Working on Team PBI.
Here are some thoughts .
I find it difficult to simplify it because WW2 is so complicated.
How far to simplify is a subjective judgment.
One consideration that I must consider is, that many who buy the rules only wargame a few times a year. Thus each time they play there is a lot of re-reading for them to do. Moreso if they are playing a range of rules and periods. Their requirement is probably to get some figures out, shoot and move whilst not having to keep checking the rules. Then pack it all away for 3 months and play the new game Benny has just bought.
I have no statistics on how many games and what type potential customers play.
A set of rules that is very simple will be ideal for those whom play 1- 5 games a year.
Such players make up about 70% of the potential market I feel?
A simple game can usually be mastered in terms of "obvious ways to win" within a few games. But if players only play a few games then the simplicity matches the exposure. Satisfaction.
If a game is more involved, then I am expecting gamers to play 8 or more times per year. This gives maybe a 12% potential audience as many others games fulfil the criteria of "more involved".
Obviously I game and travel a lot , (about 200 games per year in 6 regular locations) which is at the extreme (i would expect?). It is certainly not for me to say gamers should play more. Very much their own choice. It is a hobby, rather than training for a skilled career.
I think I will write the rules for the type of game I like to play. Hope to cover the costs. If not that is my fault.
Of course battle reports and videos help ; but many players are not looking for that sort of game anyway. Thus, flag waving will only make a small difference.
However I will also try to make the game a bit easier/smoother in order to encourage the more occasional player.
Other rapids to negotiate are inertia ("we like measuring"), scale ("28mm are in all the magazines and look great") and access ("i would rather only paint up 12 figures but lots of tanks is OK").
This is going to be tricky, but here goes. :)
Your thoughts?
martin
Hi Martin,
There may be a case for doing a two tier rule set with a simple pick up game with an optional advanced rules to give the more detailed game for the people who are prepared to put in more effort. It could also be marketed as a solo game.
Martin Buck
Martin,
Although I fall in to the group who play the excellent PBI game at least 8 times year, I agree that a shortened version would be good. As you know I devised a 10 minute game of PBI to demonstrate PBI at the ComiCon event and it did attract a lot of younger players. Go for it.
Michael
Martin G,
I agree with your approach: it's WW2 so people will expect a similar level of detail to the current PBI set, I think.
Detail need not directly relate to complexity, and some of the current PBI mechanisms have since been streamlined (e.g. SCW activation). I don't play PBI that often but am happy to learn (and at times forget) the rules. I like the balance between detail and complexity.
One thing that struck me is that, outside the core rules, many are effectively optional e.g. Soviet tank riders, various weapon-specific rules... For a given pair of opponents, the rules actually used in any given game are not that extensive.
That said, I agree with Martin B and Mike below that some kind of simplified "way in" could be helpful for beginners.
Simon
All the input so far is valuable. Thanks
It is at the "foundation" stage that these decisions are made.
Based on what you have said I will consider putting each special thing in its own category to keep the main rules cleaner.
By this i mean to put everything about desant riders in an addition section and not mention them at all in the main rules.
"Scaffolding" is now starting to go up.
martin
Its the framework of the game design that's needed.
What do you want the players to be doing, the WW2 detail can be added and adjusted later.
You wont be able to have a rule set that allows Blitzkrieg Germans to be played against pacific island Japanese.
Well Les..
I am going to make a skeleton of all aspects of the game first.
I am "wrestling" (It may get muddy!) with some basic concepts.
Expect to put out an advisory document 9th of janaury 2020.
Of course BB is still being done. :)
Hi Martin,
I'm looking forward to seeing what your thoughts on this.
Regards,
Martin Buck
Thanks for the confidence Martin. :)
Quote from: martin goddard on December 30, 2019, 09:57:50 PM
Thanks for the confidence Martin. :)
Your eager audience awaits, Mr Pig. No pressure ;D
Hi Martin,
I'm very new on this forum, but was on the yahoo group for a long while. I use PP figures for just about everything other than Napoleonics, but don't often use the rules. That said, I used to play a lot of AK and PBI.
So, my tuppence worth: I stopped playing PBI for a couple of reasons. The first was the activation. For a game I might play once a month, they were too often spoilt by consistently poor AP rolls. I felt that the solution was to use 2d6 for APs, with an alteration to action costs to even out the luck.
The other issue was that I preferred the previous iteration of the rules to the Company Commander version. I felt that with opportunity fire, here they come shooting it got too involved and lost the simplicity combined with effect which I had previously enjoyed.
I hope that's useful, look forward to seeing a newer version at a show soon, was this current inconvenience is over.
Best,
Si B
BB is done.
Just that camera to wrestle into submission!!
Welcome to the discussion Si
If you want a copy of the play test PBI 2020 do send me an e mail and I will e mail it to you.
All rule work has stopped here at the moment as i need other players for the work.
But one day we will pick it up and carry on.
martin
So Si B when you refer to PBI which version are you referring to V1/V2 or V3 ? V3 being the latest version and the best out of the 3( this is my and few others opinions) Which team PBI will be mainly modelled on as well. But this is where any problems/issues you and any others have with V3 this is the time We might be able to straighten out ??? As with any play testing some other solutions/factors do arise from indeed the Playtesting....
