Saturday, September 23, 2023

Playtest Notes

As mentioned in the previous post, I joined Ian for a playtest session to refresh my fading memories on rules' development for his Rein-Bow Warriors (RBW) project.  Last time we gave the rules a workout was about 18 months ago.  What has changed, what do we remember, what have we forgotten, and what can be improved?  We will see.

Following is a collection of my notes, insights, and suggestions from this session on Thursday.  Next time I look for my notes, I will know where to find them.  All tables and illustrations are copyright Ian Russell Lowell.  Game photos are mine. 

Turn Sequence
The Turn Sequence from the last playtest back in March 2022 contained a total of nine steps.  I recall, at the time, that these nine steps were difficult to keep in mind.  Some of the steps seemed out of order and the sequence required constant referral during play.  Simplification, if possible, would be helpful to streamline the turn sequence.  When Ian sent an updated QRS, I noticed that the sequence had been reduced to seven steps.  That is good!  Seven steps are more manageable than nine.

Since Step 3 is a direct result of Step 2, Step 3 could be combined within Step 2.  Now we are down to six steps. 

Turn Sequence
Similarly, Step 6 covers completion of charge movement in addition to hand-to-hand combat.  With chariots making their final charge movement in Step 6, frontline foot units ought to take a Reaction Test here as well.   We ought to name these Reaction Tests from chariot proximity "Seeing the Chariot" Test.  More on this Reaction Test later.

To Grid or Not To Grid?
In last year's playtests, battles were fought on an open field with tape measure and protractor in hand.  With my game table already laid out with a hex grid from my recent Punic War games, I asked if trying the game on a grid was possible.  Ian, said, "Sure!"  Within a very short amount of time, a hex-based diagram arrived into my Inbox.  All missile ranges and movements rates were converted from inches (or IKU) to hexes.

Missile ranges and arcs of fire template
I replied that this looked terrific but my units face a hex vertex not the side.   No problem!  Within minutes, a new diagram appeared in my Inbox showing a quick switch to unit orientation.

Quick revision to unit orientation.
Now that a hex was in place, one other change I made from the previous games was to reduce a Basic Maneuver Unit (BMU) from two stands to one stand.  Each BMU would occupy one hex.   In the earlier version of the rules, one BMU comprised two stands.  The BMU had one Mettle Value but each stand within the BMU could shoot and melee independently but all damage was assessed against the BMU.  What this meant was that (two stand) BMUs had a lot of combat power but were very brittle.

As play began, I quickly realized that the switch to a grid-based, one BMU/hex design simplified much of the game mechanisms.  Mechanisms that were fuzzy or unclear in the earlier, open-table sessions became straightforward without ambiguity on a grid.   While the basic game engine remained intact, the fog was beginning to lift on how to actually implement Ian's design philosophy into a playable solution.

With Turn Sequence and playing area defined, how did the playtest session progress?  What else was surfaced during this session?

The Game
After a lengthy discussion trying to remember how all of the pieces worked and a refresher on the dice roll resolution (roll two dice and add the differential to the largest), we dived into the game.

Battle lines drawn.
With the fast-moving chariots heading out first, contact was quickly made.  The trailing dust clouds denote last path taken and represent a No-Man's Land to foot.  One tenet of RBW is that chariot pairs engage in dogfights in a swirling "joust" as chariots speed passed one another, turn-about, and re-engage in a series of bowshots.  No foot units dare enter this whirlwind of activity. 

Chariots race off to meet their adversary.
While in past games, this area was marked out with a series of ill-defined dust clouds, the benefit of a hex-grid was recognized immediately.  Play stopped and we discussed the notion of Zones of Control. In a follow-up email, Ian termed these no-go areas as Non-Chariot Exclusion Zones.  I think I will stick with EZOC

Non-Chariot Exclusion Zone
Back to the game.

As the chariot arms of both armies scream out in advance of the main battle lines, it is clear that the Egyptians are outgunned.  While two of the Egyptian chariots intercept two Hittite chariots and begin dogfights, the two Hittite chariots on the wings advance unopposed.  The third Egyptian chariot in the center of the Egyptian battle line moves off toward the Hittite main battle line.    

Chariots engage.
While the two pairs of opposing chariots dogfight, the Egyptian chariot in the center approaches the Hittite line triggering Seeing the Chariot Mettle Tests.  In prior iterations of the RBW, when this test was triggered, the entire battle line had to make the test using the Mettle Value of the highest rated unit in the battle line.

Again, play was stopped to discuss.

After an engaging discussion with a few anecdotes told, we decided to only test units that were actually within chariot bow range.  Any testing unit could still utilize the highest Mettle Value from the entire battle line.  Was a successful Mettle Test based upon less or equal to a dice roll or strictly less thanLess than or equal was the decision.  Also, throwing doubles during a Mettle Test resulted in possible leader casualty in the earlier rules' iteration.  Now, doubles are treated as a regular Mettle Test (Pass or Fail) with the largest die used since differential is zero.  In this game, we used doubles as an automatic pass but think the test ought to remain within the standard framwork as outlined in the previous sentence.  

