15mm is Back! +Tanks

Why 15mm are great:

Firstly, they are pretty kid-proof/cheap. A fall from the table may separate them off a base but rarely cause damage unlike a resin LoTR which will explode. Key criteria when you have an enthusiastic 9 year old.

Secondly, they are cheap (see above).

Thirdly, they are (usually) easy to paint; also you need to use brighter colours with smaller sizes which is fun.

Fourthly, I and my son watched Lawrence of Arabia + The Mummy (cool FFL opening scene) 

Finally, they are the best scale for vehicles (big enough to be cool - sorry 1:300 - small enough to be affordable) so are the scale for my Tankhiem rules

So in between 21 IKEA kits (hopefully that's it for this house) I did some painting:

 

While the regular troops were super fast to paint, the uniform-yet-not uniform Arabs took longer than I'd like...

These Taureg have not been washed and highlighted yet, but are nice and bright as needed for 15mm scale

 

More Arabs in a different paint scheme - they can be opposing clans or mixed together...

 

This helps work towards a few 2025 resolutions:

- finish 3 unpainted projects

- update, playtest and play homebrew rules with my son

WW1 Ottomans to fight the Arabs - also to be city-state mercenaries in the deserts of Tankheim.

Sommer's 1999 The Mummy is one of my favourite movies, and when I found the Foreign Legion (yet unpainted) I wondered if I had..... yep. I also have these guys. Back when postage from USA was affordable and not more than the actual cost of the order.The undead seem a reasonable mix in the world of Tankheim...

--

Quick rant: While postage seems a lot, at least I can see reasons why it costs (fuel, manpower etc). I'd like to know why STLs or resin 3D prints cost more than GW's finest. Yeah, Spectre Miniatures, I'm looking at you - $13 for a 3D print edging out Killwager's $10 a print; or $50 for a 5-man STL. In 28mm. And that doesn't include postage. I get my MESBG sculpts commercially 3D printed and they do licenced minis (so the sculptor still gets their cut) for $3 each... so there's no need to be charging $13 for a 3D print... it's a tiny chunk of resin - not even metal....

While I'm at it - what's with the price of PDF's? It's literally a download which would be fractions of a cent in overhead. I was browsing on wargamesvault and $20USD ($30AUD) is about the norm for indie rules, and I noped out. (A pity, because stuff like this looks interesting).

It's crazy a handmade PDF costs the same as a physical, hardback bestseller from the bookstore which actually had to be published physically and printed....  I mean I get people would like to write the rules as a full time job, but really guys.... 

I'd love to test and support more rules and miniature lines, but they literally have priced themself into the "crazier than GW" zone. It's like wanting to support your local theatre group but they charge more than tickets a Broadway production...

 /rant

--

Anyway, talking about home-made rules, I've done my annual meddle with my Tankheim rules. You know, when the poison gas and chemicals of the Great War turned 1930s Europe into a wasteland of mutants, cannibals and roaming tank pirates? Where convoys of halftracks fend off both wolfpacks and tank bandits, and private militias of fortified city-states war among the ruins?

These rules are a bit more complicated than my usual fare, as it's kinda a tank-RPG/skirmish - "Tank Mordheim" if you like - with 4-8 tanks per side, all with characterful crews and custom WW2 tanks. 

After reading through Titanicus, I added "cinematic deaths" and increased the focus on firing arcs.

Here's the rough premise:

Each 'turn' has a movement phase and a shooting phase. Players alternate activating tanks within each phase. So far, so simple. But.....

Currently I use what I call 1.5 activation - you get 1 action each phase with the possibility of a 2nd bonus action if your crew is good. It's an extra, perhaps unecessary, dice roll, sure, but I like that better crew can react more predictably and reliably under pressure - do 'more stuff' than an oblivious or panicking rookie crew.

Also, you always get to do something - just better crews can do more. I dislike rules where 'friction' means you lose your go - which is just unsatisfying.

A Panther performs a simple move action - which includes up to 45d change of direction.

A movement action might be a normal move + 45d turn, a 45-90d pivot, or a reverse at half speed or less. Also speedy sprint moves to allow more flanking and discourage baseline camping. So an good crew would pass a crew check on a 3+ and often take two actions, outmaneuvering weaker crews.

A combat action might be shooting, aiming, or acquiring a target. So far, this is pretty similar to games like FoW and indeed mechanics are pretty basic; roll d6 over 3+ at 12", 4" at 24", 5+ at 25"+ etc etc. As you can see, a better crew might aim more carefully or pump out more shots (up to RoF limits).

However, you may perform actions out of phase - a combat action in the move phase and a move action in the combat phase - it just costs as a double action (a single shot in the movement phase for example would need both actions)... this is to allow more decisions.

The PzIII is in the Panther's rear 90d arc. Not only is the Panther's armour weaker, but it must also spend an action to acquire the PzIII by travsersing it's turret. Perhaps the Panther is a D with a slow, handcranked turret and cannot engage the Panzer III anyway.