SCW was born out V3 and that seems to gone down very well.
Miles
Hi Miles,
I think I started on V2, which I played for several years. I'd have to get up in the loft to be certain, but think the 2 volume version is V3. First volume is rules, second is Coy orbats. In both versions, I got fed up with my limited gaming opportunities getting skewed by a series of poor rolls for APs. The couple of other players I used it with had a similar opinion.
V3 (Company Commander edition?) came along and seemed to add some complexity, or at least more opportunity fire and defensive fire, to beyond a point I could rationalise. I'd also preferred the previous pre-game sequence. That is just my opinion, based on a few games. Ultimately it contributed to me losing interest and moving to other games. I always intended to mash up a 2d6 AP generation system, but as is the way of things, never quite got round to it.
I must stress though, that I think that there's some really great concepts in PBI. Removal of dead markers and penalties for failing to do so. More difficult to exit cover than enter. The reinforcement/reserve arrival system. Even the fundamental of using squares.
One other mechanic I would like to change is the pinning system. I'd prefer a system where pinning is the immediate result of fire, not an optional outcome. All infantry weapons are area weapons, with the exception of sniper rifles, and suppression is the intended effect. They only really become point weapons at close quarters. So I'd like casualties to be an additional effect after pinning. Perhaps rolling to hit creating a pinning effect unless saved. Any saving roll of a '1' causing a casualty, other saves as usual determined by cover.
Coupled to that, minor issue, I've also thought that the cost of assaulting is too high and the penalty for failing not worth the risk, ie if you fail you get to do nothing. Troops failing to assault getting an automatic round (1APS worth) of fire, would be reasonable I think. For me that would represent troops reluctant to close, but content to keep shooting, even if not the best course of action from a commander's perspective. Alternatively, make the cost in APs, of assaulting a pinned square lower. I know it's reduced by 1 if the square is pinned, but 4 APs to start with seems too much to me, particularly in a game which is time limited. The game can turn on getting enough APs to assault with the critical platoon, rather than the results of the fight. Maybe this is where gaming and simulation collide head-on.
That's already gone on longer than I intended or your question required. However PBI is a great game which I've had a lot of fun with in the past. It would be great to have a small part in taking it forward.
Best,
Si
Some interesting points in there, Si.
However, on the pinning point - is there not a logic that one could choose aimed fire (to kill) or else rapid fire (primarily to keep heads down)? But then of course, logically that choice would be main before, rather than after, the actual shooting...
I do find the SCW rules run much faster, so am looking forward to seeing how SSPBI will turn out on the motivation and action side of things.
Simon
Ah well you have the advantage of me there, I don't have a new copy of BAIT. I've just spent the last half hour trying to decide whether to invest. Never used the old rules and only got as far as painting some International Brigade types.
Do I go all in, SFL, Regulares, militias and Popular Army? Or do I be sensible and finish up my unpainted RCW, ACW, AWI & WW2 stash? Not only painting it all, it'd be good to actually get it on the table from time to time.
I think I've just talked myself into a new project.
Quote from: Si B on April 09, 2020, 09:33:36 PM
Ah well you have the advantage of me there, I don't have a new copy of BAIT. I've just spent the last half hour trying to decide whether to invest. Never used the old rules and only got as far as painting some International Brigade types.
Do I go all in, SFL, Regulares, militias and Popular Army? Or do I be sensible and finish up my unpainted RCW, ACW, AWI & WW2 stash? Not only painting it all, it'd be good to actually get it on the table from time to time.
I think I've just talked myself into a new project.
Excellent! When did being sensible have any place in wargaming? :D
I'd buy the BAIT rules first and then decide what to go for. Many vehicles can be used for a range of forces, for example.
Simon
Quote from: Smiley Miley 66 on April 09, 2020, 10:23:06 AM
So Si B when you refer to PBI which version are you referring to V1/V2 or V3 ? V3 being the latest version and the best out of the 3( this is my and few others opinions) Which team PBI will be mainly modelled on as well. But this is where any problems/issues you and any others have with V3 this is the time We might be able to straighten out ??? As with any play testing some other solutions/factors do arise from indeed the Playtesting....
SCW was born out V3 and that seems to gone down very well.
Miles
Miles, it looks like I owe you (and PBI) an apology. Having dug out my V3, I find that the cost of assaulting has been reduced from 5 to 4 APs. And that is further reduced for a pinned square, which I'd entirely forgotten. Apologies for the confusion on my part.
Best,
Si
Completed a Game today using rule set V10, no major problems. Bit one sided arguing with myself but shows the game can be played. Write up sent to Martin for edit and inclusion in the 'Mill'
Stewart
That's good to know Stewart - thanks for sharing: I look forward to the write-up in the next Mill.
You might need to watch our for your sanity arguing with yourself under these lockdown conditions, but I hope at least the best man won.
Simon
No worries Simon, I have always been a bit mad and these restrictions are just like being onboard but a Less crowed ship.