AAR of the third test game for Le Soldat: command&control and formation changes

[JW Boots]

Another test game for Le Soldat. I have tried to take the feedback on the previous blog into account and hope this now gives a better idea of how the game will play. Note that I have focussed the text on those parts that I was testing… more at my blog: https://tabletopmatrixwargames689972109.wordpress.com/2025/01/04/blog-57-the-battle-that-could-have-been-near-borodino-but-wasnt/

[fred]

Thanks for that - the time check mechanism makes a lot more sense to me now. And I like the idea of it for opposed actions, or for actions that could take a while to execute.

You say that players might want to instead use the Matrix Argument instead - what might that look / sound like by the two players?

One suggestion on the time check mechanism - you say in the post that rolling triple 6 is good (and I agree) - but for a time check rolling triple 6 is bad, it means it has taken you longer. Can I suggest that you flip the dice roll around, i.e. for a time check you take n dice, which is the maximum time the action could take, then for each roll of 4+ your unit is efficient and saves a minute in executing the action. Exactly the same number of dice and success chance as now, but flipped around so that high rolls are good.

Keeping target scores as high is good across the game makes it simpler for the players to learn and remember the mechanisms.

[JW Boots]

You say that players might want to instead use the Matrix Argument instead - what might that look / sound like by the two players?

One suggestion on the time check mechanism - you say in the post that rolling triple 6 is good (and I agree) - but for a time check rolling triple 6 is bad, it means it has taken you longer. Can I suggest that you flip the dice roll around, i.e. for a time check you take n dice, which is the maximum time the action could take, then for each roll of 4+ your unit is efficient and saves a minute in executing the action. Exactly the same number of dice and success chance as now, but flipped around so that high rolls are good.

There could be an unclarity in my blog. The horse artillery shot at the Russian infantry was not resolved with a time check but a combat argument.

I designed Der Söldner (the original game) with simple D6 mechanics. The normal argument is based on the MATRIX wargame concept. Players exchange arguments supported with up to three reasons, each using keywords from the MATRIX. This is judged and translated into a probability that links to a score to beat on 3D6. In this case we judged the guns having an effect at very unlikely (VU), which links to a 14+ score… and then the triple 6 was rolled… the only possible score to send the Russians fleeing…

The argument mechanic has only one variable: the score to beat. Time checks also have only one variable: the number of D6s to be rolled. For time checks invariably a 4+ represents 1 minute, other scores no minutes. What I did not mention in the blog is that when a time check succeeds the score represents the actual number of minutes the action took. And there are options for trying again in a next round on which the previous attempt has an effect.

Explaining all will take up too much space here and, as I mention in the blog, i intend to post more AARs of test games that will focus on other mechanics. Still, perhaps it may help to have a look at The Warrior ( https://tabletopmatrixwargames689972109.wordpress.com/arguing-when-cultures-clash-the-warrior/). This is a free PDF supplement to Der Söldner that covers the ancient and medieval period. It also has a QRS in the back that might shed some light on some of the mechanics. Many of these will also be present in le Soldat. Some even exactly the same because I want to avoid confusing players with the same, but not exactly the same details when playing similar sets for different periods.

[fred]

There could be an unclarity in my blog. The horse artillery shot at the Russian infantry was not resolved with a time check but a combat argument.

I designed Der Söldner (the original game) with simple D6 mechanics. The normal argument is based on the MATRIX wargame concept. Players exchange arguments supported with up to three reasons, each using keywords from the MATRIX. This is judged and translated into a probability that links to a score to beat on 3D6. In this case we judged the guns having an effect at very unlikely (VU), which links to a 14+ score… and then the triple 6 was rolled… the only possible score to send the Russians fleeing…

The argument mechanic has only one variable: the score to beat. Time checks also have only one variable: the number of D6s to be rolled. For time checks invariably a 4+ represents 1 minute, other scores no minutes. What I did not mention in the blog is that when a time check succeeds the score represents the actual number of minutes the action took. And there are options for trying again in a next round on which the previous attempt has an effect.

The above was my understanding from the blog post.

But my point around flipping the wording on the time checks still applies. From a player’s perspective the current mechanism of a time check ‘succeeding’ on a 4+ is backwards. This ‘success’ isn’t a success from the players perspective, it is a failure, as the proposed action is less likely to succeed in the time available.

And this is my point about having consistency of dice rolls - i.e. high is good. And hence my suggestion that for a time check the number of dice is the maximum time it takes, but each roll of 4+ saves 1 minute of time. This is exactly the mechanism you have but it is phrased in a way that the successes are actually positive for the player rolling the dice.

I will have a look at the other linked page - as with the Matrix argument I have no idea how the players agree that an action (in this example the shooting was ‘very unlikely’ to succeed).


In the game we played the other night (Eisenhower) the target numbers needed for combat change depending on prescribed circumstances. So both players know before hand that 6s are needed in this combat, whereas in another combat it may be that 4s are needed. This is defined in the game rules. What I really can’t work out is how the arguments lead to a target score in Der Solder / La Soldat without it being an actual argument every time.

