"What is the "Variable Length Bound"?" Topic
116 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please avoid recent politics on the forums.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Napoleonic Discussion Message Board Back to the Game Design Message Board
Areas of InterestGeneral Napoleonic
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Ruleset
Featured Showcase ArticleNeed 16 square feet of gaming space, built to order?
|
Pages: 1 2 3
Spreewaldgurken | 27 Aug 2012 8:17 a.m. PST |
"If you can get hold of the ACW or Napoleonic rules by Knight and Dennis, try them. You may be pleasantly surprised." Those were the ones our group tried, and tried, and tried, to make work. They didn't. I still have the little blue Napoleonic book. That was the game that always dissolved into utter confusion as soon as any number of opposing units got into contact. Dozens of COSs being generated every turn, meaning a virtually unlimited number of opportunities to change orders. |
MajorB | 27 Aug 2012 8:40 a.m. PST |
"If you can get hold of the ACW or Napoleonic rules by Knight and Dennis, try them. You may be pleasantly surprised." Those were the ones our group tried, and tried, and tried, to make work. They didn't. I still have the little blue Napoleonic book. That was the game that always dissolved into utter confusion as soon as any number of opposing units got into contact. Dozens of COSs being generated every turn, meaning a virtually unlimited number of opportunities to change orders.
How odd. I have played both games quite successfully. I certainly didn't have "dozens of COSs being generated every turn" as you suggest. I wonder what you were doing wrong? On a related note, the UK Kriegsspiel group regularly plays games that are inherently VLB (although not described as such). Admittedly they use an umpire, but that is for the fog of war aspect rather than the VLB nature of the rules. kriegsspiel.org.uk Anyone else ever tried playing Kriegsspiel? |
le Grande Quartier General | 27 Aug 2012 8:47 a.m. PST |
Perhaps I am just rehashing the obvious, but most decent rules must define rather strictly and deliberately exactly what constitutes a COS, right? In my experience many tend to desire much more 'awareness' of the dynamics of the battle from the little figure representing them on the table than 'it' might ever have had- and awareness is so difficult to determine, it has usually be defined by 'command distance' or a like construct that can be practically calculated playably, rather than by anything more true. If COS reactions are limited to commanders at the brigade level and above, and 'awareness' is limited by codifying the variables existing in the battle environment (use computer here) would it not make this VLB system much more playable by limiting opportunities to change the 'arrow in flight' so to speak? |
le Grande Quartier General | 27 Aug 2012 8:50 a.m. PST |
I seem to be coming back to 'brigade level commanders' being the lowest level of command in the VLB system as my wee brain digests the reading over what has been done with it since its inception. |
MajorB | 27 Aug 2012 9:01 a.m. PST |
Perhaps I am just rehashing the obvious, but most decent rules must define rather strictly and deliberately exactly what constitutes a COS, right? Yes. I seem to be coming back to 'brigade level commanders' being the lowest level of command in the VLB system Yes, that's exactly what the Knight and Dennis rules did (whereas GWJ's rules went down to battalion commanders). |
le Grande Quartier General | 27 Aug 2012 9:33 a.m. PST |
I have understood from some discussion on the VLB group board that GWJ originally had it at the brigade level as well. I think. R |
forwardmarchstudios | 27 Aug 2012 9:59 a.m. PST |
I've never seen as mystical an argument/conversation on here as the link Sam put up to the VLB debate back in 2009. A very entertaining read
I stopped at three pages probably. I've also never seen a conversation on here that had so quotations, quotations couched inside quotations, and quotations inside of quotations couched inside of other quotations
. in the end the conversation became overly complex as the readr had to keep track of literally dozens of postings at once and the thing fell apart
I kid though. On second look though VLB doesn't seem as easy to fix as I thought it might be. Definitely an interesting intellectual exercise though. I do think it could work if you had enough referees. That's basically what a kriegspiel is
|
MajorB | 27 Aug 2012 10:12 a.m. PST |
I do think it could work if you had enough referees. That's basically what a kriegsspiel is
Kriegsspiel only needs one umpire, and that is essentially for the fog of war, not the game mechanics. |
Spreewaldgurken | 27 Aug 2012 11:25 a.m. PST |
I certainly didn't have "dozens of COSs being generated every turn" as you suggest. I wonder what you were doing wrong? Well, there are 10 possible causes of a COS, per officer, per turn. Including "new enemy forces appear, or begin to move faster, or change direction
"or "enemy fires on you," or "enemy ceases fire on you" or "a tactical engagement ends," or "enemy threat ceases or is withdrawn," and my favorite: "your current orders expire or are overtaken by events." That latter was what we called the "Do whatever you want Rule," because anybody could argue that he had a COS at any time, because his orders to move to the village of Schlumpfengrad have been overtaken by the appearance of those enemy artillery on the far hill, or by the sight of the II Corps getting into a fight on the right, etc, etc. But basically, once opposing forces are close, every officer in both armies is generating at least one COS every 10-minute turn. Somebody is always shooting, or stopping shooting, or appearing, or changing direction, or a threat appears, or a threat ceases, or whatever. And it's supposed to be a an army-command game, so we had at least a dozen officers on each side, just to represent brigadiers and divisional, and corps commanders for a smallish army of about 30,000 men. There was no more "variable-length bound," just an endless series of 10-minute turns in which people had to go through the motions of writing orders. And that's on top of the fact that it's all supposed to be simultaneous movement, so the poor referee (usually me or Frank Buehren) then has the additional chore of trying to figure out exactly who did what to whom in what order, and how long it took. It made us all long for the clarity and simplicity of traditional turn-and-phase based wargames. |