This PzIII is only in the side arc. Even a Panther D could engage it, if it acquired it successfully. Fixed tank destroyers like Stugs may only acquire frontal targets.
 

Acquiring is where the facing comes into it. Tanks have a 90d front and rear arc. Targets within the frontal 90d and within range (varies depending on target size/cover) are automatically spotted. Light/recce/open topped vehicles have wider arcs/greater range. 

Any target outside this arc/range must be acquired. This means the commander and gunner work together to spot the target and traverse the turret (if it has one). This costs an action. Obviously armour is also weaker through their side and rear arcs, so flanking should be powerful.

The other complicated/er than normal bit is the damage. There's a 3+/4+/5+ d6 roll to hit - so 40K - and a then a roll to damage (based on relative armour vs gun - thanks Warcry) which can result in a now-more-cinematic instakill "brew up" or location damage.

Damage sounds complicated but is pretty easy. Roll a red d6 for location and place next to the tank. Shots can hit engines, tracks, crew compartment, turret rings/optics etc. This renders the element inoperable until repaired (change the red damage d6 to a black d6 to denote the repaired state). A damaged-but-repaired engine might restrict a tank to half speed, for example. Subsequent hits to damaged locations usually destroy the tank.  So if I want I can roll 3 dice all at a time; a white hit dice, a blue pen dice, and a red location dice.

The aim of this more complex system is to give more cinematic battles, where a Cromwell is tracked and slews around, a Tiger gets it's turret jammed, a burning Sherman plunges on and rams into a building, or a ammo-racked T-34 explodes and takes out a nearby ally.

 

 

This tank has copped a '2' - engine hit. The red dice means it is immobile until repaired. Once repaired, it is replaced with a black '2' which shows it can move - but only half speed.

I'm also making a bunch of special rules. Not normally my thing, but it's tank RPG, so *shrugs* - I'm including rules like Slow Reverse, Busy Commander, No Radio, Slow Loading, Slow Traverse, Wet Ammo Rack, Superior Optics, Open Topped, Flammable Engine, Neutral Steering, etc - each of which is a simple rule with descriptive text. Basically things to help add flavour and differentiate your T-34 from your PzIV from your Sherman...

My son is enjoying the 15mm focus, and has ordered his own medieval knights plus some rather nice Uruk Hai in 15mm. While in a dollar shop he bought this castle from the garden aisle:

I spent literally 5 minutes adding a bit of colour and it's perfect for 15mm if not precisely to scale everywhere... He's pretty pleased with it. Once we paint his Eureka orcs I'll post them here - they're pretty movie-accurate actually and I'd recommend them for anyone who wants to play the now OOP War of the Ring...

Anyway, back to my IKEA pile before my wife gets home and sees my (lack of) progress...

New Years Musings (+Low Resistance/High resistance rules)

Well, I'll spare you a list of resolutions and jump straight into it. My main resolution (if one is expected) is to just play more with my toys, as my boy is now old enough to join in and is super interested.

Micro vs Macro

Or: should you be able to make this decision?

Just been thinking about this a bit lately, as there a few PC games I WANT to like but they allow (and encourage) the player to unnecessarily micro. Nebulous is amazing in theory - like the Expanse TV show. Like a more tactical Homeworld. EW. Missiles. Inertia. CIWS. Quasi hard sci if. But you are controlling quite a few spaceships and microing every decision on those ships. So instead of being a task force commander, you are acting as 4-6 individual captains at the same time. As well as making decisions that weapons and radar operators on those ships should be able to make individually. To make it worse you have to fight the AI.

Similar - the Call to Arms/Men of War series RTS has you controlling multiple squads and vehicles. It should be a grittier, realistic Company of Heroes but when you move individual soldiers and you are telling individuals to throw grenades, reload or even to lie down when fired at... it's just needless micro. It's a decision you shouldn't need to make. It's like a platoon or company commander telling each and every grunt under their command where to throw a grenade, when to reload - even if they should take cover or not. Madness.

In both games you are clicking madly, excessively interacting with the game/with a needless mental load, doing a job/making needless decisions. The UI would have to be very slick to enable this (narrator: it was not.)

Another PC game I often enjoy - Steel Division - treads a fine line here. You may control a dozen tanks, a dozen infantry squads, and a handful of artillery or aircraft - but at least it's possible to order groups and have the AI sort them out, or issue broad orders. It's less optimal than microing things yourself, but the micro isn't forced on you. 

 

I couldn't afford a $661 Smaug so here's my $30 3D printed mini-dragon.

OK, how does this apply to wargames?

Choose the right focus to start with: 

For example, aerial wargames seem to always have this issue. Most have you plotting each yank on the stick and throttle - precisely controlling up to a handful of aircraft simultaneously like a hivemind. It's unfeasible (game wise) and unrealistic. 

Choose the right mechanics & rules:

Sometimes the game mechanics are to blame. For example 40K started out as a quasi-skirmish game and turned into a sort of mass battle game. The game mechanics kinda evolved over time too, but it was a 'micro' game forced to a macro scale.  Mechanics like "coherency" (you know the one, the 'everyone in a squad must be within 2" of each other') are aimed at this; turning 40-50 individual minis into maybe 4-5 "units" or groups. 

