Anatoli | 10 Aug 2013 4:00 a.m. PST |
After a surprisingly heated discussion over my Bolt Action review, the interesting replies in that topic were not about the review itself but about expectations about the realism and accuracy in various wargames. What should a gamer expect picking up a set of rules, how much is promised by the chosen theme and the authors intentions. Do you get a good tactical simulator or just great gameplay with the theme sprinkled over it to make it sell better? It's ridiculously hard to tell before you buy the book and play the game. And then you have the (imo) increasing amount of misguided attempts to keep rules simple not to overwhelm players with decisions and possibilities that may take a couple of minutes to figure out because no one has the time to think anymore. Which in itself doesn't automatically translate into wanting a game to be "chart heaven". Should wargames be graded somehow depending on the level of historical accuracy and realism to make it a lot easier for gamers to find the type of game they are looking for? Or wouldn't it be nice to have half a page of design notes from the author describing the decisions take during writing and why things are written the way they are? You can read the full article over at my blog: link And I would love to hear your comments and thoughts on historical wargaming, complexity vs accessibility, realism vs gameplay and so on. Either post them here on the forum or in the comment section :-) |
PiersBrand | 10 Aug 2013 4:10 a.m. PST |
Good luck with an 'industry standard' on 'realism'
They cant get figure sizes the same yet! ;) I do think design notes especially when done as an article or info-piece, like Warwick Kinrade did for BGK or TFL have done for CoC, are useful to a player to get a sense of the game, but personally, I dont think you can ever really tell if you will like a game till you play it. For me, it all comes down to the playing. Some rules can read dreadful, but play well and vice versa. So while a grading system may seem a good idea, for me, I will just have to stick with trying the games that interest me to see if I like them. Occasionally this results in some cash lost
A couple of recent 'hardbacks' havent lived up to the hype, but for me this is offset against the games that do work for me, so they pay me back in use for the duffers. Besides, if I didnt buy lots of rulebooks, what would I have to read on the bog? |
Anatoli | 10 Aug 2013 4:21 a.m. PST |
I always love reading design notes because they explain how the author was thinking and you get a better sense of what the rules are intended to represent. The recent TFL videos on Chain of Command are great, I haven't read the Warwick Kinrade design notes on BGK. To me, even if the design ideas are absurd I still like to hear them – as an example would be Flames of War "telescopic ground scale" as explained by Phil Yates in one of the WWPD interview videos. While I don't agree with that design choice, learning about it was enlightening and explained a lot about the concept of the rules – eliminating the second guessing on why something works one way or the other. |
Cyclops | 10 Aug 2013 4:51 a.m. PST |
Try here. TMP link I'll repeat what I said said there. Simple doesn't mean stupid. IABSM is a simple set that, IMHO, captures the chaotic nature of modern combat. ASL is an extremely complex set and technically accurate (armour, penetration etc) set of rules that singularly fails to mimic a modern battlefield. Again, IMHO. And I don't think players are 'overwhelmed by decisions'. They generally love them them as long as they're pertinent to the game. They're overwhelmed by rules that are unnecessarily complex and the decision is often 'do we spend another half hour looking for the definition of flank or just roll a d6 for it?'. |
Striker | 10 Aug 2013 5:08 a.m. PST |
I used to skip over the design notes in rulebooks but I've become more interested in them as I start to decide which ones I prefer. I've found podcasts very useful when it comes to making that decision. Hearing it from the author's mouth and having someone ask them questions, they usually hit one I have, helps me make the decision on whether to spend the money or skip it. There are a couple of them that I will pass on based on the author's philosophy or design, but there are others that will get a second look now (including one I had written off, that I've heard how they came up with game concepts or rules. Online reviews help, and I still peruse them, but I feel the podcast/interview gives a bit more since it's not just the blogger's perspective. |
John de Terre Neuve | 10 Aug 2013 5:12 a.m. PST |
I really enjoyed your post. I am a neophyte to wargaming but have tried out several Napoleonic sets over the last 5 years. I know less about WWII, but am looking forward to CoC which purports to recreate infantry tactics at the platoon level. Interesting post today on Lard Island News re weapons ranges. In Napoleonics, I suppose I am less worried about the mechanics of the fire or combat but more interested in the ruleset delivering a plausible historical result if I am playing a game with two brigades of infantry versus two brigades of infantry with a battery of artillery with these national characteristics and this terrain. John |
kevanG | 10 Aug 2013 5:28 a.m. PST |
"good tactical simulator or just great gameplay" Not and never will be mutually exclusive. "Should wargames be graded somehow depending on the level of historical accuracy and realism to make it a lot easier for gamers to find the type of game they are looking for?" Why would the rotten rule writers want you to know that they have produced tosh for the unchallanging masses? "Simple doesn't mean stupid."
