Game Design #43: "Skirmish" Wargaming Means so Many Things

WHAT IS SKIRMISH ANYWAY?
"Skirmish" is an increasingly crowded genre.  But the term "skirmish" can mean almost anything.  Whilst a skirmish just means a smaller battle (with wildly varying definitions of "small")...

Skirmish Wargaming is often defined as a figure for each soldier - i.e. a 1:1 ratio.

But under that we could call Warhammer 40K a skirmish game - and I think it passed beyond that quite a while ago.  Heck, under that definition Warhammer Fantasy could be a skirmish game.  For me, WFB is a mass battle/regiment style game.

Infinity is skirmish.  It has ~10 minis that activate independently.

Mordhiem/Necromunda is about pitched at the 10-15 mini level.  It has  models which activate separately. It pretty much defined skirmish.

LOTR:SBG is skirmish. It often exceeds 50 minis - which activate simultaneously but can be moved independently or in groups.  I'd definitely rate it as skirmish.

In The Sword & the Flame, units are 20-man infantry, 12-man cavalry, but minis are 1:1. I certainly wouldn't call that skirmish though.

I mean, Ambush Alley is supposed to be a platoon-level or what I'd call a "small unit" wargame - minis are grouped together as fireteams or 3-5, or larger squads.  But minis are 1:1 so is it a skirmish wargame?

Is skirmish where one figure is a unique unit? I.e. each mini can operate independently (i.e. actions, stats etc are separate) of every other mini and is not part of a fixed "group" or unit.

Why do you care?

Well, I think there are quite a few different types of skirmish, with rather different design requirements.  Calling them all "skirmish" games is a bit confusing, especially when they have a different focus. I'm going to make an arbitrary ruling and say...

Skirmish - i.e. 1 mini = 1 soldier, but each model is activated and moved separately

Small Unit - i.e. 1 mini = 1 soldier, but models are activated and moved around in small groups (fireteams, squads)

.... as I noticed games tend to be either designed for activation with groups or individual units.  It has implications for reaction systems - does an individual respond to a group move; or a group to an individual move?

I think I'm interested in a hybrid of the two -  one that could handle minis moving around independently, but also allows units to be moved in groups.  I think the problem here is it is difficult to make a system that does not favour either group or individual activations, but makes them both equally valuable - i.e. advantageous under different circumstances. LOTR blurred the distinctions well - models could be independently maneuvered but there were advantages to grouping them up within range of a hero.  However the SIDE A MOVE/SIDE B MOVE, SIDE A SHOOT/SIDE B SHOOT style activation is a lot simpler and less dynamic than a lot of current systems.

Heck, you could probably subdivide "skirmish" skirmish into the "semi-RPG" - typically a party of 5-10 with lots of unique stats and skills, and often wound tracking.   

So what does a "skirmish" game mean to you?

Anyway, while I typed this some other thoughts pertaining to skirmish games came to mind:

FIXED UNIT SIZE
Another thought it the "fixed unit size" in so many wargames. In Warmachine (admittedly fantasy) it's always 6 or 10.  In fantasy RPGs four is the magic number.  In games like Bolt Action, platoons always seem to be at full strength.  Even in places like modern Afghanistan, where we can airlift people in and out relatively freely, squads and fireteams are not always at full strength.  Far less so on the Eastern Front in 1945. I wonder why more rules don't have randomized unit strength?

HEROES & UNIT ATTACHMENTS
Often heroes are simply "attached" to a unit, providing them with bonuses or extra attacks, like a glorified power-up.  Other times they charge around soloing dragons by themselves, with so many "wounds" and "attacks" they are basically a one-man unit all on their own.   TFL with their "Big Men" - inspiring individuals who affect activation - have more realistic heroes.  

HEROIC HEROES, not HUMAN TANKS
Which is another gripe. If someone is "heroic" or a "leader" it does not mean they can take three wounds each of which would fell an ordinary man, or be capable of wrestling a Balrog to the ground despite being a 4' high dwarf.  Personally I think this is a good place for the dreaded "Saving Throw" or perhaps a "Re-roll" - to represent the cinematic narrow escapes or lucky hits.  Just because they're heroic or a leader does not correlate to superhuman strength, size or endurance.  

Although LOTR did do the "three wounds" thing and had more than it's fair share of wackily overpowered heroes, I think they were on the right track - Fate (allowing "saves" from injury), Might (allowing heroic feats and rallying followers) and Will (magic or resistence thereto) were in a finite supply.  A hero could push their luck, but only so far. 

Game Design #42: Fluff n Stuff II

I was thinking about fluff in the context of generic rules.  You know, ones without their own game universe.  This was prompted by a few things:

-The obvious love of the author for the setting of PMC 2640 - and the lack of purpose-built minis for it

-Looking through the Infinity V3 rules (I'll review it one day - it's just so damn big!) which comes with a separate 250-page background book (!)

-40K's focus on Horus Heresy and very "set" history, factions and locations (what I call their "shrinking" of their factions and universe)

In my last fluff post, I mostly concentrated on how to best use it. I.e.
Don't put in fluff in such a way as it messes with the readability of rules
Don't ramble on/be overly detailed or assume everyone loves your universe
Don't use family members as proofreaders and critics
Don't assume you are the next, undiscovered GRR Martin
Don't make fluff prescriptive (i.e. closed universe)

This post is kind of an elaboration on that, and is more "What makes fluff succesful?" and "how can fluff improve my rulebook and be appealing?"

Fluff is pretty important. I mean, how many people play 40K for the engaging, deeply tactical rules?  Of course not.  Everyone I know plays it because of the cool models and interesting universe.