Finally, choose an accessible/slick UI. aka Unobtrusive rules.

In the case of a PC game, it's the options, the interfacing with the game. Another game I want to like (X4) has an amazing premise (be anything from a space pirate to a galactic emperor, trading, mining, building star bases and fleets... a limitless sandbox) but a hideous interface. 120+ keybinds! Windows within windows.  

In the case of a wargame, that interface is the mechanics and the rulebook. They both need to be slick, consistent, intuitive, easily memorised. Unobtrusive.

A good set of rules should offer minimal resistance between having the idea (tactic) and executing it.

This "resistance" could take the form of excessive complexity (needing to consult charts or rulebooks) or merely. It could be merely making unnecessary rolls, modifiers or math in a combat sequence. 

I use the word resistance in a sense like electricity. A game with low resistance flows. A game with high resistance has may obstructions/interruptions in the flow.

In Nebulous and X4, the clunky UI means a lot of friction in trying to implement ideas. In Steel Division, you are still trying to control too many troops/variables but at there is an attempt to reduce friction by "smart" AI orders. In F-Zero, there is a deliberate attempt to minimize clicking and make orders as intuitive as possible. 

Gothmog's sword broke. I think it's the second breakage in the 125 LoTR resins painted in 2025 which isn't a bad failure %  for resin I suppose, given the vastly cheaper (usually 1/4 to 1/6th) of the price to GW plastics.

For wargame examples, Skirmish Sangin had so many % and modifiers to simply shoot a gun. That's not intuitive - there is a lot to do between saying "I shoot at that guy" and executing the shot. That's obtrusive rules.

Blood Red Skies reduces friction by abstacting away individual fighter pilot micromanagement and exact heights and speed in favour of "he has more energy/better position than the other guy." I'm not a fan, but the mechanics are also really simple and easy - just roll x amount of dice and count 6s.

Killwager used its own 'special' terminology, renaming ordinary wargaming terms into 'measures' and 'flow' when the rules had unusual concepts to start with - it created needless friction.

While I like Battlefleet Gothic (and am painting a fleet as soon as I get another pot of gold Retributor Armour) having a chart to consult for weapons batteries adds needless interaction with the rules. Simply saying something like "Roll a dice - 5 or 6 hits - for each weapon battery" would remove the need to have a chart. Decrease the resistance. 

Anyway, this has been a recent train of thought. It's not new - I think I touched on it here - but the two thoughts:

#1: is this game forcing needless micromanaging, and 

#2 - is the UI bad/aka do the rules have needless friction

...have been on my mind; hopefully this posts shows my thought process and how I think they're linked.

-----------------------------------------

I thought I wouldn't do a 2025 "resolution" list, but on reflection I will, as it may inform my next few posts (also: I have just finished my last LoTR batch and am in need of direction...)

1. Build my own DIY terrain mat from a paint drop sheet, build terrain with my daughter

2. Create the original 5 Mordhiem warbands (+Vermintide-esque co op homebrew rules) and play with my kids

3. Finalize a 2025 version of my post-apocalyptic tank wargame and play with my son (who thinks warbands of pirates, WW2-era tanks and mutants are cool)

4. Collect the final few notable missing ME:SBG (eagles, wringwraith, Rohirrim heroes) to my 1500+ collection and go back and tidy up some paint jobs and basing; play games with my kids/visitors; allow myself to expand on one other game system (cowboys, pirates?)

5. Paint my Battlefleet Gothic fleets, play with my kids

6. Do a 2025 update and playtest of all my ongoing homebrew rules (aeronef, supercavitating submarine fighters, EvE+Lost Fleet space, FAC/PT-boat space, jets, not-Mordhiem, modern pulp, sci fi horror)

7. Paint 3 of my 15 unpainted projects - samurai/Greeks/modern SF/ECW/40K/Weird War II/15mm Lawrence of Arabia/Infinity/Confrontation 3/Quar/vikings vs zombies/40K(!) skirmish/Heavy Gear/Dropfleet/Deep Rock Galactic before starting anything new

8. Find wargaming projects for my kids - daughter has Necromunda warband/likes anything with female warriors (Sisters of Sigmar?) son likes medieval/fantasy mass battle (box of Perry plastics?)

9. Allow myself one new system - Trench Crusade(?)

10. Start a new homebrew system (Vikings vs ice zombies, Hellgate, STALKER, racing cars, Vermintide)

There's a pretty common theme here - and that's to get minis on the table, and involve my children more. Despite the huge amount of unfinished projects (~800 minis?), I'm actually powering through my lead mountain - I've painted 1200+ in the last 3 years with about 300 incoming. 

....I reckon by 2029 I'll have a clean workbench....

