This another part in the free wargames rules "recommended" project.
I think every wargamer has tinkered with their own ruleset, and increasing amounts of them are freely available on the web. But are they good? There's so much out there, and most aren't worth the download.
We're collecting rules recommended by other gamers. If you've played some free rules that you enjoyed (or had interesting mechanics/ideas) put a comment in this post (no sign-in required).
Age of Blood
.....fun Viking battle and campaign system. LOTS of flavour
incorporating RPG style elects in war band management, which takes up
most of the rules. I had a very enjoyable campaign with these free
rules (lots of posts on my blog if you are interested) - Paul O'Grady
I downloaded these ages ago and was quite impressed by them. Shares many similarities with LOTR - heroes have a kind of limited-resource "fate" re-roll, there's a similar activation and morale system. In fact the main difference is the use of opposed d10 rolls. A pretty thorough campaign/advancement system with ability to add mythic creatures.
Skjaldborg
.....The rules are a bit slow regarding
movement of units but it has got interesting concepts in morale,
motivation and melee. It is worth a read at least. -blacksmith
This is another viking skirmish game for 10-30 minis a side. Definitely interesting "motivation" rules - a soldier, depending on circumstances, may charge uncontrollably at the enemy, follow orders, fall back or even flee. This is a real central mechanic to the game. It's really interesting but quite daunting. (There's a few charts which can scare people off)
Shieldbreaker
.....nice simple
rules with a cool army builder a little reminiscient of a song of blades
and heroes builder but you cant buy as many special rules so less
complex -James Toney
.....a streamlined version of SoBH, which is pretty streamlined to begin with. ....the army builder on that website is pretty darn sweet. - Warren Abrox
Basically like the recommendations say - simple SoBH-style combat resolution, but without the risk-reward activation system and the plethora of special rules. A bit too bland for me personally, but as they say, it has a nifty unit builder.
Maurice(18th Century) and Longstreet (ACW)
Adam Carriere gave a pretty thorough breakdown:
Sam Mustafa offers the "lite" version
of his Maurice(18th Century) and Longstreet(ACW) rules they aren't
actually lite they are in fact the full table top game missing only the
campaign elements.
Both use Cards (printable version are
available free) for command and control as well as to provide bonuses to
your troops or penalties to your enemy. The Card play also break up
the traditional IGO UGO game as the inactive player can interrupt the
active players actions.
The cards add a layer of depth and are the real heart of the system. Cards have a range from the army commander they can be used i.e. a card with a range of 4 could only be used 4 away, while a unit with a range of 11 can be used 11 away. Cards can also be used to modify actions - and if you are the non-active player, you can use them to interrupt an opponent's turn. A pretty slick set of rules.
Victory Without Quarter
Its an interesting set of rules and uses a fun card mechanic with
integrated 'special events'.
- Paul O'Grady
These English Civil War rules have the usual "stands"of infantry. You'll need to make your own cards (spraypainting old playing cards is my method). I'm not a mass battle game expert (DBA is about my limit) but to give you an idea, activation is card-based (random, but extra cards for officers who can activate units in range); units absorb hits with casualty markers, each stand rolling to hit on 5+ on a 2-3d6 (shooting); or 4+ on 2-4d6 (melee.) The card draw system can trigger a roll on the event table, adding a bit of flavour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, thanks to the energetic readers of this blog. This article is courtesy of Paul O'Grady, Adam Carriere, James Toney and blacksmith.
Monday, 9 March 2015
Sunday, 8 March 2015
Recommended - Good Free Wargames Rules - Edition #1 - Sci Fi
There are 1000s of free rules on the net, many of dubious quality.
Need help to separate the wheat from the chaff? These rules are recommended by blog readers and are all "worth a look."
(If you want to help by recommending some free rules, please visit this page and leave your recommendation in the comments section. No sign-in is required).
This week we're looking at rules with a sci-fi angle. Click on the title for the link.
....really keen and it was the first instance I saw of the "casualties or suppression" mechanic. -Ivan Sorenson
A great way to re-use your old 40K models. Want to be an Inquisitor with his retinue? Read the Eisenhorn/Ravenor novels and I bet you'll be reaching for the download button. This was created by Craig Cartmell and the Forge of War development group, who also did FUBAR. It comes with warband lists, weapon lists and a campaign (mission) supplement with scenario/opfor generators.
As a small warband-level game using 40K models, this helps to scratch the Necromunda itch.
Another simple rule set, in a similar style to FUBAR. Like it says on the box - a one page set of rules, with a 40K focus.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Need help to separate the wheat from the chaff? These rules are recommended by blog readers and are all "worth a look."
(If you want to help by recommending some free rules, please visit this page and leave your recommendation in the comments section. No sign-in is required).
This week we're looking at rules with a sci-fi angle. Click on the title for the link.
....really keen and it was the first instance I saw of the "casualties or suppression" mechanic. -Ivan Sorenson
A great way to re-use your old 40K models. Want to be an Inquisitor with his retinue? Read the Eisenhorn/Ravenor novels and I bet you'll be reaching for the download button. This was created by Craig Cartmell and the Forge of War development group, who also did FUBAR. It comes with warband lists, weapon lists and a campaign (mission) supplement with scenario/opfor generators.
As a small warband-level game using 40K models, this helps to scratch the Necromunda itch.
...an article would be longer than the game but it deserves a nod - Ivan Sorenson
This is a very short (one page) set of rules, which has been re-used in a wide range of genres. The original is modern/near future sci fi but there are a myriad of variants ranging from Star Wars to Stargate, Aliens to medieval, fantasy, horror and VSF. Would work from skirmish to platoon+ level. There are some quite polished unit cards, resources and expansions made by an inventive community. The author Craig Cartmell has gone on to make the commercial VSF rules In her Majesty's Name.
....criminally overlooked and a fairly short read - Ivan Sorenson
A section/platoon level game. Amongst other stats, units have "motivation" (fanatic/warriors/reluctant/unwilling) that influences their behaviour and would allow a degree of solitaire play. Has an alternating (dice based) activation, with opportunity (reactive) fire. Includes rules for vehicles and dropships. I haven't come across this before, but I'm giving it a +1. Thanks, Ivan!
I'll save Ivan's blushes here and nominate this myself. Alongside FUBAR this is probably the first rule set I'd recommend to someone "getting into" sci fi gaming. One of the most complete free rules sets.
Aimed at the 40K level (platoon+ support/vehicles) this is relatively "hard" near future sci fi/modern with suppression and casualties emphasized (although there are rules for simple psychic powers). Quite polished, it's better laid out than most "paid" PDFs. I remember liking the recon stage (which is sort of a mini-game allowing you to place units before the battle). There are plenty of bells and whistles (army /vehicle builder etc) as well as campaign generators which add flavour - and reveal the author's RPG ancestry. I'd label this the next logical "step up"from FUBAR or similar one-page style rules.
