Fletcher Pratt's Naval Wargame

John Curry, editor of the History of Wargaming Project, has a new book out:

I first wrote about Fletcher Pratt's Naval Wargame almost two years ago in The Origin of Battletech. At the time a new edition of the book was still in the works, so I waited to get it. This edition includes some previously unpublished material from some of Pratt's original players and umpires.

My copy is on order, and I'm looking forward to seeing it soon. Maybe I will organize a local play session? 

Information link: http://www.wargaming.co/rules/fletcherpratt/homepage.htm

Purchase link: http://www.wargaming.co/purchaserules/homepage.htm

Battletech: Sword and Dragon Sessions

Image: ClassicBattletech.com

Our local Battletech group has been playing through the Sword and Dragon Starterbook scenarios.  I already posted my Mission Matrix, which has been a big help in planning missions, but I wanted to spend a little time with some other aspects of these scenarios. We have one player acting as gamemaster, two regularly attending players one each of the Fox's Teeth/Sorenson's Sabres sides, and 2-4 irregular players who sit-in as needed for the players or the OpFor. We've been having fun, but we are starting to run into some difficulties. One of our group made an especially good comment the other night as we were packing up for the evening, and I will quote him here to the best of my recollection:

JZ: "For a scenario book that is supposed to be an introduction to Battletech for new players, there are a lot of problems that only an experienced player would know how to deal with."

A lot of problems indeed. This book is intended as a sort of bridge between the Boxed Set and Total War rules, but it assumes players already know the full rules. Many missions descriptions are also quite vague as to exactly how they are supposed to be set up. Our veteran crew and GM take these problems in stride, but it would be difficult for new players to figure these things out.
The book could have done with more playtesting too, and mea culpa, I was one of the playtesters! My recollection is hazy, but we only had 18 days - enough for proofreading, but nowhere near enough time to play many missions. This also came at a busy time for most of our group, and I don't recall that we played any of these missions. This may also be a problem of having veteran players review a product intended for new players; the bugs that will trip up new players are nearly invisible to players that have been playing the game for years.

Errata problems aside, there are issues with the scenario tracks too. An inexperienced player could easily run out of WarChest Points (WP) with just a few unwise decisions. Taking the wrong combination of force and mission options (plus a little bad luck) turned into a big setback for our Sabres players. Now it's OK if players run out of WP, but I don't see how inexperienced players could avoid running into trouble. These scenarios really need an experienced gamemaster to supervise and help keep the players on a steady course.

There is another issue with these missions that is quickly becoming apparent; the scenario balance is just awful. If you play with the original mechwarriors and mechs from the book, and if the opposing force gets a few good rolls of the dice during the setup, then some of these missions can be challenging. --BUT-- If you are playing (as we are) where mechs can "lightly" modified with prototype weapons and upgrades, or replaced with other mechs purchased or captured, then the scenarios become heavy unbalanced in favor of the Teeth/Sabres sides.
I must admit my bias: I like well balanced scenarios because they are the most fun. I have been playing Battletech long enough that simply winning has little attraction for me - I want a challenge, because challenges are fun! Winning is still cool, but I want to win in a fair fight, not in some goofball setup where one side has no real chance to win (Our group even have a special name for these sort of scenarios). Consider how the following aspects of the Sword and Dragon missions lead to unbalanced scenarios:

1. Random opposition selection is highly variable, and the players could be up against a tough fight. This encourages them to ALWAYS field the strongest lance of mechs available, even when a weaker lance might be able to pull it off with a little luck. 
2. There are heavy penalties for not accomplishing mission objectives, so players are again encouraged to field a very powerful force, even if they might get by with less, simply because they cannot afford to lose.
3. Random force selection does not consider that players may have upgraded their force. Even if the scenario might have been balanced originally, any improvements players make with push this towards unbalanced missions.

There is a common theme here. Given any amount of control other the scenario parameters, players will tend to optimize things for themselves even if that does not lead to a fun game. This can be OK if the other side has an equal chance to optimize, but in this sort of one-sided random scenario generation it gets broken pretty quickly. A a basic principle of good game design is broken here: There is no flow, no Fear of Failing to challenge players to the limits of their abilities.

I know I am asking for a lot. Computer games might be be able to adapt to players in this way, but can a boardgame possibly do this? The answer is yes, after a fashion. In a series of Battletech scenarios, there is no reason you couldn't have measure of performance or margin of victory, and use this to adjust the difficulty of future scenarios. To do this you need to start with a good way to rate the strength of force and opposition, which is one of the reasons I keep going on and on about point balance systems. You would also need a way to measure margin of victory over a series of scenarios. Chess, basketball, and many other games have ratings of skill and ability as measured by their performance against other players or teams. You could do this for Battletech too, with a bit of work. Finally, instead of just rewarding players for winning, make the rewards contingent on the difficulty of scenario they choose. Given the choice of an easy win or a challenging game, I think players will go for the challenge every time.

Hint: This is a topic I hope to spend some time with in 2011 (now where did I leave my notes?).

I should add a comment about scenario objectives, since there were some recent comments about objectives and balance in my recent post on Point Values for Squadron Strike. Sword and Dragon does use scenario objectives, but most of them are useless for maintaining any sort of balance, and some actually make it worse. A way to rate the difficulty of scenario objectives is something else I'm going to have to consider (and that's a tough one!).