Hittites test for Seeing the Chariot.
Hittite skirmishes are close to breaking.
On both flanks, chariot dogfighting continues.  In previous games, ammo expenditures were tracked.  Chariots had four shots before needing to break off and return to camp to replenish.  In this game, constraints on ammo supply were lifted.  Those previous experiments demonstrated that by the time a chariot had expended its four shots, it was likely already badly damaged.  Compounding this, the battle was often decided before chariots could return to camp, replenish, and get back into battle.  In this one trial, lifting of ammo supply made no significant difference to the course of battle.  Why track something needlessly?        

Chariot dogfighting.
While the dogfighting continues, the Hittites maneuver to get around the Egyptian flanks.  The Egyptian foot on the right turn to discourage the attacker from continuing on.  The ploy does not work!  Despite receiving fire from the massed archers, the Hittite chariot bursts by the foot and heads toward the Pharaoh.  Note that the Engagement Chart showed no distinction between bow-armed skirmishers and massed archers.  After the game, Ian corrected that to give massed archers an advantage in fire over skirmishing bow.
Hittite chariot moves against the Egyptian right.
Egyptians turn to face
and give the attackers a volley.
Still, the Hittite sweeps around the flank
 and into the Egyptian rear.
Back in the center, rather than plowing into the Hittite line, the Egyptian chariot pulls up and begins a caracole into the enemy troops.  First, the Hittite skirmishers break and run.  As the effects of the caracole barrage mount, a unit of javelinmen breaks for the rear.  The Hittite line has been breached! Note that after some discussion, a unit of Mettle W1R1 must rout.  Otherwise, a unit with Mettle of R1 may remain in place and fight on (defensively only).  Earlier, a R1 caused a unit to retire.
Hittites break for the rear!
The Pharaoh is caught behind his battle line and engaged in a dogfight with the enemy chariot.  In a series of passes, the Pharaoh is forced to retire.  With the Pharaoh fleeing the battlefield, his army does likewise. 
Pharaoh is hotly engaged!
Victory to Ian and his Hittites!

This game produced a very interesting battle.  We succeeded in exercising many facets of the rules and clarifying a number of points.

I think we made good progress although my tactics need some work.

35 comments:

  1. Excellent! Proper playtesting prevents poorly performing productions?

    The EZOC/NCEZ is very clever, and I would not want to wander into such an area and have a chariot run me down. Also, perhaps a different term than 'Caracole' could be used, as that brings the Renaissance to my mind at least. A 'Pharaoh's Feint' or some such?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is some fancy alliteration, Greg!

      I wonder what the Hittite word-equivalent to "Caracole" is?

      Delete
  2. Well that was a very interesting report and playtest. I enjoyed more the commentary and discussion about the rules than the game. A lot of progress was made.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Glad you enjoyed the playtest. The game was secondary, for sure. The goal was to exercise various sub-processes of the rules while weeding out and clarifying ambiguous situations. Much progress was made, indeed!

      Delete
  3. I remember reading IRL's ideas for a chariot period ruleset from Slingshot in the 1980s(?)
    There is a real dearth of rules for the chariot period.
    Have the miniatures in the lead mountain; considering using Commands and Colors (earlier editions with rules for LCh)
    Neil

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, Ian has been at this a very long time. CC would be good but Basic Impetvs provides a good game too.

      Delete
  4. A very interesting game, like the idea of EZOC. Nothing better than playtesting rules to iron out any kinks

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Playtesting is required in all things! Besides, we want Ian on Top Form when he presents to the SoA. I use EZOC in almost all of my hex-based miniatures games. It is a holdover from my boardgaming days.

      Delete
  5. Six steps seems about right to me. Any more than that seems a little overly fiddly. I agree about tracking ammunition as well. We tried it in a Napoleonics game and it added very little other than another layer of tiresome record keeping. I really like the way chariots behave under these rules rather than acting as shock and impact troops.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lawrence, most of the games I play and host operate at the unit/formation activation level. When play switches to activations and action choice, Turn Sequence is obsolete. I agree that a sequence with six or more steps can be hard to commit to memory and it is easy lose one's place within that sequence.

      On ammo supply, I tend to abstract some details and let the dice decide if a unit is low on ammo or not. Chariots can really dominate the battlefield in these rules.

      Delete
  6. Although "open table" miniatures still hold a place of their own, I very much find myself drawn to gridded and hex based systems. Very interesting to see this example of how a miniatures system was (seemingly) able to be translated to hexes--and still delivered the goods.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ed, I am much more likely to play on a gridded table than non-gridded these days. There are games I still play on an open table but I find grids make so much so much easier. Translating to hexes in this case is causing no difficulties.

      Delete
  7. Interesting treatment of the rules to clarify and simply. Gridded games are useful for many reasons, many you have held out.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Glad you found this exercise interesting. Having grown up on hex and counter Wargames, playing miniatures on hexes seems quite natural.

