michael c
United States
ASHBURN
Virginia
-
Most of the reviews on Memoir '44 proclaim it to be a "war game" or "an introductory war game" or "a gateway war game." In all but a few cases, the authors of these reviews are like the designer of Memoir '44 -- someone inexperienced with war games. However, a few astute reviewers do term Memoir '44 as a "game with a war theme" which I believe the only viable description to Memoir '44. A quick review of the games that I play makes it immediately clear that I am a hard core, long term, war game player and from what I can see, perhaps the most experienced war gamer so far to write a review on Memoir '44. So then, why isn't Memoir '44 really a war game?
Artillery
Artillery fires with the same lethality and range. A Sherman will not get "brewed up" by a German 88 mm ATG, that is only a grey speck in the distance from the Sherman's perspective.
Infantry versus Tanks
Infantry kills tanks too way to easily. Let's look at what 1944 infantry used for anti-tank weapons:
German
Panzerfaust -- the shaped charge could penetrate up to 200 mm (7.9 in) of steel, enough to defeat any armoured fighting vehicle of the period.
Panzerschreck -- The Panzerschreck rocket could penetrate over 200 mm of armor, which was not found on any Allied designs, but paid for this extra hitting power with extra weight. The rocket projectile weighed 7.25lb, 3.3Kg. One direct hit was usually enough to destroy any Allied armored vehicle. When handled by well-trained crews, this weapon became the bane of Allied armored units, who frequently attempted to add improvised protection to their tanks, e.g. sandbags, spare track units, logs and so on. Most of this make-shift protection had little actual effect.
British
PIAT Penetration --> 3.3 in (83 mm) of steel armour
American
36" Bazooka --> 80 mm of steel armour
Clearly German infantry had the means to destroy most Western Allied tanks (except of the Churchill) while Allied infantry needed to lucky rear shot to expect a kill. I can find no reason why infantry, especially Allied infantry, can kill armour as easily as it can except for the fact that being a war game was never really a design point for Memoir '44.
Airplanes
The airplanes may look good but unfortunately they all have the same capabilities. Why bother? Because the game is most like a toy. Remember what the Typhoons did in the movie "A Bridge to Far?" Not in this game.
Scenario Balance
The reason you need to play both sides when you play a scenario is that they are typically unbalanced. Why are they unbalanced? Well the victory conditions are based on "medals" (real war games don't have medals!) that don't include levels of victory or defeat (marginal, tactical, etc., for example) and typically are awarded for killing the other side's units or capturing an objective hex. This seems to be because the publisher does not have the resources to actually play test the scenarios and encourages players to develop their own scenarios. So by playing Memoir 44, you automatically assume that you will need to play both sides.
Where are my Panzer Grenadiers Steiner?
If you have read about WW II or seen accurate movies on the subject, you will note that German Panzer Grenadiers rode around in half-tracks quite a bit. Where are they? They don't seem to exist in Memoir 44 and surely they are not just buried in the armour units themselves. Additionally, Russian infantry tended to ride on T-34s into battle which they can not do in this game. And no, designating panzer grenadier units as "elite units" is not a good solution.
Tanks
All tanks are not created equal. They neither move at the same rate, shoot with the same lethality, shoot at the same range, or have armour of equal strength. A Sherman tank is not the same as a Tiger tank in battle. Because of the large differences in tank capabilities between the German and American Sherman tanks, tank tactics differed substantially between the two sides. With Tigers, Panthers and Tigers II, the Germans had no fear of attacking Shermans head on while the Americans developed ambush tactics with their Shermans by leveraging their greater numbers to set up ambushes against the German tanks for side or rear shots where they actually had a chance of damaging or destroying the German tanks. In Memoir '44, there is no difference between the tank types. An American tank unit = a German tank unit. Realism is completely missing.
Richard Borg
Borg is not a wargame designer by background. He neither develops wargames as a living nor seems to have a presence in the wargame community.
