Battle Report- Poseidon's Warriors- Battle of Lade

 

This is the continuing recreation of the Ionian Revolt.  The Ionian Revolt was a revolt against the Persian Empire by the Ionian Greeks and their allies prior to the Greco-Persian War.  It took place from 499 to 493 BCE.  It was a land and sea affair, so I am using a combination of Poseidon's Warriors and Men of Bronze to re-create the campaign.  Both are from the Osprey Wargaming Series.  In addition, Men of Bronze has a specific supplement for the conflict called The Ionian Revolt. 

By the sixth year of the Ionian Revolt, the Persians had successfully counter-attacked and recaptured much of the lost cities.  However, the Ionian Greeks still held out with Miletus being the originator of the revolt still resisting.  The Persians reformed into a single army, supported by naval forces and marched on Miletus to end the Revolt once and for all. The accomplished Persian general Datis took command of this unified Persian force. 

Upon hearing of the approaching enemy, the Greeks decided to challenge them at sea rather than on land.  The Greeks assembled a large fleet from many of their member cities.  They made for the island of Lade in order to stem the Persian attack on the city.  

The Persian force was composed of a multi-national fleet as well.  It had Phoenicians, Egyptians, and even the newly re-conquered Cypriots.  They were likely led by Datis himself.  The Persians sent the former tyrants of each rebel city with the offer to surrender.  This strained the Ionian coalition. In addition, the Greek general Dionysius trained them hard in tactics and fighting.  This did not sit well with all the Greeks.  

Today, we are going to be fighting the Naval engagement that occurred off the island Lade.  Supposedly, some of the Ionians retreated from the battle, persuaded by the Persians offers of peace.  This allowed the Persians to overwhelm the remaining Greeks forces and defeat them.  

Once we get the results of the sea battle, we will also be playing the land battle using the scenario in The Ionian Revolt supplement for Men of Bronze.   

Forces:

Persians

1 Slow Trireme unit with admiral and elite troops

4 Slow Trireme units     

Ionians

1 Fast Trireme with Admiral and 

1 Fast Trireme

3 Slow Triremes

Set-up:

This battle will take place on a 6x4 table.  The fleets are spread from West to East.  The coast of Lade is on the short edge to the East. The two fleets are facing off.  The Persians are to the North and the Ionians to the South. 

Both fleets have deployed for a standard engagement, with the Ionians having their Fast Triremes on the left edge furthest out to sea.  The two sides spread out across the ocean by Squadron. 

Mission: 

This will be a straight up battle, with both sides looking to sink the opposing fleet.  The basic scenario is found in the main rulebook. 

The turn after the first combat, each Ionian squadron will start the turn with a simple 4+ morale test.  If failed, they will abandon the fight.  They are removed from the table as they signal their desire to fleet and escape to the Persian ships.  They are no longer relevant to the battle.  Once two Squadrons have fled, no additional Morale tests are needed. 

Instead of my normal turn-by-turn breakdown, I am going to try to break the game down into the Maneuver Phase, the Battle Phase, and the End Game section.  Something a bit different to ease the load of book keeping, and to avoid me taking too much time typing during the actual game! 

Maneuver Phase:

The Persians approach while the Ionians have the center approach with the fast triremes going out wide on both sides.  The Persians send a squadron to cover the approach to the east side, by the island.  A few barrier islands make the approach interesting.  

Meanwhile, the rest of the fleet begins to try to align into a two line depth to the fleet.   The fast triremes close in on both edges. Contact seems imminent. 

Battle Phase

The ships have closed into bow shot range, and the Greeks fire first.  The Persian lead unit gets peppered with shots, killing the marines on half their ships.  

On the Persian West flank, the Fast Triremes move in on the exposed Persian ships.  However, they encounter a hail of arrows and sling stones.  1 ship loses its Marines, while enough rowers are lost on the other ships to slow them down.  

The oar damage slows them, but it is not enough and the Greek Western ships smash into the sides of the exposed Persian 5th squadron, and easily sink 3 ships.  

The Persian center pushes forward and manage to strike a straggler from the Greek 3rd Squadron and sink it.  Missile fire from the Persians removed marines from the Greek 2nd Squadron from 4 ships!  Return fire from the Greek 3rd causes some rower casualties on the Persians in return.  Counter-ramming from the Persian 4th Squadron sinks 4 ships from the Greek 3rd. 

