"Card-Driven Rule Systems" Topic

Writing in Battlegames magazine, David CR Brown lamented that card-driven systems are "simply too random" and fail to "allow for any concentration of command effort."

Do you agree?

Didn't read the article. What does "concentration of command effort" mean?

Did he list all the different sorts of card-driven systems and explain how each was "too random" ?

That would take quite a while to summarize. There must be 20-30 different ways to use cards to drive a game, wholly or in part, currently in use in tabletop games. And they're all over the place in terms of randomness, sequence, interaction, and so forth.

Some of them have no randomness at all. Those German 18th century games like "Friedrich" and "Maria Theresa" resolve combat using cards with numbers that everybody can see as they play them so there's no surprise whatsoever. I didn't think I'd like it because I like some randomness, but I was surprised that it worked really well.

No. Field of Battle puts that claim to bed as being wrong. Painting with a broad brush you often cover over the answer to the question at hand. There are a huge variety of card based rules. Some do and some don't.

Thanks,

John

No, they are only if you use them that way.

You can "stack the deck" if desired, in order to account for better units (give them more cards, etc.), morale, etc..

Not sure what is meant by "concentration of command effort".

Presumably, perhaps, having one leader control his forces to permit a coordinated attack by more than one unit at a time?

I suspect you could come up with rules, and/or special cards to permit that as well.

I've seen with some card activated games, that if designated in advance, a leader can control more than one squad at a time on the attack. Of course, to keep that from becoming too powerful an action, all of the units must perform the same action together (no splitting of over-watch fire and units moving to assault, etc.).

Another way to permit this would be to have the person that wishes to perform a coordinated attack/assault hold their cards, until such time as the required units are ready for an attack (so passing their action in the near term). Both sides would have the option to do this.

Seems to me that would be an excellent way to conduct things, since it is very realistic and historical. Opponents frequently knew what the enemy was up to, before an attack was conducted.

By biding your time for a major push, you are amassing a strong force, but are also ceding the initiative to the enemy, potentially as well.

This would provide opportunities for both sides to conduct a "spoiling attack" in order to mess up the plans of their enemies, which is also fairly historical as well.

Why should YOU get "concentration of command effort" while I don't?

Cards bring in the fog of war. Your perfect plan doesn't always work to your satisfaction, nor should it.

I agree. I think concentration of command effort, though an ideal, was seldom achieved to a high level on the battlefield. I think the randomness of cards allows it to happen with the rarity it actual did.
Getting officers of differing temperament and ability to do anything coordinated on a battlefield is extremely difficult.

I have mixed feelings about cards. I like the unpredictability and surprise they bring to a game, but I don't much care for them when the game becomes about the cards. For example, if you need an Opportunity Fire card in order to conduct OF.

I think their impact has to be secondary to the basics of fire and movement.

Completely wrong.

If it is a mechanic that one likes or dislikes is a different topic.

Let's see… I play TSATF. It's card driven, I guess. I like it. I play Blot Action. It's dice driven. It can frustrate me, but I do enjoy playing it. In both cases the random action makes me think of how tactics really tend to operate. Of course, John the…er, Winston Smith said it better than I did…

Disagree. Our new system uses cards which are essential in several areas. We have three active projects and cards are key in two of the three.

No, I do not agree. They can prevent the player fom doing what he wants to do when he wants to do it, which strikes me as being more appropriate.

It depends on how what the cards do, how they are used and the overall system. It's not a reasonable generalization. They are no more 'random' than a ten-sided die roll… depending on how they are used and the overall system.

No "concentration of command effort" survives contact with the enemy.

" I play Blot Action. It's dice driven. It can frustrate me, but I do enjoy playing it. "

Bolt Action isn't dice driven. Randomly picking a die out of a cup is simply another form of flipping cards for initiative. There is absolutely no difference!

Millions of poker players can't be wrong.

That is for too broad statement covering the many ways cards are used to be true.

Control freaks don't like card systems so maybe he is a hater.

I'm with the folks that disagree with the statement.

In fact, you can generate really good wargames with just cards: see Up Front and DoomTown for two examples.

Hetzers gonna hetz.

The use of cards to create a bit of organized chaos is, IMHO, generally a good thing. But there are, as others pointed out, so many different ways of using cards that the original claim – which seems to be that all card systems are too random – is ridiculous. Does the author use dice? What's 'too random' about breaking up the IGOUGO cycle a bit? Sounds like a control freak to me.

