The past couple of months, I've presented several types of area games, games which utilize a table-top size map, divided into areas measuring about 6-inches by 6-inches. Troops move from area to area, and I've found there's always got to be a "stacking limit", a restriction on the number of troops you can cram into a single area. Without the stacking limitation, players will simply gather all their forces into one or two areas, and the game degenerates into one or two huge forces bunking heads continuously. The need to spread out and conquer terrain and set up resource areas becomes secondary. Another required rule concerns itself with the opposite of the stacking limit. Whereas the stacking limit deals with a maximum number of stands per area, this other rule has to do with the minimum number of troops per area required to run around and conquer terrain. In several of the games I initially generated, I failed to define the minimum number, and the result was that if a player received, say, 10 stands, then 10 stands went each of 10 different ways to scoop up as much territory as possible. Modern One of the recent games dealt with the modern era. I used 20mm troops with 3 figures per stand. When a stand took casualties, we "made change" using stands having 2 or 1 figure per stand. Tanks also played a part, and the stacking limit was set at 2 infantry stands plus one tank stand. As the players explored and advanced, they'd play cards which they had drawn from an activity event deck. For example, one of the cards was "develop resources", and they'd dice to see what the area produced. either an oil well or a gold mine. If an oil well was found, they'd be given a derrick, if a gold mine was discovered, they'd receive a smelter. Once they had set up their resources, they could play other cards to have their resources produce goods. Oil wells provided barrels of oil, smelters produced gold ingots. The barrels of oil and the ingots were placed at the resource site, and could not be translated into cash until yet another card was played. this one for selling the assets and banking the funds. The delay between production and banking meant that the on-site assets were up for grabs, and an opposing player's army could roll in, take over the site, play the right card, and bank the assets for itself. A second game along these lines used 6mm tanks. I call `em "li'l tankies". The stacking limit was 4 li'l tankies per area. the 4 tanks were defined to be a corps, and needed a general to move across the field (who didn't count against the stacking limit). The map I drew for this game had a number of islands separated by water, and sea transport was an important aspect of the game. A side could develop one of two types of resources. one was to start planting fields, grow and harvest crops, and sell them for gold. The other was to set up a smelter (a carryover from the first game) and start to produce ingots. Each side could build bases on its resource areas to protect the sites. In this game, too, cards were drawn and played to perform various functions. such as "fields produce harvests", "raise troops", "sell harvests and gold", "build base", and so on. Medieval Another game shied away from the modern era and went back to medieval times. Here, the troops were mounted knights, foot knights and the like. And again, a leader, a general, i.e., a Knightly Knight , was required to move troops across the field. The stacking limit per area was, again, 4 stands plus general. I used 25mm troops for this game, and 4 stands filled an area. The only time there were more than 4 stands in an area was when an enemy force invaded an enemy occupied area to do battle. Twist This game had a different twist to it. A player could, with his available cash, establish either a town or an agricultural field. The towns produced gold, and they also produced serfs. The fields produced nothing unless serfs were assigned to them. When the appropriate "harvest" card was played, the number of harvests produced was proportional to the number of serfs working in that particular field. No serfs, no harvest. But the serfs had one other function. They could be drafted to raise troops. It took a certain amount of gold to raise troops, but if a serf was handy, he could be transformed into a stand of fighting troops for a lesser amount of gold. And so the player had to balance his priorities: should he leave his serfs to plant away in his fields, or should he use them to raise troops. If a serf was drafted, he'd be replaced with a stand of men at arms. Whenever troops were raised, they always started out as lowly men at arms. Play the appropriate card and pay a little more gold, and they'd be upgraded to foot knights. Another card, and more cash, and they'd be upgraded to the elite mounted knights. In all of the above games, the event card decks contained "prevent" cards, which, when played, allowed a player to prevent an opponent, after the opponent had selected a card, from carrying out the task designated on the card he had just played. The play of a "prevent" card generated instant animosities, and started wars between players. But "prevents" were not the only means of screwing your opponents. the decks contained several cards such as "enemy field blighted, can produce no more crops", and "enemy town destroyed, must be rebuilt". These, too, were the prelude for war. Setting up the parameters for these types of games is an interesting task. On the one hand, there can't be too many resources around, or the players will soon be swimming in money, raising huge numbers of troops and not caring if they win or lose battles, so vast are their resources, and so easily can they replace losses. And on the other hand, looking at the reverse of the above problem, if too few resources are available, then there will be too few troops around, and the game will degenerate. There will be little player interaction involved, since each player will be forced to keep to himself and conserve his resources as much as possible. I've also found that these table-size area games need 4 or 5 players to run well. Three players is borderline, and two players doesn't seem to set up an interesting game. might as well play gin rummy. The interaction between players provided by the event decks can fully be realized only with 4 or more opponents. this permits them to form alliances, and help each other out. One other item I've discovered is that the mobility of the players' troops should be as free-ranging as possible. Initially, troop movement was predicated on the draw of a card, but this proved too restrictive. I now keep troop movement as an independent phase. Move your troops, and then play your cards. Back to PW Review September 2001 Table of Contents Back to PW Review List of Issues Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 2001 Wally Simon 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