Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Lots of games (usually historical ones) have simultaneous command mechanics. Usually both sides write down their next moves for each unit and then all action happens simultaneously.

There are games that have alternating activation, but rather than one unit, you activate a number of units at once, usually based on their proximity to an officer or commander, but I can't recall one at this moment.

My personal suspicion is that those who like IGOUGO above all other systems are operating largely on having mostly played IGOUGO systems.

I want a game where individual characters matter. Where it's small enough that the troops I command still have personality and actually matter. (And not just a tax)
A few larger center pieces, like tanks to infantry.
I want good rules that don't screw me over because I like a certain army or models.
I want a fair game where (given both players are evenly skilled) both players have a roughly equal chance of winning.
I don't want to lose the game before the first dice is rolled.

 Eilif wrote:
Lots of games (usually historical ones) have simultaneous command mechanics. Usually both sides write down their next moves for each unit and then all action happens simultaneously.

There are games that have alternating activation, but rather than one unit, you activate a number of units at once, usually based on their proximity to an officer or commander, but I can't recall one at this moment.

Who likes to write things down eewwww... hehehe. Although still favorite all time space game is Full Thrust. The disadvantage with writing is it can add delays to gameplay. I also think there is the added complexity of remembering certain terms, maneuvers, etc which makes it more daunting to newer players. It is why XWing is so popular, other than Star Wars, because its quick, fun, intuitive without really needing to know every little rule.

I definitely prefer games that alternate activation but have extra units that can be activated. Having the option to activate one to multiple miniatures but not all I believe gives some added bonuses. I also think it helps keep both sides engaged, even if one player is slower than another.

 Eilif wrote:
My personal suspicion is that those who like IGOUGO above all other systems are operating largely on having mostly played IGOUGO systems.

Yeah that is what my suspicion is as well.

Rules I can remember.

I've always hated the term IGOUGO, only because it can be a bit confusing. I've seen it used both to reference 40k style "whole army goes, then opponent's army goes" systems, to what is also referred to as Alternating Activations.

Anyway, I'm actually writing my game to use alternating activations (AA), coming from a VOR: The Maelstrom background, it seems the most natural to me. However, also from playing VOR, being unable to have some kind of combined arms without the enemy reacting 100% of the time is annoying and prevents combined arms attacks from being as effective as they should. I went with a system where you normally activate 1 unit, then must pay increasingly large amounts of command points to activate additional units on your turn.

M.Edge handles this by forcing you to activate two units at a time, which is also a good way to go.

 Vertrucio wrote:
I've always hated the term IGOUGO, only because it can be a bit confusing. I've seen it used both to reference 40k style "whole army goes, then opponent's army goes" systems, to what is also referred to as Alternating Activations.

If you've heard IGOUGO used to refer to Alternating Activation mechanics, then the person was using it wrong.

There are variations and sometimes IGOUGO is interrupted by overwatch or a similar mechanic, but it is a fairly narrow term that has been used by wargamers for a long time. IGOUGO has always referred to a game where -with few exceptions- one player activates and acts with ALL their units and then the opponent does the same.

I have very few hard and fast preferences, though I suppose I prefer alternate activation to IGOUGO, though I will happily play IGOUGO games.


Really the only thing I'm averse to is very large model count games (unless the scale is very small).

 Vertrucio wrote:
Anyway, I'm actually writing my game to use alternating activations (AA), coming from a VOR: The Maelstrom background, it seems the most natural to me. However, also from playing VOR, being unable to have some kind of combined arms without the enemy reacting 100% of the time is annoying and prevents combined arms attacks from being as effective as they should. I went with a system where you normally activate 1 unit, then must pay increasingly large amounts of command points to activate additional units on your turn.

We've been playing for awhile using a system of Alternate Activation's. In the game we have been playing. The models are individual hero models and a couple fireteams (3-5 models) to create a squad, for a total of 7-12 miniatures. They generate X amount of Activation Points (AP) based on if they are a hero or fireteam. A Strike Team can be as large as a Platoon, meaning 2-3 squads (depending on Faction). A player when creating their Army could field multiple Strike Teams (depending on army points), however the AP generated by one Strike Team can not be used on a different Strike Team.