..But it sometimes relies on it! |
Frothers Did It And Ran Away | 10 Aug 2013 6:44 a.m. PST |
Good post, commendably fierce and intransigent attitude. Be interesting to see which WW2 games you do like. |
Extra Crispy | 10 Aug 2013 6:51 a.m. PST |
Here is what I always wonder about. Everyone hates the chart-filled slogathons. What rulea are those? The only two i ever hear mentioned are ASL (a boardgame) and Tractics. Otherwise I can't think of any WW2 games that fit the "monster-game" description. Really, which of the following is like that? Flames of war I Ain't been Shot Disposable heroes Nuts Battleground Kursk Bolt Action Operation Overlord I think this "monster game" is more "Sasquatch" than reality. |
carojon | 10 Aug 2013 6:55 a.m. PST |
I think this issue of realism vs playability is a red herring. Rules don't require mind numbing lists of factors as a measure of how realistic they are as some commentators suggest. However if you are looking to try and model the historical events you can read about, a level of modelling the required factors should be a pre-requisite. A simulation should be looking to allow/reward/encourage the player to use the tactics of the day. I often hear podcasters who use certain rule sets admit they don't know the history and are frankly not interested and are happy playing their game. Good for them and enjoy, but it's not for me. I tend to look at potential rule sets in terms of simulation vs game, playability/fun to play vs the alternative, time to play, to get a game finished. I like more simulation/fun/quick play resolution, combination, I'm sure others are not so bothered about simulation and just want a fun game that has some historical basis. The point is both viewpoints are valid, as wargamers come in different sizes and shapes and want different things. The problem comes when a gamer ends up with the wrong set of rules for them, which I guess provides the bargains on ebay. As to a system to indicate what a rule set is I don't think there is an easy answer. I read reviews, listen to podcasts and rely on game designers like TFL to continually produce the kind of games I like. Likewise I am put off a set of rules when I know they are designed by certain authors, because they have a heritage of producing rules that don't tick my boxes. In the end it comes down to "buyer beware", so ignore the hype and do the homework before buying the product. I try to and I don't get it right every time. |
Pictors Studio | 10 Aug 2013 6:59 a.m. PST |
If you know where all of your own troops are, much less where the enemies are, then realism in any game is going to have be ranked about the same. |
Anatoli | 10 Aug 2013 7:26 a.m. PST |
@Alex Kulic, At the moment the standard game at the club if FoW, though I only play Early War and went ahead and wrote my own campaign and OoB book for the invasion of Poland since I didn't find "Blitzkrieg" to my taste and requirements. It's a less than perfect game, but that is what I can play with the guys. I am at the moment scouting for alternative games that would allow me to use my 15mm WW2 collection – a few of my friends at the club are of similar mindset. I like the smaller scale since you get a larger playing area and more room for maneuver, especially if you start playing platoon sized games in 15mm. If I find a new set of rules for platoon level gameplay I may consider getting back into 28mm or buy additional 15mm miniatures and single base them for greater convenience. |
Tin Soldier Man | 10 Aug 2013 7:41 a.m. PST |
Surely nobody could be suggesting that Priestley and his chums are just churning out the same old stuff every time, just with a different T-Shirt on? One time it's dressed up as WWII, the next it's Napoleonics, then Ancients, when in fact all the time it's Warmaster with a few tweaks taken from other GW stuff. I do hope not, that would be very rude. |
Jcfrog | 10 Aug 2013 7:44 a.m. PST |
