|
In Honor, an Essay in Celebration Rules of the Design, TPGII... On the 2nd Anniversary On the 2nd Anniversary On the Road Two years? It's only been two years? Wow... |
Well, Rommel's ruled this page for two years. The game has been out for three. The question on my mind is: will this page be around in a year? Will anyone still be playing this game? Some have already tried to excuse the game's limitations by making reference to the historical context: This is a sign that we're viewing the game as an antique; this leads me to suspect that when the current players of this game upgrade their machines, TPG2 will not be a part of the new system. But I don't think obsolescence is the biggest threat. Sure, computer systems are getting more complicated and new games are ever flashier and more "realistic", but these things should not hide the simple truth that people get old and bored. In the two years of Rommel's generalship, we have seen a succession of people and scenarios that have, in one way or another, made explicit the ways in which this game works. The rambles, the guestbook, the scenarios and the IRC meetings reflect the dialogue between the generals. Endgame and others will talk about how we've made this game "our game", how we've taken this program to levels never imagined by the designers. This may be true, but, if you're gonna stave off boredom you've got to try even harder. It seems to me that the scenarios developed so far hardly even scratch the surface of the possibilities available. I will explain this by outlining 5 common design assumptions made about the game. But first, I want to hit one more time what I refer to (rather incorrectly) as the ontological problem of the game. Light Tank is nothing more than the name we give to the unit that costs 6, moves 7, has 6 hit points, causes 3 damage points and behaves like "armor." That is to say, units are nothing more than a collection of characteristics. Thus, you can call Elephant Tanks "Queens" if you like. Similarly for terrain. If you want to simulate a desert, but want dunes and proximity artillery effects as well, why not make the map all grass and call it sand? Or why not call a river an "anti-tank trench"? The same also holds for events: the change of screen color is window dressing, what matters is the change of battle characteristics. And please: I know Off-Shore Artillery tends to be overused, but only its name implies a coastline. It can just as easily be Off-Map Artillery, or, in the case of one of the supplied scenarios, level bombing; or even guerilla attacks if you like. All I'm saying is that the designer should concentrate on making the game fun first; a plausible story line can always be found. Now, on to my diatribe. Actually, most of these points have already been made, but, since this is an anniversary edition, I felt it a good idea to summarize these elements. 1. You don't have to win on points The Victory Point system is one of the dinosaurs from when TPG2 was some sort of easy-to-learn tourney game. The ranking system (Perfect General to Second Lieutenant), is an absolute system (point ratios) that derives from relative data (points generated on each side, which, of course, have a lot to do with starting position). Hence, you should not feel obligated to adhere to this system. I started with this one because, well, we all know this, and we've seen some fine examples of alternent victory conditions from many generals (Rommel, Cap'n Kev are two that spring to mind), as well as some tailoring of the points towards a balanced victory (again, just the ones I've seen recently include RTS and -- I'm sure he's done it -- Endgame). Campaigns are also great for expanding the range of victory conditions. My advice: distribute the VP's according to how you want Earl to act. 2. You can give the player options without always giving him Light Tanks The purchase points never reflect the true value of a piece. Not only does the value fluctuate according to map, but the inherent system is flawed. Take, for instance, the Light and Heavy tanks. The Light tank moves 40% faster than the HT on open terrain, and 200% through forests, takes 40% and inflicts 50% of the damage of its bigger brother, and costs 50%. If on these numbers, you're still not sure of the superior value of the LT, consider this: Two LT's can clear out two AC's or infantry units per turn, but the HT only one. Some of you continue to insist on the value of the big heavy pieces in this game, and I will concede that they do have value, but most of the time they're just not worth the price. So, please, consider games that either restrict the purchases (the (sic) surgical strike genre) or determine them in advance (set piece setup). This is the true way onent with different equipment and a different battle philosophy. Hence I wonder why I can't remember among the hundreds of scenarios that have been developed a single one that pits Medium Tanks against LT's in a forest (or a forest with swamps). ( or how about 60 AC's against 15 HTs?) 3. A challenging game is not necessarily a hard or complex. Rommel made reference to this in his famous "Malaise" ramble some time ago. Given enough units and a superior position, Earl will beat any player. Given a complicated enough reinforcement schedule and a big enough map, any player will have a tough time figuring out a scenario. But if you can force me to develop a strategy (more on that some other time) that is interesting, rather than having me fall back on perfecting the same old tactics, I will take so much more away from your scenario. 4. You make the rules If to achieve a certain effect, the game creates certain conditions that you'd rather not have (such as the now-infamous "sleeping with the enemy syndrome"), it's perfectly legitimate to exclude those occurrences in the description. Similarly, if you want to restrict the player beyond what the rules allow, why not ask her? For example, if you want to set up a "Digging in" scenario, where the player has five turns to prepare the battlefield against an apocalyptic onslaught, and you'd rather see a wall of LOS-blocking fortifications instead of a minefield that makes Earl park and get shot, why not insert a "Diana Clause" in the long description, stating that Engineers cannot build minefields? We're all gentlefolk here, and willing to follow the designer's wishes (within reason, of course: don't tell us that AC's can only turn left and fire only on prime-numbered turns). 5. Vox populi ain't vox Dei If you create a scenario, post it, and get no, or almost no feedback, or if you think the folks who post to the guestbook would (or do) consider your work boring, don't be disheartened. Those who post are probably only a fraction of the people who download scenarios. Well, I hope some part of this rant has proven useful to you, if only as light amusement. AG. |
Sign our Guestbook |