Aimed at the 40K level (platoon+ support/vehicles) this is relatively "hard" near future sci fi/modern with suppression and casualties emphasized (although there are rules for simple psychic powers). Quite polished, it's better laid out than most "paid" PDFs. I remember liking the recon stage (which is sort of a mini-game allowing you to place units before the battle). There are plenty of bells and whistles (army /vehicle builder etc) as well as campaign generators which add flavour - and reveal the author's RPG ancestry. I'd label this the next logical "step up"from FUBAR or similar one-page style rules.
elegant simple rules and quick - similar to FUBAR in that the units have a quality value but its based on an alternate actions. Its also more specificly 40k. -James Toney
Another simple rule set, in a similar style to FUBAR. Like it says on the box - a one page set of rules, with a 40K focus.
Full Thrust is the best fleet starship game I've ever played. It uses
plotted movement, but the rules are light enough to survive a lot of
tinkering, and the game plays fast enough that you can have a dozen guys
around the table without anyone waiting too long to do something. It
also uses a clever damage tracking system that leaves your half dead
ships clinging to enough life to affect the battle, with the rare
catastrophic BOOM! that lights up the skies. - Warren Abrox
It's a testament to the game (and perhaps a lack of innovation in starship rules) that this continues to be the benchmark, 20 years on. It combines "build you own" rules, and simplicity with easy "mod-ability" and has been adapted for genres from attack helos, to tanks, to VSF.
This game pretty much pioneered the near-future "hard" sci fi genre - many more recent games owe much to its influence.
GZG set the benchmark for not only 15mm, but near future sci fi rules - and is perhaps a reason for the Vietnam-in-space focus of the genre. Stargrunt is their platoon-level rules. Like Dirtside, it isn't easy on the eyes. The rules themselves need a good tidy up. It's based on troop quality & confidence, and you can see the influence it has had on other rules designed since (Tomorrow's War comes to mind.). There are no superheroes - this is about suppression, maneuver and good use of cover.
Set an early benchmark for 6mm sci fi at the company+ level.
I don't really game at this scale, but it has a points system and vehicle design system. I found the rules download a bit inaccessible and "heavy going"but it's better designed than it appears. Alternate movement and opportunity fire. Better than Future War Commander commercial rules.
Fincas Khalmoril has done a pretty thorough write-up - I don't really need to add to it:
Very quick, very dirty and even for today it can boast with a number of highly original features:
- Units are either gangs (punx, rebels, scavengers) or squads (troopers, cops, also rebels) and both units have slighty different rules for morale and suppression.
- No unit coherence necessary if your unit is equipped with headsets, otherwise to change orders you need to be in "calling distance, something I remember like 12".
- Units can only act according to their orders which give huge boni on certain actions and disallow others. (Run, Snipe, Assault, Take Cover etc.)
- Some (easy to remember) tables to check for suppression, order acceptance, shooting.
- Shooting is tricky. Base number to hit is 6 on D6 (!) that means a lot of cinematic dakka dakka. (Unless one side is using snipe orders or brings in heavy rocket launchers). Once hit however, it's deadly. 2-5d6 added together (2d6 light handgun; 5d6 rocket launcher) and if > or = model's toughness (usually 7) its dead, if its at least equal to toughness-5, model is suppressed.
Only problem I remember is that the core rules are gritty cyperpunk and lack anything from vehicles to monsters to psi/magick.
- Units are either gangs (punx, rebels, scavengers) or squads (troopers, cops, also rebels) and both units have slighty different rules for morale and suppression.
- No unit coherence necessary if your unit is equipped with headsets, otherwise to change orders you need to be in "calling distance, something I remember like 12".
- Units can only act according to their orders which give huge boni on certain actions and disallow others. (Run, Snipe, Assault, Take Cover etc.)
- Some (easy to remember) tables to check for suppression, order acceptance, shooting.
- Shooting is tricky. Base number to hit is 6 on D6 (!) that means a lot of cinematic dakka dakka. (Unless one side is using snipe orders or brings in heavy rocket launchers). Once hit however, it's deadly. 2-5d6 added together (2d6 light handgun; 5d6 rocket launcher) and if > or = model's toughness (usually 7) its dead, if its at least equal to toughness-5, model is suppressed.
Only problem I remember is that the core rules are gritty cyperpunk and lack anything from vehicles to monsters to psi/magick.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks again to all the contributors for this article - James Toney, Warren Abrox, Fincas Khalmoril, and Ivan Sorenson - as we bring you the best of what's free on the web!
Remember, if you know of any free rules you can recommend, please add a comment here (no sign in required). Help us to help you!
Remember, if you know of any free rules you can recommend, please add a comment here (no sign in required). Help us to help you!
Saturday, 7 March 2015
Gaming: Justifying the Cost (//RANT Warning//)
I've come across this a fair bit in forum posts and in blogs. Someone suggests the price for a product is unreasonable, then others rush to defend it.
I noticed this recently on a free-to-play (lol) PC game called "Mechwarrior Online." The game, which was crowd funded, continues to milk consumers by selling digital "mechs." These are solid in "packages" as "early access." The packages are $55 for a single mech, or up to $240 for 10.
That's right - $55 for what is essentially a in-game character. A collection of code and textures, in a game with only 10 small maps (arenas.)
For non-videogamers, $55 is more than a complete FULL GAME of huge PC classics like Skyrim Civilization V, Grand Theft Auto, Dark Souls, and Assassin's Creed. Those games have many times (100s of times, in some cases) more content than the entire MW:Online game, let alone a single mech.
Naturally, these "paid only" mechs are more powerful than the other mechs, so players are effectively paying for a gameplay advantage (exclusive access to superior equipment) which lasts up to 6 months. Furthermore, the really powerful mechs are restricted to more expensive packages ($180+).
Not surprisingly, this business practice (paying to win, and ridiculously overpriced content) has people criticizing it. But what surprises me is the people (those who did purchase it) rushing to defend it. The people who dared complain were attacked and quickly shouted down by "fans."
I see their arguments justifying price cropping up all the time in reference to wargames as well, so let's review some:
#1. One handy way to refute the 'overpriced' argument: make a personal attack on the person making the complaints. This should refer to their socioecomonic status.
-Bonus for ridiculing their social skills/making half hidden racial slurs
"Get a job and move out of your mom's basement"
"People on welfare shouldn't be allowed to post"
"You're a freeloader who expects everything to be free"
"Maybe it's a big deal if you only make $5 an hour in Guatemala"
Not only does this put the whiner in their place, it discourages others from having the temerity to question pricing or your own financial decisions. After all, by specifically questioning your purchase, they attacked you first, right?
#2. Next, boast about how awesome you are or what a great job you have.
"I make $1000 a day on construction."
