Lead Adventure Forum
Miniatures Adventure => Age of the Big Battalions => Topic started by: TacticalPainter on 30 January 2022, 08:19:28 AM
-
I played games set during the AWI using both rule sets last year and so thought I would set down my impressions in what turned into a fairly lengthy blog post. This is a comparison between the two rule sets to see how well each does in handling the period. No doubt each provides a good game, but not the same history lesson. The full article is here https://thetacticalpainter.blogspot.com/2022/01/using-sharp-practice-and-muskets.html
(https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/1024x768q90/924/fBWhBW.jpg) (https://imageshack.com/i/pofBWhBWj)
(https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/1024x768q90/922/8L4jVa.jpg) (https://imageshack.com/i/pm8L4jVaj)
-
Very nice analysis. I played the same scenario with both rules a while ago. Both gave a good game, but SP took quite a bit longer. You are quite correct though that SP is more driven by history
-
Thank you for this, I’m slowly building up my AWI forces and whilst I have SP I have also considered M&T (I have the first ed) as my forces will be relatively small (not the large units, or representations there of, that most seem to aim for in AWI).
BALM
-
An excellent comparison, thank you for taking the time to write and share that.
-
I too found the comparison excellent. And disconcerting, as I've played M&T virtually since it came out, and have enjoyed all the games. Now, I'm wondering about the SP approach using a leader, as opposed to unit, driven approach.
Imagine years of happy gaming and never once questioning the "all units of X type get to perform an action"! Now I will!
M&T2 has changed some things. I've only played it 3 times, due to the pandemic. I'm still not so sure I like the idea of getting to activate (mess with) the other side's troops. Sure its "friction", but it's mighty gamey to me. One should be able to screw up one's tactics on one's own.
But I can also see that pulling a card per leader, as opposed to multiple units, could make games quite slow. Unless, of course,
each leader controls multiple units.
In the end, its clear that Tactical Painter is correct. SP's mechanic is closer to how troops are moved in reality. He's sold me on at least buying the set to see how they play out, especially in regards to length of game.
-
I too found the comparison excellent. And disconcerting, as I've played M&T virtually since it came out, and have enjoyed all the games. Now, I'm wondering about the SP approach using a leader, as opposed to unit, driven approach.
Imagine years of happy gaming and never once questioning the "all units of X type get to perform an action"! Now I will!
M&T2 has changed some things. I've only played it 3 times, due to the pandemic. I'm still not so sure I like the idea of getting to activate (mess with) the other side's troops. Sure its "friction", but it's mighty gamey to me. One should be able to screw up one's tactics on one's own.
But I can also see that pulling a card per leader, as opposed to multiple units, could make games quite slow. Unless, of course,
each leader controls multiple units.
In the end, its clear that Tactical Painter is correct. SP's mechanic is closer to how troops are moved in reality. He's sold me on at least buying the set to see how they play out, especially in regards to length of game.
I’m not convinced having an enemy card in your hand bears any real relationship to ‘friction’. If we go to Clausewitz all he says is that even the simple things are difficult and these all accumulate. The simple things like walking across a field, sending a message, or communicating an order and having its intentions clearly understood can all become more difficult than they appear. His comparison with walking through water is a good one - it’s walking, that’s simple, but, it’s through water, that’s difficult. As you say each player should be free to screw up their own tactics. To me it’s a pure game mechanic. Not a bad one, per se, just not an appropriate one for the level of warfare the rules purport to portray.
M&T2 games are often shorter, I think they are designed that way, with small 4x4 tables and little manoeuvre before contact.
-
Tactical- I suppose you're right. But someone playing a card to force me to use a unit at that time causes ME friction!
But in the end, you've made good case for M&T's gaminess. A fault that's even more pronounced in the same company's SAGA game.
-
Tactical- I suppose you're right. But someone playing a card to force me to use a unit at that time causes ME friction!
But in the end, you've made good case for M&T's gaminess. A fault that's even more pronounced in the same company's SAGA game.
