Ideas For A Historical Tabletop-Wargaming, Also Educational, Channel

Herkamer63 said:

Well it's been awhile since I posted a thread of my own that has nothing to do with politics nor the news, so I'm actually kind of happy about that. Anyway, my buddy and I have been discussing doing an online channel, whether it be on Youtube, Twitch, or Discord, and we're both gamers. We recently rekindled our interest in tabletop gaming, particularly wargaming. If you don't know what that is, tabletop games are, typically, the use miniature models with rules, scenarios, mission objectives, etc. It involves moving and measuring models at certain distances, coming up with strategies, and building army lists.

There's more to it, but I think you get the gist. However, what we want to do is make it educational, as well as entertaining and competitive. We have some ideas, but we wouldn't mind getting feedback if YOU were the ones watching. The main setting would be WWII and the main game would be a game called Bolt Action. We had also considered other games like Flames Of War, Blood Red Skies, and Cruel Seas. All of which they're WWII games. I'll post up links in a bit.

It would be done on camera, giving the overview of famous battles, who was involved and what was used (terrain, equipment, vehicles, etc), and give a turn by turn analysis what happened in the game opposed to what ACTUALLY happened in real life. We even considered dressing up as the soldiers that were in each battle (minus the Swastika) to give an idea of who wore what. At least that's the general idea, but I wouldn't mind hearing you think and what you would do. I thought this would be different and I love history. So much we can learn from. If we get it going and it's successful enough, there are other historical games we're looking into as well. In any case, let me know. Here are the links for the main ones and other games we are considering in the future that are not WWII related (all but one link come from the same company):

Bolt Action - Warlord Games US

https://www.flamesofwar.com/hobby.aspx?art_id=6527

Cruel Seas - Warlord Games US

Blood Red Skies - Warlord Games US

Hail Caesar - Warlord Games US

https://us-store.warlordgames.com/collections/pike-shotte

https://us-store.warlordgames.com/collections/black-powder

Click to expand...

Glitch said:

Like Cordelier, I also started out with the Avalon Hill games. First PanzerBlitz and Panzer Leader, and then Blitzkrieg. Later on I got into the really massive hex and counter military games from SPI, like World War 3 and War in the Pacific. The maps were 10' by 10', and there were more than 8,000 counters, which took days to set up.

I also did miniatures for a time, so I am familiar with what the OP is suggesting. However, the primary reason why I personally got into miniatures was not for historical accuracy, but rather to see what history would be like if things turned out differently. They were mostly Civil War simulations. That was also during the early 1980s, when the fastest personal computer at that time was 1.023 MHz.

Today miniatures are largely a thing of the past, having been replaced by computers. The best tool for recreating historical battles today is probably Arma III. They get into extreme detail, all the way down to the ballistic characteristics of the ammunition being used. Something that can only be accomplished via computers. More importantly, it is in real-time. I remember spending hours calculating the results of just a single move when I did miniatures 35 years ago. That was still faster, however, than those massive SPI counter games which would take days just for one side to make their move.

Click to expand...

Cordelier said:

Have you ever tried playing any Matrix Games? I've been starting to get back into Greg Grigsby's stuff lately... War in the East, War in the West - I want to get the PC version of War in the Pacific next... that looks pretty epic.

Click to expand...

Glitch said:

No, I cannot say that I have. I wasn't even aware of Gary Grigsby until you mentioned him. I did play a couple of turn-based counter games back in the 1990s, but they were not nearly on the same scale as War in the West. I loved SPI's War in the Pacific. When I played Japan I would attack and invade Australia instead of attacking Pearl Harbor. One of the more complex WW II games out there today is suppose to be Hearts of Iron IV by Paradox, or so I have read. I haven't played it yet, but I've heard good things about it.

You really can't play strategic games in real-time. They have to be turned-based. Since the overwhelming majority of combat games today are real-time, I'm forced to drop down to tactical level combat. Which is where Arma III comes in. I will definitely be taking a closer look at Gary Grigsby's games. Thanks for bringing them to my attention.

Click to expand...

Cordelier said:

Invade Australia? Oooohh... Gutsy call - did you bypass the Phillippines too?


I'm the same way on the whole turn-based vs. RT debate... definitely has to be turn-based for me too. If you decide to take the leap, maybe we can do a PBEM thing?

Click to expand...

