Musings on modeling damage in skirmish-level wargames

I was looking over my Dungeons & Dragons Miniatures game today in preparation for a hoped-for game and I noticed an oddity -- it's almost impossible for a single blow to be fatal among comparable fighters.

For example, the Human Fighter, shown above, normally does 15 hit points of damage with a successful attack. But the fighter has 55 HP himself, so if he were fighting a similar warrior it would take at least three blows to defeat the foe. The first successful attack would reduce the enemy fighter to 40 HP, the second would cut him down to 25 and leave him "bloodied," which would set up the "Death Blow" attack action (if available) which would finish him off.

Now I don't have a problem with this from a game perspective. It applies to everyone equally and works well enough -- the same basic system has been used in D&D for decades.

But it doesn't bear much resemblance to actual sword fighting. I'm sorry, but if you get cut by a greatsword you're fighting efficiency will suffer. And often enough a single slash or stab will do some vital damage that will kill you outright or at least incapacitate you. But in D&D this only happens if you have some very powerful fighter matched against a very weak one. Many skirmish level games are like this, of course. It's easy to see why. I can hear the howls as some 15th level character gets nailed by a lucky shot from a random archer and is killed instantly. Yet just that sort of key blow plays a big role in fantasy fiction. Consider Bard's arrow that felled Smaug in the Hobbit, for example. Simply impossible under the D&D system.

The western gunfighter game Cowboys; The Way of the Gun has this effect, too. The Cowboy characters can't be killed by a single shot. Great for players but obviously absurd. The earlier wargame-like western gunfighting game Gunslinger was more realistic on that score. If you got shot, you were probably not going to be able to do much, and what you did get to do would take longer and be less effective. And there was always a chance of an instant kill.

I don't mean to pick on DDM, because the same thing is nearly universal among skirmish-level games, especially those with a fantasy or science fiction base. Occasionally there's a provision for quick KOs for ordinary run of the mill NPCs, but the more powerful characters can always take a licking and keep on ticking.

Historical scenarios shared in Gunslinger and Cowboys

Avalon Hill's super-detailed Gunslinger and Worthington's Cowboys: The Way of the Gun cover much the same ground, both being skirmish-level wargames depicting Old West gunfights. Cowboys is the newer and more streamlined design. It's primarily designed as a two-player game with each player able to handle up to a dozen cowboys and town folk, while Gunslinger depicts the action in painstaking and loving detail to the point where it plays best as multi-player game with each player controlling the actions of a single individual or two.

Both include a number of historical scenarios and even include many of the same fights.

Here's brief rundown of the scenarios in Cowboys and and the equivalent scenario is Gunslinger:

Scenario 3 : Shootout at the OK Corral covers the same incident as Gunslinger Variant Showdown One Gunfight at the O.K. Corral. Probably the most famous single gunfight of the Old West, the showdown between the Earps/Doc Holliday and the Mclaurys/Clantons in Tombstone Arizona on Oct. 26, 1881, is a straightforward close-range slugfest.
In Gunslinger the action happens within the confines of the corral on Map A, while in Cowboys it's on the open-terrain on Board K, but there's no practical difference as the corral terrain is unlikely to come into play with both groups of gunfighters set up facing each other at close range in the open.
The Gunslinger Scenario has Wyatt, Virgil and Moragn Earp with Doc Holliday facing Frank and Tom McLaury and Billy Clanton. The Cowboys scenario adds an unarmed Ike Clanton. In both games everyone (except Ike C.) is armed with pistols except for Doc Holliday who has a shotgun. In both scenarios there's also an unpossessed rifle available nearby. The characters used in the Gunslinger scenario for Doc Holliday (Gambler) and Wyatt Earp (Dude) are the best while the Cowboys scenario makes Doc H. and Morgan Earp the best on that side. Frank McLaury is the best character on that side in Gunslinger while Cowboys makes Billy Clanton the top guy among that gang. Gunslinger is more "historical" giving the Earps the advantage of starting "alerted" where in the cowboys scenario both sides have an equal chance of shooting first.


Scenario 4: "You're My Huckleberry" is depicted by one of the small versions of Showdown 1: Gunfight in Gunslinger, a face-off between Doc Holliday and Johnny Ringo on July 13, 1882. This is probably the simplest scenario in both games, with a single gunfighter one each side facing his opponent at close range in the open with holstered pistols. Both use the most open maps (A in Gunslinger and K in Cowboys).

