When we first started planning to begin a game company (which eventually became, you guessed it, The Garners), I decided that we would religiously follow a series format. The idea was, and is, that a player need learn one set of rules in order to play a number of games. I believe that one rather complex set of rules takes less time to learn to play when divided over a number of games which use them, than several sets of even the simplest rules which only stand for one game. That is a plus that I still believe can make up for many sins. Chief among the "sins" generated by a series approach is a limitation of topic by the series available, and-as noted in a letter by Mr. Hastings in the Letters section of this issue- potential round-peg/square-hole problems when the series is applied to something it can't quite handle.

To get around both of these problems, multiple series are required. If we were to want an Ancients game, for instance, we would never dream of trying to make use of the Civil War, Brigade or Tactical Combat Series rules. We would need a separate series devoted to a time period and scale that is appropriate. Naturally, this makes with decisions that invariably will cause a row in some players.

For instance, the more I learned about WW2 tactical actions after my background in modern operations, the more I was struck by the similarity between them. That was in the development of the TCS. The TCS's Modern Expansion came later. A player who is convinced that some great revolution in warfighting has occurred since 1945 is going to say that there is no way that the TCS rules could be applied, whole or in part, to modern actions. My research indicates that the process of change since 1945 was much more evolutionary--with changes in lethality and range generating more dispersion and smaller maneuver units-but that the basic methods remain mainly unchanged.

A set of series rules can be applied to a given time period and scale based upon the transition points of revolution in the art of war. Such points are readily identifiable-the origin of gun fire weapons-the development of line and musket tactics-the application of rifle weapons and decline of cavalry-- the tactical impasse generated by the machine gunmotorization, mass armor and aircraft, etc. Certain periods require a change in game style to be able to correctly portray the action-such as the relative merits of musket, artillery, and horse vis a vis the Napoleonic and Civil War time periods.

No Great Revolution

While much evolution has occurred since 1945, no great revolution has. Units still fight dispersed using fire and maneuver. Armor remains a viable battlefield weapon. Only the attack helicopter and its use as a maneuver element has the potential for a revolutionary change in warfare-much the same way as did the tank when used in blitzkrieg style tactics. That remains to be seen.

Of course, modern warfare enthusiasts will say I'm all wet-but of course the same thing happens when ever you have to draw a line in the sand and state that on this side of the line something is true and on the other it isn't. There will always be a voice pipe up that X (which lies just over the line) proves that the line is in the wrong place-history is too fuzzy to pin down in the way we need to when designing the parameters of a series.

Naturally, a series is set up with a central point of time and scale where it is designed to be correct. As games are designed away from that center of mass, a case by case decision must be made as to the applicability of the series to the given topic. For instance, I suggested that the CWB rules be applied to the German wars of unification (1866-1871, etc.) but we decided that actions of the Franco-Prussian War wouldn't work because of the large scale introduction of the needle gun and the French 75mm artillery. The earlier war might work (1866, Austria), but not the later.

The second issue of multiple application of a set of rules to more than one engagement (given that the issues of series parameters are not in doubt as in the above) is a different question. It is built upon the one game per system method thought to be followed by SPI in the seventies (a detailed examination of many SPI games will reveal that in fact a couple of different systems were used for the bulk of the games, with what amounts to chrome rules and phases snapped on to give a different appearance.)

This school of design would have us believe that different actions require stand alone rules and that such things as type of ZOC and format of combat table could and should be tailored to a given battle. Sorry, game design art is not, nor has it ever been, capable of making as fine a distinction in design decisions required to tailor basic game concepts to a given battle. What you end up with, instead, is a set of basic game rules with a "Russian Throat Slitting and Repair Phase" tacked on because some Russian general at the battle attempted to commit suicide. The netresult is agame that simulates a given battle no better than a series game of the correct period on the same topic. EXCEPT, you, the player, get to read more rules to be able to play that stand-alone opus.

The design of a set of series rules (as opposed to a specific set of rules for one game) requires a different train of thought and method. First off, you must be all-inclusive enough to provide a set of rules that will be able to handle different actions in a period with limited special rules. For instance, in the OCS there are rules for amphibious assaults and port capacity even though these are unused in Guderian's Blitzkrieg.

Since the goal is to cover must general situations and not every tiny detail, this is not as difficul t as it might sound at firs t. What is needed is a framework for doing an amphibious assault, not specifics on applying that assault to Norway, as opposed to Tarawa! Certainly, some things end up overlooked and need to be addressed in the game specific rules even though they should have been in the series rules-errors aside, we try to make them as all-inclusive as we can without overloading the system with specific place and time related concepts.

