After the recent playtest, it became clear that something has gone out of whack with the draft house WSS rules, so I'm working on some changes. One fairly drastic re-think is taking place in the small matter of combat. I've now reduced the range of muskets to something which is less exciting but more reasonable, and - since infantry didn't normally get to sticking bayonets in each other when fighting in the open - all combat apart from artillery fire has now been subsumed into something called Close Combat, which will include all melees and all musketry (which is only effective at close range anyway).
I've been reading a few sets of rules which I own which use this kind of system - in particular Mustafa's Grande Armée, Doc Monaghan's Big Battalions, and Polemos's Obstinate and Bloody Battle. I used to employ a similar combat system in a house Napoleonic rule set I ran fairly successfully for many years, so I know it works - though there is an implied backing away from Old School turn sequences.
That's OK - the generals can concentrate on running the battle, and trust the invisible sergeants to look after fitting of bayonets, cavalry firing pistols and all that. I think it has something to do with getting the scale of the game right.
I'm now trying to glue some changes into the previous draft. Typing - it's what wargaming is all about, really.
I should have more to say about this before too long!
Fascinating to see the evolution of rules. It goes in small increments, tweak, tweak...SNAP. A big leap. You suddenly end up with a different animal. Just like ‘real’ evolution.
ReplyDeleteIt's something to do with the "classic" little shiny soldiers in tricorns, but I was keen to have just a whiff of Old School in the rules (if you ignore the hexagons), so making the units face in a particular direction, and use of the correct formations (or something like) was important, and the combat rules were out of that bag. Eventually, needs must. The game as drafted encouraged behaviour from a later period (or didn't discourage it). The idea of the infantry stopping to fire, then cheering and rushing on, is all very exciting but doesn't reflect what happened in 1703 - it's also fiddly to manage in a game. The real problem was the slow play.
DeleteI have never particularly enjoyed boardgames - I find them tiresome to set up and put away, the manufacturers eventually lost the plot and produced games that were too big and too complex to actually play, and they are relatively dull from a scenic point of view. The rules, however, are innvariably tight and unambiguous, and play out quickly - I've always been very impressed by that.
There is a traditional problem (and I go on about this regularly) with getting the "microscope setting" correct for miniatures games. I love the spectacle of toy soldiers in action, with all the spin-offs of collecting and painting, but it is very hard to get the level of command right. I constantly remind myself that Napoleon did not personally order an individual battalion to form column of grand divisions, neither did he order them to load their muskets. The regimental officers and NCOs looked after all that - all Napoleon cared about was were they still on the field, and could they fight on. I recall from my days of playing with 5mm Minifigs blocks with Peter Gouldsborough, Peter just could not resist working the correct field drills and manoeuvres into his rules. That's OK if you are fighting a skirmish, but not for the big games Peter set up. The games went very slowly, most of the time was spent measuring things very accurately (I assume these battles took place in green-painted car parks) and in debating how quickly a column could change direction in a field. That was all rather interesting, but irrelevant. I believe the spirit of Peter is alive and well. I eventually abandoned the use of Terry Wise's Athena rules for the ECW because (for example) they had a special pistol-shot phase for charges by horse, and it was interesting, but it was TOO MUCH. The games would not end.
Despite myself, I find my sympathies are nearer the boardgame end of this imagined spectrum. I do not recall a board gamer complaining because there was insufficient tactical manipulation of his cardboard counters, but miniatures gamers regularly complain about such things. If you have a load of nice, accurately painted miniatures, what could be better or more appropriate than to make them perform an authentic caracole?
There is no answer to this, and the debate is a proportion of the fun, after all, but my recent experience has been that the games must finish, and must be capable of being fought to a conclusion which is understandable and seems reasonable. Thus, if some particular school of cavalry insists on pausing to fire pistols on the way into a scrap, my instinct now would be
(a) OK - should we reduce their charge move by a little?
(b) ignore the firing - it's just part of the melee - but, if you like, give them a +1 or a -1 in the scrap, depending whether you think this is a good or a bad thing.
(c) Move on - life is too short...
Thus my current evolutionary step is one towards a boardgame system - I had wished to minimise this, but the game has to be playable on the scales I enjoy.
Keep going. The ECW variant of C&C you created also had a long gestation...but was well worth all the experimentation and effort!
ReplyDeleteHi JBM - I am getting there, I think! The more polished the draft is, the more of a chore the editing becomes! Praise the Lord and pass 2D6.
DeleteVery interesting points, and some good reference material quoted there.
ReplyDeleteBy the time I get around to a playtest, at my rate, you will have the final version ready.
(clearly, I have missed the whole concept behind the term 'playtest' )
Bonjour, Monsieur le Duc. It would be a good idea to hold off on trying the present draft. Version 0.8 should be an improvement!
DeleteThis all sounds very interesting. I shall look forward to your conclusions Sir!
ReplyDelete