1905Adventure | 27 Aug 2012 11:50 a.m. PST |
That latter was what we called the "Do whatever you want Rule," because anybody could argue
This was probably one of the big issues. VLB requires things be really, really tight in terms of what allows you to make new tactical decisions. If someone were to try those rules, I'd basically add the rule that anytime you want to argue your orders are overtaken by events, the only thing that counts is that your orders are now impossible to carry out. Nothing short of that should be accepted. I also think 10 different triggers is too many. I'd get things down to 5 or 6. And reduce the number of officers that do anything other than send word up the command structure. Basically pick one level of command and that's the level you make decisions for and that's it. The idea of VLB across multiple levels of command simultaneously is asking for trouble without either a dedicated umpire or really good computer moderation. |
Spreewaldgurken | 27 Aug 2012 11:55 a.m. PST |
"Basically pick one level of command and that's the level you make decisions for and that's it." Sure, but then what happens when you need to move individual units? Or shoot with individual units? Or fight with individual units, or rally them, etc, etc. Suddenly you're no longer just "making decisions" for that one higher-level of command. You're making dozens of little tactical decisions. And you have to. Unless you can come up with some way to resolve everything without using individual units. That's what I was saying earlier about the futility of this endeavor: it's not realistic for a game designer to expect his players to resolve all game activities (movement, shooting, combat, rallying, etc.) per-unit
but then to tell them that the command system is supposed to be just "big-picture, high-level
you don't worry about small level details
." That's a contradiction that can only be enforced by a determined referee. It goes against not only the instincts of the players, but also the majority of the game systems. |
Karsta | 27 Aug 2012 12:10 p.m. PST |
That latter was what we called the "Do whatever you want Rule," because anybody could argue that he had a COS at any time, because
How can it be "do whatever you want rule" if it only allows the commander in question to move to different position (the commander, not his forces) and contact his superior? I hope you at least noticed the following points: "Player should not feel that they have to respond to every COS" "FORCES WHICH ARE INVOLVED IN A TACTICAL ENGAGEMENT MAY NOT RESPOND TO ANY CHANGE OF SITUATION" (did not mean to shout; it was all caps in the rules) |
Old Contemptibles | 27 Aug 2012 12:42 p.m. PST |
George may have had the right idea but as if often the case in history the current technology wasn't up to the task. Right idea at the wrong time. I think this could be done with modern software. VLB is an absolute candidate for computer moderation. It reminds me of the search in physics for the unified theory or string theory or the missing link. The holy grail of historical miniature wargaming. Software is the answer. There would be a need for many players commanding various units at all levels. It would
This subject is a bottomless pit. It's like a black hole sucking everything into it. It will destroy us all. |
Spreewaldgurken | 27 Aug 2012 12:44 p.m. PST |
"How can it be "do whatever you want rule" if it only allows the commander in question to move to different position (the commander, not his forces) and contact his superior? " He contacts his superior
which then constitutes a COS (Type 7) for that superior, who then writes new orders for the subordinate. Tons of paperwork and trying to keep track of things, just to do what the players were going to do anyway. Not to mention that I could just as easily choose to interpret that COS as Type #1: a threat to a force under my command, as long as any enemy unit did something threatening to me (and "threat" can be ANY enemy unit(s) that could conceivably come into contact with me, even if they'd have to change direction(s) first, to do so. (i.e., any enemy unit.) And thus the brigadier doesn't even need to notify his superior; he can do pretty much whatever he likes. ""Player should not feel that they have to respond to every COS"" That's one of those "in a perfect world" sort of non-rule rules. ""FORCES WHICH ARE INVOLVED IN A TACTICAL ENGAGEMENT MAY NOT RESPOND TO ANY CHANGE OF SITUATION" The word "force" is never defined. Is it one unit? A brigade? On page 7 one sort of assumes that he means a brigade, since he talks about COSs traveling up the command chain, so OK let's assume it's a brigade. The issue isn't what happens to them once they're in a tactical engagement. It's how tedious the game has become, up to the point where it's possible to get them that close to each other. For example, COS 2 & 3: one assumes that just means artillery fire (?) since there's no mention of other kinds of fire. Every time the enemy fires on my force – or stops firing on my force – that's a COS. |
le Grande Quartier General | 27 Aug 2012 12:56 p.m. PST |
Software IS the answer, no doubt. |
MajorB | 27 Aug 2012 1:00 p.m. PST |