The second skill a satisfactory series designer must have is the ability to give the potential game designer a tool kit to work with. In the series rules there should be variables to apply which can take into account wide variations in armies and methods (the numeric Command Prep Rating in the TCS and the Morale Values in the CWB come to mind.) From these and a limitation placed by the series designer describing what differing values in a variable mean-to allow for consistency between games and the proper functioning of the system, A game designer then only needs to know that the series is designed with an "average" morale being the border between B and C where B is slightly above average, and C slightly below, and not that a B has a 33% chance of being Shaken (or whatever it is) when fired upon. The system of variables in the game must be given in a way where the correct range of values and their application can be readily be determined and applied by the game's designer to his topic.

A further part of the tool box the series designer must provide is the "Standards" sheet for the series. The standards sheet gives explicit instructions about how the units for a given series are to be rated. For instance, the OCS Standards sheet defines the correct manner of determining: the combat factora unit has based on its TO&E; the types of units to be included and not included; barrage values of artillery units whether part of a combat factor or not; unit action ratings and movement rates; and aircraft and HQ values. Both the acceptable range of values and special conditions affecting them must be specified.

The TCS has a vehicle listing that, while not all-inclusive, allows the designer to quickly determine the correct series values for a given vehicle type-even if not explicitly on the chart. What the standards sheet gives the game designer is a method in a concise format of determining unit values consistent with the charts and tables of a given series and any other games in that series. I have not always been so organized with my standards sheets as I should be and as the OCS is--the CWB one consists merely of a quick way of determining the fire level size of a unit based on starting strength and calculation of a unit's wrecked level. The TCS standards is even more unusual. Other than the vehicle listing, it has an "oral tradition" where one generation of designers passes the standards down to the next. Maybe when I design my next TCS game I'll codify the method on paper--and maybe not.

Given that the variables are readily apparent and designed into the rules and the appropriate standards sheet, a game designer of a given topic is now armed with the tools needed to come up with the correct series values for the units and occurrences he is looking at. If the series designer has done his job correctly, the game designer will only need to assign the series values which make sense for his action, come up with an OB and map, and start deciding what special rules might be needed. He doesn't (as would be the case with a stand alone project) have to re-invent the wheel of a movement system, combat system and all the other sundry rules required to make a game function--with the inherent threat of error at every corner.

The game designer's job is greatly simplified if the series designer did his task correctly. The game designer then can concentrate his efforts on examining the action at hand and the play of his game and does not have to deal with the minutia of whether or not his new combat table gives the right results and if he remembered to take into account that change to rail movement in the section on supply. The game designer is left with what we have determined is the fun part of game design-the history and its application to a game.

Pitfalls

There are pitfalls in the series method of game design. Certainly the series designer may incorrectly define the boundaries of his series or the variables in it, thereby giving the game designer too limited a range to work with (or too much freedom, for that matter) or a license to apply the rules to something it will not simulate-a World War I game using the CWB comes to mind! Since I alone have been responsible for our series rules so far I have been able to follow my own standards of control on series development. Series design seems to have been something I've been specializing in since The Gamers formed. The lessons of repeated series design with the requirement to answer and address all rules questions and complaints send in by our players world-wide have left a deep mark on me and the value of the experience cannot be overestimated. At this point, I can almost tell at a glance when a proposed rule will confuse a large number of players or will not meet the stringent demands of other players as to clear definition. And, that is all for the good.

I cannot say that the series concept is one that would work for all game companies, time periods or designers. Some designers, especially, would find the desire to meddle with the design after release too strong and would be constantly redesigning the system-at that point all resemblance to a series (except perhaps in name) vanishes. Without the key benefit of rule familiarity and the ability to play a game right after cracking open the box and reading a limited set of special rules-there is no point to having a series at all.

This is not to say a series should remain entirely static. It should evolve slowly as more and more play hours are spent finding quirks and anomalies that were not readily apparent during the initial playtesting-where much larger monsters were obscuring them! Certainly this has been the case with both the TCS and CWB. Both are, or soon will be, in second edition form and a third edition of the TCS rules is being tossed aboutas gainers investigate the Point Fire Table and Overwatch Trigger concepts as presented in this issue.

The Gamers, however, remains quite happy with the series concept as we have it defined. Of all the initial ideas and concepts for this company formulated in the fall of 1987, during our inception, the series has stood the test of time the best. It has pleased thousands of gamers world-wide who enjoy being able to crack open a box of the latest entry into "their" series and play it right away.

Now that both GMT and Decision Gaines are either considering or adopting the series concept, I think my decision in 1987 is more fully vindicated than ever.