Simple and complex

[ochoin]

Obviously, definitions of the terms “simple” & “complex” may differ but in terms of the wargaming rules you use, which category do they fit in and why?

We do too many periods (10) with 7 different rule sets. They vary from Lion/Dragon Rampant  – simple- to our home-groan SYW set, A Glorious War – complex with various Black Powder/Hail Caesar sets in the middle.

The LR rules are perfect for a mid-week game when you are aware of needing to be at work early the next morning. AGW takes the best part of a Saturday and has probably useless but certainly a lot of fun minutiae – it’s quite “Old School’.

So for us, the menu reflects circumstances &, to a degree, the expectations of the period.

 

donald

[Mike]

I would say the basic mechanics are simple.

But the amount of rules and modifiers that are available are legion to the point the game is viewed as complex, possibly rightly so.

[Who Asked This Joker]

Simple, tom me, is a game that has a page count of less than 10 pages and, preferably, under 5.  They are quick moving with each player turn taking a minute or two.  One Hour Wargames or my own 3 hit variant are examples of simple.

LR/DR to me, are of moderate complexity.  The game is easy enough once the rues have been learned but there is a good bit of detail in them.  This is where I top out.  I do quite like these for the crunch without sacrificing speed.

BP/HC, WH, and all the derivatives of these are fairly complex.  It is not the simplicity in their execution but more of a ton of simple mechanics layered together that make these games complex.  The modern computing device is simple enough in concept.  Each decision it makes is boiled down to a series of yes/no questions.  So at it’s basis, computers are also simple but the shear amount of decisions that are made are quite complex.

 

 

John

"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power."

--Abraham Lincoln

[Don Glewwe]

…the amount of rules and modifiers that are available are legion…

I’m in that camp as well.  The key word, imo, is “available”.  If a particular facet/quality/action is deemed by those around the table to be important to the decision making/outcome of the game, then spending time/consideration on it will not be viewed as “complex”.  If undesired it can be ignored without harm.

I suppose that -rather than the ‘simple-complex’ rating- I use a ‘combined-called out’ labeling to describe those facets/qualities/actions (a less complimentary wording could be ‘fuzzy-finicky’?), as the application of detail/complexity is not uniform across the rules, making it difficult to label the set as a whole one or the other.   The trick/hazard is in splitting the modeling up so far as to render potential results as essentially useless? (-like a ‘deconstructed taco’ that is just a bit of shredded cheese?)  dunno…

 

edit/addition:

“Simple…are quick moving…crunch without sacrificing speed…the shear amount of decisions that are made are quite complex.”

I like that way of framing the issue: It’s the time spent on each quality/action that is key to something being labeled ‘complex’, even though they would not be considered such by themselves.  Maybe dumping the “simple-complex” descriptor would help?

 

tbh, I’m just blathering to avoid having to go out and clean up the fallen tree that resulted from last night’s storm… : )

[Mike Headden]

My definition of a good game is that it is easy to learn but hard to master and that it should contain enough skill that I win because I am good and enough luck that I lose because I was unlucky. Ideally it should support multiple players a side so that I can claim to be the sole architect of victory when we win and to have been badly let down by my allies when we lose!

Current frequently played rules are Warmaster, Blitzkreig Commander IV, 5 Parsecs, Gangs of Rome and Strength and Honour. I consider them pretty simple to learn. YMMV!

There are 100 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who can work from incomplete data

[Chris Pringle]

I like the computer analogy. According to that, I suppose my preferred ruleset (BBB) is:

– simple in that each decision or action can be implemented and resolved swiftly and easily;

– complex in that there will be many fresh decisions to make every turn.

Ultimately, if I had to put it on a scale of 1-10 where 1 = utterly simple and 10 = bafflingly complex, I think I’d say 3 or 4 – abstracted enough to make it feasible to play all 3 days of Gettysburg in under four hours, but still rich enough that it’s not just chess with dice.

[Aethelflaeda was framed]

I still use upon occasion some Home brewed rules that are very much based on Featherstone’s brief rules in his Peninsular wargaming scenarios book.

Mick Hayman
Margate and New Orleans

[Who Asked This Joker]

Aethelflaeda was framed wrote:

I still use upon occasion some Home brewed rules that are very much based on Featherstone’s brief rules in his Peninsular wargaming scenarios book.

Mr. Featherstone’s rules are pretty fantastic.  I use my own version based heavily on his rules.

John

"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power."

--Abraham Lincoln

[Ivan Sorensen]

For games I play semi regularly:

Arc of Fire – On the simpler side.

Crossfire – Very simple.

Disposable Heroes – Moderate?

Command Decision – Moderate

Warhammer 40.000 2nd edition – Moderate.

Grand Fleets – Simple.

I usually save the heavy crunch for board games.

[Roger Calderbank]

Most of the games I play would count as ‘medium on the scale described. They tend to be games that will last about 3 hours, played one-v-one. They also tend to be of the type Chris Pringle described (many decisions per turn but the decisions are simple to implement) rather than Mike’s (rules and modifiers are legion).

One thing not mentioned so far is the number of players involved in the game. Rules that work fine for one-v-one may bog down when there are many players, making the game too long or involving too much ‘down-time’ for each player. If there are more than two players, we use simpler rules. I-Go-You-Go rules could have all the players on one side playing at once, but often players stop to watch what others on their side are doing.

There is also the issue that some more complex rules are problematic for multiple-player games, forcing a C-in-C to choose which player’s troops are active and which are not. Perhaps this may be a factor in the popularity of rules like Black Powder and Valour & Fortitude, as they have few ‘high- level’ command limitations.

RogerC

[Author]

Posts