"In defence (or attack) of "national charcteristics"" Topic

Are the above valid or pure bunk. Are they a valid methodology of differentiation. Is all French are +3 ever justified?

Not in 1940.

These are simply racism disguised as bad game design.

National characteristics are an abstraction to account for different doctrines of training around strategy, tactics, operations and logistics.

What Paint it Pink said.

National characteristics can be useful if added to a core game system.
Alexanders Greeks early to late campaign or maybe Genghis Khans Mongols slowing invasion.
Also useful for mechanisms like production or morale during World War 2 to cover early to late war and certain fronts.
I am for it.

With a good set of rules, that separates the wheat from the chaff, yes, yes, yes.

Unfortunately, most rules think this is best measured only by combat performance – fire and melee.

It's why, IMHO, most rules leave a lot to be desired – Hey Ho.

I'm agin'.

I think national characteristics are useful in a planned scenario game. However, some may debate factors at length depending on nation, era and what they, or their troops, had for breakfast.

King of the Battlefield, Eighteenth Century Wargames Rules has but one army list for players to use and no national characteristics. The author prefers not to handicap any party as most are quite capable of making life hard for themselves. He prefers to play a live opponent whose own character develops as the game progresses and the level in the glass (or tankard) diminishes.

A lack of national characteristics in 18cent games does encourage more variety. I was bored playing against Prussian blue and Brits in India red. Now the Holy Roman Empire can shine and resplendent Sardinians can march with pride in the knowledge their owner graded half of them as elite.

The're not known as the Lace Wars for nothing, don'tcher know?

Ardant Du Pique said (and I'm paraphrasing here) 'All nations believe that their troops are unstoppable with the bayonet'That said there are differences in training, military culture and discipline that meant in certain circumstances certain troops were unstoppable. Just giving the French +3 in all circumstances however…

What Paint it Pink said.

Do we really think that all armies are trained, led and fight in exactly the same way?

What Extra Crispy said. The rules usually favor one nation over the other.

Why not when it makes sense? Most of the time you already have some:
They don't dress the same
Not organizes the same way.
Don't have the same hardware
Don't manouever the same way
( for you many have unpronounceable names)
Do not have the same morale ratings (sometimes in the same army, because of motivation? (Think Austria)

So faster Prussians in WAs, steady brits a bit of everywhere, often slow/ not efficient Austrian generals 1793-1815… Yes it belongs to the army behaviour and historical problems of the period.
Most of the time it is only national for a period of time or even a campaign.

The " French +1/3 " would be relevant for ultra streamlined fights like Mustafa's vs historical less efficient armies. Otherwise the better tactics/ command/ organization/ troops experience would do it.

What John Armatys said!

Yes, national characteristics are a must in the opinion of many designers. This is practical in firing, movement and morale as well as fighting. It really does not matter what era you are playing. The big determining factor for the use of modifiers for national characteristics is the command or troop level of the system. The higher the level the less need for national characteristics.

What Paint it Pink said.

I find them to be very useful and appropriate for some periods and rules.

Again with Paint It Pink.

Hemm Extra Crispy bit harsh, if my Russians can't go 'Urrah' My Rebs yell the 'Rebel Yell' or my stoic Brits wait for a pas de charge from some fired up French grenadiers, where is the fun in not having national character? Are you saying its racist for my toy soldiers to be what historically is seen as their benefit or nemesis? Every nation is but dough how they rise and bake is the flavour of their own bread or would you rather prefer government reg with additives sliced.
Cheers and "Usutu!"

National characteristics have always been a concern of military men. What they felt was obvious is that different cultures/nations' soldiers behaved differently in combat…and I'm not talking about better or worse morale, but different behaviors in the face of similar battlefield events.

For instance, Guibert and the French military men of the late 1700s rejected the Prussian tactics as not compatible with The French character…and focused on developing the tactics seen during the Napoleonic wars. The beliefs about the various national characters among European armies was not only very prevalent, but consistent over nearly 200+ years.

In other words, national character influenced tactics, doctrine and soldiers' expectations on the battlefield, why shouldn't such considerations, accurate or prejudicial, show up in wargames?

National Characteristics are useful for roleplaying commanders, the spice of Imaginations, adding non-sterile game mechanics, handicapping, personalising and enhancing miniature identification, the romance of the gaming battlefield.

They make you see and think why, how, when, where and MYGODWHATAMIGOINGTODO!!!!

"I want everyone here!! Every gun, Sir!! HERE!!!!-Wellington paraphrase.

