"A Question for Those Who Prefer Complicated Rules" Topic

…and no, not a dig or an attempt to convert anyone!

I was just wondering (after a recent posting from Davout1972 about Empire) if you generally played a large number of games with those rulesets, with the thought that if you had a set of rules with lots of small increment modifiers, in a one-off game that is pretty annoying: lots of calculation time for very little effect. But if you played the rules a lot (in a way similar to some RPG combat systems perhaps), then not only would you become more familiar with the modifiers in question (so speeding up the calculation), but more importantly, you would also see the effect of all those 1,2,5% (or whatever) modifiers on the game, if you were making those calculations enough times over the course of many games.

Probably not the easiest to follow sentence but hopefully it makes the idea clear enough. Anyway, I'd be interested in your thoughts.

Regards

I don`t think I can answer this one, but perhaps if you`d cross-posted to the Empire board you`d get a better response?

Mike.

Good point, although I was thinking as much of Bruce Quarrie's rules and the old Newbury rules (which I have played) as about Empire (which I have never played, nor seen played).

Regards

Well, I guess that back in the mid-late seventies those sets were played and written with brigade-sized games in mind, not so much for re-fighting of larger historical battles.

I used to play the Colonial Skirmish Wargame Rules a lot. They have a fair number of firing and melee modifiers. Yes, we got to know them quite well and things went very quickly when all the players involved knew what they were doing. But all calculations were based on percentile rolls and the minumum increment (IIRC) was 5%. Given a basic chance to hit could be as low as 15%, any modifier could be significant. I wouldn't really have cared for smaller increments.

if you played the rules a lot (in a way similar to some RPG combat systems perhaps), then not only would you become more familiar with the modifiers in question (so speeding up the calculation), but more importantly, you would also see the effect of all those 1,2,5% (or whatever) modifiers on the game, if you were making those calculations enough times over the course of many games.

All other things being equal, I suppose yes. Although there's a more fundamental question about whether the game is a unified system, or simply an amalgamation of lots of subsystems.

I've always suspected that many of those super-detailed games of the 1980s and 1990s, with the 100+ charts and tables, and separate booklets of flowcharts, were never really conceived as unified systems. Rather, the designers appeared to make big long lists of all the things they wanted to see in order for the game to be properly Napoleonic, or historically accurate, or whatever… and then they glommed them all together, one after the other, until they were all in there. That's how you end up with those shooting systems that require seven steps, each with its own table and set of modifiers, and the 28-step sequence of play, etc, etc.

A couple of weeks ago a friend dug out the old "Panzer" board/mini game from Yaquinto in the early 1980s. Playing that was astonishing: an endless sea of data, endless charts (each tank had its own two-sided card packed with numbers), pen-and-paper bookkeeping… all to run a little platoon of five tanks. Having all that data certainly didn't make it apparent what sort of actions one should take. (For instance, what would be the best range at which to engage the enemy Mark-IVs?)

In a game like that, you may never know or understand the impact of all of those 1, 2, or 4% odds differences, because they're not necessarily linked conceptually in a single system.

I've seen that done.
Bottom up design, we systems design/developer types call it.
Makes it very difficult to understand your own system and there's a good chance a number of significant factors will be missed.
Those factors which are in there are very difficult to reconcile with one another and hence there's a good chance the relative importance of factors will be wrong.
Even the guy who designs these doesn't really understand the factors. He can't. Nobody can.

Whirlwind wrote:

I was thinking as much of Bruce Quarrie's rules and the old Newbury rules (which I have played) as about Empire (which I have never played, nor seen played).

I suspect you are right, and familiarity does make apparently complex rules seem easier. I played Newbury Fast Play Rules a lot during the 1990s and umpired the Napoleonic tournaments at Colours using those rules for about six years. I did not find them that complex, pretty much par for the course for that period. However I think that Esprit de Corps, which replaced them, was very complex (I have it but never played it).