"I own my own business and $240 is what I make in an hour."
-Preferably, at the same time, make yourself the long suffering victim
"If it wasn't for paying players like me, free loaders like you couldn't play."
"If it wasn't for me, this game wouldn't be developed/supported."
This helps them understand why the pricing is OK. If it's OK for you, it should be OK for them. $80 for six plastic 28mm minis is fine. $55 for a digital character in a game is fine. Who do they think they are, anyway?
#3. Compare the price of the object to something totally unrelated.
"I spend $50 on the movies, so the $50 I spent on 2 finecraft models is totally worth it."
-Bonus points if it is drug or alcohol related.
"I spend more than $300 on a night out on grog, so $500 for a Warhammer army is cheap"
This also reinforces how cool you are, for the benefit of those unlucky whose lives and decision making is not weighed against/or enhanced with the consumption drugs/alcohol. This also shows your superior grasp of economics. I mean, if you can afford to drop $300 on booze every Friday you must be a smart guy, right?
#4. Claim to do it as you are "supporting" the company.
-This should be a enormous multimillion dollar company that desperately "needs"support.
-Preferably at the same time, combine this with a complaint.
"I do think the minis are overpriced at $15 each, but I want to support the company."
"I'll pre-order the game to support it's development, even if the alpha rules are crap and I don't like the current model range."
And people wonder why companies feel free to peddle any rubbish at whatever prices they wish.
Please, encourage and support mediocrity. Those multinationals really need this sort of support.
#5. Defend the 'overpriced' model with an irrelevant argument, i.e. your 'enjoyment' is worth it"I've spent $2000 on the game, but it's worth it to me as it's the only game I play."
"I don't have any other hobbies, so dropping $1500 on a 40K army is worth it."
This one is harder to refute, but for example in the "Train Simulator" PC game, to "buy" (or rather unlock) all the trains and tracks would cost $4000+ dollars.
To "buy" a digital train costs $20. Yes, $20 for a digital train that is just a bunch of sprites and code.
To buy a "route" (a single train line of say 100km) costs $40.
So if you think to buy a "full game" of trains is worth $4000, I guess I can't argue. It's your opinion.
However in the minds of most sane people, paying $4000 for a videogame is vastly overpriced, given you can get fullgames with 10x more content for the industry-standard $20-$80.
So whilst we cannot refute your claim it is "worth it" to you, I do think it's fair we can claim you are an idiot for paying 80x more than the industry standard, for an inferior product.
To make a wargame comparison, if Perry Miniatures sell plastic models at $30 for 40 (75c each), and Games Workshop sell models sculpted by the same sculptors, to an equal (arguably inferior) standard at $12 for $36 ($3ea) - i.e. four times more.
Claiming it's "worth it to me" does not alter the original contention - the minis are overpriced.
#6. If all else fails, disarm us with honesty
"This game/model is ridiculously overpriced, but I'm going to buy them all anyway."
"I was really disappointed with the release of x model, but I'll still pre-ordering the next release."
-To do this right, you need to complain about the price,complain about the company, admit the shortcomings in the product, then slavishly pledge to continue buying the product
People need to show loyalty to a company. After all, the company listens and is loyal to you, their valued customer, right? People need to understand that everything has a price. And the shinier the toy, the higher the price. Man up, and pay what you need to pay for your plastic/digital crack.
I noticed this recently on a free-to-play (lol) PC game called "Mechwarrior Online." The game, which was crowd funded, continues to milk consumers by selling digital "mechs." These are solid in "packages" as "early access." The packages are $55 for a single mech, or up to $240 for 10.
That's right - $55 for what is essentially a in-game character. A collection of code and textures, in a game with only 10 small maps (arenas.)
For non-videogamers, $55 is more than a complete FULL GAME of huge PC classics like Skyrim Civilization V, Grand Theft Auto, Dark Souls, and Assassin's Creed. Those games have many times (100s of times, in some cases) more content than the entire MW:Online game, let alone a single mech.
Naturally, these "paid only" mechs are more powerful than the other mechs, so players are effectively paying for a gameplay advantage (exclusive access to superior equipment) which lasts up to 6 months. Furthermore, the really powerful mechs are restricted to more expensive packages ($180+).
Not surprisingly, this business practice (paying to win, and ridiculously overpriced content) has people criticizing it. But what surprises me is the people (those who did purchase it) rushing to defend it. The people who dared complain were attacked and quickly shouted down by "fans."
I see their arguments justifying price cropping up all the time in reference to wargames as well, so let's review some:
Let's call this The Idiot's Guide to Justifying Price
#1. One handy way to refute the 'overpriced' argument: make a personal attack on the person making the complaints. This should refer to their socioecomonic status.
-Bonus for ridiculing their social skills/making half hidden racial slurs
"Get a job and move out of your mom's basement"
"People on welfare shouldn't be allowed to post"
"You're a freeloader who expects everything to be free"
"Maybe it's a big deal if you only make $5 an hour in Guatemala"
Not only does this put the whiner in their place, it discourages others from having the temerity to question pricing or your own financial decisions. After all, by specifically questioning your purchase, they attacked you first, right?
#2. Next, boast about how awesome you are or what a great job you have.
"I make $1000 a day on construction."
"I own my own business and $240 is what I make in an hour."
-Preferably, at the same time, make yourself the long suffering victim
"If it wasn't for paying players like me, free loaders like you couldn't play."
"If it wasn't for me, this game wouldn't be developed/supported."
This helps them understand why the pricing is OK. If it's OK for you, it should be OK for them. $80 for six plastic 28mm minis is fine. $55 for a digital character in a game is fine. Who do they think they are, anyway?
#3. Compare the price of the object to something totally unrelated.
"I spend $50 on the movies, so the $50 I spent on 2 finecraft models is totally worth it."
-Bonus points if it is drug or alcohol related.
"I spend more than $300 on a night out on grog, so $500 for a Warhammer army is cheap"
This also reinforces how cool you are, for the benefit of those unlucky whose lives and decision making is not weighed against/or enhanced with the consumption drugs/alcohol. This also shows your superior grasp of economics. I mean, if you can afford to drop $300 on booze every Friday you must be a smart guy, right?
#4. Claim to do it as you are "supporting" the company.
-This should be a enormous multimillion dollar company that desperately "needs"support.
-Preferably at the same time, combine this with a complaint.
"I do think the minis are overpriced at $15 each, but I want to support the company."
"I'll pre-order the game to support it's development, even if the alpha rules are crap and I don't like the current model range."
And people wonder why companies feel free to peddle any rubbish at whatever prices they wish.
Please, encourage and support mediocrity. Those multinationals really need this sort of support.
#5. Defend the 'overpriced' model with an irrelevant argument, i.e. your 'enjoyment' is worth it"I've spent $2000 on the game, but it's worth it to me as it's the only game I play."
