Talk:List of board wargames

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Categories[edit]

Categories are nice, but it makes it harder to find games. Is there a way of listed games 2 seperate ways? Sorry if that is a dumb question, but I am fairly new to the wikipedia and having the games listed alphabetically seems more logical. Perhaps a grid or chart? Just thinking out loud MiracleMat 10:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Names of Games[edit]

The names of some games have changed. Listing games seperately for different publishings of the same name is (first of all) slightly frivalous and (secondly) creating red-links for articles that already exist. Tactics II is one example. I am an avid wargamer and have been since the 70's; I think it's an honor to have these simple games listed as articles on Wikipedia, but I think it's pushing it to have one for each publishing. Having one listing for each game and a history of the game listed in the article is the best way. Of course there will be exceptions. Any thoughts?MiracleMat 10:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're quite right. All the editions as separate entries is silly. It might be nice to note different publishers, and definately name changes, but I'm not quite sure as to the format to present that. --Rindis 23:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, unless some one objects to the proposed method, I'm going try cleaning some of this up. I'll consolidate editions, but don't have any current method for dealing with name changes. I'm considering listing dates for each major edition, but definately giving the publisher history. So:
And possibly something like:
But that is probably TMI - and a lot harder to get info for. --Rindis 19:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There. Done. Bleh. Now to start expanding it. (Why did I think fixing up this list was a good idea?) --Rindis 02:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Format[edit]

The basic format I'm using is: bullet, title, parentheses, publisher name, comma, date, close parentheses.

The title should be italicized (as it is a title), and linked (even red-linked) to the article for the game. Blue links should be checked to make sure they aren't going to an article by the same name for something else, and disambiguated if necessary. Whether to include a subtitle is optional, but I'm tending towards it, as it is a good disambiguation measure. If a series has an article, but the individual games do not, go ahead and link games in that series to the series article.

The publisher name should be linked under the same conditions as a title. The date should be linked to the year in games page for that year. Most of these are not significant enough to be mentioned in the main year articles, but should someday be populated into the 'year in game' articles, so we link there.

This gives us:

Publishing history (but not edition history) should be tracked. Each publisher, and the date of initial publication of the game should be given separated by semicolons.
Changes in titles should be tracked. Only link one title. At the moment I'm working with the idea that this should always be the first title, even if the article is for a later name, but am not really decided on it. Do a complete entry on the game's original title folow it with a hyphen surrounded by spaces, and then start the entry over for the new title.
Games published in magazines should be noted. As we do not track editions, do not note if a magazine game was republished by the same company in a regular format later (or earlier). The format is: name of publisher, a hyphen surrouned by spaces, the magazine name (linked and italicised), number sign, and the issue number.
Non-English language wargames and editions are harder to find out about, but should be listed where possible. Note a language other than English in brackets after the publication date. (This will require using tripple brackets and surrounding the first one with "nowiki" tags.) Also note that most languages will need disambiguation to "name language".

This is a list of games. Game expansions should not be included. Squad Leader is listed, Cross of Iron is not. The general rule is whether a particular product is playable by itself. (With an exception for Advanced Squad Leader; there is no one product that is playable, but the system as whole obviously qualifies. Also, the ASL Starter Kits do qualify for separate inclusion on the list.)

A game should only be listed once. If it qualifies for more than one given genre, list it in the one that seems most applicable, and perhaps mention it on this talk page for discussion.

It can be hard to tell whether a particular game is actually just a rework of an earlier one, or a new design, especially if you haven't seen both games in question. Make your best guess, possibly letting the entries on Board Game Geek guide you. Things can always be fixed later if you're mistaken. ^_^ --Rindis 18:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Few Additions[edit]

I'm rather surprised to not see the Classic ABSTRACT gmae RISK here, in addition Castle RISK and the other (Napoleonic?) versions. The game has passed hands, that I know of in this order TONKA:PARKER BROTHERS:HASBRO

Civil War categories[edit]

Scott Mingus, thanks for your work in recating the American Civil War stuff, I only have a vauge idea of the scope of many of those games. However, we may need to hash out what we mean by the terms we're using. My ideas:

  • Skirmish: Normally (in a 20th Century conflict), this would mean man-to-man fighting. In the era of massed formaitions, this doesn't mean much, I would consider using it as meaning a game that involves just a couple Regiments, or possibly a part of a larger battle. Probably covers a few hours
  • Tactical: Covers one battle. This is the level at which tactical concepts were generally formulated in this period. No more than 3-4 days.
  • Operational: One campaign, or maybe a single battle, if the scope is expanded so that you have decent room to maneuver before coming into contact with the enemy (i.e., the game should give you a decent chance to pick the ground on which the battle will be fought. Covers a couple weeks.
  • Strategic: Covers an entire front, or say an area about equivalent to a military department (hmm). Covers months to years.
  • Grand Strategy: Covers the war as a whole.

