As the unbiased and completely objective designer of FFT, I'd like to offer the following rebuttal to Joe Collins' comments about FFT and MSH.
***
He's completely and utterly wrong and should be horsewhipped for his impertinence.
***
Nah, just kidding. Actually, here is a reply to the post that I made to the FFT email list, edited somewhat to remove the vicious sarcasm, violent threats and profanity (kidding again):
Before replying to the post, I'd like to make it clear that I respect Arty Conliffe and have enjoyed many of his games. I simply have a different view of what is important in a modern wargame and FFT reflects that bias. As I'm fond of saying, FFT is the game *I* want to play. To the extent that our tastes agree, you'll enjoy FFT. The converse is true of course.
While I like Spearhead and by extension, MSH, neither was the game I wanted to play (and both came out after FFT anyhow).
I don't think that there's any doubt that FFT has the more interesting and engaging combat system (and a *far* larger database of equipment). FFT's combat system is about as fast as MSH, yet nowhere near as bland. I believe strongly that combat should be the focus of any WARgame. If you want to spend all your time maneuvering, play a racing game. :-)
And since I adhere to what I call the "zero-sum" philosophy of game design, I chose to lavish attention on the combat systems, rather than the artillery systems, the command systems, etc. The "zero-sum" philosophy holds that there should be a finite amount of energy or "time" in each game turn. Each mechanic reduces the time available in a turn. So lavishing attention on one system "costs" time and reduces the remaining time available for other systems. Since I consider combat to the the most important element in wargames, combat gets the most detailed treatment. I play wargames for the express purpose of blowing things up.
Being a long time modern gamer and inveterate tinkerer with systems, I've resented games that made it difficult to add equipment or change the designer's ratings. So I felt an obligation to give FFT players as flexible a ruleset as possible. We disclosed the underlying formulae to determine game ratings and point values. This allows players to (a) add equipment that we missed; and (b) examine and alter (if desired) our assumptions about ratings. And if the players do change the ratings, their altered stands can be integrated into the point values. This makes it far easier to use customized data in games with other people. You can (for instance) make the T-80 better protected, but it will cost more points. I submit that at the end of the day, this gives players far more flexibility than they get with MSH.
I also note that our methodology is in the open and exposed to critics. Few game designers are so bold (some might say, stupid).
As for MSH's "superior" command and control system, well, I guess we'll have to disagree on that. For years, its elegance and simplicity has tempted me. But after years of blowing hot and cold on that system, I have finally decided that no such system will appear in FFT. I've finally realized that elegance alone does not justify an inappropriate mechanic.
First, I am dubious that a command and control system designed for WWII can function — unaltered — for wars 60 years later. I doubt anyone would use a command and control system unaltered from a American Civil War game for WWII.
More importantly, I have a profound philosophical disagreement with many game designers — I am inalterably opposed to going out of my way to frustrate the players.
I guess it will remain a mystery to me as to why so many designers think that it somehow improves a game if the rules regularly frustrate players by placing explicit limits on what they could otherwise do. I have never seen
any benefit in this, nor do I agree that such rules add anything desirable to a game. Nor have I been persuaded by the endless and bitter apologetics I've received from partisans of such systems.
In my opinion, limitations should be transparently integrated into the system as much as possible. Ideally, they should not be reflected by special rules that explicitely override players' desires and their unit capabilities as defined in the game.
Ideally, I tell the players what they can do, rather than what they can't do.
I particularly loathe "straitjacket" rules that place categorical prohibitions on players. Not only do they frustrate players, but they are *never* written well enough to avoid irrational situations (seemingly in every game, if not on every turn). This loathing grew out of the "doctrine" rules that were common to modern wargames of the 1970s and even into the 1980s. "Soviet units cannot do blah blah blah…"
In FFT2, Soviet players will use Soviet doctrine for the simple reason that it makes sense for them to do so, given
the equipment, troop quality and organization of the Soviet Army. No special rules are required. The players will use those tactics for the same reason their real world counterparts did — they make sense for them. Players *can* try to use NATO-style tactics if they wish…but they will
probably lose. The same is true of NATO players. Their equipment, troop quality and organization rewards NATO style tactics. If they act like Soviets, they'll probably get stomped.
It is hard for me not to see the MSH system as "Straitjacket Rules" writ large.
And we were acutely aware of command and control issues when we designed FFT. I just chose to build them into the FFT systems. Armies with lousy C&C capabilities are more rigid and not as maneuveable on the battlefield, and this is a transparent mechanic — no special rules needed. FFT bases *far* more on troop quality than any game I've played, including MSH. Since high quality troops invariably have superior C&C capabilities, the troop quality rules reflect C&C imitations. FFT2 certainly produces reasonable outcomes in our games.
