"Rules: Fashion or Progress?" Topic

It appears that UshCha has fully recovered from his surgery and is back in his prime <grin>

Wolfhag

Celarly we are arguing from diffrent perspectives. I would never do scenario specific rules, were I to do so I would be writing new rules and scenarios twice a week in some cases. Hence it may be a diffrence in approach about what even a basic set of rules should be. The nightmare would extend to the players as they would have to learn a new subset each week and even then be carefull not to go beyond the sub set for that scenario. That is the definition of not fun.
Similarly its one of the reasones we reduce the types and definitions of terrain, trying to remember this days, perhaps not even this weeks terrain definitions, would be equally horrendious.

Clarly fundamentals of what is the scope of rules is a matter that is by no means agreed by all parties.

Definiely not back to normal. No foreseeable wargaming at home or the club for proably 4 more weeks, pure hell.

Wolfhag

Also with is things have longevity, I see that in certain areas we hit a plateau of something being as good as they can be with current thinking/design.

To keep generating interest commercial publishing companies put out new versions of the same thing or they will die.

G6
Sure, that's not what I mean really. Some things don't change because people haven't come up with a better or different way of doing it.

Obviously the more commercial rules change things to sell product. Though of course as designs are refined and errors ironed out I can't hold that as a reason not to produce an update set.

Thats differnt to say GW binning everything that went before so they can relaunch. Etc.

Not all commercial games companies are made equal.

Wolfhag
I've seen lots of improvements in systems that didn't fit in what people think of as rules and fall by the wayside.

If you think it's an improvement, it's really just a variation of the old.

G6
Not sure whether I'm unclear on what you mean or disagree or sort of agree 🤷

Your tank rules aren't like anything I've seen before. Is it a variation of the old?

In many ways yes, rules just rearrange deck chairs on the titanic…

As long as conventional thinking on what a set of rules should be remains unchallenged then then we will continue to see the same things.

Not that I care what other people like. As I said before I look for others who don't follow the standard path.

The nightmare would extend to the players as they would have to learn a new subset each week and even then be carefull not to go beyond the sub set for that scenario

It is worse to learn one or two rules on top of a one page core set than to learn many pages of rules and only use a small percentage of them during a game? Nnne of my repeat players or repeat customers seem to mind.

Similarly its one of the reasones we reduce the types and definitions of terrain, trying to remember this days, perhaps not even this weeks terrain definitions, would be equally horrendious.

As a matter of fact, this is a great argument for scenario specific bits. Our rules don't have 'terrian types" to memorize. There is a core set of simple stats that characterize terrain, and you specify which is which in the scenario. We usually have three or four different terrain types in a game, somtimes up to six. Because the descriptions are structured by the rules, nobody has a hard time picking it up. Because you desccribe it in situ, there is no cognitive transfer (this object on the table = terrain A; terrain A = {these characteristics}). There is not learning of even a small set of terrain types you don't need, and there is no need to remember weeks later.

Celarly we are arguing from diffrent perspectives.

Clearly. When someone asks me a question, I usually answer it instead of hiding the untenable, incomprehensible fact that I might have said something wrong, by shifting the topic of discussion.

UshCha,
Good luck with your physical recovery. At least your online presence has not suffered <grin>

Love ya dude.

Wolfhag

Lets look at WW2/CW rules which were published prior to 1990.
WAR GAME RULES 1925-1975 – Infantry Actions (Jun 1972)
Tactical Command: Rules for WW II (1982)
Fire Fight: Modern Skirmish Rules (1985)
ANGRIFF (1968, 1972 & 1982)
FAST RULES (1970 & 1972)
TRACTICS (1971 & 1975) reprinted in 2021
WAR GAME RULES 1925-1950 (1972, 1973 and 1974/1975)
CAMBRAI TO SINAI (1978 & 1983)
COMBAT COMMANDER 1973-1983 (1978, 1979 and 1980)
WARGAME RULES 1950 to 1985 (1979)
WARGAME RULES 1950 to 1985 (1979)
CHALLENGER (1983, 1988 and 1992)
COMBINED ARMS (1983)
FIREFLY (1987)
WARGAMERS DIGEST WW2 RULES (1973-1975, 1978) never completed, reprint in 2019
CORPS COMMANDER (1986, 1987)
COMMAND DECISION (1986, 1992, 1998 & 2006)
COMBINED ARMS (1988)
LIGHTNING WAR (1989)
Most of the reprints involve significant updates and changes, although I am uncertain if this is the case with Tractics. If we ignore reprinted rules and only look at rules which were published prior to 1990, few rules are still being used. If the reprinted version of tractics involved minimal updates, that may be a contender. LWRS could be another. Apart from these examples, old rules do not get much traction these days.
There is one interesting exception, which is the trend to convert board-games into a figure game format. I use a figure game conversion of the old SPI Modern Battles board-game, which was published in the 1970's. I must admit I do this only because the rules are simple and easy to learn, but these are old rules which i do still use a lot these day. I also occasionally give Corps Commander a go, but only very occasionally and i do not know of any other gamers using these rules.

etotheipi

It and worse to learn one or two rules on top of a one page core set than to learn many pages of rules and only use a small percentage of them during a game? Nnne of my repeat players or repeat customers seem to mind.

