I am an admittedly unadulterated, purebred gamer -- as opposed to a war-gaming simulatorialist (one who stands at table-side and actually imagines he's re-creating what went on the battlefield a hundred or a thousand years ago). My interests lie in the gaming procedures and trying to furnish the participants with a number of decision points throughout the battle ... at least enough to keep them awake.
Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. Witness the innumerable times I've torn up a set of rules that went to the extremes: either (a) there were too many decisions to be made by the commanders and the game ground to a virtual halt while all players cogitated and weighed their options before adjusting their troops, or, (b) there were too few decisions to be made by the players, control of their units was taken out of their hands completely, and they stood by as observers of the battlefield.
I'd say about 60% of the enjoyment I derive from gaming stems from creating the basic rules structures. That leaves a gap of 40%. This 40% enjoyment factor arises from attempting to plug the holes found during playtesting and the participants get a chance to comment on how easy, how hard, or how silly it is as they follow my outlines.
Groaning And Griping
In the past, I've noted that when gamers find a set of rules which is half-way acceptable, there is a great hesitancy to change the rules to their liking. These gamers simply plow right on, playing the rules as published, refusing to change the system despite their dislikes concerning certain procedures and disagreeing with the manner in which the rules are carried out. To these gamers, the published document carries an aura of legitimacy, and it's as if the published word stood on the same plateau as the Ten Commandments. Any attempt to divert from the printed text will immediately bring down a thunderous lightning strike.
I have never had any such hesitations. If I find something not to my liking, I'm only too content to change, modify, or add my own variations to the procedures. In truth, I've never found a published set that, without changing it, I'd want to play for a second time. I've heard lots of grousing about 'popular' rules sets ... starting way back with Column Line & Square, WRG Ancients, Piquet, the DBM/DBA series, Napoleon's Battles, Command Decision, In The Grand Manner, Volley & Bayonet ... you name it ... the list is endless ... and yet few people take the trouble to vary the system as given.
When someone asks me to participate in one of these yucky games, I never say no. Instead, I gracefully accept and take my place table-side. This gives me a chance to groan and gripe about the rules. The surprising thing about my own groaning and griping is that it is usually drowned out by the groans and gripes of the other players. Evidently, I'm not the Lone Ranger.
The Search
In searching for and reading wargame rules that have been posted on the various websites, I've gradually developed a number of instant likes and dislikes ... call 'em prejudices if you like.
b) Rules that contain instructions that make no sense. For example, I found a set of rules called Death or Glory for the Napoleonic era. I downloaded the 25-page rule book, which states: 'Movement is simultaneous. At the beginning of the turn, each player rolls a die for initiative. The player with the initiative moves and fires first.'
Anyone speak to an editor? Is there an 'initiative' or isn't there? Or, better yet, is movement simultaneous?
c) Any set of rules that requires order writing for movement also rates high on the no-no list.
d) Any set of rules that uses the 'groping for dice' procedure, i.e., using different types of dice (6-siders, 8-siders, 10-siders, and the like) for firing or melee.
What's Historically Realistic?
I concentrate on the gaming system. My desire is to produce a game which keeps all players continually busy and interested in what is going on.
Are these games 'historically realistic?' Certainly not! Are any miniature tabletop games 'historically realistic'? You've got to be kidding!
Despite the magnificently painted uniforms of your Napoleonic cuirassiers or the good-looking painted shields of your Athenian hoplites, as soon as you start tossing 6-sided, 10-sided, or 20-sided dice to determine combat outcomes, command factors, or unit morale levels, as far as I'm concerned, you're in la-la land.
About the best you can do is mimic the battlefield results of history. When a unit takes sufficient casualties, odds are that it will retreat. What odds?
When your English Civil War cavalry contact a formed enemy infantry pike unit, odds are that the cavalry will get beaten off. What odds? And when your Napoleonic 9-pounders fire canister into a square, odds are that it will cause much more damage. than when firing ball into a line of infantry. What odds? How much more damage?
From the above, you can see that I've a much jaundiced view of 'historically realistic' rules sets. The tables and charts that I generate for my rules sets will set up different probabilities and odds factors than those set up by other gamers. In general, all the rules sets will 'go with the flow,' i,e., the statistically expected results will occur in statistically expected fashion. However, your statistics are not my statistics, and so, don't shout 'historically realistic' too any times when you're near me.
Secrets of Wargame Design Sample Chapters and More...
Wally Simon's
Edited by Russ Lockwood
Item: 198831
Cost: $19
(Published 2012)
To Purchase:
Go to: OMM Home Page at www.onmilitarymatters.com
Type in 198831 in the search box (underneath logo)
Click on "Search" button
When listing appears: click on "Add to Cart" (you may have to scroll down) link on far right.
If you are in UK and Europe, Caliver Books (in UK) carries Secrets of Wargame Design.