First reading and game

[rogerg]

This is my first feedback. It was originally a Word document. I do not know how copying it to the site will affect the formatting. I have changed the advance table example to a description.

First Reading of Art of War

The first part of this document is compiled from notes I made while reading through the rules for the first time. I had read all the entries on the Slitherine open forum for AoW before this reading of the rules.

As requested, I am not pulling punches. I do, however, have some experience of writing rules and have several times reviewed rules for board game developers prior to their publication. My sympathies are with the authors. I know rule writing is more difficult than it might appear to those who have not tried it. I have tried to offer alternative suggestions rather than just criticisms. Some of these are quite radical, particularly with regard to the ordering of the rules. I did find this latter quite disappointing. However, the choice of mechanisms is very encouraging. I will be playing games to these rules.

We played our first game having had no assistance from experienced play testers. I enjoyed it and am looking forward to more games. My fellow tester is Andy McKay. The choosing of my army list and the experiences of the first game form the second and third sections of this document.

I am writing this the weekend before the Leeds competition. I have further alternative suggestions to make, but I am not going to have the time to get them written before Leeds. I want to finish this document before the Leeds event and I get my views influenced. This is very much a first experience report.

The introduction
Pages four and five should be pages one and two. The introduction ought to be what greets you when you turn the first page. A three page contents list is a harsh opener. It is something that is skipped over immediately.
Paragraph five on page five implies an attempt to demoralise one's own troops. This might be appropriate to the way some people play, but I assume it is not what you intended to write.

Key concepts
This does not work. Now that I have read the rules, I can make sense of it. However, the page is full of technical terms related to the game. They mean very little, if anything, at this point in the book. It is too much, too soon. A novice will be overwhelmed. An experienced wargamer will just skip the page. Leave it out.

Here is where I declare that I spent seventeen years teaching maths. A rule book is effectively a wargame lesson. The priority at this stage is to get a few basic ideas into the readers' minds. The rest of the structure is built on this basic mental framework. It is essential not to overload the reader in the opening pages.

Army selection
"There is no need to understand these fully at present". I hate this phrase. I remember reading something similar in a book on programming. Which parts do I not need to understand? How do I know I have understood the sections I do need to understand? Please, if I do not need to know, then do not tell me. I really want to learn how to play. This page is not helping.

The following is all that is needed:

Art of War is played with model soldiers mounted on bases formed into 'battle groups'. The number of figures and the depths of their bases are the indicators of the different types of troops. Single bases depict generals and their bodyguards.

A paragraph like the above, accompanied by a picture of an army deployed for battle is all that is sufficient. Lesson one is 'bases, battle groups and generals'. Waffle a bit about the army size if you must, but do not put any technical terms here.

The section on playing area and equipment is in the correct place. The introductory game section is definitely not. Experienced wargamers are unlikely to bother with it (well, we didn't anyway,) and novices will be overwhelmed. There may be a case for putting it in as appendix one. If novices have read the basic rules, the trial game is a reasonable next step. Maybe a reference to 'appendix 1: setting up a small game' is appropriate. I suggest making it a small skirmish on a battlefield free of terrain.

Providing terrain
Once again there is too much here. Whilst terrain is a major feature of wargaming, we learn the basic mechanisms on open ground. This is the correct place to mention the terrain, but the full description here is too much. Terrain introduces disorder, combat advantage, visibility and so forth. It can all be left where it is in the appendix, until the other ideas are understood.

Playing the game (1)
Andy and I had similar comments about this. There is a sudden leap into the deep end. I might also add that distinguishing the major sections merely by centering the headings is not helpful. (My current job involves doing some typesetting work. Every time I see something in print, I start thinking about fonts and layout. I wonder, do doctors mentally diagnose people they pass in the street?)


Troop type lists
Before 'playing the game', I want a troop type list. A full explanation of the reasons for the categories, with examples in the Barker style, would be too much. This can go at the back. Remember, my concept of the game so far consists of that photograph of those pretty Roman battle groups. I need to know about skirmishers, shock troops and camps before I read about them in the tables describing the impact phase.

A major problem I have with the way the rules are presented has already arisen after only a dozen pages. This is the 'forward referencing', the use of terms and ideas before they are defined. It is a major block to understanding and irritating. I am never confident I have fully understood a section of the rules because each part always contains something I do not know about yet.

I concede that one of the real problems of writing wargame rules is the interdependence of many of the concepts. However, I am sure it can be done better than AoW is doing it. How about the following:

Definition order
?· Bases, battle groups and generals.
?· Troop types - quality re-rolls in this section, although no mention of CMT's etc.
?· Cohesion levels - it is necessary to mention cohesion tests that cause the level changes. There is no need to describe them fully here.
?· Disorder - leave out the table on page 19, this is for the reference sheet.