      Delete
    2. The first war games on table top I played were gridded games at Charles Sweet's house. There were armies for ancients ,30 Years War, ACW and napoleonics all using grids on the table. Very early 1970's. Your rule tweaking and battle report make this post one to come back to review.

      Delete
    3. And the dust clouds 'are the bomb'!

      Delete
    4. Peter often mentions playing with Charlie Sweet in the Old Days. Perhaps playing on a grid during those formative years is one reason that TtS! is a favorite of Peter’s?

      Glad you approve of the dust clouds!

      Delete
  8. Great result from the testing Jonathan.
    I like the idea of the rule set being based on the chariot warfare of the time and not trying to be all things for 2,000-3,000 years of warfare. The chariot dust clouds are a great idea!
    Ian is obviously very open to suggestions and criticisms which is very commendable as often we are very protective of our rule set ideas. At least I am 😊

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks! Ian is an expert in this field and he knows what he wants to model. You’re right. Ian is open to suggestions in which to make the rules playable and enjoyable. This session saw many stoppages for long discussions on both history and Wargame design. Rather than using the term “criticism”, I prefer “critique” and “brainstorming”.

      Delete
  9. Good to see your chariots on the tabletop again. This time with dust clouds. Such fun and testing out the rules as well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good to have them out again! Last time chariots were out on the table, they were in the form of Sumerian battle carts. Playtesting is a fun sport!

      Delete
  10. Firstly, I thought wow, 18 months! Time is marching on too quickly!

    I really enjoyed reading about the rules evolving. I like the way the chariots engage, it makes chariots much more ‘chariot like’ in my mind.

    It was interesting to see the weapon supply rule being dropped. Limiting to 4 shots and then departing for re-supply seems so natural, but of course the practical application makes more sense - though the technically no different, as designer, I would slightly mourn the loss of design intent.

    That quandary reminds me of when my ACW rules had 15 minute segments, but since recovery mostly took half an hour, it was easier to dispense with the awkward minutes and just call it 2 turns for recovery.

    Overall, a very good session for all concerned (incl reader).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Time does pass quickly! With so many choices of periods to get out onto the table, the recycle time can be great.

      Ian may decide to reintroduce ammo supply. This was but a test to satisfy my curiosity. If a sub-process or rule has no material effect on play, why maintain it especially if its removal simplified the design? You made a similar choice in TF-ON.

      This was a good "working session", for sure.

      Delete
  11. All the tweaks seem emminently sensible to me and certainly streamline things nicely. I like the idea of the chariots dog-fighting away, which does easily convey how the action might be taking place on the battlefield.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I support your "eminently sensible" critique! In my world, it boils down to "Simplify, Simplify!" when possible.

      Delete
  12. Some useful changes made I think and I really like the chariot dust cloud dogfight concept. Nice.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Interesting to read the rules developments and ideas. I quite like the idea of limiting the ammo supply, a thing off neglected especially these days where timescale is usually abstracted. Perhaps dice after four moves rather than a mandatory resupply? Of course seeing your splendid troops in action is a bonus, I particularly like the dust clouds.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Removing ammo supply was an idea I wanted try for this game. In past games, both chariot pairs expend ammo at the same rate and break off to resupply at the same time. It was extra tracking no not much gain, I thought. Ian may insist on putting ammo supply back in for a later game.

      If we dice after four moves, those four moves must still be tracked.

      Happy you approve of the look of the game!

      Thanks for your comments and suggestions.

      Delete
  14. An interesting post. Fun to read your thoughts and deliberations as you played through, made changes, corrections, improvements.

    Having helped playtest a friend's many roleplay game rules sets in the past, I know that the more playthroughs and input from different testors the better.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good to have an interesting post! Playing through situations, stopping to discuss, and continuing on is a good way to approach playtesting. In this way, there is time to consider possible solutions, put one into place and then give it a test under game conditions.

      One should not under-estimate the importance of playtesting.

      Delete
  15. A completely different game to ours the other night???

    ReplyDelete
  16. Looked fun Jon and I agree hexes get rid of a lot of complications (distance measuring for movement/firing for a start) although I still prefer open table I think - my experience of TtS (as an example) is it's a good game but questionable simulation, for a few reasons.
    What I definitely agree on is the position that keeping track of ammo is unnecessary - the odd occasion I have been involved in a game where this was "a thing" I disliked it intensely!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The game was very fun to watch unfold. Still work to do on development.

      You cannot state that open table produces a better simulation than a grid without providing your reasons and arguments!

      Just because TtS! is played on a grid and provides a good game but poor simulation is not sufficient to conclude that grid games cannot produce good simulations too. The choice of utilizing either a grid or measuring device is simply a tool to regulate movement, firing, etc.. Based upon design, either can produce ‘games’ or ‘simulations’ effectively.

      At least we agree on tracking ammo supply!

      Delete