The Ionian Cataphract 2nd Squadron fired furiously on the Persian 2nd, but had soon run out of ammo on most of their ships! 

The Greek admiral realizes he does not want to take his Fast triremes head-to-head with the heavier Persian squadron.  He attempts to veer off, and fire with his archers for little effect.  However, it is enough to keep the Persian vessels in the 1st Squadron from ramming him. 

The End Phase

As the Greek Admiral outdistances his pursuers he decides that enough is enough, and in the best interests of his city-state, decides to sail away to safety and take his fellow citizens with him!  The Greek 2nd Squadron after being barraged by Persian ships also decides to leave the battle.  

Remnants of the Persian 5th Squadron smash into the sides of the Greek 4th squadron and sink two vessels.  However, they are sunk in return by the rest of the Ionian squadron. The Persian 4th sinks the last of the Greek 3rd Squadron, and they pepper the Greek 4th with arrows.  They lose their marines.

The Persians have broken through the center of the Greek fleet, and the rest scatter.  The Battle of Lade is over. 

Persians in grey, and Greeks in brown

Conclusion

The betrayal of the Ionian Admiral and the Greek 2nd Squadron proved decisive.  It left the East flank completely undefended, and the Western flank of the Greek fleet had all ready been badly mauled.  However, the Fast triremes on that flank had been effective and together with the other Ionian ships had managed to defeat the Persian 5th Squadron completely in the West.  However, it was too little, and too late as the Persian smashed through the Greek center.  

The Persians had 5 ships sunk, and minimal casualties beyond that.  The Greeks lost 7 triremes, but took pretty heavy casualties, especially on the 2nd Squadron that decided to sail away.  Both Fast Trireme units were in good shape, with the one in the West taking rower casualties. 

This was the second battle where flank attacks by the Fast Triremes proved effective tactically, but failed to be the decisive action of the battle.  Both battles were decided in the center.  My opponent and I will need to re-think how best to use those fast assets.  

This was a semi-historical outcome.  In the actual battle, the desertions happened on the West flank and led to Persian victory there.  Here it was the East flank.  However, either way it was another Persian victory in the campaign and matched the Historical outcome.  This gives the Persians the decisive lead winning 4 out of 5 battles so far.  

Now, it is time for the final defeat of Miletus and to crush this revolt once and for all!  

Become a Patron and get access to all the cool stuff, a peak behind the curtain of Blood and Spectacles, and early-access to playtest games!  

Blood and Spectacles Patreon! 

You can follow Blood and Spectacles Facebook page or Instagram for more fun! 

Check out the latest publications and contact me at our Blood and Spectacles website

Or purchase all out games at the Blood and Spectacles Publishing Wargames Vault Page!  

     

    

  

  

Wargame Design: Adding Logistics to Miniature Wargames

 

They say that amateurs talk tactics, while professionals talk Logistics.  However, when you look at most tabletop miniature games logistics is rarely mentioned.  In a basic sense, the logistics is making sure your units have ammo, food, fuel, etc. that keeps them in fighting trim.  Forces with poor logistics tend to have a tougher time fighting against a better logistical prepared foe.  Many times, strategy is about creating those logistical mis-matches.  

Why Skip Logistics

I can think of several reasons why Logistics is rarely a component of tabletop miniature games.  

1. The focus is on the tip of the spear.  Players want things that go boom.  Logistics do not make things go boom.  Maybe, it makes your foe's tummy grumble.  That is not exciting.  

2. Cognitive load is limited.  Players can only track so much from a rules level, they want to focus on things that go boom!  Logistics is seen as secondary. 

3. Players want to focus on tactical challenges and not strategic challenges on the table.  Strategic challenges are for pre-and post battle sequences, not on the table itself.  

4. Imbalanced logistics can lead to lop-sided battles.  Lop-sided battles are not perceived as fun. 

5. These are games and not simulations.  Real life is only tangential to the reality of the game.  

A Freighter in Aeronautica Imperialis V1

Why Include Logistics

Perhaps, the better question is; why include logistics in the first place?  They seem like a pain to try and implement rather than fun!  Of course, this depends on your tolerance for friction.  