"I don't have any other hobbies, so dropping $1500 on a 40K army is worth it."
This one is harder to refute, but for example in the "Train Simulator" PC game, to "buy" (or rather unlock) all the trains and tracks would cost $4000+ dollars.
To "buy" a digital train costs $20. Yes, $20 for a digital train that is just a bunch of sprites and code.
To buy a "route" (a single train line of say 100km) costs $40.
So if you think to buy a "full game" of trains is worth $4000, I guess I can't argue. It's your opinion.
However in the minds of most sane people, paying $4000 for a videogame is vastly overpriced, given you can get fullgames with 10x more content for the industry-standard $20-$80.
So whilst we cannot refute your claim it is "worth it" to you, I do think it's fair we can claim you are an idiot for paying 80x more than the industry standard, for an inferior product.
To make a wargame comparison, if Perry Miniatures sell plastic models at $30 for 40 (75c each), and Games Workshop sell models sculpted by the same sculptors, to an equal (arguably inferior) standard at $12 for $36 ($3ea) - i.e. four times more.
Claiming it's "worth it to me" does not alter the original contention - the minis are overpriced.
#6. If all else fails, disarm us with honesty
"This game/model is ridiculously overpriced, but I'm going to buy them all anyway."
"I was really disappointed with the release of x model, but I'll still pre-ordering the next release."
-To do this right, you need to complain about the price,complain about the company, admit the shortcomings in the product, then slavishly pledge to continue buying the product
People need to show loyalty to a company. After all, the company listens and is loyal to you, their valued customer, right? People need to understand that everything has a price. And the shinier the toy, the higher the price. Man up, and pay what you need to pay for your plastic/digital crack.
Napoleonics are Boring - aka - Transitional Periods in Warfare
I was thinking about my wargame interests, and how I found Napoleonic (and ACW) of such little interest compared to most gamers. On reflection, I think I am attracted to "transitional" periods of warfare.
This is when a new technology has turned warfare on its head, and everyone is experimenting. All sorts of weird and wonderful ideas are tried out.
---
1950-60s Jet Era is fun
This was what got me thinking about this topic. A visit to the nearby Caloundra Air Museum confirmed this as a favourite period. The early jet era was so darn interesting. Missiles could be wire guided, or heat seekers, or radar guided - heck sometimes they simply fired salvoes of dozens of unguided rockets in hope of hitting something. My favourite - an unguided nuclear rocket. That's right - the AIR-2 Genie was a 1.5kt warhead fired in the 'approximate direction' of enemy bombers. With a range of about 6 miles, it had a 300m lethal radius - although I bet it would cause anyone within miles to poop their pants! With awesome cannons you can fit your arm into, these early jets have such primitive controls - going 900kph in using controls not much different than a early-war Spitfire. It's such a fun mix of designs. The weird P-38-style twin booms, fighters with twin engines underwing like Meteors, F-104 pointy noses contrasting with gaping blunt Mig-15 air intakes. Delta wings, swept wings, straight wings. Sometimes crew sat behind each other - sometimes side by side. You want to fit in a radar? Simply add a metre of metal cylinder and stretch the nose. You can tell the designers were really making it up as they went along. Even the paint schemes are colourful - or just bare metal.
Modern Air Combat is dull
For the modern era (1980s-) aircraft are so boring by contrast. NATO and Russian aircraft look pretty similar. Most have two engines. Most have two tail fins. All have swept wings. Most carry a pretty standard loadout - a single gatling-style cannon, a pair of heat seekers and several radar guided missiles. Paint schemes are a subdued grey. The biggest difference tends to be the electronics/radar - the stuff that is under the hood anyways. (It's no coincidence, my favourite "modern" aircraft, the 70s-era A-10, rips up the rule book a fair bit!) Aircraft, no matter who makes them, are getting more and more alike. The technology is relatively mature, and hasn't changed a lot since the 70s-80s. (Yes, I guess there is "stealth" but it isn't that widespread, and all the stealth fighters are clones of each other as well).
---
Early Renaissance is fun
You have pike, musketeers, aquebusiers, crossbowmen, halberdiers, sword-and-buckler men, cannon in a range of shapes and sizes. Units are mixed in a range of ways and ratios. You have cavalry in an equally wide range of varieties - dragoons, reiters, hussars, cuirassiers, harquebusiers, etc. There is a glorious mish-mash of colourful and varied units. Armour is still a "thing" and units wear varying amounts and types. You can also go cool places - and fight foes as varied as Indians, Aztecs, Ottomans, or Africans.
Napoleonics is dull
In contrast, Napoleonics seem pretty boring. It's mostly the pretty uniforms. The technology and tactics of the muzzle-loading musket is quite "mature"and polished by now. Everything is so "standardised" in comparison to the early days of gunpoweder. You can get infantry, cavalry and cannon, and the main difference is the red or blue uniforms. For ACW, simply substitute the uniform colour to grey and blue. That's why historical gamers from that era tend to be fussy (aka anal-retentive) about uniform - ' cos it's the only interesting thing from that era!
Heck, even Napoleonics naval (much as I like sailing ships) is pretty samey. The French and British copied each other (and captured each others' ships) so often the flag was the main difference. Ships were mass produced to a 'type' i.e. a 74, or a 36-gun frigate - often directly copied from rivals.
(In contrast, the ACW-to-pre-dreadnought era of naval warfare, where armour and explosive shells were only just becoming widespread, and steam replaced sail, is weird, wacky and interesting - at least until warships became relatively "standardized" after WW1.)
---
Modern Combat is dull
As I've been painting some 28mm stuff, I've been realising it's actually pretty samey. Everyone has four man fire teams, with maybe a SAW and a guy with an underbarrel grenade launcher. Most nations have small arms and support weapons in similar calibre, capacity, and capability. Even armoured vehicles are pretty similar - a 6x6 with a HMG, a IFV with a chaingun, a MBT with a 120mm. Really, is there that big a difference between a Challenger 2, an Abrams and a Leopard 2? Enough to care? C'mon, they're functionally identical.
WW2 Combat is Interesting
Compare this to WW2 tank combat, where they were still experimenting with what made a good AFV. We have tank destroyers, assault guns, bren carriers, infantry tanks, scout tanks, heavy tanks, medium tanks. Half tracks, tracked and wheeled APCs. Was there a difference between a T-34, KV; a Grant, Matilda, or Sherman; and a StuG, Panther or Tiger? You bet. Massive change (and thus a massive variety of designs) occurred in the space of a few years.
Small arms were varied. SMGs, semi automatic and bolt actions were represented in various ratios instead of the ubiquitous assault rifle (though there were those too!) A Bren gun, a MG42 and a BAR are not at all alike; whereas a modern SAW - if it isn't a Minimi or direct copy thereof - is functionally identical. Even handguns were a mix of revolvers and automatics of different calibres, and not just all 9mm automatics.