Indeed. Played SAGA twice and that was more than enough for me. I can see the appeal as a game but can’t see the appeal as a wargame about the medieval period. I play miniatures because I like the immersive nature of a table with terrain and miniatures but SAGA manages to break that immersion every time you start to contemplate the battle board and dice which, of course, is every single turn.
-
Very enlightening post. I personally liked the original edition of SP with the Blinds. But as with most TFL rules, it is easy to modify and add a scenario specific effect. For instance, we do a lot of AWI games with Brit Lights being rated as Aggressive. Native troops have the old 'Vamoose; ability from SP 1-this is especially handy with 2nd Seminole War games.
Another great blog post!
Mark
-
Indeed. Played SAGA twice and that was more than enough for me. I can see the appeal as a game but can’t see the appeal as a wargame about the medieval period. I play miniatures because I like the immersive nature of a table with terrain and miniatures but SAGA manages to break that immersion every time you start to contemplate the battle board and dice which, of course, is every single turn.
That is exactly what bothered Mrs. GG and I when we played Saga. We enjoyed the game well enough but we’re not immersed.
-
"But someone playing a card to force me to use a unit at that time causes ME friction!"
SP does not "Force" any unit to activate at a given moment. Save the flag cards and interupt play when you feel it's the right time ::)
-
I have played M&T 1st edition for many years as it does support multiplayer games.
Not had chance to play the 2nd edition as I have not worked out how to handle the “card” issue.
Would Sharp Practice work with multiple players?
-
Mindenbrush has brought up the reason M&T 1st edition has been so successful in my area, the class-based card activation allows for multiple players to be pushing troops at the same time.
2nd edition M&T very much went the route of SP - towards a 1 vs. 1 centralized, decision-making format.
M&T 1 adapts for multiple gamers to team up on a side (for better or worse , enabling the dynamics of an actual [live] Chain of Command). Decision-making can therefore become more decentralized, and this is where command Friction is automatically embedded into games played in this style or at this level (the dynamics of command friction can occur automatically within each player team, without needing game mechanics to do so).
-
Thanks for the link to the article. And that's an interesting thread, too.
-
Clawed-
I meant M&T2. I should have been more clear.
-
FlyX-
VERY good point, and one that I had not realized before. I too played M&T1 for years, with no issues about activation.
The new activation seems to add more "decision making" without really needing it. Almost as if "decision making" was an end in itself. And as Tactical states, its gamey without representing how troops are really ordered around.
Our three games of M&T2 did not flounder due to multiple players on each side, since I had gone to the web to see how others were handling it. The consensus was either "group decision" or "one of the players on each side is the C in C". Worked OK with 2 players per side. But I've run M&T1 games with upwards of 3 players a side. Getting 3 guys to agree on when to play what card could be quite difficult, and many will not want to play if they give up such decisions to a C in C. I think Studio Tomahawk tried too hard to add new mechanics. I understand the need to go to D10, given their decision to expand into other periods. And cleaning up melee and rifle fire was good, but I think I like the first version better.
-
PM, you make good points too!
The move to a 10-sided die system with M&T2 was a good move (but M&T1 wasn't really needing "improvement", unless it was to enable the selling of supplements perhaps).
Refreshingly though, you still want to play multiplayer, though of course the pandemic has made this the rare jewel of the hobby now -
-
I think M&T 2 is definitely better than v1. Aside from using d10 they also fixed the broken melee rules in v1 which we house ruled as melees usually resulted in both units being destroyed. The new card play system works well. The command points are often more useful than your own cards as they are more flexible; yes, the system is slightly gamely, but it makes for interesting play, and it is also fast playing.
-
SteveBurt, you can keep v.2. (I'll be hanging onto my classic v.1 set, which placed Studio Tomahawk on the map)
-
TP
What a well put together article , well done, and I agree with all article. .
It is of particular note that you have backed up several thoughts , with historical examples , very much a Historical Wargamers review , bravo.
I much Prefer SP2 over M&T, and especially over Rebels and Patriots ... lol
SP2 does work with Multiplayers very easily , we have done it loads of times at my place with Double sized armies and 6 players .
For my money it feels far more like a historical battle , rather than a game of cards to do cunning things with .
