"Do the rules work?" Topic
29 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 do not post offers to buy and sell on the main forum.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Game Design Message Board
Areas of InterestGeneral
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Showcase Article
Featured Profile Article
Current Poll
|
OSchmidt | 16 Jan 2015 10:33 a.m. PST |
We hear this question all the time, and lots of loose talk about how XYZ "gives you the real feel of XXX warfare." I'm not going to get into that sort of thing and that's not the reason for this post. Nobody really cares what you think of this or that rules, everyone has their own. However I was wondering what sort of tests you could do to measure how well they worked, and in what way and what level. It occurred to me that maybe the best way was not to set up our armies chess-like on each side of the board, but set up armies at the moment of disaster/triumph and see if the historical result is played out or if the guy in real life who was trounced can recover all too easily. For example, set up Rossbach at the moment when the Prussian Cavalry swoops over the hill or when Jackson comes crashing in directly on the flank of the Union line at Chancellorsville, or the moment the Carthaginian wings close around the Romans at Cannae. These are actions where one side is well and clearly doomed. The results of such battles and how they vary from the historical action, or even setting up a scenario where one side is clearly doomed could tell far more about how the rules worked than a dozen regular battles. If a "doomed" side can react so quickly as to be "undoomed" then there is probably little likelihood that in those rules any side could become doomed in the first place. If they don't work then they probably won't work ever. |
etotheipi | 16 Jan 2015 10:53 a.m. PST |
Since this is the Game Design, I am answering from the perspective of a "game" … rules, order of battle, scenario, and laydown/terrain (as I typically break down the elements). Before I playtest, I run an analytical simulation of the sides from the chessboard perspective you talk about above. That isn't the end state, but the entry argument. This allows me to establish what I call the "naked combat ratio" which shows the effect of the combat system (not including other parts of the rules) on force attrition ratios. Again, it's the entry argument, but I feel (paralleling your OP), if one side has a 5:1 Pk against the other at "standard" range and that's not what you want, it's no use going forward. After that, I have a few "canned scenarios" where I will play test short engagements, just to see that the "naked combat ratio" isn't unduly affected by the laydown … corners, restricted lanes of fire, obstruction, movement hindrance, etc. Again, if the point is, XYZ force should be able to take great advantage of hiding in the perimeter of the woods and sniping and that happens, then that is not an undue effect. Then I like to do a reverse-engineering approach where I playtest the "end game" (not necessarily the climax) for the scenario, working through several sets of assumptions. Then pitch back to the initial conditions in two or three steps. Occasionally, I will throw in a few additional analytical steps (closed form or simulation runs) in this process. Working backwards lets me see a lot more different situations and a lot fewer "first moves" for the same amount of effort. At this point, I think the "game" is ready for the big time, though I expect to take lots of notes in the first few runs and am always interested in the outliers later one. EDIT: In the reverse-engineering approach, I will have a design of experiments like state space to walk through, but I will eliminate huge swaths of the potential tests based on performance and feedback from playtesters. |
MajorB | 16 Jan 2015 10:58 a.m. PST |
However I was wondering what sort of tests you could do to measure how well they worked, and in what way and what level. One thing I have done in the past for testing is set up two single opposing units of the same type (e.g. an infantry battalion facing an infantry battalion) and see how many moves it takes for one to defeat the other. Then maybe make one a veteran unit and keep the other as average and see how long that takes. Rinse and repeat to your heart's content … |
Who asked this joker | 16 Jan 2015 11:11 a.m. PST |
Similar to Major B, I will figure out the rate of damage each unit can deliver and the total hits that a unit can take. Then, in a head to head sim, I calculate how fast one unit or the other will break. I then adjust accordingly if I want a unit to die in, say, three turns. |
COL Scott ret | 16 Jan 2015 11:20 a.m. PST |
Oliver that is an interesting thesis, really it is a stress test. I have often thought it would be interesting to run back to back battles that refight controversial points and see which actually would have been better. Though you would have to have players on both sides who were willing to truely take on the personna of the various generals not just try to win by gamey stuff. Additionally it would prob ably take several runs to pull the "luck" out (but still try to run as the general). I guess that what you are describing is the obverse. |