This recurring debate should actually never be. Wargames rules that are not fantasy games SHOULD produce reasonably accurate tactics, the historical successful ones should be vindicated, use of actual armies doctrines encouraged etc. And yes it starts with plausible fire ranges and movement rates etc. A WW2 rule that does not take flank armour into the game will utterly savage any attempt at realistic armoured warfare simulation. All for a simple modifier. Pre 19th century siege and model fortresses that allow bastion to be further from each other than canister range will produce tactics that are totally wrong. All those games where cavalry is barely faster than infantry should read some of the 19th century staff analysis on cavalry use on the battlefield. Very simple examples of little things that completely make a game silly as a simulation regardless of complexity and aims. Ignorance and laziness from rule writers (and maybe buyers too then?) that allow for these often successfully products to keep coming. Why do these people want to paint accurately the camouflage of their tanks and not allow these to be used as they should, which is more important? |
SBminisguy | 10 Aug 2013 7:48 a.m. PST |
As jcfrog said, I think that regardless of the rules mechanics, if you can use historically correct tactics for whatever period you're gaming and get a reasonably accurate outcome, then it becomes a matter of playability vs too much detail. What threw me off about Bolt Action is that for me it neither looks nor feels like WW2, with my guys running about in big clusters of men as if they are in the Napoleonic period or something. Can you use basic WW2 infantry tactics in the rules?? Not so sure
is it fun? Probably, just not to my tastes. I much prefer BGWW2 and NUTS for WW2 skirmish games, they have different rules mechanics but if you use WW2 infantry tactics in either of them, you'll probably do OK. |
Quadratus | 10 Aug 2013 7:50 a.m. PST |
Anatoli. I started the heated debate over on the WWPD forums :( I enjoyed your article and, as stated, did not care for their comment (paraphrased) "that if you didn't like the lack of historical accuracy you could go and play a game with reams of charts" If you are playing a ww2 set of rules you should expect certain things to work somewhat along historical lines. I don't think that games need to be rated for historical accuracy, game designers would just fudge it anyways ;) They don't need to be rated because of people like you and forums like TMP, which basically hold up every facet of the gaming world to close (sometimes brutal) scrutiny. I've found my way to games of my liking (Field of Glory, Song of Blades and Heroes, & Disposable Heroes) by coming here and reading people's comments and reviews and have not been disappointed. B.A. is a fun game. And if I had no expectation of WW2 gaming I would have jumped on it wholeheartedly. A lot of people have done that and are perfectly happy with the game. They have no expectations of how armor, machine guns, and combat "should" work. So there is no problem for them. Criticism from people who do have expectations about a WW2 game sounds like whining to those who have adopted the system. To people who have found happiness with B.A., I say congrats. But on a larger scale the game has missed out on creating a larger gaming community. With a few tweaks to the rules B.A. could have met the expectations of gamers who had notions about what a ww2 skirmish game should be like. Instead they've got a decent game with some cool mechanics, covered by a veneer of ww2 history and legend. |
wrgmr1 | 10 Aug 2013 8:51 a.m. PST |
When I started pushing WW2 CinC tanks around on a carpet 40 years ago we debated realism vs playability. Funny it's still being debated, and will most likely still be debated 40 years from now. Here's what our group does. Try a number of rule sets that are playable but yet give you a realistic flavour. We play Rapid Fire. |
donlowry | 10 Aug 2013 9:46 a.m. PST |
I believe it was Sid Meiers (Civilization, et al) who said that a good game consists of a series of interesting decisions. Historical rules should (ideally) work in such a way that the decisions you make in the game will produce the same kind of results as would similar decisions in real life. |
whoa Mohamed | 10 Aug 2013 10:25 a.m. PST |
Games I wish I owned Battle group series,Peter Pigs Patrols in the Sudan.. Games I own and Love The sword and the flame,Force on Force series. Games I own GHQ's Micro armour the game (WW2,Mod),AK47,Battle front WW2,GQ's 3,Action stations,Deadly waters, Fire fight Vietnam,Delta to the DMZ, Age of the dreadnought armoured ships come of Age,Total war by MOD games,MTB,Kampf Gruppe 2nd ed. Games that look really great TFL's Chain of command. All have various levels of realisim all can be fun if played with the right people |
Jcfrog | 10 Aug 2013 11:20 a.m. PST |
|
Jcfrog | 10 Aug 2013 11:21 a.m. PST |