The above are about troop states. They are easy to understand because there are no actions involved. There has to be a step change now because it is necessary to start describing how to do things. The change needs to be as gentle as possible.
?· Movement basics - pages 17 and 18
?· Movement details - pages 20 through to 'contracting' on page 24. Unless I have missed something, there is no forward referencing involved here.

Now is the time to introduce the bound sequence on page 12. The examples are completely out of place here. They involve forward references and confuse rather than clarify.

?· Bound sequence - page 12 and 13 with no examples. Leave the pictures for the specific sections. Introduce one concept at a time.

The phases go here. At this point, the forward referencing cannot really be avoided. However, it can be minimised. Break up the page 14 table and put each section ahead of its respective phase.
?· Impact phase - all the extras to do with movement that are specific to the impact phase. I would opt to leave out the combat and end this with 'resolve combat - see the combat section'
?· Movement phase - not much to add here because the mechanisms have been covered already.
?· Shooting phase. - Is it possible just to do arcs and ranges and similar whilst leaving the calculation until later?
?· Melee phase - all the movement and adjustments

Combat resolution
?· Shooting, impact and melee
?· Cohesion tests, death rolls and outcomes.

The interbound phase
=====================

The above would switch around many of the sections in the rules, but it would make for a far easier learning experience. It would also make referencing the rules far easier. The way the rules are currently presented, finding what you want is quite difficult. When I am reading rules and find a part I do not fully understand, my natural reaction is to look back in the rules to find what I must have missed. With the current non-sequential layout, it is necessary to go to the contents. This would be acceptable if AoW were just a collection of references. However, having gone for the 'story book' approach (dare I say like Warhammer?) the rule references get lost in the examples. This style is neither one thing nor the other. It misses both targets. The story style with pictures looks a good idea. It appears to have been successful elsewhere.

Further Comments
I did read on up to the start of the appendices. However, I was unhappy that my view of the game was somewhat fragmented. I very much suspect that I was relying far too much on my wargaming experience to interpret what I was reading, rather than being led into the game by the rule book.

The following are the remainder of the notes I made:

Page 21, the complex moves table: "DISR non-shock troops to charge (P.26)".
When I wrote this, I had no idea what DISR stood for. Disrupted is mentioned in bullet 8 on page 6 amongst a lot of other stuff. The reference in the table is forward to page 26. Here I read about shock troops. Discovering exactly what 'shock troops' are requires looking forward to a list on page 96. I was back on page 21 trying to understand complex moves.

Page 23, wheeling is not well described
Oh, dear, how many times during games have I placed a base against my opponent's figures diplomatically 'to assist with a wheel'? All the time I want to scream "INSIDE CORNER STATIONARY! LOOK, YOU'RE MOVING IT. WHICH WORD DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND, 'CORNER' OR 'STATIONARY'?" I have made a note to send you a definition of wheeling that even some of the more spatially challenged might manage to comprehend.

Page 27, paragraph one, multiple negatives
Did Phil Barker guest write this paragraph?

A thought about the notes on photographs
Would it be a good idea to use the Roman and Carthaginian troops throughout if they have suitable troop types? This would concentrate the reader on the explanation, rather than distracting them with some unfamiliar items.

Page 31, move all the unusual moves to a section in an appendix
There are so many special cases that they get in the way of the flow of learning the rules. In this section of the rules just a basic charge and evade is enough. This is rather like DBM and flee moves. It is one of the most queried and consulted sections of those rules. Make 'special cases in charging and evading' the last appendix, then it can be located easily.

Page 34, overlaps are mentioned here but not defined
Probably the pictures will be a big help here. I remember that we struggled to find this section when playing our first game. When the pictures are in place, this is going to be a long and involved section of the rules. I think this reinforces my suggestion for page 31.

Page 35, restricted area
I believe the bullet list ought to be a selection from the list of permissible options on the movement chart. This can be augmented by additional restrictions on wheeling or whatever. E.g., permitted moves are 'Advances', 'Double Wheels'. Having the moves categorised is a good thing, exploit it here to give more clarity.

Page 36, reforming is too loose
I am not sure exactly what I had in mind when I wrote this. My concern is that this rule might be easily exploited by unscrupulous players. No doubt the test games will prove or disprove this.

Page 37, 38, bullet 3 should follow bullet 6
The 'if' and 'if not' then follow each other.

Page 40, end of paragraph 3 is not necessarily correct
If the 6 base BG is in a column, then it is effectively 3 bases. If the 8 bases are in four ranks then they count as 6.

