"Designers notes" Topic

This thread was inspired by Bashful it's comments on wanting game designers to explain rules. This is interesting in that in my sm a lol collection of rules (probably only 20 sets. The designers notes are minimal. We have minimal in ours although there is some free stuff that addresses this.

What is your opinion on this?

Interestingly we have only ever had one discussion on design issues not conducted through a wargames Web site. In another thread it seems like lots of players do not read rules anyway. For one off convention games designers notes are probably of no use as they are one of a kind games.

While I enjoy reading the designers notes and find that they can give a fascinating insight into the designers inspiration and ideas I think if they are being used to explain the rules then the editor needs to go over the rules again.

Robert

The feedback that I have had from people who use my rules is that they find the design notes useful because I use them to explain how and/or why I have used a particular game mechanism. This is not the same as explaining what the rules mean; that should be illustrated by examples.

I think it's useful to have an explanation of intent as well as the rules.
That way if there's any doubt on interpretation you know what the rule is supposed to achieve.
If you have different ideas on stuff you know which bit to change.

I want the rules themselves as tight as possible--and I always suspect "examples of play" get thrown in where the author can't get his wording as clear as it ought to be.

But I always read designer's notes and other supplementary material when available. It helps to know that the rules are intended to do and why, and what a particular mechanism my be simulating.

I like designer's notes simply because it orients me to what this game "should be." For example: combat and formations are abstract because you are an army commander. Tactics are what your officers do.

I include examples because many people "get it" better that way rather than through straight text. My wording tends to be crystal clear until someone else reads it.

Designer notes are good if they are "This why I did what I did" type. In fact they can be the most important part of the rules and if you read them you should be able to tell instantly if you will like the rules. If what he saw as important is what you see as important, the likelihood is that you will like the rules. If you don't like what the designer privileged (included in the rules)A then you probably won't like it.

The problem is that few designers think that far and just start spitting out rules without a thought to the coherent whole.

I find designer notes useful but my intention in my comments were that the rules should be clear in their intent and easily understood. I.E. well written.

If I ever decide to gather my loose and contradictory notes on my Swords of Liberty AWI variant for TSATF, I will go into why I did what I did, what I left out and why, what I changed and why.
It will let veteran players of TSATF know what is different.

All Designers Notes should really be is a rationale for choices made. If the players know what your intentions are in the "counter charge declaration", it will help them understand your muddily written rules. Last thing I want to do is have some clown call me at 2:00 AM demanding to know why settlers with tomahawks can't rout Hessian Grenadiers.
By the way, my email address and phone number will not be in the rules and I will use a fake name. Eustace Pennypacker perhaps?

If I buy a rules set and there are no designer's notes, I am at least mildly disappointed. I am always interested in knowing why the designer chose to do things the way that he did.

Certainly my intention in defining designers notes would be to define why X was the approach. I did not intend to explain the rules directly. Where novel rules are there may be examples but they to me, do not count as designers notes.

There is an interesting off shoot which is do you try and teach tactics in a set of rules. As an example our rules do not highlight the advantages of different formations eg echelon left vs line ahead. The rules are such that for a given situation the optimum formation is an advantage.
Would such advice be designers notes. (personaly this would not count as designers notes). Again in general my opinion is not to include. To me part of the fun is in the experimentation and thought off board and on board about the optimum solutions to a problem. However our rules are aimed at armchair strategists, not the ad hoc convention player to whom the periods(s) may hold little long term interest. Perhaps the designers notes may differ in principal depending on the anticipated audience. However some of our free material does actually cover real world tactics and how to implement them in the rules if we consider that it is something that is not quite so obvious.

It does concern me that designers notes could take up more pages than the rules, as setting some parameters is the result of compromise over a considerable range of issues.

It is interesting that most 'games' don't have designer's notes and nobody asks for them. I play Querkle and Settlers of Cattan and have never felt the need or desire to see any. One is abstract and the other referential, but neither are an attempt to capture a specific real world experience. It is interesting to hear what those designers did and wanted to accomplish with their game as a designer, but as a player? Nope.

Wargames are different. The goals and assumptions about those goals are different.

"The object of any wargame (historical or otherwise) is to enable the player to recreate a specific event and, more importantly, to be able to explore what might have been if the player decides to do things differently."
--Jim Dunnigan, Chapter 1, "What is a Wargame?"
The Complete Wargame Handbook, 1980, 1993, and 2000

"The Primary Rule of Wargaming: Nothing may be done contrary to what could or would be done in actual war."
--Fred T. Jane (Of Jane's Fighting Ship's fame)

Those generally-accepted notions above about a principle goal of wargames calls for designer's notes and what they need to provide. Most all designer's notes for wargames don't provide it.