National characteristics can be useful for encouraging players to engage in tactics that would have been historically used by their army. Maybe not useful in every period but certainly useful in some where the armies fought differently.

Is it racist to say that Native Americans don't sustain as many casualties under normal circumstances as Europeans before starting to check morale?

No, it is just a generalization of the a historical reality.

Can you modify it under certain circumstances where it may not have held true? of course.

I don't think national characteristics are racist at all. Certainly not in the way "racist" is tossed around today. I do think that they are a convenient "shorthand" for things that it would take volumes to imbed in rules and render them probably unusable.

I don't like them myself. I rather think that they allow players to think they are Napoleons, and I think they are put in so absolutely normal non-military genius; like us can have "Napoleonic Victories through no fault or doing of their own" but they are a valid point of gaming-- so long as you don't think it's a racial thing as "racist" is tossed around today.

If national characteristics are used because of differences in tactical doctrine or weaponry, then they make sense.

If they are used because "side x won the historical engagement, so they must be the better troops, so let's give them a +1", then they are rubbish.

However, you have to be careful even when adding them to explain tactical doctrine. Adding the modifier might encourage a player to play against tactical doctrine, exactly because of that modifier. Tactical doctrine is something different than decision making.
E.g. suppose one side always performed bad in melee because of bad tactics. However, contemporary commanders might not be aware, so they charge anyway (and lsoe the melee). We as wargamers give that side a -1. This might result in a player charging and going into melee less frequently than his historical counterpart would have done, thus resulting in a reverse effect of what you are trying to model.
There are ways around this (e.g. morale effects, reaction checks, …). I am just saying you have to be sure what you're trying to emulate in your wargame.

What Paint it Pink said.

However, if it can be shown in other ways, this might be preferable.

Such as British Napoleonic troops +1, or "veteran". If your rules contain veteran, then this would cover the need to show British troops as "steady".

In many cases different armies do fight differently….that should be accounted for.

At the same time all armies fight within the context of their culture. For example, what is acceptable in one, may not be acceptable in another. You cannot divorce a given military from the culture within which it exists.

Generally, cultural issues won't be represented on a wargaming battlefield….doctrine, tactics, weaponry, etc are measurable issues that can be represented.

National characteristics are fine …. in moderation. I don't want them to dominate the game though.

"If they are used because "side x won the historical engagement, so they must be the better troops, so let's give them a +1", then they are rubbish."

How about 'side X won roughly 30% less enagagements than expected given the terrain, posture and numbers of both sides based on a sample of over 50 battalion sized actions'.

Which was exactly what War Office OR teams found when looking at tank battles in NWE in WW2.

I shall leave you to guess which side X was and who might warrant the +1.

How about 'side X won roughly 30% less enagagements than expected given the terrain, posture and numbers of both sides based on a sample of over 50 battalion sized actions'.

Ha, but that's a different statement! If it shows that one side is consistently underperforming, then there's a strong indication this is not due to statistical bias, but that indeed there's an inherent factor at play. So a national characteristic might make sense if you have data like that.

But based on a single battle or anecdotical evidence? Most likely not.

Dislike national characteristics on principle. It's lazy game design and although it was how the troops and generals thought about themselves and their enemies/allies it is totally bogus.

If one side are behaving in a certain way then I prefer to specify what is making them behave that way.

Is it better weaponry, better training, better leadership, better morale/motivation, better education, more experience? etc.

Are they fanatics prepared to die for their emperor/god/cause?

Most of what the sloppy use of natchars does is covered by the above factors or is just prejudice.

There has been a tendency to look top down and design the rules with a broad brush then ignore the minutiae.

I think I've come full circle and now want to work bottom up and top down alternately and have one approach inform the other.

How about 'side X won roughly 30% less enagagements than expected given the terrain, posture and numbers of both sides based on a sample of over 50 battalion sized actions'.

That kind of statistical base is where any quantifiable unit/army behaviors should start, but then you need to parse out whether engagements won had say, the majority of favorable terrain for X, or a higher than average 'poor posture' for the engagements lost, etc. etc. Statistics can be fun…and more often than I ever expected, counter-intuitive.

Wally Simon contemplated the use of 'national characteristics' in rules in his PW Newsletter. I'd have to look up which issue, but I thought it important enough to include the article when I edited the 'Secrets of Wargame Design' series of booklets that pulled out the best of his writing from the 1970s to the 2000s. There is currently five volumes in the series.

