It has been a long time since money was an obstical to my wargaming.
Not that I am so rich ... just that time is my bigger limitation. At the prices of micro-armor, even the "premium" prices of the "premium" vendor we all love so much, I can still afford to buy a whole lot more stuff than I have time to paint, never mind to game with.
But ...
If I did have "stupid" money, I'd like to try adding a form of "gambling" to my wargaming. I've considered this for many, many years.
Some gamers I've played against find it just a bit too easy to accept 50%, 75% or even 90% casualty rates among their forces in order to win an objective in wargames. Sometimes it just feels like something is missing from the motivations of wargamers.
As an example: I once had a guy in a gameshop pick-up game run a fleet of Italian L3s against my Soviet KV-1s. He seemed to think it perfectly obvious that the tankers in the L3s would be willing to ram into the running gear of the KVs to cripple them. I tried to explain to him that most Italian officers did not possess the rhetorical finesse that would be necessary for the pep-talk that would inspire that particular highly coordinated fleet action, but he was adamant that it was a valid tactic.
So ...
How about this? You play a wargame. Every time a tank is "destroyed" under the rules, you put a dollop of "firestarter gel" (used for starting campfires and BBQs) on the tank, and you set it alight!
The essence of my idea is that losses on the battlefield
should hurt. Let's make that smart-aleck bastidge at the club or hobby shop who is so willing to pursue kamikaze tactics, actually PAY for his tom-foolery.
Let the winner collect the battlefield wrecks. There may be some among them that can be salvaged and put back into service. But there is no "loser pays for the winner's losses" in this model. Even victory comes at a price!
And for the infantry losses? Maybe just smash the stands with your thumb (or a mallet) when they are lost under the rules.
OUCH, now THAT'S gotta hurt!
