"Conversation w/ Borg...CnC Naps" Topic

Those with better skills than I may want to establish a link to the question on this issue which was mentioned a few days ago.

Richard Borg's booth was next to mine at Hurricon. It was great to talk to him and watch some of the playtesting for new systems under development. He is always easy to talk with on many topics. Always a class act.

He had several of his regular playtesters and some convention attendees playtesting a new combat system and genre. I will not talk about these as they have not been picked up yet by a publishing company. If the system is attractive to a publishing company, I can see the system being adopted to several different fields of combat.

In addition I was alble to listen as they discussed other projects that were in various stages of development. Some of these will not get off the drawing board, some will make it to playtesting and others will be presented to various companies.

To the question on Napoleonics in the works, yes GMT will be releasing the FIRST in a series of Command And Colors games for the Napoleonic era. A very fun system which I was able to participate in a public playtesting session recently in the past.

The first game (blocks for the specific armies) as planned will be a French vs British. Some of the supplements will be the box set and some will be in the kit format. As with most kit format expansions, these will be hard to find once the first print run is completed so I would recommend getting them early.
The first supplement will be a Kit of Spanish troops/ blocks (maybe yellow). Portuguese will be available early in the release as well.
Major armies such as the Prussians, Austrians and Prussians will be released in expansion boix sets. Minor countries such as the Swedes-Danes, Ottomans and Americans are likely to be released in the kit format but that is not finalized yet. Nor is their availablity as a lot will depend on sales as to whether there is enough interest to continue to expand the production..

Frankly, I can't see the point (other than to make money for the good Mr. Borg). There is a perfectly good variant of Battle Cry for Napoleonics here:
link

It will also make $ for GMT Games… I will be watching for these as hopefully they will put the rules on the GMT site.

Thanks for that link, Mike – I'll grab those later on today.

I do know that this was written and designed and playtested by the award winning rules created. That it has been tweaked and play-tested with what he has learned since Battlecry.

And of course it is an actual game with all the components needed to play, not something cobbled together.

"That it has been tweaked and play-tested with what he has learned since Battlecry."

So what has he learned since Battle Cry then? Battle Cry is a fine game that needs no tweaking IMHO.

"And of course it is an actual game with all the components needed to play, not something cobbled together."

Unlike most wargames then.

The block system used in the Command and Colors system offers a different feel to the game than Battlecry and M44( which he also did)

"…So what has he learned since Battle Cry then? Battle Cry is a fine game that needs no tweaking IMHO…."

Mike, profit is the name of the game. But different designers have differeent arrangments with different publishing companies. Mr Borgs condition are private between him and those companies. He does not seem the type to release rules with constant revisions to call them 1, 2 or 3 just to make more money.

I was glad to see the above post as I was beginning to think that you were one of those "…I must be designed by a British gamers as Americans cannot design anything…" guys.

Richard lacks an ego as I implied above. He is at all the Historicons and would be glad to talk with you there over a beer. Like any good designer and researcher many concepts that are developed never make it into the final game or rules system. They may be dropped due to any number of reasons. Many are complexity related and others are production related. So for any good designer there never is a complete satisfaction with his product. In addition new concepts are always underdiscussion.

Maybe some british trade/gaming conventions should invite him over to attend one of their shows?

By the way many years ago a 'Battle Cry' system for Napoleonics was offered to Hasbro UK but they declined.

"Mike, profit is the name of the game."

Yeah, like I said, "other than to make money for the good Mr. Borg". You didn't answer my question – "So what has he learned since Battle Cry then?" i.e. what's in it for the gamer?

"They may be dropped due to any number of reasons. Many are complexity related and others are production related."

Production related? It's a box, a board, terrain tiles, wooden blocks with stickers (I assume the plastic figures that were such a feature of Battle Cry are now "too expensive"), some dice (with stickers to customise) and a rule book and … er that's it. All are standard components that are easy to manufacture, so I fail to see how any design features will have to be omitted due to "production issues".

"By the way many years ago a 'Battle Cry' system for Napoleonics was offered to Hasbro UK but they declined."