Rod

Back in the day we were comparing the Newbury rules with Empire V and WRG. We took as our benchmark the number of calculations necessary to resolve the effect of a volley simply in terms of casualties caused, if any, as opposed to then assessing the impact on morale etc.

I can't remember the exact number, but I do recall that for WRG it was one die roll, whereas the other 2 were several die rolls, so we plumped for WRG…

My point? We were a group of servicemen, so playing fairly rarely, and always with some newbies who happened to be around. So we soon felt that introducing them to Empire or Newbury would be a hell of a cold shower…

Now in those innocent days, we still believed that complex equalled authentic, whereas these days I think we are a little more sophisticated than that.

So no matter how often you play with a set of rules so that the complexity becomes second nature, why put up with it unless you are certain you are getting some sort of trade off?

I used to play alot of games using Empire. I think it was the fourth edition, but I'm not sure. We played twice to three times a month. It got much easier over time. I even used to play it solo.
At first it was very difficult. But we got to the point that a weekend game would be pretty decisive. Always meant to play campaigns but never got around to it.

-we still believed that complex equalled authentic-

Darn right. Too many advocates [Hello Peter] of the complex have too little understanding of probability, systems or process.

Put me down for simple/elegant rules frameworks.

An older meaning of sophisticated is over-complicated – the word comes from sophistry after all.

Much of what we know of the Sophists comes from their 'opponents' – Aristotle and Plato – mind.

I always found the smaller calculations were the most decisive. For example, if a French column that is charging has just withstood a volley from some enemy line formation, it must now take an Elan test for any casualties it incurred. If they pass the test, they roll right into the line. If they fail…well, you get the idea. That one calculation can mean everything. The same with charging cavalry hitting stationary cavalry. That small calculation, though maybe glossed over by other rulesets, might just be the cause of the cav's demise. A lot of victories and defeats live by those small calculations. For me, they are a big deal.

If I understand the question Whirlwind, I would answer yes. I've always been drawn to complicated rules and found that steady play meant we rarely needed to work through all the tables and modifiers. You had a "feel" for chances so you rolled the dice first and maybe 10-20% of the time had to consult the charts and only on very rare occasions had to work all the way through them. Even in melees or elan tests in Empire we knew which modifiers mattered and which didn't. Easy-peasy.

IMHO players have gottten incredibly lazy. Whereas in the day we would run simple equations like 12 castings at 12% each, halved makes a 72% chance of a hit. Now it seems players are challenged to add +1 and -1 on a d6.

Also, it is because of those small calculations that we have some of our best laughter and comraderie. I remember once a French Cuirassier brigade of 2 regiments charged a milita infantry unit caught unawares. There was only a 6% chance of forming square. A full 94% chance of failure. The French player was grinning from ear to ear, as he leaned forward and prepared to much this twink unit, when, out of the blue, the militia commander rolled a 3! Hahahaha! What?! The militia formed square and the cavalry bounced. It saved the day for the British. We all laughed for weeks afterward.

Another time I hurled Prussian Uhlans against the flank of a French Cuirassier unit that my friend Scott was playing. Not only did the damn French pass their morale check from getting their flank stove in, they turned and routed my light cavalry from the field. Though it's been 16 years later, he and I still have a good laugh about it. He said it reminded him of a mosquito hitting the windshield of a car, as my lances bounced off his metal breastplates. Bastard!

It's just too funny when you have units beating the odds and doing something amazing on those little die rolls. Hold when they should run, run when they should hold. The little unpredictables that make the game a game, instead of an absolute science.

You can get the dreaded 1 – 6 result in DBA (a 1 in 36 chance) and see javelin skirmishers in the open rout knights. Simple games can also get the odd upset.

Yes It does. We play Empire V weekly and are pretty quick and fluid once you know the flow and the rules. Especially when you know you have to roll low for 4 figures firing verses high for passing an elan test. If the result to close to expecting then we look it up and check the charts.