Yje shoretest set or actual Rules I have seen is DBA. Even those rund to several pages. One page core rules cannot be rules there is insufficent available data space to even celarly define any of the terms. Now it may be you could call them guidelines and have an independant umpire supply the equivalent of lots of pages of rules to prop up the guidelines.

If I think of our rules and try to work out how much of the rules we use each scenario I get most of them.

Movement, mosts of them, evem the high speed for AFV's gets used if they need to dash across a road in an urban enviroment. Infantry movement all rules are used.

Weapons fire Infantry most of the weapons of infabntry, some unique wepons may not be used but they are few and far between.

AFV Weapons fire, all basic rules are used all the time, penetration and armoure values are used according to the period, vehicale typoes used in the scenario.

Communicatios 100% mosst of the time, so being generous maybe 70% used all the time.

Tearrian, Obviously not all scanarios use all types of terrain but the common ones, hill, hedges, woods feature in most so again being generous perhaps 50% used.

Recconisance depending on assests available it varies but at least 50% of the rules used all of the time.

Infantry close combat. All the rules most of the time. I admit over the 16+ years I have been plqying ther has been maybe 5 scanarios that have not featured infantry so the rules have not been used. But even then we are taking about 90% usage.

Artillery – here useage may vary from 0 to 100%, not all scenarios have artillery support for one reason or another.

On that basi your statement that most of the time you use a few percent of the rules seems unsupportable, certaily from my perspective.

Perhaps you do not have an integrated system so need far more rules than we do to perform the basic tasks to your liking.

The nightmare would extend to the players as they would have to learn a new subset each week and even then be careful not to go beyond the sub set for that scenario. That is the definition of not fun.

I'm not sure what scenarios you're playing that would require a "new subset." I write a lot of our scenarios, and I might include one or two specific scenario rules, but they're usually very simple and concise. For example: "Crossing the swamp takes two turns," "Units remain hidden until they fire," or "If French troops enter the mosque, the allied tribe will switch sides." These rules are straightforward and practical. I can't imagine creating a scenario without having the option to include such rules when needed.

One page core rules cannot be rules there is insufficent available data space to even celarly define any of the terms.

This is basically what I expected. You base your judgment on your opinion of yourself without actually reading what you are judging. Again.

You describe using the same set of capabilities in every scenario. Do you fight any scenarios that look like the actual compositions of forces real miltaries use in the type of modern scenario you describe or do you just fight the same individual battle all the time?

not sure you have a grip on this. Movement assuming you do not have artificial terrain is used all the time. Vehicles are capable of various speed so most of those rules are basic.

Command and control, do you have different sets for each scenario, defining them accurately for each scenario and making sure you have covered all possibilities seems a tall order unless the scenario is over scripted. Now I agrtee if you find command and control an irritation so do not use it than yes you can remove such rules. Me I don't subscribe to such things.

Our battles use a wide range of vehicles and go from very low intensity warfare, perhaps even some forms of convoy interception to more typical combined arms assault supported aby all ground arms. This can be over open ground or in the depth of an urban enviroment.

You have not explained how you avoid writing several pages on the basics of movement with all reasonable variations covered.

Lack of clear precise definitions leads to chaotic play or the need for an independent umpire. Not sure many rules come with their own independant umpire.

DBA is as far as I am concerned is a bare minimum wargame. Even without the specification of troop types, the basic mechanism are not covered in one page. You would be a miraculous writer if you could get even DBA down precisely in a 1 page set of core rules.

Movement assuming you do not have artificial terrain is used all the time.

Movement is used all the time. You describe your rules needing multple pages to describe various movement variations. I guess you use every one of those rules across multiple pages in every game.

You have not explained how you avoid writing several pages on the basics of movement with all reasonable variations covered.

I've posted it multiple times. Again…

link

First of all I would like to say thankyou. I was all set up to buy QILS when I found out it was free. My bad. It is great to see such generosity. I am afraid I have not read it, no reflection on your standing, today I have a headache and so could not do the text justice. I will read it and pass comment when I can do it with a clear head, again thankyou.

Definiely not back to normal. No foreseeable wargaming at home or the club for proably 4 more weeks, pure hell.

Get well soon UshCha

As we all get older rules will get simpler because we can't cope with anything more complex.
As long as we rely on commercial rules there will be nothing radically new because that would be a commercial risk.
Fads will come and go, but essentially infantry will move 12" and we will continue to throw dice for 'casualties' and melee wi9ll happen.

Mark J Wilson You must be old. Me i'm only 70 so by no means old. I guess old starts at 80, but I have met guy's out on E bikes doing decent distances at 85 so may be then.

You are write about the more traditional 6" for infantry 12" for cavalry. Personally that died for me with the rise of DBM which was a revolution in many way.