Admittedly, I don't play WW2 very often as it's so over-represented. I'm about as excited by new platoon-level WW2 games as I am by near future sci fi (Vietnam in space) - or any game with zombies in it (i.e., not at all). However, it is an interesting period of warfare than modern combat; as so much change occurred, and forces are more varied.
This is when a new technology has turned warfare on its head, and everyone is experimenting. All sorts of weird and wonderful ideas are tried out.
---
1950-60s Jet Era is fun
This was what got me thinking about this topic. A visit to the nearby Caloundra Air Museum confirmed this as a favourite period. The early jet era was so darn interesting. Missiles could be wire guided, or heat seekers, or radar guided - heck sometimes they simply fired salvoes of dozens of unguided rockets in hope of hitting something. My favourite - an unguided nuclear rocket. That's right - the AIR-2 Genie was a 1.5kt warhead fired in the 'approximate direction' of enemy bombers. With a range of about 6 miles, it had a 300m lethal radius - although I bet it would cause anyone within miles to poop their pants! With awesome cannons you can fit your arm into, these early jets have such primitive controls - going 900kph in using controls not much different than a early-war Spitfire. It's such a fun mix of designs. The weird P-38-style twin booms, fighters with twin engines underwing like Meteors, F-104 pointy noses contrasting with gaping blunt Mig-15 air intakes. Delta wings, swept wings, straight wings. Sometimes crew sat behind each other - sometimes side by side. You want to fit in a radar? Simply add a metre of metal cylinder and stretch the nose. You can tell the designers were really making it up as they went along. Even the paint schemes are colourful - or just bare metal.
Modern Air Combat is dull
For the modern era (1980s-) aircraft are so boring by contrast. NATO and Russian aircraft look pretty similar. Most have two engines. Most have two tail fins. All have swept wings. Most carry a pretty standard loadout - a single gatling-style cannon, a pair of heat seekers and several radar guided missiles. Paint schemes are a subdued grey. The biggest difference tends to be the electronics/radar - the stuff that is under the hood anyways. (It's no coincidence, my favourite "modern" aircraft, the 70s-era A-10, rips up the rule book a fair bit!) Aircraft, no matter who makes them, are getting more and more alike. The technology is relatively mature, and hasn't changed a lot since the 70s-80s. (Yes, I guess there is "stealth" but it isn't that widespread, and all the stealth fighters are clones of each other as well).
---
Early Renaissance is fun
You have pike, musketeers, aquebusiers, crossbowmen, halberdiers, sword-and-buckler men, cannon in a range of shapes and sizes. Units are mixed in a range of ways and ratios. You have cavalry in an equally wide range of varieties - dragoons, reiters, hussars, cuirassiers, harquebusiers, etc. There is a glorious mish-mash of colourful and varied units. Armour is still a "thing" and units wear varying amounts and types. You can also go cool places - and fight foes as varied as Indians, Aztecs, Ottomans, or Africans.
Napoleonics is dull
In contrast, Napoleonics seem pretty boring. It's mostly the pretty uniforms. The technology and tactics of the muzzle-loading musket is quite "mature"and polished by now. Everything is so "standardised" in comparison to the early days of gunpoweder. You can get infantry, cavalry and cannon, and the main difference is the red or blue uniforms. For ACW, simply substitute the uniform colour to grey and blue. That's why historical gamers from that era tend to be fussy (aka anal-retentive) about uniform - ' cos it's the only interesting thing from that era!
Heck, even Napoleonics naval (much as I like sailing ships) is pretty samey. The French and British copied each other (and captured each others' ships) so often the flag was the main difference. Ships were mass produced to a 'type' i.e. a 74, or a 36-gun frigate - often directly copied from rivals.
(In contrast, the ACW-to-pre-dreadnought era of naval warfare, where armour and explosive shells were only just becoming widespread, and steam replaced sail, is weird, wacky and interesting - at least until warships became relatively "standardized" after WW1.)
---
Modern Combat is dull
As I've been painting some 28mm stuff, I've been realising it's actually pretty samey. Everyone has four man fire teams, with maybe a SAW and a guy with an underbarrel grenade launcher. Most nations have small arms and support weapons in similar calibre, capacity, and capability. Even armoured vehicles are pretty similar - a 6x6 with a HMG, a IFV with a chaingun, a MBT with a 120mm. Really, is there that big a difference between a Challenger 2, an Abrams and a Leopard 2? Enough to care? C'mon, they're functionally identical.
WW2 Combat is Interesting
Compare this to WW2 tank combat, where they were still experimenting with what made a good AFV. We have tank destroyers, assault guns, bren carriers, infantry tanks, scout tanks, heavy tanks, medium tanks. Half tracks, tracked and wheeled APCs. Was there a difference between a T-34, KV; a Grant, Matilda, or Sherman; and a StuG, Panther or Tiger? You bet. Massive change (and thus a massive variety of designs) occurred in the space of a few years.
Small arms were varied. SMGs, semi automatic and bolt actions were represented in various ratios instead of the ubiquitous assault rifle (though there were those too!) A Bren gun, a MG42 and a BAR are not at all alike; whereas a modern SAW - if it isn't a Minimi or direct copy thereof - is functionally identical. Even handguns were a mix of revolvers and automatics of different calibres, and not just all 9mm automatics.
Admittedly, I don't play WW2 very often as it's so over-represented. I'm about as excited by new platoon-level WW2 games as I am by near future sci fi (Vietnam in space) - or any game with zombies in it (i.e., not at all). However, it is an interesting period of warfare than modern combat; as so much change occurred, and forces are more varied.
The Argument:
Transitional periods in warfare, where a relatively massive technological change has recently occurred (introduction of gunpowder, automatic weapons, the transition from sail to steam, from propellers to the jet engine) is far more interesting than the later stages of that technology, where everyone has figured out the "best"way to use it, and are all copying each other/using cookie-cutter equipment.
Monday, 2 March 2015
Wanted: Good Free Rules (Help Appreciated)
It's been suggested that we look at free rules.
Now, I don't personally do "proper" reviews on free rules (after all, they're free - you can try it yourself) but it might be interesting to collect good free rules (or simply free rules with good ideas/concepts) and publish them in small articles, with a brief description of each - similar in size/style to the book reviews I've been doing lately.
These will not be "in depth", carefully thought out and playtested reviews, but more "have a look at this - it looks interesting." There are thousands of free rules out there, so I'm seeking help to sift the wheat from the chaff, so to speak.