The AP generated by a single Strike Team can be used to activate 1 hero or 1 fireteam on that Strike Team. You could use the AP to activate each of them once or use multiple ones on a single fireteam. Some fireteams and heroes do have a maximum number of Activations, usually 2 (but some are 1), however you can choose to press the advantage by continuing to Activate them buy giving them Fatigued status. This usually adds modifiers to their rolls and effects their movement distances and its accumulative. Players alternate activating 1-2 units (a unit is a hero or fireteam) then the next player activates 1-2 units, unless they choose to activate more and press their advantage.

What game is this?

 odinsgrandson wrote:
I'm a painter first, so I prefer games with low model counts and lots of character to the individual minis.

I play quite a few games already, and the main thing I look for in a new system is something sufficiently different.

I also prefer games with more emphasis on individual actions then on list building. With some games, what you do each turn is pretty straight-forward, so all of the strategy is about what you bring. I prefer to make difficult decisions that decide the outcome in the middle of the game.

It is a pity that many of the games of the 1980's never bothered to invest in miniatures for the games, because a great many of them are exactly this sort of thing (low model count, no list building, and where individual action can be decisive).

GDW's Ashanti High-Lightning was one such game. Come to think of it, ALL of the Traveller based miniature games were like this.

But because the designers remained hostile to miniatures for so long, we still do not have a dedicated and extensive line of miniatures for these games (three attempts were made, each one less successful than the last, and each one with fewer miniatures than the last - the owners of GDW could not seem to understand the need for more complete lines, rather than the three or four miniatures for only a handful of factions).

MB


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh... And a point about IGOUGO games.

I have found that having games with written orders (or some form of order structure) allows for ANY kind of turn structure, as it constrains the players to a plan, forcing them to think ahead.

It also presents a more accurate account of battlefield behavior, where real soldiers are constrained by their orders.

Just look at what happened throughout History with units on battlefields where they were unable to act (or, rather, they were ABLE to act, but did not because the officer followed orders).

WWII, Korea, and Vietnam especially are filled to overflowing with episodes of soldiers unable to act due to the constraints of their orders.

They would be under fire, but due to the inability to visually identify the Attackers, they were not allowed to use anything but small arms to return fire.

Or, they would see what was clearly an ambush set-up, but due to the inability to identify the enemy, they were forced to march right into a trap.

Written orders, or some form of order system, which constrains the possible behaviors of troops makes for an interesting game, and provides for the inclusion of the Fog of War that is nearly impossible (or vastly more difficult) to include otherwise.

Also.... More miniature games where there is a GM that arbitrates both sides makes for games where hidden movement is much more interesting (regardless of turn/movement sequence).

There were also game's in the 1980's that used turn sequences where the players alternated in executing turn phases, but the players could choose which turn phase they were executing (save for the command and morale phases). This made for interesting reaction moves... But, again, tends to require a GM for many of the games.
MB

Rules with robust command systems are still pretty common in the historical realm, but they don't make alot of appearances in the popular sci-fi and fantasy games. I'm not sure that those kind of gamers would have patience for such systems that tend to take control away from the player and often result in units not being able to activate. Most popular games (even ones with reaction mechanics) tend to give the player a more video-game-like direct control over their army.

I'm not saying this is a bad thing, just an observation. I realize that it's far less realistic, but I tend to prefer having more control over my units. That's probably because at it's core I see wargaming mostly as a way of playing with all these wonderful toys I've built and painted. I'll still play other systems though and perhaps my favorite game "Song of Blades and Heroes" has an activation mechanic that routinely denies you the chance to activate some of your units.

"Variety is the spice…" and all that.

 malfred wrote:
What game is this?

It is one that we have been testing for awhile now. There is still some fine tuning but overall results have been good over the year we've been playing it. It should be available for Print and Play shortly as part of a Alpha/Beta run probably in a couple months. There was some new additions added with multiple Objectives cards, rewarding victory points based not on one objective but accomplishing primary, secondary and tertiary objectives (may be scaled back to just primary and secondary). There are Tactical Assets cards that have limited use but can allow someone to change their Objectives cards midgame, call in support, temporary bonuses for a turn for troops, ability to circumvent or cancel an opponent activation, etc. There is some discussion in the test groups whether this adds more tactical and strategy options for players or introduces more complications than needed.

