Sunday, 21 January 2018

Game Design Index Update (2018) - Some Rambling Included

The series of 76(!) articles on game design are indexed properly and up to date.  On the side bar or click here. 

It's interesting that this blog has shifted its focus over the years.

Delta Vector started out as a place to store rules reviews so I didn't have to explain them every time to friends - (yes, I was 'that guy' who always had 101 rulebooks and whatever the latest thing was... obviously no kids then!) - I could just say "check out the blog." My aim was for critical, accurate reviews that explained the mechanics my friends could make up their own minds.  Too often, reviews were sycophantic and gushing, or simply showed photos of a game, giving you no idea what was happening or whether you would like the gameplay or not. Or they spent 90% of the review talking about how glossy the rules were, not how they played.  I did 114 reviews (probably more - my indexing is not crash hot) and still occasionally churn one out.

The post that started it all - my rant against spaceship games and consequent attempts to make my own piqued my interest in game design.

Occasionally I show some simple paint jobs (I'm not very skilled, but as an anti-nude-minis crusader - I like to encourage people to just paint em to a tabletop standard) similar to the LOTR D'Agnostini magazines that inspired me years ago. Other times I venture into PC gaming reviews (a more easy/affordable option, with kids) or even book review, with the odd guide to cheap-and-nasty terrain

I'd say the main focus of this blog now is game design.  I couldn't find articles about wargaming I wanted to read, so I wrote my own.  Mostly, I just question why we design games the way we do. Things like:  
Why have special rules replaced stat lines?
Is true-line-of-sight really best?
Why do we still use IGO-UGO?
Why aren't area of effect weapons more popular?
Do we give enough thought to morale and deployment rules?
Can points systems ever be balanced?
Pre-measuring or guessing?
Why don't we use ground/time scales any more?
Does "realism" really mean "more complicated" or is this a misconception?
Reaction mechanics - essential or waste of time?

I don't claim to be an expert, or insist my conclusions must be "right" but I try to show my thought process, trying to cover topics I'd like to read about. If a game design post makes even one set of rules better by making someone stop, question and revise their rules, then it is worth it.  I soon noticed the comments are usually better and more insightful than the posts; so there is now a google group that folk can join to more easily share ideas (ranging from napkin sketches and standalone mechanics, to quite polished pdfs) - there's about 50 rules there now from a wide range of authors, with some really interesting mechanics. Along the way I have started to make my own homebrew rules (initially I did it unwillingly, merely to encourage others - but now I enjoy it as a pursuit in itself) aiming for genres where I do not enjoy the available rules - such as Mordhiem/Necromunda campaign imitators, squadron level tank games, space and mecha, aeronef and my personal weird interest, supercavitating submarine fighters. 

Anyway, this is kinda my "self indulgent look back" post that replaces the usual New Years post most bloggers do. 

My interest in super-cavitating submarine fighters is weird but persistent; shared only by my separated-at-birth twin Paul from the Man Cave.

I'm not making any new resolutions - as I'm still pegging away at my last year's one: "buy no new models in a genre until all others are painted" which has seen the unpainted lead mountain shrink a lot, but it still remains dauntingly large.  I would like to be more active on the blog - due to two toddlers my gaming activity in 2017 was the lowest ever - and perhaps finally finish some of my homebrew rules to take them out of the 'playable beta' stage. 

Saturday, 20 January 2018

Game Design #76: Uncertainty in Activation

From the start the initiative and activation mechanics have fascinated me. Even as a teenager, I always wondered why games like Warhammer had simpler/less interactive activation than games like checkers.  Most rules were clear on the how - how to shoot, move, melee etc - but tended to cursorily skip over the when.  And the when is just as important. When someone shoots matters a lot to the target; if his head in below the trench at the time, or above it....

This topic is in my head at the moment as I experiment with aerial/space dogfight games.  More precisely, the certainty in activation. How predictable is your turn? How far can you (and should you) plan ahead?

Let's skip through a few common activation types, to orientate ourselves. Blog regulars will probably skip this next bit and go to the next main heading.

