Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: Why?  (Read 251 times)

RocketSix

  • TWZ Team
  • Camp follower
  • *
  • Posts: 29
    • View Profile
Why?
« on: December 13, 2019, 09:45:48 AM »
A short discourse on how this came about

Walter Schnaffs v2 was a modification of the Peter Pig 2012 Squarebashing rules. They
present rules for the Franco-Prussian war of 1870/71. Originally created by Pierre
LaPorte, version 2 was an update to the original 1998 version. Walter Schnaffs wasn’t a
standalone game and a copy of the Square Bashing set of rules is needed in order to
play Walter Schnaffs.

One of the driving forces behind Walter Schnaffs v2 was Richard Black. Richard had an
encyclopaedic knowledge of European 19th Century warfare, and was willing to ‘roll his
sleeves up’ to get the job done. Recently Walter Schnaffs v2.04 was released - and is
still available from the RFCM forum. This had just settled down and subsequent
conversations I had with Richard were about Walter Schnaffs v3 - and its expansion in
other European conflicts.

In April we received terrible news. Richard had suffered a massive stroke, and shortly,
after passed away.


Some time after, sitting looking at some of the notes we had made. There were 2
options. Either continue without Richard, or let the rules naturally come to rest. The the
latter didn’t seem like a fitting tribute to Richards contribution. So, this is where this
project was conceived. When I laid down all the ideas and objectives the project looked
to have outgrown its humble origins, and new game was born. Currently its very early
days, and the rules are in Alpha testing. I am looking to get the game to MVP soon and
go into Beta test.


The Game

To explain the ethos of the game i need to look at the experience of wargaming
holistically. Whereas a lot of wargames focus completely on cumbersome mechanics
and player control, I like games that have a strong narrative. This doesn’t necessarily
mean scenario driven games. My pet peeve is where a rule set sets out playing the
mechanics of the game, but not how you ‘prepare’, or what the outcome is other than
perhaps an arbitrary score. There is also the requirement to fill the brief of an
increasingly short game window that gamers want to commit to. These are all a staple of
the RFCM stable of games, and there will be some familiarity there.



The rules themselves, by design , are a framework. They will be short and concise. The
difference will be the army/campaign plugins. This way conflict specific rules can be
integrated. This will be where all the chrome is.
To describe the mechanics without going into too much detail has two main topics.


Programatic decisions and outcomes.



Currently the rules are formatted in a series or flow diagrams. I did this specifically to
allow me to identify game sequence gaps, and more importantly design iterative
processes where player decisions drive an outcome that may or not be to their liking.
Its also what I’m used to!
This may look complicated but worry not, the final game won’t look like. Designing in
this way mitigates for fundamental flaws early in the design cycle

Game Phases
Like many of the RFCM stable I love the idea of pre battle events. This is being taken to
a new level, so that the battle phase, should only be 60% of the total play time. The pre
battle phase will determine the nature of the game ( pitched battle - objectives etc. ) and
also the field of battle with player decisions to curry favour ‘politically’ or try to
influence the battlefield directly. The player will always have the choice, but the
decisions they make with ultimately influence the game they will need to play.
There is also a post game phase where the losing army will have a chance to escape the
field - and thus mitigate the severity of the beating

More Details
At the moment the vehicle for information and communication will come via The
15mm. In the future we will open up more format channels of communication.