In addition from memory im not sure if M&T has got the Indian s play quite right ..
Sometimes I will hear whinging about SP2 this and that ...
Mostly two issues, it is almost always a whine about not having "Total Control " of their troops, mostly by "Gamers " , such people deplore the friction of war or such ..regardless of which rules they play .
The other is when the player just doesnt know the rules well enough and or Mis handles his troops and makes a tactical mistake.. then blames the rules..bloody SP2 ..lol
Keep up the good work , and we need to do another game soon.
Cheers
-
Personally, I enjoy both rule sets. Especially for one-on-one games. And I do really appreciate SPs focus on leaders and their effect on the battles.
But I have found that both are a bit tough to host for participation games at conventions with. If anyone has any tips in that regard, I'm all ears...
-
For convention games with M&T 1st Edition, I made quick reference sheets that contain all the information that players need - visibility, troop type with movement/shooting/attack/defence factors, etc.
Makes it a lot easier than having multiple sheets on the table.
-
Capn Jim
In regards multiplayer games, we do the following .
Firstly we always play around 70 to 100 points each player .
We mostly play with 2 x tiffins , not one , this has the effect of averaging out and extending the game rounds as 2 tiffins need to come out before play stops ( that way there is less whining about this unit didnt move)etc
Secondly in say a 6 player game the card pulls are duplicated for both sides , so if a Blue Leader 2 is pulled , then all three Blue players activate their Blue 2 Commander at the same time ., etc
Lastly we include 5 x "Flags"for each side not 3 , each player keeps track of their own Tally of such , this enables more command in larger games .. which we always play .. lol
I spoke to my friend last nite , and he reminded me that SP2 can be a bit frustrating , in that they are not that well set out , that is my only real gripe .
Hope this helps.
Cheers
-
I quite like M&T2, though it certainly has some issues. Have never used it for AWI though. Good points made by the author about some of the troop profiles, which gives me food for thought. The old activation system was superior in my opinion, but 2nd edition has fixed a number of the biggest problems. The d10 system works very well.
I find TFL rules to be badly written at best and gibberish most of the time, and could only stomach a few games of SP. Some good ideas, poorly delivered.
-
@ VonAkers and Mindenbrush: Thanks for the tips. Appreciate it!
-
TP
What a well put together article , well done, and I agree with all article............. .
Keep up the good work , and we need to do another game soon.
Cheers
Thanks and yes, it would definitely be good to get another game in soon - either one of your multiplayers or a mid week bash.
-
We just played M&T2 again last night, in its Napoleonic incarnation, with Spanish troops and guerillas attacking a French convoy. Terrific game, undecided until the last moment. In after game discussion, we all prefer the speed and decisiveness of M&T2 to SP2. Yes, some of the mechanisms are gamey, but the players have constant interesting choices, and the game goes fast and is fun. Command points really add a lot.
-
We just played M&T2 again last night, in its Napoleonic incarnation, with Spanish troops and guerillas attacking a French convoy. Terrific game, undecided until the last moment. In after game discussion, we all prefer the speed and decisiveness of M&T2 to SP2. Yes, some of the mechanisms are gamey, but the players have constant interesting choices, and the game goes fast and is fun. Command points really add a lot.
My point was to review the rules as a set of historical wargame rules. I noted that M&T2 offered interesting choice and plays quite fast, but to be honest, so does Backgammon, but neither will teach you much about warfare in the 18th century. M&T2 may give a good game but my question would be, a good game about what?
-
I never expect to be taught warfare from a set of rules, but have been very happy if a set allows me to apply the tactics I've learned from my interest in studying military history.
Studying history is all very subjective from one person to another (and personally, might be constantly evolving anyway)........but now as wargamers, we might need to consider what the audience might be for our games (maybe as if we were a potential player of our own end-product), so then the subjective level of knowledge of our player pool becomes relevant, then also other constraints like the time available to set up and present games at the usual or, or different venue. There's also the time needed for teaching a rule set to new players to weigh, so they might understand enough to play a scenario. The downside if not, risk players becoming frustrated by their experience - which is the opposite intent many of us are trying to produce for a positive hobby outcome.
