Whist i am musing over the start points for SSPBI.
May i ask for some subjective/opinion feedback on comparative complexity.
Remember there is no correct answer , just an opinion.
Rough guidance
At the "ten"end of complexity we have buying a house, learning a new software package, tracing your ancestors.
At the "five" we have finding where you put an item three years ago, remembering who was in your class 15 years ago or learning how to change a pair of taps in the kitchen.
At the "one" level we have counting to 36, 5x16, rolling 6D6 and picking out the scores of 5,6.
SSPBI needs to be pitched at about 7 I think??
What level would you put the present PBI at out of 10?
What level would you like a game to be at in order to attract you to play more than once?
What would be your priority out of battle reports, video tutorials or example with pictures or other (suggest)?
Of course we are a small sample but all responses gratefully received.
martin
Ben and I have played 5 games of PBI over the Christmas holidays. We are fairly new to playing the game so are learning as we play, having chatted on it, we would say a 6 for the current game. Ben feels 40K which he plays a lot is a more complex game maybe on an 8.
The biggest issue for us has been remembering the rules, or coming across scenarios we have not played before therefore needing to look up the answers which causes the games to be played at a slower pace. It is obviously more complex than playing a game such as Game of Thrones Risk, which we played several times over the holidays.
Dave and Ben
I think that there is also something about perception of complexity, and actual complexity. When I initially read the PBI rules (carefully, several times), I was lost.
But when I played it, things dropped more into place.
I am not a fan of complexity for complexity's sake: indeed a feature of RFCM rules is - in my mind - the effort that goes into reducing complexity while retaining appropriate granularity and specific detail.
So, I'd suggest a politician's answer and would attempt to reframe the question.
The rules should maybe be a 6 or 7 in terms of level of detail available, but perhaps a 3 or 4 in terms of gaming "complexity" (i.e. due to the elegant mechanisms developed to manage such complexity).
Does this help in any way?
Simon
I would put PBI at about 5
Hi Martin, I'm not sure you can categorise things the way you have. I think they are different for everyone. I would put tracing ancestors at a 5, whilst remembering names or where I put something can be nearer 10 (that's probably age related).
With any set of rules I find them easier to use and more playable if they have a logic I can tune into straight away. In this sense I find CWB by far the best set off rules I have played. PBI is up there not far behind but it is not as intuitive as CWB for me. There are a few things in PBI that either I don't agree with or don't fully understand and that is where I start to struggle.
All of which fails to answer your question. I guess my answer has to be that CWB is intuitive to me and that should be the aiming point. Make the rules intuitive and I will want to play them.
I have really trouble with PBI. I play a lot of games, and I cannot quite fathom out PBI. I can't quite decide whether its the layout (which is frustrating) or the mechanics (which just don't seem to click with me) ... So i'd put it at 9. For reference I'd put SB most PP games at 1-2, not complicated but they click.
Simon...i haven't forgotten the promise to come down to Burton with PBI...daughters after school activities are a barrier at the moment. It's definitely a game that if you play with an experienced player it all clicks into place.
Having said the above, WW2 is not a favoured period of mine and I doubt I'd play it if it wasn't for PBI. I enjoy the scale of the game, the ease of which you can collect a playable company, and the cinematic moments you can have in game. Whether that is a lucky shot from a tank, a Platoon Commander running across open ground to help his platoon or a crazy assault that shouldn't work but does - these are moments that keep me coming back for more.
Oddly, even though it is one of my lesser favoured periods, I've played more PBI than most other games.
Complexity wise from a basic mechanic point of view it is relatively straight forward...say a 5. Add in all of the extra weapons, vehicles, troop types and in game situations (I.e. the bits that make it both a WW2 game and interesting) and it rises to an 8 or a 9.
But this is for a newcomer. For old hands, the complexity remains only a 6 or 7. It's a game that rewards good tactics, knowledge of the period and occasionally a lucky dice roll.
10.
