a Euro in terms of theme, chance, and conflict.
San Juan (8)/Glory to Rome(8): GtR totally doesn't fit any category (above) other than C. I wouldn't even have it on here if not for the fact that I'm a really good San Juan player (and suffered through Race for the Galaxy), so the transition was easy for me.
Founding Fathers (7) - That's no way to create a constitution, but I'm a dork for 18th century history and the cards are educational.
Manila (7) - This hits A, B, and C.
Pandemic (7) - This hits A and C. The co-op angle helps B.
Lord of the Rings (7) - This is D all the way.
Power Grid (8) /Automobile (8) - A newbie can win these the first time out: I'm proof. At the same time, I also won my only game of Brass and it was a big snoozefest. These two I listed are long on time (for the ideal Euro time I listed above), but long on balance/decisions, and accessible by turn 2, so the learning curve is flat.
FILLERS:
Fillers are nice. They are like a poor-man's Euro, or at least a man who is poor on time and needs to play something quickly. Normally, a good filler gets a 6-7, because they are games built more for time than depth. You're not really invested when the game is over in 15 minutes. With that said, there is one glaring exception: I gave Battle Line a 9. Time is obviously a must, because otherwise, it's not a filler by definition. Beyond the obvious, here's what I want:
a) Small learning curve: 1 game tops. I need to be able to understand it well enough that I feel like I could compete (not necessarily 'win') in my 2nd game, or I'm done.
b) Balance/Decisions: I want something deeper than Hearts.
What fits the bill:
Battle Line (9) / Lost Cities (7) - Knizia really knows how to make good fillers (toss in High Society). Battle Line is the standard for hand management/fillers. Lost Cities is similar with less decisions for even faster play, but also not as fulfilling.
Alea Iacta Est (7) - Great dice-based filler with enough decisions to keep it from being more than pure luck of the dice.
7 Wonders (6) - It's not worthy of all that "game of the year" nonsense, but it is a really good multi-player filler with a 1-game learning curve.
Coloretto (6) - Nice game to throw in your jacket pocket and play anywhere.
ABSTRACTS:
Most of these are games of yore with good memories behind them. I'll probably only play 1-2 games in a row and then I'm done with them for awhile. They kind of get old fast, but are good to visit now and then. Outside of Ingenious (8), I rate them no better than a (7). I guess I need theme. What I want from theme-less games:
a) Challenge ... within reason: Chess is out. I'm not wasting enough time to learn to be good at it (or even competent). If you play Checkers by the real rules, it's easy, but very challenging.
b) Luck: Give me a random component. Chess needs dice.
What fits the bill:
Ingenious (8) - Knizia really hit the nail on the head. Random draws and a cool scoring system means you got to have skills. And thankfully, he didn't insult my intelligence by pasting on a lame-brain theme to an elegant game.
Backgammon (7) - This one held my interest long enough for me to get good enough to play the computer to a draw (meaning if I play a best of 7 series, it's going 4-3 and the winner depends on who got a little luckier). And folks, the computer doesn't cheat: it plays the odds. When you learn the odds, you will find yourself "getting" the die rolls you need more often.
Mexican Train (7) - This almost fits into "party game." Not a lot of challenge, but you do have to play a few moves ahead.
AMERI-TRASH:
This is a newer interest, thanks to the tutelage of my buddy MisterMarino. These can go all the way up to a 10. Probably a 9 is more like it, because they just aren't quite as filling as a wargame, but darned close. Obviously, I want Theme, Chance, and Conflict, because without it, it's not Ameri-Trash. Other than that, here is what I want:
a) Bits - While often part of Ameri-Trash, it's not a requirement. But to me, it's a big, big plus. I feel more immersed in the theme when I am fighting a big plastic dragon (Defenders of the Realm) rather than removing a wooden cube (Pandemic - I know, not AT, but you get the point!) or a square cardboard chit. Bits can't make a game (Doom is proof), but they do help.
b) Time - About 2 hours seems to be a real sweet spot. Less than that feels too much like a filler (Pocket Battles) too much feels like a marathon (Runewars)...not that these were bad. I gave them both a 7, but the time factor holds them back.
What fits the bill:
Nexus Ops (10) - One of the most perfect games ever made. 90 minutes every time and plays well with 2, 3, or 4. And the plastic bits (spiders, dragons, etc) glow under a black light.
Claustrophobia (9) - Set up, play, and take down in an hour. Every game is different. The bits are great! Easy to learn.
Heroscape (9) - Pure awesomeness. Zombies fight alongside Roman centurions against the Men in Black and Ninjas. Seriously -- can you get any more Ameri-Trashy?
