Does Memoir '44 count? I got in my last overseas sojourn (boy was it a hassle to cram it inside the bags. Thankfully the box survived without significant damage). I still haven't got around to playing it, though.

Does anyone have any newbie-friendly hex-and-chit wargames to recommend? I've never played a wargame in my life and I want to see what the fuss is all about.

Memoir 44 is cool and works great as a basic, entry-level wargame, but it's not really what I think of as a hex-and-chit wargame.

For a "newbie hex-and-chit wargame," I'd recommend A Victory Lost or it's follow-up, A Victory Denied.  I haven't played it, but Fire in the Sky is frequently recommended as a newbie-friendly game.

Then there's classics like Squad Leader, Tactics II, or Blitzkrieg.

"Hex-and-chit wargamers" don't, by and large, call them "hex-and-chit". The "chits" are called "counters" by board wargamers. Now that I've got that off my chest, I agree that M '44 isn't typical. It's a fun game, though, for sure.

The big fashion in wargames these days are the so-called "card-driven games" or CDGs. These are a little like M '44 in that they give the players cards which they have to play in order to activate units or special events, but they tend to be more strategic. Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage is a good choice here, although Settembrini believes that its strategies are too convergent. Other options: Washington's War (possibly the simplest, originally published as We The People); Twilight Struggle; Paths of Glory, Wilderness War.

Another board wargame family eschews the cardboard counters and uses wooden blocks to represent units. The advantage, aside from being nice to play with, is that the blocks are stood on edge so that their identity is hidden from the opponent, a little like Stratego. The square blocks can also be rotated on edge to track a unit's "hit points". Hammer of the Scots is very popular. I've enjoyed Napoleon, War of 1812, and Rommel in the Desert.

Note: many of the above games don't actually use hexes. Instead, they use what's called "point-to-point movement". But both of these "families" of games are very firmly in the "wargame" category. There are also many other diverse designs, such as Victory in the Pacific, Turning Point: Stalingrad, Republic of Rome, Magic Realm, etc.

For classic wargames that represent the mainstream of design, you can divide them roughly into two categories: tactical and strategic/operational. The dividing line is basically: can a unit shoot at another unit which is more than one hex away? Between this mechanic and some other typical characteristics, the two types of game tend to play fairly differently. Of course the big tactical game is Advanced Squad Leader, but I wouldn't recommend it to a newbie. (There are "starter kits" that might be a possibility, and the original Squad Leader is good.) Instead, SJG's Ogre/GEV (two related games) are a good introduction. Dwarfstar's Grav Armor could be an even better choice--I haven't played it, but it has gotten good reviews, and it's available now as a free download.

For operational/Strategic games I find harder to recommend any particular title. It doesn't mean they aren't good, just that I can't pinpoint one that's good, popular, newb-friendly, and easy to get your hands on. That may be because I'm not very current on the latest designs, but it could also reflect a general tendency toward complexity from the '80s on. The Russian Campaign was a huge favorite in the hobby for a long time and is available in a 4th edition. If you can find it, maybe the Smithsonian/AH edition of D-Day or Battle of the Bulge?

If we're including stuff that isn't traditional hex/counter, I'd recommend Bonaparte at Marengo (or its follow-up, Napoleon's Triumph).

I'll also second Elliot's metion of Hammer of the Scots.

Hex-and-chit games are basically old school, and died out for good reason: it's so much easier to just have the computer do all that stuff, at least once you get past a certain complexity level.

The best way to get a taste of it on the computer is to pop over to //www.matrixgames.com, they have plenty of such games, just pick one you think looks good and go with it (Field of Glory battle pack might give you the best way to taste the style if you're not looking for WWII).

The best of these types of games are generally WWII simulators (mostly because there are so many, although Napoleonics is a respectable second). There just aren't that many good chit boardgames that are introductory anymore. If you can find War at Sea, that's your best bet.

