Pig Wars is a set of miniatures rules by Tod Kershner that were featured In the last Issue of EGG. Due to the length of Tod's very well written rules, I was unable to analyze the game In EGG 9. I will now make up that omission.
The analysis is put forward In two parts. The first part looks at who the rules describe how to play (in other words, after reading the rules, can a reader play the game?) The second section looks at the new Ideas Pig Wars uses, and how they seem to fit together.
Tod clearly states that Pig Wars is a game about small unit combat in the Dark Ages. It seems from 7 to 10 players, each command a single 20 figure unit (so the game requires some 200 figures to play). The commanders each have missions, so there is obviously an emphasis on role playing. Tod promises an afternoon length game, "without a lot of brain straining."
The first section of rules describes how to prepare figures. Each figure has special markings on the base. A strip of color runs along the rear of the base. This is a units identifying code. (The implication of this is a difficulty in using figures mounted for a different game.) In addition, the figure has a number of narrow strips which indicate his morale/training state. The more strips a figure has the better he is.
There are several examples of unit make up. Tod says he does not believe in point value armies and favors more "historical" and Imaginative forces. This puts the burden of balancing the scenario on the referee. Given that role playing is used in the game, the referee might function a lot like a role play game master. The difference is that the players are in competition, not cooperation.
The rules, call for using a regular deck of cards (without Jokers) to settle combat. Dice are used elsewhere in the game, but not here. (This could make combat as fast as flipping a card, or it could slow it down by adding in another game mechanism.)
The turn sequence seems to be broken down so that one player moves and shoots at a time. Before the game a deck of index cards is marked with the name of each unit. The cards are flipped one at a time to determine who moves first. (This is straight forward, and leaves no one in doubt over who moves first.)
The turn sequence consists of 5 phases.
- 1. Draw a movement card to see which person moves (or phases)
first.
2. The phasing player rallies and moves any or all his figures.
3. The phasing player shoots arrows.
4. Figures that face off one another may melee (remembering that the attacker can be killed). And
5. Morale checks are made.
All the figures of a unit may move up,to a number of Inches determined by their armor type. So heavily armored men move 6" to an unarmored man's 9". (This could pose a problem if the armor of the figure does not correspond with what the "character" has since that would Involve paper work fox 20 men).
When a figure enters "difficult" terrain, the movement rules change. Instead of having a set move rate, a die is rolled and the figure may move only that far. The type of die used varies due to the armor type of the figure. Some figures roll 6 sided dice. Some roll 8 or 12 sided dice. (This would definitely discourage a lazy gamer from charging across swamps. Units would naturally break up. A problem here might be the number of dice rolls that would have to be made. A player has to figure out which die to use. Roll it. Move the figure, and then repeat 19 more times.)
The only formation in the game, is the "Shield Wall." This is basically a line of 3 or more figure who point their shield in the same direction. This gives excellent protection to the front but limits the unit in the following ways. Shield Walls can't charge or cross difficult terrain. Once in combat, the Shield wall only remains If the men are fighting with spears. Using a sword or ax naturally breaks up the line.
If a figure does not make base to base contact then it Is not in combat with an enemy, and may more around him. (This sounds like a rule for a rugby game -- I wonder, could one do a Dark Ages peasant rugby match?) (or maybe a soccer match might be more like it.)
When a figure charges it seems to move normally except that it adds 1D6 in inches to his move. The figure only gets his charge bonus if he move 1/2 of his normal move. (This could get hard to remember if a very diverse unit where to charge a short distance.)
Figures with missile weapons may fire them by declaring a target. Each type of missile weapon has a long and short range. (The long range being twice as long as the short range.) A card is pulled from the regular deck of cards to determine hits. At short range, diamonds and hearts hit. At long range only hearts hit. If a hit is scored, the defender gets to try to block it with armor. Targets in woods up their armor level by 1. The defender flips another regular playing card. Depending on how much armor a figure has it can block the arrow on a 10 through Ace for an unarmored man, down to a 3 through Ace for a man in a Shield Wall.
A missile troop can fire at any target in front of him but may not shoot through things (like hills or buildings.)
Figures melee one another whenever their bases touch. Once contact is made, figures are squared up against one another so that together their bases form a rectangle. Only 1 rank of troops may fight except for spearmen who may form a file of 2 spears in which both ranks fight.
Melee is resolved by adding together a figure's morale level (0 through 3) his weapons factor (0 for hands, 1 for spear, 2 for sword etc) and tactical factors. Each figure then has a regular playing card drawn for It. That number is added onto the figures previous total and gets compared to the enemies total. The winner is the figure with the highest total. The amount the winners number is over the defenders Is called the victory margin. Depending on the armor rating of the defender, It takes a larger margin of victory to win. (Unarmored men are killed by a margin of victory of 1. While Shield Wall defenders must be beat by a 6 margin of victory.)
