The Duke of Treviso (M. de Kosakowski) writes: Royal House/Sun King: Initial design circa 1990--it was an attempt to do a very simple multi-player game set in Europe. The core mechanic started in chaos and headed for order; sort of a reverse-entropy system. So I set it in Europe right after the fall of the Roman Empire and put players on the road to the nation-states of the 18th century. It worked like this:
1.Europe was divided up into an area movement map. Certain areas had three title cards in the deck, other areas had none. Spain, for example, had three cards each for Castile, Aragon, Leon, Granada, and Portugal, and the Title regions were separated by regions that had no cards. Germany had more titled regions, but they usually were not separated by "barren" regions, so you did not have much elbow room in the ol' HRE.
2.All the Title Cards were shuffled together and six dealt out to each player (I think we played with 5). A player would lay down a card and place a unit in the map area corresponding to the card. Then he would move all his units on the map (movement allowance was one area)--if he moved into an area containing another player's unit, he eliminated it (no CRT, only one kind of unit, and only one unit in an area at one time). Then you drew one new card from the deck and your turn was over.
3.On your next turn, you first checked to see if you had any units in areas for which another player had a card out. If you did, you got to take his card into your hand. Then you revealed another card, and got to place a unit there AND in the area for which you had revealed a card last turn. Then move again etc. (you could enter sea areas only via certain marked ports--Barcelona, Venice, Genoa, etc.; as I said, there was only one kind of unit). If, at the beginning of your turn, you already had three face up revealed cards, you had to discard them to make room for more. If/when you got all three cards for an area, you could "bank" them as a "Royal House"--you always got a build there (though other players could break up the house by capturing the cards one by one. There were also two Action Cards: Revolt (place a unit anywhere or kill a unit anywhere) and Marriage (draw a card at random from another player's hand). That was it.
4.By the initial random card distribution, players were simultaneously King of Scotland, Bohemian rebels, trying to unite Castile and Aragon, etc.--players started out playing little mini-games and civil wars for dominance in certain regions, and then "grew up" to engage in wars between powerbases--France versus Spain etc. The three-card symmetry did not last long as players played an Action card here or lost a card to capture there, and as the discards occurred, what looked like a battlefield would suddenly disappear--windows of opportunity opened and closed all over the place as kingdoms and empires rose and fell. The geography and system made it hard to dominate central map regions like Germany and Italy; powers naturally grew up best around the fringes and battled for the centre. Perfect!
5.I kept trying to "clone" this system onto other game environments (including Spies and Napoleon), but it really only works right when you want to start with geo-political chaos and head for order. So I decided to dust it off and see if we could "grognard" it. (I'm still not sure about this decision--it played very well as a "Euro-game" in its original simplicity). Anyway, to grog it up, I chose a more confined era--starting in c. 1400 (right after the Black Death, Tamberlaine, the Great Schism, middle of the 100 years' war)--Europe is in disarray, and 300 years later you have Louis XIV, Peter the Great etc. and (relatively) modern and recognisable nation-states. Well, that's exactly what the system does all on its own, so I was right where I needed to be. I changed the map to point-to-point because I've found that I prefer the look and what you can do with that over an area movement map. Add chrome for monarchs, popes (the "timer" is a turn record track starting with Great Schism, Council, and then 38 popes to get you to 1721), different unit types, system-operated Ottomans and Russians, and that's where we're at right now.
If it works out, I'm considering "Augustus." Begin with the death of Alexander the Great and try to become the first Roman Emperor. As the Republic grows, players go from playing "barbaroi" to playing consuls and governors within the Republic until it can no longer contain them all and you start down the slippery slope from Marius to Octavian. I guess you could also reverse-engineer the system to start with ordered holdings (Augustus) and gradually mix it up to get to the Dark Ages (if anyone still believes in them anymore).
VIETNAM (1965-1975)
Neil Thomas
With the dearth of Vietnam campaign games on the market, I decided to design my own (at regimental scale with quarterly game turns, and a map relying on area movement). Some of the ideas owe a lot to Frank Chadwick's TET game, and I stole the idea (if not all the mechanics) of the operation from the old Victory Games (VG) product.
The overriding idea behind my effort was that the US/ARVN ("Army of the Republic of Viet-Nam" the South for those of you of lesser years) could kill large numbers of NLF/PAVN (National Liberation Front - the Viet Cong, and Peoples Army of Viet Nam - the North), but would lose political credit by the consequent ravaging of the countryside and towns. Accordingly, South Vietnamese and US morale is crucial, with both allies being afflicted by internal disorder (coup attempts) in the case of the former and departures from Vietnam with the latter.