surdu2005 | 16 Jan 2015 11:22 a.m. PST |
Or you could do like most reviewers and form an opinion without ever playing the game. 😗 |
surdu2005 | 16 Jan 2015 11:25 a.m. PST |
Actually there were some interesting ideas in this thread on testing rules. I like many of the techniquest presented and have employed these dead to some extent. On thing that wasn't mentioned is matching up unlike units. I like to see how and infantr unit fares in a few different situations against artillery and cavalry, not just infantry. |
Dynaman8789 | 16 Jan 2015 11:30 a.m. PST |
I try to "break" the system. The fact is every rules set has a point at which it is no longer a valid simulation – the trick is getting them to a point where the tactics of the day work correctly and using non-standard tactics is sub optimal. (with the obvious note that if the tactics of the day were crappy….) |
Who asked this joker | 16 Jan 2015 11:31 a.m. PST |
On thing that wasn't mentioned is matching up unlike units. I like to see how and infantr unit fares in a few different situations against artillery and cavalry, not just infantry. Multiple units alike and unalike. It is very useful to have a mix. Run a mini-battle over and over again starting each time at setup range and charge straight ahead…maybe hanging back with shooters and so forth. I once tested DBA 3.0 blades vs Spears. Each army had 6 units. One was the general. The armies setup across from one another and charged straight ahead. The generals never were head to head but against a normal unit. In previous iterations, the spears would have lost every time. In this iteration, the spears won their share as they should. I think the blades ended up winning 6 out of 10 times. So iterative small games can be very useful. Always play them on flat ground unless you are testing terrain effects. |
Last Hussar | 16 Jan 2015 12:10 p.m. PST |
Like others here I set up notional straight fights, and work out the numbers, dividing up the results into probabilities. Sometimes its not about what is historic, but what "feels right." link |
OSchmidt | 16 Jan 2015 12:27 p.m. PST |
I actually don't do any of this. My original idea was just a thought for discussion. I usually just set up battles with the rules and let the players have at it. I really don't care about realism of "feel" beyond he general notional. If the players like the rules, they're done. If they complain I'll think about tweaking the rules, but most of the time I just let them get used to it. Then they're done. History is not going to kvetch at me where it's not quite right, but the players will. |
vtsaogames | 16 Jan 2015 12:35 p.m. PST |
My stress test for AWI rules is Camden with historical deployment. The Brits should win fairly easily. One set of rules I was designing had the Brits get thumped soundly. I junked the rules. |
Dale Hurtt | 16 Jan 2015 1:22 p.m. PST |
The reason I don't think this might be a valid test is that some rules, at least, show a degradation of combat effectiveness over time. If you start straight, simply from a positional view, you might not get the same result, yet it could be the right one nonetheless. The question can be: was it a disaster because X was positioned on the flank of Y or rather than X appeared on the flank of Y after Y was exhausted. Of course, if the rules do not reflect any sort of unit degradation over time – a good example begin DBA – then it seems like it would be a valid test. |
David Manley | 16 Jan 2015 1:23 p.m. PST |
I've recently been sitting in on the development of a "real" wargame, which involved (amongst other things) playing through an actual historical campaign with some of the commanders who were actually there. Part of the "playtesting" was to freeform the campaign, but another element was to set up particular vignettes from the campaign and look to see whether the game system would allow the the actual campaign outcome to occur, evaluate the probability of the actual occurrence and then discuss with the commanders whether they thought the probability of success reflected their opinion at the time. Not an option that is open to most wargame designers, but it was a fascinating process on which to sit in. |
wrgmr1 | 16 Jan 2015 5:24 p.m. PST |
The difficulty of creating a rule set that has an accurate feel or would play historically if a doom scenario is set up is the helicopter view gamers have. Unless the rules have some form of restriction for reaction the gamer will see what is brewing and respond accordingly. To me the right feel is when the game mechanics when tested, play to a reasonably historical feel. Units react to actions or stress as they would in reality given various circumstances. |
etotheipi | 17 Jan 2015 7:12 a.m. PST |
the helicopter view gamers have. Unless the rules have some form of restriction for reaction the gamer will see what is brewing and respond accordingly.