ME:SBG 2025 Edition - and why we don't need a new Battlefleet Gothic

In the Aussie heat I've moved my hobby table indoors. As usual, I rely on some simple MESBG miniatures to kick-start my painting. Actually, that reminds me:

MESBG: New Edition

One of the best things about ME:SBG/LOTR:SBG is it is a relatively clean ruleset which has changed little in over 20 years. That's about to change, as trying to ride on the popularity (I say this with sarcastic emphasis) of the War of the Rohirrim anime, GW are more significantly rewriting the rules. Which I hope is just marketing hype.

I've got to go back and do more details and highlighting, but the models are table-ready aka 'done'. I always warm up with painting some LoTR minis. The 23 minis from today mean I have a mere 117 this year, a far cry from the ~400-500 per year of the last few years.

If they've made significant rules changes, I'd be about as excited as if they said: "we have remade Peter Jackson's LOTR trilogy for modern audiences."

That said, some rules ideas outlined seem sensible - removing/reverting the special strikes (which I always forgot and were unnecessarily added to the original rules) and making a wider range of Fight values to make armies more granular. Good. Tidying the courage roll method seems a sensible simplification.

Some Isengard heroes and leadersship crew. Everything is 3D printed - GW's own inability to sell core ME:SBG minis ironically pushed me into 3D printing in the first place...

...And they are adding a new stat "Intelligence." Not sure about this. Longtime readers of the blog will know I quite like stats (it's easier to remember 4-5 universally shared stat lines than 101 special rules) but it depends how often it will be used. A rule regularly used by everyone's army - this should be attached to a stat. Occasionally in a one-off game? Special rule. I'm not sure how often/how much "intelligence" will be used i.e. spotting a ring bearer sounds more like a one-off example. Meh? Unnecessary?

Another I am ambivalent about is the "priority" - who moves or shoots first in each turn. In the past, it was random. You adapted to what you were were given. Sometimes having priority was not great. Now, the winner chooses the sequence. This makes winning the (random) priority roll each turn more important.

Other rules seem less good. Under the "not keen on this" I'd place:

"More thematic special rules" yeah I just read the bit in bold. Not keen on more special rules especially if they come in their own supplements.

 New supplements - this is also a red flag. Once upon a time, to play LoTR you were fine with a single rulebook (the 2005? Blue Book). Then, until recently you needed at most two books = the rules + either the Hobbit or LoTR army books. Two books, max.  In recent years, however, GW has been introducing "Legendary Legions" - thematic but usually pretty OP armies that replace the generic armies - basically codexes under another name. I'm a bit afraid of the MESBG going 'full Necromunda' with 101 rules, supplements and codexes.

Streamlining rules is pretty hard when the core rules ARE already very streamlined, and if it comes with new special rules bloat and expensive "codexes" it's one step forward, two backwards.

These Serpent riders in resin are $20 for 4 ($5ea); vs $60 for 2 ($30ea) from GW.

Why - aren't you happy ME:SBG is being supported? Well, actually thanks to 3D printing this isn't a concern anymore anyway. I mean, if I can access the miniatures regardless (often much better and always far far cheaper than GW) now it's just GW trying to sell me hundreds of dollars of books.

I even wonder if GW has already lost their ME:SBG opportunity with 3D printing already stepping into a gap created by their inability/unwillingness to actually sell core units or update sculpts that are 20 years old. Online hobbyists seem to have pretty heavy 3D print presence supplementing "official" models.

Who are GW marketing this new release to?  The dozens of people who watched War of the Rohirrim? Older existing players probably have complete collections of minis or have (by necessity) been exposed to 3D printing through GW making many models unavailable for years. Perhaps selling rulebooks/supplements/fluffbooks is their business strategy.

I'd be curious to know if they appear in stores, because in Australia I don't think I've ever seen physical ME:SBG boxes for sale in GW shops. And ME:SBG seems relatively popular here, proportionately.

This vein of thought got me thinking:

Do we need a new Mordhiem or Battlefleet Gothic?

OK I may ruffle some feathers here, but I've been thinking maybe the answer is - no.

We all think we want GW to resurrect o.g classics like Mordhiem, and Battlefleet Gothic - but do we actually? They are doing fine without GW monetization aka support.

We already have an amazing array of 3D printed BFG ships (and have for years) with STL's freely available. Heck you can buy complete resin fleets on ebay for the cost of a 40K space marine squad box. There are "living rulebooks" where messy supplements have been collected, clarified and edited into one neat package.  For example, a quick look at the BFG subreddit will set you up with everything you need.

Battlefleet Gothic isn't dead. You can still buy or print models - even cheaper than under GW's watch. You can still print off the rules. It's as accessible as it's ever been. Even better, there is no codex arms race for the new-best army.

Mordhiem is the similar - while not quite as effortlessly plug-and-play as BFG; a plethora of plastic boxes from Frostgrave, Wargames Atlantic, Mantic,Warlord, Fireforge etc means the sort of narrative-player-cum-kitbasher it attracts have even more choice and creative opportunities.

The people who want to play these games are already playing them. Those who want to play, can do so rather easily. I can't see GW aggressively marketing either and creating a vast new influx of players - there was a reason the product lines were canned in the first place. 