This post kinda follow my train of thoughts, so may ramble a bit or contradict itself.  I'll need to sit back and re-read it later methinks.  But here goes:

Successful Fluff
So what makes fluff successful?  How come we engage with some universes and not others?  Should indie writers even bother with official factions? I mean, they want to sell rules for everyones minis, right?  How can we chose a background that makes our game more appealing - that adds value to the rules?

An appealing, but wide open universe.  
I think 40K has gone away from this compared to their early years.  Even their fanfiction Black Library is heavily proscribed and follows a strict timeline with strict rules.  Early 40K was so wide open - it was a darkly comic playground, using fantasy tropes mixed with sci fi, and borrowing from pop-culture ideas i.e. orks, elves, D&D, Star Wars, terminators, Alien aliens - for its main factions.  You could make your own factions and stuff and add them to the game. Now 40K seems very insular.  I mean, the Horus Heresy narrows things down even further.  It was once energetic and creative, but now the 40K universe is narrow, static and proscriptive. 

Recently successful universes - Infinity and Warmachine - have evolving timelines.  Infinity in particular hints at a much wider universe - yes, it's focussed on inter-human skirmishes, but we know there are other species out there - not all of which have made contact.  A universe needs breadth - to be an open place where players can carve out their own niches, instead of being told where to sit.

Adding a unit builder might encourage "cheese" but it also encourages creativity. I noticed PMC 2640 specifically stated it had no unit creator to allow you to stat up models, due to the risk of players abusing it.  Trust me - douchebag, cheesy players will find ways to annoy you anyway - don't withhold creative tools from the nice guys just because of them.  Open up the universe.

In short: Don't limit the players by having a strict, proscriptive universe. Also, include a unit builder.

Some People Need "Official Factions"
Whilst many people glory in the creativity of making homebrew armies and creating ("statting up") their own factions, weapons, vehicles and gear, some people also need the security of knowing what they have is official. (The same people are often the ones who most cheesily min-max within those official guidelines, secure in the knowledge they are making a "official" army).

However, you need to cater to those people, and good fluff is an additional "hook" to get people to play your rules.  Heck, good fluff can disguise average (or outright poor) rules.  Think how many people would play any crappy game as long as you put "Star Wars" on the cover. 

Whilst I'm not personally that interested, I do think any wargame needs some "official" factions. They also give creative players an example and a starting point.  It's a bit like point systems.

Whilst including official factions isn't going to drive off many players, not including them almost certainly will.  Some players dislike venturing outside the box. So give them a nice comfy box.

How many Factions?
I'd recommend 5-8 "official" factions.  Why that figure?  Games with few factions tend to stagnate. I.e. LOTR with "good" and "evil" needed to break into sub-factions.  Starship Troopers (with bugs vs humans) was never going to fly long term.  Too many factions can lead to imbalance and a lack of focus, and "forgotten" factions.  The rumours that Warhammer Fantasy (15 factions!) will be trimming/consolidating factions seems sensible.  Besides, most of the other top games fall in this category:
Warhammer 40K (8)
Warmachine (6)
Flames of War (7)
Infinity (8) <- the small figure count of the game encourages you to own multiple factions

Personally, I'd follow the tried and tested method: start a game with 4-5 factions and slowly add to them until I had around 7-8. 

Borrow from the Familiar/Ride Current Trends
Warhammer rode the D&D wave, and meshed with terminators, Alien, as well as other movie and cultural influences as they came.  It used existing tropes and adapted to pop culture at the time.   Warmachine was perfectly timed for the Steampunk craze (which also boosted Malifaux, another fluff-centric game) and mixes magic and steam robots. Like the original 40K, it started out with a over-the-top vibe.  Undead pirates lead by a dragon, who use steam powered robots? That's almost trying too hard!
Infinity taps into the anime/mech genre that is now firmly rooted in our culture, and like 40K, adds a mish-mash of random "cool" stuff  - sword-wielding space nuns, Scottish werewolves, transforming robots, shapeshifting aliens, along with staples like religious space knights.  

So on current form, a vampire-werewolf-zombie game will be the next big seller?  Actually I'd say not.  There are already a bazillion games involving the zombie-werewolf-vampires out there.  For example, I don't see Sedition Wars becoming the next 40K.  At the time they were made, 40K, Warmachine and Infinity were "fresh" - they were the first to jump on the wave to ride it.  I think say a game like XCOM/an alien invasion game is more likely to succeed, as though we have the background culture, it hasn't been done to death already within the tabletop sphere.

Pick a popular topic or borrow from pulp culture that hasn't already spawned a million tabletop games.  Be the first guy on the wave, but make sure it's a good, big wave before you hop on.

Fluff with Generic Minis
Most indie rule writers are working with generic minis from multiple manufacturers.  This increases the appeal of their rules.    Obviously, having a nice shiny miniature line to promote your rules is nice, but most don't have that luxury. They work with that they're given. So how can this work?

Making "Official" Factions from an Existing (Single) Manufacturer
I'm surprised more don't do this.   For example, Khurasan has a hugely varied 15mm line-up, from ancients, to pulp, fantasy to blackpowder, and of course its standout sci fi.  It even has heaps of models in 28mm.  Go, visit the site and have a look.  I bet you could make up a whacky, cool faction with just one of the product lines - let alone if you combined them.  Fantasy and sci fi are so flexible.

Aztecs leading lizardman warriors...
Octopus cultists with black-clad SWAT-style special forces...
Shapeshifers (you can mix and match any human + similar size animal/alien model)...
Medieval knights leading packs of demon bugs...