But basically, once opposing forces are close, every officer in both armies is generating at least one COS every 10-minute turn. Somebody is always shooting, or stopping shooting, or appearing, or changing direction, or a threat appears, or a threat ceases, or whatever. Ah, I think I see your problem. Remember that a commander doesn't have to respond to every COS. A commander will only respond to a COS that will directly affect his ability to complete his current orders. So a brigade is ordered to take the village to it's front. During it's advance, artillery appear on a hill nearby. So what? They look very pretty don't they? We'll just carry on capturing this village. After all those artillery are somebody else's problem. Even then they are only a threat if they open fire on our attacking brigade. The appearance of the artillery MAY be a COS that requires a response from another commander, but I would tend to ignore artillery until they open fire. |
MajorB | 27 Aug 2012 1:03 p.m. PST |
Sure, but then what happens when you need to move individual units? Or shoot with individual units? Or fight with individual units, or rally them, etc, etc. Suddenly you're no longer just "making decisions" for that one higher-level of command. You're making dozens of little tactical decisions. And you have to. Unless you can come up with some way to resolve everything without using individual units. Um, no. If brigade is the lowest level(and it probably should be in a corps sized game) then you can't split it up into individual battalions. |
MajorB | 27 Aug 2012 1:09 p.m. PST |
He contacts his superior
which then constitutes a COS (Type 7) for that superior, who then writes new orders for the subordinate. Tons of paperwork and trying to keep track of things, just to do what the players were going to do anyway. If the superior can see the same threat then it is a bit pointless telling him about it. By the time your message arrives the opportunity for him to respond will be long gone. Another example of needing to understand the implications of whether it makes sense to respond to a particular COS or not. The word "force" is never defined. Is it one unit? A brigade? Since there are commanders at brigade, division and possibly corps, a "force" can therefore be any one of those or even an arbitrary group of units. Every time the enemy fires on my force – or stops firing on my force – that's a COS. Um, not quite. Every time the enemy opens fire on my force – or stops firing on my force – that's a COS. So the artillery start firing (COS) and will continue to do so until their orders are changed or a specified time period has elapsed. When they stop firing is another COS. Two COSs in total. |
McLaddie | 27 Aug 2012 3:13 p.m. PST |
From my experience and conversations with George, starting back in the 80's, to current conversations on the VLB list, I have to agree with Margard: George didn't know how to design and write game rules. He was creating fascinating game mechanisms, but they never hung together. Most all the problems with VLB derive from George's rules as written and the obviously [it has been a long time] doomed effort to ‘fix' them. The attractive, even brilliant elements to George's approach are still evident: For instance, instead of rigid turns or chance events, troops move forward until a 'Change of Situation' occurs, a COS, caused by the movement/actions of opponents. Artillery fire etc can be calculated by how much time had passed between one COS and another. This eliminated the IG/UG shuffle across the table at 4-6" a turn boredom, something that forced many designers to develop every scenario set up with opposing armies in very close proximity at the start, just to get things started. This all but eliminated real maneuvering
or made it so obvious as to be boring. Many current games still suffer from this. For instance, look at the scenarios for Regimental F&F. Opposing forces almost always start 300 yards or one move from one another. The Problem of course, is defining those COS and the attendant processes as opposing armies came into contact and creating game mechanisms around those. Every Simulation designer knows that how time is monitored
that is how the game system determines when things happen, is the game backbone which all the game mechanics hang. Controlling the number of "changes of situation" is controlling the function of the game. While leaving it up to the players to whether to respond to a COS or not is a neat idea, but the COS definitions and mechanics never seemed to reign in the number that could be created, and that COS's players would want to to create to gain that small, marginal advantage. George tended to umpire this rather than create rules to make it work independently. Players 'dialoguing' was supposed to be the process to support this ‘what happens first, second etc.'. However, opposing players were talking to each other about what they were doing
and why. The When and How descriptions became a game in-and-of-itself, again players looking for advantages once they realized that ‘how' something was said could create game advantages in a process that was supposed to be ‘neutral.' This only confused things further. As armies approached each other, Clocking and describing such an uncontrollable multiplicity of COSs would bury the game in administrative details that forced players to actually backtrack actions to determine COS's and when a player could respond
without George to moderate