There's lots of 'slop' room in those definitions, but you'll see that I'm often picturing things as one to two steps down from where you have them. So explain how you're thinking of it, and we'll work out a system. (Explaining how Cemetary Hill ended up in 'Operational' might be a good place to start. ^_^) --Rindis 19:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After seeing the comment on my talk, I realized where the disconnect is. As I'm getting Scott's comment, he's segregating purely by what level the individual units are, while my thought is to segregate by the scope of the game. The fact that Terrible Swift Sword breaks things down to regiments is less important to me than the fact that it is about a single battle, puting in the same category as AH's old Gettysburg, because the scope is the same, even though the scale is not. --Rindis 23:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Rindis! I comprehend your approach, and frankly, let's be consistent from period to period. While I still likme the idea of differentiating by size of the unit sincee that's how we do it in miniature ACW gaming, I think your approach is more workable, although something like TSS may still be classified as grand tactical since that's what the rules book and all the associated literature states. In this approach, brigade level games would be tactical (single battle) and regimental would be tactical. Company sized games would fall in between tactical and skirmish, perhaps leaning to skirmish since Devil's Den covers an hour or two of fighting, whereas TSS is 3 days. regards! Scott Mingus 19:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can tell, it's a common difference between board game and miniatures thinking. Though, it's just now that I've thought about it at all. My theory is that since miniatures players spend time lavishing attention on the individual units, they think in terms of what each figure is; since board game players get everthing in one box (well, usually), they think in terms of what the entire package is. I think it could make an interesting article—somewhere else, since it's original research unless someone beat me to it. :(
Anyway, thanks for the comments. I'll probably spend some time re-working the list when I can find the energy to look up several games to see if I can get a better feel for them.... --Rindis 22:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How to classify games that cover multiple wars?[edit]

I've added a few titles to the Arab-Israeli section but was puzzled as to how to classify games such as "The Sands of War," which covers eight different Middle East wars including Desert Storm, Iran-Iraq, five Arab-Israeli wars and WW II. Since most of the scenrios are Arab-Israeli I can see an argument for placing "Sands of War" in that category, but perhaps it should be listed in the "Other" category, or even double-listed (which I don't like). Suggestions welcome.

I don't have any great answers, I'm afraid. The Art of Siege is in "Other historical" because it covers millenia. The Sniper games have a problem of being both Modern and WWII. I'm figuring in the long run, it's going to be 'break things down by periods, then give subsections for popular wars.' At that point, your game comes under the general Modern heading (and I'll have a place to put GDW's Chaco when I get to it...).
I need to find a day to rework the sections and post the final "official format" I've been using (with all the little sub-clauses).... T_T --Rindis 22:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Format[edit]

I noticed that Rindis changed "First Arab-Israeli War, The" to "The First Arab-Israeli War." I think the former is preferrable simply because it maintains the alphabetical order by first word and does not cause the eye to stop on the non-alphabetical entry when quickly scanning down an alphabetical list. - Bookshelf

Also, I don't see the logic of using SPI instead of spelling it out when referring to S&T games. For consistencies sake I think it should either always be spelled out or not. Not everyone will immediately understand that SPI and Simulations Publications, Inc. are the same company. - Bookshelf

Well, that's the format I'm following at the moment. Sigh, the problems with debating is that we're probably the only two paying attention to the page at the moment (thank your for your efforts by the way, finding out about the games you've been putting in is the hard part, formatting is trivial). ^_^ The idea I had when I started doing that was to a) keep the entry length down, and b) let the magazine take 'center stage' by demphasizing the publisher by using any common short version of their name.
As for 'The', I'm not a big fan of putting that at the rear unless needed for an automatic sorting mechanisim because I like knowing up front that the word is in the title. If it's hidden at the end, I might miss that. Just the way my little attentive-to-detail mind works. i.e., same type of problem, different focus. ^_^ --Rindis 18:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rindis - I just thought I'd raise the those two points. My personal preference runs counter to yours, but I don't wish to become bogged down in debatable matters. Also, I'm new to Wikipedia, so the formatting commands are difficult for me, so feel free to correct my mistakes. I'm happy to contribute to the page, but for the moment I'm focused strictly on Arab-Israeli wargames, so once I finish fleshing out that section's titles I'll turn to doing the write-ups. And is there really only one game on the Korean War? I know it's sometimes refered to as the Forgotten War, but jeesh. - Bookshelf