 Dark Severance wrote:

With that in mind, the reason I was asking the players who prefer IGoUGo is I'm trying to gauge what is appealing about that for them. If they feel there is a lull that they don't feel like there is interaction or they are engaged. And why they tend to prefer that over say an alternating method. Trying to understand the preference if it simply comes down to personal taste, if it was because that is all the games they've played or if there is something I missed for the preference behind it.

Actually, I think I can answer this by comparing a few games that do IgoUgo:

- After the first turn or so of Warmachine, the game becomes a little chess like. I have resources before me (the activations and abilities of all of my troops) and a clear goal (assassination of the enemy Warcaster). As such, each turn is like a puzzle where the first troops I activate are trying to set up the board for the later troops to accomplish the goal (the first troops might be clearing a path, killing or moving enemy troops out of the way or using buffs/debuffs etc). In addition to creating a 'chess puzzle feel" it also creates a high level of tension as each piece of the complex plan can go wrong.

Because this game worked so well this way, No Quarter magazine used to have 'caster kill puzzles in it (like chess puzzles). They showed a setup, gave all of the relevant distances and assuming average rolls the puzzle can be solved.

- Blood Bowl has a similar activation schema (each mini takes his whole activation one at a time). The big difference there is that if something goes wrong during your activation (one of your players drops the ball or falls down) your turn ends immediately, and none of your other minis activates.

Because of this, Blood Bowl plays like you are constantly trying to figure out how to make the most of a bad position, and you're always trying to mitigate your risks of a turnover.

Like Warmachine, the game has a clear goal that can be accomplished in any turn, so each turn is a little like a puzzle to figure out what the best way to do that is.

These kinds of turn-to-turn strategy puzzles don't work the same when your opponent can see what you're doing with your turn and throw wrenches into it. That's not to say that I don't enjoy those too, but there's definitely an itch they don't scratch.

- There are other IgoUgo games that don't do this (40k for instance, where the tactics are more global).

-By the way, Relic Knights has a pretty awesome turn sequence- it is alternating activations but with an initiative queue- you know what the next three activations of your opponent are at all times, but anyone could be next (and there are abilities that change them around).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BeAfraid wrote:

Written orders, or some form of order system, which constrains the possible behaviors of troops makes for an interesting game, and provides for the inclusion of the Fog of War that is nearly impossible (or vastly more difficult) to include otherwise.

Wargods does this with tokens, and it works pretty well (I honestly haven't played much). I believe the Mierce Darklands game does it in a similar way.

 odinsgrandson wrote:

- After the first turn or so of Warmachine, the game becomes a little chess like. I have resources before me (the activations and abilities of all of my troops) and a clear goal (assassination of the enemy Warcaster). As such, each turn is like a puzzle where the first troops I activate are trying to set up the board for the later troops to accomplish the goal (the first troops might be clearing a path, killing or moving enemy troops out of the way or using buffs/debuffs etc). In addition to creating a 'chess puzzle feel" it also creates a high level of tension as each piece of the complex plan can go wrong.

These kinds of turn-to-turn strategy puzzles don't work the same when your opponent can see what you're doing with your turn and throw wrenches into it.

I haven't played WarmaHorde in quite awhile and even then only a few games. Ended up spending extra time painting as opposed to playing because of my work schedule. So I apologize if I say something that is incorrect.

I can understand wanting a chess feel but I would have disagree that IGoUGo sets that environment, but that is just my opinion. In Chess players still alternate turns and movement. To a newer player or inexperienced player Chess can feel like a puzzle. However to an experienced player they understand how one move already sets another set of movements into action. One simple move already lets your opponent know what version or style of player and attack you are using.

I can understand that alternating activation doesn't always feel like a strategy game, because you can see your opponent moving to react to it. The reaction instead of an army movement at once though is piece by piece. I don't prefer alternate activation if it is one unit at a time. Games like MERCs or a bidding system where activation aren't completely IGoUGo, not completely one unit alternate turn, does provide a bit more tactical feel to playing.