They often include:

1. Why a particular game mechanic was used in reference to ease of play and player involvement. Why a D10 was used instead of a D6. Bob TTB commented above about his Designer's Notes:

they [gamers] find the design notes useful because I use them to explain how and/or why I have used a particular game mechanism. This is not the same as explaining what the rules mean;** that should be illustrated by examples.

2. What a the goal of the system was or what the game accomplishes in general visa vie military history and reality. For instance, Shako

"It is important to simulate how these systems operated, and to represent the fundamental differences between them… Consequently, Shako simulates the difficulties inherent in moving and maintaining order within large formations. The system of Orders used in Shako emphasizes the pre-battle planning and battle management necessary to fight such battles." [Introduction]

What is missing is WHERE they got the ideas about what difficulties were inherent in moving and maintaining order and HOW the rules were supposed to model them. .

3. The designer's personal preferences or view of history and wargame design.

If interested, I can give endless examples of these kinds of designer's notes, some so abstract and empty as to defy explanation.

What is rarely if ever included, what is necessary to make the wargame work as a simulation or recreation for the players is what specific history/reality the game mechanics or subsystem is attempting to portray.

The reason it is necessary for the wargame to work fully as a simulation or recreation is the need for "guided pretending". The designer has taken a specific part of history, expressed it with abstract game mechanics to behave in 'the same way' so the player can play 'as if it were real'.

The abstractions are NOT self-explanatory. Gamers are constantly interpreting the 'meaning' of the rules incorrectly, degrading any simulation experience.

The suspension of disbelief has to have a specific focus if the resultant play is going to provide the player with the specific experience of history the designer wanted.

That means information and clear links between primary experiences/history and the wargame. Without it, the players can experience all sorts of things, but whether that is historical or what the designer meant the wargame to do, is never known.

Often what happens is that only when the designer is present to answer specific questions, do players get those links.

Because of that, players don't know why rules play the way they do:

Is it some history they haven't seen, some personal interpretation, or simply the 'playable' part that has nothing to do with history and war?

Designer's notes often take up lots of pages, providing the wrong information for the players in this regard. It isn't the numbers of pages required, but what information is provided and how.

**Depending on what Bob provided in describing 'what the rules mean', he could be detailing what history is involved and how the rules model that.

Important tool to keep rules arguments quiet. Most napoleonic arguments are usually about whether the rules take into account exceptional situations or not and what is simulated.

Important tool to keep rules arguments quiet. Most napoleonic arguments are usually about whether the rules take into account exceptional situations or not and what is simulated.

It's true. If anyone is on the group list or/and has read/played Bruce Weigle's 1859, 1866, 1870 or 1871, you'll note that there are very, very few disagreements about the rules, because of the amount of information and design notes Bruce provided. Folks may not agree with his interpretation, but they sure know where he got his ideas and how they were expressed with the rules.

The more I think about this the more I realise the writing of designers notes is not that but the whole of the long and complex discussions about how to produce an optimum model. We estimate Maneouver Group took 2000 hrs to write and trouble shoot. This involved testing how to approximate all the variable we wanted to consider and those we did not and the rational behind each one. This would take up many hundreds of pages and would be of interest to very few and certainly not worth the return it v would get. The intricacies of why we turn turrets in the way we do and it's impacts far wider than simple gunnery in itself may be too much for some. If the reader will not allow the turrets of his tank to turn then the whole thing would be irrelevant to him.

The more I think about this the more I realise the writing of designers notes is not that but the whole of the long and complex discussions about how to produce an optimum model. We estimate Maneouver Group took 2000 hrs to write and trouble shoot. This involved testing how to approximate all the variable we wanted to consider and those we did not and the rational behind each one. This would take up many hundreds of pages and would be of interest to very few and certainly not worth the return it v would get. The intricacies of why we turn turrets in the way we do and it's impacts far wider than simple gunnery in itself may be too much for some. If the reader will not allow the turrets of his tank to turn then the whole thing would be irrelevant to him.

UshCha:

It's not about either player interest or having to detail every decision made during development. It is about:

1. What specific aspects of battle the wargame is designed to target and
2. What the player needs to know to make the connections between their decision-making opportunities and consequences and the actual commanders in the field.

