I had hoped to write a battle report about the first play-test of my redrafted RED FLAGS & IRON CROSSES rules ... but after setting up the table and gaming through the first three moves, I walked away. Basically, the rules worked ... but were so cumbersome and clunky that I was not enjoying the experience. Furthermore, they failed what I term ‘Cordery’s Second Rule of Wargame Design’.
This rule states that:
The draft of RED FLAGS & IRON CROSSES looked as if they complied with this, but by the end of the third turn I must have spent more time looking at the charts and text, and still I managed to miss things ... and don't forget, I wrote them! I kept reverting to the modern version of THE PORTABLE WARGAME and forgetting the relevant game mechanism from RED FLAGS & IRON CROSSES. Furthermore, the movement distances in RED FLAGS & IRON CROSSES were so short that I knew it was going to be an age before any proper combat was going to take place, and I kept forgetting that unlike in THE PORTABLE WARGAME, artillery does not fire at the beginning of the turn and but during each player's section of the turn.
It is a well-known military maxim that you should never, ever reinforce failure ... and to my mind this 'new' set of rules are going to fail. I am therefore going to leave them as they are, and fight my first mini-campaign battle using the modern version of THE PORTABLE WARGAME as featured in DEVELOPING THE PORTABLE WARGAME.
This setback could have been very disheartening, but I re-learned a valuable lesson. This is that 'if it ain't broke, it doesn't need fixing!'
For those of you who do not know, ‘Cordery’s First Rule of Wargame Design’states that:
This rule states that:
‘If you are not enjoying a wargame and you wrote the rules, how do you expect other people to enjoy them?’Now I try to design rules where the player should have picked up the basics by the end of the third turn, and can pretty well remember the rules by the end of their first game. Once they have reached that stage, they should only need to look at the text of the rules to clarify a point.
The draft of RED FLAGS & IRON CROSSES looked as if they complied with this, but by the end of the third turn I must have spent more time looking at the charts and text, and still I managed to miss things ... and don't forget, I wrote them! I kept reverting to the modern version of THE PORTABLE WARGAME and forgetting the relevant game mechanism from RED FLAGS & IRON CROSSES. Furthermore, the movement distances in RED FLAGS & IRON CROSSES were so short that I knew it was going to be an age before any proper combat was going to take place, and I kept forgetting that unlike in THE PORTABLE WARGAME, artillery does not fire at the beginning of the turn and but during each player's section of the turn.
It is a well-known military maxim that you should never, ever reinforce failure ... and to my mind this 'new' set of rules are going to fail. I am therefore going to leave them as they are, and fight my first mini-campaign battle using the modern version of THE PORTABLE WARGAME as featured in DEVELOPING THE PORTABLE WARGAME.
This setback could have been very disheartening, but I re-learned a valuable lesson. This is that 'if it ain't broke, it doesn't need fixing!'
For those of you who do not know, ‘Cordery’s First Rule of Wargame Design’states that:
‘If players consistently ignore a rule because it does not make sense or hinders the flow of the wargame, then the rule should be discarded. If players do not notice that it has gone, then it probably should not have been there in the first place.’
By the sound of it a wise move Bob.
ReplyDeleteSteve J.,
DeleteCheers! I had hoped that the ‘new’ rules would work seamlessly ... but they didn’t, and I saw no point in carrying on trying to polish the unpolishable.
All the best,
Bob
That’s a very honest if harshly self-critical appraisal Bob. I know being one’s own harshest critic drives one to improve. However, sometimes it can lead one to not giving oneself enough credit.
ReplyDeleteWas it just the modifications to RC&IC that didn’t work well, or was it the fundamental rules?
Nundanket,
DeleteI have sometimes been accused of being a perfectionist, and to a certain extent, that is true. That said, I’ve learned that trying to achieve perfection can be the enemy of ever getting a project finished, so I’m happy to have a 95% working set of rules than a 100% incomplete set.