Common Activation Systems
This has a high level of certainty. You get to move, shoot etc - resolve all actions with all your units - without the opponent being able to intervene. Your opponents stand around like dummies as you can act with everyone, without any interference.  The upside: it is simple to track whose turn it is. And you can go off for a toilet break in your opponent's (usually long) turn.  Popularized by 40K, this was once the default activation, but is less common now.

Alternate Move (aka similar to Chess-style move)
This has less certainty then IGO-UGO.  Each player takes turn moving a single unit each, until each side has activated all its units. This allows more interference and organic "reaction" to your opponent; he moves and makes all the actions with a single piece, then you respond. It's still pretty predictable as you know who is going next, and you get to choose which (of the so far un-activated) units go next. Probably the most popular nowadays. (It's not exactly like chess, as chess allows you to move any single piece as long as it's your turn; alt-move requires you to act with every piece in your army before you can act with a unit - aka piece - a second time),

Group Move 
This is a mix of the above two styles; players take turns moving clusters of units (i.e. 3-5 bases in a platoon, or squad, or even members of a fire team).  One player moves a group of 3-4 models, then another player activates with a group. Usually each group makes all its actions, then the next player acts with his cluster or group of units. Unsurprisingly, this method is more predictable than alt-move, but less so than IGO-UGO.

Reaction Moves
Some of the above methods have some sort of baked-in method of reacting to opponents;  often forfeiting their turn to fire later (overwatch). However some games have strong reaction mechanics where units can react quite often (sometimes an unlimited amount of times) to enemy actions, giving a huge scope for interrupting enemy turns  and making them less predictable.

Momentum (chaining activations)
I've explored this topic in more depth, but basically it is alt-move, but offers the player to "chain" or "follow on" by acting with a second unit without allowing the opponent his action.  A bit like player A moves a unit, but he does not want Player B to have a turn with one of his, so he (in some way, maybe by passing some sort of leadership roll) "follows on" and Player A then acts with a second unit in a row, without letting Player B have his turn. A bit like in, say, chess, if the white player moved a piece, then move another piece without allowing black to move his - basically, messing with the "normal" move sequence.

Okay, now we know some common systems. Let's talk about sequencing.

Predictability in Sequencing
What I mean by sequencing, is the order units activate. Is the order units activate dictated by the player, or by chance?  How far can you plan ahead?

Games like chess have a predictable sequence - you freely choose which unit to activate. A game like Savage Worlds where each unit is assigned to a card and acts when its card is drawn is random. You have to act when your card comes up; you don't get to plan ahead for the best time to activate the unit, you have to do the best you can if and when your card turns up. Whereas most games, you can choose which unit acts next. Some game devs like Too Fat Lardies allow semi-random sequences; they roll a dice and you can choose between certain (but not all) units which meet the dice roll criteria.

This topic has been one I've considered a bit lately, due to many aerial games making initiative/move sequence in order of best pilot->worst pilot or vice versa.  This is a quick, easy way to emphasize good pilots, but makes dogfights quite predictable - you know the move order ahead of time, allowing Chess-like "thinking ahead" and squadron-wide teamwork in a way that is nothing like the chaos of a real dogfight, facilitating cheesey tactics like co-ordinating and focussing down rookies first, so you can outnumber the enemy elites.

Enemies (from the non-active player) can also interrupt the sequence with reactions - in many cases reactions are limited (i.e. you trade entire move for the ability to fire in enemy turn aka "overwatch") but sometimes they are very strong - in Infinity reactions are unlimited; each time a unit activates in line of sight, every opponent can fire at him. They can do this every time, every opponent acts (unless prevented by being suppressed etc). 

Sometimes units can seize the momentum by becoming the active player; perhaps if an active player is hit, the other side becomes the active side. This really messes with the "expected" sequence - we've already discussed this under "chaining" and "following on."  Allowing the status of the active player to switch at least semi-unpredictably between players within a turn removes chess-like planning ahead and forces players to "live in the moment."

Predictability in Actions per Turn
I've explored this before; it's how many actions a unit can make when it is their turn. Most units, in most games, can move and shoot; that is two actions per turn, or 2APT as I will abbreviate it. If a unit is guaranteed to be able to move and shoot each turn, it is very predictable. But in some games, actions per turn vary quite a bit.

