Hey all,
I've not managed to do much hobby over the last week- time's been taken up at work, learning the new job!
So no painting, no modelling, no gaming- it's all a little quiet on the home front, for the first time this year! This has meant that I've been taking a fresh look at armies, games and ideas- so in the end the break has been worthwhile. I also sorted out all of my bits boxes, so my OCD on bits is sated for another few months.....
Hopefully, I'll be able to post something a little more constructive over the next couple of days! Oh, on a side note, I managed to stay in for the next round of the House of Paincakes HoP Idol 2.
Comments, as always. are welcome.
Showing posts with label Editorial. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Editorial. Show all posts
Tuesday, 7 August 2012
Friday, 20 July 2012
Perspectives: Realism in Wargaming
Hi all,
following on from last weeks post about game balance, I've dug up an old favourite of mine about realism in wargaming. Although this is quite an old article, it still holds true, and is one of the articles which really got me thinking about how wargames work. Enjoy.
Wargame Realism And the Psychology of Defeat by Paddy Griffith
When wargamers call for greater "historical realism" in their rules, they may mean one of two things. If they are strong and upright citizens, then they will, in fact, be seeking for greater historical realism; and all will be well. In many other cases, however, they may simply be looking for a scapegoat.
In his book "The psychology of military incompetence", Norman Dixon has explained that defeated generals often look for scapegoats, to cover their own mistakes. Napoleon at Waterloo is a fine example of this, as he was able to say that Grouchy, D'Erlon, Jerome, Ney, and Soult were each, in their way, responsible for the disaster. To believe the Bonapartists one almost has to put down Waterloo as a personal triumph for the Emperor.
In wargames, a defeated "general" often has no subordinates to blame; so he tends to turn against the rules or the umpire. If he can point to some aspect of the game which he thinks was "unrealistic" then he can take the sting out of his defeat.
This means that a lot of the call for greater realism in wargames is motivated by a rather suspect emotion. It is not really a call for greater realism at all, but a call for less painful defeats. This in turn means that when wargame rules are changed "to make them more realistic", they are usually changed in one particular direction -- that of greater control by the player over the game.
Defeat is more painful to a player who has little control over his pieces than to one who has a high degree of control. At first sight this may seem odd, since players with high control have themselves to blame for what happens -- they are directly responsible for their own defeat. In fact, however, it is easier to accept defeat when you are fully responsible for it. It is much harder to accept defeat when some of the game has unrolled outside your control. A car driver who backs into a brick wall by accident will accept the damage philosophically, and be more careful next time. A driver who has another driver crash into him will tend to be outraged and vindictive. That is the difference between high control and low control.
In wargames terms, defeated players always want more control -- which is often the opposite to most historical realism. In real battles, generals often have relatively little control over what goes on: they cannot always make their subordinates move in the right direction (e.g. the Charge of the Light Brigade), at the right time (e.g. Ney's delayed flank attack at Bautzen), or in the right formation (e.g. at Waterloo Wellington's orders to form square were contradicted by the Prince of Orange). They do not always know as much about the terrain as they think they do (e.g. the French in 1940 must have thought the "umpire had changed the rules" when the German armour came through the Ardennes), and are often quite astonished by enemies appearing at unexpected places.
Imagine a Chess game in which the player could not guarantee that his pieces would move where he wanted them to, or on the move he wanted them to. Imagine a Chess game where the kings castled diagonally, and the knights hopped eight squares at a time -- according to a dice throw outside the player's control. Imagine a Chess game where the colour of the squares was variable, and unknown to the player. All this is unacceptable to Chess players. They insist on 100% control of their games, and do not look for scapegoats when they are defeated.
I think that when they call for "greater realism", many wargamers really mean that they want a game which is nearer to Chess, and further from the uncertainties and low level of control of the battlefield. They want to avoid the mental discomfort of relying upon the arbitrary whim of an umpire or the random chances thrown up by a dice ("Average Dice", for example, have been specifically developed to limit the role of chance in wargames. For greater realism, actually, someone should develop a "Maximum Unpredictability" dice!). Especially important, wargamers want to avoid defeats which are painful -- even though in real life defeated generals have found defeat very painful indeed (e.g. The dazed Von Thomas wandering into captivity across the wreckage of his Panzers at Alamein; Ludendorff foaming at the mouth, in his fit after the battle of Amiens, 1918; or the Russian commander at Tannenberg, who felt so badly about his defeat that he shot himself). It may, perhaps, be less fun for wargamers to have low control over their games -- but it would at least be more realistic.