In this instance, the combat system seemed to use an inordinate number of dice throws to achieve a result, and the move distances made infantry very slow in comparison to AFVs. I could tinker with both, but I don’t see much point when I have a perfectly functioning set of suitable PW rules.
All the best,
Bob
Hi Bob,
ReplyDeleteA wise decision to revert to your modern version of THE PORTABLE WARGAME to fight your first mini-campaign. You are right - simple, easily remembered rules are certainly the best- particularly for new players or those who are unfamiliar with wargaming. Looking forward to your first battle. Cheers. KEV.
Kev Robertson (Kev),
DeleteI’m sure that it was the right decision to make, and once the weather begins to get cooler, I’ll be back in my toy/wargame room to fight my first mini-campaign battles.
All the best,
Bob
This is why we play test games. Not always easy to walk away but this sounds like the right decision to me.
ReplyDeleteRoss Mac,
DeleteAs we both know only too well, when it comes to wargame design, sometimes the difficult decision to walk away from a design is the best decision you can make.
All the best,
Bob
Hi Bob -
ReplyDeleteIt's a shame that the play test came to this, but it seems to me quite understandable. Having looked at the rule-set as it stands in downloadable format, I agree there are complications that might very easily slip the mind. I can see why they are there, but I can also see how easily they can be forgotten in the heat of the action. Maybe some of the mechanics could be easily simplifiable, but others... not so sure.
In the Portable Wargame sets I think I would like more differentiation between anti-tank and armour, and even have some tentative ideas along those lines (e.g. armour grades and AT grades, with some +1 or -1 to die roll depending upon 'advantage' or 'disadvantage'), but have yet to formalise them in any way. One of those ideas that keep coming to mind without my doing anything much with it.
Cheers,
Archduke Piccolo.
Archduke Piccolo,
DeleteThe rules just didn’t feel right almost from the start of the play-test, but I persisted as I did t want to rush to judgement. The set I was using was based on the published set, but with a card-driven turn sequence. This should not have had an impact on the way the rules worked, but somehow it did not jell. The movement distances also felt wrong, and in a mainly infantry vs. infantry battle, this did have an impact.
The version of the modern PW rules in DTPW does have some differentiation between light, medium, and heavy tanks, tank guns, and anti-tank guns, and this is going to be the basis for the set that I am going to use for my mini-campaign. The main change will be the removal of ‘pinning’ as I found it slowed play down too much.
All the best,
Bob
Hi Bob -
DeleteThe AT differentiation in DTPW is in terms of ranges; I was thinking more in terms of momentum of projectile vs weight of armour. I worked out a very simple regime for my Army Men rule set, but I'm not sure that would 'translate' well into DTPW.
You might recall that I used the poor/average/elite thing by way of differentiation in my 'Surprise Party' and 'Unquiet Flows the Mius' battles.
I suppose at the outset of 'Barbarossa 2020' one might class the T34 and KV1 as 'superior' (possibly adding an SP to the KV) and the light stuff (PzII, T60, as 'inferior', or even drop the SPs of some of these (PzII) to 2. It's a thought anyhow.
Having said all that, I was rather expecting you to use in this campaign something more along your Hexblitz lines!
This is just about getting to be the first thing I look for on my reading list these days!
Cheers,
Ion
Archduke Piccolo (Ion),
DeleteThe sort of mechanism that I was thinking about using was to give:
* Heavy vs. Light: +2
* Heavy vs. Medium: +1
* Medium vs. Light +1
* Medium vs. Heavy: -1
* Light vs. Medium -1
* Light vs. Heavy: -2
As I am thinking of including flanking fire as a factor, this means that - for example - a stationary light anti-tank gun, firing at the flank of a heavy tank unit, can inflict damage on the tank unit, but stands much less chance if they fire at it head on.
This is still very much at the 'ideas in my head that I want to try' stage ... and a revamped version of HEXBLITZ still remains a very viable alternative option.
All the best,
Bob
Hi Bob -
DeleteYes, that sound fairly similar to what I had in mind. It might go +1 for shooting into flank or rear, say.
