Playtesting

In the latest issue of Wargames Soldiers & Strategy (issue 136), Rich Clarke of Too Fat Lardies has some interesting thoughts to share on playtesting wargaming rules. I will not repeat the entire column here (buy the magazine!), but one thing struck me in his opening paragraph.

 

He describes the setup in which rules dynamically evolve over many gaming sessions, and the master document after each game is updated to reflect the experience and insights from the last game. As such, the rules are a "living document", slightly morphing each time. 

It struck a chord with me because that's precisely how I develop my own house rules. I've always been a fan of developing one's own rules, rather than using commercially published rules (although I of course also do the latter!). But it's  an approach that only works in a closed gaming group, with one person clearly in control of the rules.

After each game in which our house rules are used, we usually have a short debriefing session. What worked? What didn't work? What's unnecessary chrome? What is missing? Etc. Over the years, we have evolved towards rulesets that fit our preferred playing style perfectly. But it is a moving target ... rules we were in favour of let's say 5 years ago might not work anymore due to changes in gaming preference, influence from other rules, changing types of scenarios, etc.

Nevertheless, it's an approach that works well. Rather than casting the rules in stone, wargaming rules should be a dynamic. It's completely in sync with the DIY ethos in miniature wargaming. 

The Battle of Salem Cemetary

We're slowly approaching the moment when all in gaming group will have received their 2nd vaccination shot, and a few weeks after that, we can consider getting together again. It will be nice to do some "real" games again after a hiatus of a year and a half.

But we haven't reached that point yet, so there's still room for a solo game. I decided to use the scenario published in Wargames Soldiers & Strategy 114, an ACW game "The Battle of Salem Cemetary", using our house rules for fighting ACW battles.

The terrain

One of the challenges of setting up a published scenario is to transfer it to the dimensions of your own gaming table. Since our ACW rules are hex-based, the terrain also has to align to the hexes. This is always fun to do, since by setting up the terrain, you also get an idea of how the game will develop, whether there's enough room for manoeuvre, enough opportunities for troops to take cover, etc.

The images below shows the final layout. The scenario is easy enough: a hill ridge is defended by the Union (closer end of the table in the photos), while the Confederates are approaching from the top-right, also bringing along some captured Union artillery.

The table as seen from the Union side - the ridge to be defended.

Another view of the table, from the same side.

The Troops

When using a published scenario, you always have to adapt the troops listed to your own table and rules. After all, troop density, movement ad firing ranges are important to judge how the scenario will be played. So I always pay close attention to the intent of the scenario, and then select troops to match the tactical idea.

Below you see the deployment for both the Confederate and the Union armies.

The deployment as seen from the Confederate side. The mission is to drive the Union from the ridge near the cemetary in the upper right.

... and as seen from the Union side.

The Commanders

I use characteristics for commanders in my games. Each sides draws a number of cards equal to the number of commanders, and can choose to attribute the cards to the commanders of each brigade. Some commanders are better at giving movement orders, others at giving firing orders, or ordering infantry etc. Some have a somewhat larger command range. I find it an excellent way of presenting the player with a tactical challenge and dealing with the resources at hand. And yes, sometimes the commanders are less than optimal :-)

The Union right flank. This flank has a lot of terrain, and we have the cavalry here. So a commander with a bonus for charge orders will do fine.

The Union centre flank. These troops have to defend the ridge, and the plan is not to move them at all, only give firing orders. So they got the "leftover" commander. The Union doesn't have artillery in this game, otherwise this commander could prove useful.

The Union left flank. An open field, so some movement and firing is expected. If the enemy will approach, it's most likely on this flank. Hence the commander who's good at firing.

The Confederate left flank. Lots of cavalry, so any bonus on charge orders is a plus.

The Confederate centre and reserve. The mission states the artillery needs to be brought forward and hammer the Union ridge, so some good movement for artillery is in order.

The Confederate right flank, facing an open field. So some movement and firing is useful.

As you can see, sometimes the commanders have somewhat "neutral" characteristics, sometimes they are well-suited for the job. But as they are drawn at random from a deck of 8 commanders for each side, it's always a bit unpredictable.

Random Events

I also use random events for my games - again a random draw of 3 cards. Some cards can only be played prior the game, others during the game. But a player has also the choice to use an event card for rerolling a command roll or a combat resolution roll. So no event cards is "useless".

The Union draw. The 1st card is always useful to weaken an enemy unit at a weak spot in the line; the 2nd card is of no use in this scenario (except for rerolls), and the card on the right can claim cover that wasn't on the battlefield from the start (e.g. some ditches or hedges that were not on the maps ...)

