(North) American games...(perhaps I should rephrase this :-) )

On Sat, 14 Dec 1996 08:42:24 GMT, I foolishly wrote
> It's hard to get a lot of ?US folks to look at things from a

Oh dear.

It's a pity I can't take my own advice sometimes, but as somebody who's had a
foot in both camps it's an interesting exercise to see how wargaming has
developed and how it is conducted in the different countries.

Personally I regard the UK as the historical and spiritual home of miniature
wargaming, but the US has to come out ahead as far as RPG's go (ceratinly in
quantity, but there have been a few gems).

The US has lead for a long time in boardgaming, with fine companies like AH,
SPI and GDW and our Canadian cousins have straddled the divide with
consistently high quality productions like the Wargamers Journal. Some smaller
English and European Companies are beginning to produce games which can no
longer be considered to be boutique. Those of you who have visited the Essen
show will know what I mean. I shouldn't also have to say where World in flames
and Empires in Arms came from.

What I'm trying to say is that to better appreciate the game and what it's
makers intended, take some time to appreciate where it was made and when,
where, why and with whom it has been a success.

At our club FT is especially a hit with those of us used to chanting over an
Empire V or WRG chart like a buddhist monk.

I beleive FT and GZG should capitalize on it's strengths and complexity and
rules catholicism and the school of integration and
play-balance-or-death are things the game deliberately set out to
avoid.

By all means play FMA if you want, I think they have some good ideas (some
very good) and that's as it should be, "Tuffley's house has many mansions" to
coin a verse.

An American may not have written FT, but it took an Amercian to write SFB and
I'm sure Jon Tuffley would be the first to doff his hat at the effort, the
game and maybe the inspiration....

In message <32b287a3.2027338@202.12.87.97> bobblanchett@iname.com (Bob
> Blanchett) writes:

Fairynuff, but don't forget that the USA is also responsible (I think) for
TSR, and that in itself is a very dodgy thing... <G>

> The US has lead for a long time in boardgaming, with fine companies

Hmm. Now this I'm not sure I agree with.

If AH, SPI or GDW lead the way in boardgaming, where does GW come in? I know
it's a money greedy company, but many of their products are undeniably good
and they are, as a company tremendously successful.

Does anyone know of a company with a greater income in
wargaming/whatever than
GW, apart from TSR?

> Some smaller English and European Companies are beginning to produce

Like 40k, Warhammer Fantasy and Epic, you mean? <very big grin>

> who have visited the Essen show will know what I mean.

Very good point.

> By all means play FMA if you want, I think they have some good ideas

Sorry; I've forgotten what SFB is. Anyone?

> --

> An American may not have written FT, but it took an Amercian to write

Sink Fat Bucks?  :-)

StarFleet Battles

Mk

> On Sat, 14 Dec 1996 08:42:24 GMT, Bob says he foolishly wrote

Actually, it's been my experience that both halves of my heritage (British,
American) can be extremely pig-headed when it comes to National matters.
(When I say "British," in particular I mean the English). So whenever a thread
like this starts anywhere, I always just sigh, and try to ride it out,
defending both sides where necessary, chiding both where appropriate.

Given the likes of the French, the Germans, et al, I'd go out on a limb and
call it a human trait, rather than an Anglo one.

As I said, I dislike the Ogre backgrond just as much as the FT one. Perhaps
that's why "Star Trek" was so successful - it avoided much of the
nit-picky
side of "near future" history...uh...until "First Contact," that is...