...the permutations are endless.   A common complaint about 15mm is "armies made up of minis from 4 different companies."  Personally, I think this is a bonus, but if you are making a faction, you want to make it easy to buy.  So I'd go with a single manufacturer per faction.

That said, don't limit to ONLY that manufacturer.  More like "you see I used all my models from Khurasan here, but you could also use models from GZG instead."  Make it so players who want to buy their faction all in one swoop, but encourage "proxying" - after all, the writers are selling rules, not miniatures (unlike GW, where it is the other way round).

If it pains you to "shill" a miniatures line, you could do this implicitly by photographing a faction made of all miniatures from CMG "All models from CMG" rather than saying "Only a CMG Arc Trooper can be a Krieg stormtrooper")

I'm pretty sure if your rules are promoting their minis and are sufficiently popular, many manufacturers would be happy to sell unit packages specific for your game, which may be mutually beneficial.

In short: Using a single manufacturer's existing model lines as the basis for a faction is a good move, and makes it easier for players to source them. However don't limit yourself to single miniatures line.

Making Generic Factions Interesting
If you're using a generic hard sci fi trooper in body armour - you know, the not-Stormtrooper/not-Imperial Guard that 100 manufacturers all have made in some form - then you need to make the faction colourful or distinct in other ways.

It could be literally colourful - the grey stormtroopers of Krieg, or the light blue troops of the Solar Federation.  Models with exposed skin could become the green lizardlike Sauri.  That helps units feel distinct.

But I meant more in other ways - equipment, tactics, ethos.  Also, special rules.  Whilst I like to limit special rules (and using them to replace stats for the most basic, common gameplay aspects is false economy), special rules shine when used to differentiate between factions. 

The death magic of the Krieg might means units get a +1 modifier for each foe they kill as they absorb their life energy.  The cyborgs of the Space Federation can resurrect on a 5+ roll, and deploy shield bubbles that linger on the battlefield.

Another issue with special rules is that they can be hard to balance, especially if they are powerful ones. We don't want too many or too powerful special rules. When the special rules (exceptions) are the basic rules, you have a problem.  I.e. a drizzle of chocolate topping adds flavour.  Drinking straight chocolate topping isn't healthy. 
 

The rules don't have to be that strong or unbalancing to add flavour.  LOTR does this well. Most factions might have a single special rule, with elite units perhaps having an extra rule.  And they are pretty simple too. I.e. goblins can freely move over any surface without falling.  That's very simple to understand.  I abuse use that rule a lot, but it isn't confusing for my opponent, unlike the tangle of special rules/exclusions in games like Infinity and Warmachine.  
Rule of Thumb: If a special rule needs more than a sentence to describe it, it's probably too complicated.

If the rules haven't thrown out stats altogether (like many modern rules do) you can add subtle differences - i.e. a +1" speed here, a +1 melee there - without appearing ridiculous, within the parameters of your humanoid hard sci fi mini. (I always found it odd that a Space Marine captain could have more Wounds and strength than a gigantic demonic cyborg spider).  It's why games like Tomorrow's War can come across as bland. Basically you have d6, d8 and d10 troops, based on a single universal stat, and have to rely on adding a zillion special rules to do the heavy lifting.

Again, keep stats distinct but controllable. A MMO developer once called it "the rule of 20%". Basically, he said any stat bonus beyond 20-25% was beyond player skill to consistently overcome. Give an average player 20% more health and a good player can still consistently beat him.  Give him 40% extra health and the better player will lose most times.

Use special rules (and stats, if you haven't abandoned them with the rest of the fickle mob) and stats to give factions flavour.

Well, there's a lot more to this topic, but my toddler has woken up and is demanding "Daddy play!"
Let's recap what we have so far:

Don't limit players with a narrow universe. Leave it "open" to player creativity.
Do pick a popular pop culture trend for your fluff with the proviso that you...
....Don't pick a genre that is already done to death in boardgames/tabletop format (zombies?)
Do include a unit builder
Do include 5-8 "official" factions
Do make official factions colourful and differentiated
Do use special rules and stats to add flavour to generic factions
Do keep said rules simple and not overly powerful
Do use models from a single manufacturer where possible when making a faction

It seems a lot like common sense,actually - I don't know how I managed to get such a wall of text out of that.  Oh well, over to the readers!

Game Design #41: Reactions Again - Types of Reaction

Reactions have lots of different triggers.  Sometimes there's "degrees" of reaction. I.e. in 2HW's system you toss 2D6 vs a target number.  Thus you can have a "great" reaction (2 pass), a "OK" one (1 pass) or a "bad" one (both fail).

In this post I noted the different elements of a reaction. 

However I'd like to divide reactions into different types.

"Defensive" or "natural" reactions.  These are reactions that would occur naturally, without much thought and require no special orders. They are usually unlimited.
 Example: A unit comes under fire. It would be natural (and require no special orders from the commander) for them to fall back, or scatter into cover.
A defensive or passive reaction is anything that requires minimal training and comes naturally.
I.e I throw a ball at your head, you duck/put out your arm to deflect it. 

"Aggressive" or "unnatural" reactions.  These are reactions that you would have to be trained or ordered to do.  This would not be the natural reaction of the average Joe Blo.  They are limited.
Example: A unit comes under fire. They calmly stand their ground, reloading their crossbows with arrows whizzing around them. Or perhaps they charge the shooters, into the face of a hail of fire.
 A offensive reaction is something that would require forethought, training or an express instruction.
 I.e. I throw a ball at your head, and you actually head it back, soccer style.  That's not an instinctive response, but one my soccer students would do.

