We’re coming to a close on this topical tour. I’ve been enjoying these windows into everyone’s libraries.
Two more weeks here, I think, and then the one I’ve been looking forward to which brings this all together.
This week: Skirmishers. What is that? Sigh. These are all a bit indefinite. These are games which thrive on confrontation. Generally, interaction is destructive, winning means some manner of removing/destroying/permanently blocking your opponent. Dude(tte)s on a Map certainly. Likely anything with a map and combat. Chess. Go. Onitama. Great Plains.
As always, it’s up to you where to finally draw the line. Royal Visit? Tug of War may feel like a skirmish to you. Frankly, Dune Imperium felt like a skirmish to me - despite the worker placement and deckbuilding I always found the game was in fighting, or not, in a way that eroded your opponents.
What have you included in your collection (or highlights) in this box?
What would your pantheon be? The best/permanent entries for you?
How important are these categories to your gaming life? General thoughts?
I do “proper” wargaming from time to time, but that’s mostly in the Harpoon sort of space (modern naval).
I think probably the only recognisable skirmish game I play is War of the Nine Realms: modular hex map, cardboard standees, I always enjoy a play… and almost every game of it I’ve logged has been demoing it for the publisher. I think most of the people I play with with any frequency aren’t really into that style of game.
(I have 65 plays logged on BGG. The person with the second most logged plays has 5.)
At first glance I thought: hey this is a genre which is NOT prominently present in my collection. This is going to be a very short post.
Sorry. I was wrong.
I enjoy some confrontational gaming every once in a while, I just get too tense playing them. And people around me seem to avoid them even more than me. So I need not only the energy to go for confrontation, I first have to convince others to play a game like that instead of let’s say Revive or Arnak where interaction is reduced.
So I made up a few “subcategories” . But first the best of the bunch:
Faves
I love Tash Kalar and I really enjoy playing it but I can only play a handful of games before needing a break of a year before giving it another go. But it’s definitely the one I get back to every once in a while and have no intention of letting go. (I should probably like Onitama but for some reason I never gave it more than an cursory glance)
Star Realms and it’s ilk turn up under “Fighting Games” and we really like that. It’s so quick it’s almost painless usually. Definitely up there among our favorites if it qualifies.
Dune Imperium I am not sure it matches this category for me. But I like it a lot and since it has been mentioned here it is
Various subcategories
Honorable mentions from my shelves
Hive (not enough plays, but good),
Small World (lots of nostalgia not playing anymore),
Cosmic Frog (unplayed)
Kabuto Sumo: bug skirmish with dexterity but if this is not a fighty game, what is?
Unmatched is probably leaving soon. My partner just doesn’t enjoy it at all
So many DOAMs, so few plays
I have quite a bunch of DOAMs but they never really took off on my table. I really like the idea of it a lot because the expansion is what I always enjoyed most about Civilization (the computer game). But it turns out nobody at my table really enjoys this a lot and so these games most languish in some hidden corner of my shelves inching closer to the sell-pile every day
Least likely to leave: Inis (those lovely cards) & Dune (the classic).
The middle ground: Kemet & Ankh (staying until I finally acquire Blood Rage), Cyclades (unplayed), Cuba Libre (my one and only GMT-style wargame. played 4-handed), Mission Red Planet: The Ugly Edition.
Leaving soon probably: Dwellings of Eldervale, Battle for Rokugan & War of Whispers.
Wishlist: Blood Rage: yeah I know it’s a drafting game, I have played it. But it’s also a DOAM or more of a MOAM. I have no idea why I bought Ankh at the time. (another one I can blame on SVWAG).
Cole Wehrle
Aren’t all his games somehow “fighting with armies/animals/dudXs on a map” ? I completely blame him for my infatuation with games with maps that nobody around my table shares. Meh. And because it takes so much energy convincing people to play these games, I then lack the energy to actually engage in the confrontation and so…
Pax Pamir 2, yes it’s mostly a card game. But with a very fighty map. And armies. Can’t play often and the solo automa is just not my thing. But I love this game nevertheless. The idea of it maybe most of all.
Root: now if that isn’t fighting on a map, what is. Never hit it off here. I am terrible with the solo. I should go and sell it. I am way too lazy to teach this to anyone. My cousin loves it though but he lives at the other end of the country and has his 7yo daughter play the Vagabond while he plays the other 3 basic facions.
