The first thing that strikes me is that the campaign system seems to work. It generated three battles, all of which were plausible, and the results were reasonably historical. After two quite easy victories over unprepared Russian formations, the Germans were pretty well fought to a standstill by the remaining Russian troops. The latter were wiped out in the process, but the German advance had been stopped until they had been able to regroup and replace their losses. In the meantime, STAVKA would be able to move more troops forward to meet a renewed German offensive.
I liked the SP equivalence idea that I 'borrowed' from Archduke Piccolo. It seemed to add something to the campaign. For my purposes, it needs to be tweaked a little bit more, but this is only a minor point.
The version of the PORTABLE WARGAME rules that I used worked well for the first two battles, but I was really struggling to keep all the balls in the air during the third and final battle. For one thing, the 8 x 8 squared grid was really too small for such a large battle (I think that a 12 x 12 squared grid would have been better ... but I don't have one at present), and troops were coming into Close Combat before they had had the opportunity to engage the enemy with gunfire beforehand. Using the playing cards to generate the Turn Sequence was difficult, and I ended up with three (and at the end, four) sets of cards in use at the same time. I had to remember which was which ... and at least once I got them muddled up. Luckily, I don't think that this affected the outcome of the battle.
I think that I pretty well 'pushed' the PORTABLE WARGAME rules to the limit ... and maybe, a bit beyond. In retrospect, I should probably have used my HEXBLITZ rules for such a large battle, and it may be that if I do want to refight the Eastern Front/Great Patriotic War, it is those rules (or something like them) that I will need to use.
As play-tests go, I think that it was a great success. It pointed out what worked, and highlighted what needed further development or to be changed. I now need to take a break from my Eastern Front/Great Patriotic War project, if only to give myself time to think about what future direction I need to take.
.jpg)
It was an interesting campaign just as a campaign, but your comments on the mechanics I find interesting. I tend to agree that probably the 8x8 board was a tight fit for the final battle, but a 10x10 - more than 50% greater in area - might have done.
ReplyDeleteI've not had to handle 4 formations in my battles, but have 3. My dice method seems to work at keeping things 'organised' as I take each command in turn, and roll for activation only when their turn comes around. For initiative I simply went 'Allies versus Turcowaz'. I did consider rolling for each Army, but dropped that idea almost at once.
Meanwhile, I have made a bit of a start on the Hellenic and Turcowaz navies, large vessels 4-inch long, destroyer types actually not all that much shorter (especially the 5-funnel Hellenic chappies). They'll probably have 3 'main' warships and a couple of destroyers each, depending on how enthusiastic I remain.
Cheers,
Ion
Archduke Piccolo (ion),
DeleteIn retrospect, I probably should not have allowed all three Russian formations to be located in the same campaign grid square, and then fought this as three separate sub-actions. Either than, or I should have used at least a 10 x 10 or 12 x 12 squared grid. Having tried handling elements of six formations in such a tight space I pushed the rules well beyond their limits, and although they worked, they only just worked!
I should have had just a single set of playing cards per side. It would have made things much easier for me, and reduced the level of in-game confusion I experienced.
I am very interested in your ship-building programme, and look forward to seeing the finished vessels in action in the near future.
All the best,
Bob
Bob -
DeleteSo far I've built two Turkish and one Greek battleships, and 1 Turkish destroyer/ torpedo boat, and have the profiles for one more Turkish and 2 Greek destroyers. I've used your recommended 'cartoon' method, and, although I've played fast and loose as far as ... erm ... 'accuracy' is concerned, I'm rather pleased with the way they are looking! HNS Hydra looks quite something... :-D
Cheers,
Ion.
Archduke Piccolo (Ion),
DeleteThat sounds like you will end up with a fairly balanced couple of naval forces. I look forward to seeing what they end up looking like.
My ‘cartoon’ models might not be the most accurate in the world, but they seem to fit the wargaming bill quite well.
All the best,
Bob
I think only allowing a certain number or size units in a campaign square would help in keeping things manageable Bob. I did this in a campaign I ran with friends earlier in the year, as it made the transition to the wargames table easy for me and something I could play solo. Maybe for multi-player games your original approach would be OK. I find that anything above about 12 units becomes much harder to maintain focus and control over as a player.
ReplyDeleteSteve J.,
DeleteRestricting the number of units within a campaign grid square would have made the last battle a lot easier to manage, and probably would have produced a more realistic result.
The ‘rule of twelve’ is a good one to stick to, and seems to be quite common in many sets of rules, and is one I always had in the back of my mind when I began writing my PW rules.
All the best,
Bob
I remember hearing you talk about using the rules to put limits on the players during your podcast interview. I'm not trying to play "gotcha" here, just to point out how what you said seems to be true.
DeleteIIRC you were saying that it's often unnecessary to put hard limits to what a player can do because a good set of rules will keep the player doing what is realistic without lots of artificial restraints.
It looks like your rules have hit their breaking point but that's a good thing! A real life field commander can only control so many formations effectively and he'll know when to hand off extra responsibilities to his colleagues and subordinates. That and you can only fit and maneuver so many formations in a given space.
It's not a bug Bob, it's a feature!
Mr. Pavone,
DeleteYou are absolutely right, I did say that in the interview that I had with Henry Hyde.
Part of the play-testing process should be testing to destruction ... or as near as I can get it. This last battle did push things to the limit and beyond, and I learned some valuable lessons as a result. They will be incorporated into the new rules when I next do some work on them.
I suspect that had I fought against a real opponent, things might have flowed a bit better! and keeping tabs on what was happening might have been a trifle easier ... but not by a great deal.
As you say, the limitations built into the rules are a feature, and not a bug that needs fixing.
All the best,
Bob
I love playtesting to destruction! I just found a little print & play game on Boardgamegeek.com that attempted to simulate the March of a single T34 through Panzer infested plains.
DeleteI played it once and found it had some teething problems so I started trying to "break" the game. It wasn't long before I overloaded the designers with bugs and suggestions to fix those bugs.
Playtesting is such a fun part of gaming. It really makes you think outside the box and look for those little details and oversights that make or break a game.
Mr. Pavone,
DeleteThe problem with designing any game is the inherent assumptions the designer makes about how their game will work. The know how they want it to work, and assume that others will ... and until you get someone to play-test the game in the absence of the designer, these assumptions can remain unchallenged.
Because of the modular nature of the PW rules, I’ve been able to play-test each mechanism to destruction before incorporating them into my rules.
All the best,
Bob