Why two different types?  It's useful for toning down reactions.  It also prevents the "reacting" side to take too many offensive or aggressive reactions. I mean, "reacting" should allow you to interfere with the enemy, but the active side with the initiative (or the "move") should actually have an advantage.

The difference
Well, natural reactions occur for free. There is no "cost" or special roll needed. They are unlimited.  The sergeant doesn't have to tell his troops to hit the dirt when the Mg42 rakes their position.  They'll just do it!  They don't need to pass any special tests to do it - common sense applies.

Aggressive reactions are not free.  You may have to pass a morale test, or perhaps forfeit your next activation.  You won't always be able to perform them - they are limited. If the sergeant wanted the troops to rush the MG42, he WOULD have to issue an order - it's unlikely they would all run into a hail of gunfire "naturally."  Perhaps they would fail a morale test and not even do it at all.

Okay, how would this play out?  
In the context of my Mordhiem-Infinity theoretical game, here's how it might look.  Each unit uses an "Action Point" to activate in its active turn, from a common pool. 

Two things trigger a reaction -
(a) if a unit is fired at
(b) if an enemy unit moves/activates within 12"

There are a few reactions to these -

Defensive Reaction (free)
- move away from the firer/moving unit

Offensive Reaction (cost one Action Point)
- move anywhere, including towards the firer/moving unit (including counter-charging into melee)
- shoot back at the firer/moving unit

As you can see, actions that cause harm to the opposing side are rationed (by drawing action points from their own turn).  Maybe they'll even need a dice roll to even attempt an offensive reaction (i.e. archers need to pass a Discipline test to fire on enemy troops charging them, or they naturally fall back).  You could even make units react depending on their type - Impetuous troops must always try to aggressively move towards enemy troops, and Skirmishers would need to pass a test or fall back passively.

I've previously used a variant of this in my Delta Vector homebrew space rules. 

Ships can always make a defensive reaction - i.e. fire back/dodge/deploy decoys when fired upon (i.e. respond to direct attacks). These reactions were essentially limitless.

However if the reactee wants to initiate an attack (the enemy was simply moving within weapons range), it was an offensive reaction and the ship must pass a Crew Check. A failure means no more offensive reactions could be made and the ship was limited to defensive reactions only for the rest of the turn.  The offensive reactions were thus limited/linked to crew skill.

There's Nothing New Under the Sun
I'm sure this has been done before, but I don't think I've seen it articulated distinctly which is why I've explored this in a bit more depth.  Since reactions are actually an aspect of initiative/activation they impact in a significant way and are quite a broad topic. 

Why divide reactions into different types?  It helps tone down the impact of reactions.
The reacting (non-active) side can still move our of the way/avoid/respond to incoming fire, but it can't dominate the active side - the one with the initiative.  One of the charges against reaction systems is that they encourage camping/passivity and this is one way to address this.   Units can still take steps to preserve themselves, but if they want to blast an active unit across the map, it's gonna cost them.

Game Design #40: Avoiding the Scrum in the Middle - Maneuver and Spacing Units

One thing I dislike is rules that encourage a big free-for-all in the middle, or a bland, linear battle.

The Boring Gun Line
One thing that's always put me off about Napoleonics (besides the amount of painting and rather bland units) is the gun-line that stretches across the board.  This is often even more marked in Ancients.  Both sides arrange their forces in neat lines, advance to the middle, then roll dice until usually one flank collapses and the army gets rolled up.  Realistic or not, it's simply not that interesting to me from a gameplay point of view.  But that pales in comparison to:

The Massive Scrum
That Firestorm Armada game where everyone parks in the middle and chugs dice until one side blows up.  That skirmish or platoon game where everyone converges on the single building.  Any Warmachine game, where everyone is clumped within a 12" radius.  These situations usually degenerate into who goes first, who activates the best special ability, or (more likely) who gets lucky with the dice. 

Admittedly some eras and genres are easier to include maneuver. Dropzone Commander does it well, with airmobile troops within fast APCs able to be dropped behind enemy lines or directly on distant objectives.  Infinity's ability to use stealth, airdrops, and to chain activations can see units break dynamically through enemy lines.

The Problem
But how can we avoid that "big clump in the middle?"  How can be encourage units to maneuver in an interesting way?  How can we make it worthwhile for units to consider spacing out? Concentrating your forces is a good tactic, but when both sides do it, it can be boring.  How can we tempt players to split forces, flank, and hold different areas of the board?  How can we give players the opportunity to create mismatches rather than piling their balanced 1500 point armies into a single evenly matched melee?

I don't think there's a single answer, but here's some factors that can move games away from "everyone stacks on." 

Terrain
Large terrain pieces break up "gun lines"  and give opportunities for flanking or holding against superior numbers.  A favourite tactic of mine in LOTR was to divide my force into small chunks (i.e. 3+ or so groups of 5-10) and offer one of these little groups temptingly to my opponent near a prominent terrain piece.  They would usually break their force into maybe two bigger chunks of say 15, each outnumbering my small groups.  I'd use the terrain to hold across a small frontage (or in the case of goblins, climb up on it/over it) against his superior numbers, then combine the rest of my small groups into a large group (20+) to outnumber/squish the other half of his army, then proceed to link up with my small "forlorn hope" defensive unit which was by then often using "defensive stance" to survive.  Terrain makes many tactical opportunities for those willing to divide their forces.  

