A very long, but interesting design diary for Bowen Simmons' Gettysburg game was posted on Aug. 4. He goes through an extended attack example.
Showing posts with label Simmons Games. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Simmons Games. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Catching up on Simmons
A very long, but interesting design diary for Bowen Simmons' Gettysburg game was posted on Aug. 4. He goes through an extended attack example.
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Some more thoughts on Waterloo and other non-traditonal wargames
Actually, it even seems odd to use the word traditional when discussing a hobby that's a little over a half-century old, but most people will understand what I mean -- traditional being the hex-and-counter wargames inaugurated by Charles Roberts/Avalon Hill and made ubiquitous by James Dunnigan/SPI in the 1960s/70s/80s.
For many people hex-and-counter wargames are wargames and they pay little mind to other design choices or even disdain them.
On the other hand, there have always been other ways to skin that particular design cat. Many wargames from the hex-and-counter designers didn't use hexes at all, of course. Area movement and point-to-point maps have a long history in the hobby. And there have always been some games that were outside the main wargame design tradition, such as Kingmaker, Diplomacy, block wargames like Quebec 1759, Axis & Allies and the whole traditional miniatures line.
But for a long time hex-and-counter wargames were definitely where the action was design-wise. This provided many benefits, because the sharing of mechanics and design techniques within a limited universe of choices made it possible for wargamers to digest literally hundreds of wargames in a short period of time. A big draw for series games such as The Great Battles of the American Civil War, the various SPI quad games, The Gamers' various series (SCS,OCS,TCS,NBS etc.) etc. was that it allowed players to concentrate on the battle at hand instead of having to learn brand new game systems all the time.
On the other hand, this self-policing limitation on design tools did have some drawbacks. One of them is that not all situations lent themselves equally well to hex-and-counter wargames. Hexes have geometric limitations that made them problematic for linear warfare and tactical warfare at sea. Counters, being two-sided, imposed limits on fog of war or step reduction unless you added more counters to the pile. Zones of control, combat results tables and well-defined scales often brought anomalies or awkward compromises when applied to specific situations. And as time went on it seems as though hex-and-counter wargames had trouble recruiting new players, while the euro-style games attracted more interest.
Now, like any generalities, these kinds of statements obscure a host of counter examples. Hex-and-counter game manufacturers have gotten pretty adept at marketing their wares to the sort of p,layers who will find them interesting and the Internet has been a great aid. Players can find each other and game makers easily. Many hex-and-counter wargames have turned out to be well-suited for online play, so it's not all doom and gloom.
But at the same time, I am sensing a renewed interest in other design approaches. One very popular line of attack has been what are commonly called card-driven games, which use the detail and flexibility that cards can provide to bypass the chart-heavy approach of traditional wargame designs. Still, most of these designs are coming from h&c game companies and designers and still share many of their attributes, such as cardboard counters and even hexes.
There's a lot more interest in alternative design approaches. While both Axis & Allies and block wargames have been around for decades, both are showing new life these days.
And some designers have explored some completely different approaches to wargame design. Some notable recent examples include Friedrich, Bonaparte at Marengo and Napoleon's Triumph. And I put Martin Wallace's Waterloo in that category. Despite having little in common with a traditional hex-and-counter treatment of Waterloo, the game does good job of capturing the essential features of Napoleonic era combat and I think it's an instructive, as well as entertaining exercise, which is what a good wargame ought to be.
What will be interesting is seeing how Wallace and Bowen Simmons (designer of Bonaparte at Marengo and Napoleon's Triumph) come up with next. Both designers are reportedly working on a Gettysburg game, and both games are likely to appear in 2010. Back in the heyday of AH and SPI it wasn't uncommon to see both companies releasing competing visions of the same topic, so it's nice to see that sort of choice being offered again. The more the merrier.
For many people hex-and-counter wargames are wargames and they pay little mind to other design choices or even disdain them.
On the other hand, there have always been other ways to skin that particular design cat. Many wargames from the hex-and-counter designers didn't use hexes at all, of course. Area movement and point-to-point maps have a long history in the hobby. And there have always been some games that were outside the main wargame design tradition, such as Kingmaker, Diplomacy, block wargames like Quebec 1759, Axis & Allies and the whole traditional miniatures line.
But for a long time hex-and-counter wargames were definitely where the action was design-wise. This provided many benefits, because the sharing of mechanics and design techniques within a limited universe of choices made it possible for wargamers to digest literally hundreds of wargames in a short period of time. A big draw for series games such as The Great Battles of the American Civil War, the various SPI quad games, The Gamers' various series (SCS,OCS,TCS,NBS etc.) etc. was that it allowed players to concentrate on the battle at hand instead of having to learn brand new game systems all the time.