Quote from: Doom;555667The best way to get a taste of it on the computer is to pop over to //www.matrixgames.com, they have plenty of such games, just pick one you think looks good and go with it (Field of Glory battle pack might give you the best way to taste the style if you're not looking for WWII).

Field of Glory is a great tabletop miniatures wargame.  (In fact, I'm preparing for a tabletop Field of Glory game I've been waiting to play for some time.)  The computer/digital version is fun, too, although not quite the same thing (and the graphics aren't very impressive).  The Field of Glory battle pack isn't a complete game; it's just additional scenarios for the basic game (you can also get era-specific/themed "army list" expansion packs for the computer version of Field of Glory).

On the computer, I've been wanting to try Panzer Corps.  It's supposedly a game in the "Panzer General" tradition.  If so, it should be pretty good.

There's also Vassal; lots of tabletop wargame modules are available for it.

Panzer Corps is...freaking...awesome. It's Panzer General of old, with a very respectable update.

Get it. It's that simple, at least if you're not looking for high complexity or high realism.

Quote from: Doom;555679Panzer Corps is...freaking...awesome. It's Panzer General of old, with a very respectable update.

Get it. It's that simple, at least if you're not looking for high complexity or high realism.

Cool; that's great to hear.  I was thinking about it, but that definitely tips the balance into the "must buy it" column.

Another favorite computer wargame which is not hex-and-counter, but is kind of like a 3D version of ASL is the Combat Mission series from Battlefront.  It's turn-based, and uses a "we go" arrangement where both sides give orders and then action is simultaneously viewed for a minute, then new orders are given, et cetera.

Quote from: Doom;555667Hex-and-chit games are basically old school, and died out for good reason: it's so much easier to just have the computer do all that stuff, at least once you get past a certain complexity level.

There are a number of problems with computer wargames (though some may just be a matter of lack of knowledge/perspective on my part):

1. It's difficult/impossible to examine the inner workings of the mechanics and the simulation model, or to modify them. With board wargames, not only can you modify instantly, but there's a tradition of access to designer's notes, discussion (these days centered at talk.consimworld.com, but also the mailing list consim-l and a few other places), and even access to the designers themselves.

1a. It's also quite easy to develop variants. Some computer games may have tools for creating new scenarios, but you won't always find that games are designed with the breadth necessary to e.g. take a game designed for the American Revolution and re-purpose the map and mechanics to do the French & Indian War.

1b. You don't have to worry about incompatibilities and crashes. Yes, there may be problems interpreting rules, but you can always houserule (often with the help of other gamers), and often you can get an official ruling or errata--equivalent to a software "patch" but much easier to develop & deploy.

2. There isn't a very strong culture of review, critique and analysis. For board wargames, again, there's the discussion at consimworld. Also BGG, and I think there are still some magazines devoted to review and analysis. If one is interested in older games, there's also a big back catalog of discussion, especially for The Avalon Hill General (see bottom of page here). Other magazines such as Moves, Strategy & Tactics, Fire & Movement, Command, The Wargamer, Dragon, The Space Gamer are also more or less available.

3. Related to (2), it can be hard to pick out games which take simulation/history as important values compared to games that are more game-y. Granted, Matrix games seems to have a pretty good catalog.

4. There's nothing like playing in person with real people. Yes, games can be designed to facilitate over-the-net play, or PBEM, or hot-seat. These have plusses & minuses relative to old-fashioned FTF over a table. If you can't play vs. a human opponent, though, I doubt that computer AI is quite good enough to give the same sort of challenge. Games can be designed to get around this (e.g. by working more from solitaire models which had already been developed in board wargames such as Peloponnesian War or Ambush!, or by using mechanics which avoid computer-players' weaknesses).

On the side of computer games, there are certainly some advantages. Obviously the burden of learning & applying the rules is reduced (though at the cost of possibly not understanding important strategy inputs; see item 1). It's easier to find an opponent, either over the net or via an AI. Computer games lend themselves well to applying hidden movement and other aspects of limited intelligence, without requiring a human umpire. But they aren't an unalloyed benefit, for the reasons I've explained.

