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.
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.
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....
Speaking of air combat games, have you taken a peak at Fire in the Sky from Mark's Game Room? It looks like it manages some of the Micro/Macro issues many aircraft games have. I am not sure I "like" it, but I think you would be interested in the mechanics and how they solved some common aircraft game issues.
ReplyDeleteI think it's a level above what i want i.e. I still want individual planes zooming around, not sections of 3-4 planes on a stand. I still want a heroic pilot "Biggles" even if I don't (or particularly if I don't) have to preplot each minute angle+throttle adjustment.
Delete-eM
I'm not hopeful you will ever ve able to solve the tabletop air combat conundrum.
DeleteI think ultimately air combat and turn based tabletop are not a good fit. Turn based computer games, maybe (and even there we have as many duds as good games), and computer simulations definitely, but tabletop miniatures games? I think unless heavily abstracted (which doesn't seem to be what you are after) air combat just doesn't translate well.
I've heard of Birds of Prey, a take on modern air combat by the publisher of Attack Vector: Tactical.
DeleteI agree with Andy - air combat, like Car Wars, simply isn't a good fit for the tabletop when computers do it so incredibly well. This also applies to things like EVE Online for space combat.
DeleteAs designers, we should probably get away from trying to force what will be an inherently poor result, by its very nature.
- GG
Completely agree on the inadequate micro management. If I scale up my platoon game to company size, I cannot keep the same granularity. I am currently getting in the Battlegroup rule set which proclaims to scale between squad and battalion size with the same rules. We will see how that works.
ReplyDeleteRegarding Bad UI, I have to say that I never had any problems with charts. The gold standard is the double-sided player aid with all relevant tables (e.g. Battletech, 40k 2nd Edition and also Battlegroup).
BFG charts (or MESBG wound charts) are not a big deal, true.
DeleteBut they are usually uneccessary. It's an extra step between having the idea and executing it.
'I shoot at this - so I look at this chart, I roll these dice' vs
'I shoot at this - I know I need a 5+, I roll these dice'
Regardless of the play aid, it is an extra step - an extra piece of friction between the idea and execution. Is it a big deal? Not always.
Off topic, but in the case of say Battletech, the record keeping is a major piece of friction. What to we want to do? Blow chunks off big robots. Is this a smooth way to do it? Nah.
A good example of chartless play:
For example, Warcry has a rule
attacker stat double defender 2+
attacker stat more than defender 3+
equal 4+
defender stat more than attacker 5+
defender stat double attacker 6+
...once you know this (and it is applied to all mechanics in the game) it is very streamlined.
-eM
A double-sided reference sheet of ALL charts, common stats, and a page of Universal Special Rules is the upper limit of what I consider "OK" - smaller is better. eM is absolutely right that it'd be even better to have chartless stat-based mechanics. BFG Weapons Batteries needing the Gunnery Table to look up how many dice to roll is the most inelegant thing in the game. BT and Car Wars damage boxes are similarly inelegant mechanics that require a lot of records keeping, when we really just care about "degraded" vs "disabled" for firepower and/or movement.
Delete- GG
The information you need for the combat resolution in Warcry needs to be documented for reference somewhere. So, I would also have to look it up until I know all "if-then" statements which makes a player aid necessary. Either you have a reference sheet with tables covering all relevant aspects of the game (terrain, movement, combat resolution, morale) or you need the information somewhere else, for example on unit cards. You could have simple resolution mechanics that you don´t need the player aids for long but I don´t see how you could get into a game without them.
DeleteRegarding Battletech: this has to be my most played tabletop. Even though I did not play the game in the last 20 years, I still know pretty much all the hit modifiers and hit locations. The only table I struggled back then was the missile table where you rolled for the number of missile hits. So, even though many think that Battletech is a convoluted book keeping mess, I never had that feeling when I played it. The granularity of the resolution mechanisms enables the game to have situations of a Mech beating another Mech with their own blown off limbs or jumping on their head doing the "Todessprung" (I played in German). I haven´t seen another mech game which offers this kind of awesomeness. I would agree that the UI gets bad as soon as you play with too many mechs but on a scale of 1 to 4 mechs per side, I think that it is totally fine. If the resolution mechanims become too streamlined, the game becomes bland.