As a member of the Bengal club said once, it won't be totally realistic until your dead minis are smashed and prisoners become mine. |
Jcfrog | 10 Aug 2013 11:26 a.m. PST |
After all games are freedom: you chose what you like and don't have to go for the rest. The difficult part is sometimes to find like minded chaps. When or if they too like history, tactics and study then it won't be difficult. I never understood this accuracy vs gameplay: gameplay is just a measure of mechanisms and details. Accuracy is in results and tactics; they don't have at all to be in antinomy. |
John the OFM | 10 Aug 2013 2:44 p.m. PST |
If the best tactic for infantry charged by tanks is to form square, my exxpectation for the historicity of the rules is low. |
Pictors Studio | 10 Aug 2013 5:11 p.m. PST |
"A WW2 rule that does not take flank armour into the game will utterly savage any attempt at realistic armoured warfare simulation. All for a simple modifier." But this is simply not true. If my tank model represent a tank platoon or company or whatever, then flank armour is probably irrelevant in that game. Even if you are going to a smaller scale, where a company is taking on another company the idea that you know where all the tanks are, exactly, in your platoon and probably where the enemy tanks are, certainly "savage(s) any attempt at realistic armoured warfare simulation" far more than the exclusion of flank armor. |
Last Hussar | 10 Aug 2013 5:52 p.m. PST |
I tend to agree with the idea that a good set of rules doesn't force a player to use particular tactics, but it rewards those who do- not in a +2 for
. way, but in that they work. So I wouldn't like BA if what I read about the Bren group is true – the NCO acts as loader so the loader can use his rifle: that rewards ahistoric tactics. Additionally a game can be simple to play, but still have a complex engine: You could have a roll to hit, to damage, then effects of damage, all factored with modifiers. However if you find that x makes y combat ineffective z% of the time, then simplify that. Yaquinto's "Panzer" has tanks broken down into individual hit locations, the hit location table depends on angle of attack – head on, 30', 45', 60' and right angle, and whether the shot is level, rising or falling. Armour thickness for each is individually shown (as a 45' shot has more thickness to penetrate) What I'm interested in thou is 'Is that tank dead?' If I get the same result from a simple d10 roll, why not 'black box' it? Heres a question though. Army X used the wrong tactics historically, for what ever reason. Do you force a player to use the historic ones, or let him use what he knows will work? |
John Thomas8 | 10 Aug 2013 6:54 p.m. PST |
Do you force a player to use the historic ones, or let him use what he knows will work? If you allow non-historic tactics, you might as well save money and time and buy a chess/Risk set. What's the point of counting rivets on tanks or trying for 4 months to get the right color of Soviet uniforms on figures if you're just going to play chess with them? Historical war gaming isn't just about making the models accurate, it's then employing them in a historically accurate manner. I know if I'm GMing a IABSM game and somebody makes a tank park out of his Pzr IV platoon he's going to be very unhappy when the second tank from the left blows up from a 17pdr hit and takes the tanks to either side out, too. |
Pictors Studio | 10 Aug 2013 7:18 p.m. PST |
"I know if I'm GMing a IABSM game and somebody makes a tank park out of his Pzr IV platoon he's going to be very unhappy when the second tank from the left blows up from a 17pdr hit and takes the tanks to either side out, too." So let's say there was an historical scenario where a German tank commander did keep his Pnz IV platoon all bunched up. In the refight, as the GM, do you punish the player for not doing this? He wouldn't be employing them in a historically accurate manner, even if he would be following suggested doctrine prevalent at the time. |
Dynaman8789 | 10 Aug 2013 8:37 p.m. PST |
> Do you force a player to use the historic ones, or let him use what he knows will work? You should only allow them to use what the units at the time knew how to do. As for the bunched up tanks, it is a double edged sword – it allows command control even without radios and allowed easier concentration of fire. Tanks with radios (most German ones) could achieve both these aims without bunching up, and so not making tempting artillery or air attack targets. |