That doesn't require hundreds of pages. It requires knowing specifically what the design is meant to provide in the way of an experience and how the player can gain optimum benefit from that experience. That can only happen when the players have the right kind of information.

Whether the player is 'interested' in that or not isn't the point at all. You are designing something to work, and that is one of the necessary components for it to work: The right information.

Back in the 1970s and 1980s, designers notes were not the same as passages to explain rule development. Popular rules often had magazines or newsletters to do a lot of this. Printing was more complicated back then and page counts were often critical. This was the age prior to the dominance of fluff and wasted space. Back extra notes were scattered as page fillers or placed on the back cover pages.
There was a debate between different groups. Some felt that too many designer notes meant that it was a poorly designed set of rules.

I limit the notes to two pages. It's mostly about how the rules developed, sources, and where the abstractions are.

I'll try to address areas like overall approach, design goals, player decisions, gunnery, movement, damage, activation, etc.

I don't use it to try to explain the rules themselves, just my ideas and justifications for developing the game.

Wolfhag

It's interesting that the more the topic goes on the less of a definition of what should be in designers notes. To detail the reasons as certain strategy was adopted takes way more than a couple of pages. Much less and you Re ally get little more than platitudes. I could say for example:-

Morale is not treated as a single parameter called for want of a simple label, leadership. In reality this is a parameter effecting the performance of a unit that effectively degrades there performance over time when engaged in combat. It's starting value also represents the quality of troops. Better troops perform better even when fresh. It should be noted that troops are not removed as casualties.h

Not sure this is that usefull as the interaction with a system that makes it credible as an acceptable parameter. To go on further would take many more words, proably more than two pages and this is only one of several parameters and is not in reality the corner stone of the simulation.

Morale is not treated as a single parameter called for want of a simple label, leadership. In reality this is a parameter effecting the performance of a unit that effectively degrades there performance over time when engaged in combat. It's starting value also represents the quality of troops. Better troops perform better even when fresh. It should be noted that troops are not removed as casualties.

UshCha:

All you need to say for the player is 1. What the rule represents:

"Morale is not treated as a single parameter: leadership. this is a parameter effecting the performance of a unit that effectively degrades there performance over time when engaged in combat."

Provide an historical example at the right scale and you have provided ample 'credibility.'

this is only one of several parameters and is not in reality the corner stone of the simulation.

So, what is the cornerstone and can you give an example[s] from history that were used as models?

If you can't identify the cornerstone and parameters of the design with examples in a few pages, why not?

That credibility is also the concrete connections the player needs to partake in the simulation, so you are killing two birds with one example: Credibility and Connections.

McLaddie, Interesting you notes are different to what I would consider notes on design. I think what you are defining is what I would call more of a detailed overview. Being a designer(retired now) I always think of designers notes as being the description in detail of what design decisions were made and why.

Its proably why I struggle with my own thread. I suspect giving sources would take up space.

So perhaps what I would call a description would be:-

The primary aim of this model is to better represent the command and control of a force and in particular better represent the performance of armoured vehicles with respect to both their strengths and weaknesses.

The system has been based in significant amounts data from Military manuals from WW2 onwards and accounts of fightim]ng in the same timeframe.

A bit like design of aero engines, middle detail is of little use, design is in the end about very fine detail. One small detail wrong and the whole eddifice falls down.

Its perhaps why designers notes are not included. It looks like a lot of work and as our rules are specilaist we don't sell that many copys.

McLaddie, Interesting you notes are different to what I would consider notes on design. I think what you are defining is what I would call more of a detailed overview. Being a designer(retired now) I always think of designers notes as being the description in detail of what design decisions were made and why.

UshCha:

It isn't about an overview or a detailed rundown of design decisions, though many gamers like seeing those.

The question for a simulator is "What does the participant need to know to engage with the simulation?"
Where are the critical points of connection between the game experience and reality, the ones that the wargame is designed to provide. How the designer creates this or why is of secondary importance to making the simulation work. Often the how is answered in where the game provides those links to reality, the why is in what reality was chosen to simulate.
These where and what issues are vital for the players in relating to the wargame and the history it is supposed to illustrate. Too often, gamers are left to 'make that up' while the designer labors to explain why…

The system has been based in significant amounts data from Military manuals from WW2 onwards and accounts of fightim]ng in the same timeframe.

