Old CW vs New CW

[sazzlefrats]

Which is edition is more fun? I can't answer I didn't give the new edition a chance. I was in a bad head space when I got my kickstarter and basically gave it away.

[Turhan's Bey Company]

They're different kinds of fun. Old CW came to be a fine-tuner's dream. Highly detailed, vast realms of accessories and systems. Tends to demand a lot of time, but if that's the kind of thing you enjoy doing, then you want to be spending the time on it.

New CW comes in hot and sometimes ends before you know what's going on. It's low-fi zoom-and-boom, the X-Wing of vehicular combat.

Of the two, the latter is the one I've got the time and patience for these days. That doesn't make the former not-fun, just not the particular flavor of fun I'm looking for these days.

[43Supporter]

Originally Posted by sazzlefrats

Which is edition is more fun? I can't answer I didn't give the new edition a chance. I was in a bad head space when I got my kickstarter and basically gave it away.

OG CW Player here.

Turhan makes some cogent points. However: OG CW is only as time-consuming as one chooses to make it -- while _Catalog From Hell_ is 200+ pages, 98% of what's in it can be ignored for basic "[n] men enter, one man leaves" arena matches. (I can show you some of my designs from back-when; practically nothing on them is not either required to make the vehicle go, inflict damage on a foe, or protect one's self from foes.) CW6, OTOH, is exclusively for arena-type events, and tournaments particularly; it might make for a good "pickup game" at a con, but the novelty wears off fast.

[HeatDeath]

Despite sharing a frenetic, wildly chaotic theme - vehicle combat by armed and armored automobiles - the two games are utterly different in style of play - particularly in terms of what I like to call "Zoom" and "Boom".

"Zoom" and "Boom" are characteristics, not of the action being simulated by the ruleset, but of the physical actions taken by the players themselves. These measures are among the key differences that differentiate the "modern" game design aesthetic from the "old school" of design. Modern designers care at least as much about the pace and type of the physical actions the players execute - the choreography, so to speak - as they do about the dynamics of the physical system being simulated.

"Zoom" refers to how far the player moves their token everytime they touch it. In 6e, the token is typically moved 3-5 token lengths, 9-12 inches, everytime the player's occasion to move - "turn" - comes around. In 4e, by contrast, the player's token is typically moved 1 token-length - 1 inch, and is frequently not moved at all in any given phase, before the primary action passes to the next phase.

"Boom" here refers to how often the player is given an opportunity to damage the other player, and what physical actions they take to do so. In 6e, the player gets two shots on the vast majority of their turns, and each shot involves rolling a handful of colorful dice, with overwhelmingly positive odds of doing at least /some/ damage to the other player. Contrast to 4e, where the player gets typically one firing opportunity every 5-10 phases, rolling at most twice per shot, with typically only 2-3 dice per roll. With highly significant odds of doing no damage at all, and having to wait through a very significant number of their own "turns" [actually phases] before they have another firing opportunity.

4e, as a game, has a radically different /feel/. It's almost contemplative, even stately, by comparison, compared to 6e. [And that's before you contrast the complexity of the build systems.] This is not a bad thing, per se [Some of the most popular games in history are contemplative and stately in this sense - Go comes particularly to mind], but it is very, very different. It's actually remarkable how different they are, and how they demonstrate how different two games with identical themes can feel.

[swordtart]

Thank you Heat Death. I hadn't looked at it in those terms, but I suspect that is why it appeals to new gamers as it often takes a while to get invested in games that take the more contemplative approach.

I would imagine also that as Pre-5th edition your design decisions could effectively scupper any chance at a win and it took so long to determine who won (min 10 minutes per second of combat), you might spend months before you were even competitive.

I enjoy CW as an RPG rather than a purely tactical game, but since that largely had to be bolted on anyway, I am not sure it favours any version of the game. As games like Necromunda and Gorka-Morka added a campaign element that was arguably less crunchy than CW I don't see it as an issue. You could easily allow the addition of specific equipment cards as a function of some mission without too much effort.

My only gripe is that you don't seem to be able to buy just the rules pack on this side of the pond. I'd stump up £20-25 quid for the rules, dice counters and play mats etc, but I am not that interested in buying a starter set for £60 just to add obtain some plastic models that don't really fit with my view of CW (I already have plenty of modified hot wheels from playing 5th edition). Mine are cars with guns, the included models seem more like weapons with wheels added. I also like a road based game (with Rigs and cycles) and that isn't part of new CW (yet).

[HeatDeath]

Originally Posted by swordtart

I would imagine also that as Pre-5th edition your design decisions could effectively scupper any chance at a win and it took so long to determine who won (min 10 minutes per second of combat), you might spend months before you were even competitive.

This.

It was absolutely possible to "lose during the build phase" in 4e [and a lot of people seem to have really liked it that way]. The simplest recipe for doing so was to not take a fire extinguisher to cover your rocket or ATG ammo. Another was to deemphasize or misallocate your armor. In 4e, car construction is, in itself, a well-put-together rational-backpack optimizing problem, which also requires avoiding some very real [and, I strongly suspect, intentionally-placed] pitfalls in the build system. It's an interesting, if slightly thin, solitaire game in and of itself.