Scenario 6: Commodore Owens vs. The Blevins Boys is the same incident as the small version of Gunslinger Showdown 25: Robber's Roost as Sheriff Commodore Perry Owens tangles with some horse thieves. Oddly enough, the Gunslinger scenario is much more expansive -- using all 8 mapboards -- than the Cowboys version which takes place on just one. But in both cases the focus of the action is a small clutch of buildings and a corral where the four thieves are set up as theya re surprised by Sheriff Owens. In both games Owens is a high-powered guy (+2 in Cowboys and the Marshal +3 in Gunslinger) who is well-armed with a rifle and two pistols but the Gunslinger scenario makes the thieves better armed with some long arms while the Cowboys bad guys just have pistols. The scenario victory conditions are different as well. In Gunslinger the thieves are trying to escape -- any left on the map at game end are captured whereas in Cowboys the thieves must eliminate the sheriff and he has to eliminate one particular horse thief to win, with mutual failure by Turn 15 being a draw.

Scenario 9: The Ambush of Wyatt Earp at Mescal Springs is small version 2 of Showdown 16: Bushwacking from Gunslinger. Both depict the ambush of Wyatt Earp and his companions at Mescal Springs Ariz. on March 24, 1882. There are considerable differences between the two, however. The Gunslinger scenario map set up shows the ambush happening near a stable with other buildings nearby while the Cowboys scenario happens in open country from a rocky area. The Gunslinger scenario shows just Wyatt Earp and his brother Morgan alone facing three Bshwackers while the Cowboys scenario adds Doc Holliday, Warren Earp, Sherm McMasters and Jack Johnson to Wyatt's party while leaving out Morgan. The ambushers number five in the Cowboys version. In the Gunslinger scenario both sides are armed with an assortment of long arms while the Cowboys battle includes only pistols except for Wyatt Earp, who also has a shotgun. Finally, the Cowboys scenario includes a special rule that has combatants fleeing the fight based on a die roll.

Scenario 21: The Dalton Gang's Last Ride depicts the infamous Oct. 9, 1892, Coffeyville, Kansas, Raid, also shown in part in Showdown 9: Bank Robbery in Gunslinger. Both games show the main street of an Old West town, using 8 maps for Gunslinger and five for Cowboys. The tightly focused nature of Gunslinger works against that game here as its forced to focus on the action at just one bank with two members of the Dalton Gang facing five townsfolk. In contrast the Cowboys scenario shows five Dalton gangsters robbing both banks facing the sheriff and four townsfolk with more showing up each turn. In both games the robbers are trying to escape but Gunslinger adds a colorful touch with money bags in the bank.

Scenario 22: Buckshot vs. The Regulators is the same as Gunslinger Variant Showdown 20: The Regulators. Both show Buckshot Rogers alone facing a posse of Regulators (six in Gunslinger and eight in Cowboys) at Blazers Mill, N.M. on April 4, 1878. Both maps feature scattered buildings separated by considerable open space (eight in Gunslinger and six in Cowboys). The posse's target is set up in a building while the Regulators have to try to cross the open ground to get to him. In the Cowboys scenario casualties may caise the other posse members to lose heart and flee, which is an interesting touch.

Scenario 25: Billy's Escape depicts the same July 19, 1878 incident in Lincoln County, N,M, as Gunslinger Showdown 20: Lincoln County War. Billy the Kid is trapped in a burning building, surrounded by enemies, and has to escape. The Gunslinger map is the same setup used for the Regulators scenario, showing a large farmhouse surrounded by outbuildings and countryside. The Cowboys map shows another town setup, using six maps. The Gunslinger scenario includes extensive special rules for darkness falling and the house burning, while Cowboys dispenses with all that and simply requires Billy or two other Regulators to get off the map. The limits of Gunslinger forces it to show a "simplified version of the incidents" with Billy the Kid and one compatriots facing off against five opponents. The Cowboys version shows Billy with four Regulator cowboys and two "townsfolk" against five cowboys and three townsfolk.

Overall, with the exception of Scenario 9, the scenarios shared between the two games are similar enough to clearly represent the same incident while showing some interpretive differences and highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of each game system. Gunslinger's forte is detail and intimacy, which serves it well for tight close-quarter fights like the OK Corral which can be interesting, but force it to compromise when depicting a large event sch as the Coffeyville Raid or Billy the Kid's stand. In contrast Cowboys is a little too streamlined to do OK Corral justice while allowing the whole of something like the Dalton Gang 2-bank heist to be shown.

I'm surprised there isn't more overlap between the two games, as each has several other historical incidents included among its scenarios. It's also worth noting that both games seem to include a scenario inspired by the movie High Noon. In Gunslinger it's rather obviously also called Showdown 23: High Noon, while Cowboys similar treatment is Scenario 15: Gunnin' for the Sheriff. In both a single lawman opposes four outlaws, although the Gunslinger scenario adds some colorful touches with "reinforcements" for the Sheriff comprising a "Lady" and a "Running Boy."

Cowboys: The Way of the Gun brief comparison to AH Gunslinger

Cowboys: the Way of the Gun inaugurated Worthington Games' new euro-style production standards last year. It has a nice, sturdy box, thick cardboard counters and boards and a slick rulebook.