Fine. So, what specifically has your design targeted from those Manuals to simulate? You may have based the rules on significant amounts of data, but the game mechanics are a compilation and abstraction of that large amount of data to do--what?
Do you have WW2 narratives that the final design mechanic[s] are designed to model. THAT is the important simulation/experiential issue, not how much data was incorporated. You can list the manuals or history books used, but that is just supporting information to the connections you are wanting to provide.

A bit like design of aero engines, middle detail is of little use, design is in the end about very fine detail. One small detail wrong and the whole edifice falls down.

That is a design issue, not a simulation experience issue. Using your analogy, the difference is between what the designer needs to know to build the engine and the pilot needs to know to fly it to take advantage of the engine's designed characteristics and avoid any false expectations. He doesn't need to know the history of engine design, or how to build the engine or what materials the fuel injector is made of.

Its perhaps why designers notes are not included. It looks like a lot of work and as our rules are specialist we don't sell that many copies.

That is because you are describing how the game was designed--certainly specialist issues--specifically designer issues--when the the players need the information that will allow them to see the connections to reality while playing the wargame and real-world examples of these experiences.

Almost no one reads the designer notes.

Here are the Designer Notes for my rules………too long?…..not necessary?

"These rules are designed for pitched-battles in miniature from 3,000 BC – 1850 AD. They are suitable for both historical scenarios and tournament games, non-historical battles are best when kept within broad historical periods such as the Biblical, Classical, Dark Age, Medieval, Renaissance and Napoleonic eras.

They seek to enable battles at a scale that can accomodate the great battles of history in their entirety, where every Infantry Battalion, Cavalry Regiment or Artillery Battery is individually represented, and whereby the table top represents an area in scale with historical maps and battlefield accounts. In doing this the desired outcome is games with many strategic and tactical options, that produce battle accounts similar to those found in the historical sources, and for such games to be playable to conclusion in three to four hours for a significant engagement, and four to eight hours for an epic battle like Waterloo or Gaugamela.

The rules differ from other sets in that they focus on the principles of massed linear warfare through the ages, a common theme in the study of detailed battle accounts involving armies over ten thousand or so men is the concept of multiple supporting lines, usually two or three sometimes more. Whether you are reading about Classical Roman Battles, Byzantine Military Manuals, Battles of the English Civil War, Frederick the Great or those of Napoleon, the concepts of linear multiple line formations are apparent. Why, and more importantly, how were such supporting lines used? These are questions often overlooked by other miniatures sets and I seek to address them in the writing of these rules.

In game play each player in effect represents the Commander-in-Chief (C-in-C) of an army. Historically the C-in-C was responsible for many important decisions both before and during a battle, such as how to organise his forces? In what season should the enemy be invaded? What terrain should he seek for the encounter? At what time of day should he seek to begin the battle? How should he deploy his divisions in relation to each other and the enemy? What effects will the weather have on his plans?

Once the battle began the C-in-C's main role was to order the main thrusts of attack by putting in motion the various divisions of his army, and to direct the manoeuvres of his reserves. The command and control rules although abstract and simple, present the player (C-in-C) with many options as to how to proceed once the battle begins. The coordination of a large army was difficult, the C-in-C would generally focus his primary efforts on a specific part of the battlefield, although a major push or redeployment was occasionally possible, especially by a brilliant general. The command rules represent the sending of his orders and the application of his focus for that period of the battle.

In designing these rules I have attempted to constantly keep in mind a process which will naturally lead players to historical strategies, tactics and doctrines, the rules seek to encourage such historical tactics through mechanics which reward common historical procedure, while still allowing players the means to experiment with alternative plans. Obviously in covering such a large period it would be impossible to cover all variations, although interestingly enough the principles of linear warfare are amazingly constant during the entire period.

The other primary objective of these rules is the inclusion of material (actual rules) that aid moderators in the running of their campaigns. The rules are designed with the campaign gamer in mind; they include rules relating to the taking of prisoners, transportation, baggage, supplies and other often overlooked information that can be of great use to a campaign moderator.

Troop types and classifications have been deliberately kept simple so as to maintain playability and also to avoid the "scissor, paper, rock" style prevalent in many other rules. It is the big picture strategy and tactics that these rules seek to reward, are the troops well supported? Is their position such that they have space to manoeuvre and rally? The rules also seek to simulate terrain choice, weather, and time of day. Such factors were both, unavoidable, and a test of the commanders skill. While learning the game it may be best to leave these rules unused but once players are experienced, declining to use such rules detracts from both the realism and character of a battle.