As an aside, rigid and irrational target priority rules are a serious whip to me. For some inane reason, many designers seem to delight in imposing absurd restrictions on firing stands. While I agree that some kind of priority rules are needed to counter player omniscience, almost every system
that I've seen has gone way too far. So my target priority rules are simple and reasonable — and do not regularly force players or their stands into doing stupid things. I don't think that the same can be said of MSH's rules.
I am also dedicated to producing rules that are as objective as possible. While a referee is highly recommended, FFT does not require a referee to smooth out vague systems. I don't see how MSH style command systems could possibly work without a referee.
There are also some factual assertions made that I dispute:
1. I don't think that stands "flit" about the battlefield in FFT2. The fastest tank in the game moves 12 inches, while most move 8 inches or less…hardly "flitting". In MSH, if I recall correctly, the M1 moves 15" — 25% further than in FFT2. Of course, roads and strategic movement can increase the FFT movement rate. But the former is (a) reasonable and (b) controllable by the scenario designer. The latter imposes formidable combat restrictions and vulnerabilities and is used primary to shift reserves. Oh yes…FFT2 actually rewards keeping a reserve.
2. I'm a bit perplexed as to what the heck a "first generation design" is and why Joe assumes, a priori, it's inferior to later generation games…whatever the heck they are. Assuming that later generation games are characterized by games like Crossfire or Piquet, well frankly, I'm not
impressed. These systems and their ilk seem to me to be nothing more than dubious hodgepodges of player frustrating mechanics, unnecessarily obtuse systems and luck-dependent sequences of play. In my experience, such games reward good luck far more than great skill. Nor are they easily playable by more than 2 players…unless you like being bored. Finally, it seems nearly impossible to implement real world tactics in such games.
Oddly, I do not consider MSH to be in this class of games. Since Joe failed to define "first generation game", I can't evaluate his claim. But MSH seems pretty traditional in its mechanics to me, at least compared to games like Crossfire or Piquet.
3. I am frankly surprised at the implication that in FFT, a Soviet regiment is *not* a serious challenge to a NATO battalion. I think most FFT players would strongly disagree with this implication.
4. "Tremendous fields of fire". Perhaps the invention of the "turret" by John Ericcson in 1861 is not as widely known as I assumed? This fascinating device allows for…uh, "tremendous fields of fire." Since most modern tanks are equipped with these "turrets", I wonder what rationale exists for *not* allowing such tanks to fire in any direction. And since infantry stands are comprised of dozens of men, each with the individual ability to face a
unique direction and change that direction within a second, I'm curious as to the rationale for *not* allowing infantry to fire in any direction. Since game turns are 5-7 minutes long in FFT2 (long enough to allow a turret to spin 360 degrees many times), it seems to me that the only reason for such a rule would be to intentionally frustrate the players. I also note that in games with sequential movement (like MSH and FFT), arbitrary restrictions on fire arcs often reward player omniscience and gamesmanship (i.e.,
exploitation of the venerable Panzerbush), rather than real-world tactics. FFT's fire arc rules, "pivot" rules and "hold fire" rules greatly mitigate this.
5. "The command system is really left to the players." Well, Joe's right — and yet he seems to have missed the point. In FFT, C&C limitations are *intentionally* built-in and are modelled transparently. I must admit that I'm growing weary of the notion that the only way to reflect something is to have a special rule (presumably clearly labeled like a Bat Cave gadget). There's no special C&C system in FFT2 for the simple reason that NONE IS NECESSARY to produce reasonable and accurate results. The interaction of the cohesion rules and organization charts do everything that is required to model the significant C&C differences in the real world armies. No special rules needed.
6. If someone wants to graft the Spearhead C&C system onto FFT, they have my blessing. The Spearhead C&C system isn't terribly time consuming and is elegantly implemented. I just don't think that it improves the game, nor do I think that a C&C system designed for WWII is really going to give a "true command perspective" in battles taking place 60 years later. Even if we assume that it does so for WWII battles.
That said, someone who listens to Glen Campbell has no standing to criticize the tastes of others. I would, however, be curious as to how using an unlatered WWII C&C system for modern battles is an "improvement".
Finally, I do believe that FFT is superior to MSH. But remember that my definition of a good game is "a game that I want to play". That said, I think that MSH is heads and shoulders above the other modern wargames that I've played. It is a crisp, fast playing design and if I didn't design FFT, I'd probably play MSH. Of course, I'd have modified beyond all recognition. But I digress.
—Ty