Command & Control
This usually encourages tightly knit forces, but should not mandate it.  I like the games where working with a leader is beneficial but not compulsory.  I.e. units clumped up around a leader may get a bonus to activation or +1 to morale, but there are drawbacks too - i.e. an easier target. Units should not be penalized too severely from being detached from the main body.  "Unhistorical!"
Not necessarily.  It's not like a squad leader is incapable of moving his squad unless he is within 20 metres of his lieutenant.   Detaching units or parts thereof and fighting independently might by slightly disadvantageous, but it should not be impossible, and it should even be advantageous to (gasp!) split your forces at times. 

Activation - get rid of IGOUGO.  This mechanic allows players to perfectly order their attacks and formations without realistic interference, and makes it easy to group forces for orderly, concentrated attacks.  An alternate move allows an opponent to take advantage of a unit that is out of position.  A reaction system allows a unit to be held up by suppressive fire or a unit to counter-charge unexpectedly. A card based system can create randomness to be exploited.

Unit Formations should give different, distinct benefits.  Like the difference between a skirmish line and fire-by-rank; one offers better survivability, the other more concentrated firepower.  Spacing and formation of units should give subtle benefits and drawbacks, so you are encouraged to adopt different tactical stances.  In bigger battles,  I like to offer a "withdrawn" unit or flank - a gap enemies can rush into, or use skirmishers to pull units out of position. Do the rules allow this?  The rules need to make disrupting an enemy possible, and perhaps occur organically i.e. a wild warband making a compulsory charge when an enemy is in range.   

Crossfire/Flanking Bonuses
These rules are rare enough in some genres (like sci fi or moderns) that when I see them I tend to raise my eyebrows.   I'd say being outflanked is as relevant to a WW2 squad as it is a horde of medieval peasants. No one likes attacks coming in from all directions, and by encouraging units to occupy flanking positions we encourage said units to maneuver away from the main body.  It's similar for directional shields on starships - if shields can be boosted on a particular side, it might encourage co-ordinated attacks by ships split up to approach from different directions. 

AoE Weapons
I'm using these in space games, having been inspired by their use in EvE Online.  There's nothing like a big nova bomb template to encourage ships to spread out.  Artillery and magic can likewise put a damper on concentrated forces.  Automatic weapons (like MG42s) can act in a similar method with a teardrop or template to force enemies to spread out or split up.   I'd even consider using a template for unit firing (Battlefield Evolution for example allowed squads to attack anyone within 6" of a designated target figure - so while spreading your own unit out could make some minis immune from attack, it could also take them out of gun range themselves when the time came to retaliate). 

Scenarios & Missions
I can't stress this enough.  If the mission is "kill them all" every time then a "death blob" may be the fastest way to do it.  However simply adding objectives to hold does not always fix the problem.  Most of the time, the guy who spreads his forces to hold the objective gets his smaller groups stomped by the guy who concentrated his into a blob.  I mean, it's easy to capture objectives when your opponent's army is completely destroyed.  Accruing VPs for each turn an objective is held, or imposing a time limit can sometimes help prevent this but I don't have a magic bullet here, except note that scenarios need to be designed during the game design process, and not added as an afterthought. 

Again, over to the readers.  What are some good ways to prevent units clumping up into a "deathblob" in the middle of the table?  How can we encourage units to maneuver?

It kinda comes down to risk vs reward. If trying interesting maneuvers is all risk and no reward - becomes the game rewards tight clumping or offers no potential reward in maenuvering forces - then players will be trained not to take risks.

If making rules, a good question to ask yourself - is there any reason in this game for a player not to push all his minis into the middle and simply slug it out?  What benefits are there to maneuvering?

Game Design #39: Reaction Moves, Reaction Fire

I've always been a staunch advocate of reactions in wargames. I mean, there's nothing worse than IGOUGO.  Your enemy can walk his troops right up to you to deliver a volley while your soldiers stand around like waxwork dummies, waiting their turn. It's unrealistic, and kinda boring.  Do you remember games where you'd walk off to get a drink while your opponent had their turn?  Standing around for 10 minutes as a passive spectator is boring, and frustrating.  I've learned when working with kids that hands on is best, and with "big" kids it's no different.  Reactions allows you to mess with your opponent's perfect plan, and make your soldiers respond to developing events with more realism and fluidity. They provide more decisions for you and thus the opportunity for tactics.

However reaction moves are not without flaws.  The extra interactions, whilst providing many decision points, can slow the game down dramatically.  The "reactions" can promote passive, "camping" gameplay and cut down on maneuver.  The extra rules add complexity.  (Tomorrow's War has situations where units are reacting to units who are reacting to other units... yes it hurts my head thinking about it too....)

Let's define some reaction types first.  The parameters of a reaction vary a lot, from simple "overwatch" mechanics in 40K to full blown unlimited reactions (Infinity) where what you do in your opponent's turn is often more important than what you do in your own. 

How often can you react?

Very Limited (many games)

Each unit gets a single reaction, and then that's it. A token is placed beside the unit to show it cannot react again.

Limited Common Pool (Lords & Servants)

Have activations in a single pool, and at the start of the turn you divide them up to use in either your own or your enemies' active phase.  I.e. you have 12 activations, and you plan to spend 7 of them in your active turn, and 5 reacting to your enemy in his.  This could also include common mechanics like "passing" your turn to acquire an overwatch token, which kinda falls into the "very limited" box.

Diminishing (Tomorrow's War)

Each unit can react multiple times, but it becomes less effective each time.  You track the # of reactions (say with a d6) and the amount of the reactions reduces firing or melee dice or similar - or decreases your chance of a reaction. I.e. lose a firepower dice each reaction.  Thus reactions are limited by initial firepower/combat stats.