 The downside of resin is that they are unlikely to survive any fall intact. I tend to prefer resin for heroes, with the rank-and-file in more durable plastic.

So here's my clickbait-y line: We don't need GW to remake Mordhiem or Battlefleet Gothic, they wouldn't be a very big commercial success if they did, and we are probably better off if they don't.  Debate away!

Ultimately, it shouldn't matter. A new wargame edition is not like a Windows upgrade which means you can't run a PC game.  People are still happily playing 40K 3rd edition or pre-Sigmar Warhammer. Your old miniatures still 'work' and 3D printing allows you to start from scratch - resurrecting an old game has never been so easy. GW isn't coming to repossess your rulebook and free, better versions of OOP books are online. 

...Huh. I spent so long on this tangent it's a post in itself. Well, I had other topics I meant to discuss, but my kids want to play now, so I guess this may not be my last 2024 post after all.  If I don't, a belated Merry Christmas and a happy New Year to you all.

Game Design #109: Cinematic Moments

I bought the Titanicus rules out of interest (though I'll never afford the minis!) and when experimenting with them I found myself thinking "this is really cinematic!"

But... what is "cinematic" (n: similar to what you will see in a film) in a wargame?

In Titanicus, it when the titan is destroyed it doesn't just get removed from the table, but it can be:

Silenced - grinds to a halt, weapons hanging slack, engines silenced - any further hits knock it over

Laid Low - stumbles like drunkard, then fells - move randomly, then falls - possibly colliding with other units

Wild Fire - fires indiscriminately, crashes to ground - spins in a random direction, then fires each weapon into the closest target (friend or foe!)

Detonation - ripped apart in cascade of explosions - roll a ton of damage and apply to all titans close by

Catastrophic Meltdown - reactor breach, containment fields collapse, titan goes supernova - even bigger boom!

This is cinematic. It tells a story - or allows you to tell a story.You can picture what is happening. It brings the plastic minis to life in your head. Even when your unit dies, something cool happens - a mini story is told. Like in Battlefleet Gothic - when a ship can explode and take nearby ships with it. It's a "wow" moment even if you are the one bearing the brunt. I'm not a huge fan of the Doomed/Grimlite (so abstract it's barely a game) - but it does something interesting with its hit mechanics. Pretty much every hit causes a critical (or shall we say 'cinematic effect'?). A damaging hit can even  trigger positive effects - free actions for the victim ("crawl away" "opportunity attack") or allies ("saviour"/"vengeance") as well as giving more normal status effects ("push back" "knock down" "bleeding"). Getting hit is interesting.  It's not just ticking off hitpoints or removing models from a block of troops. It's like a Bloodbowl player tripping just before the touchdown and injuring themselves.

So does "cinematic" just mean having a good critical hit table?

Well, no. It's the story attached to the action. You don't just remove a titan in a sterile manner; it spins, wildly spraying lasercannon blasts into an ally, which then explodes. Kaboom! The rules allow and encourage you to create a story. 

Movement can be cinematic. Carnivale doesn't have crits but it does have parkour - movement and jumping rules which allow you to chain jumps (and get free jumps) so you can do Prince of Persia/Assassin's Creed stunts to cross the table. A mini can leap from a lamp post to a gondola back to a rooftop - it doesn't need descriptive text to picture it in your head. Being pushed and falling off buildings in Necromunda and Mordhiem create some of the most memorable moments.

Interacting with terrain can be cinematic. My sleeper pick of last year (Zone Raiders) has not only cinematic movement (wallrunning, ziplines/grapels, and power assisted jumps) but also a focus on toxic and hazardous terrain and monsters, sentries, triggers space-hulk swarms, gravity changes and time warps; giant machinery can shake models off catwalks and ladders.

Activation can be cinematic. In ME:SGB, heroes can alter the activation sequence and go first, with any nearby allies:  "Yelling dwarvish insults, Gimli lead his kinsmen into the goblins before they could react." Plain predictable IGOUGO is considerably less cinematic.

Morale can be cinematic. OK memory is hazy here, but in old-school Song of Blades, a model who died due to a critical/overkill triggered a morale test in nearby allies. Basically, the model died so messily it freaked out its buddies. It's very easy to assign a mental "story" to this merely based on who is doing the damage - "the troll tore the adventurer in half, showering his companions in gore" or "the greatsword ripped into the goblin from shoulder to navel - his companions chittering and cowering back in fear." While not specifically cinematic, it certainly encouraged assigning a story to an action.

Some things are more cinematic than others...

Some mechanics aren't naturally cinematic. Hitpoints (OK, you knew I would say this) aren't. "The adventurer lost 9 of 12 hitpoints" isn't particularly cinematic. It's kinda sterile and mathematical. Like watching damage numbers on a videogame RPG. Satisfying, maybe? But not cinematic.