In the post linked in the previous paragraph, I posited that too many actions-per-turn is bad; in making the active player too strong, and allowing them to do too much in their turn. It "freezes" everyone else too long.  It's like watching the Flash; he zips around and does all this stuff while they are frozen. But in a wargame, we want to reduce the "Flash" effect and make it seem more fluid. In contrast, a model that can take one action per turn (move or shoot) is more limited. We've broken the turn up into smaller chunks. 

However, sometimes we can allow a few actions per turn, but make them unpredictable.  Song of Blades and Heroes does this by allowing players to roll between 1 and 3 dice. Each dice that beats a set score (typically 3+ for elites, 4+ for average, and 5+ for rookies) allows an action.   There's a twist as well; two failures means the turn ends, and the other player player gains the momentum, becoming the active player until he too fails in his turn. That said, actions per turn are semi-predictable, but not completely so. A rookie is unlikely to roll successfully and get all 3 actions, and is likely to get only one. A hero might average 2 or 3.

Besides my dogfight homebrew rules, another reason for this topic is Inquisitor. I found an secondhand rules set from 2001.  It's a RPG/narrative wargame, with d100s and dashes of Necromunda. But what caught my attention was the activation system.  Players activate in order of Speed (this is quickness of movement and thought); i.e. Speed 4 would move before Speed 3 or 2. So quite predictable. However, each Speed allows you to roll a d6. (I.e. a Speed 4 character rolls 4 d6). If you get a 4+ you get to perform an action. I found it interesting in that actions had to be declared in advance (I've done this in my aeronef rules) and if you run out of actions... just don't get to do all you said you would.  It makes the amount of actions unpredictable. I.e. you might say "my gunner will move to cover here, crouch down, then shoot."  The Speed 4 gunner only rolls, 3, 6, 5, 1 - so he only moves, and crouches - but does not have a third action to fire.    There is a predictable move sequence - i.e. fastest Speed to slowest - but an unpredictable amount of actions per turn.   I think these rules neatly illustrate the difference between the two.

So - we have uncertainty in activation, uncertainty in actions per turn, and the ability for opponents to interrupt.  All these add unpredictability.  So which is best? More predictabilty, or less... 

Is war predictable? Plans always survive contact with the enemy, right? The ability to react to the unpredictable and impose order/execute plans within the chaos of war is a hallmark of good commanding.  For example, allowing perfect co ordination in the swirl of a WW1 biplane dogfight seems silly. A more random method such as a random card draw seems indicated.  With radios in modern aircraft, co-ordination with wingmen seems likely. Perhaps the ability to "follow on" to a wingman or make a group move would work better here.

However, some games need predictability.  Take Warmachine. It's a game focussed on super-OP-combos which often need to be "chained." It's more CCG than wargame. Using IGOUGO makes perfect sense - or you'd find it impossible to execute any combos or sequence attacks. 

In summary, it's not as simple as unpredictability good, predictability bad - the amount of predictability can (and should) vary depending on the genre and era. Even how this unpredictability is introduced - be it from unpredictable sequences or amount of actions, or reaction mechanics. 

I think the key takeaway is determining where your game fits on the spectrum and picking the right activation to suit.

Game Design #75: Weapon Range vs Terrain Density

I think I've somewhat covered this in the past in a topic on scale (I recall ranting about how Bolt Action's 24" rifle range, gives them an absolute range of about 50 yards/metres "in scale" - resulting in weirdness such as 28mm paratroopers who could not shoot the length of the Arnhem Bridge model Warlord themselves supply.)   I also have looked at move:shoot ratios (how movement ranges compare to weapon ranges; i.e. Bolt Action copies the 6"/24" (1:4) ratio made popular by fantasy Warhammer - which can be jarringly short with modern firearms. 

However I've been thinking about it a bit lately and would like to come in from a different angle. First of all, let's look at why ranges are compressed.

Restricting weapon ranges can be done to promote maneuver; short-ranged weapons cover less area, leaving plenty of room to move about without taking severe casualties.  In a 2:1 game (say 12" movement, 6" shoot) maneuver is very strong - units can duck in and out of engagements almost at will.  In a 1:12 (say 4" move, 48" shoot) then the firepower tends to dominate - it's hard to move out of range or close with the enemy without being shot to bits. Units will probably camp in cover. 