The following are areas in which lower levels of control could be introduced into wargaming:
a) Wider variations of results, due to dice throws: i.e. fewer "average dice".
b) More active umpires, "interpreting" (or even inventing) the rules as they go along, so that players cannot claim infringements of a stated set of rules. Only the umpire should know the rules.
c) More concealment of enemy units, and of terrain, when it is in "dead ground".
d) More possibilities for units under a player's command to "disobey orders", or at least to move late.
e) Fewer possibilities for players to make low-level decisions for each and every one of their sub-units. The Army commander should not be responsible for the tactical formation of each battalion; when each skirmish company opens fire, etc., etc. Decisions of that sort usually originate no higher than the Brigade commander.
f) Longer reaction times and command delays. It is amazing to see the effect on a wargame if there is just one turn's delay imposed between the player making a decision, and the action being taken e.g. in Second World War games, try adding a rule that vehicles must take one "slowing down" turn, between moving at speed and halting to fire.
g) More possibilities for morale panics to spread, out of control. Also longer rallying times.
All these things would deprive the wargamer of some of his "Chess-Player" control over the game. They would add to the historical realism of the model battle.
©
Paddy Griffith set out to create games that were both playable and realistic. The philosophy of games that animates his design, or designs, is that game rules must never be dogmatic, and the author expresses his mistrust of lawyers who play a game by hunting for loopholes in the rules (like W.C. Fields in the Bible).
following on from last weeks post about game balance, I've dug up an old favourite of mine about realism in wargaming. Although this is quite an old article, it still holds true, and is one of the articles which really got me thinking about how wargames work. Enjoy.
Wargame Realism And the Psychology of Defeat by Paddy Griffith
When wargamers call for greater "historical realism" in their rules, they may mean one of two things. If they are strong and upright citizens, then they will, in fact, be seeking for greater historical realism; and all will be well. In many other cases, however, they may simply be looking for a scapegoat.
In his book "The psychology of military incompetence", Norman Dixon has explained that defeated generals often look for scapegoats, to cover their own mistakes. Napoleon at Waterloo is a fine example of this, as he was able to say that Grouchy, D'Erlon, Jerome, Ney, and Soult were each, in their way, responsible for the disaster. To believe the Bonapartists one almost has to put down Waterloo as a personal triumph for the Emperor.
In wargames, a defeated "general" often has no subordinates to blame; so he tends to turn against the rules or the umpire. If he can point to some aspect of the game which he thinks was "unrealistic" then he can take the sting out of his defeat.
This means that a lot of the call for greater realism in wargames is motivated by a rather suspect emotion. It is not really a call for greater realism at all, but a call for less painful defeats. This in turn means that when wargame rules are changed "to make them more realistic", they are usually changed in one particular direction -- that of greater control by the player over the game.
Defeat is more painful to a player who has little control over his pieces than to one who has a high degree of control. At first sight this may seem odd, since players with high control have themselves to blame for what happens -- they are directly responsible for their own defeat. In fact, however, it is easier to accept defeat when you are fully responsible for it. It is much harder to accept defeat when some of the game has unrolled outside your control. A car driver who backs into a brick wall by accident will accept the damage philosophically, and be more careful next time. A driver who has another driver crash into him will tend to be outraged and vindictive. That is the difference between high control and low control.
In wargames terms, defeated players always want more control -- which is often the opposite to most historical realism. In real battles, generals often have relatively little control over what goes on: they cannot always make their subordinates move in the right direction (e.g. the Charge of the Light Brigade), at the right time (e.g. Ney's delayed flank attack at Bautzen), or in the right formation (e.g. at Waterloo Wellington's orders to form square were contradicted by the Prince of Orange). They do not always know as much about the terrain as they think they do (e.g. the French in 1940 must have thought the "umpire had changed the rules" when the German armour came through the Ardennes), and are often quite astonished by enemies appearing at unexpected places.