So having consideration of the subjective knowledge or lack of it by potential participants, the time constraints available to present a game, and the ability to convey rules for mindful play by a varied audience, are all considerations encountered at my group's game tables.
Perhaps 'teaching history' via a wargame ruleset is high on someone's list, when others may be more focused on providing an open social experience first, and by a more varied game audience.
So a good game about what? - it's primarily been about having some recreational entertainment.......and no doubt Backgammon gets it's love too.
-
Each game appears to have its merits.
I appreciate knowing before purchase what those merits are.
This thread has been very informative.
-
It’s about perspective and I put mine up front in the review of the rules, it wasn’t about which was a better or more enjoyable game, it was about the relevance to history. If that’s not of interest to some readers, that’s fine, the blog post is probably irrelevant to them. Interestingly out of all the comments and feedback I have had on the blog, in forums and in social media, only one person offered any sort of rebuttal to my basic premise that some of the M&T2’s mechanics bore little relation to history.
To the statement “I never expect to be taught warfare from a set of rules” I offer this quote from Phil Sabin’s excellent book “Simulating Warfare: Studying conflict through simulation games”:
In the years before 1914, wargaming helped to persuade the British that a continental commitment was needed to safeguard France against outflanking through Belgium, and it also helped the Germans to devise just such a move in the form of the Schlieffen plan. Wargames showed both Germans and Russians the potential vulnerability of a two-pronged assault on East Prussia to defeat in detail, but it was the Germans who took this lesson to heart and applied it at Tannenberg. During the interwar period, Doenitz used wargaming to develop his wireless-based ‘wolfpack’ tactics for U-boat attacks, while US Admiral Nimitz later claimed that: ‘The war with Japan had been re-enacted in the game rooms here by so many people and in so many different ways that nothing that happened during the war was a surprise – absolutely nothing except the Kamikaze tactics toward the end of the war; we had not visualized those.’ Wargaming continued apace during World War Two itself, including the notorious Japanese game before Midway in which a combination of optimistic umpiring and failure to take on board the lessons of the game blinded the Imperial fleet to the weakness of its plans. Montgomery often played through forthcoming operations with his staff, and the Germans (as the original progenitors of Kriegsspiel) used wargaming routinely to try to offset the growing odds they faced – the Normandy invasion caught several German officers on their way to Rennes to game their response to just such an attack, and when a similar wargame in November was interrupted by a US offensive in the Hürtgen forest, the Germans continued the game and issued some of the orders for real.
-
Being knee-deep in the final stages of developing a mass-market board game, working on a WWII stand = platoon game system that has finished play testing (I hope), and just getting into development and play testing a pure skirmish frontier wars miniatures rules set, this thread has been of particular interest.
I have enjoyed the back 'n forth expressed here ; and the fact it was done in a very civil manner. I also appreciate the extent TP has gone to in order to give context to his comments. Knowing TP and FlyX (online familiarity) I tend to give serious thought to what they post so, please, keep it coming!
-
Thanks Bill, and looking forward to learning more about your game too! ;)
My advice to myself - is never to take wargaming results from off the tabletop too seriously, and to be sure to crack a smile (even with a wink and nod ) whenever I put on one, lest I scare away the kiddies.
-
To the statement “I never expect to be taught warfare from a set of rules” I offer this quote from Phil Sabin’s excellent book “Simulating Warfare: Studying conflict through simulation games”:
I decided not to put the full quote in for space reasons, but those examples are amazing - whilst I was obviously aware that most general staffs used wargames to plan attacks/responses in peacetime, I had no idea that what we think of as a game/hobby had done so much to shape human history through its use during wartime as well.
-
Peter Perla wrote that wargames should aim to be ‘simple and accurate’. Simple can be easy enough but accurate is more tricky. By ‘accurate’ he means accurately modelling the issue you want modelled so that the gamer’s decision making and the outcomes that flow from that are an accurate reflection of that in the real world. People often confuse accuracy with realism, in other words a game cannot be accurate because real bullets aren’t flying and real people aren’t getting killed. That’s to miss the point. If my game is set at a time when all orders are by voice then an accurate game mechanic would be one that restricted how far a voice can be projected, heard and understood. I think we can be certain that the naval games Nimitz refers to in the quote did not allow ships to see over the horizon. To have done so would not only be inaccurate it would be pointless and they would learn nothing from the game.