Bottom line
The lack of realistic simulation of units and their capabilities means, despite the comments to the contrary, that playing this game will never teach you anything about war, or how to model or simulate battles. Its a game with rules for the various unit types and terrain. Knowledge of how units should be used and how they behave is not relevant to playing or winning the game. Knowledge gained from playing this game that will be useful for playing real war games is limited to using hexes and the concept of "line of sight."
I play Memoir '44 with my 8 year old son. I play it with him because he enjoys the game and its war theme and likes to figure out how to win. I have never played an adult in the game, because with all the war gamers that I know, the response would be "I thought you wanted to play a war game?" Frequently, the term "gateway game" is used on this site as if its a holy term. So far I have yet to find a single, clear definition of what it actually means. But taking a guess that it means a game that will "get you hooked on playing games of that type", then I have to say that while its claimed to be a good "gateway game for war games," I have yet to see those that did not previously play war games start listing war games in the BGG lists after playing Memoir '44.
-
K A
United States
Unspecified
-
Please don't hold back. Tell us how you really feel.
Actually, you do list your reasons.
-
Patrick H.
Canada
Pierrefonds
Quebec
-
I think you missed the whole point. The shortcomings you've listed are all reasons why Memoir IS a gateway... the game is approachable and friendly to non-wargamers. There are no CRTs, the rules can be explained in 5 minutes, and there isn't page after page of rules exceptions to remember.
A gateway doesn't have to simulate anything or prepare you for more complex games... it's meant to be FUN for the non-enthusiast. I'm not a war gamer by any stretch, but Memoir is directly responsible for creating my interest in 'real' war games. So far I've picked up Hannibal and Hammer Of The Scots because of the FUN I've had playing Memoir.
That makes it a gateway game in my book.
-
yawn...
New Zealand
Christchurch
-
Great review. Love your use of the word toy to describe the game.
-
Ken Bradford
United States
Fayetteville
Tennessee
-
I've had even the hardcorest of hardcore grognards admit the following:
It's a wargame. It is not a consim. Those two sentences pretty much put to bed the rest of the review.
-
-
I totally agreee with Ken B. Ita not meant to be a complex simulation, but the whole theme and setting certainly make it a wargame.
Advanced Squad Leader, etc are also wargames. I think you get my point ...
-
James Palmer
Canada
Kitchener
Ontario
-
I think if you're going to argue that a game is or isn't a wargame, you need to give some sort of a definition of wargame, even if it's just a link to someone else's definition.
You've given me no reason to accept your argument except that you're "a hard core, long term, war game player". That doesn't really help me much except to reveal a likely bias.
What is your definition of a war game?
-
Evan S
United States
Minneapolis
Minnesota
-
You never offer a definition of wargame but most the rest of your review implies that 'accurate simulation' is a requirement to be considered a wargame. I have no idea where you are getting that definition from. I can't find any definition anywhere (BGG wiki, dictionary, encyclopedia, etc.) that has that listed as part of the definition. It appears to be your own personal requirement rather one accepted by a general consensus.
Even if it it were a widely accepted definition, how accurate a simulation is 'accurate enough' is strictly subjective. Because no game is a perfect simulation since things always have to be abstracted to some degree, you are just as wrong/right as someone pointing out inaccuracies in Advanced Third Reich or Wilderness War and saying it is not a wargame because it doesn't meet their personal threshold for how accurate a game must be to be considered a wargame.
If you do think the definition of wargame needs to have a certain specific level of accurate simulation before it can be considered a wargaem, I invite you to articulate what the required level is and change the BGG Wiki definition of wargame because right now it just reads:
"All games in which war and conflict is the subject."
-
Steven Dennis
United States
Mandeville
Louisiana
-
Depicts war? Check.
Is a game? Check.
It's a wargame.
-
Tristan Brightman
United Kingdom
Bracknell
Unspecified
-
Trying to work out just what you think a wargame is:
papahoth wrote:
Infantry versus Tanks
Scenario Balance
Where are my Panzer Grenadiers Steiner?
