I have discovered I do not like what is called a "tactical-level solitaire tabletop wargame," that are basically story based solitaire wargames. The two I own are The Hunters and Picket Duty. This type of game typically receives raving reviews. The games B-17 and The Hunters are excellent examples of games in the genre that are very popular and have high reviews. For the games they are, they have their appeal. Why would someone not recommend them? That is what I'm going to explain.
At first when I played The Hunters, I enjoyed the game and saw how the game played out. That was fine. I then played Picket Duty and discovered as a player, I really did not make many choices. It seemed like I was just going through each turn sequence and rolling dice on different charts. I basically lost interest in Picket Duty. I then watched a review of Devil Boats and heard how many charts and dice rolls took place. The comment was made that there was little player choices. I guess I had my eureka moment; I do not like games that have almost no player decisions. These games basically just follow a flow chart model with tables with results that are decided upon based on dice rolls. I think as a wargamer I want my decisions to positively or negatively impact the game/battles/campaign. The players pride themselves on the cool stories that come out of the game. I'd argue that I'd rather the cool stories come out out of player decisions with some randomness rather than mainly tables and dice rolls.
Maybe in submarines, destroyers, PT Boats, and bombers you really don't have many choices you can make, and you really just have to sit back and see what happens. I think they would be a lot more fun if the player was able to make more decisions.
For now, I can't recommend this genre of board games.
Games mentioned in this blog post:
- The Hunters: German U-Boats at War, 1939
- Picket Duty: Kamikaze Attacks against U.S. Destroyers - Okinawa, 1945
- Devil Boats: PT Boats in the Solomons
- B-17: Queen of the Skies
