Having bounced around the country playing wargames with a half-dozen or so wargame groups, I found myself in Atlanta, Georgia with a group of ardent but very busy gamers. Most of us had challenging careers, families and social commitments which left only a few hours a month for gaming. Long gone were the days when we could spend twelve hours enraped in an enduro game where the contents of every privates haversake was carefully recored and no manuver could be completed with out a bevty of dice rolls and charts. We looked for games that packed a lot of gaming into a short peroid of time.
We particularly liked the World War II period and had been trying to find a game which was a resonalble simulation but could be set up and played in 3-4 hours. We had experimented with various modifierd versions of Command Decision without much success and had participated in the playtests for the third edition. When it eventually came out we found it still took too long to complete the fairly large games we liked to play (we often get 8-10 peple to turn out). Many of the user friendly reforms we had advocated had been adopted (infantry having a set movement of 12", infantry hits spread evenly instead of randomized, firing in only one phase rather than the repitive fire of prior additions). I think our main problem with the new editon, is that we had already adopted these reforms years ago and so the new ediditon did not seem to offer a significant improvement in playability.
It looked as if we would have to adopt a less detailed systme such as Spearhead or Rapid Fire (as indeed part of the group did). Before we took this step, however, several of our members suggested trying some of the same "user friendly" concepts of software design to impove Command Decision playabitiy (many of us ethier work in or have worked in the computer industry). This got me to thinking about the whole concept of revising wargame rules, to better fit with the needs of a particular wargame group, something we all do but in a rather ad hoc manner.
Most reforms fall into three broad categories:
- User Fiendly Reforms – these don't change the substance of a rule just make it earsier to administer.
Simulation Refores – these change the substance of a rule to make it conform more closer to a particular groups beliefs about the effectiveness of weapons and teactics.
Loophole Reforms -- close loop holes in the rules the original designer nad playtester missed
We ended up using all three types of reforms in our re-design of Command Decion and I though it might be worth sharing our experience with outher groups seeking to modify games to fit their needs. In doing this we aren't picking on Command Decision, indeed if we didn't basicly like the game we wouldn't have bothered reforming it. Games I don't like end up gathering dust on a shelf!
The first and least controveral area we worked on envolved making the rules more user firendly. We first converted the tables to use standerized break points built around feet and yards. We selected 6", 12", 36" and Visibilty as our four standard range break ponts to be used throughout the system. (In the basic system every gun has its own set of break points which seem to come in 5" or 10" increments.) Using our set of break points allowed us to do all measuring with rulers and yardsticks which are much more convient than tape meansures (which require two hands and have a bad habit of retracting at the worst pssible moment). In addition most people can estimate feet and yards pretty acurately having worked with them throughout our lives. It also fit in with the new 12" infantry movement rate (we eventually converted all the vehicle movement rates to increaments of 6" to take advantage of uniform break points).
We then went through the Command Decsions very length gunnery tables and put every gun into four broad categoires: Short (S), Normal (N), Long (L) and Extra Long (XL) based on barrel length. The new break points and gun categoires allowed us to create the following To Hit table:
To Hit Chart
| Weapon Type | Range | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6" | 12" | 36" | Visibility | |
| Small Arms/AC | 5+ [Assault] | 7+ [Rifle] | 10+ | -- |
| Short (S) | 4+ | 6+ | 8+ | 11+ |
| Normal (N) | 3+ | 5+ | 7+ | 9+ |
| Long (L) | 3+ | 4+ | 6+ | 8+ |
| XL (eXtra Long) | 3+ | 4+ | 5+ | 7+ |
Cross index range and weapon type to determine roll (high rolls always good).
We then consolidated the penetration data into the following table:
If HVAP available X2 penetration Russian HVAP adds only +2 at ranges AC = Weapons of 1.5-2 cm.
These charts allowed us to put all the information contained on Command Decision's 10 or so pages of charts onto one sheet of paper.
The next step was to get the HE system to be more compatible with the basic To Hit system. For some reason Command Decision uses two completely different systems to determine hits caused by HE and hits caused by armor piercing ammo, with completely different To Hit tables. We put together the following table of HE modifiers which works just like the armor piecing modifiers:
HWs in centimeters:
| 2.5-3.9 | 4-4.9 | 5-5.9 | 6-6.9 | 7-7.9 | 8-8.9 | 9-9.9 | 10-10.9 | 11-11.9 | 12-12.9 | 13+ |
| -7 | -6 | -5 | -4 | -3 | -2 | -1 | 0 | +1 | +2 | +3 |
Modifiers to Effect Roll:
- AFV Armor Varies
INF transported in soft vehicle +1
Using this table the To Hit system for both AFV and infantry targets are identical. After an HE hit you roll I d 10 and apply the appropriate modifier, a net result of 1-3 puts one hit on the target, 4-6 two hits and 7+ puts three hits - just like the armor penetration system.