1. It is a great way to add Friction to a game! 

2. Mirrors real-world scenarios 

3. Logistics wins wars

4. Adds a novel bit of Chrome or a unique niche for your wargame

Let's face it.  Logistics is the key to real-world warfare.  It is not tactics and strategy, it is which ever side can get the fuel, ammo, and food to their troops that tends to win the wars.  Therefore, adding logistics seems like a critical element that many wargames "gloss over".  

Of course, when considering logistics you also want to consider the "scale" of your wargame.  Skirmish games will represent this differently from Mass Battle games, that will reflect Logistics differently than a Grand Strategy game.  In skirmish games, it is getting ammo or similar key resources to the troops in a timely way.  In Grand Strategy it will focus on the procurement and resource development needed.    

Aeronautica Imperialis V1 Convoy Raid

How I Have Seen It Used

Here are a few sample games that I have seen use Logistics to varying degrees: 

• Last Days: Zombie Apocalypse - Skirmish
• Battlegroup: Kursk - Unit vs. Unit Battle Game
• A Billion Suns  - Unit vs Unit Game

There are other games where I have seen Logistics play a part, but these are three that I wanted to highlight to demonstrate just a few different approaches available and how Logistics can make a great hook for a wargame.  

Last Days: Zombie Apocalypse

The supplement Seasons adds a whole new level of detail for Logistics to the game of Zombie Survival.  After a game, individual models are assigned tasks to complete.  Each of these lead to a post-session mini-game with pros and cons.  One of the key functions is to scavenge.  If models do not gather enough food, water, or materials then some of the individual models may face penalties in the following game.  Often time, the objective of any given scenario is to recover resources to make it easier to support the group in the post-game session.  

In this example, Logistics is immediate and visceral.  It is a primarily a component of the post-game campaign sequence of events.  However, the impacts apply to individual models.  This is a great way to add Chrome to a game.   

Battlegroup: Kursk

In this game, as players take "casualties" they draw chits that erode the force morale.  Some of these Chits also force breakdowns, running out of ammo, and other additional effects.  In force creation, players can choose to spend resources on specific units that can off-set these "Fog-of-War" effects, and can often also give on field benefits when other units interact with them.  

In this example, the Logistics take place immediately on the table and require the player to make pre-game choices in their force composition to avoid potential logistical problems later.  Every point spent on a ammo truck is points you can not spend on other units.  The player has to decide how much they want to invest in Logistics, but failure to do so will lead to in-game drawbacks.  This is an interesting way to create meaningful strategic decisions that impact gameplay.  

Logistics make good Objectives

A Billion Suns

This is a game of space contractors trying to fulfill corporate contracts with the minimum amount of resources in order to maximize their profits. Resources are used to deploy units, and fulfilling objectives provides resources.  Therefore, the win conditions are based on the logistics of the game.  

In this example, Logistics are the Victory Conditions of the game.  You need to consider how much to spend in relation to how much you will earn from completing the objective.  Logistics are the KEY feature of the game.  This acts as a hook to the game.   

Final Thoughts

Logistics is a key part of warfare, and often it is not represented in Miniature Wargames.  There are a number of reasons for this omission.  However, as a tool or mechanic they can be a great way to add friction to a game, and friction often forces a player to make Meaningful Decisions.  Logistics can be a great way to add Chrome or a Hook to your game.  They are also a great way to create strategic decision making in your games.  Used correctly, Logistical elements can add a lot of depth and re-playability to your wargame.  

Don't overlook this key aspect of miniature wargaming.  

Bonus Content

Kill Team has really helped us grow the community in our local, rural area.  It seems to attract eye-balls and players.  This time, I took my Eldar Corsairs against a Craftworld list.  I provided the Craftworld list to help a new player learn the rules, as they had just picked up the Ork vs Guard basic set.  Therefore, I arranged a time to show them how to play.  In addition, we had one onlooker who was eager to learn what it was all about.  