Armies are each based on a specific empire, nation or society. An army is divided into separate divisions, with each division commanded by a general, one of which is usually the commander-in-chief (C-in-C); these divisions represent the basic grouping of units with the classic example being a centre and two wings. Each division consists of a number of units (bases of equal frontage) which are primarily defined by cultural organisation, with each unit representing a body of troops (usually around 500 men) such as a Roman Legionary Cohort or Cavalry Alae, Gallic Warband, Medieval Banner, or a Renaissance or Napoleonic Infantry Battalion, Cavalry Regiment or Artillery Battery. Units move as part of a division but fight and shoot as individual units. Troops within each unit are assumed to adopt various formations when appropriate such as a Napoleonic infantry battalion throwing out skirmishers to engage the enemy or forming square when threatened by cavalry, or knights charging in a wedge formation to break-through the enemy line.

The period covered by these rules ends only with the introduction of the Minie bullet in the late 1840's, this conical ball fired through a rifled barrel had dramatically increased effective range and stopping power compared to all earlier firearms. The massed formations that had predominated from the times of the Pharaohs till beyond the Napoleonic Wars could no longer function in open terrain, the Minie bullet was simply too accurate and too deadly! First used in the Crimea in 1854-56 by the British against the Russians, then a few years later in the American Civil War, and although it took time for doctrines to change the great age of massed close formation troops was all but over. Technology in other fields was also rapidly advancing, rifled artillery, telegraphs for battlefield communications, iron clad ships impervious to cannon and the introduction of railways all significantly changed how wars and pitched-battles were fought."

Excellent Warfare Rules.

Wolfhag

Warfare rules, excellent description of the game but not the underlying mechanisms. Clearly you have highlighted the need potentialy for both at least for those interested in the underlying modeling issues.

Warfare Rules:

Thank you for providing them as an example. That makes what we are discussion more real. They are very informative. However, they fail to do exactly what I am talking about--no specifics, no real world references. You wrote:

"The rules differ from other sets in that they focus on the principles of massed linear warfare through the ages, a common theme in the study of detailed battle accounts involving armies over ten thousand or so men is the concept of multiple supporting lines, usually two or three sometimes more…."

There are no actual examples, [ where did the Spartans have 'supporting lines? In the ECW? How about an example of those 'accounts.' ]no real world reference to this claim, particularly when you are covering 4,000+ years. That leaves the statements very abstract on an critical point that other rules have overlooked.

Whether you are reading about Classical Roman Battles, Byzantine Military Manuals, Battles of the English Civil War, Frederick the Great or those of Napoleon, the concepts of linear multiple line formations are apparent. Why, and more importantly, how were such supporting lines used? These are questions often overlooked by other miniatures sets and I seek to address them in the writing of these rules.

Those questions, though they are the impetus for your rules are not answered and overlooked in your own descriptions. You should give some examples from those manuals, show the similarities you claim are there. Not a dozen paragraphs, but at least one. From your emphasis and claim of a unique design perspective, the issue certainly deserves as much attention as the topics of the last two paragraphs.

In game play each player in effect represents the Commander-in-Chief (C-in-C) of an army. Historically the C-in-C was responsible for many important decisions both before and during a battle, such as how to organise his forces? In what season should the enemy be invaded? What terrain should he seek for the encounter? At what time of day should he seek to begin the battle? How should he deploy his divisions in relation to each other and the enemy? What effects will the weather have on his plans?

You make the claim, the statement that "Historically the C-in-C was responsible for many important decisions", but is there any proof of what those decisions are? Why are those particular aspects noted above and not others? Are they the only ones or just the most important in your view? Where did you get that idea in the first place?

Once the battle began the C-in-C's main role was to order the main thrusts of attack by putting in motion the various divisions of his army, and to direct the manoeuvres of his reserves. The command and control rules although abstract and simple, present the player (C-in-C) with many options as to how to proceed once the battle begins. The coordination of a large army was difficult, the C-in-C would generally focus his primary efforts on a specific part of the battlefield, although a major push or redeployment was occasionally possible, especially by a brilliant general. The command rules represent the sending of his orders and the application of his focus for that period of the battle."

You make a lot of conclusion statements with no reference to real world events. How do "The command rules represent …his orders and the application of his focus for that period of the battle?" From your statement the applications are different for different periods, but
there is no idea of how or where that is represented, let alone why you chose to have the command rules represent what you say it does. Examples? Players can look at the rules, but they will have absolutely no idea what actual history brought you to those conclusions--particularly for such a vast span of time.

