PBI complexity

[Smiley Miley 66]

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

[martin goddard]

Good thoughts Miles.

[Sean Clark]

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.

[pbeccas (Paul)]

Pbeccas where in the world are you?

Perth, Australia

[Stewart 46A]

Thanks, bit far to drop In For a game.

Stewart

[pbeccas (Paul)]

Thanks, bit far to drop In For a game.

Stewart

I coming to Salute 😎

[martin goddard]

P   are you over for long enough to drop in to Weymouth???

[Wardy64]

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

[pbeccas (Paul)]

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. 

[Brian Cameron]

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.

[Wardy64]

Pbeccas try and visit the RAF museum, RAF Cosford in Shropshire, good Cold displays. It should be in your visit area?

Dave

[Colonel Kilgore]

@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

[martin goddard]

Good input chaps.  Thanks. 

[pbeccas (Paul)]

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.

[Brian Cameron]

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.