nickinsomerset | 11 Aug 2013 3:06 a.m. PST |
I prefer a set of rules that will allow one to use historical tactics and will punish someone for not thinking tactically – Why did I not clear that wood before passing it and expose my weak flank armour to the enemy! This is why I enjoy Panzermarsch and the Battlegroup Kursk games. One can also use a historical tactics in both sets if that is what pleases you. A set like Rapid Fire where a tank = a Troop etc, then I believe flank shots should also be applicable, even though it represents 4 tanks if they are perpendicular to the firer then they are exposing their side armour. Tally Ho! |
John Thomas8 | 11 Aug 2013 3:41 a.m. PST |
even if he would be following suggested doctrine prevalent at the time. You're not talking about doctrine, you're talking about a 1-off situation. German (and other armies) were quite clear how their tanks were to be used and tank parks have no place in the tactical deployment of tanks. |
Last Hussar | 11 Aug 2013 6:34 a.m. PST |
I'm not talking about player stupidity. The tank park is a example of that: a good set of rules will punish that just by being 'realistic' (for a given value of realism, it is still only a game). I mean where a country/army/general employed stupid tactics by doctrine/belief, even where troops were capable of doing something else. EG- Ruritainian cavalvry were always deployed in the centre of the line, and charged head on (and got massacred), but the player wants to deploy them for a flank sweep. Im not talking about stupid decisions on the day, I'm talking about 'Why the hell fight like that, when your men are capable of doing it correctly?' or even a simple idea that no-one had at the time. Imagine if Fire and Movement with LMG/Rifle combo wasn't discovered until Korea. Should you stop a Platoon leader from saying 'Sergeant, you stay here with the Brens and suppress Jerry, I'll lead the rifles round the flank. If the subaltern has a clear idea of what he wants to do that doesn't require to much training, just direction. |
Pictors Studio | 11 Aug 2013 7:26 a.m. PST |
"You're not talking about doctrine, you're talking about a 1-off situation." I am talking about a one-off situation. Do you punish the player for acting a-historically? |
John Thomas8 | 11 Aug 2013 4:07 p.m. PST |
Yep. As an example, a player splitting a WWII Soviet squad into "fire and maneuver" teams would find that when his squad leader got X distance from either team, that team would stop moving and only shoot to defend itself, since it no longer had a leader. Completely historically accurate. |
PiersBrand | 11 Aug 2013 4:41 p.m. PST |
What if, before they split, the leader told the sensible guy in the other half squad what the plan was
|
John Thomas8 | 11 Aug 2013 5:31 p.m. PST |
It didn't happen, not so one can find it documented. That's not how the Soviet Army functioned and they didn't teach the tactic to their squad leaders. The squad leader ran the whole squad together as a group. |
Lion in the Stars | 11 Aug 2013 6:45 p.m. PST |
I prefer a set of rules that will allow one to use historical tactics and will punish someone for not thinking tactically Amen! So let's say there was an historical scenario where a German tank commander did keep his Pnz IV platoon all bunched up. In the refight, as the GM, do you punish the player for not doing this? I'd drop a (probably quite historical) artillery strike on the bunched Panzers. |
badger22 | 11 Aug 2013 7:31 p.m. PST |
If the rules are well written, who ever is running the game does not need to punish the ahistorical player, his opponent and the rules do it for him. Take your panzer park. Just drop a few morter rounds on them. little 81mm rounds. Wont hurt a panzet at all right? Actual what they will likely do is start striping off radio antennas. The platoon can no longer recieve orders or updates. Of course on a table with a 200 foot general in charge, and no friction represented, that wont make a difference.Not all rules are lke that. And most rules dont have good artillery rules either but that is not really the point. If somebody doesnt get the difference between a wargame and just a game there is usualy little point in agruing with them, as not only do they willfully refuse to try tosee the difference, most of the time they really dont care to learn that there is a differnece even. Owen |