This is why a deck of cards is pretty much a given in any scenario I develop. Generally, I use semi-random methods on them to create uncertainty. Of course, there still is the "Book of Destiny" effect, which is where I (possibly without merit) assume the players have read the rules. In that case they can bound the uncertainty. To deal with this, I try to set up the conditions so that a solution that hedges against all possibilities is grossly tactically disadvantageous. Hopefully, this leads the players to try to read their opponents more carefully than the probabilities. Then it falls back on the players (or the intended timbre of the game as it defines who would like the game) – how much and what type of uncertainty you want in the game drive how complex that part of the scenario is. This, then, is one of the things I look for in playtest. Is there an "easy out" to circumvent the uncertainty? |
Dave Crowell | 19 Jan 2015 5:37 p.m. PST |
One piece of advice from Steve Jackson "Playtest the dumb strategies". In fact, get someone who doesn't know the period at all to run a couple of games. Watch what they do that grognards would "know better" and not do. Also watch what the results are. I caught an ECW rules set in which pike could operate freely in woodland. None of the experienced ECW hands caught this because they all knew that "pike doesn't go in woods". I was new to ECW gaming and asked what happens if my pikemen go through the woods? |
McLaddie | 21 Jan 2015 8:19 a.m. PST |
Is the OP question about how well the game system works as a game: That is, are there 'easy outs' and overlooked loopholes like pikes operating freely in woodlands? OR Are we talking about how well the game mechanics represent historical battle dynamics? Those are two different set of tests with different goals. For simulations of all types,including games, there are eight basic tests to determine if the simulation 'works.' From your question, Oliver, I get the idea it is the latter, but several answers seem to be focused on the former. The 'it feels right' or "I know it when I see it' test really doesn't mean much as an answer for either question other than a gamer's or designer's comfort level with the rules. That gestalt could be caused by anything, including a good breakfast that morning. I'm all for intuition and 'feel' in design and game play, but as Oliver suggests, that doesn't go much beyond 'I like it' when you need specifics and concrete design answers. |
warhawkwind | 21 Jan 2015 8:42 a.m. PST |
McLaddie: "eight basic tests"… Dont leave us hangin' man, what are they please? Thanx. |
McLaddie | 21 Jan 2015 11:57 a.m. PST |
warhawkwind: No intention of leaving anyone hanging. I simply wanted to make sure that was the kind of thing that Oliver was talking about. No point in explaining something that is off the desired topic. That and the term 'simulation' tends to create all sorts of nervousness. I'll be glad to provide them. |
McLaddie | 21 Jan 2015 4:09 p.m. PST |
The Topic was 'Do the rules work?' That requires some notion of what it means for the rules to 'work.' How do we recognize if a game works or not? Supposedly playtesting establishes that and there are all sorts of criteria: Are the rules clear, 'fun', easily misinterpreted, easy to carry out, etc. etc. etc. In other words, what makes for a successful game design. There are no absolutes… rules are constantly broken. Monopoly broke several rules of successful games as far as Parker Brothers were concerned, including having no victory conditions, lasting longer than two hours, too much thinking involved. That's why they turned it down three times before publishing it. The first game to generate $1 USD million in sales. The same isn't true for wargames attempting to represent history. Even with designer's interpretation of the facts/sources, those facts are what is being represented. If I set out to paint a copy/representation of da Vinci's Madonna and Child, I am producing my interpretation of it, but it isn't a copy or recognizable as even an interpretation if the Madonna looks like a Maserati Bora In talking about representing historical combat, how do you know the wargame mechanics 'work' in faithfully representing that history? Without tests of some sort, there is no concrete way to compare one with the other. That is the question that all simulation designers face. that is what the tests do. The tests have been 'tested' in a number of ways to provide a level of confidence in the results, particularly when the designer can't test the simulation against the real world. |
McLaddie | 25 Jan 2015 10:25 a.m. PST |
Warhawkwind: I was waiting for some clarification from Oliver. Here are those eight tests: [You asked. ] Do the Rules Work? If you are play testing to see if the rules work as intended, that they play smoothly and are fun, that is verification. You are verifying that the system functions as intended. If you are testing the wargame to see if it simulates, does indeed act like *something else*, that is validation. In this case the something else is history. Does the designer's interpretation of historical combat with game mechanics mimic that history? The major issue with historical simulations are that there are only one result for an event. No one can test what ‘could' happen, they can only know to some extent what did happen. This problem is not at all unique. Simulation designers of all stripes contend with it. Any participatory simulation allows the players to create the events, so obviously the wargame will rarely ever play out as the historical engagement did. Players will test the extremes of the ‘possible.' To talk about ‘historical results' means the speaker has established some range of game results they believe are possible in a historical situation. Validation