UshCha | 20 Oct 2017 6:06 a.m. PST |
Is now some 9 years since we published our rules. We are still finding out how to fight. We wrote the rules from as far as we could first principals. We concentrated on the very basics. This was a what do they do simulation. Tactics are about what you do with the kit. What did astonish us was that we had grown so used to playing games un-related to even basic tactics it came as a shock to have to go back to basics and study the how and what's of formations and interactions and command and control. I its what simulations do, let you explore the options, but you can get lost on the way. Fighting tactically is hard, you need to know when to give up space for time, when a reverse slope defense is the optimum. We are still learning now. Interestingly recent discussions have indicated where we may do better in the simulation but at the cost of extra rules. We have so far not adopted improvements as they would slow down the game itself a cause to degrade the simulation. What is your experience on this aspect of simulation? Did you have a learning curve to get out of the "game" mentality into simulation? |
DesertScrb | 20 Oct 2017 6:41 a.m. PST |
Not really, I just shovel all my forces in, or rake my opponent with fire. |
GildasFacit | 20 Oct 2017 6:56 a.m. PST |
More often with my attempts at rule writing it is the other way round. I often start by taking more factors into account than can be practically dealt with in play and then have combine or abstract out some of them. For me the key element is what decisions should the player need to take and which should be left to the rules to assume. Sometimes it means getting players to choose at a point in the game where they aren't comfortable committing themselves but it is the point at which their real life counterpart would have had to choose. |
Oberlindes Sol LIC | 20 Oct 2017 7:24 a.m. PST |
My experience much like that of Gildas Facit. |
Ottoathome | 20 Oct 2017 7:33 a.m. PST |
No, the hoe's didn't want to fight but to make love-- we had to pay them though. |
whitphoto | 20 Oct 2017 7:34 a.m. PST |
I'll fight a hoe regardless of the rules. |
Hafen von Schlockenberg | 20 Oct 2017 7:41 a.m. PST |
Take your pick--I'll still get mauled. |
Ottoathome | 20 Oct 2017 7:41 a.m. PST |
Rules of Fighting Hoe's 1. Armor is everything, always use triple protection. 2. Make sure the hoe's not the neighborhood bullies girlfriend. 3. Always hold on to your wallet at all times. |
Ottoathome | 20 Oct 2017 7:51 a.m. PST |
Perhaps you should prune down the question? Or take an axe to it? But in the end one must call a spade a spade. |
Ottoathome | 20 Oct 2017 7:55 a.m. PST |
Is it the paddock with the mattock or the polder with the moulder? |
robert piepenbrink | 20 Oct 2017 9:41 a.m. PST |
My first principals had paddles, and I had no intention of fighting them. |
Winston Smith | 20 Oct 2017 9:57 a.m. PST |
Ahem. Title's fixed, lads. My first thought was that UshCha was having a fit of whimsy, but apparently not. Since "my" rules are mostly derived by stealing from my betters, I guess I do know how. That's assuming that I know how to play the rules I steal from. That's not empirically verifiable. |
MajorB | 20 Oct 2017 12:01 p.m. PST |
|
Ottoathome | 20 Oct 2017 12:11 p.m. PST |
To bad Winston, it was the only interesting thing in the post. |
Hafen von Schlockenberg | 20 Oct 2017 12:12 p.m. PST |
All those puns wasted. And I had more waiting. Sigh. Guess I'll have to shovel off to Buffalo. |
Extra Crispy | 20 Oct 2017 1:37 p.m. PST |
Always a tough trade off. A big part of it is making sure your command levels are right. Division commanders don't choose which round a tank loads. |
Zephyr1 | 20 Oct 2017 2:24 p.m. PST |
For skirmish rules, I make sure the basic mechanics work. Then it's up to the players to work out their tactics. I mean, if you want to stand around in the open, it's probably not going to end well… |
Great War Ace | 21 Oct 2017 8:39 a.m. PST |
I've always "known how to fight" and I hate it. As a kid I avoided fighting like a plague, partly because I knew how much it would hurt, what could get broken, and what was invested if you "go there". Consequently, I went through a long period when I thought that I must be a coward. In fact, I was taking the bravest way out: avoid contact combat at all costs (except for a life and death situation, which, thank God, I have not faced in "this" lifetime). From earliest childhood, conflict has fascinated me, has been my number one hobby interest. War movies were always my first choice, even rotten ones, over anything else. I drew battle sketches endlessly, and when bored in school, I'd erase the pics in my "Weekly Reader" and pencil in carnage details over the erased bits (e.g. picture a peaceful cargo ship in some port, dockside; now, erase enough sky to put in a dive bomber, and explosions on the deck and missed bombs splashing in the water, bullets flying everywhere, etc.). Every edited pic was of war and violence. When it came time to stop playing in the sandbox without rules, and get to the next level of designing rules into the game, I was instantly transformed into the creature you now observe: obsessed with realism, even in my fantasy RPGs. Rules must mimic reality, must model reality. So knowing "how to fight" is core. I can tell you what is hype or "fake history". I can't always tell you what the reality is, but I know faked "facts". Designing rules is always run through my filters of knowing what is realistic, or as Burne would put it, "inherent military probability". |
