We asked which qualities or aspects are most important to you. Here are the responses, ranked in order from the most important. [1.0] Historical accuracy [3.0] Vividness [3.6] Solitaire Value [4.3] Strategic challenge [5.6] Balance [5.6] Completion [6.0] Collector's appeal [6.0] Playability [6.0] Flow [8.0] Rigidity Comments Historical accuracy Must have. Collector's appeal If graphics stink, let it sink. Not the first thing I look for, but I'll never buy a game with ugly looks. Also, the graphics should help 'take you there'. Strategic Challenge Depends. I could butt my head (especially solitaire) against Marye's Heights to see which side breaks first, and why. Not a must. Rigidity Again, hard to understand when buying - but essential for repeated play. I have a dislike for games which drive you towards the historical decisions by forcing you openly to do so - i.e., 'hold this hex because it is worth so many Victory Points'. Balance There are situations and periods which I would be willing to experiment with anyway. Friedland (AP) may be a case in point. On the other hand, play Poland in WWII and see how fast the enemy kills me? Mmm. Why bother? Playability Game systems are a plus - with a 50 mile commute, I have little time to dedicate to the hobby now, and eliminating the digestion of a new rule system increases my playing time tenfold. It's not the only problem though - I'm willing to play almost anything if I like the subject. I am not scared away by a thick rulebook, but I think the best games are those with many rules implicitly built in the system and in the CRT. Flow Again, difficult to foresee before I play. But I'll hardly go back to a game with mechanics that have an abstract feeling. Completion Must - I'll never buy a behemoth. Actually, I wouldn't bother with any game whose campaign scenario I cannot reasonably expect to complete in a couple of afternoons, with only one exception so far. Solitaire Value Another sine qua non (hint, hint- :-)). Failing that, I am very willing to play, but not to buy - it's hard enough to find another gamer here, let alone find another with the same tastes. Vividness Already factored into Accuracy and Appeal. If I am able to win with ahistorical tactics, the game goes down the drain... Other (specify) Sheer size (map area and number of counters), as above. I am limited to 1½ - two maps at the moment, and I do not expect improvements short term. Not that I care. Also - historical period. I am fascinated by the Civil War; on the other hand, I do not play WWII games often - I guess that war is still too near in time, and although some may find it hypocritical in a wargamer, I find the very idea of playing with anything with a SS symbol on it simply revolting and somehow immoral. "Size" is another problem (for me at least) which is only partially accounted for. There are games which are not overly long timewise (the latest three of the Gamers' CWB series, or Stonewall in the Valley) - they just do not fit on my table. Hence, they don't make the cut. Back to OSG News December 1999 Table of Contents Back to OSG News List of Issues Back to Master Magazine List © Copyright 1999 by Operational Studies Group. This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com