Its hard to believe that I only managed 2 games in October! Well, I already have 1 under my belt in November and it was a more satisfying one. The story of the battle is told in the captions. I'll add just a few comments about my newest, philosophically different, rules for the period.
I did spend a considerable time this month, analyzing why I haven't been very happy with any of the rules I've been trying for the French Revolution, and some other eras, and what I wanted a set of rules to deliver for solo games, but also for the occasional 2 player or multiplayer game. Those 3 goals don't necessarily have to be the same but not only is it easier when they line up, I also find it more satisfying.
So I spent even more time than usual trying to figure out why I wasn't happy, reviewing what I want now compared to what I used to want and why it was different. Then I spent a LOT of time going back and revisiting various older and some newer books on wargaming and past articles and rules that I have written, then made a fresh start. The result was a '2 sides of a page' summary of a new set tentatively to be called "A Whiff of Dice". These have no revolutionary new mechanisms, they just leave out or build in even more of the detail, and focus on the sorts of choices that they reward or punish, and on the balance between too fast, simple and abrupt and too slow, detailed and tedious.
The game only lasted a few more turns than the last one but unlike the last one, it wasn't effectively over after about 20 minutes on turn 3 of 15, and the kinds of decisions I made were mostly more General’s decisions than unit commanders' decisions and luck played a substantial, but not overwhelming, role in the game. The game also lasted almost twice as long time wise and included more substantial player decisions and responsibilities and consequences of decisions rather than luck are what makes a game interesting for me.
But its early days, the rules needed to be tested more and they need to be flushed out into a proper set rather than just a quick reference and that's not a speedy process for me.
I think ultimately, too fast or too slim often give a generic feel and that rules benefit from a little bit of crunch! That balance between the two is likely in a different place for each of us
ReplyDeleteThis is a very fine balancing act and different for each.
DeleteYes it does differ even for a single person and what the aim is. What you want for solo games, esp if they can be left in situ and played over several days, may be different from what you want for an impromptu one or two or 3 hour game either solo or with a frewuent opponent who is familiar with the rules or for a convention game where you may have 4-6 players, unfamiliar with the rules and only 4 hours to sort them out, brief them, and play the game etc etc.
DeleteIf only you'd found a way to access a wider pool of potential playtesters via the inter-tubes . . . . ;)
ReplyDeleteOnly once they are ready for testing! I've found that premature testing on friends soon frustrates everyone (as in different every week!)
DeleteYou know, Ross, an expanded discussion on your rules' analysis including what works, what doesn't work, what you want, what you don't want, and how your preferences have changed over time would be fascinating. Well, fascinating, perhaps only to me!
ReplyDeletePossibly...:)
DeleteI have included bits of that from time to time and of course it changes. That's one of the things that I've periodically looked back on so as to catch reminders that I had "been there tried that" .
But I will keep that in mind because I can link back to some of those posts of examples of things that I was optimistic about until I realized either that something wasn't really what I wanted or that I had misjudged my 'wants', or that they had been good but then zi changed or circumstances did.
Good suggestion.
Perhaps leading by example will encourage other rules' tinkerers to follow your lead and better document their own discovery process?
DeletePossible, if they have one....unlike me.....
Delete...But *b'sides* all that, a howitzer and gun will also make fine additions to the Allied artillery park! :D
ReplyDeleteI dunno, they're painted different colours, won't fit in on parade and all and they use a different weight of shot.... might be easier to just ship 'em back to the mess...
DeleteI'm glad your new rules were more to your liking - judging by the photos it certainly looks like a good game
ReplyDeleteIt felt like what I wanted which is encouraging.
DeleteI just liked seeing the nice and shiny things on the table top! Three more months until I can think about returning to the States and another month after that before I can return to my game room. And it's given me a few ideas for a couple of scenarios when I do get back.
ReplyDeleteEric
Pleased to have been of some service, that is always the hope. Hang in there, may have to take your boots off for a while yet but you can count the weeks on your fingers and toes.
DeleteI very much like the framework of the "Whiff of Dice" rules, particularly the ability of officers to allow units to collaborate--something I had been mulling over but had not yet found a way to implement.
ReplyDeleteThat's one of the oldest bits, goes back to the early 90's and With MacDuff To The Frontier although there it the Colonel allowing companies to act as a battalion.
DeleteRoss Mac,
ReplyDeleteI’ve followed this series of blog posts with interest. As someone who does a lot of playing around with rules to get thing just right for me, I can appreciate the amount of thinking that has gone into ‘A Whiff of Dice’ … and I like what you have achieved.
All the best,
Bob
Thanks Bob. Then there is the periodic desire to incorporate a new idea.....
DeleteNice game Ross and thanks for sharing your rules!
ReplyDeleteDid you create this scenario or it is from a book?
Thanks Cesar, good to hear from you. The scenario was adapted from Neil Thomas's One Hour Wargames. .......I like a 3 hour wargame on a larger table but his stripped down scenarios work really well, esp for solo games or when I am too lazy to design one.
DeleteThank you very much for tour answer Ross. Do you remember the name of the scenario? And what is the size of your board? I would like to test the rules with my "blue and red" armies.
DeleteYes, It is scenario 4 "Take the High Ground" from Thomas's One Hour Games but is a scaled down variation of of #15 Reinforcements on Defence (On Table) from CS Grant's Scenarios for Wargames. I adapted it to suit my own table and forces.
DeleteMy table is 4' x 5' (and a bit), Thomas's map is for 3'ft x 3ft', and the original scenario was designed for a 5' x 7' table. Its easy to adjust to whatever you have.
Hope it works for you! These will be your new original 15's?
Thanks again for your answer Ross. I plan to use two 30mm homemade Horse and Musket armies I made this year. I have not painted them yet but, I provisionally mounted on card bases with double side tape. Both armies and bases have the standard OHW size.
DeleteThe armies are ficticious but, their uniforms are based on those used in Argentina´s civil war 1830-40.
Sounds good.
DeleteGood to see the rules are developing well. The numbers of figures on the table make for a fine spectacle.
ReplyDeleteI used to like a lot of small units as my regular fare but I think I may be getting lazier year over year.
DeleteThanks for posting the rules. What are the size of units used in Whiff of Dice (Infantry, Artillery & Cavalry )? Can it be used with units as small as 6 figures each? Also, I presume that only the front rank of a unit can fire (thus subtly depicting the firing benefit of being in line); is that correct?
ReplyDeleteThey assume something like 12 to 20 figures with 2 ranks firing in Old School fashion, but you could count each figure as a file of 2 thus allowing 1 die for each 2 figures instead of 4 and either mark units with a left over hit or just halve the die results.
DeleteWhat are the size of units in Whiff of Dice (Infantry, Cavalry, Artillery)? Can units as small as 6 work with these rules? I presume that only the front rank can fire (this subtly reflecting the firing benefits of being in line)?
ReplyDelete