Help support TMP

"Feudal Patrol(TM) Play Test" Topic

3 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.

Back to the Game Design Message Board

Back to the Medieval Battle Reports Message Board

Areas of Interest


Featured Hobby News Article

Featured Ruleset

Featured Showcase Article

World's Greatest Dice Games

A cheap way to pick up on the latest fad and get your own dice cup for wargaming?

Featured Workbench Article

Featured Profile Article

3DPrinting: Striations, Surfaces, Wisps & Fusing

Personal logo Editor in Chief Bill The Editor of TMP Fezian discusses the limitations and challenges of working with a low-end 3Dprinter.

Current Poll

769 hits since 1 Oct 2019
©1994-2020 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

surdu200501 Oct 2019 10:41 a.m. PST

Chris Abby, of Sally 4th, recently conducted a pre-publication play test of Feudal Patrol and posted a report on his blog. See it here: link

Analsim01 Oct 2019 10:42 a.m. PST


After reviewing the Where's the Wargaming Rules Innovation thread below, I wanted to add my own two cents without deliberately 'high-jacking the thread', until after it has run its course. ;^)

Personally, I think half the problem with the apparent lack of wargame innovation is a result of the limited 'wargame designer gene pool', that innovation can draw upon. This is No indictment of anyone here, just noting that our small population (numbers), will limit innovations.

Notwithstanding, wargame design innovation is occurring, its just not at the rate and order of magnitude, that will always get your attention. Most of this I believe is related to how innovation occurs. Whether it is Revolutionary or Evolutionary, will make a big difference on whether or not it shows up on your own radar.

In respects to Wargame Design, the concept of "Revolutionary" is very distinct from "Evolutionary."

The Revolutionist designer is more radical, and innovations are more discontinuous or nonlinear (i.e. he invokes novelty). Revolutionary thinkers may take customer feedback into consideration, but ultimately they aim to deliver results that consumers have not yet considered.

By comparison, the wargame Evolutionist is prepared to think of continuous improvements inside a linear framework (i.e. he evolves paradigms). If you make evolutionary change, you probably do so based on an existing infrastructure, most likely from the feedback produced by prior iterations of whatever you decide to improve.

To make an analogy, picture two (2) wargame designers standing halfway up a hill. The Evolutionary designer ponders about which way is best to reach the top of the existing hill. The Revolutionary designer imagines how to scale a yet-undiscovered taller hill.

Even so, you can make an argument that the gradual and necessary innovations on top of these new ideas are just as important as creating them.

In any case, I offer this up as Food for thought.

robert piepenbrink Supporting Member of TMP01 Oct 2019 1:48 p.m. PST

Another victim of The Bug!

Surdu 2005, good game and report.

Analsim, my interest in rules has nothing to do with how "revolutionary" and "innovative" they are, and a lot to do with whether I think a historical engagement, given the same forces, terrain and decisions, would have pretty much that result. Change because that was not achieved is reasonable. Change for its own sake is something I would prefer to observe from a safe distance. The other side of the Atlantic sounds about right.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.