I used to argue that Warhammer 40000 used a 1"=50m collapsed ground scale.  But then they brought back throwing grenades.

28mm runs from 1/60 to 1/48 with Warlord at the low end of the spectrum and stuff like hero clix at the high end of the spectrum.  Generally you're looking at 1" = 2m instead of 1" = 1yd.

There are a couple games that have been done at 1/43, Road Kill and USX if I remember right.  There's lots of cars at that scale but no military vehicles and the difference is enough to make 1/48 tanks look pretty weenie.

At that point you might want 15mm = 1 yd.

For 1/32 which is well supported with vehicles of all sorts, I like 30mm = 1 yard and 30mm hexes.

Really, it's a shame 1/72 wasn't more popular with miniatures designers and toy car makers.

Most modern 15mm stuff is actually 18mm which is basically 1/87 which is essentially HO model railroad scale in a world where they put anablolic steroids in the water instead of fluoride.

Yeah, I play enough wargames frequently enough that I'd certainly fall into the "wargamer" side of things. But I'm not anywhere near the fanatic that I am for RPGs.

I wish I'd phrased the question differently:  "Do you play many wargames" as opposed to "do you consider yourself a wargamer whatever the fuck that is."  I think definition ambiguity distracted this thread.
 
My ACTUAL point (and I do have one) is what I stated above; playing wargames teaches you that you WILL take losses even if you win, and that influences the way you approach RPGs.

Quote from: Old Geezer;746609My ACTUAL point (and I do have one) is what I stated above; playing wargames teaches you that you WILL take losses even if you win, and that influences the way you approach RPGs.

That seems potentially possible, as a theory.  I don't know just how influential it is in practice.  I mean, that's a bit like saying that if you're a wargamer who also likes RPGs you might think of your chits as real people...

(nods to Pundit)  Beyond that, there's a fallacy in your premise, OG.  In a wargame, I am playing one side, generally.  Either I win or I lose.  The number of counters or troop minis that get removed from my side of the board is ephemeral and meaningless, as long as I win.  Unless it's specified in the victory conditions, I have no incentive not to expend any or all units, however suicidally, so long as I still win the game.  Losing a dozen regiments in an engagement affects me no more psychologically than shooting a few arrows in a fantasy RPG -- you're not "losing" anything, you're simply expending resources.

In a RPG, I'm still playing one side: my character.  If I lose him, I lose, period, all the investment I made in that character.  Unlike most wargames, I play him session after session, with a continuity wargames usually lack.

Empires in Arms is the ultimate RPG, from a certain perspective.

Quote from: Old Geezer;746609playing wargames teaches you that you WILL take losses even if you win, and that influences the way you approach RPGs.

Yup.  Just because my character buys the farm, but the rest of the players win the combat round, doesn't mean we lost.  Doesn't mean I lost either.  We won the encounter, but there were losses in doing so.  

In wargames I view it as one side vs the other.  Rpg's I view it as the players vs. the adventure the DM's putting us through.  We the players are a team.

I love wargames, mostly historical. My prefered set these days is Conflict of Heroes. It does tactical WWII simply, yet pretty accurately.

Regarding 40k, it is a wargame. Just because it doesn't have a hex map or cardboard chits does not mean it is not about winning a battle.

Quote from: Settembrini;747159Empires in Arms is the ultimate RPG, from a certain perspective.

Fantastic game, truly amazing, if you have seven players and plenty of time.

Quote from: Old Geezer;746609My ACTUAL point (and I do have one) is what I stated above; playing wargames teaches you that you WILL take losses even if you win, and that influences the way you approach RPGs.

Ok, if that was the question...

I played a few wargames (see my list above; whether that is "many" or not I can't judge) but I still don't count myself a wargamer.

Quote from: RPGPundit;747141That seems potentially possible, as a theory.  I don't know just how influential it is in practice.  I mean, that's a bit like saying that if you're a wargamer who also likes RPGs you might think of your chits as real people...