I guess I don't simply see it as being able to see one move allows a player to throw a wrench in their plans, at least in some objective based games. It could be he's protecting that asset or trying to do a flanking maneuver but that isn't always evident from the first couple activations. Whereas in IGoUGo, if you go first then I have a clear picture of if you are flanking, trying to assassinate a certain model, moving to control an objective or what you are attempting to do much clearer. Those styles of games I feel lets me throw a monkey wrench into the mix much easier.

igougo isn't want makes warmachine feel like chess. It's the
win condition.

 odinsgrandson wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BeAfraid wrote:

Written orders, or some form of order system, which constrains the possible behaviors of troops makes for an interesting game, and provides for the inclusion of the Fog of War that is nearly impossible (or vastly more difficult) to include otherwise.

Wargods does this with tokens, and it works pretty well (I honestly haven't played much). I believe the Mierce Darklands game does it in a similar way.

I have seen quite a few "second edition" games in the 1990's of games written in the 1980's, which themselves had "written orders" go to using order tokens or chits.

Both provide mechanisms which I personally find to be preferable to unrestrained, godlike control over forces.

I will have to look into Wargods, if it uses a system like this.

Didn't Epic 40K originally have some sort of order chit you used for each battle group?

MB

What I expect from a game

Clear rules
Balance game where your skill level wins you the game and not the army you picked
I want my money to feel like it was well spent
Prefer skirmish style games
I prefer faster game play,don't like 45 minute turns
Don't like over the top randomness in a game. I want some control of outcomes

BeAfraid wrote:

 odinsgrandson wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BeAfraid wrote:

Written orders, or some form of order system, which constrains the possible behaviors of troops makes for an interesting game, and provides for the inclusion of the Fog of War that is nearly impossible (or vastly more difficult) to include otherwise.

Wargods does this with tokens, and it works pretty well (I honestly haven't played much). I believe the Mierce Darklands game does it in a similar way.

I have seen quite a few "second edition" games in the 1990's of games written in the 1980's, which themselves had "written orders" go to using order tokens or chits.

Both provide mechanisms which I personally find to be preferable to unrestrained, godlike control over forces.

I will have to look into Wargods, if it uses a system like this.

Didn't Epic 40K originally have some sort of order chit you used for each battle group?

MB

It did indeed, each platoon/company could have a separate order. 'First fire', 'advance' and 'charge' if I remember correctly. The game progressed through each phase, believe you had first fire at the beginning, then charge, then advance (which was a move-fire order). So, you had to measure what your opponent was likely to do in each phase. May not have that exactly right as it's probably getting on for 20 years since I played a game!

I quite enjoy the activation mechanic of Bolt Action, introduces a random element while also forcing you to plan which unit you want to attack with first. Works very well.

That sounds about right.

I know that I still have all of the components from two boxes of Epic 40K from 2001. Not sure which edition it was.

I may try to buy a first edition from eBay if I see one come up.

But it would simply be for Nostalgia.

The mechanisms of Epic 40K were pretty much lifted from Frank Chadwick's Command Decision from GDW, which was itself used as a template for Striker II (which was itself the mass combat rules for Traveller: The New Era).

Striker II has a few more order counters (speed of advance and defensive actions), but it essentially covered the same options as did Epic 40k (we once played a few scenarios using each set of rules, just to see how they worked out). Striker II had WAY more granularity in the Command and Control system, but otherwise Epic 40K was pretty much like a set of basic rules for Striker II (which itself was like a Grand Tactical version of the original Striker, which focused on smaller units, and very specific commands - it had written commands that required three specific components).

The differences between games like Epic 40k (and WH40k) and those like Striker/Striker II/Command Decision are a part of the great debate within the game community over a "game" verses a game that tries to be a "simulation."

I suppose at the very far ends ® that spectrum is Avalon Hill's Squad Leader, which was adopted by the US and NATO command schools as the template for their own combat simulations prior to the advent of computerized modeling of combat (Ubi-soft may still have the contract for providing the software used by the U.S.).

I entered the miniature gaming genre from the side of board games, which attempted to be more of a simulation.