Battletech is the clunkiest game I have ever played, but I have never played Starfleet Battles or Car Wars. It is very much, of its time.
DeleteIMHO, Battletech manages to endure so much, because there is SOOO MUCH you can talk about with the game. You can spend more time talking about and theory-crafting it than actually playing it. To a certain extent, GW games and D&D have the same feature, you can talk about it just as much or more than actually play it.
I got away from Battletech years ago, but I'm now playing Alpha Strike, which uses the same setting, but is a lot less granular and plays much quicker.
Delete"If the resolution mechanims become too streamlined, the game becomes bland."
DeleteWhen I use the word streamlined, I'm referring to easy to use, memorize, not needing constant recording/recourse to rulebook.
A streamlined game is not the opposite of a tactical game. Even detailed game can be 'more streamlined.' I'm not advocating for checkers.
For example, I'm sure Battletech could be more streamlined.
What is the EFFECT we want? Limbs blown off, heat management, death from above, etc. Streamlining is seeking the most efficient way to achieve those effects. It's not removing those effects.
I'm very confident you could produce the same effects and cinematic moments, faster, more efficiently, and with less recording.
Using BT as an example, Alpha Strike was a failed attempt at streamlining. It kept the clunkiness while abstracting away all the cinematic effects. Why not aim to have both?
-eM
@Vader - there was a time when I had the 40k rulebook and Codices memorized because I played multiple times weekly, exactly as GW intended. That doesn't mean 40k was simple, it simply means that I played a lot. Similarly, you knowing BTech doesn't mean it's not a mess, it simply means you played a LOT.
Delete@eM - there are a lot of people who like complex resolution mechanics. The WFB "guess" artillery mechanic comes to mind as something that many players enjoyed, even if it took you out of being the General, making you a gunnery assistant. Similarly with people who enjoyed the old 40k2 Warp Spider mechanics. Many just enjoy complexity for its own sake, because it gives the illusion of "depth".
Delete@Eric
I have also played Car Wars in my youth. In comparison to Battletech it was way more complicated. The presentation with its paper counters was also lacking. The resolution of simple actions like taking a turn with a car took ages but we had a blast with the construction rules. Constructing vehicles was a game in itself which was much more enjoyable than playing with these constructed vehicles. The highest skill was fitting as many tank guns as possible on a truck or helicopter.
Never had any problem with the Battletech rules. Movement is straight forward. Combat resolution is just minor calculations (own movement, enemy movement, range, terrain) for the to 2D6 to hit roll. Damage is mostly fixed. The hit location roll table was easily memorized. The only part that took longer was the damage resolution, especially when critical hits were jnvolved. The rules have also more or less stayed the same the last 40 years.
Based on the successful tabletop wargames, the mechanisms seem to be secondary tot he success of the wargame. 40k and other GW games are still the top dogs on the market. Battletech is still going strong after 40 years of staying more or less the same, while nobody cares for games with slick mechanisms like the ones from Nordic Weasel Games or Brent Spivey.
@eM
Maybe I have to be more nuanced here. A game can become more bland if the resolution mechanisms are simplified. I am not sure whether that would be possible with Battletech if even the creators of the system cannot come up with a streamlined version of the rules which still keeps the spirit of the game. Maybe it is worth a try.
@anonymous
I agree that familiarity with a rule set can somehow cloud the jugdement oft he messiness of the rules. I just wanted to say that we never had any issues with learning these messy rulesets like Car Wars, Battletech or 40k 2nd Edition even though we were just 13/14 years old.