The Confederate draw: the left card is useful for a boost in unit strength; the 2nd card will come in handy on the right flank; the 3rd cards allow enemy fire to be deviated towards a friendly unit for the firer.

On to the game!

 

The Magazine index has exceeded 7000 entries

Today, I added the Miniature Wargames Nov 2020, and Wargames Soldiers & Strategy Oct/Nov 2020, to the growing index of my wargaming magazine collection. It has now exceed 7000 indexed articles.

I regularly search in the index myself to look for relevant articles, a task which was otherwise almost impossible without an index. E.g. I was reading about the ACW battle of 1st Bull Run/Manassas a few weeks ago, and wanted to know how wagamers had translated that battle to the gaming table. Last week I saw a documentary about the Hun invasion in Europe and the battle of Chalon in 451AD, and again the index proved to be useful to have a look at some articles.

So it is definitely has become very useful for me, and I hope others find it useful as well.

Some Quotes from WSS

The lattest issue from Wargames, Soldiers & Strategy (issue 84) has a nice opinion article by Warwick Kinrade. It's titled "The Four Pillars of Wargaming", and describes what makes a good wargame.

 After reading it, I found this article hits the nail on the head, because it correlates so much with what my own thinking is about wargaming as a hobby.

Let me give a few quotes:

"Fundamentally, wargaming is a hobby of collecting and painting."
Very true. I also wrote an opinion piece about this some time ago - "It's the figures, stupid!" back in WSS 78. Miniature wargaming is a very tactile hobby, and no matter how academic you want it to make, it's essentially still about playing with toy soldiers. Your figure collection will still be with you 20 or 30 years from now, but rules and the type of games will change over the years. It's the collection that forms the backbone of one's wargaming life.
I therefore do not understand one aspect of the current trend towards smaller games - warband-style, that only need a dozen of figures a side. I'm okay with smaller games, but I'm not okay with people selling off their forces when they switch games. It's probably less of a barrier to do that if it's only a few figures you're selling, but if you're constantly switching, buying, and selling armies, are you truly a wargamer?

"Even more than collecting an army, collecting terrain requires a long-term commitment to the hobby."
Again something I agree with completely. A good collection of terrain - both the "underground" and the terrain pieces that go on top of it, is a question of years. My own terrain collection has slowly been upgraded over the years - buying new (sometimes expensive) pieces, and out-phasing lesser quality pieces. It also takes some time to know what sort of terrain fits your style of play. A mat? Tiles? Hexagons? What sort of visuals do you like? Also, a good collection of general purpose pieces that can be used in wide variety of settings (and sometimes scales) is worth spending some money on.

"I want drama and tension and to feel as if the game rewards me for making good tactical decisions."
This particular quote is about the rules. I strongly believe a wargamer should write his own rules. Perhaps not for all periods, but you should have at least one period for which you write your own house rules. It forces you to think much more about the flow of games, and to sharpens your senses about what you like and don't like in wargames. And it's okay of this is different for each and every wargamer.

"... you have a responsibility to your opponent to lose with good grace and not ruin their enjoyment."
Wargaming is a social activity. What happens before and after the game is as important as what happens during the game. You need opponents that share a common view on wargaming, and with whom you can spend an enjoyable few hours pushing toy soldiers.
In my gaming group we have an abbreviation "DDZAB". It's somewhat difficult to translate from Dutch, but it roughly means "Always be the one who disadvantages himself". It implies that whenever there's a discussion about the rules, don't be the one who drags out the argument, but graciously give your opponent the advantage (a die modifier e.g.) in case of doubt.

Anyway, I really liked reading this piece. Recommended.

Wargames Soldiers & Strategy 78

The new issue of WSS arrived in my mail this morning. Always a good read, but this issue is special. An irregular column, written by yours truly, is published in this issue. It always feels good to make a little contribution to the world-wide world of wargaming.

With our little gaming group, we started writing articles for the glossies (Wargames Illustrated, Battlegames, Miniature Wargames, and now WSS) a few years ago (although our first publication in Wargames Illustrated goes back to 2005). So far, we published roughly 10 articles, written by Bart Vetters, Eddy Sterckx, or myself. This is not nearly the number that some more prolific authors publish, but variety in the magazines is a good thing. I always considered articles in the magazines a nice way to get a peek into how others approach the hobby.

Recently, I started to reread some of the older issues of Battlegames, and I was surprised I found good stuff in there that escaped my attention before. So, even after many years, it pays off to reread your stack of magazines. A specific article, or rules idea, or scenario, might not seem useful the particular week the magazine arrives in the post - and you might not make a mental note of it as a result - but perhaps after many years it migh come in very handy. That crazy idea that some wargamer wrote about, might just hit the right chord many years later.

And that's what a hobby should be all about: sharing ideas and experiences!