"Dave Brown article in Battlegames 26: Any thoughts?" Topic

Does anyone have any thoughts on Dave Brown's article in the recently pulished Battlegames magazine battlegames.co.uk ?

I must admit that I remain unconvinced, not because he doesn't make many valid points but because he hasn't seemed to really engage with the reasons why 'modern' rules have in general taken the direction they have. He seems to think that the desire for genuinely fast-play was the main reason for the 'modern' direction, whereas I thought that was only one aspect of it.

Regards

Well , I haven't seen the article ( I may get the print version from Caliver when its out ) but there have always been several things that people have looked for in rules : simplicity and fast play are two things , but also period accuracy , realism ( men with pistols can't take out Tiger tanks ) , ubiquity ( so you can find someone else to game with ) and fun ( the main point is to have a good game with friends rather than to spend 5 hours number-crunching ).

Generalship has always been a tricky thing in wargames , the player usually takes a role of ' army manager ' moving the units and resolving the combats rather than playing a CiC sitting waiting for reports to come back from the front.

Give us a chance! Caliver don't start sending it out until Monday!

Anyone here remember 80s rules sets? Did all that extra detail and complexity bring anything to the party that 'modern' rules don't? Not as far as I remember.

Newbury Fast Play Ancients or Impetus? Hmmm. Tough choice.

I thought the article on the whole was rather weak and there are certainly far more factors involved in the evolution of the rule mechanics over the years. Fast play is only a small part of this I think.

Certainly Empire, in most of its version, brought little to Nappy Gaming other than the need for aspirin.

"Anyone here remember 80s rules sets?"

If the question truly pertains to "modern" rules, rather than modern rules, then: Challenger.

No further argument required.

Allen

Typical Napoleonic pedantry. He seems to confuse "Accuracy" with being complex and dully literal in the application of history to the table-top. He mischaracterizes several gaming design techniques-whose worst fault seems to be he doesn't use them.

He seems to have a very naive faith that the hard data that does exist from any period is certain enough, and meaningful enough, that "accuracy," beyond some pretty broad and guestimated parameters, is actually possible.

In short, its more about postulating and extolling a raft-load of minute, very fine, and, essentially, meaningless distinctions-so that he and his fellows can lecture the "Newbies" and exhibit their expertise about "their" period..

Obviously, any attempt to approach the problem from new directions of design, stronger considerations of the "soft" factors, and concentration on the tremendous similarities in warfare in the Horse and Musket period in particular that can easily be abstracted for ease of play, works against the few that wish to keep their "Guild" free of these heretical ideas because they believe it undermines their special knowledge.

It is the key reason so many people have moved to other periods for gaming and the Napoleonic Board is a debating society in the tradition of theologians debating the number of Angels balancing on a pin, though in their case, it's the number of chasseurs balancing on a bricole.

I doubt if Mr. Brown actually believes all the things he wrote in that article; which was clearly intended to be provocative. Instead, it sounded like the whining of another fantassin with a Marshall's Baton in his butt.

In any case, Battle Games is an excellent magazine-give or take a few articles. Napoleonic warfare is a great period-give or take a few of its advocates. Mr. Brown is a good rule designer-give or take a few obvious prejudices.

well I remember seeing a large Modern period at Salute in the 1980's – Central Front. When i went round at close nothing seemed to have moved much or killed much – even the helos didn't seem to have moved much. Hence I suppose Cold War Commander – its the P word. Pace.

How accurate a representation of Napoleonic warfare is General de Brigade anyway ? Not very I would have thought.

To be honest, it's better than many, and not, by any means, the worst. It's a frequently played set of rules in the classic style. All wargame rules are metaphors for the "real" thing. Every designer chooses which among many factors he will emphasize, and what he will ask the gamer to consider. No one has any great claims to accuracy or "reality" of play of the game itself.

However, gamers can and will decide if it is fun, enjoyable, a meets their criteria for historicity. They decide its merits, not the designer, or the experts, or the more outspoken pedants on the Napoleonic Boards.

Because of this, new ideas and different ways of gaming can come to the fore and we aren't doomed to the same unvarying game systems for our wargaming.

Good call, Allen. I loved Challenger. Recent rules spend too much effort on game play and not enough on calculation, which is the zen of wargaming. I mean, what is the point of finishing a game in an evening, if you can blow up a tank without looking through three tables?

Haha Newbury fast play, probably one of the most inacurate rules titles ever.

Any thoughts ?

Yeah, where's my subscription issue ?

Comment more when I've read it.

I too agree with Allen on Challenger being the best set of rules covering 'modern combat'.

In contrast, does anyone think that he was really on the money?

Regards

He was certainly well off the mark in one respect.
He criticises ancient wargames for mostly not featuring terrain.
But if you read historical accounts, most ancient battles were not much affected by terrain (with the obvious exceptions like Cynoscephalae). They preferred to line up the two armies on a flattish area and have at it, so an more or less empty table is perfectly historical for ancients.

To comment on the general thrust of his article, I would have been much more impressed if he had proposed alternative mechanisms to those he criticises.
It's easy to say "command and control is unrealistic in wargames". It's not easy to come up with a realistic mechanism that doesn't feature umpires and hidden movement.

I generally don't like very restrictive command and control mechanisms in wargame rules. Why? Because I always have supreme faith in the ability of a person to create his own fog of war or friction in a game. For example, a cautious person is likely to play a cautious game and an assertive person is likely to play a more aggressive game.

I commend Mr. Brown for putting himself out there and stating his opinion on various matters and creating some discussion. I infer that this was the intent of his article.

Now I will have to go back and reread it. My recollection that the "fast play" topic was only one of many elements that he discussed, so lets not focus entirely on that aspect.