Why buy glossy sets of rules?

[Martyn]

For me part of the attraction of the hobby is the researching of a new period. I don't bother with commercial rule sets. I write my own. The thing I have found with wargamers, particularly those wedded to commercial sets is that the rules become the historical bible for a period.  Take Flames of War, ten out of ten for marketing. If I wanted to go into business to sell a lot of models I would have done exactly as they have done (go glossy) but (and it is a BIG BUT) the rules are total unhistoric rubbish (my opinion) but they sell. My question is why buy them in the first place. How many of you write your own rules, I would really like to know. What periods do you write them for? Any interesting mechanism you have invented?

[lentulus]

My rule purchases are based on what the people I game with like, and how much I trust the research and design talent of the author.  Rick Priestly, Franck Chadwick and Pete Jones, to list the authors of the "glossy" rules I have most recently purchased,  all have long track records of producing top notch, effective, well tested designs.  Heck, I was a teenager when I bought my first Chadwick wargame, and I am no spring chicken.

I have playtested commercial boardgames, and had a couple of computer games published (20 years ago).  I have a clear idea of just how bloody much work goes into producing an acceptable commercial product.  I am no more interested in doing that work myself in the general case then I am in doing conversions of 20mm plastic when I can buy what I want in lead. 

I will tweak an existing engine where I disagree with the emphasis, or bring together existing components to meet a particular need only slightly different from their tested domain; but design and test from scratch?  If you enjoy doing it, fill your boots.  I paint and play for fun, design and test are work.

[Last Hussar]

What I don't have with self writes is the chance to play test properly- there is only so much testing you can subject your mates too, without them missing 'proper' games.

If a commercial set of rules feels and plays 'right' I usually know fairly quickly.  The same for my own rules - my Battle of Britain set all fell into place, as did my medieval skirmish.

Not sure why researching the period means you feel you need to write your own.  I play because I want to play.  I like writing rules, but my WW2 set will probably never be fully finished (the basic rules are there, need to do the US, USSR and Japanese vehicle stats) because I discovered TFL with Troops Weapons and Tactice, and I aint been shot mum.  Likewise I strugged for years to write a set of Napoleonic Naval I liked, and read numerous on line, but am more than happy with Kiss Me Hardy.

(before you think I am some sort of TFL fanboy, There was one set I really looked forward too, and when I got just didn't like- I feel it lacks the elegent simplicity of the other sets I have from them. Never fully read them as they feel over complicated)

[Aart Brouwer]

How many of you write your own rules, I would really like to know.

I haven't (yet) written any rules of my own, but I feel your pain. I have come to wargaming rather late in life and I encounter all sorts of irritants.

One of them is ungainly basing - you know: the 3-man platoon schlepping an entire football field minus the goal posts, the well-painted tank sitting in a bed of rocks in the middle of Stalingrad, the Napoleonic 6-pounder mounted on a block of wood the size (and height) of Norwich. Ughh.

And yes, then there are the rulesets that are (supposed to be) improvements over other rule sets designed to tackle issues that prior rule sets left unresolved... often it's a matter of rules commenting on other rules, not on the realities of warfare in the period concerned. Now I fully understand and respect people who go with the (commercial) flow in order to have a pleasant gaming experience. You and I probably occupy a small niche. We should not claim any moral high ground anyway, since this is a hobby forum and not a court of law. We should be asking other players to suggest this or that rule set which we could adapt to our needs instead of having to start from scratch. If I encounter any myself, I will be sure to post them.

Cheers,
Aart

[Luddite]

For me part of the attraction of the hobby is the researching of a new period.

Indeed!  Its a multi-faceted hobby which is part of the appeal eh?

I don't bother with commercial rule sets. I write my own.

Fair enough.  Each to their own.

The thing I have found with wargamers, particularly those wedded to commercial sets is that the rules become the historical bible for a period. 

'Wedded to commercial sets'?!?      Not sure how to take that really...