Yes, I am aware of that. But if that was the case why does the game now need "tweaking"? If it was good enough then …

I raised an eyebrow at the phrase 'regular playtesters'. I hope he also has irregular playtesters, to whom he gives the rules 'blind'. I've seen a number of rules which obviously are playable by the designer and/or his freinds, but have big holes and ambiguities for those not aquainted with his though processes.

Are these rules not playable without his blocks- seems stupid to release a game which you provide the only components, but is unplayable for certain nationalities if you didn't get the first edition.

"Are these rules not playable without his blocks"

Of course they are. Just substitute one figure (or one base of figures) for each unit strength point. I play the Napoleonic variant linked above with my 6mm figures based 5 to a 20mm square base on the BC board.

More importantly, being hex based, you need a hexed board or cloth to play.

I either use the orginal BC board or Kallistra terrain ( link )

Amongst wargamers Battle Cry doesn't have a very good rep as opposed to C&C:A. I'll be glad for him to upgrade the old system and adapt it to Napoleonics.

"Amongst wargamers Battle Cry doesn't have a very good rep as opposed to C&C:A."

And on what do you base that pearl of wisdom? You cannot compare ACW with Ancients. The sheer number of different troop types in the ancient period compared to the ACW means that an Ancients version of the core game machanic must inevitably be more complicated.

I know lots of wargamers who consider Battle Cry to be a great game.

I agree with Mike. Of all the shows I attend, I heard that it does not have a good reputation.

Of course not all groups and gamers can be pleased so some dissatisfaction can be expected for any system.

I agree with David that it would be nice to see a company pick up a revised version. If for nothing else but to have it available for introducing new gamers.

The adjustment to give it a Napoleonic flavor, will please a lot of gamers.

Rudy:
There are a couple of decent Napoleonic flavored 'adjustments' to BC. One of the more elaborately published is "Grognards and Grenadiers: command by color"

rudi-geudens.be was where I downloaded it. I don't see it there now. May have been taken down.

Bill

So what has he learned since Battle Cry then? Battle Cry is a fine game that needs no tweaking IMHO.

And on what do you base that pearl of wisdom? You cannot compare ACW with Ancients. The sheer number of different troop types in the ancient period compared to the ACW means that an Ancients version of the core game machanic must inevitably be more complicated.

You can substitute Napoleonic for Ancient.

Yes, I am aware of that. But if that was the case why does the game now need "tweaking"? If it was good enough then

If you don't believe Mr. Borg can't improve a ten year old ACW mass market boxed game into a limited market wargame for the Napoleonic market you have every right to that opinion. He has only had an extra decade of running it at conventions.

Me, I like his games. I have never felt like he was revising something for extra cash. So, I will give him the benefit of the doubt and check it out.

Boy I need to get some sleep after getting back from a 13 hour drive from a gaming convention.

"…I agree with Mike. Of all the shows I attend, I heard that it does not have a good reputation…"

This sould have read: "I agree with Mike. Of all the shows I attend, I NEVER heard that it does not have a good reputation."
This changes the intent of my statement. Sorry Richard B. and Mike S.

>And on what do you base that pearl of wisdom?

Reading and talking with a fair number of folk who've owned/played it.

Don't worry, I've got more pearls where I found that one…

For example the comments of well known designer Eric Smith:

"The ultimate introduction to wargaming, and a game I would have loved as a kid. It's a good design, with great components, and simple rules. Everyone who likes wargames should have a copy to introduce new people to the hobby.
//Changed my mind, lowered my rating, sold the game. Poor victory conditions, undifferentiated scenarios, tedious."

Pearls before Swine?
1. The ability to Battle Back.
2. Light Cavalry, Heavy Cavalry differentiation.
3. Speaking of Cavalry, Infantry being able to Form Square.
4. Commander ratings.
5. Line Infantry, Light Infantry, Grenadiers, Guard,
Conscripts, Militia……
6. Charges, both Cavalry and Infantry.
7. Light Artillery, Heavy Artillery, Horse Artillery.
8. Grand Battery's.
9. Formations.
10. Cavalry Pursuit.

More later…

"And on what do you base that pearl of wisdom? "

Battle Cry! has a number of cards that can become useless. "Cavalry Charge" is simply a dead card in your hand in two-thirds the scenarios, because nobody brought cavalry. There is no mechanic for getting rid of this dead card. Every incarnation of a Borg game has since included the text "If you have no troops of this type, use this card to activate the unit of your choice."