I guess I am one who enjoys complex mechanisms because I thought that the „guess“ artillery mechanism in WFB. It was some kind of mini game where you gained the skill to better guess distances on the table which could be also helpful to plan maneuvers in advance. The 40k 2nd Edition Warp Spider movement rule was also awesome as it included a gambling mechanism. You could move a specific distance in a safe manner but if you wanted to move further you would risk loosing some of your models in the warp…for me this is an interesting decision point which is automatically removed if you just restrict the Warp Spiders to a fixed safe movenent. Sure, this would accelerate the resolution, but the gambling aspect is lost. Also, there would be no hypothetical story, where a greedy Eldar player lost his complete Warp Spider squad to the warp because he wanted to move too far and the dice were fickle.
@Vader - "there would be no hypothetical story, where a greedy Eldar player lost his complete Warp Spider squad to the warp because he wanted to move too far and the dice were fickle."
DeleteWhy not assume landmines like Laos (or the Ukraine today), and roll after every movement to see whether each model is destroyed due to bad luck? It surely adds story telling, but does it improve gameplay and/or reward good strategy and tactics?
@Anonymous
DeleteI am only familiar with WW2 tabletop wargames, not more modern ones like Vietnam. From the top of my hat, I think that all of them, that I have read and played had rules for minefields. So at least all the authors of these rulesets thought that minefield would be worth including in the game. All these games also had some countermeasures for minefield, like pioneers or tanks with mine flails. So, I don´t see any problem with the inclusion of minefields. You could also add some gambling aspect to the minefield:
1. Reduced movement = no damage to the passing unit
2. Normal movement = dice roll for damage
3. Fast movement = dice roll for damage with higher probability of failure
The Russians ran across open plains into German machine gun fire during the Second World War and thought that this would be a good idea. So, why not rush them through a minefield to advance faster. Who cares whether all of them make it.
Note the Soviets (not Russians) had the strategy you describe for minefields (not machinegun fire, you got it backwards), as explained by Zhukov to Eisenhower. And the rationale was precisely to avoid casualties inflicted by machinegun fire when slowing down to disable the minefields, and of course also to avoid stalling a strategic offensive, which would prolong the war, give the Germans more time to consolidate, and cause even more deaths.
DeleteThis doesn't detract from the rest of your point about rules for minefields though!
I specifically called out Laos and the Ukraine, because both have MASSIVE INDISCRIMINATE mining of all types, where the ENTIRE COUNTRY is a minefield, and the only question is DENSITY. The Ukraine is particularly apt, because BOTH sides follow Soviet doctrine of mass aerial mine dispersal in depth, and the winter thaw, mens mines "move" around. As of today, demining equipment simply does NOT exist for the Ukraine (or ANY Western military) - it's all been destroyed by Russian drones and artillery. Thus, every step of the Ukraine military carries some risk of triggering a mine. Perhaps higher, perhaps lower, but never zero.
DeleteThis is the exact opposite of the neatly defined and bounded minefields of games.
- GG
So, with background out of the way, the question, was whether risk of random death due to movement of any sort is of strategic and tactical gameplay value.
DeleteFor a player, even if it's "realistic", does it make for a good game experience to randomly and arbitrarily lose critical units simply from moving?
- GG
@GG I think Vader mentioned specifically a gambling risk/reward mechanism: the Warp Spiders can choose to play it safe and slow, or risk going faster but possibly dying.
DeleteIt's not the same as simply rolling for the minefield at each move step (which introduces no choice). A better analogy could be "cautious move" (avoid minefields but goes slower) or "fast move" (risks blowing up).
@Andy
DeleteThanks for the information on the Sovient minefield doctrine. Even though the Soviets did not have a doctrine to rush through machine gun fire, I have heard from field reports by former Wehrmacht soldiers that this has happened quite often. Maybe they were exaggerating.
@GG
I got your point, but you could also scale down a WW2 conflict to a level where the whole board would be a mine field, e.g. Germans attacking fortified Soviet positions at Kursk. So, this scenario is not unique to these countries with indiscriminate mining. As Andy said, I would then go for the for the cautious riskless move and the fast risky move rule as getting randomly blown up on the whole board would be bad indeed.