In the comments section (note: you don't need to sign into anything to leave a comment) please note the following:
1. The name of the rules (duh) and a link to their location
2. The reason you think these are a good rules set (it might be only a particular mechanic)
http://assaultpublishing.com/?page_id=820
http://freewargamesrules.wikia.com/wiki/Sturmovik_Commander
Reason: It's now a commercial game but early versions are still free. It's WW2 aerial combat, covering from the Fall of France to the skies over Berlin. It's by Marcin Gerkowicz who did the excellent Hind Commander helo gunship rules. It's certainly more game than simulation, but it's extraordinarily thorough and well-produced for a freebie. Has a bit of an Imperialis Aeronautica feel to it.
(OK, your comment doesn't need to be as wordy as mine, but you get the drift!)
Yes, it's OK to plug your own free rules, provided they are complete, online, and freely available to download (i.e. no "email me at joebloggs@gmail.com and I'll send you my alpha rules" thanks)
The blog readers here seem to be pretty energetic - and if I get the feedback I expect, we can make this a regular article. So you can find this post again if you are struck by inspiration, if you look at the labels on the right, there is a "Free Rules" link where you can find this post (and others with free rules in them.)
EDIT: Thanks to all the comments - keep them coming!
The first round up - #1 Sci Fi is here
The second round up - # 2 Historical is here
Now, I don't personally do "proper" reviews on free rules (after all, they're free - you can try it yourself) but it might be interesting to collect good free rules (or simply free rules with good ideas/concepts) and publish them in small articles, with a brief description of each - similar in size/style to the book reviews I've been doing lately.
These will not be "in depth", carefully thought out and playtested reviews, but more "have a look at this - it looks interesting." There are thousands of free rules out there, so I'm seeking help to sift the wheat from the chaff, so to speak.
HOW YOU CAN HELP
In the comments section (note: you don't need to sign into anything to leave a comment) please note the following:
1. The name of the rules (duh) and a link to their location
2. The reason you think these are a good rules set (it might be only a particular mechanic)
---------
EXAMPLE
I nominate Sturmovik Commander. http://assaultpublishing.com/?page_id=820
http://freewargamesrules.wikia.com/wiki/Sturmovik_Commander
Reason: It's now a commercial game but early versions are still free. It's WW2 aerial combat, covering from the Fall of France to the skies over Berlin. It's by Marcin Gerkowicz who did the excellent Hind Commander helo gunship rules. It's certainly more game than simulation, but it's extraordinarily thorough and well-produced for a freebie. Has a bit of an Imperialis Aeronautica feel to it.
(OK, your comment doesn't need to be as wordy as mine, but you get the drift!)
--------
Yes, it's OK to plug your own free rules, provided they are complete, online, and freely available to download (i.e. no "email me at joebloggs@gmail.com and I'll send you my alpha rules" thanks)
The blog readers here seem to be pretty energetic - and if I get the feedback I expect, we can make this a regular article. So you can find this post again if you are struck by inspiration, if you look at the labels on the right, there is a "Free Rules" link where you can find this post (and others with free rules in them.)
EDIT: Thanks to all the comments - keep them coming!
The first round up - #1 Sci Fi is here
The second round up - # 2 Historical is here
Game Design #31: Readable Rulebooks
Sometimes rules are just plain inaccessible and unappealing. What makes a rulebook easy to use?
Here are a few things I look for when I review a rulebook:
REPETITION
When I work with a student, I don't just tell them once and expect them to instantly assimilate it - I repeat the message (preferably in a few different ways). A form of repetition which has additional benefits is:
Quick references and chapter summaries. I always looks for a "quick reference" page at the back of the rulebook. I don't like having to look up a web page or yahoo group to print it off. (Remember the good old days when the quick reference was a cardboard tear-out?)
A great idea, but something too few authors do, is a rules summary at the end of each chapter. A simple dot-point summary of key rules from the chapter make a great resource, and you can then go through the rules in more depth if it does not answer your question. Basically, you consult - 1. Quick reference sheet -> 2. Chapter summary -> 3. Main text. I've seen a few rules do this and it's a great idea.
Not only is it easy to find rules, but when you are reading a book for the first time, it reinforces the key points.
Rules can belong in more than one place. Another thing is rules might need to be mentioned more than once, in more than one part of the book. For example, if a troop must take a morale test for being suppressed by shooting, I'd expect to find this rule in the Shooting chapter as well as the Morale chapter. That way I don't have to go looking for the Morale rules - it's all in one place. This is another example of good repetition. Damage resolution rules could be included in both Shooting and Melee chapters.
This also means if the author has a different idea of where to place rules, we can still "find" the rules. For example, terrain info (including movement penalties and cover modifiers) were found in the front of a rulebook I read recently, along with the explanation of stats and unit characteristics. Movement penalties and cover modifiers are usually found in the Movement and Shooting sections of the rules. Repeating the rules there would have been helpful as well as reinforcing the information to the reader.
Remember: Repetition. Repetition. Repetition.
MANAGING INFORMATION OVERLOAD
Advanced Rules. It's important not to "overload" the player with too much info. In the days of PDFs, it's often attractive to keep additional information back and either release it as a free or paid supplement. However this can lead to accusations of "incomplete" rules or price gouging, EA Games DLC-style.
I'd say there are two good ways to present advanced rules - in a box at the end of the appropriate chapter, or in a separate "advanced rules" chapter. If you go for a separate chapter approach, may I suggest you mirror the layout of the actual rulebook; i.e. divide the advanced rules chapter up into the same headings as the overall rules - say Activation, Movement, Shooting, Melee, Morale, etc - with links to the appropriate pages where the advanced rules link with or supersede the original rules.
I also like to know which rules are "fun" additions or "chrome" and which are important to enjoying the game and playing it the way the author intended. Because many advanced rules are actually viewed by the author as essential for a 'good' game. I'd like them labelled as such = i.e. "strongly recommended."
The layout of a book can also lead to information overload. Dense text, uninterrupted by illustrations or pictures, especially when in small font, can lead to a feeling of being "overwhelmed" with information.
"FLUFF" INTERFERENCE
I've mentioned this in another post, but many rule designers forget their #1 job is to provide a clear and fun set of rules - not exercise their (usually dubious) literacy talents writing fanfics for their universe (aka fluff).
Fluff is well and good in its place. However its place is not anywhere that will obstruct the easy reading/location of rules. I particularly dislike the practice of embedding 3-4 pages of fluff at the start of each rules chapter. Malifaux was a poster child for this.
Even putting the fluff all in one spot can be problematic if it is excessive. Infinity has great artwork and interesting fluff, but fluff took up 90% of the v2 rulebook. The actual rules themselves were jammed in the back of the book, as a kind of "appendix."
Please sir, can I play the game? The actual rules for Infinity appear after 128 pages of fluff....
LAYOUT
This is a pretty broad category. I'll go for the low-hanging fruit first.
Font Size/Columns, and the "wall of text." I'd say size 11/12 is minimum - not everyone has 20/20 vision. Weird fonts are OK for small chunks or boxes with "flavour text" but the main text font should be simple and familiar .