Unlimited (Infinity)

You can react with every unit that can see any single enemy unit acting in LoS. As many times as needed. 

What triggers a reaction?

Actions only directed at the reacting unit. Sometimes a unit can only react if the shooting is directed at it, or the charge is made in its direction.

Movement/Shooting/Both (many games).  Sometimes any shooting triggers a reaction. Other times units can only react to moving units.  Often either moving or shooting triggers a reaction.

Anything (Infinity). If a model scratches its bottom, you can react to it. 

How Easily Can You React?

Automatically. If the unit triggers a reaction, you can carry it out.

Pass a dice roll.  You need to pass a target number on a dice roll to react. I.e. 2D6s vs Leadership.

Opposed Roll. (Infinity, Tomorrow's War)  You need to beat your opponent's roll, and a target number as well.

What range can you react to?

Set proximity (many games). I.e. any trigger within a set range - say 12" - allows a reaction. 

Unlimited/LoS (Infinity).  I.e. reactions are triggered by actions in line of sight, with theoretically unlimited range.

What Order do you React In?

Single vs Single - sequentially (many games).  A single unit acts, it resolves any reactions by enemies one-by-one. I.e. Unit A activates, it resolves any reactions by Unit X, then any reactions by Unit Y, then after that, Unit Z.

 Multiples vs single - simultaneously (Infinity). If a single unit acts, multiple units can target it and attack it simultaneously.    Unit A acts, and must simultaneously roll to beat Units X Y and Z.

 How severe is the reaction? 

Weakened (Infinity). Attributes are significantly restricted i.e. rate of fire is reduced from 3-4 shots to 1 shot only.

Diminishing (Tomorrow's War).  Reactions are initially full strength, then gradually decrease in potency.

Full Power (Lords & Servants). A reaction shot is every bit as good and potent as an ordinary shot. 

Other Considerations

Furthermore, the activation sequence can strongly effect reactions.  Many reaction-based systems operate with a modified IGOUGO - i.e. Side A moves his units one by one, then Side B reacts to each unit (cognizant on other factors such as limited number of reactions, etc).  There's an argument that alternate move (Chess style unit by unit activation) allows a kind of organic reaction anyway. For example, in Infinity you can activate a unit multiple times in your turn, so having unlimited, powerful reactions balances the game, preventing powerful units from "ramboing" around and soloing the enemy army single-handed.

Also, unit reactions (i.e. squads in a platoon level game) can be different than individual reactions (i.e. single based minis in 1:1 skirmish).

Finally, are reactions best suited to particular eras? i.e. WW2-modern-hard sci fi rules seem to most commonly have reaction systems - where use of cover and firepower is paramount and melee combat is deemphasized.   In this post I look at how a hard-core reaction system like Infinity may be integrally unsuited to medieval/fantasy because of the inherent gameplay style it encourages.

Also, are reactions better suited to particular "levels" of game? For example, I see reactions commonly used in platoon/skirmish games but less commonly at company/battalion/army level games (admittedly I don't play many of the latter). 

Reactions may be the new hotness, but are reactions always good?  Are they worth the potential speed/maneuver tradeoff?  Does it bring in enough involvement/decision points to justify added complexity?  When should we ditch them?  What is the best way to limit them? Limit the range, the amount of possible reactions, or maybe the triggers? 

Game Design #38: Reactions (Medieval and Fantasy)

This will be part of a broader topic about the "in thing" - reactions (and when/where they are best used).  However this post is a lot more specific as it follows a train of thought I've had about fantasy/ancients games.  Reactions seem pretty rare in this genre.  Do reactions even belong in fantasy?

REACTIONS in Fantasy:  Balancing Missile & Melee

Most reaction fire rulesets are based on the WW2/modern/hard sci fi area, where cover based shooting dominates.   Reaction firing makes sense here - i.e. pinning and locking down fire lanes etc. 

Reactions are fun, and allow both sides equal involvement in a turn.  I'd like to see the interaction and decisions of reactions in a fantasy game.  However is the principle of reactions one fundamentally unsuited to melee-oriented warfare?

Lords & Servantsallows you to "set aside" some actions in order to react. Kinda like saving "overwatch points".  You sacrifice actions in your own turn in order to interfere in your opponents - which limits total reactions.   Pretty sensible. But what if we like unlimited reactions?  Can we make a cinematic, medieval Infinity, or is this simply too fundamentally different?

Whilst I want models without shields/armour to think twice before crossing open ground in front of an archer, I don't want machine-gun like barrages of arrow scything down models before they can charge into contact.  Neither do I want to give the active player a major advantage in archery duels. In fact, the weighting should favour melee as the "decisive" factor in battles; whilst allowing units and models to be reacting almost constantly to opponents actions.

I'm going to start with the standout "extreme" reaction system - Infinity.   EVERYONE can react to an activated individual or unit who acts in line of sight, if they beat them with an opposed roll.    Missile fire is very lethal and wise use of cover is paramount.  The benefits of being active - the active unit gets two actions, and reactees get only one.  Infinity also favours the active unit by giving it a higher rate of fire. One side is active, then the other - sort of an IGOUGO but with the opponent given unlimited overwatch.  It's a really interesting system and it's also free, so check it out here.

Fantasy Reaction Problems:
* Balancing the rate of fire and lethality of bows so they do not dominate like a modern M16/SAW

*Differentiating between the loading methods bows and crossbows - and to a lesser extent slings, javelins etc. Traditionally bows in IGOUGO do things like "half move to fire"- bow  or "move or fire" -  crossbow but this may not always mesh with our activation system.