MORALE can be affected by such things as NLF occupation of areas during their own turn, and the use of "tactical support" (massive aerial attacks) by the Free World forces (I like to describe each side using its own terminology, to give a dose of period flavour - so we have the "Free World" and "National Liberation" forces), in addition to casualties inflicted and suffered. The reason that NLF units damage morale by simple occupation of a province (without having to stay there throughout the Free World turn) is that any attempt to evict them results in concomitant civilian casualties, with corresponding damage to the Free World's prestige.
COMBAT tends to be a bloody experience for the National Liberation side, since US and Korean units are much stronger, to take account of their artillery support. As for the ARVN, they tend to be emasculated by terrible morale (every time they fight, they can only operate at full strength if they roll equal to or under their morale level on a D6: the ARVN can only rely upon their marines and Paras - other units have a morale level from 1 - 4). However, the NLF and PAVN can evade combat quite successfully in the early stages of the war (chances of the Free World engaging the enemy vary depending on whether ARVN, ARVN Rangers / US troops, or the US 173 Airborne brigade are doing the searching).
THE NLF is based in sanctuaries inside South Vietnam, and may take refuge / receive replacements there. By contrast, the PAVN must refit in North Vietnam, though it may move along the Ho Chi Minh Trail.
MOVEMENT rules owe a lot to the aforementioned concept of the operation. Normal movement allows for provincial occupation (for morale purposes) and engaging in combat; strategic movement is a lot quicker but does not allow combat / occupation; holding operations allow for no movement, but a doubling of defence strength (straight out of the VG game, but very useful for the more dodgy ARVN units whose chief use is occupying cities). One operation ("Pacify") requires all Free World units to stay put in a rural area - defence strengths are halved, but the National Liberation units must eliminate all of them in combat before counting the area as being occupied (this approach of living alongside the peasants only appears to have been tried by the US Marines in Military Region One, and even then not for very long).
PAVN UNITS find themselves converting to normal mechanised infantry sometime around 1970 - as such, they are stronger than their predecessors, but have no capacity to evade combat. This simulates how the war became a conventional struggle over time; it makes the National Liberation forces more likely to win, but they cannot win decisively, because the PAVN have taken the leading role, and not the NLF.
Playing the game using historical tactics tends to produce a national Liberation victory sometime around 1973 - however, I found it very difficult getting the combat system right, and large elements are abstracted to achieve simplicity (which is to my taste, but not everybody's!).
POLITICS do play an important role, though. I wanted not only to design a game which could reflect the historical results, but which allowed for some sort of reforms on the Free World side. These increase South Vietnam's viability, but often result in massive political unrest s the ruling clique resist unpalatable medicine that will be good for them. I included the following choices (one may be taken each year): 1) Operation Phoenix. This can result in a major morale gain, but also in a defect if over zealous methods are used. However, it is the only option not triggering political unrest. 2) No Bombing. No more tactical support. Civilian morale will improve, but the ARVN will be adversely affected. Instant political unrest. 3) ARVN Reform. A purge of the many useless political placemen produces a more effective army, but instant political unrest. 4) Market Reform. Can only be played after ARVN reform. Can produce big gains, but possibly no advantage whatsoever (representing black marketeers running off with the loot). Instant political unrest. 5) Low Tech Warfare. Free World units are weakened as they adopt a strategy of low intensity combat. It also requires a repudiation of tactical support. produces instant political unrest, and a long term adverse effect on ARVN morale. However, for National Liberation units to derive any benefit from occupying areas, they must remain there until the end of the game turn and not just their own player turn (the loss of heavy artillery support means that the Free World attacks no longer have such an adverse effect on civilians.
All these rules are thus very double edged. They are also decidedly conjectural, given that Operation Phoenix was the only one that was ever attempted. I nonetheless anted to include them, in order to give the Free World side some alternative strategies, and to make the players aware of the political difficulties of America's feeling compelled to support a regime incapable of saving itself.
David Fox
So there I was, sitting in Richard Berg's backyard the weekend before Origins, drinking a Coke and eating a hot dog when, completely unprovoked, Ulrich Blenneman asked if I would do a Napoleonic battle game for Moments in History. This was the result of an innocent comment that I had made earlier about an Austerlitz game that I had done for my own edification a few years back, and when I finally stopped choking I actually said "Yes." Now it's the end of January and I have just mailed the final version to Ulrich and feeling like I just gave birth, I will feed some info into the PA Game Design forum.