There are other potential dead cards, if memory serves. It's been a long time, and I've rarely felt the desire to ever look back at his earliest attempt.

"well known designer Eric Smith:"

He can't be that well known, I've never heard of him!

"2. Light Cavalry, Heavy Cavalry differentiation."

Irrelevant in the ACW.

"3. Speaking of Cavalry, Infantry being able to Form Square."

I don't think there are any documented examples of infantry forming square in the ACW.

"4. Commander ratings."

As the OP said, commander ratings are implicit in the number of command cards allocated.

"5. Line Infantry, Light Infantry, Grenadiers, Guard,
Conscripts, Militia……"

Mostly irrelevant in the ACW. Militia are represented by 3 figures rather than 4.

"6. Charges, both Cavalry and Infantry."

At the level of abstraction in BC, this is rolled up into the combat mechanic.

"7. Light Artillery, Heavy Artillery, Horse Artillery."

Not really any distinction between light, filed and horse artillery in the ACW. You can give designated Heavy artillery extra range if you wish. Heavy artillery though was mostly used in sieges rather than field actions.

"8. Grand Battery's."

Just put two or more artillery units in adjacent hexes.

"9. Formations."

Irrelevant at the level of abstraction in BC.

"Battle Cry! has a number of cards that can become useless. "

Surely that is the whole point of the Command Card mechanic. Sometimes you do not have a suitable card so you must discard an unsuitable one and make no action. Command mechanisms in wargames usually serve to limit the actions of commanders in some way. This is the way that BC does it.

"There is no mechanic for getting rid of this dead card. "

Yes, there is. You play it, but can take no actions.

"Every incarnation of a Borg game has since included the text "If you have no troops of this type, use this card to activate the unit of your choice."

Oh dear, that's a shame. Seems even he has missed the point of such a simple and elegant mechanic.

>He can't be that well known, I've never heard of him!

Then you have little or modest familiarity with board wargaming.

"There are a couple of decent Napoleonic flavored 'adjustments' to BC. One of the more elaborately published is "Grognards and Grenadiers: command by color"

rudi-geudens.be was where I downloaded it. I don't see it there now. May have been taken down. "

Nope. Still there at:
tsoa.be/html/fuseliers.html

along with a whole lot of other similar games. Rudi has taken Borg's "Command and Colors" concept and developed it into his own "Command by Colour" (notice the similarity?). What's more they are all free …

"Then you have little or modest familiarity with board wargaming."

True. I'm a miniatures gamer, and have been for over 30 years (you might have noticed that this forum is called "The Miniatures Page"?). I've played a few board wargames in my time, but never heard of Eric Smith. OTOH, I HAVE heard of wargamers such as:

Don Featherstone
Tony Bath
Stuart Asquith
Charles Grant (and his son Charles S. Grant)
Phil Barker
Paddy Griffith

to name but a few.
I've even heard of James Dunnigan!

>I've played a few board wargames in my time, but never heard of Eric Smith.

You might have noticed we're discussing a board wargame.

"You might have noticed we're discussing a board wargame."

It's only a "board wargame" insofar as it comes in a pretty box with a board. It is actually a miniatures game packaged as a board game. I believe Richard Borg plays it with miniatures rather than the quaint wooden blocks.

>It's only a "board wargame" insofar as it comes in a pretty box with a board.

That's the way board wargames come…

"That's the way board wargames come…"

Fine. Ignore the point, if you wish. If you think it is ONLY a board wargame, then I'll get Bill to move this thread to the Boardgames board on TMP Plus – where you obviously think it belongs.

We don't talk about board games here on TMP.

>We don't talk about board games here on TMP

This thread would indicate otherwise.

>We don't talk about board games here on TMP

This thread would indicate otherwise.

IMHO, Battle Cry (and any derivative therefrom) is not a board game. It is played with miniatures. It has been discussed here before.

As I said, if you think otherwise, then ask Bill to move it to TMP Plus.

I will be very happy to see the release of Richard's Napoleonic game. His games are very playable and I like to run them at the local gaming conventions because people can walk up to the table and understand what is going on after a couple of card plays. I have many Napoleonic figures painted & ready to fight – all I really need is the rules. We probably won't see this GMT game released for at least two years, I'll bet, but I'd love to be proven wrong.