Oath: there are definitely skirmishes in Oath or rather battles but does it fit here? Definitely fighty and very confrontational as everyone who played in the forum campaign can attest. Love it but prefer very much playing multi-handed by myself. Or maybe the future coop mode.
Solo or cooperative fighting (yes it exists)
A solo skirmish Hoplomachus Victorum another attempt of mine to get into the genre. I thought bashing an automated opponent would be less tense and that is true. But the dice are just so … filled with empty faces that it becomes an exercise in dealing with frustration more than a game. If the dice were different, I could see myself enjoying the tactical battles. One day I’ll just houserule the empty faces to do something
Assault on Doomrock This one is from my phase of listening to SVWAG a lot and I just can’t be bothered with these mini campaign style games. Same with Hoplomachus btw. I am likely keeping both for “retirement”. The fights are interesting and I felt a little less random than Hoplomachus but I might be wrong. They are definitely difficult.
Zombicide definitely fighting, definitely on a map… worthy of a Hall of Fame entry just because it brought us so much entertainment with so many people at the time we played it. And we played it lots. I would still play it if it didn’t have to fight against so many other games from my shelves.
Mandalorian Adventures definitely falls under the Skirmish type game. You fight opponents on a map. We’ve quite enjoyed it but didn’t played it much beyond the “campaign” series of games. But that is more because I haven’t played a lot of solos recently. I will be acquiring the expansion that is out soonish
And this is not even all the games in my collection that might qualify or that I have played. my collection is too big. I know.
ps I have been thinking if Spirit Island is feeding my desire for expansionism and should be on my list. it turned up when looking for fighting games and there is a map and … but I first thought skirmishing more on the tactical level and by the time I got to include DOAMs the coop category was already Zombicide…
To me (and for clarity this is only my definition, I’m not saying it’s the right one) a skirmisher is a strictly tactical wargame, smaller than a “classic” major-battle wargame or even Warhammer (though Necromunda would qualify) but bigger than a fight you could resolve in an RPG. Generally one figure represents one combatant, and if you had 20 figures on a side that would be quite a large battle. Definitely not the sort of troops-on-a-map where you’re also building up political points or other off-board state.
Yeah, that was my first interpretation that fights need to be tactical rather than strategic but then I saw @Acacia had included DOAMs and the genre widened considerably. But it is also the reason I separated out the DOAMs and Cole Wehrle as subcategories to be ignored if so necessary
Just for sake of clarity, yes, I was thinking of it more broadly. Not what the game is simulating (which could be a war, or a skirmish, or a fish slapping fight) but what the game IS - which is going to be 30-120 minutes of direct conflict and competition
This was my issue with responding in this thread. I felt I could understand what was being asled but my brain was defaulting to “Infinity, Confrontation and Necromunda”
I would have disputed the strictly tactical description but then I realised in ‘theatre of war’ terms tactical is about the scale and setting of conflict and what your objectives will be in the game.
To try and answer the question as intended I’ve been thinking of the destructive drag your opponent down games I either own or played recently.
I think maybe City of Spies fits the bill. It’s very tactical with it’s timing and interactions and you are really messing around with the operatives of others as well as sequencing your own placements. I think the way you need to balance aggressive and defensive plays suits this thread.
Fresh Fish has seen some really savage auctions and placements. Everything you do is about pickling up opponent’s routes and so it really does give off ‘knife fight in a phone booth’ vibes.
I always found Keyflower to be a particularly aggressive game. The colour binding, the rerouting meeples only from losing positions and the number cap of meeple on a tile seemed the beating fighty heart of the game with the resource gathering and scoring informing where you should fight and when. I never forget the look on P’s face when they’d fought tooth and nail for a transport tile in autumn which was the first one out only for me to first activation put 3 meeple down and block the tile to one use in winter. Classic.
Cthulhu Wars is a given. It’s not your normal DoaM and while it is strategic in scope it’s also very immediate and the build up is short and sweet so you get stuck in quickly. There’s so much jousting from the off and you need to attack opponents to head them off from that head of steam they were going to build.
For now the last one is Paris Connection. The aggro moves include: getting a sly more shares of a colour than X when X has been building up heavily that colour. Wasting trains to stop a line gaining value (most satisfying in collusion so 10 trains go before a player’s next turn) and getting in to a blocking position that blocks and means trains were wasted setting up the route.
Not sure what I feel about financial 18xx or Splotters with relation to this topic. They are for sure aggressive games but maybe I don’t know they feel like that sort of fight and possibly I should remove Paris Con from my answer.