Melee continues, one card pulled a turn, until there are no more attackers or defenders left to fight. (So once a unit enters combat that is it. It must win, or be annihilated.)
Tod suggests that combats be resolved by working from one side of the unit to the other. This seems very reasonable given the amount of number crunching each melee takes. It is a methodical approach that really simplifies the details.
Leaders are not killed after only one wound. Instead, in true role play manner, they are able to take up to 3 "hits."1 (This looks like it would enhance the role playing part of the game since it gives the players some room to be daring.)
The final element of the game is how to check morale. Morale here means whither a figure will stand, be forced back one move, or rout. It is checked for the whole unit, but It will affect figures of different morales differently.
A units morale is checked when one of the following happens.
- 1. 1/5th of the unit is killed in one turn.
2. The leader is killed, or
3. the standard is captured. Morale is checked by pulling a card from a regular playing deck. The number is modified tactical factors and compared to a table. If the number is 8 or better then there is no effect. But as the number goes lower the men begin to fall back or rout. The figures with poorer morale naturally do these things before the elites do.
When a figure falls back, it moves 1 and 1/2 its move to the rear. Next turn it may move (but not charge) back up to the fight. If a unit routs It also moves 1 and 1/2 move to the rear, but it must rally before it can move back up to the fight.
Rallies are simply handled by pulling a regular playing card. If it is a club then only elites rally. Spades let elites and vetrans rally. Diamonds work for elites, veterans and average troops. And finally Hearts let all figures rally.
There are more little rules but this is in short how I think the rules say how to run the game. It seems clear enough and likely to produce an interesting fight. My guess is that it works best for 7 to 10 people with one unit each. This would give everyone enough men to play around with in role playing but keep things small enough that the rules do not become overloaded.
The rules are quite simple. This is an advantage in an easy afternoon game but there does seem to be enough "friction" in the rules that it would not work well for handling big battles. I also suspect that the role playing element which is such a part of this game would not survive the move to a larger scale.
Pig Wars is an interesting combination of game ideas. It has been run as a successful convention game for several years. But is it experimental?
I saw Pig Wars run at Peninsula campaigns in 1990. Tod covered the table with colorful terrain and truly beautiful figures. I believe that the quality of the figures and terrain used is a major part of this game.
Wargaming as a hobby seeks to recreate some "real" or Imagined world. we use rules that describe HOW things work (le how things fit together - causality). But we also use props to show ourselves that reality. Lead figures and terrain do that. Some games do not rely heavily on the figures (Matrix games being a prime example) but some do. Pig Wars falls in the later group. The great detail in the props "suggests" to the players, the spirit of the game. Tod's figures suggest "adventure." As does the very title of the game. This "gestalt" of information sets the game up. No matter the rules. The players have in mind the type of game they will play.
The adventure gestalt of Tod's miniatures is further supplemented by the inclusion of role playing into the game. Certainly this is not a new Idea. Rather Pig Wars encourages role playing the way it evolved out of miniatures games in the early 70s. Pig Wars retains its miniatures gameness though by having the players fight one another Instead of the referee.
A weakness of all games that use beautiful miniature is that they are hard to do without those miniatures. Somehow the Viking raid doesn't look as thrilling simply because unpainted plastic figures, sitting on an undecorated table do not invoke the gestalt as Tod's figures do. Without Tod's figures what are the ideas in the game?
Movement is handled using a card system. It is not the same system used In "The Sword and the Flame" but it is certainly in that family. Likewise, combat uses cards in ways very familiar, if not at all the same way as TSATF.
Melee and morale harken back to miniatures game ideas of long standing. Training levels, tactical factors, figures killed etc are proven ways to run a game. They involve a lot of adding and subtracting so they can generate friction in a game. with over 20 or so math problems a turn a game of this type can break down rapidly.
Tod seems to be visualizing Dark Ages warfare as a series of conflicts between two opponents. This is certainly a valid way of looking at the problem. it will lead a game maker to mechanisms that stress Individual decisions. For small scale actions this works well. But the idea breaks down when the groups are expanded. Friction and information overload prevent a single player from handling too many more than 20 men.
visualizing combat as a series of individual melees can also prevent a person from seeing how a group reacts in battle. Groups and individuals do not react the same. Groups are much more than just the sum of their parts. Pig Wars tries to cover this with Its morale rules, but even here Tod focuses on Individual reactions. I do not down Pig Wars on this point. I know of NO wargames that adequately portray 1000 men vs 1000 men fights (which take into account everyone) that work.
It seems to me that Pig Wars is really not trying to simulate intermediate scale actions. It looks at small scales. It focuses in on the adventure gestalt of the lone warrior holding everyone off. It provides simple tried and true rules mechanisms to resolve fights and leave group interaction to the role playing/negotiation of the players. It works, and I'd like to play in one of Tod's convention games sometime.
Back to Experimental Games Group # 10 Table of Contents
Back to Experimental Games Group List of Issues
Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List
© Copyright 1990 by Chris Engle
This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com