Anybody else ever feel this way?

[Jeff Conner]

I like wargames to reward players who use good tactics and punish those who don't. Those games that don't meet this criteria rarely get played much. I also like to know how things work, what the designer's rational is. This is not as critical; I can deal with some unknown calculations as long as they produce historical results. And most important, I like to games to play at a reasonable pace and not get bogged down. That's why I work on and play Squad Battles more than any other game system since East Front first came out.

Wargames attempt to simulate an extremely complicated human endeavor. Consequently, they are full of abstractions to bring the simulation into the realm of the possible. Squad Battles is full of these abstractions, more than most games. It is, in reality, a rather simple system and therein, to some of us, lies its beauty.

That's not to say I don't have my own pet peeves. My biggest one is that infantry type units don't have a facing and there is no significant advantage to flanking such a unit. This is ahistorical and I think should be corrected. I have suggested a few changes. None of have been adopted yet, but I believe that if I keep working within the system, it might happen. Might not too, I can't predict the future.

So if the specific number of rounds carried and the rate at which they are expended is critical to you, as you have already found out, Squad Battles is not going to make you happy. If this is a such a large abstaction that you can't enjoy the game, then by all means, play what makes you happy. The Combat Mission series comes to mind. They are beautiful games, full of all the hardware and details a player could want. But, to me, and it is my opinion only, they play at a pace that is just too slow and there are so many things going on that I just don't understand.

I guess I just like games that are easy to learn, but take a considerable amount of experience to master.

Jeff