Imagine a Chess game in which the player could not guarantee that his pieces would move where he wanted them to, or on the move he wanted them to. Imagine a Chess game where the kings castled diagonally, and the knights hopped eight squares at a time -- according to a dice throw outside the player's control. Imagine a Chess game where the colour of the squares was variable, and unknown to the player. All this is unacceptable to Chess players. They insist on 100% control of their games, and do not look for scapegoats when they are defeated.
I think that when they call for "greater realism", many wargamers really mean that they want a game which is nearer to Chess, and further from the uncertainties and low level of control of the battlefield. They want to avoid the mental discomfort of relying upon the arbitrary whim of an umpire or the random chances thrown up by a dice ("Average Dice", for example, have been specifically developed to limit the role of chance in wargames. For greater realism, actually, someone should develop a "Maximum Unpredictability" dice!). Especially important, wargamers want to avoid defeats which are painful -- even though in real life defeated generals have found defeat very painful indeed (e.g. The dazed Von Thomas wandering into captivity across the wreckage of his Panzers at Alamein; Ludendorff foaming at the mouth, in his fit after the battle of Amiens, 1918; or the Russian commander at Tannenberg, who felt so badly about his defeat that he shot himself). It may, perhaps, be less fun for wargamers to have low control over their games -- but it would at least be more realistic.
The following are areas in which lower levels of control could be introduced into wargaming:
a) Wider variations of results, due to dice throws: i.e. fewer "average dice".
b) More active umpires, "interpreting" (or even inventing) the rules as they go along, so that players cannot claim infringements of a stated set of rules. Only the umpire should know the rules.
c) More concealment of enemy units, and of terrain, when it is in "dead ground".
d) More possibilities for units under a player's command to "disobey orders", or at least to move late.
e) Fewer possibilities for players to make low-level decisions for each and every one of their sub-units. The Army commander should not be responsible for the tactical formation of each battalion; when each skirmish company opens fire, etc., etc. Decisions of that sort usually originate no higher than the Brigade commander.
f) Longer reaction times and command delays. It is amazing to see the effect on a wargame if there is just one turn's delay imposed between the player making a decision, and the action being taken e.g. in Second World War games, try adding a rule that vehicles must take one "slowing down" turn, between moving at speed and halting to fire.
g) More possibilities for morale panics to spread, out of control. Also longer rallying times.
All these things would deprive the wargamer of some of his "Chess-Player" control over the game. They would add to the historical realism of the model battle.
©
Paddy Griffith set out to create games that were both playable and realistic. The philosophy of games that animates his design, or designs, is that game rules must never be dogmatic, and the author expresses his mistrust of lawyers who play a game by hunting for loopholes in the rules (like W.C. Fields in the Bible).
Comments, as always, are welcome.
Saturday, 14 July 2012
Perspectives: "Balance" in Wargames
Hi all,
I've been thinking recently about "balance" in wargames. It's becoming more common on comments and forums, for people to cry out for balance in wargames- I'd just like to explore, for a little while, what they seem to mean.
Balance in wargaming is a funny beast. At its extreme is Chess, where the armies are set and are perfectly equal. This is not what most wargamers mean by balance though- there seems to be some ephemeral golden mean out there that everyone is striving for, and never reaching. After trawling through comments, forums, blogs and my own memory, I've come to one conclusion- that balance, in most cases, means the chance for both players to win at a game. That's it.
I've been thinking recently about "balance" in wargames. It's becoming more common on comments and forums, for people to cry out for balance in wargames- I'd just like to explore, for a little while, what they seem to mean.
Balance in wargaming is a funny beast. At its extreme is Chess, where the armies are set and are perfectly equal. This is not what most wargamers mean by balance though- there seems to be some ephemeral golden mean out there that everyone is striving for, and never reaching. After trawling through comments, forums, blogs and my own memory, I've come to one conclusion- that balance, in most cases, means the chance for both players to win at a game. That's it.
Monday, 2 July 2012
40K 6th- First Impressions- Conclusion
So did, everyone enjoy the Endurance post on Saturday? Well, today I'm going to bring it to a conclusion.
Overall, I am pleased with this edition of 40K. GW seem to have gone back to their roots of producing rulebooks as templates, to let us tinker with as we see fit, which is fantastic from my point of view. That relies on the Codex releases of course, so we'll see what the future brings, but so far I'm fairly optimistic.