The 'national characteristics' article from the booklet is below in full, but I did edit the original newsletter article. Unlike just about every article he wrote, he didn't offer a solution with regard to rules mechanics, just a contemplative philosophical musing about Napoleonic characteristics…

Great Napoleonic Thoughts:
National Characteristics And Quantititive Playability

By Wally Simon

From Secrets of Wargame Design (Vol. 1)

I had an interesting telephone conversation with Hank Martin some time ago. He had participated in a grand-grand-grand tactical Napoleonics effort (not mine) and was having negative thoughts about the results … excessive dice throws, lack of proper command and control functions, overpowering artillery, etc.

Hank's thought was that if one was truly well informed and well read about the Napoleonic era, one could include all the required nitty-gritty pertaining to the 'national characteristics' of each unit down to the probabilities associated with an encounter between two given units. Hank stated that his own area of expertise in Napoleonics centered on the Austrians and the French, and he could, within limits, define the probability that a French unit of Type A could whup an Austrian unit, Type B.

Now I consider myself as being quite 'well read' on the Napoleonic era. My problem is that I am not 'well informed.' I can read and read and read and read, and I retain … nothing! Absolutely nothing! I dimly remember things about French light troops and Chasseurs a Chevals and 12 pounders, but when someone references General Cornichon's famed cavalry charge against the Austrians at Bugfurt, the light in my eyes goes out, my jaw goes slack, and I can only reply: 'Huh?'

And so I was forced to retreat in the face of Hank's insistence that a 'good' Napoleonics game must take into account what we have come to know as 'national characteristics.'

Generic Traits

My own approach to the early 1800 era is what I term the 'generic Napoleonic game.' If it's Napoleonics, ya gotta have skirmishers … so I throw in a skirmisher rule. If it's Napoleonics, ya gotta have infantry forming square against cavalry, so I throw in a square rule. If it's Napoleonics, ya gotta have rifles and muskets, so I throw in a rifle rule. And ya gotta have a canister rule, and a lancers rule, and a Congreve's rocket rule, and so on.

But once having included these elements, I have no idea as to how to evaluate them. What is the casualty rate due to rifle fire as compared to musket fire? How much of a plus (or is it a minus) do lancers get in a cavalry melee? How effective are skirmishers in evading cavalry? What's the ratio of canister-caused casualties to those caused by roundshot? And so on.

I truly admire those good people who not only can assign numbers to these elements, but can do so knowing that they're the right numbers.

I am the first to admit that my own numbers are introduced solely on the basis of playability. For example, in the majority of systems I've devised, I 'devalue' artillery. These stand-off-at-a-distance weapons are bothersome … don't know how to treat them. I have tried fire sticks and canister cones and burst circles and automatic hits and ranging-in factors and charts and simple equations and complex equations and limited ammunition rules … I'm still not happy.

And if I have trouble evaluating factors in my 'generic' game, think of the difficulties I have in generating numbers for the national characteristics that are superimposed on the main structure.

Into The Library

Out of curiosity, I looked into my library of Napoleonic rules sets to see what the various authors did in this area. 'Tis a truly fascinating subject. Some of the more interesting items concerning a 'national attribute' are listed below:

• Brits got a plus in firing … is this a 'national characteristic of better marksmanship' or does it account for the two-rank British line which permits more men to fire than the French three? And if so, why don't the Portuguese, who were trained by the British, get a plus, too?
  
• British cavalry are uncontrollable … once they charge, it's hard to rein them in.
  
• Russians are vegetables … they move slowly and perform inefficiently, but to make up for this, they get a plus in morale. They get an even greater plus if they're fighting on Mother Russia's soil. It's hard to rout the vegetables.
  
• The French column attack always gets a plus in melee … although there's some controversy as to whether or not there was a French column attack.
  
• Prussian Landwehr are the pits.
  
• Cossacks are basically chicken, but amazingly mobile.
  
• Austrian Kurassiers are super, unless they turn their backs to you, when, because of the lack of an armored backplate, they're not super.
  
• French Guard Artillery units are devastating.
  
• Spanish troops get a minus in every attribute you can think of.
  
• French troops move faster than other troops, evidently a carryover to the tactical table-top battle from Napoleon's ability to grand-tactically gather and march his units more rapidly into battle than his opponents.
  
• French troops perform evolutions in more rapid fashion than other troops.
  
• Prussian units prior to 1812 get a plus in firing; after 1812, they fire like normal people.
  
• Dutch-Belgian troops don't melee too well.
  

How do you assign numbers to the above? Don't ask me.