The next task was to do something about the mass die rolling called for in the unmodified system. As an example, to resolve the fire of a stationary German Panzer Grenadier company with half-tracks required players to roll 22 d10s. Just to amass that number of d10s was a problem not to mention the propensity of rolly poly d10s to slide off the table or turn up "cocked" requiring even more re-rolls. We set a goal of one die per stand to eliminate some of this die rolling.
For heavy weapons (2.5 cm and up) this turned out to be pretty easy. We allocated one d 10 per weapon but ruled that if the To Hit roll was equal to or greater than the weapon's size in centimeters, the weapon got to shoot again or "Refire". (Example: a 7.5 cm gun Refires on a roll of 8+.) This cut down on die rolls and allowed us to finetune the rate of fire of weapons down to I cm increments.
For small arms, we started with one die per stand but ended up allowing weapon platoons two dice if stationary and "Assaulf 'platoons (basically SMG or assault rifle stands) two die in all cases. We also added small arms as the top line of our To Hit table with some stands having a range limit, so that we only needed one table to resolve all fire. We made half-track support just a To Hit modifier to the rolls of armored infantry platoons rather than allowing a separate die roll. As a result in our system a German Panzer Griender Company rolls only 5 dice to resolve its fire rather than 22. This will obviously produce fewer hits so to compensate we lowered the number of hits the average stand can take from three to two. The reduction in attack dice also helped prevent the whole scale slaughter of infantry, which was a common feature of the unmodified system, and make reproducing historical results very difficult.
The reduction in hits which an infantry stand could take, had the happy side effect of reducing the number of marker counters generated by the basic system. This got us thinking about the sheer number of marker counters that each stand had to drag around. The unmodified spotting system required players to mark each stand with a spotting status marker counter for every enemy battalion. This means if you have a game with three battalions per side (pretty small by our standards) each stand needs three marker counters for spotting alone. In addition each stand often has a hit marker to record the number of hits it has taken. Finally the morale system also required stands to carry up to two more marker counters. Consequently a single stand might find itself dragging around up to six marker counters and even an average stand generally had 3-4 markers to contend with.
This proved a rather knotty problem and took a major reform of the spotting system to solve. Instead of the die roll based "do you see the whites of their eye' spotting system of the unmodified system, we changed the concept of spotting to awareness. This produced the following table:
| Concealed Stand | Spotting Stand | |
|---|---|---|
| Closed AFV | Others | |
| INF on NO in Cover | Contact | 1" |
| Vehicle on NO in Cover INT on CA in Cover | 6" | 12" |
| Vehicle on CA in Cover INF on NO in open | 12" | 36" |
| Any Firing or on FA | Auto | Auto |
| Note: CA = Cautious Advance; FA = Full Advance | ||
The system simply assumes that at the ranges indicated troops become generally aware of enemy troops or at least suspicious enough to lay down a suppressive fire on a position. The system requires no die rolling and the spotting stands serve as their own marker counters based on range to the opposing stands. The luck factor to spotting is moved to the To Hit roll. For instance a target stand in a wheat field would get a negative To Hit modifier. This is not because the wheat can stop bullets, but because the shooting stand may not have precisely spotted the target due to the concealment. The shooter is generally aware of nearby enemy Stands or at least wants to suppress the wheat field but hasn't quite seen the "whites of their eyes".
Similarly we modified the morale system and made lost stands in a company the only modifier. Like many morale systems, the unmodified version proved to be both too complicated and yet not complicated enough. It had lots of modifiers for proximity of enemy troops. For instance an AFV within 10" caused a minus to morale. This seemed reasonable, if the AFV represented some threat. Unfortunately the rules did not provide for any threat assessment, and consequently, a King Tiger took a negative morale modifier if a White half- track moved within 10" Oust the proximity also caused a morale check). It seemed better to base the modifier on actual damage, which meant that things that hurt you caused fear, but those that didn't could be ignored. Both systems have some quirks but ours had the advantage of being much more playable since the missing stands in a company now served as the morale "marker counters".
Finally we addressed the order chit system which lies at the heart of Command Decision. This system was both loved and hated by players and tended to generate the most controversy during games. Most agreed that it was brilliant in concept but flawed in execution. The first problem was the sheer number of different orders (seven) which could be issued. This lead to a lot of fumbling around in the order chit box looking for the correct chit. A quick look at the effects of the various orders indicated that four: No, Call for Fire, Rally and Take Command were basically identical in their on table effect and Regroup nearly so. This allowed us to combine these five orders into "No order" with Call for Fire, Rally, Take Command and Regroup becoming Command Function options which a Command Stand on No could exercise during the course of the turn. This left only the most useful four orders: Cautious Advance, Full Advance, No and Disengage to deal with (Travel March became an option under Full Advance). Since we only needed four orders, two front and back order chits now stood in for all the rest. This greatly reduced the time it took to issue orders.