This glorious hobby allows us the opportunity to indulge a passion for history, we want our little soldiers to look like their historical counterparts why on earth wouldn’t we want to accurately reflect some of their actions and in so doing understand a little more about what happened, how and why? If that’s worked for the military for over a century then I see no reason why it can’t work for the hobbyists.
-
TP- I'll also add my appreciation for this discussion, and your comments. While I've thoroughly enjoyed M&T over the years, and think it does model many aspects of 18th century warfare well, your points about how command is poorly modeled have been enlightening.
Its got me looking for a good used copy (new, its $48 here in the states) of SP2 to try them out. I may find them slow. Or, I may not. I do recognize that TFL games tend to be, well, a bit chatty and difficult to wrap Yankee brains around. But you've sold me, at least to give it a whirl.
And M&T is my favorite ruleset.
In the meantime, its refreshing, after years of comments on this and "the other page", about what we do being "only a game", and hence any gamey mechanics are OK, history be d---d. Which makes me ask essentially what you asked: Why paint up accurate minis and terrain, then use games that don't make some attempt to recreate how the troops were used? If "its only a game", then why not play backgammon? Or poker?
-
Pan, sorry to see you go.
Actually, there's all sorts of facets to this hobby as mentioned, and we can spend hours prepping for it can't we.
Some gamers enjoy the gaming side more than the prepping or painting side, some are all about the details, many far less so. Some have far more knowledge of history, some are at different stages of their interest for it, but still like wargaming. So is it the modelling? - the gaming group? - the history? - maybe rules study/design? - the social interaction - competing or winning.......?
I have known dozens of gamers who can't paint as well as me, and others that paint far better or enjoy it far more, is that the criteria for judging worthy participation in this hobby?
I've seen uniform buttons or facings painted wrong, and have made mistakes myself, and what is correct colors (or colours) for the Caunter camo scheme (that's changed over time too). Is this really judgement for participation in this hobby?
If someone doesn't know a battalion from a regiment, they're not worthy for this hobby?
Such judgmentalism, and elitist opinions - that are never acceptable in my circle (of unworthy gamers). lol
-
Sorry, I am confused…. Where is Pan going?
-
To get his Pandemic shot. ;D
-
Oh my goodness, Fly. Please don't take my remarks as "eltist". But I have been concerned about a growing emphasis on "its a great game" over "historicity". But this doesn't mean I'm on some sort of crusade. Its merely about my own thoughts, and perhaps some concern that "historical gaming" still have something to do with history.
And, I'm not going anywhere. I'm simply going to try out SP. When I get a set of the rules, I'll play it and report back here.
And, I think I may be playing an M&T2 game this Monday, President's Day.
-
Pan, you're going Full Monty I'm afraid.
As long as you put your classic v.1 and cards up on ebay, this is going to be a win-win for everyone.......and my buds are ready to $tart bidding.
-
"Going Full Monty"? Hmmm... I don't intend to take my clothes off in public anytime soon ;)
And, why are you so sure I'll be "converted" by SP? I may not like it. I cannot say at this point.
Heck, I tried to get through "I Ain't Been Shot, Mum" and couldn't figure them out.
-
That's a great idea Pan - do a comparison report of your own, and include in your impression vs. M&T v.1 if you can also.
You don't need a blog, just write it up here, and please post it over on TMP too. :)
-
Wish some of you were local so I could drag you into playtesting from time-to-time.
If I may hijack this thread momentarily...
TP - keep in mind that P. Perla is one person with a point of view. Is he informed and experienced with regards to games and simulations, yes. Is he recognized for his professional role in wargaming and simulation, on a daily basis influenced by his government work, yes. Has he published works on wargaming from his perspective and based on his understandings and experiences, yes.