Text should be "broken up" - if you aren't using diagrams to explain your rules (and you should) then at least toss in some eye candy to save others from eyestrain. (As an aside, painted minis in tabletop battle are preferable to home made drawings)
Whilst not a "must-have,"the two column-per-page is popular for a reason - it provides a good blend of readability and "fits" plenty of stuff per page.
Page Colour/Watermarks. You know that cool dark blue background with that awesome space marine wielding a chainsword, that is the background for each page? It means I can barely read your rules. This is common in indie rules and pdfs, where enthusiasm can outweigh practicality. However, even popular rulebooks can make themselves harder to read (Tomorrow's War, I'm looking at you.)
Page Margins. Some rules colour-code the margin of each chapter. The aim is to make it easy to leaf to the correct section. That's well and good, but please also include the name of the rules chapter in the margin, as I own lots of rules and green-edge chapter might mean Morale in one book and Artillery rules in the next.
Table of Contents/Index. You'd think this goes without saying, but it's surprising how many rules neglect this. I couldn't count how often I've had to refer to an index to find an obscure rule - especially rules authors don't always put rules in a location that is logical to the rest of us.
Spelin and granmar. This seems obvious but I'm amazed by how many "professional" glossy rules look like they've been only given a cursory proof-read. People often do not "see" their own mistakes as their brain fills in the correct word/spelling. I'd suggest family members and wargaming mates might not always make the best proofreaders either, unless they do something like that for a living (solicitors, clerks, teachers etc tend to be good "critical" readers.)
Don't be afeared of charts. Charts are a bit of a dirty word in wargaming, as they tend to be associated with convoluted, gluggy rules (a la WRG 80s). However they are a valid way to present information - and I think designers, by eschewing charts, are narrowing down their options for both presentation of information and also using different game mechanics.
Not even bothering (aka MS Word approach). If you're sending me playtest rules, fine. If you're selling me a rulebook, I expect some effort to be made. If it looks like my mum can make it on 5 minutes on MS Word, I'm seriously questioning why I just sent you $10. Make an attempt to be professional, please.
Classic wall of text. I've tried to read, try and review Arc of Fire (WW2 platoon game) three times. I usually get a mild headache by page 12 or so and give up.
ILLUSTRATIONS & DIAGRAMS
Not everyone "grasps" things through reading. Sometimes a picture is worth 1000 words. A diagram (with arrows, and annotations) is often even better. A comic strip (or photo montage) showing the sequence of play is great, and about as good as it gets short of video.
The future is video. I predict in future rulebooks will have those barcodes you scan, that will then play a gameplay example or sequence of play on your smartphone. (It can't be that complex, as I'm pretty sure I saw some Year 6s do it using iPad apps the other day) Until then, we have diagrams.
Diagrams and illustrations are particularly useful when you are introducing unusual mechanics. "Common" mechanics like true line of sight may require less explanation than your new activation resource-management mechanic. That said, I still think even simple mechanics are worth a photo or diagram.
When school kids read me their stories, what they read aloud and what's "in their head" often differs dramatically from what they wrote. Just because it makes sense to you (and your circle of gaming buddies who were there all throughout your design process) doesn't mean everyone who picks up your rules will instantly "get" your intent or be able to "fill in the blanks."*
Some people learn best through pictures - which are often your best way to "show" things short of video/being there. I'd go so far if there isn't at least 2 diagrams per page, you're doing it wrong.
CLARITY or "Is this what it means?
*This wasn't part of my original outline, but may be worth further elaboration. I'd like to see rule designers give their rules 'cold' to a bunch of strangers, then watch and listen to them play the game live without commenting or interfering in any way. Like an exhibition game at a show - but without any guidance! See how players naturally play the game based on their reading of it. See what issues/arguments crop up. Then repeat the same experiment with other groups. I don't know where you'd find strangers willing to videotape themselves, but it's good in theory! Game devs get the same effect through forums, emails, websites etc and they can do FAQs, but they are usually done AFTER the game goes live. Long distance play testing with email feedback can only do so much (especially if it isn't 'foucssed'), and play testing with your friends often means you are working with a friendly crowd who "know" you and your approach, even if they didn't help you make the rules from alpha. For example, I suspect 2HW grew from energetic live demo-ing, as I always used to get a real "private house rules" vibe when I read them (though they have improved a lot since the early days.) Quite a lot of British club-developed rules have the same "feel" to them - i.e. designed by a bunch of friends who understood how the rules worked without having to actually learn the game from the rulebook.
Diagrams don't have to complex, and they can be invaluable in explaining unusual concepts. Here I try to make some Newtonian space ship rules.
CLARITY or "Is this what it means?
*This wasn't part of my original outline, but may be worth further elaboration. I'd like to see rule designers give their rules 'cold' to a bunch of strangers, then watch and listen to them play the game live without commenting or interfering in any way. Like an exhibition game at a show - but without any guidance! See how players naturally play the game based on their reading of it. See what issues/arguments crop up. Then repeat the same experiment with other groups. I don't know where you'd find strangers willing to videotape themselves, but it's good in theory! Game devs get the same effect through forums, emails, websites etc and they can do FAQs, but they are usually done AFTER the game goes live. Long distance play testing with email feedback can only do so much (especially if it isn't 'foucssed'), and play testing with your friends often means you are working with a friendly crowd who "know" you and your approach, even if they didn't help you make the rules from alpha. For example, I suspect 2HW grew from energetic live demo-ing, as I always used to get a real "private house rules" vibe when I read them (though they have improved a lot since the early days.) Quite a lot of British club-developed rules have the same "feel" to them - i.e. designed by a bunch of friends who understood how the rules worked without having to actually learn the game from the rulebook.
EXAMPLES
It's a good idea to provide examples of the finished product before issuing people a task. Having an idea of what the final product looks like (or action, if it's sport) not only shows them how it works, but also gives them context for understanding how and why the rules work.
This can be written examples, but are even better when supported with illustrations, diagrams or sequences of pictures.
I'd expect examples to be scattered through each chapter, and not just one big "example of gameplay" hidden back with the appendixes.
TL:DR
Most of the layout stuff is (or should be) obvious, so I'm going to summarise the key points:
Explain the rule, show the rule (illustration), then give an example. Then, summarise the rule, and repeat it whenever it is logical to do so.
Saturday, 28 February 2015
Game Design #30: Coherency & Leadership Ranges
Soldiers in a squad must stay within 2"of each other*
I could copy and paste this into almost ANY platoon-level game and this statement would be correct - that's how universally this rule is used.
But why?
Well, it's a simple, handy way to ensure individually-based models stick together and act as a unit.
It's an abstraction.
What if we break coherency?
