Favorite/Least Favorite Armies to Game - a podcast by Herr Dr

I was thinking about a question Volko asked on Episode X: "Why don't you like to game modern conflicts?".

Basically, I answered on the podcast that it was due to story; that somehow the stories from the past are "richer". It may be that we've had A LOT longer to develop the narrative with stories of yore that stories from present times. 

I also remembered that I had conducted a poll on BGG a few years ago regarding what are gamers' favorite armies/least favorite armies to game out: image below. Something about pushing around roman legions in a rich political game context (a Pax Romana, Carthage: The First Punic War or even a grand tactical like Siege of Jerusalem). Maybe it is that the game designers bake in more political dimensions with those conflicts than with a WW2 (exceptions: Empire of the Sun, World in Flames, etc) or modern design. Maybe it is that the more recent conflicts grab more attention on the toys (ex: panzer tanks). Of course, Volko's COIN series and Train's variety of modern conflict games (ex: Algeria) aren't guilty of that (of ignoring the political dimension - or a focus on "the toys"), but I think so many of the games we began with were (ex: The Avalon Hill Classics).

Of course, there other issues with modern conflict games: too raw, too messy, etc.

Anyways, I'll take a non WW2 era game over a modern or WW2 game anytime when it comes to wargaming: I'd play Empires in Arms over any WW2/modern game. Or, any number of ancients games for that matter.

Further episodes of Guns, Dice, Butter

Further podcasts by Herr Dr

Website of Herr Dr