So from the above three, any WW2 period game is not a wargame if:
Infantry can kill tanks without exceptional luck, rear armour shots, etc.
There are unbalanced scenarios. I think this rules out most "realistic" simulation style games about war from being wargames.
There are no Panzer Grenadiers riding halftracks into battle if there are German Forces, or no rules for Russian infantry riding on T-34s if there are Russian Forces.
I end up wondering just exactly what wargames you play! Perhaps Nexus Ops fits? Humans need a 6 to take down a Dragon (or anything) there are no Soviets or Germans, so no problems with vehicles, and the scenario is pretty closely balanced.
-
Dan Poole
United States
Goldsboro
North Carolina
Ph'nglui Mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!!
We're charging our battery. And now we're full of energy. We are the robots. We're functioning automatik. And we are dancing mechanik. We are the robots
-
As a fellow wargamer (not a hardcore grognard, mind you), I can see how people would be reluctant to consider memoir 44 a "true" wargame. As mentioned above repeatedly, it all boils down to ones own definition of a wargame. This is my philosophy:
[The stage: Me and non-gamer friend at my house near my game shelf]
Non-Gamer Friend: Memoir '44? That must be some kind of game about WWII?
Me: Yes. Its aboout various battles between the US and Germany during and following the Normandy invasion.
Non-Gamer Friend: Gee, that sounds pretty neat
Me: Yes, its a pretty simple game,though each side maneuvers infantry, armor and artillery through various terrains trying to obtain certain victory objectives.
Non-Gamer Friend: Well that sounds like a fun war game.
Me: Oh no! Its a game about war, not a wargame!
Non-Gamer Friend: I don't understand.
Me: Of course you don't. I am a gaming expert and really don't have the the time or patience to explain! Besides, your intelligence level is way too low to even begin to comprehend! You may leave now.
See, this is why I consider Memoir a wargame (and why geeksnobs don't have many friends). Simple yes, fun, not really (at least for me), but as mentioned above, makes a great gateway game.
-
Andrew Adey
United Kingdom
Wolverhampton
West Midlands
-
This game is, IMHO, a wargames - just not a very accurate one. I agree with the authors sentiments about not all tanks being equal etc etc, but really, with all the complexity of any battle or war, the most accurate socially acceptable wargame is either a computer game, or paintballing.
And even then you`re still alive at the end even if you loose!
I see what you`re getting at, but still consider this to be a wargame.
-
Leo Zappa
United States
Aliquippa
Pennsylvania
-
As the OP's post illustrates, there is a certain branch of the wargaming family that places "hardware-centric" realism as the primary determining factor in whether or not a game is a "Wargame". This branch of the family tends to view wargames through the lense of how accurately the hardware of war is modeled in their games. While I believe this is a valid consideration in viewing wargames, I find that often, many games viewed as high-level consims due to their meticulous modeling of ranges, armor-penetration, and historical unit designations, often fall short in modeling the "soft" elements of war - namely command and control. That's an area where I believe M44 and the other C&C games are actually superior and more accurate wargames than many that are touted as "real" wargames.
Many "hardware-centric" wargames (including old favorites of mine such as Panzer Leader, and institutions like ASL) allow players to freely move all of their units every turn, with a god-like ability to see everything that is going on on the battlefield and an ability to react to every move the enemy makes. As someone who has read a lot of military history and has had the privilage of participating in military exercises during my time in the service, I feel that these abstractions in "real" wargames greatly diminish their value as accurate simulations. At the tactical level, the overriding impression I gained of battle was that of confusion and disorganization. In my opinion, M44's card system provides an effective means of duplicating the effects of actual combat, with its missed messages, confused front-line leaders, bad map-reading skills, broken radios, and the like, leading to units not reacting as desired to things developing in their sectors, or combined operations breaking down when units do not move out as planned.