establishes whether their belief is justified. Over many decades, simulation designers have found that eight basic tests in a number of variations, can establish whether the system mimics events and environments, even when the simulation can't be tested against the present and/or repeatable events. They have established this by using the tests to determine simulation accuracy where they then can compare the simulation against real, repeatable events. The first thing that is needed is what history/data the simulation is being asked to model, and then it is tested against that data ‘template.' All that can be established is that the simulation models the historical data, events, dynamics chosen by the designer. Whether the designer's sources are credible is a question of scholarship, not simulation design. For the wargame, it is garbage in-garbage out. But if validated, it is accurately simulated garbage… The eight basic tests do two things: they test whether the system can mimic actual events that occurred and test the boundaries of the historical ‘possible'. 1. Validation Using Historical Input Data: I rarely hear of designers even consider this one, even though it would seem one of the more obvious approaches. Often it is easy to tell that the designer hasn't carried out this kind of test. This test takes the simulation and plays it with all the historical decisions and chance of the real event being made at the corresponding historical points in time. The question here is: Does the design allow for the historical decisions, and as a consequence, can they produce similar results? That is, if I used say the Fire & Fury game system, could I recreate the historical Pickett's Charge in a reasonable fashion, assuming the right die rolls with movement, combat and the same historical decisions? In other words, is the historical events and results possible within the rules? If it is difficult or impossible to match the two, then how much of a simulation is it? 2. Face Validation: Here the simulation is critiqued by experts. The model must appear reasonable when compared to the real world to those who are experienced it. For instance, some flight simulators like Red Baron actually had WWI pilots and those that had flown WWI aircraft examine the credibility of the computer game. A few board game designers have done this for modern combat games. Face Validation for events that no one living has experienced has to be done differently. In the Napoleonic game I am designing, players who have played the game are asked to ‘guess' how the historical commanders solved particular tactical problems based on what they found worked in the rules. IF the game has represented those dynamics accurately, a large majority of the players will guess correctly what the real commanders chose to do… Obviously this form of validation is only as good as the questions asked of the players. Another is to have players read a description of events and ask them questions about it, which the players answer based on what they understand of the game dynamics. 3. Sensitivity Analysis: The designer changes the data supporting the game system and then predicts what will happen, probably something very unhistorical. For instance, if British volleys are changed to be twice as powerful as the French, does the game still work the same way, with the same parameters? What should happen is that the simulation results should demonstrate less relationship to the ‘real-world event' the more extreme the data changes are. Also the affects of the changes should be predictable historically. IF a simulation doesn't show any changes in game dynamics, there is something wrong with the simulation--the changes in the data had no impact on the design performance. In designing my board game of Wagram, this actually worked for me in the opposite way. I found that doubling the power of artillery actually produced more historical play, battle dynamics and combat results. 4. Extreme-Condition Tests: Some designers report doing this. By changing the numbers of troops, terrain, officers, and other non-system variables to extremes, does the simulation behave in a predictable fashion, reflecting those changes. This is like taking cars on extreme drives to test the limits of the machine. This is different than ‘8B' below. The system isn't changed, just the player tools—such as troop strengths and terrain. Sometimes you can change elements of a design drastically, and there is little difference in play without serious changes in the rules. For instance, give the French twice as many ground troops and the British, do the British still stop the French regardless? What does it take to break the system? This kind of ‘breakage' is often experienced when new scenarios are created for an existing set of rules. It is an indication of the lack of validity in the simulation system. 5. Validation of Model Assumptions: This is comparing the simulation results against current reality to see if they match results. Do actual results of a factory process match the simulation of it? Historical simulators can't do this directly, because they can't test their simulation directly against reality, only the one result reported from the past. However, they can test it against the assumptions/opinions of the military men of the time, something those men were very free in giving. 6. Consistency Checks: Game designers report doing this at times, but rarely in a methodical way. The designer checks the play of the wargame over time and many games to see if the simulated historical dynamics continue to always function correctly with a wide array of player decisions, obviously creating a range of results. This is often confused with simply play testing the game. What is checked here is the history portrayed, not the efficient flow of the game mechanics. 