Meanwhile, I have a couple of East Front battles to fight out with 'Jacko', once I've completely shaken off the last of this bally die-hard pestilence...
Cheers,
Archduke Piccolo.
Archduke Piccolo,
DeleteAs I said, it's still very much in the 'ideas in my head' stage, but I don't see why I should not give it a try in my forthcoming play-tests. If it works, fine; if it doesn't, then it is back to the drawing board ... or in this case, keyboard!
I look forward to seeing your future battle reports once that you are feeling better.
Keep safe and keep well,
Bob
A good point about making things too fiddly. One of my peeves about Starguard, that old McEwan Miniatures sci/fi rules was why did the weapons all have different range bands. Not different ranges - I can understand the need for that, and that each weapon system could have a different stat line. But why does each weapon have different range bands, could they not have been standardized to short, medium, long, extreme?
ReplyDeletePhf,
DeleteWeapon ranges can be a contentious issue, with some people assuming that if a weapon has a maximum range of ‘x’ metres, that must be the range they use in their rules. In fact, when it comes to small arms, the effective range (i.e. the range at which hitting a target is relatively assured) is a lot shorter than most people imagine. I’ve shot a number of small arms from pistols to rifles, and their effective ranges were short ... although that may have been due to my inaccuracy and lack of marksmanship!
All the best,
Bob
I've had exactly the same experience with a number of my rules, they look great on paper, but actually try and play them, and Oh dear. Looking forward to the battle report.
ReplyDeleteMartin Rapier,
DeleteI think that most successful wargame designers have had this experience ... and if they have not then they are either very lucky, very gifted, or too stupid to realise when they have a disaster on their hands!
All the best,
Bob
I honestly thought you would be using the Portable Rules all along. Mainly because I was oblivious to these other rules you were revamping. I think your decision is a sage one.
ReplyDeleteSteve8,
DeleteI wrote RF&IC over ten years ago, and thought that with a few tweaks, it would be suitable for my Eastern Front/Great Patriotic War project ... but this play-test proved to me that my PW rules are a much better option.
All the best,
Bob
Hi Bob, re your 2nd rule of wargaming (which is good), since I am writing/borrowing/patching, etc. rules for my own use, I have a variation of that rule:
ReplyDeleteIf you are not enjoying a wargame, and you didn't write the rules, get rid of them and try others. Plenty out there.
I've tried rulesets that were "highly recommended" by bloggers, and they left me flat, usually because of over-complication. That's why yours are so good. Simple, easy to remember, and I would wager you get the same warlike result that you do with the multi-chart, multi-table, 100 page rulesets, and more enjoyment too.
As an aside. I am playing an ACW campaign, which I made up. Map is of Virginia (I live here so am familiar with this part of the state), and each side has 3 corps of 3 divisions each. I have been using Ross McFarlane's excellent "Plastic Army of the Potomac" ruleset. For some variation, I am using your Portable Napoleonic Division-level rules, with a slight modification because cavalry in the American Civil War was not used the same as in the Napoleonic era, and also because the ACW terrain was denser, and infantry moved through woods, etc. Not much to change though. Am trying it out and will let you know how they worked for this era.
Dale
Dalethewargamer,
DeleteWhen I used to mentor students on a wargame design course, I always gave then a copy of my rules of wargame design ... along with the refrain to simplify, simplify, simplify!
As to long and tedious rule books ... well I own several shelves full of them! Bought because they were recommended ... and then set aside when I tried to use them. The lesson I learned from reading them were to keep things as simple as possible, and to use as few mechanisms as possible. The end results should be reasonably realistic ... and they usually are.
Your ACW campaign sounds very interesting, and I think that your choice of Ross Macfarlane’s rules is an excellent one. I also agree that the cavalry rules in PNW would need to be changed to reflect the way that cavalry was used during the ACW. Also, the photographs of ACW battlefields I’ve looked at do show far more wooded areas that we tend to see on European battlefields.
Good luck with your project.
All the best,
Bob