*May make the game too passive (i.e. waiting around to react, rather than acting - having the "initiative" actually being a disadvantage)

Possible solutions:

*Bows etc do weaker damage at long ranges, as well as lower hit chance

*Keep the ranges low (the traditional 24" or less)

*Shields and armour are effective, especially at long range (shieldwalls = effective)

*Restrict the rate of fire/reactions (which is the simplest/best way to do this?)

*Change the reaction system itself (which radically changes all aspects)

For a start, let's work with the extreme (unlimited Infinity-style reactions) and see if it can be adapted.

Let's Go Hypothetical

A bow traditionally fires 24".  A normal foot figure could move 8" (4+4")  meaning it could be exposed for 2-3 shots if a reactor can fire every move.  Maybe 3-4 shots if the figure is slow - 6" . 

The first shot would be 50%, -20% at long range (30% to hit); with about 50%, -20% long range (30% to damage) on the first shot.  I.e. about 10% chance of fatality.  At closer range, the chance would be 50% to hit, and 50% to damage.  About 25% chance of a fatality.   So combining both shots, it's basically a 1:3 chance to survive crossing open ground and get into melee.  Far too deadly? It is a peasant in a loincloth, though...

...so what if we gave them some basic armour which reduced the damage chance by -20%?

We'd  have 30% and 10% on the first shot (3%) and then 50% and 30% (17%) on the other. About a 20% (1 in 5) chance to make it into melee.   Still a bit deadly? What else can we do?

The Opposed Roll

If a reacting player loses the opposed roll as the attacker runs towards him he doesn't get to shoot at all. Presuming equally skilled opponents, this naturally cuts shots down a further 50%. 

Skirmisher Special Rule

Archers must test morale to shoot if an enemy activates within charge range (i.e. 8") or their move MUST be to fall back away from melee contact.  This might reduce the amount of deadlier close-range shots.

First Strike

If an archer tries for a point-blank shot at a charging but fails and an enemy moves into contact, the charger gets an unopposed strike.  Again, this would make archers think twice about close range shots and consider drawing a sword instead.

Snap Shot

Maybe penalize reactees a further 10% in "to hit" and also "to damage" - for hasty, half-drawn shot.  This simulates the lower RoF of reactees like in Infinity upon which we are basing many of our concepts.

Counter-charge

It's important that reactions don't solely revolve around shooting.  Meele has to be advantageous. Perhaps you can also react by moving 4" into contact.  This means melee units under fire can react by steadily closing on the missile troops.  Also, perhaps there is a counter-charge bonus which means it might be better for missile troops to charge into melee rather than try for that last shot. 

Weapons - Rate of Fire/Damage

I could play around with this a lot more. If we have loaded/empty we'll need tokens to denote that which I'm not overly fond of.  

Bow

Takes 2 actions - you must draw (load) and fire. This would halve the fire rate to only 1-2 shots.

Active: Shooting takes an entire action

Reactive:  If you fire, you'd skip a reaction reloading*

Crossbow

Takes 2 actions to load.  But one action to fire. This would pretty much limit the crossbow to one reactive shot.

Active: Takes a complete activation to load, but you can move+fire.

Reaction:  Can fire with no penalty, but then skip two reactions to reload.  

So looking at our rules so far...

Hmmm. Not too keen on the weapon rules, but it's a start I guess.

 Again, this isn't so much a serious attempt at rules as a "think aloud" to how concepts which seem so good in WW2-modern could be adapted to a different setting, bringing the cinematic fun and decision making of reactions without compromising the melee-oriented gameplay.

Don't focus on the mechanics I've outlined, so much as the broader concepts.  I.e. how can we make a unlimited-reaction system that is not to missile-heavy or enourages passivity? Or should we restrict reactions to say 1 per turn (or simply reduce active actions, like Lords & Servants?)

I'm sure better ideas will emerge in the comments as usual!

EDIT: An reason the "fantasy Infinity" won't work well is perhaps because of the activation pool system.  Basically a player has as many activation points as it has models, but can spend them as they choose.  A single model in a 8-man warband could spend all 8 APs and activate 8 times in a row while the other 7 did nothing.    This means a model could potentially travel say 8 x 8"  - 64" in a single turn.  If it activates that much and charges all over the map it deserves to attract some reactive missile fire... in an Infinity a model would be restricted by the lethality of weapons and the availability of cover. In fantasy getting the balance wrong could see a model charge the length of the table.    Maybe limiting units to a single move each per turn with perhaps a LOTR-ish "heroic move" might be useful.  

The other issue is the basic Infinity tenet - "one action, many potential reactions" i.e. a single soldier moving could see potentially 10 guys reacting to him.  In a cover based game like modern warfare, this isn't an issue.  But having guys cross an open field 1 by 1 to be greeted with massed archery fire (or even a massed counter charge) means the initiative would be a thing to be dreaded.

Game Design #36: Accessibility - (or, Why Bad Games get Played More)

Every holidays the online Steam store has a discount.  PC games are often 75% or 80% off – and at $5 each, I often buy more PC titles than I can feasibly play.  After many years of this practice and I notice I have about 200+ games. They are divided evenly between shooter, RPG, sim and strategy titles.  

The Steam platform, besides being an online store, has a friends list for co-ordinating games (I’m evilleMonkeighthere too if ever want to play a game online) as well as a tracker that shows the hours you spend playing a game.  Besides showing the shameful amount of time I’ve spent gaming, it showed an interesting pattern.  If you asked me what genre of game I prefer, I’d have answered

#1. Strategy & Sims,  #2 RPGs,  #3. Shooters.  