This isn't a criticism of what you wrote. I am only pointing out how abstract and conclusion-oriented your statements are. What is missing are the absent real-world examples needed for gamers to relate the game descriptions to the history you have chosen to illustrate with your design.

You state your game does things that other games don't and you have a very specific focus for the rules. That is what you should spend your time describing and providing examples for the reader to relate to..

Note where you use proper nouns and actual historical references--the last two paragraphs which aren't describing what the rules do, other than were they end and army organization / representation.

Again, this isn't saying anything about your rules or your goals, but what you aren't providing the gamers so they can link the history and then experience what you describe.

Thanks for the feedback.

The intention of the Introductory Design Notes that I posted is to let the reader know the style of the rules, that they are a Big Battle set, Element based, with an abstract Command and Control system, so they can easily decide if they want to take a closer look at them.

Throughout the rules are further Design Notes, and at the end of the Rules there is a section on Design Theory and Philosophy, the first part of which I have included below for anyone who is interested.

(Z0.0) DESIGN THEORY AND PHILOSOPHY

The design basis of these rules are primarily founded on the excellent surviving sources of two distinct periods, the Roman and Byzantine Military Manuals, and the combined histories and treaties of the great European Powers during the 17th,18th and 19th centuries. Both are well documented and surprisingly similar.

(Z1.0) The Roman Legion

To begin we will look at a Roman Legion of around 50BC.


The prime component of early Roman Armies was the Legion, a body of approximately 4-5,000 men. Each Legion was usually divided into 10 Cohorts (of about 500 men each), the Cohort was by far and away the most common form of Roman Unit for manoeuvre on the battlefield. A Cohort was further divided into 6 Tribunes. A Cohort in battle formation had a depth of 4-10 men and a frontage of 48-120 men, on an open battlefield it could comfortably control a front of about 100 yards. The baggage-train for each Legion is estimated at around five-hundred pack-animals.

An Alae (usually 300-500 men) of Cavalry was often attached to a Legion, and it could also contain a unit of Ballista mounted on carts.

In a large battle a General was often given command and control over multiple Legions.



A Legion in battle:

The Cohorts of a Legion were usually deployed in 2 closely supporting lines, if a Cohort in the first line was hard pressed it would retire in an irregular manner by passing through intervals in the second line to its rear, only then would it rally and reform around its battle standard. Without the support of a second line, a beaten Cohort could be pursued and cut down. A third reserve line of Cohorts was often used for increased stability, and all or part of this reserve line could be manoeuvred to a different part of the battle-field as required, as seen by Caesar at Pharsalus. The depth between two lines of Cohorts in battle was usually about 150 – 200 yards.

On table representation:

10 Cohorts (one Legion) in 2 lines supported by a Cavalry Alae would often deploy as follows-

(Diagram)



The Legion thus deployed had a frontage of about 600 yards and a depth of about 200 yards.

The individual Cohorts of a Legion could operate in various formations, such as Testudo to attack missile armed enemy, or form in defensive squares to resist enemy mounted.

When in the open, and facing a large mounted army, the Cohorts of a Legion, or even several Legions, could also position themselves to form a huge square/rectangle, such formations could still manoeuvre slowly on the battlefield, often with the baggage and camp-followers in the centre, such as Crassus when caught in the open by the Parthians at Carrhae.

The diagram below shows an army of 3 Legions formed in a huge defensive square. (Diagram)

(Z2.0) A French Napoleonic Infantry Division

Next we take s look at a French Infantry Division in the age of Napoleon.


The prime component of French Napoleonic Armies was the Infantry Division, a body of approximately 4-8,000 men. Each Division consisted of roughly 8-16 Infantry Battalions (of about 600 men each), the Battalion was the basic Unit for manoeuvre on the battlefield. A Battalion was further divided into 6-10 Companies. A Battalion in line formation had a depth of 3 men, in Column usually 9-12 men, it had a frontage of 40-200 men depending on its formation, and on an open battlefield it could comfortably control a front of about 100 yards.

An Artillery Battery was commonly included as part of an Infantry Division, and one or two Cavalry Regiments were often attached for scouting and support.

In a large battle a General was often given command and control over multiple Infantry Divisions.



