Over the past few days I have been conducting an online discussion with the owner of the WARGAMING EVERYTHING blog.
He wrote a very honest review of the rules ... which he did not particularly like, especially the Close Combat system and some aspects of the musketry and artillery rules. In his conclusions he wrote:
To date I have not produced a QRS for my rules because the feedback I have had from players is that they don’t need one as they can pick-up the main points after a couple of turns. I will, however, give the matter some thought if there is sufficient demand to make producing one worthwhile.
He wrote a very honest review of the rules ... which he did not particularly like, especially the Close Combat system and some aspects of the musketry and artillery rules. In his conclusions he wrote:
The above depicted melee was what broke it for me. The way modifiers work, the Russian flanking unit is less susceptible to lose men when flanking. So far so good. But is the French unit in dire straights for being flanked and in combat against two enemies? No, it isn’t. In fact the rather slim chances of losing men are further reduced to a 1 in 6 by the general supporting the French. They can literally fight for a dozen turns without effect while on other parts of the battlefield a unit can be shot to pieces quickly. Not to say that the artillery and musketry modifiers are more to my liking.I like good, honest criticism, especially when – as in this case – the person making the criticism has spent time looking at the way the rules operate and the mathematics behind the mechanisms used. I have answered the points he has raised in my comments on his blog, but I suspect that we are never going to agree. However, looking at the points he raised has made me re-examine the thinking behind the way I designed my rules, and I am still happy with the way that they work.
Adding to that, I can pretty much play many rules systems with a 1-2 page rules overview (QRS) but the rules layout of this book is standing in the way of clarity in my opinion. Said modifiers are formulated in lists of whole sentences which have to re-read quite a few times to find the ones that apply. A QRS is not included. There are good parts though. The decisions to suffer casualties vs push back tied to unit experience is a clever mechanic forcing the players to make though choices. In the end, though, I will rather move on to other rules that work in my opinion.
To date I have not produced a QRS for my rules because the feedback I have had from players is that they don’t need one as they can pick-up the main points after a couple of turns. I will, however, give the matter some thought if there is sufficient demand to make producing one worthwhile.
Bob,
ReplyDeleteThank you for sharing the feedback you received. As a player, I always like ,to hear what others may think. As a rules write I like feedback, even if I don't agree with it; it may give me better insight with my next rules or a revision.
As for a QRS, I don't think one is needed for PW - I do however generally create a one page reference sheet: one side is handy table of modifiers while the other covers movement, ranges and the like. Usually I have modified tables to fit my table or style of game, making the sheet handy for new players or opponents.
Keep up the good work!
Mike Taber,
DeleteOne thing that I began to appreciate early on during my membership of Wargame Developments was the benefit of constructive criticism, and I have found over the years that it has helped me to write much better rules. I saw the comments made on this particular blog as falling into that category, which is why I both answered them on his blog and directed regular readers of my blog to his comments.
Funnily enough, the PW rules began life in a QRS format, and it would not be tremendously difficult to produce some. How I could distribute them is more problematic, but it is a problem that I am sure can be overcome.
All the best,
Bob
I have started to paint and base 10mm Austrian opponents for my French.
ReplyDeleteI would hope to start playtesting the rules at Division level. First thing I thought of was to do a QRS.
I'll let you know how I get on.
Jim Duncan,
DeleteI'd be interested to see what your QRS looks like when it is finished. I'm also interested to see what your 10mm figures look like once they have been painted.
All the best,
Bob
I'll send you some this evening.
DeleteJim Duncan,
DeleteMany thanks. I look forward to seeing them.
All the best,
Bob
Interesting discussion. I can see where he is coming from. At this level of game I consider the ranged fire to be essentially fire by skirmishers and attached artillery with melee representing primarily close range musketry.
ReplyDeleteIn any event, I will stay any conclusions or judgments until I have the time and attention for a more thorough read and some games. (apart from the idea of squares in the War of 1812 .......)
Ross Mac,
DeleteAs you well know, rules are a compromise between what we would like to happen on the tabletop and the simplest and easiest ways to achieve close to that.
All the best,
Bob
Credit to you for taking "the rough with the smooth" Bob attempting to constructively appreciate the points raised.
ReplyDeleteGeordie an Exile FoG,
DeleteI think that the writer raised some relevant points which needed to be addressed ... and after years of being in WD and attending COW, I've learned to appreciate constructive criticism.
He'd used the rules, and there were some things that he didn't like. Fair enough. Far better than the 'I don't like these rules because the pictures aren't in colour' (which is one reaction that I have had by someone who had not even tried them out!).
All the best,
Bob
Regarding a QRS- when playing the PWG I have usually taken the time to condense the bits I need for the battle I am fighting into my own set of notes for reference in game, making a de facto QRS of my own. I prefer this way of doing things because I can choose to include only the information for the units I am using (for instance, Sumer v. Akkad means I can ignore artillery and elephants altogether). I have also found that condensing the rules into note form is such an effective method of memorising them that I barely need the notes afterwards anyway!
ReplyDeleteJoe McLaren,
DeleteThat is a very interesting approach ... and one that is similar to my own.
When I use my rules, I have a list of the units, their SPs, move distances, weapon ranges, and the Exhaustion Point for both sides to hand. I only look at the book when I am not sure of a modifier, but that may only be once or twice during each battle.
I have tried to produce a QRS for the Brigade-level Napoleonic rules, but it is almost impossible to do it without just repeating what is in the rules almost verbatim.
All the best,
Bob
Bob -
ReplyDeleteI have your book and read through it, but haven't yet had the chance to try out the rule sets. As it is, my units (8-figure foot and 6-figure horse) and scarcity of generals may require some modification.
Having said that, I have constructed a draft OOB for Davout's III Corps and the Duke of Brusnwick's Prussian army (including the Reserve Corps of Kalkreuth) for a Battle of Auerstadt. For this, I have used 1 SP per infantry battalion, 1 SP for 300 cavalry (very approximately) and 1 SP per 8-guns. I've classed Marshal Davout as 'Good' and Brunswick and Kalkreuth both as 'Poor', bit otherwise so far have made no modifications for troop quality.
As such, I am very tempted to make the entire III Corps 'Elite' owing to their high level of training, and the quality of their Divisional commanders. The Prussian grenadiers and guards units (each single battalions, with SP=1) might be also classed as elite, and Blucher (commander of the Advance Guard) as 'Good', if it is applicable.
Don't ask me when I'll get to do the actual battle! Some really crook weather seems to be forecast for this weekend. Maybe then. Though, really, I think I have to play test the rules sets first. I have a bit of an idea about that...
Cheers,
Ion
Archduke Piccolo (Ion),
DeleteWow! You have gone far further than I had, turning a couple of actual OOBs into a their equivalent PNW armies. It sounds very interesting, and even if you don't manage to fight the battle, your ideas are incredibly helpful and thought-provoking.
In truth, I hadn't thought of developing the concept of equating infantry battalion = 1 SP, 300-ish cavalry = 1 SP, and 8 guns = 1 SP for the Corps-level Big Battle rules, but it makes sense, and when I have the time, I may well try this idea out myself.
Thanks for sharing this with me. It has given me much to think about.
All the best,
Bob