In 6e, by contrast, the build system is constructed on an exceptionally well-balanced mathematical foundation. Building a car is not so much solving a rational backpack optimization problem, as it is choosing which mechanically distinct but mathematically balanced attack modalities sound the most fun to you in any given game [setting fires, sniping from a distance, ramming, etc].

While there are synergies to be found between different weapons systems (i.e. packing laser and flamethrower combos), it is almost impossible to win or lose during the construction phase - a randomly generated car in the hands of an experienced player will probably beat a carefully designed killing machine in the hands of a newbie. The build phase isn't a game in itself the way it is in 4e - that cognitive load has been transferred to the tactical maneuvering battle in the game itself.

[Overload]

Back in the day, I played in a Corporate Car Wars Campaign. My company's motto was, "Olympic Motors: our cars are good, our drivers aren't." It was in reference to my poor dice rolling luck in games.
Car Wars, like Champions, Battletech and others, were old games with a rich 'meta game' of intricate design systems where a spreadsheet was needed to eke out a great design.
With CCGs that meta game came back huge. The best part (to me) of many CCGs is the deck building. Two of my favorites are the Battletech CCG, where there were many strategies to use and defend against; and Maple Story (and Transformers a bit), where each card had two separate uses and finding a balance between a good top and a good bottom of your cards are the key to winning.

[Mark Skarr]

Originally Posted by sazzlefrats

Which is edition is more fun? I can't answer I didn't give the new edition a chance. I was in a bad head space when I got my kickstarter and basically gave it away.

I started playing Car Wars in the late '80s ('88, iirc). I've always loved the idea behind Car Wars. But, no one ever wanted to play with me. The few times I did get to play, most of the players were either really obnoxious or incredibly new. I had a few good games, at the random cons, but most of the time, the games were . . . bad.

Late last month, I picked up 6th Edition.

I just finished my second game of 6th Edition (I'm 0 and 2, both losses). And, I can say, I've never had as much fun playing Car Wars than in those two 6th Edition games. Hand of Bobb agrees (he won both games). He had agreed to play the first game, even though he hates Car Wars ("I want to play a game, not simulate geometry in my head"). And willingly offered to play the second game.

He likes this version. I like this version. It's a better game than the previous versions. It's easier, and more fun, to play.

But, we aren't into all of the finagling every last power point or mph out of the car, and wrangling every ounce. We'll play BattleTech if we want to flex our design muscles.

So, for me, 6th Edition is the "most fun" edition.

[swordtart]

Originally Posted by Mark Skarr

I started playing Car Wars in the late '80s ('88, iirc)....<Snip>... The few times I did get to play, most of the players were either really obnoxious or incredibly new. I had a few good games, at the random cons, but most of the time, the games were . . . bad.

Late last month, I picked up 6th Edition.

<Snip>

He likes this version. I like this version. It's a better game than the previous versions. It's easier, and more fun, to play.

<Snip>

So, for me, 6th Edition is the "most fun" edition.

I think a key point to bear in mind for us grognards who are comparing 80's CW and the new version is that we are 40 years older.

As a teenage boy raging with hormones WINNING was the whole point. I would screw every advantage out of the rules I could and spent more time arguing rules than playing the game.

As a 50 something I still spend more time discussing rules than playing but now it is because I have a job, children, and can't actually dovetail my limited free time with my contemporaries that have similar responsibilities and discussing rules on forums is my only outlet. However in compensation for the free-time I have lost I have gained perspective instead. Like Elsa I learned to "let it go". When I do play games I am more interested in playing than winning. I no longer feel the need to play the gamer rather than the game. I now get more fun out of games I used to find frustrating even when I am playing with other people who haven't grown out of the "WIN AT ALL COSTS" mindset.

Also having children means my standards are lower. Games like WH40K are deeply flawed but they are still more fun for me than the Moshi Monsters boardgame :)

I am still learning though. I am DM'ing D&D with my daughters and in our previous session we had a TPK and I came up with a clever reason to bring them back that was still consistent with the scenario. I felt quite proud that I hadn't "cheated". This week we had another TPK because of a lack of experience on their part. On this occasion I just reset the dungeon like it was a save game.

It felt wrong doing it, but in retrospect it was perfect. They had fun. They didn't have to create new characters and bin the ones they were growing fond of. I didn't have to bin the whole campaign. I didn't make my 9 year old cry and feel like a mean parent. They actually got to learn effective tactics and cleared the whole thing out the second time around without any difficulty. I didn't have to fudge any rolls or dilute the effect of their decision making by faking out the effects of them.

Afterwards I realised that the reason I was playing was to spend time with my daughters, not to show "tough love" to teach them the most efficient way to explore a dungeon. I had been seriously considering destroying any interest they had in the game by imposing my own purist idea of how the game should be played.

Every day is a school day :)

[43Supporter]

I can attest to Mr. Goodwin's statements re "that one guy" -- had a fellow at Another Game session a couple weeks ago who failed *every* single die roll he made that day; have not seen a full-on Gamer Meltdown like that in some while.... :P

And when I was in NOVA: It wasn't about "win at all costs" for me; I was more the Lee Petty "take the position one can get, and move on" -- it's just that said position was usually 1st, as the rest of NOVA was entirely too predictable in their designs and "tactics"....

As to 6E: There's some things about it I like, and others I dislike; it's just that the latter far outnumber the former, so I'm not that interested in it.