@Andy - the gamble is moving, the risk is that you die, and the reward is that you change position. There really isn't a "safe" option when the Russians have drone spotters that call in directed artillery strikes on anything moving slowly. In the Ukraine, you have "cautious" move with a lower chance of dying, "faster" move with higher chance, and the "safe" choice of NOT moving.
DeleteWRT rushing through MG fire, that's Normandy, where American "MP" Commissars shot anyone who didn't charge the beach.
@Vader - it seems that both you and Andy prefer a game where the player can make some sort of "safe" move, and that's not surprising. People naturally think it "unfair" when they lose to natural / environmental hazards out of direct combat.
I'm totally fine with that from a gaming standpoint, and think it would make for a good gaming experience with sufficient player education material explaining why the world is like that. In a sense, it's not unlike Age of Sail, where it wasn't unusual for fleets to lose sailors simply as a matter of course while doing their duties. Or Age of Horse, where men would be crippled or killed by their large, dumb animals.
- GG
@GG
DeleteYou came up with the idea of the whole game board being a minefield and whether this would be an improvement to the gameplay. I don´t think that I would ever play a game with such a scenario because it sounds annoying. I just thought about a way to give the player an option to mitigate the danger from the minefield but as you said reduced movement can be a danger in itself, as the enemy has more time to shoot at you and you have a harder time to reach distant objectives.
@Vader - in the back of my head, I'm always thinking about tactical combined arms mecha wargaming for KOG light. KOG light is notionally set in the Ukraine, so I have the idea that KOG light should be updated to reflect where actual warfare has gone today vs where I had thought it would go. Thanks for your input as a designer and potential player.
DeleteYou´re welcome. I have heard about KOG light in the dakkadakka forum some time ago. I didn´t know that it was set in Ukraine. What is the current status of the game?
Delete@Vader - KOG light releases have been on hiatus since war started in the Ukraine. Essentially, many of the things that I had implicitly assumed no longer apply due to the way that warfare has evolved. I didn't really comprehend how drones would impact warfare, because the focus was on the robots.
DeleteAfter seeing video of how things are actually playing out on the ground, I am revisiting what sort of experience the game should now offer, along with the whole "realism" vs "fun" balance. Hence the question as to whether I should treat the entire board as a low-level minefield. I'm also revisiting drones, off-board support and artillery concepts. I'm seeing the new Chinese military advancements, and trying to figure out how AI support should be incorporated.
It's a lot of new, thought-provoking material, but and I really want to be very respectful of so many real people dying for their country.
- GG
My Resolution List:
ReplyDelete1. Paint my Eldar for 40k 2nd edition.
2. Paint a German and Russian army for Kursk 1943 in 15mm scale
3. Build a new wargaming table which enables me to play 4x4, 6x4, 8x4, 6x6 and 8x6 ft games.
4. Create terrain for Kursk 1943
5. Paint two Malifaux crews (Lady Justice and Seamus)
6. Create terrain for Malifaux (I bought some nice MDF kits)
7. Build and paint some armies for Normandy 1944 (German, US and maybe British) in 15mm scale.
8. Create terrain for Normandy 1944
9. Create terrain for 40k 2nd edition
We will see how far I will get.
Hmm terrain creation seems to be your theme for 2025.
DeleteA very sensible one too. I reckon terrain is 80% a factor in what gets played i.e. scales with plentiful terrain see more playtime.
I've got a game I'm really keen to play more of (Zone Raiders) but I don't feel like I have the 'right' terrain. Well, i do, but it's 1000 MDF pieces I bought with more enthusiasm than time management...
-eM
Without good looking terrain the game is half the fun. Since I had my focus very much on the miniatures side the past year I need to at least allocate some time to terrain creation. In this regard, the eastern front is a grateful task. You don´t need much terrain if you don´t recreate city fighting. That´s why it is Nr. 1 one on the terrain list. If I think about creating meters and meters of hedgerows, I become nervous.