This obviously is much impacted by the lethality of weapons (the chance of death per attack; a typical 40K-esque roll of 4+ to hit, then 4+ to hit has a 25% chance of causing a casualty and I often use this as a benchmark) - if it is a '6' to hit with a '6' then required to kill (5%?), maneuver is unlikely to be impeded as death would be caused more by luck than firepower.  This is lethality is multiplied by "rate of fire" - attacks per turn - I assume a RoF of 1 for a baseline; but 2 or more is possible with many weapons, and likely with modern warfare.

Terrain and Weapon Range
While playing with my homebrew Tankmunda, I was struck by how much of a role terrain plays in this as well. Using 15mm (1:144) tanks on a 6x4 table, I didn't want engagement ranges to look silly and nerf-gun short, yet I wanted differentiate between the long range capabilities of say a 88mm and a 2pdr. I also did not want tanks able to hit each other from the very first turn shooting between deployment zones.  If I kept the ranges strictly to scale, ranges would be unlimited on the tabletop - a route increasingly taken my many games. Even assuming a 2-3" long tank is say 5-6 metres in scale (2 metres per inch); a 1500 metre gun range would reach 750 inches or 62 feet... a tad longer than most gaming tables...

My solution was to compress ranges as much as I could without them visually looking silly, but also to ensure there was terrain every 8-12" (the distance of the "sprint speed" of most tanks).  And I was thinking - how often do wargames specify how much terrain or how it should be set up?
Not often.  I do know Infinity is very specific.  It has higher than usual lethality (30%+) with a high rate of fire (3+) for most weapons; an attack on a unit in the open is very very lethal. Move:shoot favours shooting with 4" vs 36" for normal rifles (many reach across a table) giving a 1:9+.  Infinity wisely has detailed setup instructions. Setting up a table like traditional 40K (with 3-4 terrain pieces and much wide open space) will see everyone dead in short order. Sight lines must be kept short (8-12") - even a single tall building can offer a massive field of fire, completely unbalancing a game.

 Obviously, the "traditional" 24" shooting range for a 28mm figure assumes little cover; and is handy for a gamer with little terrain. Like a typical 40K table. Games like Infinity with very lethal, long-ranged weapons demand a huge investment in terrain or the game is very un-fun. That said, a WW2 game where bolt action rifles shoot as far as a garden hose look silly.  Warmachine (admittedly steampunk) even has sniper rifles with 14" range (vs handguns that shoot 8" or so). Yikes!

But what can we do to mitigate this?  How can we make it so weapons shoot further without messing things up?  Well, weapons can have their lethality tuned down.  Want to double ranges to 48"?  Make it so it hits on a 5+ and kills on a 5+ on a d6; now instead of 25% chance of killing per attack, it's more like 10%. This compensates for the doubling of the range.  Maybe units can be stunned or suppressed; instead of outright removed.

It's all about terrain, baby
However I'd like to focus on terrain (or lack thereof).  On the importance of making it clear how much terrain is expected - how far apart, and the impact of the terrain.  I'll assume that being in cover gives a 4+ d6 (50%) save.  If terrain is no farther apart than the average unit move (say 6") we have effectively halved the lethality of the weapon (down to ~13%).  We could double firing ranges with no major issues.  If terrain is farther apart than units can move in a turn (say 12"+) then lethality is less impacted (it will also encourage camping).

The effect of cover (modifier to "to hit" or saving throw) is also worth thinking about. If we assume a 4+ (50%) saving throw for the average cover - what effect would a 2+ (83%) save have? It would confer near-invulnerability on units and discourage them from ever moving.  In contrast, a 6+ (17%) save would make the cover barely worthwhile. This ties with rewarding and punishing players; using saves and modifiers to direct them in the way you want them to play.

Weapon ranges, movement distances and the lethality of weapons are all used as balancing methods.  They dictate particular playstyles and most game designers adhere to pretty common formula.  This can result in silly looking games (modern rifles shooting the same range as bows or slings; the average elf archer would handily outrange a Bolt Action grunt with a Mauser).