McLaddie | 21 Oct 2017 9:11 a.m. PST |
What is your experience on this aspect of simulation? Did you have a learning curve to get out of the "game" mentality into simulation? I guess I have to ask some questions about this question: 1. What do you see yourself or others 'learning' in this curve? It sounds like simply seeing the game as a simulation. How does that happen? 2. How much of that is learning the game rules? Once you have learned the rules well enough to play them without much reference to the rule book, then you can concentrate on the 'experience' provided by the rules. Is that what we are talking about? 3. Playing a game, any game, several times changes the experience. You get a deeper sense of how things work and the general dynamics of the game. The more complex or deep the game is, the longer it takes to 'master' it. I tend to enjoy games I have played many times more than those I have just started, regardless of the quality of the games themselves. So, how does the general experience of any game play factor into this? |
Wolfhag | 21 Oct 2017 11:40 a.m. PST |
My opinion is the more options and special rules you have the longer it will take, especially for new players and if you are introducing new concepts and nomenclature. Even military veterans can make mistakes. Most players don't have a concept of the nuances of small unit tactics and fire & maneuver. I try to use terms and nomenclature from the manuals. This entails additional explaining and customized play aids. Then to get down the timing of when to use the tactic. Depending on the games turn sequence or reaction/ activation it may be even more difficult. I did see McLaddie successfully use a Reverse Slope Defense with a tank in his first game and he's more of a Horse and Musket player so it can be done. I use a "Time & Action" concept to determine how long an action will take and what future turn it can be performed. This gives players more control over what they want to do with an individual tank and do not have to worry about the turn ending before they activate or failing multiple activation attempts. Some players find that level of control is unrealistic but that's another discussion. So if a player needs to move across open terrain and at his current speed it will take 10-12 seconds which is about the engagement time for the enemy to get off a first shot. He'll probably have a 50% chance of getting across without being fired at and if so as a moving target he's harder to hit. Now the defender in this example might react to the new threat emerging into his LOS to shoot and it takes 13 seconds to fire. He can make a risk-reward decision and use the Battlesight tactic to fire two turns sooner getting the shot off before the target disappears from his LOS but with an accuracy penalty. I've found by introducing timing to a turn you can better reflect tactics like Snap Shot, Reverse Slope Defense, Burst on Target, Range Finders, Halt Fire, Rapid Fire, etc. It also works the same for handheld anti-tank weapons and fire & manoeuvre. It also gives a more accurate portrayal of artillery against moving targets too. The downside is that players need to know more detail on how to carry out these different tactics as it's not just a die roll modifier. You also have to present the options and effect to the player in such a way that he can identify it when it is the appropriate time to use it. However, I have been astonished about what some players have done in their first game. At Pacificon 2 years ago a 14-year-old kicked ass on a US tank & infantry team moving through a town by popping up and shooting with his Panzer Jager Team from the flanks and rear and escaping before they could return fire. He had the timing concept down. This year a 24-year-old new player who had not read the rules (just my 10-minute intro) used his T-34 company to close from 2000 meters using manoeuvre and evade while moving into and out of LOS negating the German long-range gunnery advantage. He took advantage of a poor German tactical placement and popped into LOS only 200 meters away knocking out four Panthers and a Tiger II with the loss of only two tanks. He beat two experienced gamers old enough to be his father and both in their first game too. Wolfhag |
UshCha | 21 Oct 2017 12:24 p.m. PST |
In our simulation there is no clue as to how to fight. You begin to realise you need to analyse a built up area and define its key buildings. You have to in effect define your own phase lines. Map out real interlocking fire and where to place wire. All such detail was sadly missing on the toy soldiers games where long range fire was rendered worthless by logrithmic weapon ranges. No longer could you chuck a few figure down and role some dice knowing that whatever you did was wiped out be dice score. Now you had to plan, and modify that plan and execute it over the entire battle space. This was great for me, now you could put bits of what you read in manuals and accounts into practice. However its interesting that few books covered laying out of defenses as a coherent whole. That I had to learn the had way. Pure bliss. |
Rudysnelson | 21 Oct 2017 4:22 p.m. PST |
Yes, I was a military officer with many years of training. I also got a degree major in Military Science, I was told the seventh in the country at the time. This was not military but included it. It was on how to conduct, Command and manage assists and tactics. This is why I prefer and designed simulations rather than fast playing games. |
McLaddie | 22 Oct 2017 5:52 a.m. PST |
