How do you compare rulesets? empathy or process – which factors give you a good ruleset?
My recent challenge has been to find a preferred ruleset for mid 19th century European warfare. And that provides the first criterion – what exactly is mid 19th century warfare? Maybe we should be saying post Napoleonic Warfare or Pre Franco Prussian Warfare? Or should we classify with technology – percussion cap, needle gun, sabre, rifling, telegraph, ironclad…..
The thing is that between 1815 and 1865 not a lot seemed to happen. Apparently things regressed as West Point Officers tried to emulate Napoleon in the early years of the Amercian Civil War despite their Mexican war experiences.
1865 to 1915 is the same timespan – would the ACW soldier have recognised the trenches of Europe – well sort of but not the aeroplanes surely.
In fact between 1815 and 1850 warfare was still largely smoothbore in weaponry and equipment and uniforms remained similar. Changes were afoot as more accurate muskets made their mark with percussion caps and more rifling. Uniforms saw frockcoats, trousers and kepis appear.
And between 1850 and 1870 breechloading rifling transformed infantry and artillery capabilities.
Quite a bit going on which means your chosen ruleset is either narrowly period, even campaign, specific or has to be clever and flexible.
My recent simple testing of a series of rulesets has caused me to reflect on what those Criteria for my gaming preferences might be.
I have ended up with 4 areas on interest. First of all I am assuming the choice of ruleset is not limited to an examination of mechanisms.
- Production
- Philosophy
- Game Mechanics
- Action Mechanisms
Production includes everything about the printed or e delivered publication. So images and print clarity matter as do the range of wargaming aspects covered.
Philosophy I suppose could be called game design and includes period choice, scale and game size as well as chosen outcomes.
Game Mechanics covers things like army lists, pre battle activity, player numbers and figures.
Finally Action Mechanisms are aimed squarely at movement, combat resolution, control and turn structure.
When I had finished my long list of criteria a massive 43 items had been generated. I did consider some rationalisation when I looked and saw a lot of similarities. And then I decided to leave my longlist intact for now.
I used it to score my rulesets and accepted the potential weighting due to duplicated criteria. Otherwise there is no other weighting in terms of importance of one criterion over another. Action mechanisms are not prioritised over Production Values for example.
In each case a criterion gets a single mark.
That mark is relative to my perceived ideal. The scores can be +1, 0, -1. positive values are favorable.
Lets look at Production first:
| NT19e | BwMS | GW | F&F | FoB | TTB | PW | |
| Relevant Images | 0 | 0 | +1 | +1 | +1 | -1 | 0 |
| Fair Wear & Tear | 0 | 0 | +1* | -1 | -1 | +1 | +1 |
| Logical clear layout | +1 | 0 | +1 | +1 | -1 | +1 | +1 |
| Plain text | 0 | +1 | +1 | +1 | +1 | +1 | +1 |
| Lots of Design Thinking | +1 | +1 | +1 | +1 | +1 | -1 | +1 |
| Simple Rules | +1 | +1 | 0 | 0 | -1 | +1 | +1 |
| Scenarios included | +1 | 0 | +1 | +1 | +1 | -1 | +1 |
| Campaigns included | 0 | 0 | 0 | +1 | +1 | +1 | -1 |
| Totals | +4 | +3 | +6 | +5 | +2 | +2 | +5 |
So GW comes out top followed by F&F and PW. Before I list the rulesets in question the scoring is “relative” and not absolute. It is best thought of as indication of preferencing.
In my case these rules have all been through some sort of preselection in my decision to buy them in the first place. So they all score positively. It is how much more I value them against each other that is measured here.
When it comes to historical wargames rulesets today – in a 60 year old industry, we are talking about marginal gains. I think with fantasy/scifi etc. it is still possible to deliver up a “game changer”!
I have used the following abbreviations.
NT19e – Neil Thomas’s European Warfare in the Nineteenth Century – hardback edition published by Pen & Sword Military 2012
BwMS – Battles with Model Soldiers – hardback edition by Donald Featherstone published by David & Charles 1972
GW – Gentlemans War – “e” publication by Howard Whitehouse and Daniel Foley and published by Pulp Action Library 2018
Fire & Fury – 1st Edition in softback by Richard W Hasenauer 1990 published by Fire & Fury (2nd editions under Brigade and Regimental titles available)
Field of Battle – Piquet 1700-1900 by Brent Oman 2nd Edition published by Piquet Inc 2011
Table Top Battles – by Mike & Joyce Smith 1st Edition published by Mike Smith 2007 (2nd Edition 2018 available)
Practical Wargaming – hardback edition by Charles Wesencraft published by Elmfield Press/Shire Publications 1974
Is it fair to compare rulesets which are published decades apart written for vastly different audiences? I believe so. Despite visually apparent differences, there are some common threads in wargames.
On to Philosophy
| NT19e | BwMS | GW | F&F | FoB | TTB | PW | |
| Period – technology emphasis | +1 | +1 | +1 | 0 | 0 | -1 | +1 |
| abstraction in scaling | +1 | 0 | +1 | 0 | +1 | +1 | -1 |
| no figure/base removal | +1 | 0 | -1 | 0 | +1 | +1 | -1 |
| cavalry ineffective | +1 | +1 | +1 | +1 | +1 | 0 | +1 |
| irritant skirmishers | +1 | 0 | +1 | 0 | +1 | +1 | +1 |
| vunerable yet destructive artillery | +1 | +1 | +1 | +1 | +1 | 0 | +1 |
| column and line infantry formations | +1 | +1 | +1 | +1 | +1 | -1 | +1 |
| attack defense objectives | +1 | +1 | +1 | +1 | +1 | 0 | +1 |
| morale dominant | +1 | +1 | -1 | +1 | +1 | 0 | +1 |
| battle narrative | 0 | 0 | +1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -1 |
| Totals | 9 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 8 | 1 | 4 |
So NT19e along with FoB seem to have edged it on philosophy for me. I should say that by having a lot of scores to make, it may reduce my own unintentional bias (of course on the other hand wargames magazines are all about bias – “Buy me” bias).