Same with us. In our games of Empire V, during shooting we rarely need to consult a charts. We know at a glance what 8 conscripts need to hit, and just throw the dice.

"Also, it is because of those small calculations that we have some of our best laughter and comraderie."

100% agree Davout 1972. Often overlooked that. It can have you laughing yourself off the chair at times… and provides great "war stories" for later..

- Too many advocates [Hello Peter] of the complex have too little understanding of probability, systems or process. –

But it is equally true that most 'simple' systems are just a collection of dice rolls in place of rules because the rules author could not be bothered writing rules to cater for most situations.

arguing that increasing the dice rolls in order to produce a more statistically averaged effect may be mathematically valid but it is utterly pointless when you could just have removed the dice completely and had rules that ensure the average outcome.

a middle ground is required, where the rules determine what s happening with room for a small plausable variation which is govered by a random effect roll and some appropriate modifiers.

then you will remember the modifiers quickly without being entirely govered by the dice.
but that seems too complicated for most people these days, so they just go for wargaming yahtzee.

I like rules with details if they serve a purpose. A lot of modifiers is not necessarily a problem as you end up learning them by heart. What is important is the design, that the mechanism are unified and interactive. It is a sign of bad design if every situation needs a new table or method when existing ones could have been used.

The primary point of any mechanism or rule is to modify behavior of the players or in some special cases to give that period flavor. Some rules have mechanisms that are based on many subtables/test, where one would be enough. In my view this must be either bad design or an attempt to give flavor.

Of course if you want to minimize the die rolling and charts, just count up the power points for each side, roll some die and declare the winner.

As another thought, could our choice of rules be reflective of our personalities? If you think about it, the sum of massive calculations or a die roll is ultimately just the answer to a question. Will we win?

It could be that some of us in Life could be given a quick explaination about something, and just accept it at face value. Others might want more of a "nuts and bolts" answer. A detailed answer.

In any case, after you have done a hundred charges, the calculations become second nature. The speed of the game increases, as does the enjoyment level. And, you get a detailed explaination as to why that infantry unit you stayed up all night painting for this battle, has just turned heels and ran. Not a single die roll dismissing them from the scene (which we could call Chance), but rather a glaring report of the negative modifiers your stupidity caused in their deployment, or positive modifiers that you may have taken. In any event, the detailed calculations pretty much teach you what smart things to do, and what dumb things not to do.

@Davout1972

Maybe. I can only answer for myself, but Arthur Harman's article in WI01 summed it up perfectly for me: regardless of how refined the complicated model is, it will create a tactical sub-game at battalion or brigade level that has to be played as sub-sections of the main game, with the attendant step out of the game and processing the mechanics. With a miniatures game this cannot be avoided to some degree, but I prefer the rules which minimize my having to switch hat from general to brigadier to colonel (and even to captain, depending on the particular rules). However, such considerations were not the main thrust of this thread however, more whether over the course of a thousand dice rolls, one begins to care about those small modifiers rather than rely on the chunkier modifiers of games with simpler resolutions.

In any case, I'd be wary of reading 'character' from the choice…

Regards

Davout1972,

I agree with your post but if I may. There are two types of gamers; process oriented and outcome oriented.

Process oriented gamers require every last detail because they just gots to know. Thus, rules which require a test for almost everything.

Outcome oriented gamers are more concerned with what happed and it the rules are well researched the results will be close to the more complex process oriented rules. Everything's there but you don't burden the gamer with the details. Napoleon and most other generals gave orders and dealt with the results. How those results occurred was of little import to them.

I tend to think outcome oriented rules are a better reflection of what occurred but understand the need of controling gamers to know how results were achieve.

