One of our experiments involved the use of storytelling and narrative mechanisms to conduct a traditional miniature wargame.
These were written up for Battlegames magazine (no longer in print), and appeared in issue 33 (January 2013).
Below are the files as they were submitted to Battlegames. For the article as it was edited and published, you should try to find a backcopy.
Below is an example sequence illustrating the gaming mechanics.
This situation shows the Ingermanlandski regiment (the guys in the yellow jackets), ready to attack a farm defended by the Swedish Dal regiment. We have 4 players around the table. It is Player A’s turn, and he has Russian objective 5 (R5), explicitly stating the Ingermanlandski regiment should attack one of the farms. Player A formulates an order stipulating exactly that, and now the voting phase begins. Player B holds objective R2, favouring a slow and steady Russian advance. Player C has objective S6, with which he has to hold the farm with the Dal regiment at all costs. Objective S4, held by player D favours a concentrated Swedish defense further back.
So, players B and C probably will not support the order of Ingermanlandski attacking, while player D might go either way. Player D therefore proposes an alternative. He wants the Dal regiment withdrawing immediately from the farm, before a melee takes place. Player A is not against this idea, since it means he might occupy the farm with Ingermanlandski unopposed, Player B is also not against any Swedish withdrawing, but player C wants to hold the farm. So, this order will probably receive more votes than the earlier one. If the 2nd proposal wins, the situation is now that the Dal regiment withdraws from the farm.
No comments:
Post a Comment