La Grande Armee: Austerlitz 1805 is a tactical game, infantry battalion/cavalry regiment/artillery battery level, 150 yards/hex, with 20-minute turns. Squarely in La Bataille's backyard, you might say.
I'm basing the command mechanics on the LIM system found in Richard Berg's A Famous Victory, although with certain crucial differences (which I will explore in a minute). I think LIM's are the best method of handling battlefield command chaos, although the AFV system has two flaws-- first, even though you don't know when a command will get to move, you can be sure they will activate sometime during the turn, no matter how dense the commander; secondly, you can completely recycle the LIM's from one turn to the next, allowing you to turn on a dime the axis of your army's advance from one flank to another. Napoleonic armies as Barry Sanders, as it where.
But I have fixed both problems, thus:
1. When a leader's LIM is drawn from the Command Pool, you still must roll to activate him. All division commanders have activation ratings, ranging from the 7's (on a d10) of Vandamme and Kellerman to the 4's of Carneville and Monakhtin (and with these guys a 4 is being kind). The French division commanders are generally 2 points higher than their more sluggish Allied enemies.
Successfully activating allows a division to move and fight at full capacity; failure can result in all sorts of things, determined by a roll against the commander's personality rating (Aggressive, Normal, or Cautious) on the Command Breakdown Chart. The most common result of failure is a limited activation (half move but no attacking), but you can be frozen, or forced to retreat, deliver a headlong charge, or even give your opponent a chance to activate one of his divisions.
2. To prevent LIM recycling, I only allow players to add a limited number of LIM's to the Command Pool at the start of a turn. When its LIM is drawn, a division gains fatigue; after six turns of fatigue (about 1 « hours of game time) the nasty effects start to kick in. To "rest" a division, its LIM can be withdrawn from the Pool voluntarily. However, putting it back in ain't so easy.
To add LIM's to the Pool, players must roll on the Command Change Table, which may only allow them to drop one or two LIM's (or maybe none) back into the cup. Again, the French do better here than the Allies. What I'm trying to do with this is create the atmosphere of an orders system without the record-keeping burdens of tracking orders-- adding a LIM is an order given to a division commander, removing it means that the order has been completed or the division has been broken down by combat, and the difficulty of putting the LIM back in again represents a division waiting for new orders to be delivered.
From SIMTAC I've borrowed their excellent paradigm of Napoleonic infantry melee; i.e. it almost never happened. Infantry vs. infantry in the open was inevitably a case of the attacker stumping forward until about 50 yards away from the defender, when the defender either cut and ran or the attackers lost their nerve, halted, and exchanged close-range volleys until one or the other melted away. So in my game the attacker and defender compare morale checks, and if nobody breaks, nothing happens. However, if defending infantry is in Defensive Terrain (buildings or behind a wall), then we use the Assault procedure, with the familiar morale check/defensive fire/melee table process.
In BATTLE TACTICS OF NAPOLEON AND HIS ENEMIES, Nosworthy confirms that while melee in open ground was unknown, the psychological effect of defending behind a wall or inside a building gave the defender an incentive to stand his ground and the attackers a definite objective to overthrow.
Not to worry, though, cavalry charges are still full-tilt, hell bent for leather, do or die-type adventures.
I've also added piles of chrome. The Russian Cossacks appear, in an almost useless battlefield role (stealing horses and burning farms was their preferred line of work, not charging a wall of bayonets, sensible fellows). The two French elite Tirailleur regiments- the Tirailleurs Corse and Tirailleurs du Po- can break down into independent skirmish companies. The French player can use Napoleon or Songis to create a Grand Battery, or detach Rapp with a task force of independent units. And of course there's the Fog, covering the Allied flanking move but burning off just in time to reveal St. Hilaire and Vandamme climbing the Pratzen.
I was lucky enough to begin working on Austerlitz when Scott Bowden's seminal work, NAPOLEON AND AUSTERLITZ, was published. Bowden's opus is extensively researched with a VERY detailed battle narrative (including portraits of almost all division & corps commanders involved in the fight) and an order of battle that refutes the standard belief that the Allies outnumbered Napoleon-- looks like previous works have overestimated the Allied numbers by from 20-30,000 muskets, so that the French most likely outnumbered their enemies slightly. This gives me an unfair advantage over the old La Bataille d'Austerlitz and Dave Powell's version from The Gamers, but hey, I'll take it.