Bob Coggins

I have to say that I am mostly in agreement with Davout 1972 regarding the importance of those 'small calculations' which can indeed be where an outcome is decided. However, to truly represent the amount of vaiables one needs to consider in making many of those calculations, charts and dice are impractical. This is where the computer comes into its own, allowing high complexity with speed of play. As computer rules develop FROM the complex paper sets we have from Chef d'Batallion through Empire to Republic and Empire, they will be unequalled in their ability to model the battlefield and retain playability. Here's to the future:)

As far as these complex games being for small action, for us (Empire) a Corp per side was a demo for a new play. 5 or 6 Corp per side on a double garage floor was a typical game back in the 70s.Done in a day 9-5.

I can add to the great story list (to me anyway). We had a ripping good game where I had my beloved Spanish against the French. We of course had the advantage of numbers given the quality disparity. It was one of Davout's divisions after all. Anyway, I had maneuvered and battled and finally had every man's dream; I was looking at the back of winded French cuirassiers. To top it off, the Spanish were my Spanish guard cavalry! But first I had to pass the Empire "DUB" cavalry test. And you guessed it, rolled a zero-something. So picking up my dice and effecting my best Hollywood accent I announced, "it would be ungentlemanly of the guards to take advantage of this situaion, so we decline to charge." We laughed at the time and that battle still ranks as over-all my favorite Napoleonic game.

"I finally had every man's dream; I was looking at the back of winded French cuirassiers.

I'm not so sure that's every man's dream…

Not sure it has anything to do with being controlling Bob.
If you watch modern sports broadcasts – they tend to go into every detail to an almost painful degree – the level of analysis is often extraordinary.

The viewer's love it.

Same with wargaming. I enjoy knowing why things happened, in detail, not through any desire to be controlling but because I have the advantage of having a bird's eye view of the action and the time to do so (something Napoleon did not). I can virtually guarantee Napoleon would've wanted to see every second of the action in every part of the field if he had the same advantage. As it was, he still made an effort to find out post battle – usually through after action reports from his officers, rumour and discussion.

The difference is I get to watch the action live, as it unfolds, I don't have have to find out post battle from unreliable sources.

Like a sports broadcast, in a wargame you can do this if you choose. You can pause the action, change the camera angle (walk around the table), stop to analyse an amusing incident, etc. Detailed rules often make this more possible because there's quite simply more to talk about and more going on. More talking points, interesting circumstances and amusing outcomes to discuss and certainly to analyse. To my view, it's exciting and interesting to know the 1st battalion of 17th just making it into square (after a raft of modifiers including the distance the cavary was when it declaired the charge and the quailty/experience of the infantry making the attempt) was what saved the entire flank.

Not just that x-infantry brigade held off Y-cavalry brigade.

Just an observation. My group play everything thing from the comically simple to Empire V and enjoy them all … but it's for very different reasons.

pessa00,

Good point. I live in Baltimore and started attending pro games in 1953 when the Colts returned (my family had season tickets). In the 50s what you saw is what you got. Today with all the replays one can deconstruct every play but in the end what you see is what you get.

It's the same with wargame rules. Assuming the analysis for both Outcome and Process oriented rules is correct no amount of die rolls or replays are going to change the outcomes and in the end it's the outcomes that players have to deal with.

On the other hand I understand how some enjoy being able to view the progression of rolls which results in a result.

I started with Empire in the early 70s and, having had dinner with him and his wife and played at his house, am an acquaintence of Scott's boardering on a friend.

I have 3 problems with Empire. First as Otto Schmidt likes to point out few gamers read rules leaving those who do to "run" the game and with Empire that's doing all the calculations. Second, very few gamers understand Scott and Jim's take on Napoleonic warfare as represented by the rules, leading gamers to nickle and dime tactical movement and attacks, taking an interminal amount of time. Finally, the game can move along fine if you simply estimate the percentage needed for a test. But it doesn't work that way. Inevitably some of the gamers require interminable calculations before rolling the dice only to determine there's a 5% chance, only to roll a 50.