Terrain however is also a major balancing factor with as much impact as any of the above methods. And few wargames rules actually address this. How much terrain? Where? Even - what effects does the terrain have - many times terrain modifiers seem to be copied-and-pasted regardless of genre. Should "cover" (and it is often genric; or divided into "soft" and "hard" at best) have the same 50% save to a M60 as it does to a sling?  How often is terrain actually addressed in rules.

Tuesday, 16 January 2018

Game Design #74: Why Aerial Wargames Suck

A bit of a clickbait title, but this is a genre which I feel has seen very few good rule sets.  Contrast this to the plethora of decent WW2/modern platoon+ level rules, for example.

Perhaps there is something about aerial wargames that does not adapt well to wargaming (I feel age of sail also suffers from this).  I'll highlight a few issues.

First, it's not like we have a lot of good rules to choose from. Most rules are simply rebadged mechanics from the 1970s. Check Your Six is a good example of this.  It's more polished than its ancestors, but still has unwieldy mechanics (add firepower dice - say 8 x d6, total them up, then consult a chart, roll 2d6 and add modifiers, to see final damage - just so clunky). And it has written orders, ffs. This is aerial dogfights, not 1970s Napoleonics brigade level wargames.  I want to move model Mustangs around making pew pew noises, not be writing C12+H1 or whatever.  Bag the Hun at least tries to be different with card activation, but has the usual 101 different mechanics and chaos of a Lardies ruleset. Also, planes moving double speed because they are in formation or at a higher altitude just feels wrong.  I know it's meant to show the tactical advantage, but a Spitfire moving twice as far as a 109 in a game turn because it is in formation is just... jarring.

Many aerial games are designed for 1v1 or 2v2 duels. That's not a wargame - that's a cardgame or boardgame! If you rocked up at my house, handed me a single 40K model and said "OK, get one model each, let's play a wargame"...   ... I would likewise decline to admit we are wargaming.  I'd say Wings of War (the grandaddy of X-Wing) falls into this category.  Some aerial games seemed designed for exhibition games where there are 10+ gamers, and everyone flies a single plane. For the average gamer, good luck arranging a 10-a-side air wargame every week. Finally, if I want to fly a single plane, I'd can play one of the many excellent PC games which can do the job immeasurably better and faster and in more detail. 

While I also think, say, space wargames tend to have poor rulesets, at least I can see a way forward.  Use vector movement, for a start - at least then it's not blatantly WW2-naval-in-space.  Dropfleet Commander (with its atmospheric combat, focus on supporting meaningful planetary missions, and use of detection risk v reward) for example, shows innovation in the genre.

But let's do our best. What are some issues with aerial wargames? How could we fix them?

Well, I think the primary focus is energy management - trading height/speed for position against an enemy. So generally you need to track height and energy - I do this using d6 (for energy) of different colours (for height).  Even this simple tracking adds to the "time cost" of moving a single plane.

Another key issue is pilot skill - this is probably more important in terms of initiative (who moves when) but always letting better pilots move last or whatever removes much of the chaos from a dogfight and makes it easy to game the system. You can randomise this with dice rolls or cards but there is more "time cost" added.

I feel aerial wargames which handle larger quantities of planes fall into a bit of a trap; it's the old "wrong command level" or "excess micromanagement" where in, say a WW2 company game, you the gamer (the company commander) might position individual models...   ...where a real company commander would not be bothering himself with individuals, but at most "two levels down" - his platoons, and perhaps squads.

If you do have say 8 planes - what role are you, the gamer, taking? Squadron leader? Then why are you steering each individual pilot and choosing their exact positions, maneuvers and throttle settings?  That's something no squadron commander could do, especially once battle is joined.

But...'re making up arbitrary rules to define what "aerial wargaming is."  I don't think it's unfair to suggest a 1v1 game is a duel, not a wargame. It's not unreasonable to suggest most wargames involve 4+ maneuver units. Interestingly, 4-8 units is about what most commanders control in real life. If you are playing Napoleonics and each player had a single troop block, it's not really a wargame.  You'd just push them together and roll dice. 

Okay, so how can we fix this? Abstraction vs Detail.