Talking about bias – my requirement concerns European Warfare so I am effectively biased against other “continents” warfare considerations that are different.
Ok next up is Game Mechanics:
| NT19e | BwMS | GW | F&F | FoB | TTB | PW | |
| option to solo game | 0 | +1 | 0 | +1 | +1 | +1 | -1 |
| measure not grid distance | +1 | +1 | +1 | +1 | +1 | -1 | +1 |
| army selection/lists available | +1 | 0 | +1 | +1 | +1 | 0 | -1 |
| pre battle actions available | +1 | +1 | +1 | -1 | +1 | -1 | -1 |
| game time required (<2hrs) | +1 | +1 | 0 | -1 | -1 | +1 | +1 |
| units per side (6-12) | +1 | +1 | +1 | -1 | -1 | +1 | +1 |
| unit ratings (varied) | +1 | +1 | +1 | +1 | +1 | 0 | +1 |
| table size (5’x4′) | +1 | +1 | +1 | -1 | -1 | +1 | +1 |
| concealment/ambush/surprise | +1 | +1 | +1 | -1 | -1 | 0 | -1 |
| chance (situations/ cards etc.) | 0 | +1 | +1 | 0 | +1 | 0 | 0 |
| figures per basic unit (12-20) | +1 | +1 | +1 | +1 | +1 | +1 | -1 |
| support functions (engrs/ sappers) rules | 0 | 0 | +1 | 0 | 0 | +1 | -1 |
| Totals | 9 | 10 | 10 | 0 | 3 | 4 | -1 |
Earlier I asked is it fair to compare rulesets from different decades? Now the question might be should you compare battle rulesets with skirmish rulesets or measured games versus grid games. The answer is of course. Just be consistent in the criteria used for the scoring and try to avoid criteria that directly preference one solution. In my case grids games are not a requirement so do score badly on the requirement for a measured game that I chose to include – some personal bias there.
Battles with Model Soldiers and Gentlemans War seem preferable when it comes to Game Mechanics.
Finally we turn to Action Mechanisms:
| NT19e | BwMS | GW | F&F | FoB | TTB | PW | |
| alternate moves with opportunity | +1 | +1 | +1 | +1 | +1 | +1 | +1 |
| initiative | +1 | +1 | +1 | +1 | +1 | +1 | +1 |
| simple manoeuvre rules | +1 | +1 | 0 | 0 | +1 | +1 | +1 |
| measure ranges | +1 | -1 | 0 | +1 | +1 | +1 | +1 |
| move and fire in a move | +1 | 0 | +1 | -1 | +1 | -1 | +1 |
| road movement restricted | +1 | 0 | 0 | -1 | +1 | -1 | -1 |
| simple interpenetration | +1 | +1 | +1 | +1 | +1 | +1 | +1 |
| saving throws | +1 | +1 | +1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | -1 |
| leadership/pips/orders | 0 | +1 | -1 | +1 | +1 | +1 | +1 |
| written orders | 0 | +1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | +1 |
| cards for actions | 0 | 0 | +1 | 0 | +1 | 0 | -1 |
| turn structure is fluid | 0 | 0 | +1 | 0 | +1 | 0 | 0 |
| simple combat resolution | 0 | -1 | -1 | +1 | -1 | +1 | 0 |
| simple firing resolution | 0 | -1 | -1 | +1 | -1 | +1 | 0 |
| 8 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 6 | 4 | 5 |
Neil Thomas 19th century European rules come out preferred for Action Mechanisms along with Field of Battle.
In summary we have table 5
| NT19e | BwMS | GW | F&F | FoB | TTB | PW | |
| Production | 4 | 3 | 6 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 5 |
| Design Philosophy | 9 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 8 | 1 | 4 |
| Game Mechanics | 9 | 10 | 10 | 0 | 3 | 4 | -1 |
| Action Mechanisms | 8 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 6 | 4 | 5 |
| Totals | 30 | 23 | 25 | 13 | 19 | 11 | 13 |
So there you go Neil Thomas rules are to be preferred in meeting my perceived gaming requirements. But……
I really like the liveliness of Fire & Fury while sometimes the grid games using Table Top Battles are just so easy and convenient. And then Gentlemans War offers a sense of detail which drives narrative – an essential requriement for the solo wargamer I would suggest.
Field of Battle uses the house theme of the card driven randomised turn structure of Piquet. I like it a lot but you need to invest your concentration in that ruleset even with the simpler FoB version. Like GW it offers narrative benefits.
My least liked set was actually BwMS even though Donald Featherstone has been the mainstay of my house rules over the years. This is because much of what he wrote was about design philosphy rather than pushing a particular ruleset. You could say nearly all his books were design handbooks for wargames rules writers.
So which ruleset will I go with?
At the moment it must surely be Neil Thomas.
Whatever ruleset you use – happy wargaming.
The Wargaming Erratic 