I once had a conversation with Bryan Ansell in 1985/86 (I think '86) where he said that he was more interested in providing a game that seemed to be about something (in philosophy, we call that a variance of intentionality).

And, obviously, as an economic success, Bryan Ansell's (and hence Citadel/GW's) attempts have been a much more successful economic model that those of us who prefer more of a simulation.

A third model is that promoted very early on my Greg Stafford of Chaosium, where he preferred to see players create a narrative (story-telling) with a game/simulation (where the Narrative creation is both a game and a simulation).

It is a narrative description of what happened, and what the players wish to happen... The mechanisms of the game them provide an account of what actually happened based upon the player's attempts.

His mechanisms are interesting in that he uses Subjective Stats, which only give a player a rough idea of what a model or unit is capable of doing. This prevents players from focusing upon mini-maxing list building, or stat balance for their forces, and forces them to instead think about objectives they wish to achieve, and what would be best for achieving them.

He has a partial system for battles created for his game Pendragon (about King Arthur's Britain), but they have no mechanisms as yet for portraying an entire battle (he said he intended to do so, but has yet to get around to it).

I was thinking that if such a system could be developed, it would be perfect for Middle-earth battles, which players expect to have epic proportions, and where heroic individuals can sway the tide of battle.

Basically, there are no shortage to choices of mechanisms, or styles of play.

Obviously, some choices are going to be closer to simulations/reality than are others.. But that is again a preference, as the thread title indicates.

MB

The main thing all good games have in common ,Eg Bolt Action and Epic Space Marine.
Is the games have been developed with a clear view and focus on the end game play.And the rules have been developed specifically for this type of game play.

The game mechanics and resolution methods have been chosen for a well defined and straightforward delivery of the intended game play.

There are lots of different ways to build a rule set.
The basic game turn can be variable bound, (Blood Bowl, Crossfire, ) alternating unit activation ,(Bolt action, EA,) alternating phases,(LoTR FIrefly,) and alternating game turn.(WHFB ,KoW ).

And each of these basic game turn types can be varied by addition of 'orders',random activation,different structured sequences . conditional counter actions,etc.

Its only when you do not use the most suitable game mechanics and resolution methods for the intended game play, do things go wrong,(Over complication and
counter intuitive.Eg 40k)

Generally I prefer smaller model counts,what might be thought of as squad scale. THat said, I don't mind games that go to bigger scales as long as this doesn't mean everything gets bogged down in special rules,etc. You could say that the more models I have to move the less rules I like to memorise.

For small model counts, I like Deadzone. The idea of each model being able to carry out two long actions or one short one reminds me of XCOM, and the various special rules essentially boil down to modifiers to this or to your tests (actions with a chance of failure, such as shooting, start as a test on 3d8 (base) and this can increased by various rules or playing a card on that model's activation). The cheaper the model, the less rules it tends to have - a 6 point Plague trooper has only one special rule while a 22 point Plague Stage 1 has a few. This means that if you go for a higher model count squad or gang you don't get bogged down remembering special rules for each one. Something that I feel handles larger games in a decent way is Bolt Action. Again, there's not too much rules bloat, troops are useful and there are limits on numbers of special units. Even the theatre selectors in army books don't change up the basic FOC too drastically. BA's often described as "platoon level" so it's still not what you'd call massive. These are quick games...I like the thought of a game that isn't too drawn out. Two hours is what I like as the maximum length.

I prefer alternate activations, and I like to be able to carry out simple reactions on the opponent's turn. I feel BA does random activation well but this can be exploitable - taking MSU on a wide scale can tip the odds of drawing an activation die in your favour. The "Ambush" mechanic in BA is a pretty serviceable way to do reactions in my opinion (lets the unit go into "overwatch," but it can only shoot) that could be expanded - maybe it would be possible to let the reacting unit carry out any short action, not just shooting.

That said, I don't rule out IGOUGO entirely. Kings of War is something I'd like to play and it sounds like that's pure IGOUGO - your opponent doesn't even get to roll saves on your turn. KOW players don't seem to complain about this though, probably because the turns are quite fast, treating each unit "footprint" as one entity rather than each individual model having to be accounted for. It looks like the way KOW handles wargear doesn't slow the game down too much either - magic items are limited to one per unit and have simple effects.