On the other hand, I hate the Tea Time card in Too Fat Lardies' I Ain't Been Shot Mum rules. Not a bad set of rules if you drop that, though.

Coopman:

No "concentration of command effort" survives contact with the enemy.

Are you paraphrasing von Moltke? I'm not sure that is exactly what he said.

Card driven systems have a significant presence within the boardgame side of things. To the question I would say yes and no!

1/ Something like Commands and Colors does allow concentration of decision, so from your hand, you can activate certain sector of the battlefield – though they may not include the sectors you actually want to take command of. So the player is not always choosing where to concentrate and will not always be able to respond to enemy 'concentration', when normally without the cards they would.

2/ In Combat Commander (also by GMT), the player needs fire cards in their hands to fire. Sometimes play can go for several rounds without fire because of lack of cards when the situation demands fire be used, that command and control chaos can sometimes feel too imposing – but arguably is doing its job of taking total control away from the player.

3/ Card driven games do allow a greater amount of history to be brought into the game without adding a ton of rules overhead, because the instructions are in short hand on each individual card. Having different decks for different years in a long running conflict for example is a good way of bringing history, restraint and opportunity into play that loosely links to command concentration..

4/ Card driven games work less well for the solitaire player. Mechanically it can be done – but total knowledge of the 'other sides hand' does influence card management and command decisions. The opposite of command concentration can happen – for example force A does not move out and assault because the player knows that the other sides hand includes 2 fire cards.

5/ Card assisted games rather than card driven games can soften some of the unnatural restrictions that result from card driven activity. Those systems generally allow a card to be played at a point of choosing, thereby enhancing or supporting a players battle choices – in effect giving command concentration.

6/ The card deck is fixed (as opposed to dice, which have the same random potential over the game time they are rolled), with the 're-shuffle' card being the only process that stops card counting and rescues to some degree randomness. If the player has already seen 3 ambush cards played and there are only 4 in the deck, that is likely to influence decisions.

7/ Prising too much control from player and adding some chaos into the battlefield does seem a good way of better representing the fortunes of warfare, The question of balance is whether the system too imposing to the point that it virtually creates a false and counter-intuitive AI to the point that the ability to conduct some 'generalship' is denied. It seems the construction of the deck is critically important in that regard as is the size of the players hand which mathematically determines the amount of options that are available to the player each go.

"For example, if you need an Opportunity Fire card in order to conduct OF".

Yea, that's just silly, as is needing a card at the appropriate time to fire on an enemy unit.

I can see a dice roll though, for units on Op Fire orders, to see if they sight the moving units, and can react in time. That way, it's not guaranteed, but at least you have a chance to do so.

Bad straw-man argument that does not address different approaches to card-driven rules.

I often adapt rules to use cards specifically to get a nice balance of random and command-driven. Each unit gets its own card. Each commander gets a certain number of command points. When a card is flipped, a commander can spend 1 point to put one of their own cards on the bottom of the deck, or 2 points for an opponent's card.

Dear Editor, could we get a link to the article? it would help if we could read the article we are suppose to be commenting on.

Yes, there are dozens of ways of using cards in games (some of which positively encourage concentration of effort), so it would be useful to have a bit more detail.

Clausewitz of course likened war to a game of cards, with its combination of skill, uncertainty and luck, so perhaps all our games should be driven by cards….

Depends on the game. Commands and Colors: Ancients and To the Strongest are two that get the balance pretty good, IMHO.

Cheers,
Aaron

Cards are only a medium.
Dice are also a medium.
Even toy soldiers are a medium.

It all depends on how you use them.

A quote as mentioned in the OP is meaningless when taken out of context.

They are no more 'random' than a ten-sided die roll… depending on how they are used and the overall system.

I would go a step further and say unless your card driven system is "shuffle the cards, draw a card, put it back and reshuffle" cards are less random than die rolls. I pretty much always exploit this property of cards when writing scenarios.

"Control freaks don't like card systems so maybe he is a hater."
Sums it up I think, me I love the chaos of card driven with dollops of uncertainty to what where when in a game, it just seems so like real life. Its similar to catching a cold you never know how sever it will be how long it will be or who really gave it to you :) wargaming should de a dichotomy of pleasurable frustration otherwise its an exercise in mini megalomania :)
Cheers anyone ready for a cuppa? 'Shuffle cards for new turn'

I would defiantly say no. How the rules use a randomiser makes the difference not the randomiser itself.

x42

Yes.