John Thomas8 | 11 Aug 2013 8:08 p.m. PST |
most of the time they really dont care to learn that there is a differnece even. as long as they keep buying minis to keep the makers in business it's Ok. It's easy enough to avoid playing then in a game. |
gweirda | 12 Aug 2013 5:53 a.m. PST |
"What I'm interested in thou is 'Is that tank dead?' If I get the same result from a simple d10 roll, why not 'black box' it?" The trouble I've run into with 'black boxing' the mechanical details of the events unfolding on the tabletop is that players' "historical expectations" include rules/procedures that work to describe those details – what I've come to lable the 'how instead of the what' model. IMO, the decisions being modeled in a game (if that is a design objective, of course) by the little fellows on the tabletop don't need that 'how' included because I don't believe that it is included in the historical decision-loop, and that taking up gametime with the process of detailing/describing the 'how' gets in the way of the decision-making process – sometimes to the point where determining the 'how' becomes the entire game, leaving the 'what' to be answered by inference. Of course, if including the 'how' is fun for players and/or a part of the expectations for a game, then all's fair. I suppose it all comes down to the specific 'historical expectations' of each player?
|
ubercommando | 12 Aug 2013 6:52 a.m. PST |
Realism is in the eye of the beholder. I don't know a single wargames club where all the members agree on exactly what is realistic for any given period or battle; what they can agree on are the general principles and then they quibble over the minor points and I suspect that's the same for rules. When people insist on gaming realism, what they're asking for is realism according to their knowledge and opinions. Most wargamers have no first hand combat experience either
not that kind of experience should be a prerequisite (although I have met gamers who think it should be). As for monster games; WRG was not a monster game and that was written by WW2 veterans, then they weren't good enough and the boardgaming industry came out with the 1000 counters plus monsters with extensive rulebooks so the miniature wargames rules that followed (printed with plain typeface with a single coloured cardboard cover) had to have extensive rules on sloped armour, grading of various units, tactical modes and so forth (WRG 2nd edition is an example) as a response. Rapid Fire was the rules set that stripped WW2 gaming down to its basics (too basic for a lot of people). So the monster rules sets aren't the Sasquatch; they're the Dodo. It seems to me that Bolt Action is the new target of disappointment and accusations of inaccuracy. In short, it's the new Flames of War and I think it's going to get a lot of stick just for being the new big game. |
Dameon | 12 Aug 2013 7:54 p.m. PST |
If you are going to force players to use only the tactics they did historically and only make the decisions they did historically and only react to things the way they did historically
That's a reenactment, not gaming. |
John Thomas8 | 13 Aug 2013 5:58 a.m. PST |
No, not re-enactment, unless you're dressing everybody in period garb and spending your time trying not to poke your eye out with a ramrod. :-) Seriously though, it's not reenactment, it's using period/army specific tactics to play the game. |
nickinsomerset | 13 Aug 2013 8:03 a.m. PST |
Yes John T, or laying out the troops exactly as per a battle and moving them how they moved and when they moved on the day. The next step from playing ahistorical tactics is to allow the use of Tiger II in France 1940 battles! Tally Ho! |
ubercommando | 13 Aug 2013 9:58 a.m. PST |
Surely it's unrealistic to expect that every wargamer will stick to the infantry training manual tactics when even real life commanders would ditch (or forget) the official manuals? "No plan survives intact upon first contact with the enemy" as the saying goes. All games, even the purportedly ultra-realistic ASL, can and will fall victim to those who play the rules first and play the tactics second (I've met seasoned ASL tournament players who have little knowledge or interest in WW2 history; they play the game). I think it's long established that most wargame scenarios played week by week at clubs are based on the history, not actual re-fights. |