If one of our mini soldiers moves beyond that magic 2" (which is about 4 metres, to scale) what happens?
Usually one (or more) of these:
*The soldier must spend their next move to get back into coherency
*The unit's next move must restore coherency
---or more drastically--
*The soldier must make a morale test; if it fails it flees the board
*The soldier cannot attack or take any action until it rejoins the unit
There's a lot of "must" there. It assumes a trained professional soldier will somehow break down if he is more than a few yards from his companions, and not attached via an invisible umbilical cord.
Yes, a soldier will be more effective working in close proximity with team mates - it's easier to communicate and co ordinate attacks. Yes, he will be more confident with his buddies beside him.
But is there a need for "musts?" - perhaps giving a -1 modifier to attack and defence (simulating better target awareness/mutual defence) would encourage players to keep units together.
Why 2" range? (I'm tempted to say Warhammer did it once then everyone else copied.) Is it the range someone could shout to each other in a firefight? Why 2"and why not 12"? Why not simply "line of sight?" What is the "footprint" of a fire team - how much area does a "fire team" spread out to cover? 40-50 yards? Isn't there a "minimum distance between troops?" I'm presuming about 10 yards. You'd assume a single grenade would take out most of a Bolt Action squad*, for example.
(*Naturally, the historical game Bolt Action uses a gap of under 1" so the models are practically holding hands. It then does away with template weapons. Perfectly logical. )
Leadership Range
Another common rule is leaders having a radius (usually between 6 to 12") where they can influence troops; i.e. remove suppression, rally fleeing troops, or perhaps issue orders if it is that style of game.
Again, I'd ask - why x distance? And why is this radius larger than 2" if that is the maximum distance squads can shout at... do lieutenants have louder voices? unless we are using *drumroll* radios.... Which leads me to question:
Why do we even need coherency?
Most of the games that use the 2" coherency mechanic tend to be "modern" or sci fi. You know, around the time this device called the radio came into fashion?
Obviously we want squads and fire teams to act in a co-ordinated manner, and not have individual troops scattered all over the board, but I don't think a hard limit is needed. Keeping friendlies in sight is important, and coherency should be desirable, but I question that it needs to be forced artificially.
Coherency in Company Level Games
I don't play these very extensively, but the few I own tend to have squads in coherency with their platoon HQ, and platoon HQs within coherency range of their company HQ, and so on up.
Ranges & Scale
Yes, I know the 1" gap between models could actually stand for 25 yards. But it's the ratio that interests me. If we use 1"= 25 yards coherency range, it needs to be checked against other ranges - a rifle which shoots 300 yards might have only a 12"range (!) and grenades might only be able to hit one model at a time. Abstracting the scale too radically impacts things like model basing and the size of buildings as well.
TL:DR
The purpose of this article isn't that the standard 2"coherency rules are bad; but to question what seems to be (like true-line-of-sight) an almost set-in-stone wargaming convention.
I'd like to know designers are basing their decisions against gameplay choices, or actual ranges, or something - not just copying something cos it is just the "done thing."
*Is 2"the best distance? What do we base this on? What is its ratio vs other distances in the game?
*Should a "leader's" range differ from this? How long should that range be?
*Should units be forced to move into cohesion?
*What is a suitable "penalty" for troops who move out of cohesion?
*Is cohesion needed at all, and if so, for what genres?
I could copy and paste this into almost ANY platoon-level game and this statement would be correct - that's how universally this rule is used.
But why?
Well, it's a simple, handy way to ensure individually-based models stick together and act as a unit.
It's an abstraction.
What if we break coherency?
If one of our mini soldiers moves beyond that magic 2" (which is about 4 metres, to scale) what happens?
Usually one (or more) of these:
*The soldier must spend their next move to get back into coherency
*The unit's next move must restore coherency
---or more drastically--
*The soldier must make a morale test; if it fails it flees the board
*The soldier cannot attack or take any action until it rejoins the unit
There's a lot of "must" there. It assumes a trained professional soldier will somehow break down if he is more than a few yards from his companions, and not attached via an invisible umbilical cord.
Yes, a soldier will be more effective working in close proximity with team mates - it's easier to communicate and co ordinate attacks. Yes, he will be more confident with his buddies beside him.
But is there a need for "musts?" - perhaps giving a -1 modifier to attack and defence (simulating better target awareness/mutual defence) would encourage players to keep units together.
Why 2" range? (I'm tempted to say Warhammer did it once then everyone else copied.) Is it the range someone could shout to each other in a firefight? Why 2"and why not 12"? Why not simply "line of sight?" What is the "footprint" of a fire team - how much area does a "fire team" spread out to cover? 40-50 yards? Isn't there a "minimum distance between troops?" I'm presuming about 10 yards. You'd assume a single grenade would take out most of a Bolt Action squad*, for example.
(*Naturally, the historical game Bolt Action uses a gap of under 1" so the models are practically holding hands. It then does away with template weapons. Perfectly logical. )
Leadership Range
Another common rule is leaders having a radius (usually between 6 to 12") where they can influence troops; i.e. remove suppression, rally fleeing troops, or perhaps issue orders if it is that style of game.
Again, I'd ask - why x distance? And why is this radius larger than 2" if that is the maximum distance squads can shout at... do lieutenants have louder voices? unless we are using *drumroll* radios.... Which leads me to question:
Why do we even need coherency?
Most of the games that use the 2" coherency mechanic tend to be "modern" or sci fi. You know, around the time this device called the radio came into fashion?
Obviously we want squads and fire teams to act in a co-ordinated manner, and not have individual troops scattered all over the board, but I don't think a hard limit is needed. Keeping friendlies in sight is important, and coherency should be desirable, but I question that it needs to be forced artificially.
Coherency in Company Level Games
I don't play these very extensively, but the few I own tend to have squads in coherency with their platoon HQ, and platoon HQs within coherency range of their company HQ, and so on up.
Ranges & Scale
Yes, I know the 1" gap between models could actually stand for 25 yards. But it's the ratio that interests me. If we use 1"= 25 yards coherency range, it needs to be checked against other ranges - a rifle which shoots 300 yards might have only a 12"range (!) and grenades might only be able to hit one model at a time. Abstracting the scale too radically impacts things like model basing and the size of buildings as well.
TL:DR
The purpose of this article isn't that the standard 2"coherency rules are bad; but to question what seems to be (like true-line-of-sight) an almost set-in-stone wargaming convention.
I'd like to know designers are basing their decisions against gameplay choices, or actual ranges, or something - not just copying something cos it is just the "done thing."
*Is 2"the best distance? What do we base this on? What is its ratio vs other distances in the game?
*Should a "leader's" range differ from this? How long should that range be?
*Should units be forced to move into cohesion?
*What is a suitable "penalty" for troops who move out of cohesion?
*Is cohesion needed at all, and if so, for what genres?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)