Saving throws (ok, mechanically they are a bit clunky) can be quite cinematic - you can assign a story to the save "He throws a 6 - not just effortlessly dodging the arrow, but swatting it from the air with his sword." Given the defender often throws the save dice, it gives a feeling of agency - even if you are unlucky. "He throws a 1 - the arrow hits him right though the eye socket of his helmet." While saves aren't cinematic in themselves, like say the Titanicus crits, they allow you to be cinematic.

Obviously, some genres tend to be more cinematic. A fantasy, quasi RPG skirmish game with its personalized, individually acting minis will probably more inbuilt storytelling ("cinema") than two regiments of Napoleonic troops firing at each other; and the rules should reflect this by allowing for cinematic moments.

So if being cinematic is the ability to create cool stories or movie-like moments in your imagination in a game....    

What games (or game mechanics) are the most cinematic?  What are the most sterile? Do you have ideas to make existing games more cinematic?

What mechanics are overtly cinematic (i.e. Titanicus crits explicitly describe the cascading explosions) and what others merely allow you to be cinematic (like a humble saving throw).

November Update (Delta Vector)

Just realized I didn't post at all last month, so here is a grab bag of things that have been going on:

Titanicus and Tanks: I got the Titanicus rules. I'll never be able to afford the models ($250 for a box set in Australia; and I'd need to buy two sets) but the rules interested me (I like the Dan Abnett novel) and even though I just smooshed some minis around I think the rules are actually pretty good. Very cinematic.*

This had some effects:

Now, every time I play with mechs I end up playing and working on my homebrew tank rules. Probably because I've disliked every mech set of rules I've played and my Battletech models are just meh (and I like BT). So my tank rules (and 15mm tanks) got some love. It's the post-apocalyptic Mad-Max-meets-Mortal-Engines starring WW2 tanks. Tank Mordhiem. 

I'll never afford a GW titan, but I liked the rules...

This had another effect:

Because I was looking at what made Mordhiem campaigns fun (for my tank rules) I printed off a newer set of Mordhiem rules and ordered some Skaven (I presume there's a new starter box with Skaven as they're super cheap on ebay atm) and some Frostgrave Cultists. A new project has begun! I plan on making all the original factions (5 or so?) using proxies although I'm uncertain where the Sisters of Sigmar are going to come from. Ideas welcome. 

There was another effect:

*Remember back when I mentioned Titanicus was cinematic? I'm also musing on how rules can be cinematic. The game, models and rules have a good 'gamefeel' mechs - they move weightily and void shields can absorb some punishment - and they have a strong "theme" and a "thing" - managing the weapons, shields and power of a starship-like mecha.  I'll never be able to afford to own $500 worth of GW mechs to play it properly, but I 'm glad I own the rulebook. 

However, I'm also musing on how/what makes a game feels "cinematic" - in Titanicus, mech can fall, spraying a nearby ally with bullets, or overload spectacularly. Every move feels weighty. It reminds me of Battlefleet Gothic which also has these "that was cool" moments - sometimes even when it happens to you. So I'm probably going to a game design post soon as I'd like to explore what makes a game "cinematic" - and indeed, what even does "cinematic" mean in a wargame sense? For example I always thought Gaslands was a tad overrated. Kinda clunky and slow mechanically - I certainly spent 100x more time painting Hot Wheels (hours of epic fun that got me into 3D printing!) than I did playing (a few games...   ...ok I guess). However, it is certainly cinematic.

I'd like to draw your attention to my paint racks - $5 nailpolish holders from AliExpress. My wife approves of the upgrade to neatness. Next: to make a better paint station, as the old one is heavy.

Oh, and there was another effect:

Thinking about the cinematic moments in Battlefleet Gothic meant I got in and basecoated them so there's some progress there.  And looking through the Mordhiem rules made me think the rules are OK but dated so I worked on some homebrew rules (v.6 of my Middlehiem skirmish rules where the 100 Year War is fought by psychic knights riding velociraptors.) For some reason I've changed mechanics use d4-d20 like a RPG... just because? 

For about $60USD, you can hold a PS1 (or GBA, or SNES, or Sega Genesis or PSP or Dreamcast) in the palm of your hand. It even plugs into the TV and acts as a console with WiFi controllers! Given I have these systems in a box in my shed, collating all the consoles and disks into a small device and a single micro SD is very satisfying...

Anyway, as you can see I've been doing some hobby stuff, in between hanging out with my kids (I'm setting up/experimenting with some gaming PCs using old Dells/Lenovos and I'm embracing the world of retro gaming with Rasberry Pi, plus Anbernic, Powkiddy and Trimui emulation handhelds). It's kinda fun learning new stuff (and teaching my kids some old stuff - apparently I can still remember how to play games from 20 years ago... man I must've wasted some time in my teens)...

Also, you can probably also see how I never seem to finish any projects... :-/  "Look, a squirrel!"

(Actually in Australia it's not squirrels but my local magpies.)

No, the baby magpie isn't dead - he's just a derp. He likes to lie on his back and be fed by his mum. Don't be fooled by their cuteness. A nurse at the local hospital say they have more injuries from bird swoops than snakes/spiders/kangaroos/<insert-your-dangerous/Australian-animal-here> combined. Lucky the magpie mafia likes me and also helpfully chases off the local plovers (aka Masked Lapwing - Australia's most idiotic and annoying bird).

