Playing a game or simulating a battle?

Playing a game or simulating a battle?

  • Playing a Game

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Simulating a Battle

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • A little from column A, a little from column B

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters


When you play SST, how do you approach it?

Are you playing a game to win, with strict rules to be followed whatever common sense may say, and two equal forces lined up against one another with the aim being to prove you are better than the other player?

Or are you simulating a battle situation out of the interest in doing so, with the rulebook as a set of guidelines rather than etched in stone, with the aim being to enjoy the simulation (and possibly win as well!) and setting up an interesting battlefield situation rather than two equal points value forces?

Why do you do this, and how do you feel about the other approach? Or if you're somewhere inbetween please explain...
i like just playing the game, not neccassarily to win, but still trying to stay as true to the rules as i can
Simulating a battle in this meaning. I mean, I have the luck of playing in a very open-minded group, so every once in a while somebody "gets an idea" during the game, and we get some ad hoc rules for ie shooting through walls, using grenade bundles for breaking stairs under attackers or for boarding tanks, just to use them as own ones.
It's much more fun than the usuall "set the point limit and choose mission", plus requires more creative thinking ^^
I'm all for a bit of give and take, but I think scenario specific rules need to be sorted before hand. If I'd stationed my troopers in a what appears to be a safe bunker and midway through my opponent says "Hey, how about some rules for demolition charges?" I'd be a bit reluctant.

I play for the sake of having fun, socializing and hanging with my friends. It's a game so I play by the rules but I don't let the rules get in the way of having fun. :D
Putting myself firmly in the "simulating a battle" camp. I like a scenario with some background to it, I like to know "why" the two forces are fighting at this particular location, and what their individual objectives are.

Preferably I like something a bit more fleshed out than "two sides fighting each other", such as an objective to take and hold, a vehicle to escort off the other side of the board, or some other mission to accomplish, with the other side trying to prevent it.

I prefer battles that are uneven, to see if I can "beat the odds" - for competition switch sides afterwards and see if the other person does better or worse.

I like scenario-specific rules, and I like campaigns that string a number of linked scenarios together, taking into account the effects of winning or losing particular battles.

Ideally I prefer to have a GM present and hybridise the game with an RPG, with the GM controlling neutral forces (unfortunately I haven't had the chance to play this style in years) and controlling any hidden movement on the board such as an assassin, stealth troops, or things moving underground.

I like innovative ideas in using equipment and terrain. I'd probably object to someone wanting to use explosives unless it had been declared beforehand that models actually carried them, but I'd have no problem with someone wiring their grenades to a bridge to destroy that terrain item (or figure out the strength of the bridge and roll hits against it - ideally rulebooks should say what the material strength of common items such as metal, brick, and wood are)

Most of all I like to get into the role of being my army's commander, rather than being a player with 28mm figures in front of them and a rulebook to work from. I like to feel theres a battle in front of me, not a game to be played - but that doesn't mean I can't enjoy it.

That doesn't mean I don't enjoy a tournament-style game - it's a break from the usual for me, but not my preferred style of play.
The rules aren't engineered to be a simulation, they're engineered to be a game, and I feel that's how it should be approached.
MarkNorfolk said:
If I'd stationed my troopers in a what appears to be a safe bunker and midway through my opponent says "Hey, how about some rules for demolition charges?" I'd be a bit reluctant.
Why? If s/he can come up with sth that can be worked out as fairly reasonable (the all-purpose grenade bundles, or some high DC rolls for improvised, low effect explosives that are more usable for pinning defenders rather than breaching the bunker itself, or sacrificing a model that already has the acidic blood or similar trait for example) I wouldn't mind giving it a go, at least to keep my own mind sharp for opportunities to improvise something should an opportunity arise. This way a game is getting more unpredictable and demanding, as safe position may even easier turn into a deathtrap.

Then again it's a matter of preference.
Actually, they are engineered to have a simulation of simulataneous combat, so its a little of both. If it was just a game, it would be something silly like monopoly. I see it as a game of war. You simulate the warfare with the rules, but you play it with a friend as a friendly banter. I like SST, as so far, as it isn't popular, most of the gamers I have met have a nice temperment that brings out the best in me (I get annoyed quickly).
So i say a bit of both.
I would say a little of both.

When I sit down to play, its a Game - but I prefer scenario's or campaign's.

I do however, get really involved during play (its the Roleplayer in me) and enjoy 'Commanding My Troops' Lol.

I do my utmost to win, but (for me at least) taking part is at least as important as winning.

Anyway, you generally learn more about your chosen army by losing if you kwim.
I'd say a little of both, to play the great game, and still simulate a war of despiration against the on coming bug hordes. Its fun to remake episode battles, oh and Zegama Beach 8) *packs... oh nm*
Well the original point of wargames was as a simulation and they can't really get away from that...(might as well play chess or draughts if you don't want a simulation).

The rules are written to be fun to play though...and it is at the end of the day still 'just' a game.

If you think of it as a simulation...well shouldn't you actually be trying to win even harder than if it was justa game to you? I mean no one has ever fought a battle not really caring if they win or lose but people have played games not really caring if they win or lose.

Of course in a simulation 'winning' and 'losing' might be a little more abstract (after all their are no winners in war...just some sides lose more).

I'd have to go with a little of each...I play to win...but don't really mind if I lose...the rules should be adhered to unless they make no sence for a given situation. I'm all for adhock rules if they are logical.
I ike a little of both, no matter what the game I am playing in. Sometimes I just want to have a battle, sometime I want to play out an entire scenario. My 2 cents.
I have to say I'm impressed with the split so far... I had the overwhelming majority of SST players figured as tournament-style gamers, and I'm really happy there's more scenario-centric players out there than I originally thought (and even more who like a mix of the two "styles"). Obviously thats only a tiny sampling of players so far, but it's promising :)

Maybe it's a case of a large part of the customer base coming over from Mongoose RPGs and therefore used to using the rules as guidelines that you base your own system around, or maybe it's just more people fed up with line-em-up-and-fight style play than I thought there would be.

Whatever it is, thanks for the input so far and please keep it coming - trust me there is method in my madness here and I'm not just asking purely out of curiosity (mostly maybe, but not completely....)
I'm big fan of non-competive gaming style. Specific scenarios, unbalanced point sizes, going around rules if need be, altering army lists(in epic armageddon I devised campaign setting which involved 8 armies. 7 I created myself. 1 was official. Great fun! I would definetly recommend this to people who like to tinker with rules as it allows you to create army lists that are THE ultimate lists for you giving best fun for whole group if done right) and whatnot.

I see rules as starting point from which to start exploring the game system rather than limits of what you can do.

(and no I don't think this is superior way to other way. Just more fun for *me* and luckily I have likeminded friends. I might not prefer to play with certain people from other side but that's just matter of playing styles and it's not universal "I won't play against people who see this as game of equal forces fighting under strict rules")
I like a battle with background and so forth.

Just more fun than an even points match, though they are fun too.

I enjoy putting a few Troopers against all my Bugs and see how long they last and so forth.

"Simulating a Battle" for me.