"I have many Napoleonic figures painted & ready to fight – all I really need is the rules."

Yup, it's a miniatures game. For the rules, see:
link

>IMHO, Battle Cry (and any derivative therefrom) is not a board game.

You don't say…

And if a Ford Orion is a bicycle in your opinion…

I am quite sure what to make about this heated discussion. Based on my watching the development of the systems and games, all of the initial playtesting for his systems are done with miniatures including the CnC ancients system.

It seems to be the call of the publishing company and not the designer wherther plastic men or wooden bloacks are used. So I would lean toward the miniatures rules adapted to a board game position.

Saying that some ones in-house modification to his system is good enough so the original designer should stop and go no further with improvements and/or variations, is a head scratcher.

Negative comments, if any, about the home grown rules author but is up to the original designer and publishing company to address. It is not one that could be settled by us here on TMP. Nor should we try.

Not a surprise that all of Mike's designers listed were British except for Dunnigan of SPI fame.

The views and status of gaming both miniature and board is something that has ebbed and flowed over the years.

What I am about to relay is a general obseervation and not intended to spark intense debates and a lot of 'yea…but' examples. Specific opinions that are held and vary among individual gamers, these are general American attitudes expressed at various conventions overheard during my 26 years of going to USA conventions.

In the 1960s and 1970s virtually all miniature gaming related systems were designed by British designers. At the same time virtually all historical (and I do not mean FANTAYS-SciFi) wwere designed by Americans. The major board gaming companies were American as well.

By the late 1970s American designers introduced their own miniature rules such as the TSR series (Tricolor-Chainmail and Tractics) as well as Bowden's initial Empire series. Still did not see much british effort into historical boardgames but they were still strong in the miniatures area spearheaded by WRG but their were a number of smaller companies sa well.

The 1980s saw a reduction in American boardgame companies so many board gamers shifted to the miniatures genre. With that came an explosion of American designed rules and a number of American miniature casting companies. British companies got into the boardgame production though most of these were non-historical products.

Now it seems to be a mixutre on both sides of the pond. Only older guys like Mike and myself remember the time when each side of the Atlantic focused on one or the other genre of historical gaming.

"And if a Ford Orion is a bicycle in your opinion…"

No … ??? Sorry, I do not understand why you would think that anyone would think a car is a bicycle ? (You're showing your age a bit too, the Orion went out of production in 1993.)

"Saying that some ones in-house modification to his system is good enough so the original designer should stop and go no further with improvements and/or variations, is a head scratcher."

Perhaps if you told us what these "improvements and/or variations" are, we might have something to go on, instead of just dropping hints. As it is, until Mr Borg's version is released (whenever that might be), the "in-house modification" is better than nothing and IMHO gives a good game.

"Not a surprise that all of Mike's designers listed were British except for Dunnigan of SPI fame."

Quite. It is after all we Brits who invented recreational wargaming with miniatures.

TOUGH CROWD! It is just a game.

I have all the C&C games and like them all. I personally am excited about a Nappy C&C and will buy it when it comes.

However, I want a game that reflects Napoleonics. Therefore it needs a level of detail like C&C Ancients, not Battle Cry.

You cannot get that from a Battle Cry tweak. The flavor comes in the playing cards, not just the rules. Just compare C&C Ancients cards with Battle Cry and you understand. I surmise the expansions are more than blocks. It extra cards.

Which, by the way, is the way Rich guarantees steady income. You can't get around buying the add on because you need the cards, and they are harder to pirate than any rule set. I met Richard once, like his games, and feel they are worth it. If you think not, you can just move along.

"…It is after all we Brits who invented recreational wargaming with miniatures…"

No doubt about that statement.

No hint dropping as I am not privey to the final draft nor should I be. I am just a friend who enjoys Mr Borgs company and conversation at conventions.

>TOUGH CROWD! It is just a game.

Yep, a board game… :)

"Tough Crowd"
No not really. Just sticking up for a friend who IMHO designs very enjoyable and playable games. I am overjoyed that Richard makes some profit from his designs and I hope he can continue that success.
My posting above was in reference to some of the things I would like to see in a Napoleonic version of Commands and Colors. Battle Cry is as dated to me as the 1961 game that shares the same name. I want and fully expect that the upcoming Napoleonic version of C&C will be both fun and highly re-playable. My P-500 order is on deck.

