You have to take a real good close look at Ned' s Z.I.T. for yourself. "Oooer, that sounds horrible, disgusting!" you exclaim. But no dear reader, it is not as bad an idea as it sounds really! Originally, Ned Zuparko's Z.I.T., the "Zuparko Information Template" was intended as a means of establishing a criteria for classifying and discussing various wargames rules, or simulations in Art Pendragon's "Remembrance of Glory" discussion group and forum. "Oh yes, of course, that Z.I.T." I hear you reply with some relief. Well, from a tool which was intended to help us make assessments of various other rule systems it would seem that Ned's Z.I.T. has developed into an extremely useful aid to games/simulation design. I found it a most useful exercise and a very definite practical aid to check my own rules and as a direct result, I made several changes and amendments on my first reading of the Z.I.T. However, after having checked my own efforts with the Z.I.T. as a guide, it led me to question the whole framework of my rules. In particular, I concentrated on what Ned terms the "model" of the game. "A physical, mathematical, or otherwise logical representation of some part of a system, entity, phenomenon or process." In this section Ned asks; "Does the model translate well to a game such as playing space, figures terrain, scales etc.?" I decided to check my rules for inconsistencies in scales. The rules of the game seemed to be playing well, but then abstract "games" can run well without referring to real or modeled events. The important thing however to note in a wargames rule set is that the rule components within the game or simulation should correspond well to the events that they are intended to "model". Consequently, I chose to concentrate on the basics and I asked myself if the movement rates of units were based on correct rates and were reasonable given the possible conditions. By "possible conditions" I mean those obstructions to movement that are encountered in level, or slightly undulating terrain, which tend not to be represented on most wargames tables. If, in fact, there were errors in these movement rates, I would need to make other changes such as reconsidering the effects that artillery may have on advancing units. First however, and it really being the easiest thing to do, I checked my artillery ranges. To my surprise, I found that these were too short when compared to my unit ground scale. Some basic errors must have been made in the calculation. What could I have been thinking of - did I read paces for feet, or feet for metres or yards? Obviously then, it was apparent that all movement rates needed to looked at afresh! So therefore, after much self-chastisement (and in brief), I took a mean average of available regulation ordinary rates of march of a standard pace. I then deducted 20% for difficulty in level terrain and for some necessary dressing of ranks that would be required. This gave me a basis upon which to calculate movement within each turn. I then compared the effects of artillery using the old rates, with those using the new rates. There was some very slight change to the number of turns a unit would suffer under fire, but not a significant change in my view. However, the game movement rates became perhaps a little more in scale and little more realistic. Were there any other inconsistencies of scales in my rules? Actually, I was already aware that a ground scale inconsistency existed, but this "inconsistency" was fundamental to the way the combat mechanism works within my rules. However, sometimes you just need someone to pose a very simple question before you can perceive a problem to see the need to rectify it. In looking at this question, the problem that I perceived in my own rules was that I needed to determine exactly what cavalry were doing when they came into close proximity to enemy infantry formations. In addition, I needed to find the best way to manage their control and activities within my existing rules mechanisms. I thought about this for a while and determined that an exception to the rule was required and base contact would be necessary for cavalry versus square combats. This was because cavalry could close to a short distance of infantry squares without actually entering into a combat with them (and "a short distance" here means less than the scale distance of 152 yards, which constitutes "combat range" in the rules. I added two lines to my rules on formed unit combats and it was "sorted". Anything else arising could be catered for in the orders and general's initiative sections! Rules often develop in a piecemeal fashion. Perhaps few of us escape the potential pitfall of over-working sections of our rules in isolation, without considering the effect on the whole, or how indeed this "development" will fit in with the original aims of the game or simulation. Sometimes some very attractive rules (ones that may appeal to most wargamers perhaps) have to be axed because they are a duplication of existing effects. This is just one point that Ned makes in the "Design Structure" section; "Does the game have ...the right amount of differentiated sections in the rules...?" He asks. An example of this for me was the defensive volley in my own rules. Although there is no small arms firing in my rules, for a while I had a defensive volley for infantry versus cavalry. It seemed to make some "tactical sense" at the time and it did indeed add some kind of flavour to the rules. However, on checking the modifiers that used in the "test", or "firing" it became apparent that they were essentially the same ones that applied to combat in general. So, it had to go because it made the game system more efficient and removed an unnecessary duplication. One can become so embroiled in a facet of a rule within a rule set that one loses sight of the parts working together as a whole. Mike In a way, it is like standing back from a painting that you have been working on closely for sometime to see if the whole thing still coheres and hangs together! To look and see and check that those details have' not been overworked and are starting to distract from the appeal of the picture as a whole. Reading the Z.I.T. would encourage rulesmiths to take a step back and take an overview of what they have done. The Z.I.T. can get you thinking and it can encourage you to get back on track to write the rule set that you first intended to write.  Back to MWAN # 127 Table of Contents Back to MWAN List of Issues Back to MagWeb Magazine List © Copyright 2004 Hal Thinglum This article appears in MagWeb.com (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other articles from military history and related magazines are available at http://www.magweb.com