I bought it, wanted to love it. Didn't understand it. Never played.
Pbeccas where in the world are you?
All of the replies have been most helpful, without exception.
Any ore will still be most useful.
Even passing thoughts... :-\
I agree with John on a lot of his scores, don't know about where I put something 3 years ago ? Where did I put my Glasses too....?
As a lot of people are saying a 6/7 Would be ideal. But there has been chat about a"Show" level gamette to be put in the rules ? 3/4 level to get people into the game ? Then they can build up to the 6/7 level of understanding as they progress through the rules.
It's not just WW2 rules as Ben and Dave pointed out 40K type skirmish and platoon/Company level "Modern" Warfare type of games are complicated.Life is complicated. They are for Real and we only ever play a simplification of what actually happens in a one to one or team on team situation.
It's about How Real, How much Fun and How much Realism and Feel you want and expect in the game for that chosen period etc.....
One thing about the RFCM games is these levels seem to be right give or take ! That's because a lot of different people on here get involved with the making of the rules. Even on this forum, why at first can look like a "Silly" question ? Things can be discussed on here without people biting your head off and in the end it can be a viable point that may be included into a set of rules.
Common Sense also applies to most of the games we play, if you were in that situation? What would you do or expect to do ? And what would you expect to happen ??? From a common sense point of view, not because I want to win ?
What I like about the rules we mostly play is when a situation comes about that the rules don't cover using a D6 with 1 being a fail and a 6 being a pass how would you solve it ?or the 123 and 456 rolls ? It's amazing how amicable you can resolve a situation like that ?
These are some things I think we should be looking at to archive a 6/7 level in RFCM games as a whole !
Miles
PBI is my preferred game of all PP games. Why? Because it is a challenging game but it is totally engrossing. Complexity level is 5 but the need to keep looking up stuff is a downside. This is easily solved by more reference tables such as the table for weapons already included in the rules.
I think another factor to consider here is the flexibility to possible scenarios playable within the rules.
Some RFCM rules are effectively limited to a single scenario e.g.
- Pirates land: a raid to grab stuff from a town
- Pirates sea: seize merchantmen before they escape off the edge of the table
- Western: hold/seize the terrain in the middle of the table before time runs out
- Vietnam: search and destroy; search and rescue; defend the camp (OK, that's more than one)
There's nothing inherently wrong with this, but such games do allow for their rules to be written more simply.
PBI is not only complicated by the vast array of weapons and tactics available across different geographies, but also by the wide range of tactical scenarios that can be supported. The rules as written include 3 objectives, but we've seen at the PBI "megadays" that they are inherently very flexible.
This is a dimension of "complexity" that I for one would not wish to lose in PBI, but recognise that some kind of simplification may be necessary due to the "programmed opponent" element of SSPBI.
On the point of scenarios, I think this is an inherent benefit of how the various rules are written. You can turn up with your figures and play with little fuss.
However, there is nothing wrong with using scenarios from over games, or setting historical scenarios, or playing a straight line up your figures and shouting go without any pre game sequence or attack/defender situation.
A criticism I have heard from some people is that playing by the book PBI might get a bit stale after a while. I reply with 2 points. Firstly I've played probably 30+ games and never felt that the game is stale. And secondly, once you've bought the rules, they are yours to do with as you wish. Why not take a scenario from Chain of Command or Bolt Action and convert it to PBI? In fact that could be be an article for the Mill! 😀
I ve always wondered how we can also put PBI "Out there????" Like the other gaming systems ? Even at Entoyment ?
We Might have have a talk with Peter ? See if we can generate a little more interest? Get some of those their to try and play the game ? Martin ?
Because we have proved that it not only plays on the Set 4 x 4 table with its in game set up, it will actually play on bigger tables and flexible scenarios. Yes when we Up Scale the game, as we have discussed before on here, it needs "house rules" to reign in some elements of the rules, but that's mainly because we have pushed it out to something it can cope with. The game also shows it looks prettier than say FoW as the Tanks aren't All within touching distance of each other ? Looking very un realistic! Because of the crowding of the squares it keeps that sort of thing in check.
