Being a classic miniature wargamer (player of Warhammer), I have noticed a general feel in the past few years or so that miniature wargaming is slowly becoming a thing of the past. Not only do computer games like WNLB and SMG essentially mimic all the aspects of this classic hobby, they also manage to eliminate nearly all the weakpoints held by it, namely the large amounts of table-crossreferencing and endless dice-rolling. One cannot help but wonder if the computer and keyboard will eventually replace all those boxes of finely-painted pewter figurines.
So lets do an analysis here using the famed "Floyder Scale of Perfection". This scale not only manages to measure the "greatness" of a wargame, but also shows its likely appeal to the population at large, and thus indicates how popular and widely played it is/will be.
(Remember a 2 on this scale represents average...while a 4 represents excellence) (F0r comparitive purposes, the SMG/WNLB line of games got a score of roughly 2.5)
Lets start with whats currently the most popular MIniatures Wargame on the market. WARHAMMER. No game has ever managed to build quite the fanbase and support this game has, so lets give it a go...
Visual Appeal 4 (A fully-painted Warhammer army is truely a breathtaking sight)
Quickness of Play 2 (A pretty streamlined rules system)
Historical Accuracy 2 (Quasi-Historicality)
Strategy and Tactics 3 (Wide variety of troops and weapons makes for alot of decision-making)
AH a final score of 2.75, a score well above average. HOWEVER, it should be noted that this can only be achieved with a well-painted Miniature army. Otherwise you could expect a score of possibly 2.5 or so.
Now lets try one final test subject. Representing the average miniature rules system, "Clash of Armor", will be an indication of the quality of these games.
Visual Appeal 4 (Fully-painted army and terrain)
Quickness of Play 1 (pretty clunky and unplayable system)
Historical Accuracy 2 (Some mechanics were quite lacking in accuracy)
Strategy and Tactics 1 (more decision-making would be possible if you wernt constantly referencing charts)
So all in all "Clash of Armor" gets a 2. At first indication this would be average, HOWEVER, rememeber that this score is only possible with a fully-painted army and detailed terrain. Alot of miniature wargamers will lack one of these elements, so thus the score for the "average" must be lowered to something around 1.75. Hmm, below average, what a dissapointment.
CONCLUSION
So what final conclusions can be drawn from this experiment?
It can be seen that the best current miniatures system "Warhammer" is still about equal in strength to best computer games on the market. (SMG series) This is reassuring. However, it can also be seen that the average tabletop rules system "Clash of Armor", is still well below this norm. This is sadly, a sign of the times, as a good number of miniature enthusiasts still feel that these types of rules (unplayable) are still somehow superior. Altogether though I am relieved, to know that the best systems out there can still hold their own, and obviously have quite a few years left.
And also, I think there is a small chance, that true miniature wargaming may never die......
(I hope this informatin is of interst to at least someone) lol
So lets do an analysis here using the famed "Floyder Scale of Perfection". This scale not only manages to measure the "greatness" of a wargame, but also shows its likely appeal to the population at large, and thus indicates how popular and widely played it is/will be.
(Remember a 2 on this scale represents average...while a 4 represents excellence) (F0r comparitive purposes, the SMG/WNLB line of games got a score of roughly 2.5)
Lets start with whats currently the most popular MIniatures Wargame on the market. WARHAMMER. No game has ever managed to build quite the fanbase and support this game has, so lets give it a go...
Visual Appeal 4 (A fully-painted Warhammer army is truely a breathtaking sight)
Quickness of Play 2 (A pretty streamlined rules system)
Historical Accuracy 2 (Quasi-Historicality)
Strategy and Tactics 3 (Wide variety of troops and weapons makes for alot of decision-making)
AH a final score of 2.75, a score well above average. HOWEVER, it should be noted that this can only be achieved with a well-painted Miniature army. Otherwise you could expect a score of possibly 2.5 or so.
Now lets try one final test subject. Representing the average miniature rules system, "Clash of Armor", will be an indication of the quality of these games.
Visual Appeal 4 (Fully-painted army and terrain)
Quickness of Play 1 (pretty clunky and unplayable system)
Historical Accuracy 2 (Some mechanics were quite lacking in accuracy)
Strategy and Tactics 1 (more decision-making would be possible if you wernt constantly referencing charts)
So all in all "Clash of Armor" gets a 2. At first indication this would be average, HOWEVER, rememeber that this score is only possible with a fully-painted army and detailed terrain. Alot of miniature wargamers will lack one of these elements, so thus the score for the "average" must be lowered to something around 1.75. Hmm, below average, what a dissapointment.
CONCLUSION
So what final conclusions can be drawn from this experiment?
It can be seen that the best current miniatures system "Warhammer" is still about equal in strength to best computer games on the market. (SMG series) This is reassuring. However, it can also be seen that the average tabletop rules system "Clash of Armor", is still well below this norm. This is sadly, a sign of the times, as a good number of miniature enthusiasts still feel that these types of rules (unplayable) are still somehow superior. Altogether though I am relieved, to know that the best systems out there can still hold their own, and obviously have quite a few years left.
And also, I think there is a small chance, that true miniature wargaming may never die......
(I hope this informatin is of interst to at least someone) lol
"Floyder is perhaps the greatest Waterloo player ever"
.
) should be garrotted.