I've always liked rules that could be quickly learned and easily played, without forever needing to refer to charts and tables and lists etc. I have no patience with rule sets that claim super complicated game mechanics are required to achieve accurate results, or that 'realism' depends on having long lists of tiny combat modifiers. To me, these games are like pulling teeth. I believe the complexity in a game should come from the interaction of the game mechanics and player decisions, not from having to micromanage the rules. |
However, I also demand that a game gives the proper results for the tactics, and the right 'feel' for whatever time period I'm playing. Simple doesn't mean simple minded. I don't like games that use silly game mechanics to resolve important aspects of a game. I also believe that wargame rules should aspire to be more than just 'fun', they should at least attempt to portray the events of the battlefield. To be 'realistic', I feel a game needs to accurately reproduce the range and probability of outcomes from the actual situation, and the game mechanics should try to give the illusion of modelling the real events in miniature.
I want both. So what I've tried to do with these rules is achieve a balance. I know I haven't completely succeeded. The game mechanics result in a game where you can see a realistic ebb and flow to the battle, yet are simple enough that you'll probably have them memorised by the end of the first game. 'Beer & Pretzel' gamers may find them too serious, and 'dedicated' gamers may find them too simplistic. My intent is to (hopefully) share these rules with those of us 'in between'.