This lead to a discussion about Command Decision's most vexing rule loophole, the dread who moves first problem. In the unmodified system, if two opposing companies are both given Cautious Advance orders, they have the option of moving from 0 to 1/2 their movement allowance. This obviously gives broad latitude to both companies regarding their final end point and presents the difficult problem of which company has to commit first. Who goes first can make a huge difference in who outflanks who. Since someone has to move first, it seemed only logical to give the option to the most experienced troops. in the basic system, more experienced troops are allowed to take more hits and so are automatically harder to kill. This is basically the old Dungeon and Dragons approach where mighty heroes are mighty just because they can take a lot more hits. We wanted to show why experienced troops fought better than green troops but didn't want to just give the veterans the magic extra hits. By allowing them to move second (or first if they so choose), we simulated their battlefield savvy and ability to anticipate tactical situations. This gave the experienced troops a unique capability which their commander could either useorsquander. It made veteran troops something more than just hit absorbers (which is not how they became veterans in the first place!)
Thanks to these reforms playtime began to drop dramatically allowing us to get in many additional turns. Games were now decided on the table top rather than through a post game baloney sessions.
In conclusion, I thought we would share some of the general principles we derived from this experience.
- 1. Rules are a finite resource. Just as the secret to being a bore is to tell
everything, the secret of a failed game is to try and simulate everything.
Make sure that every rule and modifier you include serves an important
function and does not just display your command of period minutiae.
2. A game is not a book. Both are valid forms for relating information but quite different in function. A book is the place to put masses of information in long charts which can be pored over by the reader. A game should emphasis movement and maneuver, something which cold text in a book cannot cover. Use your finite pool of rules to emphasis how military units moved and interacted with the enemy, not the size of hatches on a Sherman.
3. Avoid long lists of modifiers. A modifier represents an exception to the general rule - some concept the rule just doesn't cover. If you find yourself needing long lists of modifiers to make a rule work, the problem is probably with the basic rule.
4. Use top down design. Start with the concept of how a particular type of unit actually performed on the battlefield. This is the effect you want to create with your rule, the "top" of the problem. The reverse approach is to consider the effect of one riflemen and then add up the number of rifles in the unit to get the total effect of the unit. A small mistake by the designer at this level (say making an M I a little too effective) will then be multiplied many times over before you get back to the "top" of the problem, the unit's actual combat capability. You'll be quite lucky to ever get a unit to perform as it did on a battlefield by using bottom up design (as all software programmers know all too well).
5. Keep proportionality in mind. Since you have a finite number of modifiers you can inflict on players before game melt down occurs, stick to the most important. For example, a condition which would cause a I% decrease in accuracy is best left out. In a game like Command Decision which uses a dl 0 to resolve hits, to include such a modifier as even a "A" would inflate its importance by ten times (10% versus I%). This phenomenon causes the counter intuitive problem that many highly complex games with long lists of modifiers often produce quite unrealistic results. By including every modifier under the sun without regard to proportionality the trivial modifiers soon drown out the important ones. As military historians we all know that economy of force is a virtue but never seem to apply it to the field of game design.
6. Don't be a game designer, be a game player. This one requires a bit of explanation. A game design company makes its money when a game is sold, whether the game is ever played or not is pretty irrelevant. Consequently many complex unplayable monsters are still commercially successful even though they are rarely played more than once. Game reviewers tend to reinforce this trend by reviewing games which they haven't actually played but nevertheless extol simply because the game is apparently packed with historical information. Ironically the market forces are just the opposite for science fiction and fantasy games. These companies make money by selling figures to play their games. Therefore they have an incentive to produce a game that can be played in order to sell figures to play the game. This phenomenon more than any other factor explains why science fiction and fantasy games are so much more popular than historical games. Generally the most successful historical games are those modified by practical game masters to work on a tabletop or those actually designed by players. This is because games designed by players are meant to be played not read and consequently the player/designer focus on producing a playable game.
7. Small improvements can have a big effect. A minor reform like a more compact chart or using uniform break points that saves even one minute a turn will in a 20 turn game give you an extra 20 minutes of play time. Three such changes will give you an hour extra play time. Think how many times you could have resolved a battle if you only had an hour more to complete the game. A tiny savings of say 10 seconds on a task which you do several times a turn can rapidly add up. If by using a yard stick rather than a tape measure, you save 10 seconds measuring range and you do this an average of twelve times a turn, you will save two minutes a turn or 40 minutes over the course of a 20 turn game.
Back to MWAN #101 Table of Contents
Back to MWAN List of Issues
Back to MagWeb Magazine List
© Copyright 1999 Hal Thinglum
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