The more I think about how to include Commanders in the redraft of my Modified Morschauser ‘19th Century’ Wargames Rules, the more confused I seem be.
It started out as a simple exercise; just the addition of a few extra rules and simple mechanisms to reflect the presence of a Commander on the battlefield. In the process it has become something far more complex, and it is in danger of turning a set of simple fast-play wargames rules into a monster.
At present I do not seem to be able to find a way forward that meets the twin criteria of being compatible with the existing Morschauser rules and their underlying philosophy whilst also allowing Commanders to be represented on the tabletop.
I have therefore decided that the best course of action I can take is to walk away from the problem for the time being. If I do this, and concentrate on something else for a week or two, I will come back with a refreshed perspective on the problem. I may well not come up with a simple solution … such a thing might not be possible … but at least I will not get more and more frustrated with the rules as they currently stand, which is what is happening at present.
It started out as a simple exercise; just the addition of a few extra rules and simple mechanisms to reflect the presence of a Commander on the battlefield. In the process it has become something far more complex, and it is in danger of turning a set of simple fast-play wargames rules into a monster.
At present I do not seem to be able to find a way forward that meets the twin criteria of being compatible with the existing Morschauser rules and their underlying philosophy whilst also allowing Commanders to be represented on the tabletop.
I have therefore decided that the best course of action I can take is to walk away from the problem for the time being. If I do this, and concentrate on something else for a week or two, I will come back with a refreshed perspective on the problem. I may well not come up with a simple solution … such a thing might not be possible … but at least I will not get more and more frustrated with the rules as they currently stand, which is what is happening at present.
.jpg)
Hi Bob, Just the thing to do methinks - you have a challenging project list so immersion in something else is just the thing to refresh a jaded palate! Are you going to Tonbridge?
ReplyDeleteAll the best,
Ogre
Odd in a way that simple is so much harder, isn't it? Sometimes walking away for a while is the best plan.
ReplyDelete-Ross
Ogrefencer,
ReplyDeleteIt does make sense. Looking at things from a distance does tend to make it easier to see the whole picture and, as you point out, I do have plenty of other things that I can do in the meantime.
I had hoped to get to Tonbridge next weekend, but it looks as though this might be difficult.
All the best,
Bob
Ross Mac,
ReplyDeleteThe problem with simple wargames is making them easy to understand without leaving them full of holes that are 'wargames rules lawyer' can drive a coach and horse through.
All the best,
Bob
Perhaps the best course of action after all is said and done is just to cut the whole thing down to one C-in-C for each side, which will defend itself if attacked alone, but otherwise will give +1 to any unit it is behind and adjacent to. Or, in the alternative, follow DBA in having the C-in-C on a designated stand, which gets a permanent +1.
ReplyDeleteEither method takes care of the stacking problem, and with almost no Generals on the field, the window for rules lawyers is much smaller. (Besides which, should we even worry about those wonderful individuals? A pox on them!)
It seems to me Joe may have omitted Generals in order to keep things simple. Still, it does seem a little odd not to have The Great Men represented in some way.
Just a thought.
Chris J,
ReplyDeleteSeveral other people have made similar suggestions, and they are all under consideration.
Thanks for your ideas and feedback; every suggestion made helps me to come to a decision about how to solve this problem.
All the best,
Bob