Now, I've not drawn any hard and fat conclusions so far (5 games isn't enough to base anything on) but all of them ran fairly smoothly, and most of the rules I found to be fairly intuitive. Thankfully, the same was true for my opponents. Small 500 point games were played out in around 45 minutes, and the 1850 game took us around 2 hours- so pretty much in line with what we've been used to up to now.
Saturday, 30 June 2012
40K 6th- First Impressions- Psychic Powers
 |
| The reason the Black Ships exist |
so, the penultimate post for this series of reviews. Hopefully it hasn't been too dull a read for you :) as is traditional, I've saved the best for last: Psionics.
There are 5 disciplines- Biomancy, Divination, Pyromancy, Telekinesis and Telepathy. Each has 6 powers and a Primaris Power- if you don't like the power you rolled, swap it out for the Primaris power. You can have each power more than once per army (unlike W"arhammer Fantasy) but they are still random- you essentially swap out a Psykers existing powers for the chance to roll some awesome.
40K 6th- First Impressions- Battles Section
I was going to do a lengthy post about this section of the book, but I've decided against it. instead, I'll say this:
This is a great addition to the book. This is the bit that should appeal to Vets. Big, well themed battles which are well displayed. 6 full scenarios to allow you to replay them, and give you an idea on how the designers expect this edition of 40K to be used. Starforts. 500 point games. How to build a mission. A multi-player scenario. Mission special Rules, battlefield traits, 3 page gatefold on eagles Gate- my favourite part of the book so far (that isn't rules). I'm not going to spoil it- read it, absorb it, enjoy it, then let me know what you think in the comments.
Which of course are welcome.
40K 6th- First Impressions- Background
let's take a break from the rules and concentrate on the fluff for a bit.And what a lot of fluff we have! It's like a fat mans' belly button in here...
The Imperium is again introduced, and yet again humanity is in dire straits. There's a little more detail this time- Psykers are put-down, but now we know why- if enough psykers create a warp-hole, then Chaos will be able to fully break though into real space. So it's not just fear that keeps the Black Ships running, they've got a valid reason. it's also suggested that at the end of the Horus Heresy, administration was doubled up as a fail safe (2 different departments generating the same report without knowledge of the fact they are working on the same thing.) As time has gone on, the process of doubling on never stopped- so now there really is a sense of administration gone mad, and the Imperium being tied up in red tape. As information has become even more stagnant, the rulers have become even more Tyranical and the Imperium gets more and more downtrodden. Grimdark indeed.
40K 6th- First Impressions- Scenarios
 |
| Lots of Scenarios.... |
so now you know your rules, you've built army, what's the mission? There's 3 deployments- long edges, short edges and diagonal. Short edges is a bit weird, but essentially it reminds me of the old Cleanse deployment, so OK. It's going to be fun at tournaments if you're in the middle of table row (in case you needed a clear example of how this game isn't designed for tournament play.)
There are also 6 missions, none of which use Kill Points (OK, OK, you can stop cheering...) That's 18 variations. Not bad- it would be nice to have 3rd ed missions back, which had 6 basic missions and 3 each of Raid, Battle and (can't remember the third category off the top of my head!) rather than 6 across three deployments, but OK, not bad.
40K 6th- First Impressions- Army Selection
 |
| Now all on the same side.... |
so that's most of the rules covered, time to start examining the Force Organisation Chart. yes, it has changed, for the first time since 3rd ed in 1998!
The core chart for you Primary Detachment hasn't changed. All of the compulsory choices must be taken from one Codex, as well as your Warlord. This is the same as all previous editions.
Everyone also gets access to 1 Fortification. This is a 0-1, so you don't have to take it (even though it's a black box in the book) and represents emplacements which you've presumably captured before the start of the battle, rather than constructed (at least, that's what my Tyranids will be believing for a while.)