Page 44, bullet 5, "1 hit per 3 bases in its first 3 ranks"
Maybe it is just me, but I had to read this a couple of times. During the game I was thinking more, "treble my hits equal the total of the first three ranks". This is a worse mouthful. I think, "1 hit for every 3 bases in the BG (count only the first three ranks)" works better. It is something to do with the "1, 3, first and 3" following closely together that is the problem in the original.

Page 47, bullet 2 what?
The first sentence is almost Barkerish. Sentence two is obscure. Substitute 'not count as contacting' for 'drop'. I still do not understand the second sentence.

Choosing an Army

Andy and I had agreed to try 800 points. We had played at the Burton doubles. This left only a couple of free evenings to read the rules and prepare for a game. Andy commented straight away that putting a list together had not been easy. I found it unexpectedly difficult too.

The expectation is to pick a troop type from the list, work out a single element value, then multiply this by the number of bases in he BG. The problem is in deciding what constitutes a troop type. I believe that this is a direct consequence of the issue noted above under 'troop type lists'. There is no clear distinction between troop types and points of advantage. For example, my list contains men-at-arms with heavy weapons. The heavy weapons are also a POA in two combat categories. This might be heavy foot with heavy weapons, a troop type. It may also be heavy foot with two points of advantage. I looked through the supplied lists to see if there was a category of heavy weapon that applied in melee, but not impact, or vice-versa. This would have implied I had to pay twice for the two POA categories. Finally, I decided I had a troop type with equipment that fortunately counted in two phases.

Andy explained that he had a troop type with a weapon that did not appear to be a POA. I cannot remember the full details. Whatever, if two experienced gamers were having difficulties, I think there is a problem.

I used the reference sheet to work out my army costs. I was expecting to reference heavy foot against troop quality, but found this was armour and troop type against quality. However, armour is also a POA in some circumstances, but it is in the main table but not in the POA list. This is ugly. I am going to have a go at writing my own troop type and POA list and see if it possible to get something that is a bit more organised.


First Game

The following items arose from our first game. Some are from my recollections, others are from notes written down during the game.

Terrain
We decided to play through the competition set up and see how it went. I had not read much of the terrain rules due to time constraints. My only comment on these so far is that the bottom line of the terrain table, with the colour code 'impassable' spreading into 'difficult', is confusing. I presume it is a mistake.

If a terrain piece cannot be placed according to the rules we presume it is left off. Andy suggested this should be stated explicitly.

Deploying
Deployment of a few units at a time and no maps is good. Congratulations, maps have never worked satisfactorily, dropping them is good move.

Can we have deployment stated as a distance from the centre line? This prevents the game being unduly influenced by the table width.
Why is there a restriction on where the camp is placed? Isn't this a DBM left over? I cannot think of a good reason for insisting it is on the rear edge.

Moving
I had the book open at this table a lot. The first entry under 'advance' is reminiscent of its DBM equivalent. I am sure I will remember it easily after a few games, but it was difficult in the first game. Try this:

Row 1 Column 1
Advances with a single wheel
Advances without wheeling, but less than the full distance.
Advances with a single wheel and less than full distance

Row 1 Column 2
Unless either:
a) A general is with the BG or BL
b) All of the movement is > 6 MU of the enemy

Row 2 across columns 1 and 2
Other advances with no more than a single wheel

This format separates out the type of move from the qualifiers. It is much easier to understand.

We were a bit caught out by the battle line moves being only advances and second moves.

The second move is confusing at first. It would be better if it were not included in the move table on p21. If it only appears in the p22 second move table the presentation is simplified. The bullets on BL's and second moves can be removed as well.
The bullet on the advantages of battle lines is a hindrance. It gets in he way of actually reading what the advantages are.

Combat
We only had time for one combat. Two cavalry units charged two foot units. I think we got the calculations correct.

The layout of the rules meant we spent a lot of time to find the sections we wanted. I believe I have made this point already.

Testing
The order of testing when units break or lose combats was confusing. There is a 'second reason for testing' deduction. However, if another unit breaks after the first has tested is this a new test or do you have to remember the score of the first test and deduct from it. Repeated testing would surely be the easiest game mechanism.

Generals
'Line of command' - we did not understand how this applied. It appears any general can command anything.

Conclusions on week one
The game mechanisms have been well designed. I am enthusiastic about playing more.
The overall impression is that the rules are written in a reaction to the minimalist style of DBM. I think I may be part of a counter-revolution in suggesting that this may have gone too far. Are too many bullets and too many examples obscuring the important content?

[shall]

All good stuff and very much in our minds as we move into packaging mode.

Any comments on some of Rogers broader principles would be very interesting to us

Thanks

Si

[bddbrown]

Simon,

There is a lot of information in Roger's post and I am not sure what you mean by broader principles. Maybe if you could highlight key areas from Roger's post it would make it easier to reply to.

Thanks.