Funny thing... in wargames (board games) chits are chits, whatever form they actually take (chits, wooden blocks, plastic miniatures, ships). Everything that happens on the board/table is still abstract.

BUT...

I forgot to mention the Nintendo DS game Advance Wars: Days of Ruin (in Europe Advance Wars: Dark Conflict) that Nowgamer.com rated as "A couple of options and a decent script away from being the best strategy game ever made on any format."

Despite the abstract-ness of the game (which is a blown-up Chess or Conquest) I - as the commander - tried to save and protect my troops as much as possible. But that didn't work in many of the missions and I had to adopt a Chess-like stance, offering gambits a lot. (I found mission #15 especially hard as even with this tactic it's only possible to win if you sacifice all units  except one - which would still be killed if the scenario would last one more turn after the mission objective is fulfilled.)

But this kind of thinking does not cross over into my RPG gaming.

In RPG my NPCs (I mainly GM) are more "people" than abstract figures, even more so when the scenario or behaviour of characters is supposed to be "realistic". (The Quiet Morning or a Flash Forward/Jericho type of setting as opposed to Super Heroes and pure fantasy.)
So I don't throw NPCs in the line to get a certain (tactical or strategic) effect but because of the info, world view, and personality this NPC has.

Quote from: Bill;747201Fantastic game, truly amazing, if you have seven players and plenty of time.

The "plenty of time" is nothing compared to an RPG campaign. But EiA wargamers are GM-type people, whereas RPG-campaigns only need a single GM-type person instead of seven.

NB: check out my Avatar. SCNR.

Quote from: Settembrini;747275The "plenty of time" is nothing compared to an RPG campaign. But EiA wargamers are GM-type people, whereas RPG-campaigns only need a single GM-type person instead of seven.

NB: check out my Avatar. SCNR.

Is that a Turkish leader? I't's been a lot of years since I played Empires in Arms.

I doubt I'll ever get a chance to play it with seven people again. Sadly.

Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;747216Ok, if that was the question...

I played a few wargames (see my list above; whether that is "many" or not I can't judge) but I still don't count myself a wargamer.



Funny thing... in wargames (board games) chits are chits, whatever form they actually take (chits, wooden blocks, plastic miniatures, ships). Everything that happens on the board/table is still abstract.

BUT...

I forgot to mention the Nintendo DS game Advance Wars: Days of Ruin (in Europe Advance Wars: Dark Conflict) that Nowgamer.com rated as "A couple of options and a decent script away from being the best strategy game ever made on any format."

Despite the abstract-ness of the game (which is a blown-up Chess or Conquest) I - as the commander - tried to save and protect my troops as much as possible. But that didn't work in many of the missions and I had to adopt a Chess-like stance, offering gambits a lot. (I found mission #15 especially hard as even with this tactic it's only possible to win if you sacifice all units  except one - which would still be killed if the scenario would last one more turn after the mission objective is fulfilled.)

But this kind of thinking does not cross over into my RPG gaming.

In RPG my NPCs (I mainly GM) are more "people" than abstract figures, even more so when the scenario or behaviour of characters is supposed to be "realistic". (The Quiet Morning or a Flash Forward/Jericho type of setting as opposed to Super Heroes and pure fantasy.)
So I don't throw NPCs in the line to get a certain (tactical or strategic) effect but because of the info, world view, and personality this NPC has.

Not all wargames have equal levels of abstraction, and miniatures games tend to be less abstract than board games.

I think a scenario where you have to sacrifice your entire army to "win" is a bad scenario.

Morale matters, and soldiers can prove amazingly reluctant to die.  My biggest regret about OD&D is that Gary didn't stress morale rules a lot more.  Historical miniatures gaming is all about morale states, full stop.

It's more a puzzle scenario. There is a generally optimal answer. More common in video game Strat/Tactics nowadays than it used to be.