 However my “hours played” reveals the time actually spent in games is: 

 #1. Shooters,  #2 RPGs,  #3 Strategy & Sims – the reverse of what I expected.

---

Why?  Why do I play games I like less, more often?

Shooters are very accessible. They use simple, familiar controls.  WASD to move, mouse to aim, right click zooms in; left click shoots, mouse wheel changes weapons, spacebar jumps…. Basically you can easily transfer your skill from CoD and Battlefield to ARMA3.  Gameplay tends to be the most shallow (i.e. stay in cover, shoot the other guys.)  Weapons and equipment tend to work similarly from one game to the next with few unique features – knowledge and skills are very transferrable. 

RPGs share a lot of repetitious elements.  They tend to have one of three control schemes. The super-simple click-on-everything (Diablo) method, the tab-target (WoW) with auto attacks, and a more FPS format (Skyrim).   The missions and gameplay (kill enemies, fetch things) tend to be repetitious and familiar.  The complexity comes in the myriad of special skills, abilities which can be combined in a range of ways, and the search to “min-max”  a character to its potential.  This requires considerable time investment to learn all these abilities and combinations.  However the tendency to use “stereotypical” abilities and characters eases this somewhat.  RPGs are, despite their rather vast scope, are quite accessible.

Simulations are not very accessible. They often come with large manuals and complex controls.  I love the idea of jet combat (LOMAC/Black Shark) but the complex controls (and unique controls - i.e. F-15 radar uses different buttons and methods to a MiG-29) are a barrier to new players.  The “realism” may make them difficult to control (spins, stalls in IL-2, bumpy erratic flight/lack of trim & vision in Rise of Flight) or impose harsh survival conditions (hunger, thirst in Day Z).  

Strategy games are perhaps the least accessible.  Whilst the controls tend be simple (drag and drop) the user interface can vary wildly in usability compared to the almost-standard HUDs in shooters and RPGs.  They tend to have many units which have to be learned. Usually this also includes buildings, research.  They sometimes have a strategic and tactical level (4X games like Galactic Civilizations, Master of Orion and the Total War series).  The sheer amount of features to understand (and how they interact with each other) creates a huge time investment to “learn” the game. 

  

So where’s this going?

I’d like to use the examples to highlight the importance of accessibility.  This means minimising the amount of new information players have to learn.  I have dozens of PC strategy games which I have briefly tried but simply think “I don’t have the time to invest in learning this game.”  Whilst it is very rewarding to master a difficult strategy title, it also deters people from trying it. Why spend hours learning a game you may not even like?

Time investment. This is not just learning the game, but also playing it. The round of a PC shooter game can range from 5mins+ and you can drop in and out any time you wish.  Some PC strategy games can involve dozens of turns (an hour or so) of gameplay just exploring and building the most basic units and structures before the game gets “interesting.”  Games can go on for hours. Empire building games can go for dozens of hours and as your empire builds, managing the many units can become onerous.  Some of us don’t have the time to “invest” in a game, not knowing if it will be good or not.  A way to help players decide are gameplay examples.  This could be text/pictures or (in the future, embedded video, links, or smartphone scannable video clips) are useful to help players decide if they want to make the time investment. 

I honestly think too many tabletop wargames are pitched at the 2-3 hour time bracket. I think we need to see more tabletop games aimed at the 30-60 minute bracket.  This would also allow levelling up/reward mechanics (units gain XP/skills/stats) in a campaign format.  The improving/personalizing of units/characters  has been the cornerstone of RPG gaming for decades and is well established in shooters and other PC genres for years now, yet has not been extensively plumbed in tabletop gaming. 

I’ve touched on it with the gameplay examples, but rulebooks are also a key to accessibility.  Poor layout of rules – I’ve discussed this in depth elsewhere – can also have a big impact.  I’ve noticed a few indie PDF-based rules seem to be struggling with how much content to deliver – too much content and it can make the rules too forbidding, wordy and complex – inaccessible.  Too little content and it looks like they are releasing an incomplete game and then nickel-and-diming you with DLC later.

I notice I’ve used the word familiar quite a bit in this post.  Using familiar mechanics also enhances accessibility.  I doubt many would claim Bolt Action and Flames of War are the most realistic, deep or tactical WW2 games, or even the most interesting/fun.  But they are very accessible, especially for first-time historical players with a 40K background.   I often hear people say they only play 40K because it is so easy to find opponents and buy models – i.e. accessibility.

Accessibility is vital.  Heck, people will play games they like less, as long as they are more accessible. 

---

PC Game Example:  World of Tanks

I’ve reviewed it elsewhere, but this game does a lot of things right so far as accessibility is concerned (it holds the Guiness record for most popular online game).  It’s by a company named “Wargaming” who used to work on conversions of tabletop games (i.e. DBA online amongst other things).  WoT is a real mishmash of genres. It is a 15v15 tank deathmatch, using a range of historical WW2 tanks.  It’s short – rounds last 5-15 minutes.  It’s very simple – WASD, left click, shift - a simplified version of the familiar FPS controls.  It has depth – camouflage, positioning, armour angling – allow skilled players to dominate.  There is progression – tank crew “level up” and gain skills; tanks can be upgraded with better equipment: players are rewarded to keep playing.  It’s slow paced enough to be accessible to players without twitch skills, but rewards skilled players.   The whole game is geared around being easily accessible.   (It is even accessible with regards to hardware: it works on iPhone, Android, Mac and low-end PCs)

A good question for any wargame:  Is it easy to pick up and play?