The nice people at Armourfast sent me some of their tanks to review, which is always welcome. It helps with the addiction as I don’t seem to be able to choose a single scale for WWII gaming đŸ™‚
Speaking of scales, a little bird also tells me that Armourfast is working on some 15mm projects. Now I can’t tell you what they are yet, but given that Armourfast currently only make WWII plastic kits I could guess. More 15mm WWII plastics? Now wouldn’t that be interesting?
Quirkworthy 
It would be nice to have a good 15mm rule system i like. So i could start collecting 15mm minis and bring it to the club. I do like ww2 gaming, oh and Germans. Mainly waffen ss its the cammo.
The SS do have pretty camo. Of course, you can’t even pretend to paint it accurately in 15mm…
Already working on a rule system, mate đŸ™‚
Yeah but you allso cant see how bad my painting is at that scale too.
đŸ™‚
Hi Jake.
Is you WWII 15mm rule set ‘super duper’ secret?
Or could we discuss the ‘general conepts’ you want to use, and maybe basic game mechanics?
I am very interested in WWII war games , and a new 15mm one would be well recieved I am sure.
It’s not ‘super duper’ secret, otherwise I wouldn’t have mentioned it. It’s not currently for anyone but my own amusement, so I can do what I like with it. However, it does have a couple of core concepts that I want to make work properly before I run it out in front of folk. No point in debating whether to have white wall tyres or not if the engine don’t work đŸ™‚
In general though, at 15mm scale it’s going to be company+ size. I like 1:1 model to man ratio for this kind of game, so that’s what it’ll be: WYSIWYG. Much as I think that one of FOW’s cleverest features is its telescoped and variable scale, I won’t be adopting that for this game.
Consider me interested!
As much as I like FoW, their rules could need some cleaning up….
You think so? I’ve not played many games of FOW, so I’m not an expert. They seemed reasonably clear to me on a brief acquaintance though. I thought they produced a pretty good “gamey” WWII game.
Have you ever seen the telephone-book sized “annotations to the rules” by the gamers?
The rules are not that difficult…. but the layout of the book makes it harder to learn them than you would expect.
And there are quite some things that need clarification…. hence the above mentioned telephone-book.
A cleaned-up third edition really would not hurt. It´s not that easy to get WWII-opponents in Germany and the rules make it no easier task.
I don’t play it regularly enough to have searched out that sort of addenda. I know what you mean though. It’s partly an inevitable side-effect of the “army book” approach to rule writing, where you end up needing to cart around half a dozen volumes to get every rule that applies. This approach also makes it very much more difficult to keep consistent and avoid errata.
HI Jake.
I would like the oportunity to discuss the game mechanics , (as I am interested in the ‘nuts and bolts’ as well as the ‘body work’.)
Could you let me know the core concepts you want to use?
I am only an amatuer games designer, but I do have 30years of gaming experiance and 20 years as a conformance engineer.(Sorting out problems with mechanical systems is my ‘proper’ job!)
Anyhow Ill understand if you want to keep things close to you chest at this early stage.
Could I just post up some of my ideas, see if they fit your concepts?(Very simple stuff, but allows complex gameplay options.)
I am assuming you will using based infantry .
(Removing 15mm minis from a base can be fiddley for ‘suasaged fingered’ folk.)
So a simple morale system would be useful?
And a clear distinction between anti infantry / anti armour type weapons?
I only want to help if I can ….
Hi Kevin. The realities of it are that FOW is so popular that it has defined the “accepted” base sizes for infantry groups in 15mm WWII, and anyone trying to do something very different will have a real uphill struggle. The industry practice here has always been to simply adopt the same basing conventions as any dominant market leader as it benefits all involved, gamers as well as companies. People who fail to do this fail to do very well. I can’t think of an exception to that rule.
Morale should be factored into the battle in some fashion, though I doubt that a separate morale system is the most elegant solution.
I am approaching weaponry from a function and doctrine point of view, so anti armour and anti infantry weapons are clearly distinct.
Your concepts seem to fit with some of the game mechanics I have been working on for the last few years.(Trying to get a straight forward modern wargame rule set.)
Can I offer some ideas for discussion?
Game turn mechanic idea.(Combining Alternating phases with order allocation.)
If we let units (on good morale) take 2 actions per game turn.
The actions could be –
Move up to thier maximum speed.(Modified by terrain.)
Make an attack.( close assault or ranged.)
