From: thornley@milli.cs.umn.edu (David H. Thornley)
Subject: Re: Rules simplicity
Organization: University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, CSci dept.
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 19:31:32 GMT

In article <1992Dec8.101352.27240@lth.se> e91mom@efd.lth.se (Martin Omander) writes:
>
>
>	I have always been fascinated by simple and yet sweeping
>games. The best I've found so far is 'History of the World' by an
>English company, which simulates world history 3000BC-1914AD with
>rules that can be explained to a newbie in less than 15 min.
>	Not only do simple rules make it easy to introduce new players
>to a game, but I think it stimulates strategic thinking instead of
>rules laywering and nit-picking. It is my belief that well thought out
>maps and tables can eliminate many rules.
>	For example, in a WWII game, you could simulate Gibraltar in
>two ways:
>
>Method I
>
>[Rules with long titles saying that the English can block the Straits
> of Gibraltar if they have Gibraltar, while the Axis can only attack
> Allied units going through the straits if they hold Gibraltar.]
>
>Method II
>
>	The map is divided into areas of different shapes. An area can
>contain both land and water. Gibraltar is such an area. The map
>clearly shows that to enter the Med you must go through the Gibraltar
>area. A general rule (applying to all units) says that you can't pass
>through an area with enemy units without eliminating them. The Axis'
>weaker hold on Gibraltar is simulated by them having fewer naval units
>and coastal batteries.
>
This isn't (IMHO) a good example.  In one case, you have a rule specific
to Gibraltar that the English can close the straits if they have it, but
can run ships through (with risk) if the Axis holds it.  In the second
case, you are specifying an unusual game design ("areas of different shapes")
and ("An area can contain both land and water."), and then making a general
rule against moving units through an area where the enemy has units.

Next question:  what sort of units will stop the naval units?  If this is
a rule applying to all units, then will straight infantry or garrison
units stop ships?  In that case, can the ships attack the infantry?

Finally, is it important to the game that the Allies be able to run the
Straits?  If so, you need some sort of rule like the first one.  If not,
you can just allow whoever controls Gibraltar to close the Straits, and
put this in the context of a rule on narrow waters.

>	My point (or rather question) is: How simple can you make a
>global WWII game, and still keep a reasonable historical accuracy?
>I've been thinking a lot about this, and hopefully I'll someday make
>such a game, either on board or computer.
>	Please post any general or specific ideas on mechanics, maps,
>units, time scale etc needed for elegant and simple rules (for any
>game). Surely, I can't be the only one interested.
>
Depends on what you consider a move.  I think you could do the Pacific
with some accuracy on a Victory-in-the-Pacific scale (although Avalon
Hill didn't), and Third Reich shows you can do a fairly realistic
European Theater with three-month turns and corps-level counters.

The thing about three-month turns is that a unit can move a *long*
way in a season, given no opposition, and so you need some sort of long
moves that don't allow a player to focus entirely on the opponent's
weak spots, ignoring all reaction.  On the other hand, advances after
combat would be limited by a lot of factors.  If you study the campaigns
of 1944, you'll notice that the Allies in France were far more capable of
conducting an advance after a breakthrough than the Soviets were, which
was a pretty important difference and one you should reflect.  Also, the
Germans were unusually able to rebuild mostly destroyed units, and were
excellent at allowing their units to be only mostly destroyed.

So, three-month turns and a VitP-3R scale should do nicely.  Obviously,
3R can be simplified considerably.

This discussion really should be in rec.games.design, by the way.

DHT