Cliff Knight and Peter Dennis's VLB variation in their Napoleonic and American Civil War rules for an army level wargames does work. The one continuing drawback was the heavy need for calculations. I think the two reasons that their rules didn't develop a large following was unfortunately, that the rules targeted 2mm and 6mm figures, new scales at the time, and while well thought-out, the rules suffered from the WRG rules writing syndrome, Which can be deadly when introducing such different play processes. Grand Piquet and Crossfire are variable bound games, but instead of a "Change of Situation" monitoring play, terrain and obstacles, including enemy units were what determined the end of a move. The handicap here is exactly what Arty C. said: Without close terrain across the table for units to leap-frog to and from, which was the mechanism for ending movement, no game is possible. It is a problem Grand Piquet suffered from: the Napoleonic preference for far less cluttered fields of battle made for some massive forward movement. Black Powder process aren't anything like a VLB process. VLB continues to attract consideration because it doesn't chop time up into 'turns', but tries to make clock time the game pace. As any simulation designer will tell you, 'Time' is the backbone of any design
how events, what happens first, second and third, are moderated determines everything else in the design
That is just as true for any game. Making Changes of Situations the 'time moderators' in the game process for VLB was both brilliant and sadly never developed well beyond George's personal umpiring. While the approach rendered some old wargame problems very simple, it created other, new issues not commonly seen. Personally, I think the problem was that George didn't have enough practical game design knowledge to see the flaws, let alone what to do about them. Just my opinion. If someone is interested enough, they will tackle the inherent problems with the approach and make it work, but a good deal of George's actual rules will have to be jettisoned or changed to do it, and knowing those that admire his work, that can feel sacrilegious. |
Mobius | 27 Aug 2012 7:39 p.m. PST |
Every time the enemy opens fire on my force – or stops firing on my force – that's a COS. So the artillery start firing (COS) and will continue to do so until their orders are changed or a specified time period has elapsed. When they stop firing is another COS. Two COSs in total. If within that specified period should the artillery continue to fire while your force is all dead or run away? I should think that would be a COS. Or just 50% are dead. That is not a COS? |
Old Contemptibles | 27 Aug 2012 9:32 p.m. PST |
So what are we trying to accomplish? What is the point? Are we working toward a simulation of a battle or a more realistic game. They are different. Using miniatures as a simulation can be carried to such an extreme that only a computer could manage the events. A more realistic game in the end has to be a playable game. I would be interested in knowing how the Pentagon deals with COS in it's wargames. Some folks on TMP have probably been involved in wargames run by a cadre of military personnel. The few experiences I have been involved in (many years ago) have had perhaps anywhere between 5 to 20 or more personnel just to run the simulation with computer assistance. I seem to recall they were very much dependent on COS. We went from one event to another. The reaction to the events is what drove the simulation. Anyone with experience with this care to share what they are allowed to share and how that might apply to VLB? I understand translating that to miniatures is problematic. Maybe the old analogy of a river that runs straight then something happens and there is a course change, then something else happens and the course of the river is changed again. But what constitutes a course change and which way does it go? What event makes the river change course? You would need a long list of such game changing events for the turn to end and new turn to begin. One of your brigades routed, your turn ends. Your commander has just been killed, your turn ends. etc. |
thehawk | 27 Aug 2012 10:59 p.m. PST |
What people have missed is that FLB and VLB should produce identical outcomes. The only difference between the two is when the "interrupt" occurs to the game clock i.e. every N minutes regularly in FLB and when there is a event of significance in VLB. For example, take the Arrivals Board in an airport. If it gets updated once every 5 minutes or on each arrival, it is just a reflection of the same aircraft movements. My own view is that FLB is good enough, especially as it is easier to understand and follow what is happening in the game. But VLB and FLB are just different event queueing mechanisms. The same events should get resolved in both. Where VLB appears on the surface to differ from FLB is in the concept of applying time durations to events. However there is nothing stopping this being applied to FLB. In fact, FLB does this instrinsically as each turn is meant to last N minutes – for good rules sets anyway. Ops Research software tools (like GPSS?) could possibly be used to handle VLB. As a note, card pack mechanisms are generally only valid if cards represent units and all units are drawn for each time through the deck. |
stefanov | 27 Aug 2012 11:24 p.m. PST |
Hi there, sorry the link in prevous message is good only for tablets. If anybody is curious to see a computer version of vlb at work, please visit link And the Battle Of Lonato four description pages, related to this document,, where the start of a test battle is described. Cheers stefanov Ps: i will post more if people are interested |
Maxshadow | 27 Aug 2012 11:45 p.m. PST |
The last link doesn't like Explorer either. :oP |
Trajanus | 28 Aug 2012 1:42 a.m. PST |
|
MajorB | 28 Aug 2012 3:25 a.m. PST |
So the artillery start firing (COS) and will continue to do so until their orders are changed or a specified time period has elapsed. When they stop firing is another COS. Two COSs in total. If within that specified period should the artillery continue to fire while your force is all dead or run away? I should think that would be a COS. Or just 50% are dead. That is not a COS?