A generalization fallacy. There are games where card systems get it wrong but others where they work. Some card systems are sequencing mechanisms, others are deck-building, others are random event generators etc. Some work extremely well e.g. sequencing man-to-man action like WW2 skirmish. Some are junk, like a battle where units move and fight individually and can't fight in formation. And particularly flawed might be the deck-building games.

I have yet to find a card driven system which I like, mostly due to the lack of feel it gives the games, its more like you are playing against the game, rather than your opponent!-at least to me!

Writing in Battlegames magazine, David CR Brown lamented that card-driven systems are "simply too random" and fail to "allow for any concentration of command effort."

Has he ever played Pokemon or MtG..?

Depends on what mechanics the cards control…and here I'm talking about miniatures games mostly, and what I believe is the most crucial wargame mechanic: movement.

In a battle, lots of actions are happening at the same time, yet most card mechanics restrict movement -- only the left flank units can move and the rest of the formation will just have to watch, or, only three units out of your 12 can move, the rest are breaking for a picnic.

Plenty of games also do that with dice: pips, activation rolls, random roll to move and/or random roll for movement amount, or 'x' amount of set movement plus a random roll.

After decades of playing lots of systems using a variety of mechanics, I contend that any mechanic that makes the majority of your army stand around, and thus, the players stand around, is bad for a game. Plenty of randomness with the other three Ms -- morale, musketry, and melee.

Some say restricting movement is historically realistic. I suggest a mechanic like this warps the battle using the exception, not the general flow. I'd also suggest that the larger the time scale, the more a random card or die mechanic for movement triggers a less historic flow of events.

I understand that lots of folks like the idea of restricting moving, or not moving, or only moving three units at a time with a flip of a card or a roll of the dice. I guess I don't have that much patience to do something in four turns when I can do in one. The results will likely be the same, just in less time. I certainly admit to being impatient at not moving at all due to a bad roll or card. I prefer to do more battling (good, bad, or ugly as it may be) and less standing around. :)

Some say restricting movement is historically realistic. I suggest a mechanic like this warps the battle using the exception, not the general flow. I'd also suggest that the larger the time scale, the more a random card or die mechanic for movement triggers a less historic flow of events.

I think that is generally true…but again it all depends on what the card mechanics do, what they are supposed to represent and how well they do it.

While there was chaos on the battlefield, armies spent most all their time training and organizing to minimize those things. Certainly not successfully all the time. The question was how often: Random dice/pips and cards suggest that
1. The lack of response to orders/etc. was constant and random which is not generally how it works in organizations… it is more of a choke point kind of thing,
2. Game Generals have no way of minimizing the causes other than a possible +1 by their presence, and only dealing with the effects afterwards, and
3. Generals experience battle the way a brigadier does or the captain of a company or squad. In reality, the chaos, random events and SNAFUs were of different kinds and intensities. i.e. The command environments were different.

That doesn't mean cards can't or don't work. It is a question of what exactly/historically/realistically they are modeling on the game table.

Are there any systems where the cards are creating the movement "exception" instead of the rule? So basically the reverse of the Command and Colors system. Draw a card, and the "3 units on the left flank" means three units (either by name, opponent's choice or randomly determined) move at half-rate (or whatever) this turn?

I have a complete dislike for card based mechanics. I've never seen one I like for a number of reasons:
* Single Threading the turn sequence (Card Activation)
* Constant re-shuffling (Card Activation)
* Needing to customize decks pre-game (Quality based card activation)
* Too Gamey (Hand of actions or random occurrences)
* Too Abstract (Piquet)
* Odds change as more cards are turned (When used as random generator without reshuffling after every draw)

The only place I like cards is in pre-game mode where they assist you in pointing up a force (Classic EPIC 40k) or drawing one-time random scenario conditions.

I suspect the author of the article is referring to what might be thought of as the "classic" card driven activation, where each unit has a card allocated, these cards are shuffled each turn and drawn in turn to show which unit is activated. For this type of mechanic, I can see the point he is making – there is no control over which units can be activated and when, and no way of getting units to activate together.
For example, if you have an infantry section advancing with a tank, you might reasonably expect the infantry to be able to follow closely behind the tank. Under this classic card activation mechanic, this could not happen – the infantry section and tank would each have their own card, and they would each activate when their own card is drawn, with no way of activating them together.