Speaking of KOW, I wasn't keen on the very limited magic selection in the rulebook at first but now I think it's a good idea as magicians become just another unit rather than something that can turn the tide in an instant. That's another point I would consider, extremely powerful units should be unable to dominate. Things like magic or superweapons need checks and balances, be it high point costs, abilities that only function in certain conditions, or obvious weaknesses. To go back to that example of the Stage 1 from Deadzone, it's got some good command and activation stats, it's a melee whirlwind and it's very hard to kill. It's also incredibly slow, can never shoot or use a throwable item, and costs 22 points when a standard list is 70.

When it comes to choosing who has initiative, I think this should be simple as possible to avoid arguments. Maybe something as simple as designating an HQ unit and the higher command score, or whatever, goes first. Perhaps there could be modifiers based on your list with gear or special rules that could affect it further (e.g. more units confers an initiative penalty to represent the challenge of coordinating a larger force, but you can buy gear to reduce the penalty?).

 Fezman wrote:

That said, I don't rule out IGOUGO entirely. Kings of War is something I'd like to play and it sounds like that's pure IGOUGO - your opponent doesn't even get to roll saves on your turn. KOW players don't seem to complain about this though, probably because the turns are quite fast, treating each unit "footprint" as one entity rather than each individual model having to be accounted for. It looks like the way KOW handles wargear doesn't slow the game down too much either - magic items are limited to one per unit and have simple effects.

Speaking of KOW, I wasn't keen on the very limited magic selection in the rulebook at first but now I think it's a good idea as magicians become just another unit rather than something that can turn the tide in an instant. That's another point I would consider, extremely powerful units should be unable to dominate. Things like magic or superweapons need checks and balances, be it high point costs, abilities that only function in certain conditions, or obvious weaknesses. To go back to that example of the Stage 1 from Deadzone, it's got some good command and activation stats, it's a melee whirlwind and it's very hard to kill. It's also incredibly slow, can never shoot or use a throwable item, and costs 22 points when a standard list is 70.

When it comes to choosing who has initiative, I think this should be simple as possible to avoid arguments. Maybe something as simple as designating an HQ unit and the higher command score, or whatever, goes first. Perhaps there could be modifiers based on your list with gear or special rules that could affect it further (e.g. more units confers an initiative penalty to represent the challenge of coordinating a larger force, but you can buy gear to reduce the penalty?).

I have always been curious about the justifications for Magic in a game.

In the Swords & Sorcery genre, Magic was not something that we typically saw employed directly on the battlefield, and instead was something that affected the battlefield from a distance (usually catastrophic, and only once).

The D&D sort of magic would actually alter the means of warfare. The D&D style of magic is actually a proxy for mechanization and advanced weaponry. We would see a move away from massed units, and toward lighter, more mobile warriors, who would not present such tempting targets. We would wind up with Warfare more like WWI or the Spanish Civil War than we would ancient warfare.

Greg Stafford's Glorantha presents a system, and justification for the types of magic by either making the Magic something that most people would not even think of as "Magic" (even though it has real effects, those effects are not very dramatic, and relatively minor), or by making it extremely costly, and with dire consequences (not to mention known defenses). But his system does not translate to the battlefield well, except for the minor magic, which most would not consider the type of magic they refer to when talking about magic. Most REAL spell-casters in Goorantha require substantial time to cast a spell, or they require specific materials, time and place, or other constraints that would mean the magicians would need to remain significantly apart from the battle (or be unable to cast a spell). Glorantha did have a form of Divine Intervention (two types, really), but the consequences of failure could doom your entire army.

And Middle-earth presents Magic in such a way that you don't so much as have "spell-casters," as you have people who have properties about them which have a supernatural effect. But Tolkien, being a devout Catholic, would have avoided adding too much that would have been considered "witchcraft" or "the occult" into the workings of Middle-earth.

But maybe I just think too much about these things.