DeleteGood points on scope / level of abstraction. If I'm a platoon leader, I should fully control the squad leaders, influence fire team leads; individual troopers should be beyond my scope of control. Granularity is at the squad level, where fire teams require some coherency, and troopers have mandatory coherency.
ReplyDeleteOf course, on a computer, then I should be able to issue fairly complex standing orders as in Dark Reign, rather than having to micro every single unit. 40k is just a micro game with FAR too many models.
- GG
Coming across as someone who likes complex rules, I also recognize some bad UI in games. For example, the game Battlegroup that I mentioned earlier has armor values for tanks in letters while the armor penetration of guns is defined in numbers. So you need to consult the matrix table to check which letter/number combination leads to which target number. This seems very clunky and the first thing that I did was creating unit cards where the letters were converted to numbers. This should make it easier to memorize target numbers as some calculation could be derived easier.
ReplyDeleteSecond example from Battlegroup: you have to track the ammunition of each armoured vehicle which has a gun larger than a machine gun. You also have to define for most armoured vehicle the ratio of HE/AP rounds at the beginning of the game. This seems like unnecessary book keeping for me. It could also become a major brake on game tempo as soon as more than a few vehicles (e.g. a tank company) are involved.
Ammo tracking is nearly always bad UX, as most games don't get anywhere close to firing enough individual shells to exhaust the standard loadout on a vehicle or having the in-game time to reload. Better to just zero out on snake eyes.
DeleteIf you're tracking HE vs AP vs smoke rounds on vehicle, then the granularity is off. Best to reconsider scope and scale, either reducing the game experience to a single vehicle (or squadron) or else eliminate entirely with higher abstraction.
- GG
@GG
DeleteCompletely agree. Ammo tracking is mostly not worth it. I even hated it when playing a single D&D character with only one ranged weapon. Somehow, I was fine with it in Battletech, as the ammo could explode. So, you had to think about how much ammo you would carry in your mech without have a high risk of an ammo explosion occurring (e.g. 20 shots for the AC-20 would have been four slots on your mech IIRC). This could also get annoying fast if too many mechs are used, which somehow repeats my first comment that UI could get bad if the game is played with too many forces.
Ammo tracking might make sense if it is special ammo, and very limited. Perhaps instead you got 3 rounds of "super-AP" ammo which say has +2 pen but - 1 accuracy?
DeleteIt'd have to be very, very limited - so it forces you to make a decision whether to use it or save it. (Which maaaay make the recording worth it from a gameplay sense)
If there is enough to use it every time, then it is meaningless...
...From memory say a Sherman holds 90-100 rounds which is... more than adequate for any tabletop engagement! I'm curious - how did the Battlegroup ammo rules work? Even if a tank fired twice a turn surely no ammo would be relevant? I mean even if it fired its most rare ammo (WP) that'd be 6-7 turns of shooting...
I wonder why the game was designed that way - surely it would just be a scenario-specific rule?
@Vader - your example of the Battlegroup gun vs armour table is exactly what I am trying to articulate. I don't want to remove the granularity - but just get the same results in a faster way with less memorization/recourse to rules.
-eM
@eM
DeleteThat is a good example for the tracking of ammo. The Hunter-Killer-Missile (in German: “Radarsuchkopfrakete”) from 40k came to my mind immediately. In the second edition, it was a very potent weapon with only one shot. IIRC the same applied to the combi weapons, where you could shoot the bolter part an infinite number of times while the flamer/plasma/melter part could only be fired once.
In Battlegroup the number of rounds depends on the tank. I think that the most famous battle tanks like the Sherman, T34 and Panzer IV have around 10 rounds in total (HE and AP). As you can theoretically fire twice per turn it could be possible to run out of ammunition as the number of turns is not fixed at 5 or less. Tank hunters and assault guns often have less ammunition (5 or less) making so kind of ammunition truck to replenish ammo mandatory. If this would be scenario specific, I would think that it could enhance the atmosphere for such a scenario but as a universal rule it seems like a failure.
