War boardgame recommendations

[nightshadea]

only problem is with axis and allies it takes an hour for a single round……. well the Milton Bradley version did anyways ……

Id mention Warhammer classic and 40 k but that’s a great way to bankruptcy

just a thought have you shown him the civilization pc games ? that seems to fit what hes looking for

[Pleonast]

@nightshadea

just a thought have you shown him the civilization pc games ? that seems to fit what hes looking for

My kids only get 60 minutes of screen time per week (not counting schoolwork). Not much time for gaming; they watch Netflix.

[GreedySmurf]

@Boozahol_Squid_P.I

Heroes of Normandie is dangerous. It’s a half step away from miniatures wargaming, which you can’t afford to have your son get into. I don’t know your financial situation at all, but trust me, no one can afford it.

Or you can go down the road of choosing the games with limited squad numbers, Bloodbowl for instance.

[ohiomstr2]

@Stranger_On_A_Train

No. Risk is not remotely stategic game. It is basically the strategy boardgamer’s verision of Monopoly: takes forever to play, not much fun unless you are winning, and success is more or less blind pig luck.

Axis & Allies is a good introductory stragetic war boardgame for all the reasonsl mentioned by the o.p.; the only negative (which may have been fixed in subsequent editions—I haven’t played it in thirty years) is that certain countries definitely had a starting advantage, and Russia always loses because there is no weather mechanism to devastate invading armies the way there is in real life (and the United States is pretty insulated against attack, but that is realistic). A simliar game in the same series was Fortress America, which had similar rules but was an internal fight between the US goverment and three invading factions competing for control. The game seemed to take longer to play—sometimes we had to play it over a couple of sessions a couple hours each—butit seemed a lot more balanced, plus it was released just after Red Dawn and Amerika and all the Contra/Grenada/Cuba hysterics that the US was somehow going to be invaded by Soviet paratroopers, so it played into the paranoia of the time.

Stranger

It has been decades since I played any board war games. Primarily Squad Leader. Just saw Red Storm Rising in a local bookstore. I have played Axis and Allows as well. SO is very complex and, as noted above, is tactical not strategic

In any case, kudos to the kid for not wanting to have his mind sucked into a phone or computer all the time.

That being said I am going to go fire up the laptop and kill some pixilated French Legionaires.

[Little_Nemo]

@asterion

Since this got bumped, I’ll chime in that I saw a copy of Axis & Allies & Zombies at the game store yesterday. I think Avalon Hill is probably most of a decade behind the fad at this point if that’s a new game (I couldn’t find a copyright date on the box). No idea if it’s a good game.

Yes, it’s a new game.

You can’t really blame “Avalon Hill” for this. The company was bought by Hasbro back in 1998 and is now little more than a brand name. Hasbro put the Avalon Hill name on Axis & Allies which had been a Milton Bradley game (Hasbro had bought Milton Bradley in 1984).

[mlees]

I weaned myself on Avalon Hill’s line-up of games as a teen.

AH’s Third Reich fill’s the bill for good old fasioned “I feel like conquering Poland today”. But this genre (WW2 theatre level) has many contenders:

Totaler Krieg (Decision Games), A World at War (GMT), World in Flames (Australian Design Group) are titles that I enjoyed. (I don’t have the room to set these up anymore. )

Edit for caveat: The only “resourse managment” involved is deciding what units to build with your pool of production/build points.

[Little_Nemo]

@mlees

I weaned myself on Avalon Hill’s line-up of games as a teen.

I was always more of an SPI fan.

[Gatopescado]

@mlees

I weaned myself on Avalon Hill’s line-up of games as a teen.

Same here, but could rarely find anyone to play with. I had D-Day, War at Sea, Luftwaffe and Bismarck. A friend got suckered into buying Victory in the Pacific. I’ve still got them all, including the friend’s.

I couldn’t find anyone to play them now if my or their lives depended on it.

[Little_Nemo]

Getting back on the topic. I thought of another recommendation for the OP: Cry Havoc.

[The_Peyote_Coyote]

I second Dead Cat’s recommendation of Twilight Struggle. I think it’s the best game around and it doesn’t necessarily have to go three hours.

For Axis and Allies, I recommend getting Europe 1940 and Pacific 1940 and combining them into one monster game. It’s a lot of fun to play, but because of its complexity – the board is about double the regular A&A board in size and there are nine countries – it may be a bit much for a 12-year-old unless other people are playing. You can get Xeno Games’ unauthorized version of A&A, World at War 3.0. This has the best tech rules in my opinion (the USA can get nukes!), and is really fun to play.

If he likes science fiction, I’ve found Star Trek: Ascendency to be a pretty good game. It’s expensive as the devil, but if others play with you and your son, try Cthulhu Wars. It’s a marvelous game.

Fury of Dracula is a great game, especially if Mom and any of his friends are interested in playing. It doesn’t involve armies attacking armies, though, just Fangs trying to conquer Europe. I also recommend Smash-Up which has plenty of conflict, though it doesn’t precisely involve armies attacking armies; just factions competing against factions.

[Sailboat]

@Stranger_On_A_Train

Axis & Allies is a good introductory stragetic war boardgame for all the reasonsl mentioned by the o.p.; the only negative (which may have been fixed in subsequent editions—I haven’t played it in thirty years) is that certain countries definitely had a starting advantage, and Russia always loses because there is no weather mechanism to devastate invading armies the way there is in real life

Just blundered across this comment, and feel like adding my two cents. The other reasons Russia struggles (at least in the classic A&A version):

[ul]
[li]An army can cross Siberia in the same time one can cross the Rock of Gibraltar.[/li][li]Armies move freely across the Himalayas. A major strategy is for Japan to send armies from India right over Mount Everest and make for Moscow.[/li][li]Russian prowess is not a factor in the game. In real life, second-string Russian troops pulverized Japan’s elite Kwangtung Army at Khalkhin-Gol. Soviet units should be worth several Japanese units in effect.[/li][/ul]

That said, I’ve seen Russia win, but good die-rolling might have been involved. Like the one time 14 Russian infantry (rolling a 1-2 on a six-sided die to defend) rolled 11 hits on their opening roll. Germany was inconsolable.

[HookerChemical]

Risk is generally bad. I haven’t played Risk Legacy, but I undertand it to be a major improvement on the old game.

Small World is good enough. It’s not my cup of tea, but I see the appeal. I disagree with bump that it isn’t a wargame. If anything, it’s the stripped down essence of a wargame. You smash your armies into the enemies, and if they’re bigger, you win. I’m not saying it’s good as a wargame, but I think it is a wargame.

Twilight Struggle is great, but probably not for the target audience. The aggression is more abstracted and the subject matter (the Cold War) might be a bit dry unless the kid is a history buff. Twilight Imperium is for people patient to sit through a 6 hour game. (And for those people, myself included, it’s pretty good.)

It was mentioned above, but I’ll reiterate Scythe. Combat is an element, but one of many interlocking core elements. You can win without combat or even combat units (and I have), but being able to take territory and resources from opponents is certainly useful. It’s also one of the most beautiful games around.