MB

With miniatures games there is usually a standard for rolling successes for combat, movement and the stats. Some games are more complex with various attributes and stats for every thing, while others are more simplified. Do you feel you get the same experience either way or does reducing everything down to a few stats feel like it is dumbing down the game?

For example one standard is usually: Movement, Ranged, Melee, Courage, Armor, Health

Most of the stats are pretty self explanatory, some games have a lot more but for the most part these are the basics. Movement, how far something moves. Ranged, how well something shoots. Melee, how good it is at close combat. Courage, determination when shot or if units lost if it retreats or can continue forward. Armor, for armor save rolls. Health, how much damage something takes.

There are some that reduce them down even further: Movement, Accuracy, Defense, Courage, Health.

Movement is still dealing with the movement distance or speed of a unit. It doesn't matter if its close range, melee, basically skills requiring aiming or prowess fall to Accuracy. Defense is the armor save roll. Courage and health still exists.

Does it feel like by reducing stats, it reduces the complexity and streamlines it. Or does it feel strange that even though you are using different types of combat, its all under one roll for combat. I like streamlining but I still think there has to be a certain amount of stats to provide a good mix of encounters. I think there should be units that could shoot better, but aren't as good in close range and vice versa.

Stats reduction do not (necessarily) mean game simplification, but are an indication of how many moving parts the game has.

The mode models the game involves, the less stats and special rules it should have, to minimize the places the game can bog down, the less models it has the more flexibility the game designer has to introduce more complex rules and more detailed interactions with the statlines.

Essentially when designing a game you want the system to be meaty and have a lot to be digested, but not more than the players can feed upon, hope that parallel works.

That actually makes perfect sense.

Dark Severance wrote:With miniatures games there is usually a standard for rolling successes for combat, movement and the stats. Some games are more complex with various attributes and stats for every thing, while others are more simplified. Do you feel you get the same experience either way or does reducing everything down to a few stats feel like it is dumbing down the game?…
…
Does it feel like by reducing stats, it reduces the complexity and streamlines it. Or does it feel strange that even though you are using different types of combat, its all under one roll for combat. I like streamlining but I still think there has to be a certain amount of stats to provide a good mix of encounters. I think there should be units that could shoot better, but aren't as good in close range and vice versa.

It depends. There really is no standard for whether a more or less complex game is desireable. One persons childish beer-and pretzel's is another's favorite game with endless replay-ability. It's subjective, but I find that if a game still offers enough interesting choice to make a fun (very subjective) and engaging game, then you can make do with even fewer stats.

For Example, the Song of Blades series of small skirmish games has only 2 stats! Combat and Quality. Further differentiation and abilities are achieved through special rules which is where the flavor of the game comes from. However, the game still is very deliberately abstract. Nevertheless, the game provides the player with constant and important choices to make via the gambling (roll less, do less and be safer vs roll more, do more and chance failing out) activation mechanic that is done for each miniature. More stats, more detail and more complexity are not necessarily desirable, even in a low model count game.

IMHO, what is most important is that the game knows what kind of game it is trying to be and finds effective ways to carry that out. If it's supposed to be a streamlined fast-play game, trim the fat and work in some interesting mechanics to keep the gamers' interest. If it's supposed to be a simulation, then make sure you cover all aspects that will be necessary to make the players feel "realism". etc, etc. based on the object of the game.

 Dark Severance wrote:
With miniatures games there is usually a standard for rolling successes for combat, movement and the stats. Some games are more complex with various attributes and stats for every thing, while others are more simplified. Do you feel you get the same experience either way or does reducing everything down to a few stats feel like it is dumbing down the game?

For example one standard is usually: Movement, Ranged, Melee, Courage, Armor, Health

Most of the stats are pretty self explanatory, some games have a lot more but for the most part these are the basics. Movement, how far something moves. Ranged, how well something shoots. Melee, how good it is at close combat. Courage, determination when shot or if units lost if it retreats or can continue forward. Armor, for armor save rolls. Health, how much damage something takes.

There are some that reduce them down even further: Movement, Accuracy, Defense, Courage, Health.

Movement is still dealing with the movement distance or speed of a unit. It doesn't matter if its close range, melee, basically skills requiring aiming or prowess fall to Accuracy. Defense is the armor save roll. Courage and health still exists.