The game itself is a very euro-ized conflict game that's somewhat reminiscent of the old Avalon Hill Gunslinger game on the same topic.

Like Gunslinger the game features full color double sides mapboards depicting typical western town and countryside terrain. Both game used cards, although in different ways and both games are focused on the actions of individual characters in a historical Old American West setting flavored with some strong Hollywood elements. Both games even include some of the same historical incidents as scenarios.

Gunslinger, however, was a game published by a wargame company during the height of the most grognard phase of the hobby. The game documents every possible physical action in painstaking detail, tracking events in .4 second increments. The game characters have extensive special abilities and differentiation and, in many ways, Gunslinger is a pseudo-RPG. Because of its detail Gunslinger is a really absorbing game that has many devoted fans to this day, although it's been out of print for decades. But it takes a long time to play. A street gunfight that will be over in half a minute in game time will take a whole evening to play.

Cowboys, in its basic game, strips away all that detail and operates at a very crude level with minimal details. Whereas in Gunslinger a player character could be prone behind a water trough and literally just stick his head out to see, in Cowboys the characters are basically just standing there. In Gunslinger dozens of different firearms are depicted in loving detail with different ammunition types, different impact effects, different reliability and many other distinctions. In Cowboys there are just three kinds of firearms: pistols, rifles and shotguns.

On the other hand, a game of Cowboys will pass by in less than an hour, capturing the quickness of a skirmish better.

While cards were central to Gunslinger, providing both movement control and random events, Cowboys uses dice to resolve firring and the cards basically provide some special abilities.

Gunslinger is strictly focused on the individual gunfighter, and is really best played with each player controlling a single character or maybe two. Cowboys is actually more of a tactical step higher, being primarily concerned with the actions of a whole party. In military terms the Gunslinger player represents the soldier while the Cowboys player represents the fire team or squad leader.

For what it does, Cowboys is successful, providing a very quick-playing man-to-man western gunfight game, but many players will be tempted to add more detail. There are some optional rules in the book and a set of advanced rules that add more detail and options to the game.

I don't think any Gunslinger fans will think that Cowboys replaces the older game, but it provides a good supplement and one that's probably easier to bring to the table in this day and age.

Gunslinger as a "nanotactical" game

The passing of Gary Gygax this week prompted me to think about how profound an impact D&D and RPGs generally had on wargaming, especially in the 70s and 80s.
For example, Avalon Hill's Gunslinger has RPG elements permeating the whole game. It was designed and published by a wargame company, designed by wargame designers and mostly played by wargamers. It's definitely a combat-oriented game, but of a sort rarely seen.
Not just a man-to-man skirmish game of microtactical combat, Gunslinger dips down into a "nanotactical" level of detail.
While in most skirmish-level wargames the player commands a small group of combatants, say a squad or platoon, in Gunslinger the player concerns himself with the placement and actions of particular body parts. Want to see around a corner? You stick your head out. Want to pick up a money bag? You have to decide which hand to pick it up with. Hit by a bullet? You have to see exactly where you got hit.
Each bullet is tracked. It matters whether your cartridges were loaded yourself or store-bought. If you get hit by a .32 caliber pistol and it doesn't kill you outright, you'll probably still be able to fight. Get hit by a .50 caliber buffalo gun slug and even if you're nicked in the leg you'll probably be mortally wounded and doomed to flop around a bit before slowly expiring.
Gunslinger is an intensely personal level of combat that was really pioneered by role-playing games. In RPGs a player normally controlled one character, which is also the best way to play Gunslinger, although it was possible in both RPGs and Gunslinger to handle two or three characters. Still, this is a far cry from the 8-man squad in Ambush! or the dozen or so in Cry Havoc!.
Gunslinger is pretty intense for a board game, which probably explains why it tends to have devoted fans, although it was never a breakaway hit. Like RPGs, Gunslinger pays the biggest dividend when you devote a lot of time to it. Our game group in the 1980s had a regular campaign going and Gunslinger hit the table regularly, at least once a month.
Gunslinger was still, in the end, a board game, however. Unlike the open-ended play of RPGs, Gunslinger was bounded by scenarios and victory conditions. While each character was well-defined in game terms, that definition came from the game designers, not just the players. Floozy, Ling Ho and Sodbuster were colorful characters, but they belonged to the game, not the players.
An interesting experiment, Gunslinger was never really followed up. The new game Cowboys, The Way Of The Gun, for example, is much more of a board wargame in approach. The individual fighters act and react in broad strokes. They move and they shoot. That's about it.
In Gunslinger you can crawl through the dust, poke your head around the corner of the saloon, draw your cap-and-ball revolver and calmly draw a bead on your dastardly foe behind the water trough while praying that the darn gun doesn't misfire when you pull the trigger.
Now that's a game.