Ready.Prepare to perform the following action to greater effect.(Fire heavier weapons -move steathily)
This allows the following 2 action ‘orders’ to be given to units.
Advance -move then attack.
Double – move then move
Evade- attack then move.
Full support – ready then attack
Infiltrate. -ready then move.
The game turn runs like this.
Command phase.
Players place ‘order counters’ face down next to units on good morale .
(Request off table support.)
Primary action phase.
Player A turns over order counters one at a time and peforms the first action of the order counter with each unit as the counters are turned over.
Player B ,Ditto.
Secondary action phase.
Player A removes the order counters one at a time and performs the second action of the order counter as the counters are removed from each unit in turn.
Player B , Ditto.
Resolution phase.
Attempt to rally units on poor morale .
(Plot arrivals of off table suport.)
If a unit becomes supressed-neutralised or routes after an action, its order counter is replaced with a supressed-neutralised or routed counter.(As apropriate, and follows the actions for the apropriate morale state untill rallied.)
As I am old and forgetful (especialy after a beer or two.lol) Having one counter next to each unit that informs you the state of every unit, AND the point at which the game was left ‘to get refreshments’, is a very welcome idea!
It is similar to looking at the attacker for a brief period of time , then looking to see what the defender has done in the same time period.(Almost simultaneous but no quite.)And offers a lot of tactical interaction/thought.What actions to take what order to take them -when to activate, what are opposing units going to do?..etc.
I hope I have explained this ok.
If it is too complex, would you prefer a simple alternating activation or alternating (interlaved ) phases?
I can offer up some ideas on damage resolution ,(intergrating physical and psychological damage )if you like?
Sometimes I like pre-planning (Urban War, Epic, Nuclear War, etc), and sometimes I’d rather use a more immediate system. For this I’d planned to avoid order counters and just have players act on their turn as they chose. I don’t want to describe this system in detail yet as it’s not entirely working the way I want it to. I’m not just using alternate activations though. That would work, it’s just not what I’m using.
You sound as if you’ve already got a whole game done Kevin.
Hi jake.
I have a whole system worth of basic game mechanics resolution methods that hang together quite well.But is is not a playable game yet.(Sorting out apropriate game mechanics is the bit I can do, developing them into a full game is where I struggle !)
This is your project, I just wanted to post up some ideas that you ,(hopefuly), may find useful.
If you are using ‘interleaved phases’,this one works realy well for modern warfare.
Player A moves
Player B attacks.
Player A reacts.
Player B moves,
Player A attacks,
Player B reacts.
(Basic reactions are move or attack .Players do not have to perform actions if they dont want to .)
It is ‘semi structured’ and allows a degree of freedom within the ‘safty’ of ‘defined turns’ .
I obviuosly dont want you to divulge details you want to keep to yourself.
Would discussing basic game mechanics and alternative resolution methods be ok?
No fine detail just basic nuts and bolts as it were.
As is often the way, this makes me think of yet another post I haven’t got round to. So many burblings, so little time…
I’ll come back to that thought later.
Your comment about there being a difference between a “whole system worth of game mechanics” and a “full game” is an interesting one. What do you feel is missing? Apart from the elements of background colour, painting guides, etc, what do you think makes a “full game” apart form your system of game mechanics?
Hi Jake.
I suppose I am applying the development processes from my day job.
Define fuctional requirement.(Development brief)
Asses mechanical system options available to achive fuctional requirment.(Game mechanics)
Define optimal system mechanic sub sets.(Game mechanics and resolution methods.)
Practical prototypes (Alpha testing)
Revised prototypes(Beta testing)
Production run.(Publication.)
I have a set of game mechanics that will result in a playable game.BUT I have to asign actual values to actual units -play test -refine etc.
So its at the alpha testing stage.
It needs lots of testing and adjustment to arrive at a full game with ‘defined perameters of optimal function’.
( It will work, but needs the fine detail putting in place,and trying to find time to do this is quite difficult .)
Back ground and art ADD to the asthetic of the game, but dont have much effect on game play, (just popularity.)
I agree with you ,the most important thing is to question everything.Alot of developers seem to just follow preconceptions of thier own/thier predecessors.And some end up using totaly inapropriate game mechanics as a result. (To be fair some are down to external pressure too.)
I like simple systems that are easy to follow and give intuitive results.
(Probably due to the backlash from my day job where designers keep ‘showing off’ with overcomplicated overengineered solutions …. )