Weasel | 07 Jan 2016 7:01 p.m. PST |
Some periods are driven to some extent by a specific army, that everyone fought. Napoleonic French, WW2 Germans (in the European theatre), Romans in a lot of ancients gaming. A default enemy, if you will, that the rest of the armies will inevitably be measured against. This can also be the case in scifi games (arguably 40K is written around Space Marines). A: The rules should be written around the default army, indicating particular advantages or drawbacks (for example Crossfire's German command rules)
B: Include national characteristics for everyone. (The Flames of War approach) C: The rules should just dictate the mechanics, and armies are only differentiated by training scores (the Command Decision approach) D: I have no idea what you are talking about or am a special snowflake. |
Mako11 | 07 Jan 2016 7:11 p.m. PST |
|
Lascaris | 07 Jan 2016 7:20 p.m. PST |
|
Coyotepunc and Hatshepsuut | 07 Jan 2016 7:26 p.m. PST |
Both yes and no. It is largely dependent on who the nations are within the scope of a game. A game representing small scale skirmishes between militias and terror groups in modern Sub-Saharan Africa might have almost generic stats from one group to the next, with US Marines or French Foreign Legion being almost superheroic, but only available as a random event. In this case, there is no specific army to write the game around. On the other hand, a game about the conflicts in the Middle East since the turn of the new millenium would almost certainly be written around the US military, with every other group based on a comparative model to US capabilities. Moving into the realm of fantasy or science fiction, I believe exactly the same principles are applicable. Warhammer 40,000 is, as you say, written around Space Marines (albeit poorly.) The original iteration of Battletech was written to include all the factions on an even playing field. |
richinq | 07 Jan 2016 7:28 p.m. PST |
C training and morale I think national characteristics are too general unless you are playing at a high level Rich |
Narratio | 07 Jan 2016 8:02 p.m. PST |
|
Martin Rapier | 08 Jan 2016 4:49 a.m. PST |
If a specific period is defined by the behaviour of one particular armed force, then yes of course. They are called 'The Napoleonic Wars' for a reason…. |
Cosmic Reset | 08 Jan 2016 5:41 a.m. PST |
My approach is that rules are a mechanism that permits dynamic events to be modeled. Elements that participate in the events are described such that they have the appropriate required values to function within the mechanics. Intended scope dictates scales of time, distance, command levels, etc. Relative values of the elements are simply objective and subjective perceptions selected by the "modeler" from a range of values limited by the scales of the mechanism(s). I think that "C" is the closest to my perspective, but the armies/units/elements are defined by far more than a training score. |
Rich Bliss | 08 Jan 2016 6:35 a.m. PST |
C every time. The concept of "national characteristics" gives me hives. |
Mute Bystander | 08 Jan 2016 7:29 a.m. PST |
|
vtsaogames | 08 Jan 2016 8:24 a.m. PST |
I don't automatically have a problem with "national characteristics" if they represent doctrinal differences instead of innate qualities. For example, British Napoleonic infantry relied on 3 fires , cheer and charge (different from +1 for Brits firing in many rules). A rule that represents that is good. |
wminsing | 08 Jan 2016 8:34 a.m. PST |
I agree with vtsaogames; if there are doctrinal differences (at whatever level the game represents) then they *should* be represented in the rules. -Will |
Frederick | 08 Jan 2016 9:02 a.m. PST |
I mostly do Grand Tactical so I would say B, which to my mind includes doctrinal and training issues For skirmish gaming I could see that C might be a better option |
miniMo | 08 Jan 2016 9:46 a.m. PST |
E: If different armies have notably different command structures, that should be represented in the game mechanics. |
etotheipi | 08 Jan 2016 10:05 a.m. PST |
C. But not training scores. The degree of capabilities associated with units are data used within the rules, not the rules themselves. The rules cover the dynamics. I take this view from colonial campaigns. When you start out the colonizers are substantially different than the colonized. Over time, the colonized (or subsets of them) migrate toward the capabilities of the colonizer. There is nothing inherent in forming a square that says these people can't do it or those others always will do it. If you look at it in detail, any unit isn't the same after a battle as it was before that battle. Nor are they the same halfway through the battle as they were at the start. The types of event that cause significant changes to the state of units should be driven by the focus of your game. |
Winston Smith | 08 Jan 2016 2:21 p.m. PST |
At least one army should match what you're trying to do. It would be pointless if none did. |
ochoin | 08 Jan 2016 7:43 p.m. PST |
@ Rich Bliss link
link The concept of "national characteristics" gives me hives. +2 for the Germans at Tanga for giving the British hives? |
Old Contemptibles | 10 Jan 2016 3:22 a.m. PST |
"B" I guess. Just don't overdue it. |