If the artillery can detect that their target has been destroyed then they will stop firing before the alloted period is up. The COS just happens earlier. |
Mobius | 28 Aug 2012 5:14 a.m. PST |
If the artillery can detect that their target has been destroyed then they will stop firing before the alloted period is up. The COS just happens earlier. We aren't talking about the artillery, we are talking about the target. Each man lost is a COS. |
(Phil Dutre) | 28 Aug 2012 6:01 a.m. PST |
There are game settings (not miniature wargames) where VLB works wondefully well. Look at classic pen-and-paper roleplaying games. Of course, there is a gamesmaster in charge, and the framework is cooperative play rather than opposed play. Perhaps these 2 latter conditions are the ones under which VLB ideas can work properly. I can imagine a miniature wargame scenario, in which each player has a command on the same side, playing against an umpire driven opposing force. But that's of course far removed from 1 against 1 as in a more traditional setup. Using software to adjucate VLB is besides the point. That would be a software game, not a miniatures game. There is a difference in style and substance. The whole point of miniature gaming is to adhere to a certain visual style, combined with *tactile* gaming mechanisms that work with that. Inserting software into miniature gaming is as if one would introduce a pistol into bow-and-arrow shooting. |
MajorB | 28 Aug 2012 6:49 a.m. PST |
If the artillery can detect that their target has been destroyed then they will stop firing before the alloted period is up. The COS just happens earlier. We aren't talking about the artillery, we are talking about the target. Each man lost is a COS.
The loss of casualties in general is not regarded as a COS in either GWJ's orginal VLB rules or Knight and Dennis's rules. Certainly not a COS for every casualty! The cumulative loss of casualties may well take a unit to a break point at which the unit will rout. This would constitute a COS for higher echelon commanders. |
le Grande Quartier General | 28 Aug 2012 8:59 a.m. PST |
"Using software to adjucate VLB is besides the point. That would be a software game, not a miniatures game. There is a difference in style and substance. The whole point of miniature gaming is to adhere to a certain visual style, combined with *tactile* gaming mechanisms that work with that. Inserting software into miniature gaming is as if one would introduce a pistol into bow-and-arrow shooting." I would very respectfully disagree, Phil, if I may. There is an acceptable line to be drawn between what the computer does, and the tactile gaming. I have found one excellent set of computer assisted FLB rules (Carnage & Glory)that takes care of the 'chores' and loses none of the play,look and feel(except for dice-which are incorporated for various purposes every game anyway). As far as VLB software is concerned, the balance of player inteaction, look, and 'feel' with the requirements of input and screen time is being lovingly considered and patiently addressed at this time with a set under development. I understand one designer to be a gamer and painter with old school sensiblities and modern abilities, someone who will design Napoleonic miniatures software for the senses of sight and touch, as well as player social interaction. Best, R |
forwardmarchstudios | 28 Aug 2012 9:25 a.m. PST |
"There are game settings (not miniature wargames) where VLB works wondefully well. Look at classic pen-and-paper roleplaying games. Of course, there is a gamesmaster in charge, and the framework is cooperative play rather than opposed play. Perhaps these 2 latter conditions are the ones under which VLB ideas can work properly. I can imagine a miniature wargame scenario, in which each player has a command on the same side, playing against an umpire driven opposing force. But that's of course far removed from 1 against 1 as in a more traditional setup." I floated this exact idea on here recently. I see absolutely no reason why a game like this wouldn't work very, very well, and furthermore the same system could be used to cover all periods of warfare from the bronze age on up to ultra-modern stuff. Yuo could even do the old D&D system of having books for the GM with what he needs to know as well as for the players so they know what it is they need to do. If you had a ref with omnipotent powers to make judgement calls I don't see any reason why something like this *couldn't* work. I don't see how you could do this with two players though. |
MajorB | 28 Aug 2012 9:54 a.m. PST |
Perhaps these 2 latter conditions are the ones under which VLB ideas can work properly. I can imagine a miniature wargame scenario, in which each player has a command on the same side, playing against an umpire driven opposing force. I floated this exact idea on here recently. I see absolutely no reason why a game like this wouldn't work very, very well, and furthermore the same system could be used to cover all periods of warfare from the bronze age on up to ultra-modern stuff. Take a look at "Science vs. Pluck": link |
McLaddie | 29 Aug 2012 10:50 a.m. PST |
Are we working toward a simulation of a battle or a more realistic game? They are different. Using miniatures as a simulation can be carried to such an extreme that only a computer could manage the events. A more realistic game in the end has to be a playable game. Rallynow: Come again? They're different?? A simulation game doesn't have to be playable? Or a realistic game isn't a simulation? ANY design can be carried to extremes, either too complex to be playable or too simplistic to be playable. Complexity and playability aren't the dividing lines between simulations and games, nor is complexity and 'realism'. |
Mobius | 29 Aug 2012 11:03 a.m. PST |
The cumulative loss of casualties may well take a unit to a break point at which the unit will rout. This would constitute a COS for higher echelon commanders. There you have it. No judgement or appraisals of deteriorating conditions by the commanders, only reactions. The exact time the unit will rout is calculateable because casualties occur at a constant rate. The commander could go to lunch then return in time for the COS. No wonder Empire looked like the promised land after playing VLB Napoleonics for a couple years. |