On the other hand, this self-policing limitation on design tools did have some drawbacks. One of them is that not all situations lent themselves equally well to hex-and-counter wargames. Hexes have geometric limitations that made them problematic for linear warfare and tactical warfare at sea. Counters, being two-sided, imposed limits on fog of war or step reduction unless you added more counters to the pile. Zones of control, combat results tables and well-defined scales often brought anomalies or awkward compromises when applied to specific situations. And as time went on it seems as though hex-and-counter wargames had trouble recruiting new players, while the euro-style games attracted more interest.
Now, like any generalities, these kinds of statements obscure a host of counter examples. Hex-and-counter game manufacturers have gotten pretty adept at marketing their wares to the sort of p,layers who will find them interesting and the Internet has been a great aid. Players can find each other and game makers easily. Many hex-and-counter wargames have turned out to be well-suited for online play, so it's not all doom and gloom.
But at the same time, I am sensing a renewed interest in other design approaches. One very popular line of attack has been what are commonly called card-driven games, which use the detail and flexibility that cards can provide to bypass the chart-heavy approach of traditional wargame designs. Still, most of these designs are coming from h&c game companies and designers and still share many of their attributes, such as cardboard counters and even hexes.
There's a lot more interest in alternative design approaches. While both Axis & Allies and block wargames have been around for decades, both are showing new life these days.
And some designers have explored some completely different approaches to wargame design. Some notable recent examples include Friedrich, Bonaparte at Marengo and Napoleon's Triumph. And I put Martin Wallace's Waterloo in that category. Despite having little in common with a traditional hex-and-counter treatment of Waterloo, the game does good job of capturing the essential features of Napoleonic era combat and I think it's an instructive, as well as entertaining exercise, which is what a good wargame ought to be.
What will be interesting is seeing how Wallace and Bowen Simmons (designer of Bonaparte at Marengo and Napoleon's Triumph) come up with next. Both designers are reportedly working on a Gettysburg game, and both games are likely to appear in 2010. Back in the heyday of AH and SPI it wasn't uncommon to see both companies releasing competing visions of the same topic, so it's nice to see that sort of choice being offered again. The more the merrier.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Bonaparte at Marengo -- a review
One of the hardest mental challenges there can be is to abandon our pre-conceived notions about something and look at a topic from the ground up.
Sure, generally it's best to build on the achievements of those who have gone before, but every so often someone needs to challenge the status quo.
The vast majority of wargames build on the foundation laid by Charles Roberts a half-century ago, but now and then somebody surveys a new lot.
Bonaparte at Marengo is a game like that.
Inside a standard bookcase-style box is a handsome mounted mapboard, about 80 wooden red and blue blocks, two copies of the rules and three plastic markers. That's it. From these minimal -- although high-quality -- materials designer Bowen Simmons crafts an elegant and absorbing strategy wargame. There are no dice, no charts or stacks of markers.
But there is a "look." Players who want the full story can check out Simmons' excellent Web site at www.simmonsgames.com but the story, briefly, is this: Inspired by old battle maps that showed the armies deployed in red and blue lines, Simmons wanted to capture the same look in a wargame. Achieving this goal meant rethinking wargaming conventions from the ground up.
The units are depicted as elongated wooden blocks which can be placed on their sides for fog of war. Unlike other block games, which rotated their square blocks in order to show losses, in BaM losses are shown by replacing a block with a weaker one, but the overall effect is similar.
The heart of the game system is the map, and the innovative way movement on the map is handled. The board is divided into "locales" depending upon the lay of the land, and each locale has several "approaches." Pieces can be in "reserve" in a locale or occupying one of its "approaches."
If opposing pieces are in facing approaches there can be an "assault," which is usually very costly for the attacker, but may be the only way to carry a position. Most losses come from "maneuver attacks" which are attempts to move into a locale occupied by the enemy. Pieces in reserve can move to "block" the approach, perhaps setting up an assault in a subsequent turn, but if the enemy retreats or doesn't have a reserve unit available for blocking duties the maneuver attacking piece can move into the locale, forcing a retreat. Cavalry units in reserve can retreat without loss but all other pieces will take losses. Outmaneuvering the other side is therefore the focus of activities, supported by occasional assaults as needed.
Each side is limited in how many units it can move. Each army has three "commands" available. A command is expended to move one or more units that follow the exact same path. Primary roads provide additional "free" commands for units that move along the roads.
Every strength point lost translates into a one-point drop in morale. If an army's morale drops to Zero it will generally lose. If neither army's morale drops to zero -- or both do -- then the game is decided on territorial victory conditions, but this rarely happens.
The entire feel of the game is very chess-like, in my opinion. It's very much move and counter move. There are many little intricacies and subtleties in the rules.
It's not a complex game, but it can be a hard one to grasp. In part this is because it's so different from any other wargame that previous wargame experience is of little help. In part it's also because of the minimalist style of Simmons' rules. Many key aspects of play are implied by the rules rather than spelled out explicitly. Since the game came out the forums have been filled with questions. In almost all cases the answers are there, in the rules, but aren't always obvious.