My late friend and one of the few profesional wargame designers had a saying, "Give a gamer an option and he'll always take it." The point being every time a player takes an option the game slows or worse comes to a halt. It drives me nuts.

Not my cup of tea, but to each his own.

Bob Coggins

All fair points Bob.

I think I'm very lucky in who I play empire with – it makes all the difference.

Never played Empire. But I was weened on Quarrie during the 70s and 80s, and dabbled with Newbury. Moved on the WRG and some others. I always felt the zillion charts (and nauseating fractions in Quarrie) were unnecessary, but I lived with it.

A few trips to the WHC with In the Grand Manner seemed more satisfying. During the years I frequently brought out Charge and The Wargame (adding some Napoleonic flavor to the latter). Redoubt had a small rule set, the name alluded me now, but I stuck with them for years. Charts and die rolling were minimal. A few years back I found General de Brigade which I thought was a good compormise, and I liked the big units.

Perhaps after 35 years of gaming GdBde doesn't seem complicated at all and gives a spectacle I prefer. Newbury and Quarrie, while still on my shelf, I doubt I'd ever play again.

Paul/Houston

Started with Quarrie myself many years ago. Enjoyed it too at the time.

Napoleon's Campaigns in Miniature is the first book I ever bought.

Then one day I walked into a club called "Lords of the North" in my home town of Brisbane and saw my first ever game of Empire.

150, 9-12 odd figure battalions chequer-boarded across the table: it was an awesome sight! One I still enjoy today.

Which is odd because most gamers these days hate the look of many small units compared to fewer big ones…

You see, 21stRegt how these little dice rolls add up to years of laughter and fun? Isn't that what this is supposed to be about? Whether it is complicated or trivial, isn't it about, at some point getting some satisfaction out of the hobby? And the considerable effort you made in buying the EXACT figure, with the properly referenced paint job, to deploy them on the field of battle proudly? Wow, that's what I'm all about. Let me give you an idea into my sick humor…

When I would have new guys playing, I used to involve as much humor as history into our games. For example, though we were playing a non-historical game, just something made up off the cuff, we always seemed to have a village. It was mostly the focal point of our objectives, and so in the center of maybe a 5-6 houses I would put a porcelain prostitue house, picked up on one of my trips to Amsterdam. It has prostitues hanging out of the windows! Then, in the 90's I found those little goofy train HO guys actually had a series of prositutes in various naked poses. Wham! Now, I have these chicks laying out in the property of this house, and I announce "Gentlemen, this is the objective". Do you think these newbies were all about the rules? Hell no! They laughted their way through the rules, until they could be adjacent to THAT building.

I stuck with those HO train guys for figures, and pretty soon I had an old man sitting in a chair, watching the battle afar, with a friar monk. I had a sheperd with his sheep and dog, and an "umba band" in leiderhosen marching up and down the streets of the village. Little things to break up the complexity of the rules. And we always had music, exerpts I would tape from the most popular movies onto tape. Many battle scenes, like from "Waterloo", Gettysburg" "Braveheart", etc. Hours of music to add to the fun.

Alot of poeople talk about calculation, modifiers, and the history of units and tactics on this site, but they never talk about about how much damn fun they have. It wouldn't be worth the trouble, if it wasn't fun for me.

Yeah, if 'complicated' rules are fun, what's the problem? And obviously they are or folks wouldn't spend the time to play them.

Regardless, gamers insert all sorts of things and play in ways that maximize the fun, whether it is Humor, the right folks at the table, mood music, including Massena's Mistress with his staff in a nifty hussar outfit, having lots of beer, or details rules. Every hobby finds folks doing that. Gone on a golf course lately? Folks wear the most outlandish getups and have a cooler on the back of their golf cart, while others are completely involved in the details of each shot.