In a battle, lots of actions are happening at the same time

Really ? Not in most of the battle reports I've read. From what I've read, in most battles there were generally only one or two hotspots of action going on at any time. If real battles followed the course of an IGOUGO wargame in which you can move all of your troops on your turn, no battle would have lasted more than about an hour or two, instead of going on all day as many did.

After decades of playing lots of systems using a variety of mechanics, I contend that any mechanic that makes the majority of your army stand around, and thus, the players stand around, is bad for a game.

Why would the players be standing around ? There is no more downtime in a game where you only move one or two units each turn than a game where you move all of them.

I guess I don't have that much patience to do something in four turns when I can do in one. The results will likely be the same, just in less time. I certainly admit to being impatient at not moving at all due to a bad roll or card. I prefer to do more battling (good, bad, or ugly as it may be) and less standing around. :)

I find there is generally much less "standing around", i.e. downtime, in a game where your ability to activate units is restricted. If you can only move a few units, you focus on the important ones, the areas that will affect the outcome of the battle. If on the other hand, you can move everything, many players do exactly that, spending time moving units that are unlikely to impact the battle.
The game might take more turns if you activate less units per turn, but the turns will be much quicker and the focus will be much more on the action.

I wouldn't know. But I do know this: cards are for parlor games, dice are for toy soldiers. Its all in the feel for the toys and accessories, you see. And I don't like card games (although I do like Broadsides and Boarding Parties)….

For this type of mechanic, I can see the point he is making – there is no control over which units can be activated and when, and no way of getting units to activate together.

In The Face of Battle (which is a classic card activation system), leaders can activate other units on a leadership card. So there are ways to keep units cohesive.

For example, if you have an infantry section advancing with a tank, you might reasonably expect the infantry to be able to follow closely behind the tank. Under this classic card activation mechanic, this could not happen – the infantry section and tank would each have their own card, and they would each activate when their own card is drawn, with no way of activating them together.

Again, in The Face of Battle, units can enter into a "covering move". That is, they move with a vehicle. These units then move on the vehicle card – not their own.

Face of Battle also has vehicle movement cards where ALL vehicles move on that card. This allows vehicles to move in a column without bumping into each other.

So there are ways to handle certain situations while remaining classic activation system.

Finally, I always state that, although during a turn the movement of units may look "odd" and non-cohesive, the end effect is the same. For example, crossing a road. Certainly during a turn the units move individually across the road, but at the end of the turn they will have moved from A to B and remain a unit.

Mike

Are there any systems where the cards are creating the movement "exception" instead of the rule? So basically the reverse of the Command and Colors system. Draw a card, and the "3 units on the left flank" means three units (either by name, opponent's choice or randomly determined) move at half-rate (or whatever) this turn?

I have a weather system in A Season in Hel that is card driven. It exploits the balance between sequencing and randomness to create (harsh, in this case) weather effects that you can generally forecast, but cannot exactly predict for the next round and the following. For example, when the wind gets as bad as it can, you know it's as bad as it can get and that it will lessen soon. But you don't know exactly where soon is.

The set up of the deck takes a couple minutes, but it is outside the play of the game, so you could do it before the game, the night before while watching sports on TV, or prep 12 decks for a month of games.

In game, it only requires turning over a card once a round.

You could easily pull that mechanic out of the scenario and apply it to other ones. I do that all the time.

"Are there any systems where the cards are creating the movement "exception" instead of the rule? So basically the reverse of the Command and Colors system. Draw a card, and the "3 units on the left flank" means three units (either by name, opponent's choice or randomly determined) move at half-rate (or whatever) this turn?"

Yes, Richard Brooks 'Terrible SWift Rules' (whcih I borrowed for Rifle & Kepi).

All units are dealt a playing card which determines the order of activation, however depending on the roll of the dreaded 'dither dice', some of these cards are discarded and the units sit around not doing much.

Slightly more sophisticated mechanisms are in evidence in OP14, wherw again, in principle all the unirs get activated every turn, but various cards (depending on C3, unit situation etc) turn into not doing much or doing stupid stuff, like shelling their own troops. That would never happen in real life.