Yesterday's play-test of Joseph Morschauser's FRONTIER wargames rules was very enjoyable but it did demonstrate that the artillery fire and combat systems are rather 'bloody'. Units either survive or are destroyed; there are no other results.
Whilst this means that the battles can be fought very quickly, it also means that both sides seem to lose units at a very fast pace once the fighting starts. Although this can be rationalised away as representing the 'loss' of units that still exist but that are no longer capable of further combat, it does rather leave the tabletop battlefield somewhat denuded of toy soldiers ... and this can detract from the aesthetic appeal of the game. It also does not feel right.
So what can be done?
Firstly it should be possible to amend the artillery rules so that units can be hit but not destroyed. As written a unit that is hit is destroyed by a 2, 4, or 6 by direct fire and by a 4 or 6 by indirect fire. My current thinking is that this could be changed so that a unit will be pinned (i.e. unable to move, fire or engage in combat until the end of the next turn) by a 2 or 4 by direct fire and a 4 by indirect fire. This would reduce the number of units that are totally destroyed by artillery fire and also disrupt the movement of units on the battlefield.
Secondly the combat mechanism needs to be altered so that there are three possible results rather than the present two. Something simple could easily be devised along the lines of the combat system used in the DBA/HOTT rules. My current thinking is that each side could throw a D6 die and add the score to their unit's Battle Power. The side with the highest total score wins the combat. If the winner's total score is twice or more that of the loser, then the loser is destroyed; if the total score is less than twice that of the loser, then the loser must retreat two grid squares at once. If it cannot do so, it is destroyed.
I would also like to incorporate the use of playing card tiles in my own solo version of the rules as I think that this would make the game a bit more interesting and a little less predictable. Likewise I am giving serious consideration to allowing Native infantry and all mounted cavalry the ability to move diagonally if such a move would bring them into combat with an enemy unit.
These are my initial thoughts about how the rules could be improved, and no doubt I – and some of my regular blog readers – will come up with others as the day progresses.
Whilst this means that the battles can be fought very quickly, it also means that both sides seem to lose units at a very fast pace once the fighting starts. Although this can be rationalised away as representing the 'loss' of units that still exist but that are no longer capable of further combat, it does rather leave the tabletop battlefield somewhat denuded of toy soldiers ... and this can detract from the aesthetic appeal of the game. It also does not feel right.
So what can be done?
Firstly it should be possible to amend the artillery rules so that units can be hit but not destroyed. As written a unit that is hit is destroyed by a 2, 4, or 6 by direct fire and by a 4 or 6 by indirect fire. My current thinking is that this could be changed so that a unit will be pinned (i.e. unable to move, fire or engage in combat until the end of the next turn) by a 2 or 4 by direct fire and a 4 by indirect fire. This would reduce the number of units that are totally destroyed by artillery fire and also disrupt the movement of units on the battlefield.
Secondly the combat mechanism needs to be altered so that there are three possible results rather than the present two. Something simple could easily be devised along the lines of the combat system used in the DBA/HOTT rules. My current thinking is that each side could throw a D6 die and add the score to their unit's Battle Power. The side with the highest total score wins the combat. If the winner's total score is twice or more that of the loser, then the loser is destroyed; if the total score is less than twice that of the loser, then the loser must retreat two grid squares at once. If it cannot do so, it is destroyed.
I would also like to incorporate the use of playing card tiles in my own solo version of the rules as I think that this would make the game a bit more interesting and a little less predictable. Likewise I am giving serious consideration to allowing Native infantry and all mounted cavalry the ability to move diagonally if such a move would bring them into combat with an enemy unit.
These are my initial thoughts about how the rules could be improved, and no doubt I – and some of my regular blog readers – will come up with others as the day progresses.