Joe Rocket | 20 Feb 2017 9:04 a.m. PST |
Myself and a partner are designing wargames rules for conventions. We loved the big, old convention games with lots of lead on the table. The only problem being that only a third to a half of the players had any idea what they were doing. So the first priority is to create a game that you could teach in 10 minutes and have players perform competently. The game selected was black powder historicals because troops are pretty uniform by that point, but tactics can vary. Troops are rated veteran, regular, or militia. No national differences. French, Austrian, Russian infantry are all the same. Uniformity takes away motivation to spend hours tweeking your army list and puts an emphasis on tactical decisions. And here's where the wheels came off. My position is that a battle between two armies of the same size is decided by tactical choices and to have tactics mean something, you have to have certainty. It's chess. The game is decided by positioning, movement, and skill. No one is going to try a grand flanking maneuver if you can't coordinate your movement. It's safer and more effective to manage risk and play defense if you have a complicated orders system. Leadership is quantified by rerolls. There's enough uncertainty inherent in a game where the outcome of a firefight is determined by dice-you don't need to add another layer. His theory is that war is chaos. His enemy is the 200 foot commander. Troops are unreliable. Commanders are unreliable. The exception is the rule. Battles are won by the unlikeliest of events. A commander is killed, a unit panics, a heroic change into overwhelming odds can change a battle. To me, the tactician, this reduces the game to a lottery that does not reward skill and tactical choices and creates unnecessary complexity in order to frustrate sound tactical choices. Need to find some middle ground that makes sense. |
Griefbringer | 20 Feb 2017 9:24 a.m. PST |
Well, you could write two different versions of the command rules – one conforming to each design principle – and then run them alternatingly in the conventions and see how they work. That said, if you are running a multi-player game with players that are new both to the rules and to each other, then that likely brings a bit of extra chaos to the game itself. |
Who asked this joker | 20 Feb 2017 9:24 a.m. PST |
The middle ground. 1) Troops will general do what you want them to do when they are maneuvering from afar. 2) Troops have a much tougher time of maneuvering when they are at engagement range, are under duress from the enemy or are stuck in at close range. The latter point is why we have morale checks in our games. A failed morale check should count as that unit's next move. I think many of the friction systems (often called command and control) are far to restrictive and chaotic. |
Joe Rocket | 20 Feb 2017 9:44 a.m. PST |
My middle ground suggestion was that troops will do what you ask of them so long as you don't change your mind. If you give an order for troops to march, they will march. You ask them to halt, they will halt. You ask them to fire, they will fire. Uncertainly enters when you're indecisive or asking them to do something complex. It's the KISS Principle. You know you're about to die when the commanding officer says, "Let's try this." Translated to the game is that any change of formation or facing within tactical range of the enemy (1 move) requires a check. That isn't enough to suit him. |
Joe Rocket | 20 Feb 2017 10:10 a.m. PST |
His middle ground solution is to balance risk between the sides. You either have control over a unit or you don't. A unit that does not form square does so because you lack control. The subcommander makes a tactical decision on his own that forming square is too risky. To balance that, this can occur at any time. A unit occupying a built up area may withdraw from a built up area because the local commander thinks the position is too risky. I don't like this suggestion in that it creates units moving around the board randomly, frustrating players. The game becomes managing risk. He sees it as creating opportunity. |
YogiBearMinis | 20 Feb 2017 10:51 a.m. PST |
I love Piquet's solution--you can command the troops to do as you want, but WHEN they will follow or not is random. I like it better than activation tests that try this approach because the dice can prevent you from accomplishing anything, whereas with Piquet's card/initiative system you will eventually get to move your troops how you want. |
Northern Monkey | 20 Feb 2017 11:00 a.m. PST |
You do need to find middle ground, but neither of your suggestions for what that is are anything like middle ground, they are both almost identical to your original positions. How about troops will normally obey your orders, but you can't predict how quickly they will do it. Just varying movement rates, making them more random with a dice roll, can add a degree of chaos which your mate will like (you will probably not like) and that may be sufficient to be middle ground. That, or find a different friend! |
vtsaogames | 20 Feb 2017 11:02 a.m. PST |