I don't have a problem with the principle of national characteristics. Depending on the level of abstraction of the game, they can be an effective way to encapsulate the results of the differences in the way forces from different nations operated (due to the things mentioned above and many other ones).

I think it has to be applied within a specific scope. Just like theFrench didn't fight like the Germans, these French didn't fight like those French.

Some of the above mentioned driving factors … training, equipment, etc. varied unit to unit. Also, these and others like experience, current supply state, etc. varied over time for the same unit. Over an extended period of time, a unit wasn't even the same people.

So, really it depends on the game and the scenarios it is intended to support.

Heck, at this rate we'll get to "Should troops have different quality ratings" and I can really make people mad :-)

On one hand, I like the idea of national characteristics, but I find they are usually kind of poorly executed.

I'd like it if it actually made two armies fight in a different style, but "+1 for being German" or whatever, doesn't really excite me that much.

If the game already has some sort of stat line or quality score for units, wouldn't that cover it well enough?

Germans are +1 to move and British are +1 to Morale, that sort of thing.

Should troops have different quality ratings

Well, in skirmish games … ;) But seriously, some operational level games have 'regular' and 'elite' units or somesuch approach.

I got beat up in a Review of my Tannenberg 1914 scenario about how I didn't provide insight to how the units were statted out.

The thing was, both the Germans and Russians had the same stats by unit type (infantry, cavalry, artillery) and the scenario was set up (I thought I explained this at length) to enact the different styles of combat based on the situation (the Germans had a much smaller force, but great mobility and fantastic intel).

So the point of the game was to explore different styles and tactics of play rather than "my NCO can beat up your NCO".

I think that one issue with "National Characteristics" is that wargamers don't think about them the way military men do, or did.

It wasn't about having more or less morale, that +1, or one side could move faster. It often had to do with how different nations acted differently under the same conditions.

For instance, this topic of National Character was important enough that in 1803, the British government translated a French military book [1801] entitled:
A Summary Account and Military Character of the Different European Armies Engaged in the Late War.

to make available the French military's views on National Character.

What this text says about the French character in battle is simply echoing what had been said for 100 years, as bizarre as that might sound:

". . . the fire of French infantry is rarely superior and usually inferior to that of other nations. It can be said with as much truth that the French nation attacks with the greatest impetuosity and that it is very difficult to resist its shock."
--Voltaire, 1734

"It is the distinctive characteristic of the French nation to attack"
--French Marshal de Saxe, Rêveries, 1725

"The French were without discipline, hardly suited to fire fights . . . .redoubtable in all attacks with cold steel . . .. They had then, as today, that initial moment of vigor and impetuosity, that shock which one day nothing can stop, and which the next day, a slight obstacle throws back, that incredible combination of a courage sometimes above everything and a consternation sometimes carried on to a weakness."
--General Comte de Guibert, Essai Génénal, 1783

Napoleon stated a number of times that he chose to attack because of the character of the French.

This belief, was echoed by the other nations. A veteran of the Peninsular wars and a member of the Royal Academy of Sciences, Dr. Robert Jackson wrote a book in 1812 entitled:

A View of the Formation, Discipline and Economy of Armies. It was printed and reprinted by the British government until the mid-1850s.

His basic premise was that if you were aware of the unique qualities of each nation's military character, you could devise training, discipline and tactical systems that would match and take advantage of those traits, and those the army would be more "Economical" in its efforts. He, like his audience believed that each unique National Character was the product of environment, culture and such. For any intelligent man in Europe at the time, it was a fact. Here is a quote from the chapter IX on "The Military Character of the French." page 136.

Caesar, who conquered Gaul, was the greatest captain of the age in which he lived and as such, may be supposed to be competent to form opinions on the military merits of his opponents. [the Gauls/French] His testimony is favorable to them as soldiers; and their qualities then were not very different from what they now are in the inhabitants of modern France, namely, impetuosity in the outset, want of consistency and perseverance in conflict, elasticity, or a ready recoil after discomfortitude.

The fact of the Gaulic character as recorded by Caesar is of the best authority—and it is important as a fact in the history of mankind. It goes to prove that military qualities, if not absolutely produced by circumstances of locality, are modified by them to a certain extent; and it corroborates the opinion, that those who invade, conquer…though they subvert the existing government and install their own, do not subvert or annul the radical character of the inhabitants of the country subdued.