40K 6th- First Impressions- Scenery
 |
| All now with rules! |
Woot! Time to talk about my favourite aspect of any wargame- the battlefield conditions. This is where all of the aspects which affect your choices come into play. There are 6 key type of terrain in this edition, which is a good start. previous editions have only included 1 or 2- at least now we have a decent spread. It gives plenty of choices for what terrain counts as, and therefore how it affects your units. of course, combine that with how different units interact with terrain, and you get plenty of decisions to make. I don't think these rules fully reward clever use of terrain (like say Hail Ceasar) but they certainly impact the game, and will benefit players who think about how to interact with the battlefield.
There are a few terrain archetypes:
40K 6th- First Impressions- Vehicle Types
 |
| Arbites Target Identification |
I covered vehicles in general in the last post- now it's time to dig in to specifics. Vehicle Types! Also known as What Tanks can Do!
Lets start with the most common one- Tanks. These are- exactly the same. They can tank Shock, they can Ram, and now that you can pre-measure these become easier to resolve. Other than that, they are standard vehicles.
Heavy vehicles are slow, lumbering things and so cannot move at cruising speed or Flat Out. However, they do always count as Stationary for shooting.
40K 6th- First Impressions- Vehicles
 |
| Now with 3 Hull Points- then again, he's Immortal... |
the 40K Endurance Review continues with Vehicles, which were the king of the tabletop in 5th Ed. Has anything changed?
I've got no idea- not enough time has passed, not enough games have been played. Here's what I know, and my initial reactions.
All vehicles have a new stat- Hull Points. there's a list at the back of the rulebook (pages 410-416) detailing the stats for every existing vehicle at time of writing, so it's all fairly clear (but does mean that you need to lug the book around with you for a while.) So how do they work? Every Glancing or penetrating hit strips a HP. Once a vehicle is on 0 HP, it is wrecked. Simple. In the main, vehicles have 3- so 3 Glancing hits will wreck a tank. Now that sounds pretty horrendous- to offset it, vehicles only need 25% obscured to claim a cover save, and there's plenty of jink saves and the like floating around. Also, Glancing hits don't roll on the damage chart- so the only way they can kill tanks is by stripping HP. This makes Missile Launchers and the like as valuable against light armour as before, but less valuable against high-end armour (13 and 14). by the same token, S 9 and 10 weapons are at a premium, as is armour bane, for its ability to damage vehicles.
40K 6th- First Impressions- Characters and Psykers
Well, so far I've covered a fair amount of the new 40K rules, but there's plenty more to come- vehicles haven't been touched on, or the new allies system, and what about the fluff? Right now, of course, I get to post about Characters and Psykers.
OK, first off Sergeants and the like are now Characters. They benefit from Look Out Sir!, can fight in Challenges (more on that in a sec) and you still keep all the old benefits for the unit. they also have Precision Shots- meaning that on a 6 to hit when shooting, you can allocate the wound where you want, rather than closest to closest. So keep your characters guns in mind- sniping plasma shots may be a worthwhile investment (although 6's to hit- probably not!) They also have to pile in first when it's their turn- troops can't get in their way to keep them out of the fight. In combat they guess Precision Strikes- guess what, it's the same as Precision Shots, but for Combat, where a higher number of attacks might pay off. This makes Power Mauls more open for consideration, for me at least, since you could stun a few choice enemy before your squad attacks.
40K 6th- First Impressions- Weaponry
 |
| Only the Axe hurts Terminators |
Well, after the monster post that was USR's, here's a short one on weaponry.
Most guns remain the same- all the old rules apply. Interestingly, Missile Launchers get an extra type called Flakk Missile, which is 48" Str 7 AP 4 Heavy1, Skyfire- so most Imperial forces have access to at least 1 anti-flyer weapon (Skyfire means that it shoots at Zooming Flyers and Swooping Monstrous Creatures at normal BS.) Not bad- it's nice taht they've thought about it, but Xenos players are going to be bemoaning the lack of Skyfire weapons until a Codex update arrives.
40K 6th- First Impressions- USR's and Units
welcome to the Cheat Section review :) Yes, it's time to look at Universal Special Rules, and how many different ways you can break or bend the game to your will. There's a whole raft of USR's in this edition (80 in total!) and most of them have remained the same, so I'll only cover the stand-out ones here.
Acute Senses lets you re-roll the table edge for Outflanking moves. Which from what I can gather, only affects tau stealth suits at the moment, being the only unit with the ability to Outflank that also has Acute Senses (why in the name of all that is Holy do long Fangs and Raveners have this rule?) Although it does also affect the unit when it arrives from a random table edge that's not from Outflank. this, I suspect, is going to be one to watch out for.