Now, what I think would be neat would be a sort of "advanced M44" which would introduce some more of the hardware differentiation favored by people such as the OP while retaining the card-driven command and control system which so elegantly models the soft side of combat operations. That would seeminly satisfy both sides of this debate. But regardless of whether that ever happens, I know I will still consider M44 a wargame, albeit one that is primarily focused not on armor penetration, but on modeling command and control issues, a facet of battle that is often overlooked in more seemingly accurate consims.
-
Karl Petterson
United States
Gulfport
Florida
-
"Is", "Is'nt"
"Duck season", "Wabit Season"
Can't we all agree that toy soldiers pushed around a hex board via command decision is in fact a simulation of agression on some level. In fact the objective in Memoir 44 is to eliminate oposing units to gain victory conditions, that does simulate what I was tought in the US Army.
The depth of realism and unit selection has been broken down to it's most basic level similar to Axis and Allies units.
I have played R. Borg's Command and Colors game's and I would define him as an avid War Game designer. He is continually crafting his game system into a plethora of periods of conflict. Just because a publisher prints the parts of his system that they find the consumer will be attracted to does not define his system as non wargame material.
I suggest trying some of his other Wargame's published by other companies and you will be introduced to his evolving designs.
Memoir was designed to cellebrate the Normandy invasion and sacrifice of all who served there. I believe the game does some justice to the conflict as an informataive introduction to that period of history.
Karl
-
-
Sorry, I may be going off-topic here...but how is this even considered to be a "review"?
-
Bartow Riggs
United States
Antelope
California
-
DrChek wrote: Depicts war? Check.
Is a game? Check.
It's a wargame.
Cogent, indisputable...dare I say, "Logical?"
-
Douglas Buel
United States
Orlando
Florida
-
papahoth wrote: Richard Borg
Borg is not a wargame designer by background. He neither develops wargames as a living nor seems to have a presence in the wargame community.
I liked most of your post, but this is just specious.
-
M Dornbrook
United States
Arizona
-
Weh Jen Seah wrote: Sorry, I may be going off-topic here...but how is this even considered to be a "review"?
This type of article belongs in the review category. Michael (the reviewer) is examining the popular approach of categorizing the game as a wargame and arguing that its components and mechanisms do not justify this categorization. While it may not seem obvious because he does not engage in the typical overview of mechanisms and components that an introductory review might, he is discussing his experience and opinions about playing this game. At the very least, the reader is able to conclude that the author believes that Memoir '44 isn't a good game for serious wargamers.
-
Harvester of Eyes.
United States
Louisville
Kentucky
-
desertfox2004 wrote: As the OP's post illustrates, there is a certain branch of the wargaming family that places "hardware-centric" realism as the primary determining factor in whether or not a game is a "Wargame". This branch of the family tends to view wargames through the lense of how accurately the hardware of war is modeled in their games. While I believe this is a valid consideration in viewing wargames, I find that often, many games viewed as high-level consims due to their meticulous modeling of ranges, armor-penetration, and historical unit designations, often fall short in modeling the "soft" elements of war - namely command and control. That's an area where I believe M44 and the other C&C games are actually superior and more accurate wargames than many that are touted as "real" wargames.
Many "hardware-centric" wargames (including old favorites of mine such as Panzer Leader, and institutions like ASL) allow players to freely move all of their units every turn, with a god-like ability to see everything that is going on on the battlefield and an ability to react to every move the enemy makes. As someone who has read a lot of military history and has had the privilage of participating in military exercises during my time in the service, I feel that these abstractions in "real" wargames greatly diminish their value as accurate simulations. At the tactical level, the overriding impression I gained of battle was that of confusion and disorganization. In my opinion, M44's card system provides an effective means of duplicating the effects of actual combat, with its missed messages, confused front-line leaders, bad map-reading skills, broken radios, and the like, leading to units not reacting as desired to things developing in their sectors, or combined operations breaking down when units do not move out as planned.