Anyway, hopefully once school marking eases up I'll be better at updating the blog, but after sitting in front of a computer typing for hours... I kinda don't enjoy doing more of the same...

Game Design #108: RTS Wisdom (Balance not Boredom, "UI" Rules/Mechanics)

While I enjoyed old skool titles like CoH, Command and Conquer, Supreme Commander - I rarely play RTS anymore. Most RTS, the first 1/3 of the game is building up forces, 1/3 is actually fun, fighting, and the last 1/3 is mopping up when once side has obviously won. As a busy dad, a game that's only fun 1/3 of the time isn't really optimal use of my gaming time. My main strategy game is Steel Division (which is more about semi-realistic tactics and eschews base building) and the Total War series (Shogun II = best, fight me).

But as a dad it is my duty to educate my son (9) in gaming genres. So I chose Zero-K - a (free) mash-up of Total Annihilation and Supreme Commander. My initial impressions is it's a pretty well thought out game - kinda the opposite of the latest Ubi or EA shovelware. Check it out on Steam.

But as I browsed about the game, I came across a few expressions the devs use which caught my imagination. Obviously this won't apply to every genre (especially historical - it's about a sci fi RTS after all!), but their dev blogs have some interesting applications for tabletop gaming.

 

#1. "Buff Strengths, Nerf Weaknesses"

Units need to be balanced, but they don't need to be identical to each other.  That's boring. So rather than nerf good stats until every unit is a carbon copy, they lean into the differences even more.

So if a unit is too strong, instead of nerfing it's strength (say high burst damage) they first look at weaknesses (perhaps it is low defence - can the 'weakness' be made even weaker to even more emphasize the unit's nature as a glasscannon). The unit has been nerfed, but it is even more different than its peers.

Traditional nerfing strength and buffing weaknesses (in areas such as mobility, attack and defence) tends to move units towards a single bland entity. Buffing strengths and nerfing weaknesses instead stretches and emphasizes the differences in those areas. (And, I suspect, may encourage unit variety through more distinct 'counters.')

But what is strength and what is weakness? It's relative. A tank might be fast compared to infantry, but wouldn't we be comparing it to other tanks or units of similar role?

For example in my "Delta Mars" rules I create a baseline human soldier and weapon (rifle) as "average" so I can work around that. A squad machine gunner might be slower, and only fire when stationary but have 3x the firepower dice. It may be then worth 2 normal soldiers.

Another interesting point made was the difference in roles between designer and balancer. The designer looks at the big picture, how units should 'feel' and interact - what tactics should they use? A balancer is about  finer detail - manipulating numbers to make units behave the way they ought.

An interesting distinction when most wargame designers wear both hats.

Finally, sometimes balance fails. Sometimes the core design of a unit is flawed.  The unit needs to be completely reworked and redesigned, not 'balanced.'

 

#2. Fight Your Opponent not the UI (or Rules!)

This seemed timely given my musings on rules like Killwager - in the case of Zero-K they are talking about things like the on-screen information, the game controls, how you interact with the units. The Zero-K controls were the first thing I noticed; simply selecting a clump of units, then dragging your mouse allowed you to "draw" formation - my son and I both said "cool" as we noticed it; so much simple than the usual dozen or so clicks to select and rearrange individual units.

In wargames, it is the physical interface which includes not just the rulebook - unit basing, measuring, dice, terrain etc - even the models themselves. Does anyone remember the old metal Warmachine warjacks which weighed a kilo each?

A player is "fighting the UI" when they have a clear idea of what to do, but the controls (or rules) make it hard for the player to do it.

Aim: A player's ideas should be simple to implement and execute. Remove as much clutter between the player's ideas and the game. Obviously, we can't telepathically move minis, but we shouldn't be paging through the rulebook every 5 seconds, checking a table or a list of a hundred modifiers, or making too many dice rolls to resolve a simple action  - that's a sign of fighting against the rules.  

For example: If you have to roll four separate dice (each with their own modifiers) to resolve a hit, then it's 1/4th the efficiency of a single roll which does the same job. I've also largely moved away from reaction mechanics (Infinity, Tomorrow's War used to be favourites) as I often feel like I am fighting the rules - the reactions are creating too many rules exceptions/confusion and bogging the game down).

Paraphrasing the PC-gamer phrases into wargaming speak:

Game world = units, their stats, status, position and terrain
Ability = actions a unit can take (can be basic like move or shoot, or include spells, jumping, 'special abilities')

UI (Rules/Mechanics) = how a player acts with units, interacts with game world.

In a PC game, the player relies on the UI as he cannot physically interact with the virtual game world or units. It's how he interacts with the game. In wargames, the rules are part of the UI, also defining how a player can physically interact with the units.