There is a learning curve for the rules in any game or simulation. And I would think that within the game processes there would be 'clues' on how to fight [play effectively] presented by the play environment/dynamics/effects. If the environment created has any semblance to the real environment. The command behaviors below and/or above the player's domain will also have to mimic the tactics and military operations of the period. Obviously, just as military men had to, the player will have to learn effective tactics within the environment created…if created well, the players will learn or be able to apply actual tactics [learned outside the game] developed in the real world. Fast playing games can do that, depending on what they portray. Phil Sabin's Simulating War provides some good examples. From my experience, a functional simulation, just like the real world, teaches participants what works and what doesn't. [games do that too within the game system] If the simulation does an adequate job of portraying reality, what is learned will mirror and be applicable to the real world [or the past]. Whether that is going to be learning trial-by-error in play or using previously learned set of skills depends entirely on what the player brings to the table. |
Rudysnelson | 22 Oct 2017 7:34 a.m. PST |
Another area that knowledge on how to what is scenario design. Most people lack the experience or the application practice on basic military concepts. Besides KOCOA and MOOSE MUSS there are other principles as well. For example, any stationary facility has to have a defense plan drawn up by the commander. This is different than the nightly unit or patrol plan drawn up each night. In 1981, at the Quartermaster school, I was tasked with developing different scenarios for logistical units and transportation as well as G1 bases to practice on at the field and classroom training level. So scenarios in modern and WW2 combat against such facilities can be fun. Another concept is the concept of inter-dependent positions high is when you fire at a sector and rely on other positions to do the same. The Hay bunker in Vietnam is an example. It is designed like a hex. You fire out the two angles, firing slots, on each side while the side facing the enemy is reinforcing wood and dirt barrier. The concept is that the enemy fires forward hitting the barrier while you are firing on their flanks. So you are dependent on the adjacent bunker to clear your front. In gaming men are often shifting from their assigned sectors to fire at any target of opportunity which is wrong. |
Blutarski | 22 Oct 2017 8:44 a.m. PST |
I'll chip in with some observation of game play related to my AoS rules, which are oriented to the simulation side of the spectrum: 1 – Crew quality makes a big difference, not only in rate of fire, but also in the ability to carry out maneuvers. The more complex the maneuver, the greater the advantage accruing to the better crew. 2 – When it is possible to master the notorious habit of individual players to go swanning off on their own initiative, the value of a good master tactical plan becomes manifest. I have seen (on more than one occasion) inferior French squadrons in the lee position frustrate over-aggressive British opponents by steadily giving ground while shooting up the approaching Brits. The British attempt to close too sharply, cannot easily bring their broadsides to bear and ultimately have so many ships crippled aloft that they cannot catch up the French in with sufficient numbers. 3 – Players who have played a few times discover the benefit of concentrating upon the rear of the opponent's line of battle (In my game, it can take a considerable period of time for the van come around and get back to support the rear of the line (as Wolfie points out …. "timing is everything" in a good simulation). B
|
Wolfhag | 22 Oct 2017 11:15 a.m. PST |
Blutarski, The AoS example is a good one. Use your strengths against your enemies weakness, take advantage of tactical advantage, let him take losses, get frustrated and make mistakes. Then pounce on him in a counterattack. I developed tactics cards (playing card size) that explain the different tactics, prereqs and effects. It's their fault if they fail to take advantage of them. Some tactics give you a speed advantage but with an accuracy disadvantage. The differences in timing between crew types allow better crews an initiative advantage. A bad habit that many players have is to open fire as soon as they can, even if they have a small chance of hitting. They can use the "Tracking" tactic to fire in any later turn with no additional delay. This allows the target to get within range or present a flank shot. Wolfhag |
etotheipi | 23 Oct 2017 4:43 a.m. PST |
Never had the problem in the OP. I always design from the top-down instead of the bottom-up. Each decision down to the next tier is a subjective call based on what you want. |
Blutarski | 23 Oct 2017 8:30 a.m. PST |
" I always design from the top-down instead of the bottom-up. Each decision down to the next tier is a subjective call based on what you want." I see a risk in such an approach artificially "forcing" a pre-conceived belief/impression upon the game mechanics. My approach (I am not by any means prepared to acclaim it as the only correct path) has been to identify what seem to be the important fundamentals, quantify them in terms of game mechanics, then play-test to see whether the complex inter-relationships among these identified fundamentals create an environment wherein historical tactics prove to be profitable. Strictly my opinion, of course. B |