40K 6th- First Impressions- Morale
Moving swiftly on, we get to the Morale rules. this will be a fairly short post (there aren't many morale rules in 40K) since most of it has stayed the same. You trigger a morale test by losing combat, or losing 25% of a unit in a single movement or shooting phase. Double 1 always passes. if a unit fails, it must fall back 2d6" towards their own table edge, by the shortest route.
40K 6th- First Impressions- Shooting
 |
| Snap-fire in action |
So let's take a look at the new shooting rules in 40K. Most of the core mechanics remain the same- to hit, to wound, targeting are all the same as 5th Ed. In fact, shooting has become better since cover saves are now mainly a 5+ rather than a 4+, so firing guns becomes more effective against these targets. going to ground still provides a +1 to the cover save, and is declared before saves are made (so if the plasma guns miss, your Terminators don't need to hit the deck.) So if most of it has remained the same, what's changed?
Well, for a start there's Snap Fire. This means that Heavy weapons and a few other specialist bits of gear can usually shoot even if they move- at BS 1. Yep, your Lascannon can now move and shoot, but will need a 6 to hit. The exception is blast weapons and templates, which can never snap fire. In all honesty, I don't expect this to have a massive impact- it's a nice perk to have, and will likely make heavy weapons a little more common in a few units, but in the main it's not something players will rely on! Nice touch though.
40K 6th- First Impressions- Movement
So, movement in 40K' latest edition. And not much has changed. Ultimately, units can move up to 6", must remain in unit coherency (2" for infantry, 4" for vehicles) and you can't pass within an inch of an inch of enemy models unless they are assaulting. All straight forward.
However, since movement in any wargame is pretty important (read: "most important") all of the other rules will impact your decisions in this phase. The good news is that you can pre-measure at all times in this edition, so your decision making can be more informed. Also, with the new wound allocation system, position of models within units is of primary importance, so movement of units isn't as simple as it sounds.
Friday, 29 June 2012
40K 6- First Impressions- Intro
Hi all,
As I promised at the end of my Warhammer Fantasy review, this is a series of articles on 40K 6th Edition- as a first impression. Doubtless, very few of any conclusions I draw will be proven 100% wrong within 1 year, but hopefully this will be worthwhile exercise in the meantime.
So, I'll be covering the various rules sections as they appear in the rulebook: Movement, Shooting, Assault, Morale, USR's and Unit Types, Weaponry, Characters, Vehicles, Vehicle types, Terrain, Army Selection, Scenarios, Background, Battles Section, Psychic Powers. So that's a lot of ground to cover! To start with though, I'll talk about the quality of the book itself.
As I promised at the end of my Warhammer Fantasy review, this is a series of articles on 40K 6th Edition- as a first impression. Doubtless, very few of any conclusions I draw will be proven 100% wrong within 1 year, but hopefully this will be worthwhile exercise in the meantime.
So, I'll be covering the various rules sections as they appear in the rulebook: Movement, Shooting, Assault, Morale, USR's and Unit Types, Weaponry, Characters, Vehicles, Vehicle types, Terrain, Army Selection, Scenarios, Background, Battles Section, Psychic Powers. So that's a lot of ground to cover! To start with though, I'll talk about the quality of the book itself.
40K 6th- First Impressions- Assault
 |
| Rolling a 2 for charge |
So how does Close Combat work now? Good news- hitting and wounding hasn't changed :)
OK, there's now 2 sub-phases, Charge and Fight. In the Charge phase, you pick a unit, pick a target, resolve Overwatch, roll charge distance then move (or not.) Now, bear in mind that you can pre-measure at any time, so you will be able to know how risky it is to assault the unit. Also bear in mind that charge distance is random- usually 2D6".
There are a few caveats to declaring a charge. These haven't really changed- you can't assault if you shot with heavy, rapid fire, salvo or ordnance, even if it was snap-fire. Similarly, you can't charge if you ran, went to ground, are falling back, are already in combat. Oh- and you can only charge a unit which you did shoot at in the Shooting Phase- so no "Shoot A/ Charge B" tactics.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)