So I'd also include the physical models and table as part of the UI - perhaps how you base your models (2" coherency, individual skirmish, in a WFB block of troops) and even the terrain (can you fit that 60mm base model on that 1" wide Necromunda hive ledge).

Go (the boardgame) has an incredibly simple UI/rules. The pieces are easy to use (satisfying too - love that 'click' noise) and manipulate, the squares are distinct, and the rules are simple (there's only 3-4!). The pieces, board and rules fade into the background. In Go you are never fighting the 'UI' - you are fighting your opponent.

Here's some thoughts I've been having as I assemble my 33rd IKEA flat pack...

Are there some wargames where you feel units/factions are needlessly bland and samey? How do you feel about 'buff strength nerf weakness' as a design motto? Will that lead to overly paper-scissors rock gameplay and is that a bad thing? Are there units in wargames which are just broken beyond balancing and need to be completely redesigned? Do wargame designers wear both design and balance hats successfully? Or do they just spend all their time on design?

Are there times you feel like you are fighting the rules? What are indicators of this or particularly common/egregious issues? How can these be mitigated?

Game Design #107: Weird Concepts = Simple Wording

I recently read my daughter The Vagrant. It's pretty weird sci fi for an 11-year-old, where demons have broken through a rift and are kinda possessing/interacting with the human populace, whose empire is led by mysterious angelic beings. 

However. It had short, punchy sentences. Which made it easy to interpret. Kinda like a noir detective novel. Or a comic. Or Lee Childs. 

The short, simple sentences (often quite cleverly chosen) made a difficult book digestible.

So the (perhaps obvious) message here is: The more complex your topic/rules (or unique your mechanics) the simpler your wording and the more illustrations/examples you need.

Here's the rulebook example that made me also think of the topic and prompted this post - I discovered it in my recent exploration of my pdf rules folder:

Killwager. Blomkapfesque sci fi. I loved the idea of it - the rules gave me a feeling that guys who had played Infinity wanted to simplify things, trim out the bloat and make the gameplay flow, with less IGOUGO and more integrated actions. To focus more on gameplay and choices than stats and special rules. My kind of thing. The models are also very cool, if rather pricey for 3D prints.

But it kinda suffered from unclear rules, not helped by renaming common wargaming terms so you had to translate them in your head. Take these passages, which is the very start of the rules:

For a miniature to influence the battlefield it must perform. When a Model performs it may declare Measures and have Measures declared against it. The results of these declarations are called a “performance.” A performing Model may only declare one Measure, or two Measures chained together per performance unless noted.

Each Model may have a maximum of 4 Flow at any time. Flow is a resource. Models spend Flow by declaring Measures. You know how much Flow each opponent’s Model’s have spent. Different Measures spend different amounts of Flow.

First you need to figure out performance = activation, measure = action (not distance), flow = action points....  ^Extra translation stage

....Then grasp how the measures (aka actions) are resolved in a particular order: Automatic -> Direct -> Trained -> Technical. (There's also reactive measures!). Each class of measure (action) has its own sub rules. While there isn't many stats or special rules, there's ~25 actions (measures, I mean!). It certainly needed a lot more illustrations and examples than it contained. Rather like a Steven Eriksen Malazan book, there seemed a kinda assumed familiarity.

The ideas behind Killwager are great. It's certainly different. It's the sort of game where if you are willing to spend time on Discord or watching how-to-play videos, or have an enthusiastic friend to teach you, it's probably great. But the rules should not be reliant on outside sources. As an early adopter, it is very offputting.* Also, paying $35+ AUD for a pdf (which doesn't actually do its job fully) then being asked to pony up for army lists seemed a bit GWesque to me...

*I'm using this as an example, not attacking the author/s - I'd recommend a gander at their latest (free!) rules, BLKOUT (sounds like a musician? like Weeknd!) which has a very tidy layout with rules labelled old-school style like 1.2, 1.3 etc and uses conventionally named Actions, Activations, Initiative etc. It's 100x easier to read and understand - so they obviously have fine tuned things a lot! I wouldn't be surprised if these new rules replaced Killwager altogether.

TL:DR

The post title seems kinda self evident, but the folk who visit this blog seem to be dabblers or even creators of esoteric indie rules and mechanics so I thought it worth highlighting - for example Killwager has great concepts but may not 'stick the landing' or get the widespread play its cool concepts deserve....

Also as a side rant, renaming commonly understood wargaming terms and stats is not creative or innovative, it's f****g annoying.

....Whereas a boring 40K clone like Bolt Action or (surprisingly dense rules) Flames of War needs little explanation/can get away with sub-par examples as I can extrapolate from previous knowledge.

Perhaps as a somewhat isolated gamer in a small town, this is something I notice more than others (as the rulebook is often my first exposure to the game). On the other hand I am an avid PC gamer and tend to also avoid games where you need to spend hours on Youtube to grasp the basic gameplay. (X4: Foundations is an amazing game but the fact is has 120+ keybinds kinda speaks for itself!)

Have you ever come across interesting rules whose rulebook (and layout/explanations/lack thereof) actually was the barrier to playing?