Well, you’re *supposed to* screw up tactically as the Austrians, right? 🙂
Just had a debate with someone about set-ups and how they’re best presented. His idea was an annotated sheet 11 x 17 (for a map twice the size of the setup sheet) and “grease pencil”-style markings for set-ups. I don’t agree. I’m not even sure I think it’s a good idea to borrow from SPI’s old 30Years War Quad idea, with the setups printed on the map. There it kind of worked, because there was no terrain on the field for setups to get lost in. On any busier a field, it just wouldn’t work. I favor printed, hex-by-hex setups in a Battle Book. It’s definitive, it’s cogent (provided there are no typos) and precise when describing “conditional” stuff, like “within 2 hexes of….”.
Counter markings are a real slippery slope. Done correctly, and sparingly, they can really help the player keep his head in the game rather than in the rulebook. But, with fifty-eleven different colors, shapes, markings and font sizes, splashed all over already-ornate colors…. well, you defeat the purpose of stuffing all that info onto the units. Players *may* eventually get used to it, and commit it all to memory… but there are so many games now that abuse this (the many tactical ASL systems, mostly) that it’s no wonder the lines between wargames and euros starts getting blurry!!!
I’m still a little suspect with the “realism level”, but, now knowing that this is about twice the scale (2x hex distance, 2x time frame, 2x unit size, etc.) of a La Batt or Wellington’s Victory, I suppose I need to reconsider what it’s simulating in the nitty gritty of on-map play. This might be analogous to the ‘Glory’ system compared to the GBACW series, which also creates more “abstractions” than the more tactically-scaled older brother.
Well, you’re *supposed to* screw up tactically as the Austrians, right? 🙂
Just had a debate with someone about set-ups and how they’re best presented. His idea was an annotated sheet 11 x 17 (for a map twice the size of the setup sheet) and “grease pencil”-style markings for set-ups. I don’t agree. I’m not even sure I think it’s a good idea to borrow from SPI’s old 30Years War Quad idea, with the setups printed on the map. There it kind of worked, because there was no terrain on the field for setups to get lost in. On any busier a field, it just wouldn’t work. I favor printed, hex-by-hex setups in a Battle Book. It’s definitive, it’s cogent (provided there are no typos) and precise when describing “conditional” stuff, like “within 2 hexes of….”.
Counter markings are a real slippery slope. Done correctly, and sparingly, they can really help the player keep his head in the game rather than in the rulebook. But, with fifty-eleven different colors, shapes, markings and font sizes, splashed all over already-ornate colors…. well, you defeat the purpose of stuffing all that info onto the units. Players *may* eventually get used to it, and commit it all to memory… but there are so many games now that abuse this (the many tactical ASL systems, mostly) that it’s no wonder the lines between wargames and euros starts getting blurry!!!
I’m still a little suspect with the “realism level”, but, now knowing that this is about twice the scale (2x hex distance, 2x time frame, 2x unit size, etc.) of a La Batt or Wellington’s Victory, I suppose I need to reconsider what it’s simulating in the nitty gritty of on-map play. This might be analogous to the ‘Glory’ system compared to the GBACW series, which also creates more “abstractions” than the more tactically-scaled older brother.
Thanks for the “deep dive” on this.
Now you tell me! 🙂