When you read account after account of veteran French soldiers charging in column, hats waving, shouting and in what the British consider an impetuous disorder and confusion, only to recoil when attacked without actually coming to grips with the British, you have to wonder. What did the French believe about their own military character? Whether true or not, did it affect their behavior and tactical choices? When French officers consistently suffered higher casualties than the British [4% to the French 6%] urging on their men, did the French need that 'artificial' motivation? Was the British silence in the face of attack simply a choice, or a choice based on the military's beliefs about 'British Character?' Both books mentioned are available free from Google books.

The Austrians were considered martial in their abilities. They would stand where the French would recoil, but unlike the French, once broken could not be brought back to formation. The Austrians had an excessive fear of being outflanked and would retreat at the hint of such a maneuver. I can give you quotes from various military men from different nations all saying the same thing about the Austrians.

Imagine a Napoleonic game system built around those widely-held military beliefs and perceived national characteristics. +1/-1 wouldn't begin to cover it.

Imagine a Napoleonic game system built around those widely-held military beliefs and perceived national characteristics. +1/-1 wouldn't begin to cover it.

I don't know. I've seen bonuses and penalties allotted to different types of action for different troops. The French and the Orcs … sorry, Orques … get bonuses on rolls for aggressive actions, none for neutral actions, and penalties for defensive actions or tactical advance to the rear. That sort of thing.

Still, you're right you can't capture every part of context. Still, you can't encapsulate everything in a rule set, either. So if you can get a couple of good bonuses and penalties in for related things, that's not bad.

I don't know. I've seen bonuses and penalties allotted to different types of action for different troops. The French and the Orcs … sorry, Orques … get bonuses on rolls for aggressive actions, none for neutral actions, and penalties for defensive actions or tactical advance to the rear. That sort of thing.

etotheipi:

While true to some extent, the notion of 'bonuses and penalties' is linear, more or less of the same thing.

Morale, for instance, is treated like money. regardless of the army, some units have a lot, some don't and it is 'spent' in battle until the unit runs out. If the unit behavior isn't linear, particularly in comparison to other armies, you have a qualitative issue not addressed by the linear progression of modifiers.

To try and capture that series of behaviors for each nation, you get a lot of modifiers, because in the end, behavior isn't linear, particularly across different cultures. If you wanted to show the French as being more fragile than the Austrians, but able to reassemble more quickly…while the Austrians, once broken, may not at all, plus and minuses don't necessarily work.

In my board game Napoleon's Last Triumph, I actually had a different combat chart for the French and Austrians. I wanted to have another for the Saxons and Italians, but that was nixed in production. I really wanted to have a series of
combat charts on cards, where neither player would know which would be used in any one turn/combat…that was a prohibitive cost in 1984.

But once having included these elements, I have no idea as to how to evaluate them. What is the casualty rate due to rifle fire as compared to musket fire? How much of a plus (or is it a minus) do lancers get in a cavalry melee? How effective are skirmishers in evading cavalry? What's the ratio of canister-caused casualties to those caused by roundshot? And so on.

I truly admire those good people who not only can assign numbers to these elements, but can do so knowing that they're the right numbers.

Russ:
I admire a number of things about Wally's writing which you've included in the volumes you've published, however, he always comes to the same conclusion after all the thinking and experimenting:

I am the first to admit that my own numbers are introduced solely on the basis of playability. For example, in the majority of systems I've devised, I 'devalue' artillery. These stand-off-at-a-distance weapons are bothersome … don't know how to treat them. I have tried fire sticks and canister cones and burst circles and automatic hits and ranging-in factors and charts and simple equations and complex equations and limited ammunition rules … I'm still not happy.

Part of my frustration with this in reading his articles is 1. Wally spends A Lot of time with such musings about representing 'The Right Answer', only to repeatedly conclude that while interesting, such questions are unanswerable, and 2. he acts as though the questions he asks are unique to wargaming and haven't been asked by the military men whose lives depended on the answers.

For instance, Scharnhorst asked Wally's question "What is the casualty rate due to rifle fire as compared to musket fire?"

He found through tests that rifle fire was about twice as effective as musket fire out to 250 yards. Now at to this the the fact that rifles fired at about 1/2 the rate of smoothbore muskets and you get the very same ratio of hits over the same time. He wrote about arming all troops with rifled muskets: the same number of hits for half the ammo expenditure. Because of the prohibitive cost and need for specialized training, he never seriously considered it.

So, do I know this is the right answer? No, but I do know it is a lot closer than a WAG: wild-assed guess or whatever is done simply for playability. The answer is getting into the ballpark with results based on what evidence we have, moving closer to 'The Right Answer' rather than tossing the question altogether and going for 'whatever works.'