I absolutely agree with Perla's statment that wargames should aim to be "simple and accurate" and with most of what else is stated in your last post; I do take some issue with your thought on over a century of wargames working for the military because there have also been many outcomes fraught with flaws and failures. Anyway, what Perla or anyone else ultimately wants out of, or hopes for from, a wargame doesn't validate or negate what a particular gamer or group of gamers seeks to get out of a wargame, or how effectively a game's mechanics and constructs achieve intended objectives and representations.
The three games I am currently involved with (developmentally) are all very different. Designing them so they reflect what I want to emphasize with each of them has required many, many hours and much head-banging. While I and most of those involved in playtesting agree the games achieve desired effects, there is no doubt any number of people, even a game "expert" like Perla, may find themselves disatisfied with some aspect of their play or results. So are the games accurate?
I know that the WWII stand=platoon miniatures game system for 2 to 6 players properly rewards things like recon, mutually supporting fires, and a constrained sphere of command... objectives I wanted to emphsize in my quest for accuracy. I know the 1:1 frontier wars rules focus on small groups of figures handled by 2 to 6 players conducting raids, ambushes, and other true, skirmish-level actions, and they capture many of the unique elements of these types of actions; I also know the rules would be totally ineffective for battles involving larger formations. So the 1:1 rules do what they were intended to do. (I know too that the boardgame allows for learning within a social-recreational atmosphere by 3 to 6 players, which means it met its objective.) The reality is in each instance there were considerations about accuracy, playability, and a whole host of other things which impacted their design; meaning some folks will "like" the way they represent or achieve historical realities while others will "dislike" some or all of the approach and outcomes.
I guess to some extent, "different strokes for different folks" applies even when a group of gamers agrees "accuracy" is an important part of a historical wargame.
(TP if you want to delve further into matters send me a PM, no need to futher hijack what is supposed to be an AWI-M&T-SP focused thread.)
-
Wish some of you were local so I could drag you into playtesting from time-to-time.
If I may hijack this thread momentarily...
(snip)
I guess to some extent, "different strokes for different folks" applies even when a group of gamers agrees "accuracy" is an important part of a historical wargame.
(TP if you want to delve further into matters send me a PM, no need to futher hijack what is supposed to be an AWI-M&T-SP focused thread.)
Hey, it's my thread and you can hijack it all you like, all this disussion is completely relevant to my initial post.
This is all the reason I prefaced my review/comparison with these words "I guess I should preface this by saying I'm approaching this as a historical gamer. I like my games to offer a small window into history, so I'm particularly interested in the way the different game mechanics relate to my understanding of warfare during the period." My intention was to make it clear that this was how *I* was making the comparison. No one had to buy into it.
I know exactly why I game and I seek out like minded opponents. I don't play fantasy or sci-fi games, not because I'm elitist, but because I'm just not interested in the subject matter. I didn't come to historical wargaming from another game environment, I came to wargaming because I was interested in history and particular periods. I have a casual interest in the ancient period, but not enough to drive a desire to game the period or collect figures. I see lots of beautiful figures and games, but unfortunately I don't know my histati from my principes and the more modern periods tend to hold my interest. Does this make me judgemental? You bet it does, but I'm passing judgement on the rule set, not the people that play them.
-
CUT
-
TP - absolutely get it that you were expressing your perspective; which is cool. Hope you didn't interpret my ramblings as anything beyond expanded thought. Wish more people engaged in thoughtful comments on the various aspects of our hobby.
-
No Bill, all good, sorry if it came across as combative, wasn't my intention!
-
To return to the original thread subject. One weakness of M&T (which was in v1 as well) is that it only works if you have multiple troop types on each side. The system breaks down if all your troops are the same type; I’d been looking at playing some of the SP1 Compleat Fondler scenarios using M&T, but for instance the first one has French Dragoons chasing British Rifles in the snow. So all the French will activate when the cavalry card comes up, and all the British when the light infantry card comes up. Which won’t work very well at all.
So that’s one scenario to be played using SP2 (we played it using v1 years ago)
-
Miniatures wargames rules are based on a tool bag of opinions, even about what historical data or detail is pertinent enough to emulate (that emulation is not history, it's an imitation).