It's one of the most absorbing and intriguing wargames I've ever played and tops my list of favorites. It does have a few shortcomings, however.
Play does tend to be stereotyped. The general line of play involves the Austrian army gathering in front of Marengo and forcing a breach in the French line, followed by a retreat and a final showdown near the victory objective stars on the board edge. If the French player times it right the Austrian player will fall a turn or loss factor short of victory. Games often come down to a 1-point or 1-turn margin.
This wouldn't be a big problem, except that it also means that the historical course of the battle is rarely replicated. The French have no incentive to launch a late-game counter attack to break the morale of the Austrian army and salvage a victory from defeat. If the French are in a position to launch such a counterattack they're almost certainly also in a position to win the game anyway by standing on the defense.
Simmons Games later title Napoleon's Triumph uses a similar system that succeeds in being closer to history while also providing many more strategic options and is, overall, a better game that BaM, but BaM does deserve credit for being first.
Sure, generally it's best to build on the achievements of those who have gone before, but every so often someone needs to challenge the status quo.
The vast majority of wargames build on the foundation laid by Charles Roberts a half-century ago, but now and then somebody surveys a new lot.
Bonaparte at Marengo is a game like that.
Inside a standard bookcase-style box is a handsome mounted mapboard, about 80 wooden red and blue blocks, two copies of the rules and three plastic markers. That's it. From these minimal -- although high-quality -- materials designer Bowen Simmons crafts an elegant and absorbing strategy wargame. There are no dice, no charts or stacks of markers.
But there is a "look." Players who want the full story can check out Simmons' excellent Web site at www.simmonsgames.com but the story, briefly, is this: Inspired by old battle maps that showed the armies deployed in red and blue lines, Simmons wanted to capture the same look in a wargame. Achieving this goal meant rethinking wargaming conventions from the ground up.
The units are depicted as elongated wooden blocks which can be placed on their sides for fog of war. Unlike other block games, which rotated their square blocks in order to show losses, in BaM losses are shown by replacing a block with a weaker one, but the overall effect is similar.
The heart of the game system is the map, and the innovative way movement on the map is handled. The board is divided into "locales" depending upon the lay of the land, and each locale has several "approaches." Pieces can be in "reserve" in a locale or occupying one of its "approaches."
If opposing pieces are in facing approaches there can be an "assault," which is usually very costly for the attacker, but may be the only way to carry a position. Most losses come from "maneuver attacks" which are attempts to move into a locale occupied by the enemy. Pieces in reserve can move to "block" the approach, perhaps setting up an assault in a subsequent turn, but if the enemy retreats or doesn't have a reserve unit available for blocking duties the maneuver attacking piece can move into the locale, forcing a retreat. Cavalry units in reserve can retreat without loss but all other pieces will take losses. Outmaneuvering the other side is therefore the focus of activities, supported by occasional assaults as needed.
Each side is limited in how many units it can move. Each army has three "commands" available. A command is expended to move one or more units that follow the exact same path. Primary roads provide additional "free" commands for units that move along the roads.
Every strength point lost translates into a one-point drop in morale. If an army's morale drops to Zero it will generally lose. If neither army's morale drops to zero -- or both do -- then the game is decided on territorial victory conditions, but this rarely happens.
The entire feel of the game is very chess-like, in my opinion. It's very much move and counter move. There are many little intricacies and subtleties in the rules.
It's not a complex game, but it can be a hard one to grasp. In part this is because it's so different from any other wargame that previous wargame experience is of little help. In part it's also because of the minimalist style of Simmons' rules. Many key aspects of play are implied by the rules rather than spelled out explicitly. Since the game came out the forums have been filled with questions. In almost all cases the answers are there, in the rules, but aren't always obvious.
It's one of the most absorbing and intriguing wargames I've ever played and tops my list of favorites. It does have a few shortcomings, however.
Play does tend to be stereotyped. The general line of play involves the Austrian army gathering in front of Marengo and forcing a breach in the French line, followed by a retreat and a final showdown near the victory objective stars on the board edge. If the French player times it right the Austrian player will fall a turn or loss factor short of victory. Games often come down to a 1-point or 1-turn margin.
This wouldn't be a big problem, except that it also means that the historical course of the battle is rarely replicated. The French have no incentive to launch a late-game counter attack to break the morale of the Austrian army and salvage a victory from defeat. If the French are in a position to launch such a counterattack they're almost certainly also in a position to win the game anyway by standing on the defense.
Simmons Games later title Napoleon's Triumph uses a similar system that succeeds in being closer to history while also providing many more strategic options and is, overall, a better game that BaM, but BaM does deserve credit for being first.
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Now this is exciting news
One of absolute favorite game designers is Bowen Simmons with his fantastic Bonaparte at Marengo and Napoleon's Triumph.
Now he's started work on a game about one of my favorite battles, Gettysburg.
But here's the box art:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)