There are a large number of games being played out there, and a large number of them are greatly enjoyed. Unfortunately, some of the games are derided for various reasons and there should be some help offered on these reasons. 1 plan to talk about the design of the scenario, a place where an inexperienced game-host has great trouble.
Basically I will break down the games into three basic categories. The first type (which will be discussed in this article) is the set peice game. This is the game where large numbers of troops are placed on the table and a battle is recreated. The second type is the small scale action. This is the type where each player has 30 to 90 castings individually maounted. And finally we have the skirmish game. This is the type where each casting represents a single person and is given individual abilities.
So let us look at the set-piece-battle. Typically this game is based on an action of division level or greater. The basic unit is the company or battalion (sometimes called a regiment or brigade) and the table top represents a large area. Most of the game designers/hosts will start by deciding whether the battle is to take a town, a river crossing, or a crossroads. This feature is then placed on the table and some surrounding scenery is used to give it a reason for being. Then the designer/host steps back and looks at the terrain, decides certain features are important, and assigns "terrain points" for objectives.
Now what happens on the day the game is played. A group of gamers assemble and are told the basic rules and the terrain objectives. These objectives could be 3 points for the hill, 2 points for each road exit, 4 points for the town, etc. The game is now in serious trouble. First, since there will be a limited amount of turns which can be played the only time these objectives have to be held is at the end of the game. Second, the players have no need to hold back forces since they know all they need to beat are the troops which appear on the table that day. So the player plays the rules to beat his opponent and is perfectly willing to throw away important units to gain relatively minor objectives. Then everybody complains that the game doesn't represent reality.
This is how I suggest some of those problems could be met. First, build a strategic picture. Does the force represent a flank force, an advanced force, the main force, or a scouting force (Reconnaissance in force). Each of these would be in the area for different reasons. Thus the battle will be planned as to whether the force has a holding action, a defeating action, or a return with news action.
Now we can decide what type of terrain would make an interesting battle. Notice that a flank force would probably want to control the town, bu a scouting force would want to probe and retreat. Also, a flank force would need to hold a town on the side towards the main army or supply lines, while a town away from this direction becomes secondary. Thus, the victory conditions for the two sides become different and the battle begins to become interesting.
The problem of players throwing away the "old guard" in every game is probably best met by the campaign. A campaign can be simulated by keeping unit histories and giving units which have performed well in previous games a slight edge to represent a better qualitiy unit. This only works for a group playing a series of games together, but does not require a campaign. Perhaps Hal could get Bill Protz to give some good ideas on using unit histories to grade a units quality.
Our problem is best met by writing into the victory conditions a requirement that the army integrity must be maintained. Perhaps a victory could be upgraded to a major victory if the elite units took less than 5% "casualties". Or if the army loses more than 30% it is a defeat regardless of other conditions. As you can see, a player she plays the rules for his victories will now have to worry about which unit he sacrifices and will be forced to pull out after a certain number of casualties. This represents the fact that the "real" general would need to conserve some force to meet other eventualities and that most armies disintegrated after taking what a wargamer would consider minor casualties.
Now each side has his own victory conditions, both sides could win a victory, and neither side knows what the other side is using for victory conditions. The game becomes much more challenging/enjoyable and more realistic.
Back to MWAN # 25 Table of Contents
Back to MWAN List of Issues
Back to MagWeb Magazine List
© Copyright 1986 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