7. Dynamic Tests: With this test, the movement, combat, battle dynamics are recorded and compared against the historical movement, combat, battle dynamics. For example, several games of Empire are recorded at the end of each turn to the end of a historical engagement, and then they are compared with historical engagements plotted out at the same ‘turn' intervals. These snapshots of the action, the games against the historical events, are compared. The issue here is whether the actions in the simulated battles are so outside the norm that the differences are obvious when the actual battle isn't identified. Usually this is tested by handing the ‘snapshots' to a knowledgeable third party—several different experts in the history of the war. They are asked if they can pick out which actions are the game and which are the actual history. If they have difficulty doing this, that supports the validity of the simulation dynamics. 8. Validating Input-Output Transformations: I love the engineer speak. For a wargame, the designer would look at input-output variables like casualties in comparison to the real event, not only the final tally, but at different points in the battle. This is different than #4, because the system is not changed, nor are troop numbers or terrain taken to extremes. Historical numbers and terrain are used. For instance, B.P. Hughes in his book Fire Power could have been creating data for this kind of test. Again, there are several ways of doing this test. Wargame designers often report doing this in designing a game for say casualties, but not in any methodical fashion for every aspect of the game system—just here and there, often to establish that the game produces what it was designed to do, not compared against historical events. This is play testing with a vengeance—it's like test driving a car over a wide variety of terrain in all kinds of weather. What can the system take before falling apart? This is done three ways: A. Test the extremes of chance: what happens when the Japanese roll all ones? What happens if they get only bad cards? How wide a range of chance can be experienced before the game not a game anymore? How often will that kind of thing happen? B. Test the solidity and performance parameters of the design. Of course, gamers do this all the time after they buy a game. For instance, many games have ‘variants' and add scenarios which test the structure of the original design. The designer should be testing that first, as much as possible. The designer does it to know the specific limits and range of his design—and its simulation flexibility and fidelity under all conditions. Does the system work at different scales, with different combat arms, in different theaters of war and battle scenarios. What happens now is that wargamers trip over hidden design abnormalities in this kind of stretching the limits. Play Volley & Bayonet at battalion scale and watch what happens to the casualty rates compared to the Brigade scale. Play Fire & Fury at a smaller scale and watch what happens to the movement abilities. That kind of distortion is addressed in this step. Here the designer is asking ‘what can the players do with the system?' C. Test extremes in play: How wild can strategies get and still have the design function as a game? This includes ‘gaming' the system. Do the rules allow you to succeed with undesirable or unhistorical play? Some of this ‘gaming' the rules will come out in blind testing and solved, but here it is pushed on purpose as hard as it can be pushed. Here is where the dreaded ‘unhistorical play' is revealed and dealt with… part of the boundaries of the possible. Most simulation designers will test their design with at least four of these tests to have a degree of confidence that the simulation actually ‘works.' These tests can be found in any number of works and articles on simulation design. |
warhawkwind | 26 Jan 2015 9:33 a.m. PST |
Thank you. Yes, I did ask. LOL! I understand now more than every why averaging dice were invented. Its easier to get the historical outcome if you eliminate the wild swings of chance. |
McLaddie | 26 Jan 2015 10:54 p.m. PST |
I understand now more than every why averaging dice were invented. Its easier to get the historical outcome if you eliminate the wild swings of chance. Maybe, maybe not. Wild swings of chance might be historically appropriate. It all depends on the evidence and any statistics that can be generated. For instance, lots of rules have variable movement, with average dice and regular D6s or D10s. The question is what is the historical basis for that range of outcomes? Where did that idea come from? |
DS6151 | 03 Feb 2015 11:22 p.m. PST |
The question is what is the historical basis for that range of outcomes? Where did that idea come from? It came from people that understand the game table is a representation of ground. Ground is uneven, full of dips and small hills. It's not flat felt. They also understand that "because you said to" isn't a valid reason for a soldier to run flat out where ever you said go. They will walk, jog, stop and look around, move slowly if they think someone sees them, etc. Flat move rates are only useful for large scale games where you can assume turns are ten minutes or more. As for the OP, all rules work. Do they work well? Different question. |
McLaddie | 04 Feb 2015 12:02 p.m. PST |
DS6151: It isn't a yes or no question. The question is where a particular range of outcomes came from. As for the OP, all rules work. Do they work well? Different question. Oliver originally wrote: We hear this question all the time, and lots of loose talk about how XYZ "gives you the real feel of XXX warfare." I'm not going to get into that sort of thing and that's not the reason for this post. Nobody really cares what you think of this or that rules, everyone has their own.However I was wondering what sort of tests you could do to measure how well they worked, and in what way and what level. So it is a 'how well?' question and it seems to pertain to how well the rules represent history/combat/reality. That would include how well a range of outcomes for movement matches the historical record. |