Dinosaurs of the Lost World (8) - If only it had plastic dinos! But it has dinosaurs!!! And they chase you!!!!!!
Earth Reborn (8) - Post-Apocalypse happiness: An army of cyborgs and zombies fight the forces of Norad. One dude has a circular saw attached to his arm!!! Cool dice and a great fire combat/melee system.
WARGAMES:
This is my personal gaming nirvana. This is why you play games. Nothing in gaming is more fulfilling than winning an intense wargame. The more you invest, the greater the payoff. Even when you lose, it feels good. A bad wargame will probably get a 5 rating from me. An average one gets a 7. No problem for a wargame to get a 10 from me. Because of their average length, I don't play them as much. I have many with only 2-3 plays, but they take so much more time to learn and play that the payoff is worth it. Not surprisingly, my standards are a lot more defined for this genre. What I want:
a) History - I don't need a simulation, but I'd rather play a Napoleonic Wargame (something I have never done and know nothing about) than play the Klingons vs. the Cardassians. Wargaming can be educational and that is part of the joy.
b) Complexity - This is probably the most important. If its too easy, you get that Twinkie feeling. But even a Twinkie wargame will get a 7 from me. I don't want them too difficult. The upper limit of my complexity tolerance is Empire of the Sun. A game that is about as complex as GMT's Battles of the American Revolution series or Shifting Sands hits a sweet spot for me in terms of complexity. Keep in mind, that I don't like complexity for complexity's sake. I hate reading rule books. I like games with more complex decisions. If it can pull it off with few rules, that's even better.
c) VASSAL module - Because of the long playing times, I will play most of mine by e-mail via VASSAL. If there is no VASSAL module, I probably will not buy it.
d) Card Driven Mechanic - If it uses the OPS/Event system developed by Mark Herman, I will probably like it. 5 of my top 7 favorite games use this mechanic.
e) Topic - American Revolution and WWII (Western European Front and Pacific Theater) are my favorites. I will also play Punic Wars, American Civil War, WWI, Vietnam, and Korea. I would be willing to learn a different war (ex: Hammer of the Scots), but chances are, I will not buy it without playing it.
f) Blocks - If you make a block game, I'm interested, especially if it fits my topics of interest (see 'e' above).
g) Low Counter density - As I get older, large stacks of 1/2" cardboard counters make me cranky.
h) Game play over simulation - If I want to replay history step-by-step, I'll read a book. I like to 2nd guess history. I prefer to get the feeling of a commander (ex: frustrations and limitations) rather than re-tracing his steps.
i) Balance -- I'm ok with the Command & Colors system where you take turns with unbalanced sides and add up the total medals, but I much prefer a game with balanced OBJECTIVES. For instance, if you took a Command & Colors games with asymmetrical forces and said the victory conditions were 5 medals for Side A and 7 medals for side B, that would be far more interesting. Take a game like Wilderness War: the French cannot win in terms of conquest, but can win in VPs by slowing down the British advance (preventing the British from taking all of Canada at the negotiations table). Ditto for Empire of the Sun, where the Japanese can win by slowing down the Allied advance (and hence, creating a conditional surrender).
What fits the bill:
Washington's War (10) / Hannibal (10) / Hearts and Minds (10) / Paths of Glory (10) / Wilderness War (9) - (along with others mentioned in this blog) Way too many card driven games to list.
Liberty: The American Revolution 1775-83 (9) - Apply the Hammer of the Scots model to my favorite topic. Yeah, that'll do.
Band of Brothers: Screaming Eagles (10 ... tentative rating) - Complex tactics in an easy to learn game. This is a trail blazer. This should go down in history as one of the game-changers.
Tide of Iron (9) - This is intersection of wargame and Ameri-Trash and as you saw above, that is a mighty good combination to this gamer.
France 1944 (8) - UGO/IGO hex-and-counter / odds-based CRTs (Combat Results tables) games just don't do it for me like they did 30 years ago, but this one had an innovative movement/combat system that set it apart. Plus low counter density and quick play were big pluses.
Monmouth (9) - This is great because I'm a big American Revolution nerd who loves to 2nd guess history.
Commands and Colors - If you ask me if I want to play a Borg game or a Card Driven Game (see d), I'll take the CDG every time. Ask me if I want to play a Borg or a Euro, and I'll take the Borg game. I'll take Ancients (9) if I want more strategy, Battle Cry (9) if I want cool bits, and Memoir (8) if you give me expansions (9 if you add them).
-
Judd Vance
United States
Wichita
Kansas
Now when I say, "Who's the master?" You say, "Sho Nuff!"
-
It was a little under 30 years ago that I really got into gaming after a buddy introduced me to Star Fleet Battles. Back then, me and my buddies bought a lot of games and I personally bought my share of dogs, and spent too much time chasing the wrong games. Some of ours were under-utilized gems. Some games back then were ones we had no idea existed.
