Was reading this today and his comments about how rulesets  these days  have become nice glossy tomes but the expense of becoming too generalised and trying to cover too great a period of history in one ruleset ,and not creating the formations and tactics  of the war/campaign that we as gamers are trying to represent.


Wonder what anyone else thinks of this

Haven't read the article myself but haven't many ruelsets always been like that, covering vast swathes of time but without the glossy production values?  Thinking of WRG especially.

I've read through Black Powder and that looks fun, but needs supplements and tweaking to adapt it to specific conflicts.

An exception to this is Battlegroup Kursk, which I recently purchased and am still perusing. This is a typical glossy hardback with lots of piccies of minis and also photos of troops and AFVs from the period and the rules are very specific to the Kursk battle - army lists only cover types of formations and troops involved in Zitadelle. One quirk is Russian anti-tank dogs reminiscent of WRG's old 'flaming warpigs' This seems a good, period-specific set to me, although the price is a little offputting and there are quite a few typos, especially in Russian terms which can be confusing if you're not too familiar with the period or battle. Having said that the English text isn't faultless either which is a pity.

I've yet to give it a try as I need some more armour to beef up the footsloggers.

Production values have become far more professional these days, compared to when we used to crank out rulesets on an old Gestetner duplicator. With this has come the advent of "marketing" and enormous hikes in prices. It almost seems that rules publishers have to provide a "tome" in order to justify the money charged. Often the actual rules are a small percentage of the volume, which has been padded out with army lists and pretty pictures.

As for generalisation, I think everyone realises that an effort has been made to streamline rules over the last few years and make them player-friendly. Back in the eighties there were rulesets that would barely allow you to play one move per hour - and no-one wants that any more. Streamlining, however, does involve glossing over some of the detail that would otherwise slow the game down. So, yes, pitching the set at too long a period will, inevitably, result in a slightly bland feel. It's also a truism that the higher up the organisational scale you set your game the less detail will be apparent. Army and corps commanders are not concerned with how quickly a unit can form square - at least, not on the day of battle.

The acid test for any set of rules is - does the use of the correct tactics produce success most of the time? If the answer is "yes" then you must be doing something right.

I'd rather not go back to WRG days (particularly but not exclusively ancients) - they still leave me cold

(shame there isn't a 'shudder' emoticon!)

At least with modern rules games are over in an evening and the experience doesn't feel like a maths exam rehearsal

QuoteProduction values have become far more professional these days, compared to when we used to crank out rulesets on an old Gestetner duplicator.

Gestetner - blast from the past or what

Quote from: Malbork on 20 February 2013, 01:01:28 PM
Gestetner - blast from the past or what

Yeah, I can still smell the liquid we used. 

I've still got TTG's 'Challenger 2'.  Tightly typed A5 with hand drawn outline pictures....

Rich has a point that rules seem to be to concentrating on the pretty:  One of the fist comments you get on that 'other' forum is how nice rules look, how wonderful they are, what good value, before they have played them.  However the improvement in layout has been a general advantage - because of the trend, and Rich has been compelled to follow the trend, IABSM v3, and CDS are so much more readable.  The improvement in layout has also made writers think about how they write.

Yes you can go too far - BP is a bit to much figure porn, but it definately helps the text being broken up.

I think the orginal F&F got it about right, and IABSM uses this approach- figures used for the examples: pretty and practical.

I think he's right that a commercially successful set of rules now needs to have high production values and that it is more difficult for newcomers to breakthrough into the bigtime.

i don't agree that there is a modern trend to having single, wide period-spanning rule books - that sort of thing has been around for a long time  (WRG as mentioned above but many others too). Also there are plenty of period specific rulesets currently around (look at a British Grenadier for a very specialised rulebook that's also very pretty)

I think he also neglects the whole aspect of Internet based publishing that allows any of us to knock out a ruleset for virtually nothing - so although its more difficult to launch a bestselling ruleset, it's easier than it ever was to produce something basic.

The initiative he is starting though to act as a startup mentor to aspiring authors is very laudable. It's a great idea and I hope that it helps produce a whole new generation of innovative rule writers.

I have always been a fan of the Peter Pig rules, despite the odd typo. Certainly not the glossy coffee table type books  currently in vogue but they give a good game.

As an ACW fanatic I would agree the original Fire and Fury were just about perfect for me and my mates, so much so that I have a big project planned that will use them.

I have Black Powder and Bolt Action and enjoy both but how historically accurate they are I cant say.

I'm not really a fan of one size fits all type rule set. What period specifics are there in the various Warmaster variants to make them different games? This is also my big problem with Black Powder, although I have only played Napoleonics with it.

Quote from: Windle Poons on 06 March 2013, 06:33:15 PM
I'm not really a fan of one size fits all type rule set. What period specifics are there in the various Warmaster variants to make them different games?

Essentially, you've got variables in command ability; unit differentiation in fighting prowess skewed for ranged / melee; specific unit 'special' rules; doctrine / 'stance'; period 'special' rules etc...certainly, for me anyway, more than enough differentiation to make ACWarmaster play differently from NapoleonicMaster from RenaissanceMaster from Blitzkrieg Commander etc. YMMV