Genre overviews[edit]

I was thinking that it might be useful for each section to be linked to a page that would provide an overview for the wargames of each genre. For example, a page describing the games of the Arab-Israeli Wars. Clearly this should not duplicate the entries for individual games, but would be a broad description and look at trends and/or themes in the games of that genre. Just an idea. And one that would require a fairly comprehensive knowledge of the genre. - Bookshelf

Many of the current links are to show what the subject is in the first place, and therefore, better than a red link. If there is an article about wargames on that subject as a whole, I definately want to link to that article instead! Note that the 'Tactical games' section in WWII links to Tactical wargames, not Military tactics. --Rindis 18:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rindis - I checked that link and that's along the lines of what I'm thinking of but a bit more grand than I envisioned. Once I work my way through the Arab-Israeli write-ups, which will take me quiet a while, I'll revist the idea of doing a genre overview. Thanks. - Bookshelf

It's pretty obvious that that article has grown far beyond Dorosh's original intent. More of a fault of inadequate scoping in the original article title, and then other people 'accreting' more things into it. Some day, I may go in and see if I can split things back up for him. ^_^ So go ahead with your plans, we can make it work. Do note that it could be considered original research, but I'm not going to frown on it, and it really means that you should be able to draw from some published sources. If you can back it up with occasional reviews talking about how a previous game compared to another... I think it can definately be ironed out. --Rindis 01:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-English Language Games[edit]

I added Yom Kippour 1973, which was published in July 2001 in Vae Victis magazine. Vae Victis is published in French, but English langauge translations of the rules are available on the internet, so I thought the game merited inclusion here. What of non-English language games where rules translations are not readily available, such as Yom Kippur by International Team (1980's Italian wargame publisher) - Bookshelf

I've been thinking of slapping a WP:CSB tag on this. ^_^ Right now, this list is 99.99% US in coverage. I've avoided mentioning foreign-language reprints of games... mostly because I know almost nothing about them. My first thought is to subdivide the list into sections for different languages. However, there is a growing trend (at least I think so) for games to reach across markets and get reprinted in other languages. I would certainly like to note the original Japanese magazine printing of Fire in the Sky.
So go ahead and list them all, but note the language they were printed in. I'll add a note to the top of the page about language. --Rindis 19:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rindis - I added two non-English games and moded the Vae Victis entry, please change the language cite to see if you agree with the format. - Bookshelf 19 October

Ehh. Though the one I'm trying is probably even more ehh. Probably have to go through a few different things. I want to stay away from italics, since that get used for titles all over the place, but I don't think the brackets are working. Language could go at the end (where I just put it) or right after the pubisher, not sure which I like better. As soon as we have something I'm at all happy with I'll put it into the format guidelines above. By the way, your collection is starting to scare me.... ^_^ --Rindis 17:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Arab-Israeli section is starting to look rather beefy isn't it. --Bookshelf 02:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Split[edit]

Right now, this entire article is 38k. Not really a problem, but we have crossed the boundry where the software starts giving warnings, and this is still a tiny fraction of everything. So, I'm starting to ponder exactly where split ups would occur. I'm kind of thinking of splitting it off into the major periods (Ancient, Medieval, Early Modern, Industrial, and Modern). And potentially splitting those when necessary. Or maybe we should just bow to the inevitable and start by splitting of the List of World War II board wargames. --Rindis 19:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are we including downloadable boardgames?[edit]

Armchair General May 2006 has a downloadable boardgame which means you need to print out the map, rules, and counters at home, and do the necessary assembly. Are we counting these as boardgames? The whole idea of these games strikes me as cheap and irritating but that's hardly the basis for deciding to include them here or not. - Bookshelf 19 October (p.s. is there some nifty way to insert the date/time behind my signature?)