A Division in battle:
The Battalions of a Division were usually deployed in 2 closely supporting lines, if a Battalion in the first line was beaten it would retire in an irregular manner by passing through intervals in the second line to their rear, only then would they rally and reform around their battalion standard. Without the support of a second line, a beaten Battalion could be easily pursued and denied the time and space to rally. The depth between two Battalion lines was usually 150 – 200 yards.

On table representation:

12 Battalions (one Division) in 2 lines supported by an Artillery Battery and two Cavalry Regiments could deploy as follows-

(Diagram)



The Division thus has a frontage of about 800 yards and a depth of about 200 yards.

An individual Battalion could operate in various formations, such as Line, Column or Square. Such formations were used on a tactical level, Line to deliver sustained fire, Column to manoeuvre and attack, Square to defend against enemy Cavalry, such evolutions between formations could be made rapidly, the decision as to what formation was best suited to the current circumstances was usually made by lesser officers, and in most cases was not a direct concern of the C-in-C.

(Diagram)

The Battalions of a Napoleonic Army Division could also position themselves to form Divisional squares/rectangles, such formations could still manoeuvre on the battlefield, often with the baggage and camp-followers in the centre, such as the Divisional squares formed by Napoleon when he faced the mounted Mamelukes at the Battle of the Pyramids.

Warfare Rules:

Thanks for the post. I couldn't get back to you until now. I had to think about what you wrote too.

I think your 'intro' "they are a Big Battle set, Element based, with an abstract Command and Control system" is pretty good as a basic description of your design, where a few details like your emphasis on support and linear tactics would round it out. A very short paragraph/blurb to get the reader into it.

As for 'style', that isn't what you presented there. Those were design goals, the what of the rules, style is how you mean to achieve those goals. e.g. I want to portray close combat…goals. Am I going to do that with lots of dice, a saving throw, cards or no randomizing results at all…style.]

It is an insight to note who the basic combat unit for linear warfare seemed to hover around 600 to 800 men from the Ancient Greeks to cohorts, mercenary companies and battalions. Most of what you list is simply an overview of unit organization through history. [Nothing wrong with that… but is that what the gamer needs to know to identify and appreciate what your game provides in the way of history and battlefield dynamics? [Not a criticism. Only you can answer that question.]

What you provided is great and interesting. However, this isn't either design theory or philosophy:

The design basis of these rules are primarily founded on the excellent surviving sources of two distinct periods, the Roman and Byzantine Military Manuals, and the combined histories and treaties of the great European Powers during the 17th,18th and 19th centuries. Both are well documented and surprisingly similar.

You provide the basis [in general terms--you could give actual titles for those manuals] for What you chose as the templates for what you represented/illustrated / recreated with the game system and mechanics. In that you assume, but never identify or describe either your philosophy or design theory.

The philosophy is the'Why'--your belief that any meaningful representation of past history in the present is possible. Obviously, you believe that you can do that with game systems and mechanics or you wouldn't be designing the game the way you do. That is design theory:
How that can be accomplished with wargame rules.

You don't have to describe either in your designers notes, but if you do, know what you have to describe to provide the reader with the right information.

Covering the Why, What, How, When and Where is what a Designer's Notes can cover. For a simulation the Where and How is the primary information the player needs to simulate.

"What you provided is great and interesting. However, this isn't either design theory or philosophy:"

Yes, I understand that those two sections about a Roman Legion and a French Infantry Division, are neither Design Theory or Philosophy in and of themselves………my reason for including them is to illustrate the similarities of organisation and battlefield tactics, that existed over a very large period of history.

It is my premise that the differences between a Napoleonic battle and a battle of the Franco-Prussian war (1870), far exceeded the differences between a Napoleonic battle and a Roman battle.

In the short period from 1850-1870 the development of firearms and artillery made marching around the battlefield in close order blocks of men, all but suicidal.

So for the Design theory and Philosophy of my rules to make sense, I feel that I need to explain the similarities of tactics, organisation and manoeuvre that existed prior to 1850, as well as the reasons why such similarities disappeared after 1850.

It is my premise that the differences between a Napoleonic battle and a battle of the Franco-Prussian war (1870), far exceeded the differences between a Napoleonic battle and a Roman battle.

That's the theory, your premise. The philosophy is really the paradigm within which you are designing the game. In this case, you believe such differences can be reasonably illustrated/recreated with wargame mechanics.

All that is left is to describe how and where you did that.

So how about another example.

