These are sequences that, in part, take control of the player’s units out of his hands. The first of these appeared in the 1980’s, when the British colonial effort, THE SWORD AND THE FLAME, introduced the use of a 52-card deck. Pull a card, and if it’s red, one British unit moves… if it’s black, one native unit moves. After all the units moved, the same type of draw was used for the firing phase… a red card permitted a British unit to fire, while a black card let a native unit fire. And after all the firing routines were completed, melee resolution began. This proved an instant success with wargamers… as the cards were drawn, since the cards did not refer to specific units, any red card could be used to have a British unit respond to a threat.
And then some authors, thinking that if a little bit of a good thing was good, then a lot of it would be wonderful, set up card-governed sequences in which each unit was listed on a card, all the cards of both sides placed in a single deck, and only when its specific card was drawn, could a unit act.
DESPERADO, AGE OF REASON, BATTLEGROUND, PIG WARS, BROTHER AGAINST BROTHER, and ON TO RICHMOND come to mind. I’ve participated in games with these rules, and there seems to be little emphasis on “doing” and a lot of emphasis on “waiting”. Much of the participants’ time is spent in waiting for their unit’s card to be drawn, then, when it finally appears, pushing their troops forward a wee bit, and then settling back at table-side, waiting and waiting and waiting for their unit to become active again.
For one-on-one presentations, this type of single deck sequence is fine. The solo player on each side always has something to do. For a multi-player game, the single deck sequence has always appeared inappropriate to me.
In essence, the single deck sequence is a “gotcha!” one. A lucky run of the cards will permit one side to run circles around the opposition, while the poor guy has no response. I realize that if one side has a run of cards, that later on in the card draws, the other side may get his own run of cards. But to me, the existence of two silly instances doesn’t justify the existence of either.
My own approach to the card sequence, when specific units are to be listed on each card, is to give each side its own deck, and let the cards be drawn alternately. In this manner, each side is assured of a response every other card. It may not be the response he wants, i.e., the unit he desires, but at least one of his units will move and fire. And I must note that I don’t use this type of unit-listing-per-card with multi-player games. For one-on-one games, it’s fine, as both sides continually keep busy. For multi-player games, it produces too “lurchy” a sequence for two reasons… first, one player moves a unit, then another player moves a unit, and then another, and all the while, the majority of the participants simply sit there and wait.
Remember, “lurchy” is okay for one-on-one play, or solo games, while it’s not so hot for multi-player setups.
Another problem I’ve seen with these specific-unit card decks, is that some of the rules sets allow a “gotcha!” situation. The listed unit moves, and the opponent simply stands there. For example, BATTLEGROUND allows a unit to move and contact an enemy unit, and the close assault phase is resolved instantly… there’s no provision for the enemy to react… he’s at the mercy of the active side. In one BATTLEGROUND game in which I participated, when my unit’s card was drawn, I moved all my men up for hand-to-hand combat, and managed to surround and contact one poor unfortunate enemy figure with 5 of my own men. Alas! The umpire took pity on the poor fellow, and only permitted me a 3-on-1 “gotcha!” The same situation exists for PIG WARS… simply surround and overpower the helpless enemy.
One final note on the 2-deck, alternate-draw card system. If, say, both sides have 9 units, then both sides have a 9-card deck, one card for each unit. But what happens if Side A has 7 units, while Side B has only 5? Here, I’d give Side B 2 “buffer cards”… a buffer can simply be a blank card for Side B… he’s penalized by not being able to move anyone.
Another type of buffer is a card applying to both sides… perhaps a supply card, permitting both A and B to bring up supplies, or a reinforcement card, permitting both to bring in reserves.
More Thoughts on the Generation of Wargame Rules
Back to PW Review January 2002 Table of Contents
Back to PW Review List of Issues
Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List
© Copyright 2002 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