O.O I'd count them as boardgames.... However, let's try to keep from going overboard on this and have some standards of notability. So: professionally published, yes; DTP, downloadable, or Vassal-only, maybe. Essentially, if it's getting noticed in the professional magazines (in a positive light) and such, sure, include it. Otherwise, let's hold off. (Three tildes "~" in a row signs your name, four adds a date to it; there's a button at the top of the edit window that I use.) --Rindis 16:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You should be careful to list them according to computer type. Can it execute on an 8 bit platform, an Atari ST, or an Amiga? Or is a PC (non-Windows) executable program? What about Mac? Not all downloadable boardgames execute on a Windows platform. Dexter Nextnumber (talk) 05:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are we including wargame-style consims of non-war topics?[edit]

e.g. Chicago, Chicago! or Spies!? If so, where on the list. If not, is there another list? Jacob Haller 00:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Missed this comment before. Chicago, Chicago is under Modern Tactical. Spies is not on the list. Whether either belongs on the list is a good question, and one I'm hard-pressed to answer as I don't really know anything about them. The definition of a wargame I'm working with is very broad, and as Chicago is a treatment of armed conflict (though not really war), I've been inclined to keep it on the list. Spies, assuming it is based on various forms of covert operations outside the general realm of armed conflict, probably does not belong.
I don't always agree with BGG's categorization, but it's a good starting point, especially when I don't know the game, and I note Chicago is listed as 'Wargame', and 'Spies' (assuming it's the 1981 SPI/TSR title) is listed as 'Negotiation', reinforcing my guess. --Rindis 22:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect Links[edit]

Rindis, the links for Blue and Gray, Stonewall Jackon's Way, and A House Divided appear to link to the wrong pages Bookshelf 00:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to fix such things on your own. ^_^ Looks like the first two titles got articles on other subjects since I put them in the list, and House Divided got disambiged. --Rindis 16:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

Can we cite the chat boards on Consimworld as a source if, for example, an authoritative person such as the game designer is addressing his game? Bookshelf 00:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mean for a particular game's article? The main problem with a chat board of course is pointing a link at the proper section of the conversation properly. After that, is what makes it a good source? The designer is, of course, a good source as long as you can avoid NPOV problems. (The designer is unlikely be un-biased.) But if you're saying, "The designer indicated that he was trying to show x with the game...." then that should be perfectly fine. --Rindis 16:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently has no significant references and so is at risk of being deleted for lack of notability and sources. Having so many red links doesn't help either. Rather than trying to being a catalogue of every board wargame that ever existed, I suggest that the list be refoccussed onto the important ones. These would tend to be those with good sources and notability. A useful technique would be to start with a good source, such as Nick Palmer's books or the Charlie winners. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mysterious multi-player boardgame simulating the Fall of Rome[edit]

There are ten or twenty "Fall of Rome" simulations, most of them using a board of some kind. Some of them use irregular areas, others use hexes. I think there might even be a couple that use a mix of types. I am trying to locate a simulation that was called "Fall of Rome" and - - if my memory serves me right - - was on the cover of the UK based "Game Magazine" back in 1976 or 1977. It is not an SPI game, and I don't think it is an Avalon Hill game either. Up to four people could play it, and the Barbarian Hordes kept getting more and more numerous. Now, I am not sure, but you were supposed to write down your movements in writing (like in Diplomacy), and then resolve conflicts during the discovery phase. The problem with remembering games from 30+ years ago, is that the rules from different games start merging in your memories. I am pretty certain one of the players was the Western Roman Empire, and another was the Eastern Roman Empire. And one of the players controlled Britain and Africa, while another controlled the Visigoths, who either got out of the way (so the Mongol Hordes could sweep over Europe). If this sounds familiar, which game might it have been? All I can remember, is all that British spelling in the rules. The spelling sure drove me nuts, but at the same time, the game review made it look like so much fun, I have always wanted to get it, even after 30+ years. It was more of a game than a simulation.

Games would be easier to locate if they were listed according to the year they were first copyrighted, not the most recent year they were published. Dexter Nextnumber (talk) 05:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's the rule on red links in lists[edit]

Is there any rule to how many red links (non-existing articles) that can appear in a list like this? On this list there are a whole bunch of red links. However, on this page, one editor deletes all items in a list that are red links. Can some one tell me if what he is doing (deleting red links) is according to Wiki policy? Thanks. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recent bold edit[edit]

Attempting to reduce red links & those links directing to unrelated subjects such as Red Warriors: diff. Pls let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:46, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_board_wargames&oldid=1204832663"