Since this was a beginning game, we skipped some of the ploys and such.  We also used only a handful of special rules.  It was mostly Shuriken Catapults vs. Shuriken Catapults and one heavy weapon a piece.  Most of the Tactical and Strategic ploys we skipped for now.  Afterall, they guy just wanted to grasp the basics of moving, shooting, melee, and morale.  We managed to do it all in this game thanks to there being a lot of terrain!  

I ended up losing by 1 VP again.  However, it was a good game and the new player and observer seemed to have a lot of fun!  They both quickly grasped the basic rules easily and quickly.  I look forward to playing with them again as they were a good opponent and fun to play against.  

Until next time......

Become a Patron and get access to all the cool stuff, a peak behind the curtain of Blood and Spectacles, and early-access to playtest games!  

Blood and Spectacles Patreon! 

You can follow Blood and Spectacles Facebook page or Instagram for more fun! 

Check out the latest publications and contact me at our Blood and Spectacles website

Or purchase all out games at the Blood and Spectacles Publishing Wargames Vault Page!

        

 

RPG Review: Avatar Legends- Magpie Games

 

Greetings all.  Some of you maybe wondering "why so many RPG Reviews?"  I know, I know, this is a wargame design blog!  However, I have been dabbling a lot in RPG design, writing adventures, and playing RPGs! As part of this, I have been playing a lot of RPG sessions, and reading a lot of different rules sets.  Therefore, that has led to a lot of RPG reviews. 

Avatar: Legends is a Powered by the Apocalypse system RPG based on the Avatar: The Last Airbender and Avatar: The Legend of Korra cartoon series seen originally on Nickelodeon.  So, to many of us that sentence might not make any sense!  What does it all mean?  

Well, let's start with the setting.  The book is about half setting details and half-rules for game play.  The setting focuses on a mystical world of various elemental powers, a spirit world, and nations built around affinity to these elements.  The elements are Fire, Earth, Water, and Air.  In addition, there is a martial arts tradition of "bending" these elements by channeling chi.  So, basically it is another Fantasy Asian culture leaning much more towards Chinese and Southeast Asian influences as opposed to Legend of the 5 Rings that leans heavily into Japan.  

If you want more setting stuff, try here:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avatar:_The_Last_Airbender

The players are a group of young heroes who have banded together to complete a great quest or adventure.  They all have chosen to participate, are all familiar with martial arts, and are all generally good people.  For the most part, they are also mostly tweens, teens, and young adults.  

Great, now you know a bit about the premise.  So, what the devil is Powered by the Apocalypse?  This is a very loose philosophy for running an RPG that has a few similar traits.  It is not a "mechanics system" per se as many of the rules that use the PbtA "system" have very different mechanics.  However, it is more of a philosophy of how to play RPGs using these general ideas: 

• All dice rolls are determined on a 2d6
• 7-9 is a success with complication, and 10+ is a success with some benefits
• The Game master does not roll any dice, only interprets results
• The focus is on Narrative and leaning into the story
• The game is designed to exploit genre conventions and tropes 
• There is no Class/Level system, instead using genre archetypes in the form of Playbooks
• There is no Health/Hit points, instead causing conditions to apply to the character
• Players and the Gamemaster use a variety of pre-defined actions known as moves to broadly determine the action, these are designed to highlight the genre of the game.      

If you want to know more, you can look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powered_by_the_Apocalypse

So, now maybe that opening sentence makes more sense.  It does?  Great!  With that being said, let's mount up on our Air Bison and "Yip, Yip" on our way! 

Things I Like

The focus of the game is on creating the "Fiction" of the world.  That means, the focus in on telling stories with the characters as the basis of the conflicts.  It is a character driven game and therefore the mechanics are designed to lean into telling these stories.  Therefore, the details of how exactly a player fire bends, where a player is standing in relation to a threat, etc. are secondary.  This game is story first.  I like that form of game BUT if you are not into that than this game is NOT for you. 

The game uses 4 attributes: Creativity, Focus, Harmony, and Passion.  You will note that none of these are "physical" attributes but are related to a character's spirit and personality. In addition, this game has a cool mechanic where each playbook is torn between two values, a black Koi and a white Koi.  You move between these two points, and as you go closer to one you get a bonus, and a disadvantage on the opposite side.  