Now, what I think would be neat would be a sort of "advanced M44" which would introduce some more of the hardware differentiation favored by people such as the OP while retaining the card-driven command and control system which so elegantly models the soft side of combat operations. That would seeminly satisfy both sides of this debate. But regardless of whether that ever happens, I know I will still consider M44 a wargame, albeit one that is primarily focused not on armor penetration, but on modeling command and control issues, a facet of battle that is often overlooked in more seemingly accurate consims.
I agree with Leo 100%. I used to demand "hardware-centric realism" in tactical games, having cut mt teeth on Panzer Blitz and eventually moving up to ASL. It wasn't until I began reading autobiographies of ground level soldiers and not those of the generals or dry "top down" histories, did I really appreciate the fact that small unit leaders not only couldn't see the enemy units on the other side of the hill, most of the time they couldn't see many of their own men.
That said, I want to thank the OP for his review because it reopens this discussion and is a perfect lead in to my M'44 variants file that attempts to paint the hardware attributes of the AFV in the game with a little bit finer brush.
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/file/info/34396
(TOOT! TOOT! What's that sound? Why it's me tooting my own horn.)
-
Steve Duff
Canada
Ottawa
Ontario
-
mdornbrook wrote: This type of article belongs in the review category.
It told me almost nothing about this game. In fact, from what I can tell, most of the "review" is about what the game *doesn't* do or have.
Absolutely not a review.
-
Brian Morris
United States
Raytown
Missouri
2nd, 6th & 7th Wisconsin, 19th Indiana, 24th Michigan
24th Michigan monument at Gettysburg Pa.
-
There's a great scene in the old Masterpiece Theater series Piece of Cake where the American pilot mentions he fought in the Spanish civil war. One of the British pilots says "Well that wasn't really a war now was it." Where the American replies "People were shooting at each other. People were dying. Looked like a war to me".
The mainstay of this whole argument seems to be it's not a wargame because it's not complex enough. Silly argument really.
-
-
BartowWing wrote: DrChek wrote: Depicts war? Check.
Is a game? Check.
It's a wargame. Cogent, indisputable...dare I say, "Logical?"
I'd say "shallow".
UnknownParkerBrother wrote: Absolutely not a review.
Right. And Memoir '44 is a wargame.
-
Aron
Netherlands
Life is game, you gotta enjoy the journey
-
Felkor wrote: I think if you're going to argue that a game is or isn't a wargame, you need to give some sort of a definition of wargame, even if it's just a link to someone else's definition.
You've given me no reason to accept your argument except that you're "a hard core, long term, war game player". That doesn't really help me much except to reveal a likely bias.
What is your definition of a war game?
That is the golden post (sorry I dont have any geekgold to give).
My definition of a wargame is:
A wargame in my eyes:
- The theme has to be a war or battle
- The goal is to defeat the other player(s) with the use of soldiers or anything military (counters, blocks or plastic)
That way I have to say Memoir 44 is a wargame. An abstract, light wargame, but nonetheless a wargame.
I find pacific typhoon and atlantic storm card wargames altough it could easily be cards with colours and stars instead of ships with guns.
-
Rob Nutt
United States
Ontario
Oregon
bah bah bah bah....woof
My...what big teeth you have
-
In my opinion, a war game doesn't necessary have to reflect realism. After reading the review, I interpreted Michael as saying that it must be realistic. I think I understand what he is wanting in a wargame, more a simulation. However, I will agrue the point that wargames don't have to be realistic at all. Lets say a game like ASL was set in the 30th century and the weapons were "plasma cannons" and the like. Would the game still be a wargame? Would it be excluded from this definition based solely on this basis alone? What I think, and I cannot speak for Michael, is that he equates wargames to realism. So a better definition of the types of games he is depicting is "Historical Wargames". Is Memoir a Historical Wargame? It has elements, but that's about it. A fun (and frustrating) light wargame. It is what it is.
-
|
|
Posted Sun Aug 31, 2008 9:49 am