As for them becoming 'the historical bible for a period', not sure this is the case, certainly not in my experience.  In fact, i often find many of the 'issues' gamers have with rules is that they feel they know the period better than the rules writers, which leads to house rules...

Take Flames of War, ten out of ten for marketing. If I wanted to go into business to sell a lot of models I would have done exactly as they have done (go glossy) but (and it is a BIG BUT) the rules are total unhistoric rubbish (my opinion) but they sell.

Ah, i see.  Yes, FoW are, as i've said elsewhere, in my opinion also, the worst published set of the WWII rules.  They do look pretty though.

My question is why buy them in the first place.

I bought FoW because they looked bloody marvellous and seemed like a satisfyingly comprehensive ruleset.  It wasn't apparent how bad they were until we actually played them.  Sold my set on after that...

How many of you write your own rules, I would really like to know.

I have, and they are usually pretty bad.  Good rules need a solid design and need to be EXTENSIVELY playtested by numerous different groups.  Home-brewed rules can't have this essential quality control.  That said i do a lot of 'variation' rules - taking a good set we like and converting them for other periods.  E.g. we love Legends of the Old West and i've converted them (or rather the massed battle variants from the Alamo supplement) slightly for use with A Very British Civil War.  That way, we're using core rules that are tried and tested but tweaking them for our preferences.

What periods do you write them for?

Whatever we need that we can't find decent published rules for...

Overall, using published rules has many advantages over homebrews, in no particular order...

1.  The playtesting mentioned above
2.  Rules that often do not reflect a single (often biased) designer's point of view - played lots of home-brews that heavily reflect the biases and hobby-horses of the author  *yawn*
3.  Commonality and consistency.  If i learn the DBM rules and can go to any other club or tournament and play against someone else who knows them...really opens up the wargaming community in a way that homebrews can't
4.  Ease.  Writing rules is hard.  Writing good rules, doubly so.
5.  Ideas.  I'm a fount of knowledge and endlessly creative; i've no doubt we all are.  And i'm still a tiny fish in a potentially gigantic ocean.  Seeing how other rules writers have approached the mechanics of modelling 'kriegspeil' and how they've chosen to represent a period is always interesting.   
6.  The published rules are a vital driver for the hobby, supporting figures sales and keeing suppliers like Pendraken in business. 

Personally i'll continue to churn out houserules (of verious quality) as needed and buy those published rules that catch my eye...

[Martyn]

OK Folks here are some ideas that I have used in my own rules:

Designate a time scale for each turn. Then decide what is possible in that period of time.

Medieval: The only set I have ever wrote and were published is "Tomorrow is a busy day" in that I removed movement rules completely. Why do you need them on a medieval battlefield when your formed up only a couple of hundred yards apart. Basically do you want to kill your enemy or not.

7YW. No cavalry charge distance. I have always hated the gamesmanship at our club when it comes to cavalry charges. Has anyone heard of a cavalry charge stopping short because they ran out of distance? No so in my runs once a charge is declared once off it will impact.

For my Italian Wars set I'm looking at movement boxes off table. A forming up turn on table and then combat. No tape measures.

I think rule writing should be innovative not rehashing other rules. I know that is not always possible. I was really disappointed with Fields of Glory I realised I had played this as WRG 6th addition (more years ago than I care to mention) but with a few changes.

My western desert 1942 rules have 88's opening up at a mile (1mm = 1yd) and destroying british tanks. Some players at my club absolutely hate this if they are british as they feel they cannot hit back (an historically accurate feeling). but that is the great thing about 10mm.

So does anyone else have any ideas that could be shared around?

[Gunhit]

Some nice innovative ideas there Martyn, worth pursuing. Designated Time scale Sam Mustafa was discussing recently on TMP so your in good company 

As a commercial exercise it takes a brave team (and deep pockets) to think out of the box, which is why rulesets evolve slowly or in some cases take a few steps back! However, the internet can certainly be used productively in rule design and development as can be seen by the various Yahoo groups that are around developing gaming systems in the community. Some of these do produce some interesting/innovative work.