The reason I am saying this, is we are going to be looking at "Our" game and we will probably find a few things that might and will need tweaking for the single side as well as the normal game. Hopefully we might be able to tidy up the game and in time might be able to push it out to other players of WW2 type games ?
Miles
Good thoughts Miles.
I do think it's about word of mouth.
The Chain of Command fans are great at getting the message out there and evangelizing about the game. Although for the first time ever I think there was a thread on Twitter yesterday where Henry Hyde of Bwttlegames Magazine had a rather heated discussion with Nick from the Lardies about how he thought the rules may provide 'realism' but not much of a game.
Interesting reading. PBI creates an urgency for the attacker to get on with things before the defender can reinforce. Also you have to pick your objectives wisely. The layout of the terrain is very important but I'm afraid I'm not very good at using this to my advantage.
Thanks, bit far to drop In For a game.
Stewart
Quote from: Stewart 46A on January 06, 2020, 10:30:19 AM
Thanks, bit far to drop In For a game.
Stewart
I coming to Salute 😎
P are you over for long enough to drop in to Weymouth???
Ben and I have just finished our last holiday period game of PBI, 7 in total. Ben is back at college tomorrow. We thought we would play a number of familiarisation games in preparation for our Arnhem Bridge game at Beachhead in February.
German army, through out was an early Normandy army with either Stugs, Panthers or Panzer 4's, with SS units one being veterans. The British were Para's with either armoured cars, Sherman's, and or 2 x six pounders. We inter changed the command, but the interesting result was 6-1 to the Germans. I must admit who ever played the Brits had horrendous dice throwing every time. Initially we thought the power of the German MG's made the difference, but after looking at the games a little closer, the Red Devils were just very unlucky with the dice and the German player tended not to be.
Most games I have ever played in such a time period and really enjoyed them.
David and Ben
Quote from: martin goddard on January 06, 2020, 01:32:35 PM
P are you over for long enough to drop in to Weymouth???
Unfortunately not. But, wow, would love to. We drove around southern England three years ago. This time we are concentrating on mid Uk and Wales.
I've not played PBI, I've never been keen on WWII, but could I offer some thoughts on complexity. I've long thought that games can have simple, easy to learn mechanics /rules and the complexity comes from the interactions that result. Chess is the obvious example but lots of 'non-wargame' boardgames fit this model; I'm thinking of games such as A Touch of Evil or the excellent Thunderbirds. In both cases it was easy to pick up the basics (after the first couple of games of Touch of Evil I don't think we looked at the rules). The advantage such games often have is that information necessary to resolve interactions is on counters or cards but it nows seems common to have the basics on quite a small game card for each player.
A number of the wargame boardgames now feature this style - Memoir 44 and Battlecry (Command & Colours ACW) are examples i've played. I don't like the style of having to get a 'right flank' card so I can attack on the right flank but combat resolution is simple, there's a lot of command decisions to be made and you really need to focus on the objectives.
Back at RFCM games, I recall playing the original version of Square Bashing when it came out. I particularly loved the use of squares, something I've adopted in many of my own games since, but found the combat resolution involved a bit too much process. When I wrote a game for the Seven Weeks War (1866) I used squares but said that the 'combat effectiveness' of each unit was equal to the number of bases - to succeed you always rolled the CE or less. Easy to remember and the toy soldiers provide a visual reminder. Advantages / disdvantages can be catered for by the order of rolling or multiple rolls against CE or re-rolls.
Could I suggest that keeping mechanics to the mimimun and consistent (eg in 'current' SQB, the higher command radius counts the square the HC is in but ranges for firing don't count the square the firer is in; much easier to go for one or other all the way through). I think that to achieve 'minimum mechanics' involves some difficult decisions about what the core of the period feel is to the designer. As an example, doing a Marlburian game, reading about the battles suggested that the focal points were control of reserves (lower commanders were good at drawing units from them so that the General finds he has hardly any when he is ready to commit them) and the big advantage of fresh troops over those who have been engaged. And dealing with those two things were the core of the game design.
