Sharp Practice and Muskets & Tomahawks in the AWI

[TacticalPainter]

CUT

[BillK]

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.

[TacticalPainter]

No Bill, all good, sorry if it came across as combative, wasn't my intention!

[SteveBurt]

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)

[FlyXwire]

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. 

[TacticalPainter]

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?

[SteveBurt]

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)

[TomMcC]

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

[TacticalPainter]

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.

[Grumpy Gnome]

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.

[TomMcC]

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