Adrian

[Martyn]

If you really want to "think out of the box" how's this; Why does it take far longer to refight an historic battle on the table top than it did in reality? Simple: most rule sets are over complicated for what they should be doing.

[Fenton]

If you really want to "think out of the box" how's this; Why does it take far longer to refight an historic battle on the table top than it did in reality? Simple: most rule sets are over complicated for what they should be doing.

I think this comes down to players trying to control aspects of the battle that in RL as a General they wouldnt be bothering with, ie worrying about Napoleonic Battalions going into  Column then line or maybe a square its oneof the reasons I like Grande Armee so much

[Luddite]

Designate a time scale for each turn. Then decide what is possible in that period of time.

Isn't this what all rules with a turn sequence do anyway?

In any case, who decides and how is that decision framed?

<snip> I removed movement rules completely. Why do you need them on a medieval battlefield when your formed up only a couple of hundred yards apart. Basically do you want to kill your enemy or not.

Hmm...because relative movement rates in Medeival armies is absolutely critical to combat engagements and outcomes.

Heavily armed (armoured) troops moved much slower (actually and tactically) that less well armed troops primarily due to encumbrance and exhaustion.  Therefore, modelling these relative movements is critical to medeival combat friction.

Secondly, actual fighting between ready bodies of troops caused relatively few casualties.  Fighting was decided by exhaustion and morale failure.  The vast majority of actual killing was inflicted when one side routed.  If they could outrun their opponents their casualties would be light.  IF not, it would be a massacre (e.g. at Towton).

Therefore the relative ground sppeds of different troops are critical in determining a unit's capacity to outrun a pursuit and regroup for the fight.

7YW. No cavalry charge distance. I have always hated the gamesmanship at our club when it comes to cavalry charges. Has anyone heard of a cavalry charge stopping short because they ran out of distance? No so in my runs once a charge is declared once off it will impact.

Which goes to the point i made a few posts back about author's personal biases colouring their rules.

The timing of a cavalry (or rather mounted) 'charge', or indeed any charge, was critical.  Troops were largely well versed through training or instinct in knowing when to charge, and the distance of that charge varies basically according to troop types.  Something that needs to be modelled, and is why, irrespective of ruleset, we tend to allow pre-measuring of distances.

And yes, there are examples of charges being mistimed and 'running out of distance' (or rather exhausting the troops by a mistimed charge).  Culloden (1746) for example,  where the Highlanders of Clan Chattan (and others) initiatied an impetuous charge that resulted in them travelling approximately 400 yards at speed over boggy ground.  Sure they hit the British lines but were so exhausted and raked with musket and canister shot that their charge was ineffective (something that 'no quite making it' might represent?)

There are other examples - Picketts 'charge' as Gettysburg springs to mind.

For my Italian Wars set I'm looking at movement boxes off table. A forming up turn on table and then combat. No tape measures.

Sounds interesting, but we favour getting the figures on the table as soon as possible!   
Its part of the reason we find TFLs rules a bit problematic...

I think rule writing should be innovative not rehashing other rules.

Now here, we're in agreement!  The publishing of a new set of rules should innovate, not rehash.

I know that is not always possible. I was really disappointed with Fields of Glory I realised I had played this as WRG 6th addition (more years ago than I care to mention) but with a few changes.

Again agreed.  We really gave FoG a go, but its just too messy and unneccesarily complex.

My western desert 1942 rules have 88's opening up at a mile (1mm = 1yd) and destroying british tanks. Some players at my club absolutely hate this if they are british as they feel they cannot hit back (an historically accurate feeling). but that is the great thing about 10mm.

This sounds good, and certainly a solid simulationist approach.  The 'telescoping' of ranges, usually for reasons of 'game play' is a source of annoyance.  However, i certainly buy the argument that the 'mechanical' range of weapons is almost always severely limited by battlefield conditions.  This is recognised by armourers in real life of course, which is why most modern standard infantry weapons are designed with an effective range of about 400yards (sorry meters) - the typical maximum engagement range of infantry.