I am all for getting results in a fast way but from my point of view this is walking a tight rope between sufficient granularity and blandness.
Btw: I am a longtime reader of your game design series and your game reviews and really appreciate what you are doing here.
"In Battlegroup the.... ...Sherman, T34 and Panzer IV have around 10 rounds in total (HE and AP).... Tank hunters and assault guns often have less ammunition (5 or less) making so kind of ammunition truck to replenish ammo mandatory."
DeleteIs a tank an actual 1:1 tank, or does it stand for a squadron of 3-5 tanks? Reducing/scaling ammo by 1/10th (sounds about right - a Stug has ~50 rounds) sounds like a very deliberate design decision.
I wonder if there is a easier way to do it? If the aim is to discourage "fishing" for hits with random, low % shots and conserve ammo, then maybe firing the gun makes the tank more visible/vulnerable - or some disadvantage to give the same end effect - i.e. conserving shots for when they count.
-eM
In Battlegroup you have a 1:1 scale for everything, no stand-ins for larger organizational units, which makes this rule weird in comparison with reality where you have ten times the amount of rounds for a tank. I have to check the rule book whether there are some designer notes on this topic.
DeleteSingle-use item like the 40k hunter-killer missiles are OK, but are still annoying to track.
Delete@eM - The notion of "fishing" with low odds shots is less common in the real world because many engagements have a stealth factor, and shooting means you break cover and are now targetable.
A great set of objectives for the new year, especially playing more with your kids.
ReplyDeleteLMK when you want to unearth some of the home brew games we've emailed about over the years - I've got some space in my hobby calendar now to do some dev work. And don't forget to put IronStars/Space VSF back on the list too! :-)
Good to hear from you!
DeleteI was fiddling with some 15mm rules the other day and thought of you - it was a hard sci fi/Mars, basically John Carter with GZG minis and mechs, with each city state ruled by a sorcerer whose magic sucks the life from all that surrounds them. That's obviously why Mars is so barren...
It's a project to play with my kid who was very impressed with my myriad of 15mm armies (the minis are also pretty resilient to handling by a 9 year old!)
He also likes the idea of a wizard facing down a mech...
You back in Sydney? I think I have some Iron Stars ships from - 2014? - I have never assembled - you're welcome to them if I can find them in my next shed tidy...
-eM
I don't know if you play many PC games, but there is a pair of VSF games you may like - "Sunless Seas" and "Sunless Skies" - kinda simple RPGs with hilarious writing and simple gameplay - one is captaining a spacefaring locamotive, the other you command a steamship... back when London sank into the underground ocean...
Delete-eM
That sounds fun eM! Why not have a sorcerer / Psychic messing your your delicate vehicle instruments / weapon systems / oxygen supplies! You cant buy enthusiasm and interest from your children so roll with it :-)
DeleteThanks for the offer of the IS stuff - appreciated! Drop me an email when you unearth them :-)
PS I'm still in on the supercavitating submarine fighters project - its just that everything we discussed and shared (admittedly some years ago) was lost on my old PC. Shoot me an email at the same addy: pauljamesog (at) that gmail place
Delete"Supercavitating submarine fighters" ? That sounds like the old Submarine Titans RTS game! If you haven't played it, check it out for inspiration.
Delete- GG
Wow a RTS from the golden age!
DeleteNo, I have not played it but seems similar - cargo subs, underwater mines, and interceptor fighter subs...
-eM
Good goals! Wish I could get my kids wargaming...
ReplyDeleteWell eville, I am hoping this is the year to re-release Galactic: Conflict in the Stars. Its all rewritten with more play-testing in the works.
ReplyDeleteI'm just hoping that Shapeways will get going so I can post up all the 3D files for the ships. The game itself will have tokens and you are welcome to look it over if you are still interested.
Kirk
Well thats exciting! I'll look forward to that!
DeleteGreat work.
ReplyDelete