So one day on a long road trip, I got to wondering if I had Bill & Ted's phone booth and went back and told myself which games to start and build a collection with, what would they be? (Note: only looking for fun, not monetary investments). Here they are:
Multi-player games: We had a solid enough gaming group that I think we could have had some fun with these:
Star Fleet Battle Manual - We played it some, but we should have explored the possibilities.
Illuminati - We played it once and had a lot of fun. It was worth playing a few more times. If not, it was cheap ($5).
Nuclear War - Too much fun in a round table to pass up.
Space Empires - I think this would have been a hit.
Two-Player games: Along with the group, I did most of my gaming with Barteus. Some of the games above play 2 players just fine, but these are some more I would have added to my list for the 2-player experience:
Mini-games:
Cerberus
Robots!
Ogre
G.E.V.
Viking Gods
Chitin: I
Hot Spot
Olympica
The Warriors of Batak
Revolt on Antares
Back then, Metagaming games were $2.95. Heck, even a couple of high school students could have afforded that. Task Force ran $7.50 and I think TSR's ran about $9. Knowing what I know now, I know these are the best ones.
Others:
Quebec 1759 - To play this, I will need a hand written note from Barteus explaining to Barteus of the past to give this one a try (neither of us were into the French & Indian War back then).
The Creature That Ate Sheboygan - Godzilla game! And the monster has unknown powers (select a couple from a list) and has to divide up a fixed amount of points into attack, defense, and movement, so the army doesn't know what it's up against. Yeah, I think I could have talked both of our younger counterparts into giving that one a spin 
Solitaire:
B-17: Queen of the Skies
Ambush!
Intruder
These three were/are exceptional solitaire games. Definitely worth the time to play.
3 sports games to throw into the starter collection:
Statis Pro Basketball
Strat-o-Matic Baseball
Strat-o-Matic Pro Basketball
Back then, Barteus and I tried Basketball Strategy because we both liked college basketball. It was a real dog (WOOF!). Had I taken the Statis Pro system and a stat sheet, we could have re-created the plaer cards of Danny Manning, Wayman Tisdale, Choo Kennedy, Ron Kellogg and the boys and played classic Kansas-Oklahoma battles.
I had buddies who were into NBA and Major League baseball, but not necessarily big board gamers, but they probably would have been open to Strat-O-Matic. I think I could have got some fun draft leagues going.
Others I would have considered: Had the previous games gone over well, I would seek feedback to see if any of them were interested in trying these out before I bought them.
Victory in the Pacific - Great 2-player abstract of the Pacific theater. I think my wargaming buddies were more European-theater so maybe I would have had to try War at Sea first.
France 1944: The Allied Crusade in Europe - I think the theater (Normandy Break-out) and the level of simplicity would have made this one an enjoyable, if nothing else, then to try out the unique movement/battle system out of curiosity.
A House Divided - biggest obstacle to this is me. I got to convince my younger self that a Civil War game is really good. I really had no interest in it until about a year ago. 
Squad Leader - It's modular rules system (read a couple of pages/play a scenario) might have gone over well with Barteus and Richard. But I will leave explicit instructions to venture no further than the original game.
Dawn Patrol - I had this one, but didn't read the rules until a few years ago. This could have made for fun fighter squadron/multi-player games.
Kingmaker - I don't think we ever played it, and that was a darned shame. I think we could have had a lot of fun with this one, with all the wheeling and dealing and double-crosses in a much more enjoyable format than Diplomacy.
Dinosaurs of the Lost World - It's crazy fun.
The War of the Worlds - Sci-fi meets wargame. Probably a winner.
Funny thing, I think I would have walked away from Star Fleet Battles. There are some good memories there, but when I look at the huge stack of stuff I had and how much of it went unplayed, I can't really justify it, especially since anything more than a 1-on-1 battle took all night and 1-on-1 battles are too imbalanced.
You need a pack of Klingons against a smaller pack of Federation ships for maximum fun, but unless I'm allowed to send back instructions on how to convert the SFB games into the Federation Commander format, I think I would pass on it.
Not saying we didn't have fun, because we had lots of it. I just wish I wouldn't have spent over $100 on FASA's Star Trek RPG and spent those countless hours of reading on SFB rules on some other games, instead.
And the biggest reason I made this list is because I remember going up to King's Crown in Kansas City for that bi-yearly trip and seeing all of those games and wondering which ones were good and which ones weren't worth wasting money on.
... and because you got to have something to pass the time on those long road trips. 
|
|
Now when I say, "Who's the master?" You say, "Sho Nuff!"