MajorB | 29 Aug 2012 2:34 p.m. PST |
No judgement or appraisals of deteriorating conditions by the commanders, only reactions. The exact time the unit will rout is calculateable because casualties occur at a constant rate. That is how both GWJ's rules and Knight and Dennis worked. I agree though that that particular aspect is not very realistic. However, it is a simple fix to change the rules to make the break point variable rather than at a fixed point in the casualty losses. Ah the benefit of 20 years hindsight and further game design! Such a change would also bring artillery fire more into line with tactical engagements where the duration of a TE is not fixed but is variable. The commander could go to lunch then return in time for the COS. Isn't that what some of them actually did? |
NedZed | 29 Aug 2012 7:51 p.m. PST |
Margard quoted me: "After all of these years, if VLB does produce something that "works" so be it;" and asked: "Ned, did you note my previous post about the Knight and Dennis rules?" Margard, yes I did see your post. I have Peter's rules. I met him over 25 years ago and later corresponded with him while he was writing the Nap rules. Besides working on GWJ material together, we were also involved with Paddy Griffith in some things. Peter later partnered with Paddy on various books, etc. I had the pleasure of introducing him to an early Apple Mac when he and his family visited me in California. We then found a used one for sale and he brought it home to England. He was intrigued by the MacPaint program, if I recall correctly. BTW, for a while Peter produced Hard Cover Designs, sheets of color small-scale card buildings which one would cut, fold, and glue together. They looked great.He was a commercial graphics design artist. Back in the '80s he could quickly create a new model terrain table for each game when he wanted to, and the 'realism' effect was something to behold. Very talented and creative. My comment was poorly phrased and intended to mean "if the VLB forum does produce something after all of these years". You have actual experience with, and a good grasp of GWJ's and Peter's concepts and have done a good job explaining them on his thread – so I was trying to not insert myself unnecessarily and do more harm than good. :^) You also mentioned Science vs Pluck earlier. I think that was a terrific design, and that Howard Whitehouse has always been a talented and creative thinker. |
1905Adventure | 29 Aug 2012 8:21 p.m. PST |
I think the problem with VLB is things like "casaulties per minute" and other stuff like that. I think if you stop tracking details like that and just use some sort of simplified roll to determine results and give a time frame when you check again, then you can add it to the time schedule and roll some dice again later. |
Allan Mountford | 03 Sep 2012 5:47 a.m. PST |
I don't think the 'casualties per minute' aspect is that significant. Establishing a time increment between changes of situation and doing the maths is straightforward. The current impasse is logging the point that a change of situation occurs and avoiding such an exponential growth in those changes of situations that the game bogs down and grinds to a halt. Allan |
Dexter Ward | 03 Sep 2012 5:55 a.m. PST |
Exactly. The problem is that in a reasonably large game you get a *lot* of Changes of Situation. Plus arguments about whether something is or is not a CoS. And somehow you have to sync them all up, and the whole thing just turns into a messy business which is no fun at all. VLB is a great idea, but applying it in practice seems almost impossible. |
1905Adventure | 03 Sep 2012 6:22 a.m. PST |
I think the arguments need to be jetisoned. The things that cause CoS need to be so well defined that there is no question about it. If you have to argue for it and convince someone, it's probably not a valid CoS. I think it's one of the failures of the few attempted implementation of VLB that they always put in some sort of CoS that is subject to interpretation. They're trying to be open and flexible when they should be getting focused and specific. If I were to ever attempt a VLB design that didn't have a dedicated game master, I'd drill down to very specific conditions, keep the resolution rules very simple and isolate a level of command for decision making purposes, with other levels of command handled with something like the twohourwargames.com reaction system. Step 1 would be defining what is a CoS that allows the player to make a new tactical decision and what is a CoS that is handled by the system through something like a reaction table. The key to keeping them from exponentially multiplying is to keep the triggers few in number and very, very specific. I think VLB has gotten a bad rap, but given its history in the gaming community, I'm not surprised. One thing I've noticed though, is that everyone who's tried the implementations and found them to fail has fallen into the trap of having players needing to interpret whether or not a CoS has happened. If you've hit that point, it's already all over for you in terms of VLB. It cannot be a matter of arguing your case with the other player or the whole thing falls apart rather dramatically and spectacularly. |
John D Salt | 03 Sep 2012 8:12 a.m. PST |
Nathaniel wrote:
Step 1 would be defining what is a CoS that allows the player to make a new tactical decision