So does anyone else have any ideas that could be shared around?

We tend not to like the 'buckets of dice' approach as typified by certain 'high street' rules.  Therefore i developed a mechanism for my ancients/medeival rules whereby the fighting skills of the individual elements of a unit formation are totalled to accumulate hits.  Escess fractiosn are rolled to score a further hit.  This is senary/heximal (divide by 6).

E.g. 
Unit of 20 archers. 
Each fights in melee at '1', giving a total combat factor of 20.
20 divided by 6 = 3 hits with 2 remainder.
Roll 1d6.
On 1 or 2, score a 4th hit.

I've found it an elegant way to accumulate hits without rolling buckets of dice or relying on chart references.

[Martyn]

Just to clarify some of my points:

Re Medieval: my rules are for Wars of the Roses. The arguement about various weight of armour relating to movemnt speeds is a non starter. The reason for this is that those in full armour have trained to wear this and secondly full suits of plate were only worn by the nobility and they would have their own retinue of lesser armoured followers. They would be lead into battle at the speed of their leader. Also my rules have one turn = 10 minutes so crossing a battlefield to clash with the enemy would easily be covered in this time frame hence no movement rules.

Re charge distance: I was talking about cavalry in the seven years war. Also I only allow cavalry to charge twice maximum in a game, the second time at a much reduced rate as they are really a one shot weapon. Yes I agree that infantry can run out of steam as in the cases you mentioned.

[Luddite]

Re Medieval: my rules are for Wars of the Roses. The arguement about various weight of armour relating to movemnt speeds is a non starter.

I wasn't talking about wieght, but about encumbrance and the exhausting effect of that encumbrance.  There are many accounts and testimonies of the soldiery hating the expensive armour purchased for them by their lords.  There are also accounts of soliders discarding this armour at the first opportunity in favour of the lighter padding and jack (brigantine) because it was less encumbering, more comfortable, and less restrictive.  The common soldier wanted two things from their armour - comfort and mobility.

Armour you see, was not solely, or even primarily protective.  It has always been a status symbol, and especially so during the WotR, which was, essentially a 'Mafia-style' feud where the nobility were jockeying for position and intent on proving their own status and claims.

The reason for this is that those in full armour have trained to wear this and secondly full suits of plate were only worn by the nobility and they would have their own retinue of lesser armoured followers.

Only partially corrent.  Nobility would wear the best armour they could afford of course.  They would also arm their 'feudal levies' (followers - typically archers and billmen in sallet and brigantine) with the best they could (which was often discarded by the soldiery!).  But under the form of 'bastard feudalism' prevalent during the WotR, the nobility also took to battle with professional 'retainers', or 'men-at-arms', that could be as well armoured as the nobility.  There is some historical debate about this but it seems certain that at least a notable number of these men were 'well armed' (as it was known).

They would be lead into battle at the speed of their leader. .

Indeed during the WotR, nobles, including the army’s commander (e.g. Richard III), made a point of fighting on foot, so as to share the same risks as the common foot soldiers and bolster their loyalty/morale.  Many nobles started the battle on foot, then had their horses brought to the front later on. This gave them a good advantage over the enemy should he be routed, as horsemen were able to pursue and pick off men in flight at their ease. On the other hand should the battle turn against them the nobles were more likely to escape capture and death, by fleeing on horseback, than they would on foot slowed and exhausted by their armour.

'A horse, a horse, my kingdom for a horse' - Richerd III (Shakespeare)   

Which goes to my point about the need for movement rules to reflect this key part of battle friction.

However...

Also my rules have one turn = 10 minutes so crossing a battlefield to clash with the enemy would easily be covered in this time frame hence no movement rules

...if that's how you see it there's no argument there.  If those rules work for you no worries!   