Card-activated can be a problem with big multi-player games, as in lots of folks watch whoever is activated. You might do a TSATF style thing where on a red card, every red player gets to activate a unit, etc. Then only half the table is standing down at a time. My own preference is for chaos, but then we hardly ever have more than 5 players total, usually less. Your argument for a big convention game could be that when that many players are in a game, it will be chaotic even without command and control rules. You might consider simultaneous movement. This goes fast IF people don't argue. Any beef? Have them roll dice, high dice gets their way for that unit. Edit: if the beef is who gets there first, give the faster unit a +1 on the dice. |
McLaddie | 20 Feb 2017 11:15 a.m. PST |
The question is a non-starter if you simply want a game that is enjoyable for a convention. Balance-Smalance. Do what you like and don't worry about it. If it is a question of the reality of battle, where tactics mixed with chance, then you have to ask where and how often such chance events screwed up the chess-like efforts of the tacticians. Either do what you like or make the effort to determine the actual relationship between chance and tactics in battle. |
Frederick | 20 Feb 2017 11:25 a.m. PST |
I like Black Powder for the very reason your troops don't always do what you want If you want to make it a little more predictable you can give the commanders higher ratings (i.e. more likely to pass Orders tests) |
UshCha | 20 Feb 2017 12:26 p.m. PST |
My limited experience with multi player games is that you give a player an order but he may not want to obey it. In actuality some players are agresive some are cautious and some jusr sad gits just want to toll die with no thought of logic. No need for a clever sequence the players will screw up royally without needing rules. I dislike multi players games unless they are competent players and know about tactice otherwise you may as well play Ludo (just declaring my bias so you can make your own judgement). |
MajorB | 20 Feb 2017 12:28 p.m. PST |
|
YogiBearMinis | 20 Feb 2017 2:39 p.m. PST |
I like the suggestion of TSATF's move on red/black cards for conventions, as long as you do not have one side be one color--spice it up a bit. I hate IGOUGO in convention games because the time drags so much when the other side moves. Bolt Action's pull-an-order-die system works well in this context. You could jiggle with that for your purposes. |
Russ Lockwood | 20 Feb 2017 7:30 p.m. PST |
Having run Snappy Nappy games with 20+ players across a half-dozen or so tables, you do NOT need any fancy activation rules or die rolling for movement rules -- indeed, they're detriments in large multiplayer games, and especially at conventions. As someone noted above, players come with all modes of operating. That's the real friction. The randomness comes with musket, melee, and morale rolls, with those troop variations (inf, art, cav) and quality levels (Mil, Avg, Vet) giving varying success percentages. Keep it as simple as you can. Hint: A good Quick Reference Sheet will solve many problems, and announce Rule Number 1: All of you can read the QRS… |
Joe Rocket | 20 Feb 2017 8:26 p.m. PST |
Talked to him tonight about the go no-go option. The orders will be executed, it's just a matter of when. Once in motion, the player has the steering wheel. He can do as he wants so long as it's not within 1 movement of the enemy. His response was "So your wall gets to move." It seems his hang up is the ability to control large formations of troops on the move. Made a joke that I'm the reincarnation of the perfect Roman officer. |
Joe Rocket | 20 Feb 2017 8:48 p.m. PST |
The good news is that we are moving towards a combat system. 1 dice per 100 infantry or 50 cavalrymen frontage (minimum one dice). Take the highest dice and modify that. Subtract one dice for light cover, 2 for heavy cover. Subtract 1 dice for disadvantaged formation (disordered, flanked). Routed troops cannot fire. Take your highest hit dice and add 1 for every subsequent hit. (Example: a 4+ hit 400 man infantry battalion that rolls a 5,5,4,3 against an opposing infantry battalion in the open would score a 5 +1 +1 = 7). Compare that to opposition dice (A column of infantry with 200 men frontage needing a 4+ rolls a 4 and 3 = 4). Compare the two and the result is the number in 100s of infantry or 50s of cavalry casualties of all sorts. In this case it would be 300 men lost by the column. Quick and dirty. |
Joe Rocket | 20 Feb 2017 10:31 p.m. PST |
The combat system is also a compromise. I prefered a more incremental system where winning a fire fight caused a loss of 100 men max. A small or disadvanted unit would get worn down by attrition. Not sufficiently chaotic for him. He wanted the little guy to have a chance for a knockout. He gave up his cherished retire/recoil movement and its complex leadership command tests to get a chance to drop a 6 as an underdog. I'm still not happy with Spanish milita vaporizing Napoleon's guard on one dice roll so we may revisit this. |
Martin Rapier | 21 Feb 2017 12:08 a.m. PST |
I've run games for large numbers of players, and tbh, you don't need any fancy C3 rules as the players are quite capable of making a complete mess of things themselves. Keep it simple, keep it quick and give them all something to do (no sequential activation). |
Dobber | 21 Feb 2017 12:08 a.m. PST |