That sounds very much to me like what would, in modern British Army terms, be referred to as a "decision point". Decision points are part of the plan, and are supposed to be specified by the commander beforehand, together with the information he needs that will trigger that decision. So one way of limiting the number of CoSs is to say "it's got to be in the plan". Commanders who insist on making fabulously intricate plans with a metric buttload of decision points should be suitably penalised for the time needed to make such a plan, e.g. by having their troops arrive on the table umpteen turns after General Hitempo gets there with his quick and simple plan. The other way of limiting CoSs might be to inflict a morale or organisational penalty on all troops who receive amended orders as a result of them. The old saying "Order, counter-order, disorder" is scarcely ever reflected in wargaming, and this would both do. Players would be forced to think furiously about whether they really want to use their long-handled screwdriver at this point, or whether they should leave well enough alone. Another wrinkle might be to allow leaders to exercise "forward command", avoiding the morale penalty for acting on CoSs local to them, but at the risk of getting themselves bumped off -- at which point a long interval should be specified over which no CoSs can be reacted to at all until the succession of command is sorted out. All the best, John. |
Spreewaldgurken | 03 Sep 2012 10:30 a.m. PST |
Wargame rules do have at least one thing in common with military plans: The author might think that something is very simple and clear, only to have it botched beyond all recognition by several dozen people who try to apply it to their own point of view, unexpected and idiosyncratic situations. Sometimes the reaction is similar to what Nathaniel is suggesting: the author thinks: "Okay, I've got to be super-specific and clear next time, and leave absolutely no room for interpretation." And that works about as well in wargames rules, as it does in war. Gaming history is full of examples. Back in the 1980s, gamers were fond of "Order chits." Each force of the army was given an Order, which could only be changed under certain circumstances, and with a particular process. There were usually only 5-10 orders in the game, and they were supposed to be airtight. For example, if you were on an "Attack" order, then all of your units had to move toward a visible enemy, using at least half of their movement allowance, every turn, blah blah blah. And of course, gamers always – accidentally or deliberately – got themselves into situations where there was some impossibility of carrying out the order as written. Or gamers found loopholes. For example: You're on a "March" order, but you really want to attack, so instead of just waiting for the order chit to change, in the meantime you can advance full-tilt toward the enemy
faster, in fact, than your buddy in the III Corps, who is on an "Attack" order but now doesn't want to attack, so until his order chit changes, he's creeping toward the enemy at minimum allowed speed, or better yet, he's moving his units "toward" the enemy behind a forest, so now they can't see the enemy and thus he doesn't have a "visible enemy" any more, so he's off the hook. The Orders system got more and more complex, until you get to games of the early 1990s, like the later "Empire" series, or Valmy to Waterloo, where you've got the orders subdivided into ever-more-refined sub categories, with literally pages of rules for what units can and can't do under each order. The moral of this story is: You can never write detailed-enough rules to cover all of the ways that gamers are going to bend them. You are never going to eliminate "interpretation." The answer is not to keep trying to nail-down everything with more and more specificity. The answer is to open the whole thing up, so that the mechanisms are simple enough that interpretation doesn't matter. Players are always going to find a way to do what they want to do. I think many game designers begin with a false premise, that players actually like to be restricted or frustrated in some allegedly historically-accurate way. But in fact, most gamers don't want that at all. They want to do what they want to do, when they want to do it. It's a whole lot easier just to let them. |
arthur1815 | 03 Sep 2012 3:23 p.m. PST |
I was fortunate to meet George and play a VLB game at one of the WD Conferences, many years ago now. With George controlling the game, things seemed to work, but it struck me then that multiplying up casualties inflicted per minute to the next CoS was just too much arithmetic for a pleasurable game, nor very realistic as a portrayal of a period when firarms were notoriously erratic, but the only practical solution for a game. What I didn't like, because it spoilt the atmosphere/suspension of disbelief was the necessaity for opposing players to engage in a dialogue of what their troops were doing and their intentions in order to determine the next CoS, which mean that one knew what one's enemy was about, but could not react to it yet, rather than being in a position of uncertainty and having to deduce/guess his intent from incomplete evidence. I can see this working in a 'muggergame' where players are not competing with each other, but – for me – it just didn't suit playing against an opponent; it made me feel like an observer/analyst of the battle, rather than a participant. Of course, one could communicate one's intent to an umpire in a closed game, but then there would be no need for rules to determine CoS &c., as the umpire could do this instinctively. |
Sparta | 03 Sep 2012 11:39 p.m. PST |
The more I read about the VLB, the more it seems like a lot of work without really altering the course of the game. Reading the synopsis on the yahoo forum, the actual mechanics of the game turn sounds almost like empire with the excellent telscoping time concept. In reply to meatballs comments: I have think I have outgrown the capacity to enjoy a game where every unit will march when and where it will. This simply makes for poor games, and after 20 years I can not go back to the virgin days of just marching joyfully around the table reacting in an instant to every breath my opponents take. On the other hand I believe that written rules and their interpretation is a gamekiller. I actually enjoy the conceept of order types as proposed in empire, Valmy and corps de armée. I feel that the problems arise when the orders try to forc players into an attack or movement that they don not want to do, they will sneak out of it in some way. On the other hand these systems work great for preventing the players attacking or moving where and when they want to. We play a very simple system of the order categories with 4 order types: defense, deploy, maneuver or march. When a maneuver order is activated the formation goes forward in the direction the commanding officer is facing, if the player want to turn the officer and formation it requires a deploy order. The restrictions imposed on players in then in the delay of doing what they want, not forcing them into doing what they do not want to do. |
