Having read through all the feedback I have had from the various people who have play-tested the rules, I have come to the conclusion that I need to clarify – in my own mind – what I am trying to achieve.
My design parameters are:
My design parameters are:
- To write a set of wargames rules that can be used for solo and/or face-to-face battles
- To write a set of wargames rules that use simple but subtle mechanisms that an average player can memorise by the end of the third turn
- To make it possible for battles to be fought to a conclusion in a relatively short period of time – one to two hours duration being the goal
- To use a gridded battlefield (either squares – as in the existing version of the rules – or hexes) so that the pace of play is speeded up
- To use a wargames battlefield that can fit onto a 3 foot x 4 foot table, and yet still leaves space around the edge of the tabletop for all the detritus that is usually associated with a wargame
- To make the creation of the armies need to fight battles with these rules as easy and/or cheap as possible so that people will be encouraged to create more than one army
- To present the rules in such a way that users have no difficulty in interpreting what each rule means
- To make the rules as user friendly as possible
Hi Bob,
ReplyDeleteStick at it! I liked the rules, and I'm sure you'll improve then yet further with a new revision. Onwards and upwards!
Craig
Ok, lets' review the goals from an outsider's perspective using WEC as our model.
ReplyDelete- To write a set of wargames rules that can be used for solo and/or face-to-face battles.
= Done.
- To write a set of wargames rules that use simple but subtle mechanisms that an average player can memorize by the end of the third turn.
= Done. Maybe the subtly is lost on me though. :-)
- To make it possible for battles to be fought to a conclusion in a relatively short period of time, one to two hours duration being the goal
= Done.
- To use a gridded battlefield (either squares, as in the existing version of the rules, or hexes) so that the pace of play is speeded up.
= Uh-oh. You have pick one, squares or hexes, early on. It is my opinion that one cannot write rules that work for both simultaneously.
= I vote for hexes. No wait! Squares! Uh. Hexes! Indecision may or may not be my problem.
- To use a wargames battlefield that can fit onto a 3 foot x 4 foot table, and yet still leaves space around the edge of the tabletop for all the detritus that is usually associated with a wargame.
= Done. When I game solo I want the table top looking its best. All the associated game "stuff" goes on a little side table, maybe 1.5' by 1.5', like an old "TV tray." Get the wayback machine warmed up.
- To make the creation of the armies need to fight battles with these rules as easy and/or cheap as possible so that people will be encouraged to create more than one army.
= Done. The simple points systems and suggested army lists in your various rules makes this easy to do.
- To present the rules in such a way that users have no difficulty in interpreting what each rule means.
= Ah, the hard part! Keep plugging. I'll keep reading and commenting. Don't know if that was a threat or a promise? Remember, they are your rules. Unless you plan to sell them, the only person you REALLY have to please is you.
- To make the rules as user friendly as possible.
= Done. I think you have done this. One of the more important things is presenting the rules in the order used and only once, so there are no missed edits where the same rule is stated differently in one or more places.
Writing game rules, especially wargame rules, is not as easy a most gamers think. Until one tries one can have little appreciation for the effort involved. So feel good about your efforts so far. Relax. Have one of you favorite drinks. Or two. Be happy.
Ok. Back to the keyboard.
Jim Wright
CWT and Jim,
ReplyDeleteI have begun work on the redraft ... and will certainly need that large drink sometime soon!
Having got the bulk of the rules working, it is the fine tuning that takes time and effort. I want the next edition to have explanatory diagrams and/or pictures as well as examples of play.
This is a much taller order than just writing a set of rules, and will require longer to get right. On the other hand, if I get it right I will feel that I have really achieved something.
All the best (and thanks for your support),
Bob
Hi Bob,
ReplyDeleteGreat stuff. I vote for squares - BUT Offset or aligned as per the current grid? There is the rub....
Nonme saod that it was a straightforward answer ;-)
Tone
robertpeel999,
ReplyDeleteOffset squares do have many advantages ... but so do hexes (of which I have loads!!!) and ordinary squares.
I will probably go for the latter ... and use hexes for any mid-20th century variants I may develop in the future.
All the best,
Bob