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".
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