One of the key aims is to represent the drivers that require the use of formations and better representation of the strengths and weaknesses of armoured vehicles. To do this the key features are the need to "drive" simply the armourd vehicle so that higher speeds are possible but take some time to achieve. The other is the requirement to limit the field of observation of AFV's particularly when buttoned up. This is achieved by limiting the field of visability. The turret is used to represent the sector under observation. Thus forcing the use of formations.

Again this is over brief but otherwise I need to cover in more detail the interaction with the command and control system.

Interesting thread. I have struggled in my ECW home brew rules in deciding if my designers notes were actually useful or at best a section that might better be headed "Look at how clever and well read I am!"

This has given me the impetus to go back to them and redraft so that they will actually be useful.

Gamers are always talking looking for and talking about where and how they saw the connection between the game and some original decision: "Oh, that's why they did that…"

For that to happen within the history the designer has purposely included in the design, the designer's notes have to support that kind of experience, those connections between play and history. That is what is needed for a simulation to work well. Too often the Designer's notes tell players why they designed the rules, give vague references to 'portraying the difficulties of command' and detailed explanations of unit formations or recounting history. All fine, but not what the player needs to connect with the history content. Assuming the player 'knows' the history, particularly the history the designer has chosen is simply an unrealistic expectation that leaves the players guessing--what is this supposed to represent?

Hmmm……at the start of each section in my rules I have included a paragraph or two explaining what the section of rules is representing.

Below is an example, my hope with such notes is that in explaining what is being represented, the player is able to connect the mechanics of the rules to the knowledge and history that they already have in their heads.

Here is the example-
(F0.0) DISTANT SHOOTING
Represents only those times in a battle where a unit held its position under sustained enemy fire, or when opposing missile armed units exchanged shooting in a fire-fight. All other shooting, including that made against charging enemy, has been factored into close combat. In general massed fire by infantry was more effective than mounted missile fire.

Warfare Rules:

I think that would be all you would need. You might include or substitute an actual historical description of such an event… that is, after all, what you are attempting to represent.

Frank Chadwick did just that with a set of Ancient rules he never published, short paragraphs at each section of the rules which I thought was very effective.

Again, it is what the players need to know about the historical connections you have designed for so they can see what they are attempting to recreate through play.

Here is a comment from AussieAndy on another thread in the Game Design list.

Hi Tod
I'm pretty sure that I played Blucher with you at Cold Wars a couple of years ago. We llove Grande Armee and still play it (with some modifications), but didn't like Blucher at all. Blucher just seemed too gamey and we couldn't find sensible rationales for some of the mechanisms.
Regards

That inability to 'find sensible rationales' is one of the things that Designer's Notes have to provide or regardless of the designer's efforts, the experience of playing the game will feel 'gamey.' What else can they experience? With abstract rules, particularly with simple games where abstraction is high, the connections history aren't easy to 'find.'

I think it's essential to have at least some designer's notes available somewhere. In the rulebook or as a separate document perhaps online. Ideally there should be a mechanism for some dialogue thru a website or blog etc.

I dislike rules/games where the designers are reticent about giving any insights into the rationale behind their choices.

E.G. if you are going to ignore skirmishers in a Napoleonic set because the scale it too large you would do well to explain why.

A lot of rules seem to lack designers notes but I implore the authors to put some effort into this aspect. They will I'm sure get more uptake of their ideas and players will be less likely to tinker with them if they know what the designer was trying to do and why.

Skarper +1 It's just a question of what kind of information is needed to make that happen.

Skarper wrote –
"I dislike rules/games where the designers are reticent about giving any insights into the rationale behind their choices."

+1. Quite agree.

My AoS naval rules make certain ammunition options (dismantling shot; double-shotted initial broadside) available to the player. Others (multi-shotting of guns in close action, canister and grapeshot) are blended into the gunnery mechanics. If the designer does not explain such things, the gamer is quite understandably left scratching his head.

B

I just reread my post and would like to clarify.

I realize many designers might be willing to provide designers notes but don't have the time to do them justice or feel the buyers/players don't want to read them or pay for them [not just the time but extra pages mean more printing costs and more postage]

I would encourage all designers to make the effort either with an additional free pdf or a blog/website that supports their rules.

Skarper:

I agree…however, if they have done all the research they often say they do and can fill their rulebooks with colorful quotes and side notes that have nothing to do with the rules themselves, I think that designers could do a much better job without anymore effort… just providing different information, information that supports the rules connections to history.