I'm wondering how much we can abstract. Remember abstraction is good is it retains the same effect, while cutting out the "time cost" and "complexity."   You can abstract too far, though - I remember playing a squadron-level game where it was simply "range bands" in which you rolled dice contests - without any need for a table, terrain or models at all.

Do we need altitude?
If it's trading energy for position - could we simple say any non-combat, straight line flight was "gaining energy."  Whether you are accelerating in level flight, or climbing for height/stored energy, it's a net gain.  Turns, change of facing and dogfighting is an "energy loss" of varying amount.  Adding extra speed (diving) could also be spending energy. (Speed and energy are not the same thing)  C21:Air War does away with altitude (with jets, this seems more feasible) and Blood Red Skies seems to simplify altitude into an "advantaged/disadvantaged" states.

Should we actually plot the precise moves of each aircraft?
How big are these hexes?  How long is the turn?  What if we just pushed two planes together (like a melee in ground rules) and said they were "dogfighting?"  Are we the  pilot, a flight leader, a squadron leader - what should we be controlling?

What about a dice pool to represent the pilot's multitasking ability?  Here's a random idea of a movement/combat mechanic to show you what I mean:

Gain Energy
Aircraft may move between half and their total "energy" (noted by a d6) in movement, and get a free 60d turn at the end of the move.  If they only do this, they gain one energy. This represents straight line movement or slight climbing.

Spend Energy
You must move 1 hex forward before turning. Any extra 60d turn beyond the free one mentioned, costs 1 energy, and any 120 or 180 pivot costs 2-3.  You can dive and spend 1 energy to move an extra hex (beyond your actual energy).   So as you can see, energy can be swapped for turning ability, more speed... or better dogfighting (see below)

Any time two planes are in adjacent hexes they are dogfighting. They get 1 free d6 if they are facing their opponent, and +1d6 each energy they spend.  Winning the dogfight means they can make 1 attack roll for their margin of success, and may turn their plane 60d to face their opponent if they are not already.

What are you doing here?
Okay, the example I did might be poorly illustrated, and might fail in practice, but can you see how I'm trying to remove the maneuver charts and complexity.   I've abstracted all the precise maneuvers from CY6 or BtH.  Moving individual aircraft would be easy, but there would still be decisions (do I spend energy to turn or move further; or save energy up to last longer in a dogfight; planes starting a dogfight with lower energy will get less rolls and run out sooner etc etc)

Look at the Big Picture
I'm not saying my solution is even a good one; I'm just showing how I'm trying to explore beyond the usual mechanics.  Pushing models together like a skirmish melee and claiming they are "dogfighting" may seem weird; where's the "tailing" and complex Immelmans and maneuver sequences we are used to from our usual Blue Max ripoffs?  But does my "napkin sketch" idea focus on energy management? Yes, it does.

What I'm trying to say, is I feel aerial wargames are re-using the same mechanics, and are very limited. We need to get away from traditional mechanics, and look for solutions/mechanics based on the key issues, not simply re-using things for the sake of tradition.  I'd like to start from scratch, not using another set of aerial rules as a guide. Get right out of the box.  What if you used Infinity as the basis for an aerial wargame? Could it be used to emphasize energy management and pilot skill?  What about the old impulse tracks from Star Fleet Battles - could we make a 8-impulse chart? Or would this slow things even worse?

This design process isn't easy - aerial wargames are, I think, inherently more complex than most other genres, as it is in a 3D realm, with an element of resource management (height/energy) attached by default to each unit - tracking this automatically adds to the time cost/complexity.   Using more than a few aircraft per side leads easily to the "wrong command level" trap where the gamer is micromanaging too much - yet managing only one aircraft either makes for a bland game or limits its appeal; most gamers, in something as niche as aerial wargames, have lots of plane models and few gaming friends; more common than the situation with 10+ gaming friends all wanting to play planes with only one model each...   ..and I feel 1-model-per-player leads to unfavourable comparisions with PC games such as the free War Thunder or $5 for IL-2 Sturmovik.

I'd love to see a set of aerial wargames rules made with someone with fresh eyes, who build a game based around their philosophy of air combat, rather than building it in imitation of an Avalon Hill game they played back in '82.