Philotomy mentions Vassal. This is a great tool. Although it doesn't give you an AI or manage the rules for you, it lets you play hundreds of wargames over the net realtime or via PBEM. Also see Cyberboard, which although designed for Windows, will also work under WINE or (Wine Bottler) on *nix/Mac machines. There are even games where you can find the rules on the net, and then use Vassal/CB in place of the physical parts. See http://www.limeyyankgames.co.uk/lyg/ and http://www.vassalengine.org/wiki/Category:Modules. E.g. Grav Armor is available for Vassal.

Finally, I can't vouch for any of the games at the following links, but some of them might be worth a look, especially those produced by Professor Sabin's students.

http://perfectcaptain.50megs.com/captain.html
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgamecategory/1120/print-play
http://www.kcl.ac.uk/sspp/departments/warstudies/people/professors/sabin/consim.aspx also http://www.kcl.ac.uk/sspp/departments/warstudies/people/professors/sabin/simwar.aspx

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;555742There are a number of problems with computer wargames (though some may just be a matter of lack of knowledge/perspective on my part):

1. It's difficult/impossible to examine the inner workings of the mechanics and the simulation model, or to modify them. With board wargames, not only can you modify instantly, but there's a tradition of access to designer's notes, discussion (these days centered at talk.consimworld.com, but also the mailing list consim-l and a few other places), and even access to the designers themselves.

Agreed. For those players that like to tinker with games, this is a big deal. There are quite a few computer games that give full disclosure on how the rules work, however, and I think there are a few that let you tinker with the rules without necessarily being a high programmer.

Quote1a. It's also quite easy to develop variants. Some computer games may have tools for creating new scenarios, but you won't always find that games are designed with the breadth necessary to e.g. take a game designed for the American Revolution and re-purpose the map and mechanics to do the French & Indian War.

Some computer games indeed; if that's what you want in your game, just buy those. You have to balance this with it being much easier to find opponents for your "Swamp War 1781" game.

Quote1b. You don't have to worry about incompatibilities and crashes. Yes, there may be problems interpreting rules, but you can always houserule (often with the help of other gamers), and often you can get an official ruling or errata--equivalent to a software "patch" but much easier to develop & deploy.

Very much agreed, but you do have to worry about boardgames being just about unplayable, which has happened to me quite a bit. Both issues are helped by looking at reviews, to some extent.

Computer games give the bonus that there's very seldom arguing over rules interpretations--the computer is a fairly impartial judge, after all, and really hard to argue with.

Quote2. There isn't a very strong culture of review, critique and analysis. For board wargames, again, there's the discussion at consimworld. Also BGG, and I think there are still some magazines devoted to review and analysis. If one is interested in older games, there's also a big back catalog of discussion, especially for The Avalon Hill General (see bottom of page here). Other magazines such as Moves, Strategy & Tactics, Fire & Movement, Command, The Wargamer, Dragon, The Space Gamer are also more or less available.

I have to disagree here. "Very strong culture" is subjective, but some computer games have avid followers and lively forum discussion groups.

Those magazines are mostly dead (used to write for some of them), I'm not sure that's any better than going to forums.

Quote3. Related to (2), it can be hard to pick out games which take simulation/history as important values compared to games that are more game-y. Granted, Matrix games seems to have a pretty good catalog.

That applies to boardgames, too. Memoir '44, for example, is pretty dubious as a simulation. That's what reviews are for.

Quote4. There's nothing like playing in person with real people. Yes, games can be designed to facilitate over-the-net play, or PBEM, or hot-seat. These have plusses & minuses relative to old-fashioned FTF over a table. If you can't play vs. a human opponent, though, I doubt that computer AI is quite good enough to give the same sort of challenge. Games can be designed to get around this (e.g. by working more from solitaire models which had already been developed in board wargames such as Peloponnesian War or Ambush!, or by using mechanics which avoid computer-players' weaknesses).