I think another important point is 'don't write for rules lawyers', it just makes life difficult and i don't want to play with them anyway. Games, for me, are far more about having a good time with good people than winning.
I'm not trying to suggest that my approach is the right one but I hope it might provide some food for thought. Sorry for going on for so long, perhaps i should have done this as an article.
Pbeccas try and visit the RAF museum, RAF Cosford in Shropshire, good Cold displays. It should be in your visit area?
Dave
@Brian - there are many wise words in your post.
I think the WW1 "Wings of War" game is so clever in that there is lots of complexity / subtlety in the movement, but it's all dealt with through cards (which you select, rather than are dealt randomly). I would agree with you in being less keen on games that rely on luck to execute a fairly basic manoeuvre that you want to perform.
Simon
Good input chaps. Thanks.
Quote from: Wardy64 on January 08, 2020, 03:41:28 PM
Pbeccas try and visit the RAF museum, RAF Cosford in Shropshire, good Cold displays. It should be in your visit area?
Dave
I'll definitely be floating around in that area and I'll definitely pay visit. Thanks for the heads up.
Another thought to ease people into a game. The Avalon Hill Starship Troopers game (1970s) broke the game down into a number of steps. The first covered (as I recall, I'd have to delve into the depths of the toy cupboard to find it) the basics of movement and firing then told you to stop reading and play the first scenario. Successive steps added more rules/equipment with another scenario after each step. You thus didn't have to wade through all the rules and complexity before you started playing and you got to grips with the basics in quite a painless way. So why not do something similar - cover set up, movement, firing and then show the set up for a basic game which enables players to get the feel of the essential rules? Then add more facets of the game in easy to digest stages.
What an interesting idea, Brian. This could effectively extend the concept of what Martin is already doing (breaking things down by fundamental step) in his videos to the rule books themselves.
I concur that Brian has a great thought there. :)
"I concur that Brian has a great thought there."
I knew I'd have one some day! ;)
I'd quit now while you're ahead.
:) :) :)
Well, I am confident about coming up with a good idea before February too. :) Then another before year's end.
Guys
A question on PBI rules:
You are not allowed reinforcements in turn 1, but are you allowed to use the asset 'rapid arrival' in turn one?
Thanks
Dave & Ben
Yes you can use rapid arrival. Because it just makes more bases ready and still off table. This will make more bases the sooner ready. This means there is more chance of whole units arriving end of turn 2.
martin
Thanks Martin
A few thoughts on approach. Once upon a time, like many I'd go through a set of rules and compile the quick reference sheet (QRS). Nowadays, one I've decided on the general style and structure I start working through the turn sequence and generate, in table form, the relevant rules to that section (eg movement) so I end up with the QRS first. That serves for tryouts, amended as we play. I then work out what words of explanation I need to add (something Bernie Ganley tends to do when I work on a project with him: the cheeky blighter always says "scientists can't write" so I enjoy myself being pedantic about his grammar). How do others approach a new game design?
Are Blitzkrieg Germans going to get a decent amount of assets in the new game.
Or will assets be removed completely to prevent someone feeling aggrieved if their opponent is successful in getting his assets.
I have played many different rule-sets over the last 40 years of gaming. Some too complex, some too simple. Its not a case of how complex but how enjoyable you find them and how easy to get into. I have to blame John Watson for getting me into the wonderful world of PP. I find PBI to be a nice balance of complexity without getting bogged down in the technicalities of things so place give it a 6-7. Its a shame I can't say the same about Patrol in the Sudan. I have read through 4 times now and still can't get my head around that rule-set.
Moggy post your questions on the PITs thread and I will try to help you out