Have you considered having combat be a morale function? That way the guard isn't likely to off but you can have a plucky battalion save the day. Snappy Nappy has the right idea I think. If its OK with Russ, the general idea of the system may help you out. The only thing I'd do is allow units to regain grades. You and your friend are both correct. You are right in your assumption, but on the other hand there are hundreds of examples of his side of the coin. You can't have it too much either way, but need both. My opinion is that the most remembered parts of a game are the plucky battalion moments. |
Joe Rocket | 21 Feb 2017 2:42 a.m. PST |
Made him an offer. Going back to a game he dearly loves and building a combat system around it… Blood Bowl. Same mechanic. You get one point for every 100 men frontage in a fire fight. If points are equal, roll one dice. If points are greater than 1-1 but not 2-1 roll two dice. If points are 2-1 or more roll 3 dice. Player with the highest number of points selects the result. Dice are as follows" "+" Defender takes a hit "+ C" Defender takes a hit unless he's in cover than miss "+ MC" Defender must pass a morale check or take a hit Blank-Miss Blank-Miss "W" Whammy-Attacker takes a hit and his turn ends. If a hit is scored, roll 2d6 and add together 2-7 casualty 8-9 take a casualty and take a morale check 10-11 take a casualty and rout 12 Dead We both love Blood Bowl, but have contrasting styles. I play orcs, chaos, dark elves, lizards and concentrate on getting as many two dice blocks as possible. He plays passing finesse teams-skaven, elves, humans, norse that are one double skull, one long pass, one dodgy run away from a touchdown no matter how few players he has on the pitch. I get frustrated when my carefully planned out tactics are ruined by a bad dice roll and there are games where he has to endure me putting everyone of his players in the hospital. The Whammy introduces an element of chance into the game. It will end combat abruptly at some point upsetting the plans of the tactician. This is the plucky little unit that swings above his weight class and changes the game's trajectory. |
Joe Rocket | 21 Feb 2017 3:00 a.m. PST |
Forgot. Troop class is added to #'s of men in 100's. Militia add 2, Regulars add 3, Veterans add 4. 400 regulars in line formation would be 7 points and equal to 300 veterans or 500 militia. Each division/brigade would act as it's own player. A whammy would end the phase for the division or brigade. You're not obligated to fire so you can move on to close combat resolution at any point. Choosing which units to fire before moving to close combat introduces another layer of tactical choices/risk management. |
Joe Rocket | 21 Feb 2017 3:37 a.m. PST |
Close combat is resolved in a similar manner only you count all your troops not just the frontage plus a modifier for formation and troop type. Conscripts 2, regulars 3, vets 4. Divide points by 2 for bad formaition (square vs infantry not in square, cav charging square, disorder or rout, flank or rear). 400 infantry in square vs 250 regular cav charging would be 7 points vs 8 points/2= 4 points. In this exmple, roll 2 dice and square picks the result. A "+" square is broken, roll 2d6 for damage. A result of "+C" would be a hit on square unless in cover. "+MC", a hit unless a morale test is passed. Blank is a no effect, and a "w" whammy, the attacker takes a hit and roll on effects. Whammy ends the close combat phase. |
Jcfrog | 21 Feb 2017 3:45 p.m. PST |
Why can't you have tactics WITH chaos? Like in real life, nothing in a game precludes it, or should. |
YogiBearMinis | 22 Feb 2017 5:43 a.m. PST |
Convention + Math = Chaos |
Joe Rocket | 22 Feb 2017 9:15 a.m. PST |
I'm on your side, Yogi. Hence the Blood Bowl system. Don't need another layer of chaos. KISS-Keep it Simple. FYI he bit on the Blood Bowl style dice and gave up the chaotic command system layer. Thank God. I told him he was going to have to deal with the angry mob if he got his way. Having one unit flee for no reason starting a stampede that took half of one side's troops off the board would get a few calls for tar and feathers. |
Wolfhag | 22 Feb 2017 2:20 p.m. PST |
Convention + Rules = Chaos At conventions you need to keep it simple and intuitive and try not to introduce new concepts that players may not be familiar with. I'll go with Northern Monkey. Units get orders but depending on friction, weapons platform performance and troop training/experience they will "activate" or perform their action in a future turn. I've been playing different versions of this at conventions with success. Players stay involved, FoW because you can't be sure when your opponent with take action and no sitting and waiting. All units are synched to the same turn. Movement is every 5 turns so no op fire special rules. Initiative is determined by better units and crews performing more actions in the same amount of time. Wolfhag |
Joe Rocket | 23 Feb 2017 5:51 a.m. PST |
I've got a lot of respect for old Capt'n Chaos. He's a really bright and successful health care professional and he knows more about history than I can forget. But in the end, this is a game. A game we are trying to teach in 10 minutes. You can't capture every possible historical outcome in a game you teach in 10 minutes and you can't mess with the basics like movement and command and have a bunch of newbees be happy about it. |