Does it feel like by reducing stats, it reduces the complexity and streamlines it. Or does it feel strange that even though you are using different types of combat, its all under one roll for combat. I like streamlining but I still think there has to be a certain amount of stats to provide a good mix of encounters. I think there should be units that could shoot better, but aren't as good in close range and vice versa.

What you are referring to here is called "abstraction."

This is basically: "How detailed is the model/simulation of the behavior of the elements(depictions) of the actors/agents in a model/simulation?"

For gaming, the "actors/agents" are the miniatures.

And depending upon the behaviors we wish to depict in our games (models/simulations), we have to abstract their ability to act in some fashion, or else we would be forced to consider so many variables that the game becomes unwieldy and complicated.

And... We deal with these, as I said before, by either arranging our abstractions so that the game produces the behavior we want, in which case you get a game that tends to be more about being just a game, or we arrange the abstractions so that they attempt to model more accurately the reality we imagine our actors (miniatures) to be in (which is the more "simulation" of reality side of gaming).

But in either case, we can abstract to any level of detail we wish without much of a loss of detail or what we have as goals (fun, or enjoyment of the game).

It just involves getting the abstractions aligned with the initial assumptions made for the game about the environment in which the actors/agents (miniatures) are operating.

Are they aircraft? Then we need to have some form of abstraction about their capabilities to maneuver, and some form of abstraction about the sort of conflict we are modeling (Are the aircraft racing? Are they they fighting one another? Or are they just attempting to succeed at flight itself?)

Are they human beings? Then we need to know what their goals are, and thus what will be necessary for our model (Are the humans in our model themselves playing a game, such as football? Are our humans in a competition with other humans - or aliens? Etc...).

So... When you answer all of the questions that arise from the model that is being constructed, different levels of abstraction will arise.

So, it might be appropriate to have a large number of "stats" for each model/miniature.

Or, it might not be needed to have stats for every model, but instead a statistical sampling of stats for a group of models/miniatures.

MB

To add a little bit to what BeAfraid said, there are certain elements that you should be comfortable ignoring in the interest of abstraction, and which you should lavish attention on, depending on what you are attempting to represent and what kind of gameplay experience you are trying to create.

For example, in the game we are developing now, there was a big question about the extent to which we would abstract ammunition. Our choice was to track rounds on a one for one basis, that is, every bullet fired is tracked individually from point of sale on through whether or not it winds up in a target. That's an unusual level of detail for a wargame, and even for some RPGs. It may even seem especially odd considering that we are rather 'loose' with most other items. There is no carry capacity or weight, for example. We simply completely ignore that and characters can comfortably carry around an amount of gear that would be staggering.

There are several reasons for tracking bullets individually. First and foremost, resource management is an important part of gameplay. Bullets cost money. Players need to decide how much money they want to invest in ammunition, and which kinds. This also allows the GM control over ammunition as a resource. Players have no way to 'create' ammunition. The GM therefore ultimately controls both access to the resource and the value of said resource.

We could achieve these goals with a higher level of abstraction, of course, but there are more reasons to track bullets individually. The game normally plays out over a succession of many, many very quick turns. So whereas in a lot of games you might have 5-10 turns in a game, we typically have 20-30 turns in the same amount of play time. Players have lots of opportunities for shooting, but are using weapons with an incongruous ammunition capacity. We want the amount of 'down time' caused by reloading a firearm to be palpable. Tracking bullets individually allows players to directly manage the resource, rather than falling victim to a random or seemingly arbitrary effect. If a pistol is empty, it is because a player chose to fire every bullet in the gun. So too, because there are so many turns, an individual turn does not need to represent a great deal of action. A turn can comfortably encompass the discharge of a single cartridge.

Players are only tracking this resource and making these choices with a single model, so the level of detail is more manageable than it would be otherwise. Other, simpler models use an ammunition mechanic that requires far less bookkeeping. Most enemy models, for example, run out of ammo on a random result. This is necessary to allow the GM to control lots of enemy models, as tracking individual bullets for 8 different models would be too difficult in a 90 sec game turn.