Probably good that wargames are just imitations of war, and not historical acts of war, so they can be enjoyed instead without risk........maybe with bad dice being the greatest, momentary downside.
Someone's immersion into wargaming isn't decided on opinions about history, maybe that's most important to some, but there's way too much about this hobby than just that.
If you want to debate this, that's fine, it's your dime and time.
-
To return to the original thread subject. One weakness of M&T (which was in v1 as well) is that it only works if you have multiple troop types on each side. The system breaks down if all your troops are the same type; I’d been looking at playing some of the SP1 Compleat Fondler scenarios using M&T, but for instance the first one has French Dragoons chasing British Rifles in the snow. So all the French will activate when the cavalry card comes up, and all the British when the light infantry card comes up. Which won’t work very well at all.
So that’s one scenario to be played using SP2 (we played it using v1 years ago)
There’s definitely a good idea in the card mechanic, particularly in the way you can seed the deck with variable numbers of unit cards to reflect traits like better leadership, training or stealth. However as you point out, it does breakdown if you don’t have a variety of unit types in each force. For me it’s one of those situations where you begin to question a set of rules if you have to starting bending the history to fit the rule set, rather than the other way around.
I used to design scenarios for Advanced Squad Leader and was invited to develop a number for a pack set in Normandy. I was reading lots of first hand accounts of platoon and company commanders and wanted to use them as a source of inspiration, but all the process did was expose the limitations of the ASL system to capture this sort of level of combat. It was something of an epiphany for me, where I realised that ASL delivered a great two player tactical game but not a great game about combat in the Second World War.
Reiner Knizia, a mathematician, is one of the most prolific and successful designers of Euro style games. Most of his games are ‘themed’ but anyone playing them realises quickly that the theme is simply the dressing for the game mechanic. One game, Lost Cities, is supposedly about planning archaeological expeditions, but it’s really a simple but clever competitive card game about collecting suits of cards. Anyone looking for a game about the challenges of organising expeditions would be severely disappointed. This is fine in the world of Euro games because they don’t pretend to be anything else, the game mechanics are king (you only have to trawl through the reviews and comments on BoardGameGeek to see this is what presses the buttons for most players). The mechanics come first and the theme is pasted on, no one is looking for any ‘real world’ parallels or associations against which to test how the game relates to its subject.
Historical wargames tend to position themselves differently, making strong associations with the period in which they are set. M&T2 is no exception and the historical preamble in each supplement is no different to many sets of rules. I recall the old advertising for Avalon Hill games that would describe the situation the game sets up and end with the rousing call “Now YOU take command!”. As a result I think it’s perfectly valid to assess the mechanics against the history and ask questions.
Which is a long winded way of circling back to the original point and wondering if the M&T card mechanic is the real driver of the game and the history just the theme pasted on to it? After all, if you can’t use the rules to play a perfectly valid situation like dragoons chasing riflemen then it does raise questions about what takes precedence - the game mechanics or the history?
-
You could play that scenario using M&T. But you'd have to assign different card types to different units, which is not a big change (e.g. one unit moves on light cavalry, one on cavalry, one on line)
-
We've played a few games of M&T2 now, mostly French and Indian wars stuff but a couple of AWI. They've all been great games and we've had a lot of fun. The intrigues are fun, specially in a multi-player game where players may have different objectives.
We've yet to try the Napoleonic supplement but will hopefully do so in coming weeks. I appreciate that drawing a French Line infantry card will result in all those units taking an action, but as they units can do different things, we don't really see a problem. The cards a just a game mechanism and for us it's proved fun.
Sorry to say, for us, SP2 proved to be an exhausting and tedious exercise in wading through superfluous detail. More detail does not mean better, it just means more stuff to wade through. And none of us could ever figure out how / when to apply the 'sharp practice' characteristic. Even after 19 pages of FAQ and asking more experienced players at another club, no one could figure out exactly how or when to use 'sharp practice'.