"However, I want a game that reflects Napoleonics. Therefore it needs a level of detail like C&C Ancients, not Battle Cry. "

I have seen C&C Ancients, and I do not think it has a greater "level of detail". More unit types maybe (inevitable with Ancients), but that's about it. The principles are the same.

"The flavor comes in the playing cards, not just the rules. "

Cards are easy to tweak if you feel you need to add additional "flavour". Personally, I see no need, the standard BC cards work fine for Napoleonics.

"You can't get around buying the add on because you need the cards, and they are harder to pirate than any rule set."

If you look around the Internet, you can get the complete set of cards for C&C Ancients. The cards themselves are easy to make.

"Battle Cry is as dated to me as the 1961 game that shares the same name."

Why is Battle Cry dated?

This is actually the third MB/Hasbro company game using the same name. The first was in 1961 and had hard plastic pieces in the shape of military symbols. They stacked on top of each other.

The next version 1970s was released at the same time of broadsides and Dogfight. It had soft plastic pieces in the shape of infantry, cavalry, and artillery. They lined up behind each other which was cumbersome.

Then Borg's version.

Mike I got an email last night which was sorta funny but not really correct to everyone.

When I posted:
"…It is after all we Brits who invented recreational wargaming with miniatures…"
No doubt about that statement…"

They said I should have added that "But Americans made it better…"

So there seems to be a tendacity on both sides of the pond to support and prefer designers from their own region.

As you can tell by my TMP name, I am a big fan of Battle Cry and Richard's game designs. I'm not surprised Eric Smith changed his mind after playing the system for a while. Per Richard Borg himself, the original game was greatly stripped down by Hasbro. The scenarios were also limited by the terrain and limited playing pieces in the box (10 infantry units per game.) (I understand that they sold 60,000 games – not bad for a stripped down minatures game. Might be a good market impact for wargamers of all stripes.)

While I could see some more variety from cards and unit types that are suggested by the level of detail in M44, C&C:A, and BattleLore, I have found beefing up the scenarios makes the biggest difference. If you think of the units as brigades or regiments and then make the terrain a little more realistic (not as abstracted) you get a really good game and a great vehicle to talk about history.

So I don't find Battle Cry stale, but I would welcome more of the original game that Richard and his friends played.

Rudy, I need to go to Historicon and hang with you and Richard.

Bill

(see a link to using C&C for minatures)

link

link

Bill Richard does plan at this time to attend Historicon next year in Baltimore. Maybe you can run into him. Generally he does not get a booth and wonders around watching games.

For me i will not be there. Expenses are too high for my now more limited operation.

In regards to miniatures, he did demos in both 25mm and in 15mm when on the road. I remember one show in Austin Texas where he conducted several one on one C&C demos for the attendees.

"Thanks for sharing in the enjoyment of a boardgame"

Richard Borg

Works for me. :)

"Thanks for sharing in the enjoyment of a boardgame"

Richard Borg

No idea where you got that quote from, but here's the man himself, playing the game with miniatures:
link

>No idea where you got that quote from, but here's the man himself, playing the game with miniatures:

From the horses mouth. But sure, you can adapt a lot of board games to miniatures play just as you can adapt a lot of miniatures games to board play. No news there.

"From the horses mouth."

You personally heard him say it, or you read somewhere that he had said it?

"But sure, you can adapt a lot of board games to miniatures play just as you can adapt a lot of miniatures games to board play. No news there."

I don't understand why you are so insistent about it being a board game. What difference does that make? You can either call it a board game played with miniatures, or a miniatures game played on a board. What's the difference?

Come to think of it, aren't ALL miniatures games played on a board? Or to put it another way, show me a miniatures game that is NOT played on a board …

>You personally heard him say it, or you read somewhere that he had said it?

He posted it on CSW…

>I don't understand why you are so insistent about it being a board game.

Things should be identified as what they are. Why are you so insistent on it NOT being a board game?

The matter first came up in reference to other board game designers besides Mr. Borg and then you proceeded to argue it was a miniatures game, not a board game.