And here is a bit of copyright info, just to make sure everyone is happy.

© 2001-2010 The Topps Company, Inc. MechWarrior, BattleMech, ‘Mech and AeroTech are registered trademarks of The Topps Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

The Absurdity of Battle Value

There is an interesting post at Flechs ...

On the Absuridty of “Battlevalue”

Ian writes ...

I’ve got a bone to pick with Battlevalue. As I was in the process of doing my research, it came up on the CBT forums recently. Unfortunately it didn’t get the discussion i think it deserves.

... and I have to agree.

BV seems to function as an attempt to express in numbers the imbalances in the game. Imbalances that increase for every variable (equipment) added without adjusting existing variables (rules and equip). BV as a game design choice is a problematic at best. [emphasis added]

Definitely problematic, but Ian has hit on a greater truth: BV is a game design choice. Battle Value (BV) takes a lot of criticism for it's flaws, and rightly so. Most people though, fail to recognize what BV really is. When we agree to play a game that is balanced (for better or worse) by BV, then it becomes a de facto rule of the game. For example, BV is known to penalize too much (reduce final BV) for Mechs without sufficient heat sinks, therefore the overgunned mechs that cannot fire all their weapons without overheating become the Mechs of choice faster than you can say "Black Hawk Prime".
[image sarna.net]

First: Does anyone find it necessary to keep track of all BV destroyed while playing a game to understand what the situation is? Of course not. Destroying equipment is an act that already has in-game value. ie. It effects game play. Point systems that have no other effect than their comparative value are arbitrary methods of evaluating game events compared to what they are supposed to represent.

Ian is 2-for-2 so far. It does not matter the BV you destroy, rather it should be much severely can you damage the other players units given the relative BV of both sides. In other words, if you can battle someone to a draw using less BV than the other player, then you should be counted as the winner. The usual tournament scoring rules do a very poor job of measuring how damaged each side really is. (I should note that the rules for the Battletech Open 2.0, which will premier at ORIGINS this summer, are a step in the right direction.)

Second: If I play a ‘mech with a point value of 1000 against a carbon copy of myself running a ‘mech with a point value of 999 on a symmetrical map. Which one will win? No idea? Me either. What about if [I] had a 950 point ‘mech? Any idea now? Maybe? 900 points? 800? Where are the significant figures in this measuring system?

Ian does it again. The present BV system (there is little difference between 1.0 and 2.0) assigns arbitrary numbers with no meaning. What is amazing is that they work as well as they do. This is a completely ad hoc scoring system that makes a number of unfounded assumptions and demonstrably wrong calculations*. Most people don't realize where it goes wrong either.

* I have a post in mind to justify that statement, and I continue to work on something better. Stay tuned.

Gravity Pods 2, Part II

On Monday I wrote about a browser game that replicates (and more) a game I made up as a teenager.

When I was 14 or so, a friend and I played a game with magnets and steel ball bearing. The idea was to launch you ball bearing at the right speed and direction to navigate a series of magnetic barriers, and finally hit the final target, which represented the other players "base". I don't think we ever had a name for it, but the idea in our heads was that this represented a battle in space, launching a missiles of into a complex gravity well to attack the enemy. Very low tech, but we had a great time with it. [Image SpaceAnimations.org]

While I really like the browser game, I think there is something to be said to the old fashioned approach, because that was a good game too. If you want to try the low tech approach, here is how you can do it:

You need the following materials-

• At least 4 large (~1 inch) ring magnets (gravity wells and player bases)
• 4 to 8 small (~1/4 inch) button magnets (defensive satellites).
• A few steel ball bearings (missiles).
• 2 plastic straws (these make ideal "missile launchers").
• Any convenient smooth and level surface as a play area.

Actually, any shape magnets will probably do just as well, but different sizes add interest. Cheap ceramic magnet will work just fine.

The rules are simple, and you may modify them to your hearts desire:
Setup-

1. Each player starts with an equal number of each kind of magnet.
2. The players place their base (a large ring magnet) on opposite sides of the play area.
3. Players take turns placing large ring magnets between their bases, creating the "gravity well".
4. Players place small button magnets around their base as "defensive satellites".

Note: It's important to place all the magnets with the same pole up so they repel each other rather than attract. The reason for this will soon become obvious.

Play-

1. Players take turns launching their ball bearings (BB's) at each other. BB's must be launched from nearby the players base or satellites, but may be launched far enough away so that their own magnets do not interfere. Suggestion: Roll the BB's down through a plastic straw. This makes aiming and controlling launch speed much easier.
2. If a BB contacts a player's base, that is a "hit".
   
3. If a BB strikes a defensive satellite (of either player), that defensive satellite is considered destroyed and is removed. Sometimes a "chain reaction" may occur causing defensive satellite to contact each other. These should also be considered as destroyed, and removed from play. If through a chain reaction a defensive satellite contacts a player base, do not count that as a hit (though it is an interesting variation).
   
4. The first player to 3 hits wins.

That's it. I recall carrying the magnets around with me so we could play or the lunch table at school. Let me know if you try it, and have fun!