Complicated rules do require more time to learn, and complicated rules take far more time to design. Why shouldn't they also take more time to play? For me, there are days where I choose to play a wargame because it won't take much time, and with others, make time to play the more complex rules. Is that because I'm lazy one time, and dedicated the next?

My late friend and one of the few profesional wargame designers had a saying, "Give a gamer an option and he'll always take it." The point being every time a player takes an option the game slows or worse comes to a halt.

This is true of every game. Any game player will always attempt to maximize their chances of success by every avenue provided by the game system. IF lots of options are provided, then players will try all of them. That's human nature and recognized by most all game designers, regardless of the type of game. Of course, lots of game options will slow play. That is a game design issue, not a people issue.

As another thought, could our choice of rules be reflective of our personalities? If you think about it, the sum of massive calculations or a die roll is ultimately just the answer to a question. Will we win?

It could be that some of us in Life could be given a quick explaination about something, and just accept it at face value. Others might want more of a "nuts and bolts" answer. A detailed answer.

This is very true. For instance, Raph Koster in his book A Theory of Fun for Game Design has a whole chapter on "Different Fun for Different Folks." I think that is true for our hobby, though there seems to be a number of folks who have trouble with that idea.

Outcome oriented gamers are more concerned with what happed and if the rules are well researched the results will be close to the more complex process oriented rules.
Everything's there but you don't burden the gamer with the details. Napoleon and most other generals gave orders and dealt with the results. How those results occurred was of little import to them.

I think there is another reason for complicated rules: Information. A while back Klumpenproletariat described an incident in designng a game that applies here. He had an involved air combat routine for resolving WWII Pacific air combat for a large scale wargame. It required several die rolls. He found that he could reduce the resolution process to one die roll and achieve the same variations in results. The same players who didn't question the more complex process, felt the one die roll process was 'unrealistic'--even though both processes provided the very same results.

Most designers give very little information about what history is involved or where it came from compared to what is supposed to be represented by the rules. Complexity and detail provides information about what is going on in the game system, whereas a one die roll 'black box' system not only deprives the wargamer of 'what the hell is happening and why', but reduces the number of decisions a player can make, and interesting decisions are what games are about. That does not mean complex games are better, but when the hobby is about the history and military arts IN the game play, it certainly is an issue.

There is another issue raised with Bob's comments. Exactly what details were Generals concerned about? Looking at their behaviors, giving orders and getting results weren't their only concerns. And even if they were their only concerns, the players would still have to be the one generating table top results from the details of play.

Of course, if that were true, generals just giving orders and paying attention to the results, providing just the results and little detail could be pretty boring.

I keep thinking of Napoleon kicking around a Prussian drum for most of the battle of Jena. But even then, when he did issue orders, many of them were to single brigades and artillery batteries, as well as giving detailed instructions about how to do something, not just an order to get results like 'take that hill.'

Davout1972: Over the last six months, there have been a number of TMP threads on the Fun, enjoyed in a variety of ways.

In short… yes…. I really liked playing Cde'B and you could spend so much time on the modifiers and rules questions that players woudl lose interest and not want to play.. it wasn't until you played them enough to become the expert where your players were concerned with tactics (logical situations) and you woudl then take care of all of the modifiers and have them roll the dice…

It got to the point where you just knew… and it is all logical too, so anyone with any knowledge on how things work could do well tactically and get the expected outcomes…

The real question is this…. after playing such complicated rules and also simple rules…. and after getting pretty much the same results…. You have to ask….

Was it all worth it or not? (learning all of the complex rules and such when you could get the same results using a much simpler system….)

The real question is this…. after playing such complicated rules and also simple rules…. and after getting pretty much the same results…. You have to ask….

Poniatowski:
It's a good question. In one sense, a game is about the process, not the results, the fun journey, not the destination. So your question is one about whether the process is worthwhile, not the result.

I mean, I can get the same result with a one die roll game of Waterloo as any 'complex' set of rules. Heck, it would be so simple, you don't need to set up the table.