If it sells, I'd like to publish a new game in the series each year. Friedland would be next, with Marengo/Rivoli, Eylau, Aspern-Essling, and Wagram next in the line-up. Maybe by the time we get to Waterloo, I'll be the venerable old wargame designer publishing a newsletter to grump about how the good ol' wargame hobby has gone to the dogs.
Peter Perla
After reading much of PA 95, I had several ideas I have been toying with and which I thought I would pass on to you. They were inspired by the articles about Turnless systems, Ted's WWI area games, and our exchange about TMAG.First, it struck me that your Mars La Tour game had taken the system closer to turnless, in the sense that not spending every unit for every action and including a rally action for unspending units made it less necessary to conduct housekeeping at the end of a turn. In addition, the impulse system itself is an element of a turnless game, in that it can serve as the ticking clock, to allow time to advance without necessarily interrupting the flow.
The problem of not having a clock of some sort in our games (the battle games) arises, of course, with managing the arrival of reinforcements. So, there is the first piece: use the current impulse counting method (with random turn end) to advance the clock and allow reinforcements to arrive on the field. No other game functions are affected by the end of the turn (at least until nightfall, which may call for some special rules).
Okay. But how to do the impulses? One of the few things I did not like about Death Ride was the need to mark units that had "finished" for the turn (in lieu of the simpler but perhaps less realistic mechanic of simply spending them). I am trying desperately to avoid cluttering up the map with markers. Unfortunately, even the impulse system may require some markers. Read on.
In the simple GBoH system, units may move several times in succession with no ill effects. Unfortunately, in our area games, allowing such a thing results in amazing feats of marching and fighting that make the whole idea ludicrous. We need some way of preventing units in TMAG, for example, from marching 5 areas at a go and traversing the battlefield in two or three impulses.
This gave me the idea of allowing units to move only a single area in an impulse. If you want to keep pushing a unit, you may, but it won't go very far before the end of the turn. Of course, the down side of this mechanic is to make moving reinforcements into play or shifting reserves virtually impossible.
So, the obvious solution is to allow a player to mark arriving reinforcements and reserves with a marker whose reverse indicates that the stack has moved for that turn and so may not move again. Not perfect, but at least you don't have to mark many units.
To move, a stack must be in command as currently, or marked with a reinforcement or reserve marker. (The latter units may never move adjacent to an enemy-occupied area). The leader may activate a single stack of units (either the full capacity of an area, or maybe some smaller multiple, like 6 units or a single division). All such units must either move into the same area, or conduct the same attack.
This leads to combat. I liked the idea of assault combat being more risky as well as more decisive. So, I toyed with keeping the current types of combat: artillery bombardment, volley (or better, skirmish) and assault. Unlike assault, the defender may absorb losses from bombardment or skirmish by retreating Fresh units (1 CP per). He may also choose to retreat all units in lieu of taking any other losses. In this case, of course, he must be prohibited from re-entering the area in his impulse. For skirmish, if the defender abandons the area, the attacker may advance into it. Calculating combat and results is as usual, except that skirmish may take place against any area, not just +1 areas, and the defender gets the doubling of the TEM. As long as the attacker wins the combat, only the Lead attacking unit is spent. If there is a tie, both the lead attacker and lead defender are spent. If the attacker loses, however, half his units rounded up are spent.
In an assault, things are as usual for calculating the outcome. But instead of all attacking units becoming spent, only the lead attacker is spent automatically. Then, for each defender spent or eliminated, one additional attacking unit is spent. Suppose for example that 6 attackers attack 3 defenders and inflict 4 damage points. Two of the defenders are Spent. The lead attacker is spent, along with two additional attackers. In an overrun situation, however, the attackers suffer no loss until the completion of their overrun movement (one additional area if they so desire). Unless they fight again and do not overrun the enemy, only the original lead attacking unit becomes spent.
Obviously, these ideas are sketchy and incomplete. I fooled around with TMAG a bit this afternoon and liked some of what I saw. In particular, there was an interesting sense of narrative as Heth's division skirmished its way forward against Buford, over several impulses, rather than the slam-bang thank you ma'am of the current system. The wide, swift manoeuvres of the base system seemed far less likely. But I am not sure that the combat system makes the cost and benefits of the different attack methods distinct enough.
Anyway, just some initial thoughts. I haven't had such a surge of thinking about this stuff in months. Wonder if it will last?
Back to Perfidious Albion #96 Table of Contents
Back to Perfidious Albion List of Issues
Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List
© Copyright 1998 by Charles and Teresa Vasey.
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