Another good fun game for the AWI is Rebels & Patriots. It may be too simplistic for those who want lots of detail, but it's fast and fun, and that's what matters to us.
just my tuppence worth,
cheers,
Tom
-
We've played a few games of M&T2 now, mostly French and Indian wars stuff but a couple of AWI. They've all been great games and we've had a lot of fun. The intrigues are fun, specially in a multi-player game where players may have different objectives.
We've yet to try the Napoleonic supplement but will hopefully do so in coming weeks. I appreciate that drawing a French Line infantry card will result in all those units taking an action, but as they units can do different things, we don't really see a problem. The cards a just a game mechanism and for us it's proved fun.
I think the point of my comparison was not which game was more ‘fun’, I made the point I thought both gave a decent game, that was not my issue with M&T2, it was a review of how well it gave a decent game that reflected combat in the period. Fun is fairly subjective. While the games of M&T2 were competitive and played well enough the ‘fun’ was taken out of it for me by far too many, ‘huh? WTF moments’ where the game delivered situations that made no sense historically. That sucked the ‘fun’ out of it for me given my interest in the AWI.
Sorry to say, for us, SP2 proved to be an exhausting and tedious exercise in wading through superfluous detail. More detail does not mean better, it just means more stuff to wade through. And none of us could ever figure out how / when to apply the 'sharp practice' characteristic. Even after 19 pages of FAQ and asking more experienced players at another club, no one could figure out exactly how or when to use 'sharp practice'.
Another good fun game for the AWI is Rebels & Patriots. It may be too simplistic for those who want lots of detail, but it's fast and fun, and that's what matters to us.
just my tuppence worth,
cheers,
Tom
Clearly didn’t work for you, TFL rules can take some getting used to. Probably irrelevant now but the Sharp Practice mechanic is straightforward. At any time during a turn you may use two command cards to have an unloaded unit reload, or a loaded unit fire (even interrupting an opponents action). It does not count as an activation (so may be carried out by a unit that had already been activated or allows a unit that hasn’t yet been activated to still activate later in the turn). That’s it. It gives a well drilled unit the ability to fire more frequently.
-
Tactical Painter, I get what you are saying and agree with you.
I wish the TFL games were edited a bit more to help streamline them and make them a bit easier to digest but in general so far from what I can tell they tend to reflect the kind of narrative gaming that I am aiming for in regards to Chain of Command and Sharp Practice at the very least.
Your blog has helped me greatly with coming to grips with Chain of Command. And your Sharp Practice AWI campaign gaming was entertaining to read. Thanks for the work you have put in to share that.
Edit: In parts this thread reminds me of the Great Cola Wars, of which I am a grumpy, old veteran.
-
I think the point of my comparison was not which game was more ‘fun’, I made the point I thought both gave a decent game, that was not my issue with M&T2, it was a review of how well it gave a decent game that reflected combat in the period. Fun is fairly subjective. While the games of M&T2 were competitive and played well enough the ‘fun’ was taken out of it for me by far too many, ‘huh? WTF moments’ where the game delivered situations that made no sense historically. That sucked the ‘fun’ out of it for me given my interest in the AWI.
Clearly didn’t work for you, TFL rules can take some getting used to. Probably irrelevant now but the Sharp Practice mechanic is straightforward. At any time during a turn you may use two command cards to have an unloaded unit reload, or a loaded unit fire (even interrupting an opponents action). It does not count as an activation (so may be carried out by a unit that had already been activated or allows a unit that hasn’t yet been activated to still activate later in the turn). That’s it. It gives a well drilled unit the ability to fire more frequently.
Thanks for your comments. Apologies, I should have focussed more on the history side. I freely admit my knowledge of the AWI is limited, and really only the main battles. I have a much greater knowledge of the Revolution and Napoleonic era. We looked at both game's mechanisms, both based on activation by the turn of a card, and with all the surrounding detail. It seemed to us no more or less valid than any other system in historical terms. So we opted for the one that was easier to use.
And thanks for the clear explanation of the sharp practice mechanic. It was never clear to us if was to be used when a specific friendly unit activated, or if when another friendly unit activated. Or indeed by an enemy unit. If the rules had been as clear as your explanation we might still be playing SP2.
regards,
Tom