To play test the new rules I have set up a table with the three types of objective which I want to improve. On the left a hill. In the centre open combat. On the right a farm. The white card is artillery long range. I will test play new rules for each of these combats using just one corps v one corps.
As always the outcome will be decided by a dice throw. However I have decided to simplify how this will work. First I have replaced the use of 2D6 with 1D6. I have also greatly reduced the list of plus and minus combat factors.
During the rule testing period I will always use a dice throw of 3. This will allow me to test each new rule without the complication of high or low dice rolls. In general terms a roll of 1 or 6 will produce extreme results. 2 and 5 will favour one side or the other. 3 or 4 will produce the same result for both sides.
I have given up on trying to make wargames “realistic”. It has long been obvious to me that moving model soldiers around on a table will never reproduce the conditions of a real battle. The best we can hope for is to get a feel of what it was like to command a Napoleonic battle. This is done partly by well painted models and nice looking scenery. It is enhanced by adding a campaign background to the wargame. But what it should feel like is always going to be a very personal thing.
Combat factors are the means of getting “the feel right”. However too often players try to cover every possible factor. This results in very long lists of plus and minus factors, most of which then just add a lot of time to reaching a solution to a combat or morale test.
I have reduced them to quality of troops, current morale, supports, casualties and command bonus. The total is then added to the 1D6. This removes the need to consult the lists. It also prompts the player to position generals and supports carefully. If the result proves not to achieve what I want, I don’t need to add more factors. I just need to adjust the dice result. This is much easier using just 1D6 rather than two or more.
I have written the first draft of the new rules. The next step is to play test them. By next week I should have a much better idea of whether I can achieve what I want with what I plan to do.
Using the single d6 in that way means that the 'extreme' result will happen as often the 'favour' result; not a bad thing necessarily but a particular way of doing things.
ReplyDeleteHi JWH
DeleteThis was deliberate because my wife and I have wargamed together for so long that we can predict what each other will do in any particular situation. So the added chance element provided by the single D6 makes for a less predictable game.
However how it will work out in practice is yet to be seen
regards
Paul
Thistlebarrow,
ReplyDeleteI like the sound of what you are trying to do, and it strikes a cord with some of my own thinking about wargame rules. I look forward to seeing a draft of your rules and a report on how they work in your playtest.
All the best,
Bob
Hi Bob
DeleteI am really enjoying testing the new rules. It has added a much needed breath of fresh air to our long running wargame experience. I am not sure that these new rules will have wide spread appeal, but I am hopeful that it wil add a much needed element of chance to our wargames.
regards
Paul
Thistlebarrow -
ReplyDeleteThe KISS principle applies as much to war games as just about any other attempt to replicate complex systems. One of the side effects is that by speeding up the play you insert into the action the need - or at least the impetus - to make decisions decisive, and make them quickly. Where the 'realism' comes in (for mine) is in the mind of the table-top commander.
I am reminded of a comment by a non-wargaming friend upon his only attempt to command a war games army. Despite the simple rule set we were using, he was struck by the 'friction' - the apparent difficulty of achieving anything. I recall that as my early experience as well. If you get that with a simple set, you must be doing something right!
Cheers,
Ion
AP
DeleteI suspect that most wargamers go through a development similar to my own, going from simple to complex to simple rules again. For many years I used WRG rules with their lengthy lists. The aim was to achieve realism by covering every possible option. But all they managed to achieve was to make the game more complicated, longer and more frustrating.
I have been wargaming for more than 50 years and the fact that no commercial set of rules has ever been accepted by all, or even most, of the wargaming community just shows how difficult it would be to produce a set that would be accepted by all.
The best we can do is find one that suits our own particular requirements, and enjoy them until we change our minds again.
All part of the lasting fun of wargaming
regards
Paul