Morale, for instance, is treated like money. regardless of the army, some units have a lot, some don't and it is 'spent' in battle until the unit runs out. If the unit behavior isn't linear, particularly in comparison to other armies, you have a qualitative issue not addressed by the linear progression of modifiers.

I agree and hate this approach. It's why I didn't build morale into my gaming system. Morale should be a function of the context of the battle … the scenario. I try to build morale into player decisions about victory conditions.

So I might have Side A gets two points per figure alive at the end of the scenario, Side B only gets one, and Side C gets none. So while it's still up to individual player decision, Side A would be best served to get a moderate number of other VP then hightail it off the board, Side C would gain advantage from going for broke, and Side B somewhere between.

And while it isn't stated as such, it could be "Everyone gets one point per figure alive at the end of the game. Side A gets +1. Side C gets -1." So it is a linear set of bonuses, but it doesn't target troop interactions within the system; it applies player decision processes which are non-linear at best. Most are risk decisions where the tipping point shifts based on the current state of progress in the scenario, and often, the mood.

I think the problem with morale in this sense is that most gaming systems make morale a roll, which is ultimately a linear algebra (though not necessarily algebraically linear) behaviour.

In my board game Napoleon's Last Triumph, I actually had a different combat chart for the French and Austrians. I wanted to have another for the Saxons and Italians, but that was nixed in production.

That I also built into QILS. Opposed rolls with different dice sets means each pairing has a different combat exchange function. For multi-die units, there are differing effects for the changes in combat capability. And you don't end up with pages of different tables and bunches of bonuses and penalties to remember and apply.

The Wally Simon way… :)

rules … I'm still not happy.

Wally was a statistician in his non-wargaming life, although enough of his mathematical contortions made it into his experimental rules to spin your head at times! Still, it meant he knew more ways to skin a equation (and, sorry Wally, often times not for the better). Sometimes, I think I should publish a volume "Failures of Wargame Design" because what doesn't work is often as instructive as what does…although that's probably not the greatest sales pitch in the world. :)

Yes, Wally was far more into playability than simulation and was absolutely fascinated by the mechanics of a rules set. If you read 25 years of Wally, he seemed (to me) to almost always never win a game because he mostly played to stretch the mechanics -- kinda like the difference between taking a car out for a test drive and serving as a human crash test dummy. This included his own rules.

I don't think Wally ever found the 'perfect' set of rules, either his own, commercially published, or someone's home brew. But his analysis of rule mecahnics can help gamers who "can assign numbers to these elements, but can do so knowing that they're the right numbers" sort through a variety of mechanics already tried, used, or discarded to turn that research into something we can play on a Friday evening.

The Wally Simon way… :)

rules … I'm still not happy.

Wally was a statistician in his non-wargaming life, although enough of his mathematical contortions made it into his experimental rules to spin your head at times! Still, it meant he knew more ways to skin a equation (and, sorry Wally, often times not for the better). Sometimes, I think I should publish a volume "Failures of Wargame Design" because what doesn't work is often as instructive as what does…although that's probably not the greatest sales pitch in the world. :)

Yes, Wally was far more into playability than simulation and was absolutely fascinated by the mechanics of a rules set. If you read 25 years of Wally, he seemed (to me) to almost always never win a game because he mostly played to stretch the mechanics -- kinda like the difference between taking a car out for a test drive and serving as a human crash test dummy. This included his own rules.

I don't think Wally ever found the 'perfect' set of rules, either his own, commercially published, or someone's home brew. But his analysis of rule mechanics can help gamers who "can assign numbers to these elements, but can do so knowing that they're the right numbers" sort through a variety of mechanics already tried, used, or discarded to turn that research into something we can play on a Friday evening.

Opposed rolls with different dice sets means each pairing has a different combat exchange function. For multi-die units, there are differing effects for the changes in combat capability. And you don't end up with pages of different tables and bunches of bonuses and penalties to remember and apply.

Yes, I thought that was an intriquing way of producing 'asymmetrical' combat qualities. It is different enough to make it necessary to play a couple of games simply to get a sense of it working smoothly--in my head at least.

The rules and a number of scenarios in different genres are free, so it is pretty cheap and easy to play them out in real life. All you really need are a few dice with white pips and a set of RYB Sharpies.

Yep. I've downloaded a number and have some die 'sharpied up'. I meant by playing a couple of games, that it took me a couple of games to get a feel for the dynamics/interactions without always referencing the calculator or rules.