I'm quite interested to know if your rules accurately model the key friction of most WotR battles? 

That is;

An archery duel between the forces to 'weaken' the opposing ranks (mostly by impacting morale and disrupting formations as well as inflicting casualties).  This rearely lasted long (due to arrow supplies) and once one side had exhausted itself, the battle main would start.

The 'heavy' infantry were almost universally drawn into three 'battles' (the commanders stood at the ‘battles’ centre with their retinues of lords and knights).  Following the archery duel, a headlong charge would ensue followed by  a bloody melee of fierce hand-to-hand fighting with little quarter, and could go for several hours in 'pulses' before the winning side became apparent.

In these engagements, the heavily armoured nobles and men-at-arms would tire quickly and need to withdraw more ofter to rest, whereas the lighter armed billmen and archers could engage for longer before enhaustion set it.

Re charge distance: I was talking about cavalry in the seven years war. Also I only allow cavalry to charge twice maximum in a game, the second time at a much reduced rate as they are really a one shot weapon. Yes I agree that infantry can run out of steam as in the cases you mentioned.

Well, again, if it works for you...and this clarification puts more context to your earlier point about this.

For sure, most rules don't reflect cavalry getting 'blown', or exhausted, which was very much the case at that period.  'Shock' cavalry were a 'one-shot-weapon' really, mainly due to the stress and exhaustion of the horses


So in your rules, the cavalry could charge the full length of the gaming table (say 6' on a 6x4' table?)  That seems a bit odd, but again, what works for you!   

Innovation to 'simulate' reality and also provide a good game is always admirable.

[Martyn]

It al comes down to time scale and what you consider is possible in that time scale. As for the longbow I have been shooting traditional longbow for twenty or more years using replica arrows. The best range I can get with a 90lb yew bow and a bodkin headed arrow is between 190 and about 200yds.  May be a 120ld bow might be able to sling an arrow out to about 230yds. As for the myth of being able to penitrate plate armour- Possible but at ranges of 60yds or less plus the archer has got to have guts to stand and take an aimed shot while the target is closing on him at a rapid rate attempting to kill him. Thats why archers were used to open a battle but it always came down to hand to hand. I know how tiring shooting can be thats why in my rules archers shoot for two turns before becoming increasingly tired so if by the end of turn three they continue to shoot the effect is worthless. Foot combat only lasts one turn, which if inconclusive results in both sides mutually parting for one turn before resuming. .
No my 7YW cavalry don't charge the full length of the table. They have to be able to see what they are to attack before commencing a charge. Again it is down to time and ground scale. When you look at battles like Kolin, for example, the distance between the opposing cavalry regiments ranged about half a mile. My point is that cavalry don't stop just because of an arbitrary measurement.
The best advice I would give to anyone when looking at rules is to see if they do have a ground and time scale. If not perhaps they are best avoided. There again I do like Crossfire!

[DanJ]

We seem to have got away from the title of the thread to a discussion on rule mechanics, which is of course interesting in itself.

Personally I tend to write rules rather than buying glossy sets because I find it easier to write rules than learn some-one else's, quite often the process is buy rules, play rules, throw across room in frustration and set out to write my own.  At least then I know what assumptions and predudices I'm making and what I want to model before I start rather than having to second guess someone else.

The only "glossy set" I own (if you define "glossy" as a set with colour pictures and nice diagrams) is Warmaster Ancients.  As a principle I'd say that for a big set of Glossy rules you're not only paying for nice "eye candy" but also a well thought out and play tested game, if some-one is going to go to the trouble of producing a "glossy" set of rules then it's probably a reasonable bet that they have spent a lot of time and effort on them.

Of course the down side with glossy rules is that if revisions or new rules are considered necessary it's almost impossible to issue a second version.

[sixsideddice]

I get the best of both worlds; I write all my own rules, and take all my own photo artwork... the finished printed copies look nice and glossy and sit nicely on my bookcase alongside all my other shiny home made rules 



Six