Poll: Do you play grognard games?
- Thread starter perkl
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I'm not alone then? I've never heard of 'grognard' but based on the 1st and 2nd responses my assumption of grognard (ie; games featuring swords, sorcery and, grog) is completely wrong.DoPo said:
Ah no, it's not completely wrong. Originally it meant a person who likes to play war games, as in the thing that preceded D&D (Chainmail and so on). Nowadays, in the PnP community it's used as a somewhat derogatory term meaning "a person who likes to play old editions" (mostly in D&D) referring to the really militant one (pun not intended) who claim that the new versions RUINED THE GAME FOREVER and that the old editions ARE THE ONLY TRUE WAY TO PLAY and so on. It is also, somewhat informally (as more informal as you can get), related to neckbeards, as in the grognards are also neckbeards.Shoggoth2588 said:
But hence why my confusion on "grognard games" - is it...I dunno, combat simulators? Strategy games? RTSes in particular? Presumably old ones. Or is it old D&D games?
Strategy games. To be particular, strategy games which place fidelity of simulation before balance or gameplay. If Iraqi 125mm ammunition couldn't penetrate M1A2 turret armor in real life, then they can't do it in the game either. If this creates terribly lopsided factions, so be it. Games can have simple rulesets as long as the abstractions are within the spirit of the war or battle in question. Most often they are quite detailed to better achieve the feel of how systems interact.
.
Oh, in that case I don't play those games. Nothing against them, to be honest, this is just the first time I've heard of them. And I don't play that many strategies.perkl said:
However, I am interested now. I'll look into them since it sounds fun.
Les grognards or the grumblers is the nickname for the older elite soldiers in Napoleon's army. Given the origin of modern war gaming comes from Napoleonic times and characters of most war gamers they also take the nickname grognards.DoPo said:
Restrictions are the thing, however. When you have a siege tank in Starcraft you can order it to move somewhere, shoot something, deploy and pack up. All siege tanks are alike, none of them will ever break down by themselves, spotting is both simple and guaranteed. Generally speaking you won't remember the actions of any single tank after the game is over.
Contrast this with Combat Mission scenario Wittmann at Villers-Bocage. Wittmann has surprised a company of British motorized infantry deployed for a tea break near the village itself. The scenario start with a lone Tiger rolling onto the road leading towards the village and laying waste to the whole company. After that it's decision time; to village proper, or something else? Tiger tanks have good armor and a powerful, accurate gun that can knock out any Allied tank. On the other hand the tank is slow, turret rotation speed even slower and it suffers from poor visibility if commander isn't observing action from the top hatch.
Entering the village is tempting, because you can pigeonhole yourself between two buildings. Any Allied armor would have to approach you head on. But if any of the infantry made it out of the starting massacre, they can enter the building and kill Wittmann if he's still observing the action from turret hatch. And if he is not, the tank is essentially blind and the same infantrymen can drop satchel charges on the back deck. Not front deck because that's almost impenetrable: back deck, because engine exhaust vents are there and they're guaranteed to be a weak spot.
If you don't enter the village you have the advantage of range, but have to contend with Allied tanks attempting to flank you. In close combat you're an almost guaranteed loser as Sherman turrets turn faster than yours. As a result they may attempt to drive past you at full speed, halt and turn around. In the worst case you don't even notice the enemy before you're dead.
Decision making processes like these are the bread and butter of detailed strategy games. You have to understand your own capabilities and those of your enemy. Sometimes it's better to purposely confuse the situation and mix it up at close range; other times you may find keeping your distance and picking the enemy apart from long range is the way to go. The decisive factor may be something very slight. Is it foggy on the morning of 13th of June, 1944? Did it rain the night before? Did the British infantry manage to take out the commanders MG? Was one of the fleeing vehicles knocked out in tactically advantageous or disadvantageous position? And of course the situation is completely different if it is not Wittmann at Villers-Bocage but mechanics driving the first prototype Tigers in the freezing temperatures of Russian winter, in a desperate bid to relieve the Sixth Army trapped inside Stalingrad.
Contrast this with Combat Mission scenario Wittmann at Villers-Bocage. Wittmann has surprised a company of British motorized infantry deployed for a tea break near the village itself. The scenario start with a lone Tiger rolling onto the road leading towards the village and laying waste to the whole company. After that it's decision time; to village proper, or something else? Tiger tanks have good armor and a powerful, accurate gun that can knock out any Allied tank. On the other hand the tank is slow, turret rotation speed even slower and it suffers from poor visibility if commander isn't observing action from the top hatch.
Entering the village is tempting, because you can pigeonhole yourself between two buildings. Any Allied armor would have to approach you head on. But if any of the infantry made it out of the starting massacre, they can enter the building and kill Wittmann if he's still observing the action from turret hatch. And if he is not, the tank is essentially blind and the same infantrymen can drop satchel charges on the back deck. Not front deck because that's almost impenetrable: back deck, because engine exhaust vents are there and they're guaranteed to be a weak spot.
If you don't enter the village you have the advantage of range, but have to contend with Allied tanks attempting to flank you. In close combat you're an almost guaranteed loser as Sherman turrets turn faster than yours. As a result they may attempt to drive past you at full speed, halt and turn around. In the worst case you don't even notice the enemy before you're dead.
Decision making processes like these are the bread and butter of detailed strategy games. You have to understand your own capabilities and those of your enemy. Sometimes it's better to purposely confuse the situation and mix it up at close range; other times you may find keeping your distance and picking the enemy apart from long range is the way to go. The decisive factor may be something very slight. Is it foggy on the morning of 13th of June, 1944? Did it rain the night before? Did the British infantry manage to take out the commanders MG? Was one of the fleeing vehicles knocked out in tactically advantageous or disadvantageous position? And of course the situation is completely different if it is not Wittmann at Villers-Bocage but mechanics driving the first prototype Tigers in the freezing temperatures of Russian winter, in a desperate bid to relieve the Sixth Army trapped inside Stalingrad.