I have met types younger than me lecturing me on my rules saying they are wrong and insisting on the 6"/12" as the only way. I feel many such folk are unwilling to learn anything else, also those less into the game and more into the painting, play so many periods they need/want rules that are undemanding as they play any one set so infrequently.

This can be epitomized by some we have met who want to line stuff up throw die and kill stuff, tactics and thought for them are a definite no no.

In the end its what you personally want.

As we all get older rules will get simpler because we can't cope with anything more complex.

I don't think its the ability to cope with complexity. I think it's the tolerance for irrelevant stuff.

The more complex the rules, the more likely parts of it do not map to what you find important. Also, since relevant is a personal, not an objective standard, more complex rules have higher odds that different people are uninterested in different things. This creates tension in the group (a meta-game element).

In the end its what you personally want.

My example of this is I really enjoy doing maneuvring board – a polar geometry, hands on process to calculate relative motion of ships (I think airdales do it too). I think its complex enough be challenging, but not so much to be frustrating. You are doing stuff with your hands, instead of running equations. And you end up with purty pitchers (if you like geometric line art).

As far as I know, everyone else on the planet hates it, or begrudgeingly tolerates it at best.

I have a set of pirate rules called "Advance and Transfer", two of the things you need to calculate for ship maneuver. It uses moboard. I think I could get two or three people to begrudgingly play it. Once.

I was all set up to buy QILS when I found out it was free.

The rules are free, the scenarios cost. That's the way I think it should work.

Also, it's nice when military and government people hire me to do, teach, or design wargames for them. The rules are free and available, and their specific content (scenarios or instruction) are their proprietary intellectual property as work performed for contract.

I did have NATO buy a bucket of my cyberwarfare supplement. It's implemented with a deck of cards, and overlays effects on other wargames. So it costs more than other stuff because you need a physical product.

Something like my Battle of Puebla scenario just leverages the core rules and adds two rules: one for French artillery and the other for Mexcian civilians. All the scenarios (I am pretty sure) have guidelines to move them to other systems. It's one of the benefits of having a good definition of the difference between rule content, unit stats, and scenarios. Functionally, those things are orthogonal (nearly) to each other, and you can reap the benefits of that if you treat them like that instead of mixing them together.

We I've read QILS now. To be honest I cannot really comment on it. There is so little there on which I could base anything on. No ground scale, no time scale. It reminds me of a subroutine in my own rules important but just that a subroutine not a set of rules.

It took years (literally 2) years to integrate firepower, Communications, spotting etc. into a cohesive set. Probably 80% minimum of my rules. You propose that this is done for each scenario, I will be honest that is well past the capabilities of me and my co-author to even once a week.

Typically, like say DBM I would expect an integrated set of rules. QUILS is something perhaps unique, but it is not something I can relate to, or use in any practical sense, my bad perhaps?

UshCha,
It would be more constructive to ask why the designer did what he did and why.

Wolfhag

Wolfhag To be fair etotheipi was very clear, the rules were free but other than some simple scenarios with the rules, you paid for the scenarios. Can't criticize him for that.
I simply state that without a specific scenario the system is nowhere as complete as a "standard" set or rules, but again to be fair that was clearly stated as the case by the author.

He also stated that this was a good approach for his commercial customers and I cannot usefully disagree with that.

So what would I ask? Why he did something different? Even I would consider that as being insulting for no good reason, designers are allowed to do as they see fit.

Well, I think QILS is more complete than a lot of rules that have more pages. More rules don't necessarily mean better rules.

If UshCha can't relate to the rules, he can't. I can't relate to the idea that you would want to constrain a set of rules to a specific ground scale. Doing so is neither good nor bad, it is all preference.

etotheipi not going to disagree with it.

It's what the designer wants between what's in the scenario and what's in the rules.

To be fair If our rules were to cover underwater as well, adding those rules to the basic rules we have now which cover land, would be I agree daft. Massive levels of redundancy, so as you say a matter of personal preference.

PS the fact that I can't personanaly relate to the system is not a negative comment on you rules but just a reflection on different personalities.

[open parenthesis]

Here's a WIP system where everything is new (except the square grid).

Prove me wrong. 😁

[close parenthesis]

Here's a WIP system where everything is new

Are combat results deterministic?

Overall I like it but ancients aren't my expertise. What's unique about the command and morale system?

Wolfhag

Are combat results deterministic?

Overall I like it but ancients aren't my expertise. What's unique about the command and morale system?

Wolfhag

Deterministic yes, with a bit of chance in a leader can be killed by unlucky dice throws and that will affect the combat of his unit.

Command has no range: leaders must be with a unit and other units attached to that unit in a line or column to be in command. Leaders have a limited number of "command points" (depending on their command rating) which determines how many times they can change direction during the game. On one command point they can advance down a corridor 3 battlefield squares wide, their command following with/alongside them. Each time they change direction (in 90 degree increments) they lose a command point. Once they've lost their last command point they can freely range only a limited number of squares from the square where they lost their last command point.

Morale: true, it's a bit like unit steps in other games, but has firm and shaken intervals and is lost in a deterministic way until the unit routs.