Agreed, but "something" is better than "nothing". It can be extremely challenging to find a next door neighbor willing to put in the 80 or more hours for a serious wargame...but if such a person exists anywhere on the planet, chances are you can find him online, looking for an opponent, too.

Computer 'chit' games also have the advantage of not actually taking up space for the month or two it might take the more advanced games (granted, I remember the fun of spending 3 months on the battle of Ligny). It also kinda sucks when a cat runs across the board.

The bottom line is still most folks play these types of games on computers nowadays...computers are not completely advantageous, but for the most part, the benefits outweigh the drawbacks.

Quote from: Doom;555759I have to disagree here. "Very strong culture" is subjective, but some computer games have avid followers and lively forum discussion groups.

Those magazines are mostly dead (used to write for some of them), I'm not sure that's any better than going to forums.

True, but the information is out there. I'm really not very well-versed in what's available in terms of reviews of computer wargames. But let's say you want to compare Tobruk (AH) with 88 (Yaquinto) in terms of mechanics and historicity. Or Imperium Romanum II (West End) with Trajan: Ancient Wars (Decision Games). There are magazines you can track down, mailing lists & discussion boards you can read and participate in, and reviews you can read on grognard.com.

Yes, I'm showing my age since I have trouble coming up with contemporary examples. Maybe Fire in the Sky (MMP) vs. Advanced Pacific Theatre of Operations (DG), Empire of the Sun (GMT), Across the Pacific (Pacific Rim), Great Pacific War (Avalanche), Pacific Victory (Columbia), Asia Engulfed (GMT), or Pearl Harbor (Udo Grebe). I'm sure even if you strike the unplayable monsters from the list, there's still ample fodder for comparison and analysis of each game's mechanics, strategy, and relation to history, and I'll bet you'll find it at CSW, BGG (to some extent), CONSIM-L, and in magazines such as Vae Victis (French) and Paper Wars (English).

I just haven't found that sort of depth of analysis for computer games. Maybe I just haven't looked hard enough.

Oh, I forgot to mention a really good computer wargame: Tac Ops.

There's a demo available at http://www.battlefront.com/products/tacops4/tacops4.html

I played the demo of an earlier version but I haven't yet played this one. The demo I played consisted of a single scenario where you defend against a preplanned enemy attack; there wasn't much by way of AI, so it was probably more suited for PBEM or hot-seat. In fact I've read that one intended use was to have an umpire who'd take verbal/written orders from the players, translate them into game moves, and then convey the results back to the players.

It's not a simple game, but as Doom says, it removes the burden of interpreting and applying the rules. However, based on my play of the earlier demo, I'd guess the game isn't going to be very intelligible unless you're already steeped in modern military tactical concepts. OTOH, once you get started, you may be drawn into doing some research, and the full manual (which you can download for free) apparently has designer's notes and strategy & tactics guides.

The game is basically a hyper detailed version of Avalon Hill's MBT, or perhaps SPI's Mech War 2 or The Gamers TCS series.

More info: http://forums.gamesquad.com/forumdisplay.php?76-TacOps (and this also looks like a good forum for both board wargaming and computer wargaming).

Ah, Imperium Romanum II....good times. The guy I played had to put an ad in the Tampa Tribune to find me, about the only other person in a town of 500k (this was some time ago) that would invest the time to play it...good stuff though.

Columbia Games has a game, Julius Caesar, that covers at least the most fun battle of IR II, and suits my tastes of late, which are for simpler games.

Look around, you can find some hard core discussions of computer games (Dominions 3 over at The Den comes to mind).

If you are really interested in hex and chit wargaming, you need the original Squad Leader. Most important game in the history of wargaming. It's also much simpler to learn than most of the games that have followed it.

Of current games, I highly recommend the Conflict of Heroes series. It's a bit simpler to learn compared to many other wargames, and provides a fantastic gaming experience. It's aimed at people who like wargames, but don't want to memorize a 40 page rulebook.

There are some freebies from Dwarfstar Games, although they aren't strictly wargames.  They will give a decent feel for those, however, as they are hex-and-chit only much simpler.