Visceral Impact Studios | 18 Feb 2015 7:21 a.m. PST |
It occurred to me that maybe the best way was not to set up our armies chess-like on each side of the board, but set up armies at the moment of disaster/triumph and see if the historical result is played out or if the guy in real life who was trounced can recover all too easily. Otto's suggestion makes for a more entertaining ebb and flow in battle usually lacking in table top gaming. After playing the video game Titan Fall, we also decided that table top gaming doesn't have enough of this "post victory" phase of battle. Many wargame scenarios recreate fighting withdrawals but virtually none allow for a retreat and pursuit AFTER fighting a full set-piece battle. In Titan Fall, after a team has won the battle, the opposing team must withdraw to an LZ for dustoff by a dropship. You score extra XP as the losing side if you make it to the LZ and on to the ship. You score extra XP as the pursuer if you kill retreating forces and, even better, destroying the evac ship. For our upcoming sci-fi game we've included a similar mechanic. After a certain number of turns the losing player may declare a withdrawal. At that point he can no longer score standard VP. He only scores VP for extracting units. The opposing player can still score VP for objectives and enemy casualties. In this way a narrowly lost battle can be turned into a draw by extracting enough troops to "fight another day" or into a decisive victory by slaughtering the retreating enemy before they escape. But even the victory conditions in our current modern/post-A game, "Warfare in the Age of Madness", there's an ebb and flow in battle since casualties become dynamic objectives to be cleared by friendly troops or secured by enemy troops. And there are times when a player may have garnered a tie, realized he lacks the forces to continue offensive ops, and goes defensive to try to secure that tie. I believe that the key is in victory conditions. The usual "hold the best of three key points on the table at the end of the game" results in static, boring, linear game play. And merely inflicting casualties rewards camping all out of proportion to real world military objectives. By using dynamic victory conditions that change based on battle results and player decisions you can have a more exciting and engaging gaming experience from first turn to last. |
McLaddie | 18 Feb 2015 7:51 a.m. PST |
I believe that the key is in victory conditions. The usual "hold the best of three key points on the table at the end of the game" results in static, boring, linear game play. And merely inflicting casualties rewards camping all out of proportion to real world military objectives. By using dynamic victory conditions that change based on battle results and player decisions you can have a more exciting and engaging gaming experience from first turn to last. I certainly agree with this assessment. Wellington didn't decide he'd won the Battle of Waterloo because he held the Hougoumont at the end of the battle, or that he'd inflicted more casualties [He couldn't be sure of that] |
colonneh137 | 15 Mar 2015 5:47 p.m. PST |
Years . . . ago . . . I wrote a set of ACW rules where A.) The events happening on the table could be played out in the "real time" of the actual battle, B.)The combat results on the table could reflect the combat results of the real battle . . . or not, and C.)The rules had to have a "flow" to them making them easy to follow. The goal from the outset: Be able to play through the Battle of Gettysburg – All Of It – on a single table with the outcome of the game having a good chance of having the same result as the actual battle . . . and the Confederates having a good chance of winning the battle as well. The rules worked. Yes, these games did take three consecutive days (Three-day weekends are wonderful things!). Yes, we were wrung out afterwards. After four games over a two-year period the Federals won two games and the Confederates won two games. Here's why: The Ground Scale is 12" = one mile(1'=150yds). Figure Ratio is 1 figure = 100 effectives. Time Scale is One Game Turn = 20 minutes of real time. A copy of the U.S. Army's Principles of War was always at hand. There are only 5 outcomes of combat: Side A retreats; Side A gives ground but is still in the fight; Both sides continue the combat; Side B gives ground but stays in the fight; Side B retreats. Big Time Hint: If you don't know the Principles of War, if following the Principles of War does not give your players an edge in playing the game there is a problem with your rules. I have been playing miniatures wargames since 1969. What do I know? All 4 games pretty much followed followed the battle as it was actually fought. In the two games where the Confederates won was because of the cavalry battle on the east side of the battlefield on the third day. It was J.E.B. Surat's cavalry vs. George Custer's cavalry (Yeah, baby! For real!). Stuart's cavalry wins the cavalry battle and his sabres are in the Federal's rear. Pickett's Charge steps off into a Federal force having to defend " . . . both it's rears . . . " Don't think so?Find and read "Lost Triumph: Lee's Real Plan At Gettysburg – And Why It Failed" by Tom Carhart (ISBN# 0-399-15249-0) G.P. Putnam & Sons. 8-) Please don't get me started on Napoleonic games. Read, read, read. Research, research, research. Then go write your rules. |
|