[JW Boots]

But my point around flipping the wording on the time checks still applies. From a player’s perspective the current mechanism of a time check ‘succeeding’ on a 4+ is backwards. This ‘success’ isn’t a success from the players perspective, it is a failure, as the proposed action is less likely to succeed in the time available.

And this is my point about having consistency of dice rolls - i.e. high is good. And hence my suggestion that for a time check the number of dice is the maximum time it takes, but each roll of 4+ saves 1 minute of time. This is exactly the mechanism you have but it is phrased in a way that the successes are actually positive for the player rolling the dice.

Ah, got it. I did consider this when designing the system. However, the result also links to a number of minutes the action took in case of success… in the end I felt this was the best. Designer choice, that’s all this is…

[JW Boots]

I will have a look at the other linked page - as with the Matrix argument I have no idea how the players agree that an action (in this example the shooting was ‘very unlikely’ to succeed).


In the game we played the other night (Eisenhower) the target numbers needed for combat change depending on prescribed circumstances. So both players know before hand that 6s are needed in this combat, whereas in another combat it may be that 4s are needed. This is defined in the game rules. What I really can’t work out is how the arguments lead to a target score in Der Solder / La Soldat without it being an actual argument every time.

In Le Soldat judging an argument is exactly that: people making a judgement on the spot. You don’t have tables with factors and modifiers that allow you before hand to exactly calculate the odds of any particular situation or combat. That comes from my period as a competition player, now decades ago. At some point I could look at the table and instantly knew the odds down to the exact percentage… not something I think real commanders would have known at the time. They would have loved to, but… The rules do provide reference values for certain combat lineups under otherwise ideal conditions. These would be something somebody might have known based on experience, reading reports, etc. Still, the actual combat score to beat is the result from in-game judgement that may differ from game to game…

The original setup of Der Söldner includes a game-master. Not an umpire, but a very active and engaging role. Still, we often play with just two players and indeed making the judgement calls together. As one player once put it: this is a game for gentleman. And in a way you could think of it not as rules but helping to facilitate an interesting and entertaining discussion amongst the players as they build the narrative of the battle at hand.

[fred]

Ah, got it. I did consider this when designing the system. However, the result also links to a number of minutes the action took in case of success… in the end I felt this was the best. Designer choice, that’s all this is…

OK - but it is a confusing way of doing this - when I read this in Der Solden it took me several goes to understand this - as the successes, are not positive results for the player rolling the dice.

[JW Boots]

OK - but it is a confusing way of doing this - when I read this in Der Solden it took me several goes to understand this - as the successes, are not positive results for the player rolling the dice.

Fair enough. All I can add to this is that now, with more than two years of gaming experience with Der Söldner and The Warrior at the BOD in Utrecht, players quickly get used to it. And for consistency amongst the different sets I do plan of keeping it as it is… sorry for that. I very much appreciate your feedback and will see how to use it when finalising the manuscript, which may still be several months from now…

[fred]

Indeed, players will get used to it, and especially those players who are shown how to play the game.

For players who are trying to understand the rules off the written rules, it is harder. But I understand the desire for consistency across the sets.

Even just a wording change around calling time checks a ‘success’ may make it a bit easier to understand on first reading. Eg each 4+ on a time check costs 1 minute of activity.

[LazyStudent]

Hi JW,
Another interesting view on the game mechanics. I do like your attention to detail on time. This is, for me, what makes this set stand out against others.
On the point of readability and user understanding, are you planning to conduct blind play tests? Sending off the rules to others for them to play, but with no further info. I know from my time designing boardgames that these can be key to finding those little ambiguous statements and working out the last of the kinks. 

[JW Boots]

Hi JW,
Another interesting view on the game mechanics. I do like your attention to detail on time. This is, for me, what makes this set stand out against others.
On the point of readability and user understanding, are you planning to conduct blind play tests? Sending off the rules to others for them to play, but with no further info. I know from my time designing boardgames that these can be key to finding those little ambiguous statements and working out the last of the kinks.

I think this is a great suggestion. I have no not plan for it, which is because I didn’t think of it. And since I am planning to share the rules for free anyways, the PDF version that is, I will seriously consider it when at that stage. Thanks for the suggestion!

[Redshank]

I am still really intrigued by this approach, but I don't feel I fully understand how a game is supposed to play out yet.

I know it is asking a lot, but would it be possible to put up a youtube video of a game in progress?

[JW Boots]

I am still really intrigued by this approach, but I don't feel I fully understand how a game is supposed to play out yet.

I know it is asking a lot, but would it be possible to put up a youtube video of a game in progress?

A YouTube is on my to-do list for already a long time. But I lack a few things that I feel will make a good video. Not a perfect one, but also not one that would give, as we say in Dutch, kromme tenen (to cringe is what chatGPT says it means in English)…

[Redshank]

A YouTube is on my to-do list for already a long time. But I lack a few things that I feel will make a good video. Not a perfect one, but also not one that would give, as we say in Dutch, kromme tenen (to cringe is what chatGPT says it means in English)…

Your meaning is quite clear!

By the way, I have ordered Der Soeldner - looking forward to giving it a read.