Saturday, 13 January 2018

Diary of an Average Painter: Street Wizards, Thule Gelleschaft and Zombie Pirates

Painted these a while back but my 4-year-old assistant only based them yesterday.  (Hence why I always do bland plain sand bases; less to go wrong with a small child involved!)

Black Scorpion do brilliant pirates and wild west. I'd own more but they switched to plastic (boo hiss) robbing me of my enthusiasm to collect more. There's just something about metal that makes plastic seem so tacky and insubstantial...   ..I feel cheated paying equal or more for plastic replacements of metal mini lines...

Having just started to read her Tin Tin, it was a given Captain Haddock would make an appearance, along with a Rick O'Connell. The pulp minis come from Black Cat, Artizan and Copplestone - part of a huge backlog from years ago I am working through...

Some ghouls, irredeemable tainted by consuming human flesh...

Some urban "practitioners" of the arcane arts.  My wife recognized a Dresden and a Constantine...
I think a few might be EM4 (my source of bases and cheap 50c space fighters).

This German secret society will also do double duty alongside my West Wind SOTR models. I'm due to playtest my SoBH-meets-simple-d10-Infinity hybrid rules, as I've never done a good magic system to suit me yet.

As usual, I'm not showing off painting masterworks; just showing typical "tabletop" standard work. As I get older, I tend toward simpler paintjobs, with more bold highlighting to look effective from tabletop *(~2-4ft) range; whereas they don't look as good on close inspection.  I don't even make an effort with things you are unlikely to see, anymore (anything held up and viewed critically from below, for example, will reveal a fair bit of basecoat!)

Friday, 12 January 2018

World War 1955: The Space War

Space Nazis has a certain ring to it, right?

In the dying days of the Reich, as Allied forces drove  hard through the heartland, a brilliant halo appeared high above the Bavarian mountains.  Operation Sternsprung had succeeded in opening a warp gate: taking the cream of their scientists and technology, die hard forces of the Reich boarded jets, flew through and disappeared.

The victorious Allies and Soviets quickly entered a new arms race; to exploit these rifts which were appearing in the skies in a range of locations.  The Cold War became a space war.  Within months, both sides had heavily modified their jets to operate in vacuum, and were exploring our Solar system, laying claim to rich mineral asteroids.

In the vastness of space, far from the eye of the public, Soviet and Allied forces clashed in small skirmishes, as the power blocs sought to assert sovereignty over valuable chunks of rock. Space bases were built.  Soon, big corporations moved in. Protected by their own national governments and increasingly, hiring private mercenary air forces using surplus jets, the asteroid belt quickly became a "wild west" where disputes were settled with jets and cannons. 

...and increasingly, outposts and bases have been destroyed with no survivors. Tensions between superpowers escalate, but - has the Reich returned from the depths of space? The last Nazi outpost in Antarctica fell in 1947, but there is speculation it was in contact with other German forces through the Argentinian rift...

Modified Vampires clash with Horten Ho.229s around an asteroid belt.

The planets and asteroids were simply styfoam balls, dipped in a water+PVA mix, then sprinkled with sand and spraypainted.  They took about an hour to make, even with frequent interruptions by my kids...

American forces; radar-equipped Sabres and Thunderjets armed with rockets; including "rock cracker" asteroid-killing nukes. Many older model jets have been sold off to private contractors.

Soviet jets not only equip their own vast space armadas, but have increasingly found their way into the hands of satellite nations and rogue states. The Communist threat has spread to the stars!

Meteors and Vampires were amongst the first jets to be modified for space use; with advanced life support and thrust-vectoring nozzles among key changes. 

The menacing Horten flying wings battle alongside the Ta.183s who replaced the Me.262. These models are Raiden, and they are much finer cast models. Sadly, they are inferior to the chunky robust detail of Tumbling Dice and I prefer the latter, both to paint and at tabletop distances.