Glitch said:

In SPI's War in the Pacific Japan you get several free moves before the US player, which allows Japan (if they are so inclined) to just barely get within striking distance of Pearl Harbor. I chose to ignore Pearl Harbor and use my free turns to invade the Philippines, Malaysia, Australia and New Zealand. If the US wanted to remove Japan from the Pacific now, they would have to do so without help from Australia and New Zealand.

I'm afraid that I'm too busy during the Summer months to play many games. It is salmon season in Alaska and I have to catch ~250 pounds by August in order to last until next season. In August I have a caribou hunt and in September there is a 20-day moose hunt. It then takes me 3 to 4 weeks to prepare the meat. So it is late October or early November before I can take time to do any serious gaming. I spend the bulk of my Winter months on the PC, but most of my time is outdoors during the Summer. So contact me again in late October and I will certainly consider a PBEM game.

Click to expand...

Cordelier said:

You invaded the Philippines, Malaysia, Australia & New Zealand all at the same time? And still managed to keep up the ground war in China? *L* I'm guessing the SPI version didn't really model logistics that well. You're probably going to find that a bit more challenging in the Matrix version of the game.

I hear you - I'm fighting wildfires at least until September. And then I've got to program a database into Chinese (long story *L*).

I'd definitely be up for a game or two come Winter, though.

Click to expand...

Glitch said:

I used the resources I had for both China and Burma in Australia and New Zealand. I was able to get to Australia and New Zealand several turns before the US was allowed to move, allowing me to take both countries, but I had to throw everything I had at it. I remember that very distinctly, because it left me vulnerable on all the smaller Marshall Islands when the US finally did enter the war. The US was able to get to the Philippines pretty quickly, but their supply lines were stretched pretty thin. So my strategy was to harass the US supply line while trying to hold Australia. Unfortunately, after more than a month of play we never completed the game, so I don't know if my strategy would have been successful or not. The US had a completely intact Navy and there was no way I was going to out produce the US, so ultimately I think Japan would have still lost, but it may have taken considerably longer.

Click to expand...

Cordelier said:

I would have figured with the bulk of your forces committed to Australia and New Zealand, that you'd be the one with the supply problem.... my "ideal" strategy for Japan was to still attack Hawaii... but forget about the Battleships - go for the oil storage infrastructure. The same goes for the Malaya peninsula.... seize the Indonesian oil fields first, and then backtrack to Singapore. There's no getting around the US Asiatic Fleet in Manila... so I'd hit that and try to take out it's offensive capability, but I wouldn't do a land invasion until I secured Sumatra and had Singapore under siege.

I wouldn't invade Australia outright... but I'd sure want to cut off the supply routes from the US - and that means winning control of the Coral Sea - if you can control the Port Moresby to Noumea to Auckland axis with aggressive aerial interdiction.... and keep up a substantial submarine blockade of Hawaii... then it's going to be pretty hard for the US to operate.

Click to expand...

Glitch said:

Australia is closer to Japan than Hawaii, plus the Philippine islands in between.

We really didn't have a choice when or what type of reinforcements we were allotted. They appeared for each player at certain times during the game. As I recall, I didn't get the big battleships for Japan until mid-game, but I did have a lot of carriers early in the game. I did take Malaysia when I took the Philippines, but I gave up all my assets on the Asian mainland in order to invade Australia. I pulled out of China and Burma to invade Australia. I was not thinking about natural resource, just military resources. I wanted to overwhelm Australia and New Zealand with as much as possible in order to secure it before the US entered the war. SPI games included resources, but I don't recall the significance or what you could do with them any longer. You are probably right, I should have looked closer at the natural resources available.

Theoretically, if Japan doesn't attack Pearl Harbor then the US doesn't declare war against Japan. Or at least doesn't declare war against Japan until first declaring war against Germany. Which should buy Japan more time in the Pacific to wreck havoc.

Click to expand...

Cordelier said:

That theoretical only applies if you don't attack the Philippines as well, though. I don't know the SPI rules, I'm just throwing out hypotheticals I like to mull over in my spare time.... kind of like how the western theater of the Civil War would have been different if Magruder or Beauregard had taken over permanently from Johnston after Shiloh instead of Bragg.

Click to expand...

Glitch said:

You are right, of course. The Philippines remained a US territory until July 4, 1946. So any attack against the Philippines would have been an attack against the US. But that is why I like replaying historical conflicts, to see what it might be like if things played out differently. Playing history the way it actually played out in reality is boring, because we already know the outcome.

Click to expand...