Trajanus | 04 Sep 2012 9:09 a.m. PST |
Players are always going to find a way to do what they want to do. I think many game designers begin with a false premise, that players actually like to be restricted or frustrated in some allegedly historically-accurate way. But in fact, most gamers don't want that at all. They want to do what they want to do, when they want to do it. It's a whole lot easier just to let them Sam, I think the key word here is "gamers". It always comes back to the same old thing. Some want to try and behave like they were historical commanders and others just want beer, dice rolls and to be "gamers". No value judgements implied. What do we get? "Historical" people dismissing Beer and Dice rules and "Gamers" pronouncing on the impossibility and complexity of rules they wouldn't play to begin with. Yes people will always bend rules or argue over interpretation, lawyers round the world rely on this to make a living but to reach a point where we say They want to do what they want to do, when they want to do it. It's a whole lot easier just to let them. is just giving up. You may as well say 'Here's a book with some Napoleonic style info in it – just agree how you want to play among yourselves'. If people don't want to be restricted by a set of rules then don't buy them. Or conversely when confronted with a designer who says 'This is Snakes and Ladders with Napoleonic figures' don't bitch that Wellington never slid down a Snake! I've said it before and I'll say it again, what's missing is basic honesty from those designers who do nothing to bracket their creations so as to inform potential players which end of the spectrum they are pitching at. My view is that the majority of "gamers" are just that and would be happy to play anything, anywhere, any time with the preconditions you have mentioned. It is they who get the far better deal out of the hobby and in my experience this is a position that continues to shift towards their expectations. If "historical" players want to take a contra view and introduce restriction and control of player action that tries to mimic the constraints period commanders worked under so well and good. Such a wish no more needs the permission of the rest of the hobby than matters do the other way round. |
le Grande Quartier General | 04 Sep 2012 9:21 a.m. PST |
I must say for myself- I'm happy to play a Napoleonic 'game' with whatever style house rules are being used. It's just fun, and sometimes it's about being a good guest as well. When folks come to my house they know I am trying to offer the contexts for Napoleonic command decision making as more of a simulation than a game, per say- which is also (i hope!) fun-and that's what they're in for! I'm personally looking for a simulation experience, as far as command and control goes-no way to 'simulate' battle- just reproduce the effects as they pertain to the next COS. I do like a good game with any rules, however! Best, Rob napoleoniccampaigns.com
|
MajorB | 04 Sep 2012 9:57 a.m. PST |
Several people seem to saying that what is and what is not a COS is not clearly defined. In the Knight and Dennis rules a COS is defined as one of the following: - Enemy forces create a new threat to a force under your command. - Enemy threat ceases - A tactical engagement ends - Your own force, or a force under your command rallies - You receive a message - You receive an order - Your current orders expire or are overtaken by events - A unit under your command falls back or breaks - A friendly unit adjacent to your own falls back or breaks I think all those are pretty clear and not subject to argument, with the possible exception of the first one, which begs the question "What is a threat?" A threat is defined as an action which, if continued, would cause casualties to your force (e.g. an enemy unit commencing to fire on your force) or would prevent your force from carrying out its orders (e.g. an enemy unit starts moving in a direction that if continued would block your force from reaching its objective). |
Nasty Canasta | 04 Sep 2012 10:57 a.m. PST |
In Minnesota in the 1980's it was how much a girl will let you get away with on the first date. |
Trajanus | 04 Sep 2012 11:57 a.m. PST |
In Minnesota in the 1980's it was how much a girl will let you get away with on the first date. Hummmm! Gets pretty cold in Minnesota, was that good or bad news? |
Spreewaldgurken | 04 Sep 2012 12:16 p.m. PST |
Trajanus, I didn't think that the question was whether or not gamers want to imagine themselves as historical figures. Most do, I assume. The question is always: what sorts of game rules accomplish that? I was responding to Nathaniel, who believed that the solution to making VLB work better as a simulation, was to nail it down more precisely with clear and specific limitations, and thus to avoid the perils of "interpretation." My point was: You're never going to be able to write game rules that will be so specific and clear as to eliminate all possibility of interpretation. And given the diversity and idiosyncrasies of people's opinions about (A) what is historical, and (B) what is a good game, many of the attempts I've seen over the years to write the Perfect Command System, have been like the child of Frankenstein: only the parents can love it. People can quite happily imagine themselves playing historical commanders, and doing so in a "historical" way, in all sorts of games, including very simple ones. Unless I'm totally ignorant of the Super Perfect Historical Simulation that everybody agrees on, then it sure seems that most of the hard-core simulation guys are usually pretty unhappy with whatever games they've played, and they keep questing after the Grail. That indicates to me that "interpretation" is just the nature of the beast. |
Pages: 1 2 3
|