These models and asteroids will serve to test my "Vector Strike" homebrew rules.  Sadly there are no actual modern jet rules I like. Check Your Six is too fiddly (and screw written orders!), Bag the Hun is too jumbled (I swear it uses 100 different game mechanics); neither allow me to use 4-8 planes per side.  Hmm - might be a good game design article: "genres that defy good rules" - (aerial rules and age of sail spring to mind - I've never found a good set and the subject matter seems to defy ease of play) as opposed to genres saturated with decent rules (platoon level WW2-modern-sci fi, for example.)

Friday, 5 January 2018

Simple Vector Rules - for Grav Tanks and Space Stuff

I need a simple set of drift rules for my grav tank game, as well as my PT boats/MTBs-in-space rules I'm working on.  I've already got a very good set of rules for vector movement I made years back; but the drift markers clutter the table - restricting fights to about 4-a-side before things got messy...

My design goal: minimum clutter, while imparting a feeling of momentum. Plus, ships should be able to flip and strafe sideways while drifting past enemies - because it's cool.

My current idea steals from Full Thrust only I've eliminated the need to track velocity and simplified it further. Loses a bit of granularity but I think it still feels right, and is fast - and sometimes needs no marker at all!

When moving slowly, a unit can move it's thrust in any direction. It can end up with any facing... anything goes.  For the purpose of the example I'm going to say the thrust is 4."

This gravtank, when moving at low "normal" speeds, can move anywhere in a radius = to it's thrust, unconstrained by facing etc. Like infantry do in most games.

Now this gravtank is being ambushed by a cave monster. So it wants to accelerate away and shoot backwards. The tank moves directly forward it's full thrust. When a unit moves directly forward at it's full thrust, it can opt to "drift" and use a drift marker.

The grav tank has moved it's full thrust (4" in this case) directly forward and opts for drift marker. The marker placed directly astern of the unit's base, with the arrow facing forward in the drift direction.

Now, at the start of it's next move, the ship drifts directly ahead of the drift arrow. It moves a mandatory distance - the same as it's maximum thrust. In this case - thrust is 4" - so the gravtank moves 4" directly forward. This is the "drift" stage, and occurs before all other movement.
(Luckily the tank chose to drift - the monster was closing in!)

Once the drift is done, the unit can make a "normal" move - i.e. 4" in any direction.

A ship's path is between the drift marker and it's new location (shown here by the red stick).
In this case, moving sharply to the left (where the tape and stick intersect) would be a bad move - the gravtank would smash into the wall!

Instead, the gravtank might boost 4" further forward, getting more distance between it and the monster, and pivot to shoot at it; shooting backwards while drifting the other way!  Finally, we move the drift marker towards the back of the unit's base, in a straight line.

Now, the unit's facing does not have to be the same way as the drift marker; the arrow on the drift marker dictates the drift; not the ship facing.

For example, the tank might have faced sideways to shoot a new threat. However the drift is still heading towards the wall dead ahead!  We need to stop drifting and slow down to more controllable "normal" speed.

To stop drifting, the procedure is as follows.  Next turn, you must move your mandatory drift distance like usual (=max thrust, in this case, 4"). As usual, you move/drift in a direct line in the direction of the drift marker arrow.  You then ensure the unit is facing the drift marker.

You can see the grav tank has spun to face the drift marker. This represents the unit using it's powerful rear thrusters to brake it's forward momentum. 

Having braked and removed it's 4" drift velocity, the drift marker is now removed. Voila, the unit is back in normal movement mode.

The grav tank is back at normal speed. It can now move up to it's thrust in any direction; it won't smash into the wall now!

Hmmm, so how do I feel after this playtest?


Did it remove clutter? Sure. Half the time there IS no marker (unless you are drifting).
Did it retain the "feel" of drift? Can you shoot backwards/sideways when drifting? Sure!
So it successfully met my design criteria. I'd label these rules a success.

Hardcoding the drift = thrust obviously is a bit unrealistic and loses some granularity.  
Sure, you could put a dice on the base but that means you'd pretty much permanently have to keep it there - a counter + a dice permanently goes against my "minimal clutter" policy.

Maybe you could "double boost" - i.e. follow up your first "drift" with a second full-thrust move forward to establish a 2x thrust drift (8"in this case). This would not add any clutter as you could simply use a different coloured drift marker.  You would have to spend two turns braking, facing backwards to return to normal speed....