Each playbook (archetype or character) has their own unique values and bonuses in stats.  They also have a few "special rules" you can choose between.  It makes creating the mechanics of creating a character very quick.  These also point to a general "attitude" of the player.  You see, each playbook is designed to invoke a certain narrative space in the game and reflect the themes of the show.  Therefore, mechanically it is easy to build a character.  The hard part is the "soft questions" that are used to tie your character into your party and the larger quest. 

Normally, players spend time narrating what they are doing, how they are interacting with the world, and respond and bounce off each other.  Once a GM feels a check is needed or a move is being used, they will ask for a Move.  The GM also has a list of potential moves they can do as the world reacts to the players.    

Players or the GMs can choose to end a scene.  No more boring "shopping scenes" unless it is a vehicle for character growth and narrative.  Thank goodness!  This allows the game to keep a good pace, and not get bogged down in "non-value added" game scenes.     

My man Iroh! 

Things I Do Not Like    

 I do not like that this game actually has three ways to track your status that all interact and overlap.  The 2 Kois, a Conditions system that impacts your stats with modifiers, or/and a fatigue system.  All three of these states overlap to create a variety of mechanical effects.  I think that is probably too many.

Players fail or get complications easily, especially if they are trying to act outside of their area of expertise.  A GM that calls for a lot of checks will have to come up with a lot of complications on the fly.  In fact, the GM for a such a game should be relatively good at thinking-on-their-feet as much of the game is just "making stuff up" that fits the moment and challenges the character's on a spiritual, physical, and emotional level.  This can be challenging with the rules mostly giving general guidelines that the GM is left figuring out.  

Character's in this game have certain assumptions about them, that lock players in.  All players are good guys who generally get along.  They are all essentially friends and people who want to help.  The game is not modular at all, and characters are actually a bit restrictive.  You do not freely go about picking skills, abilities, or even deciding that you are this way or that way.  The playbooks direct you to the type of character you are.  Some people will go along with this better than others, and very experienced role-players may chafe at these restrictions. 

The game has a relatively simple Growth system that is a series of narrative questions that you ask at the end of a session.  Honestly, it seems pretty easy to Grow.  However, this normally only leads to players learning new fighting Techniques or other playbook techniques. The game has about a dozen generic styles and a dozen or so bending styles, so a character can theoretically choose from a couple dozen choices as they grow.  

Meh and Other Uncertainties

This game requires a Session 0 to play.  You see the group of players work together to create the story they want to participate in BEFORE a single player is made.  Yes, you read that right the Players create the story NOT the gamemaster.  This game the players lead the story and the GM reacts.  Therefore as the game unfolds the GM needs to be ready to improvise and stay on his toes.  However, much of the action, conflict, and tension of the game comes from the players themselves.  

Most of the book is really designed to help players and GMs to embrace the "Fiction" and how to lean into the fiction.  If you have played a PbtA system before, this concept is not new to you.  However, if you are coming from a different style of play like the traditional D20 style system with class/level and hard limits than this system is very different for you.  All of this ink spilled on how to lean into "the Fiction" is good.  

The system is very easy to learn because it leans into a relatively universal mechanic that I outlined at the opening of the review.  Much of the book is really leaning into the background material so you can understand the world and the likely conflicts within it.  Some could argue about the value of all that background detail that may or may not be used in the game at all.  

The game is also fairly straight forward that fail states do not equal death.  In fact, death is not a common event in this game.  It is very clear that only the evilest of villains kills people.  Instead, failed states are often giving up in the face of adversity, exhaustion, etc.  Conditions can also be cleared, but each Playbook has specific ways on how to clear a condition, like if you have the Afraid condition, you clear it by running away!    

The game has a simple adventure to get you started set in the Hundred Years War.  That is basically the period covered in the show, so the most familiar entry point for many players.  

There are three chapters to help out the GM about running the game, managing fight scenes, Bending, creating adventures, etc.  Basic stuff really.   

Final Thoughts

This is a really fun game IF you like the following: 

1. Narrative first games
2. Rules-lite systems

3. Kid's cartoon levels of violence

4. Focus on character interactions

5. Improvisational games

If you are NOT into those styles of games than steer clear.  

Notice you do not even need to be a fan of the show, or even have seen much of the show to get into the game.  However, some knowledge helps as it will allow you to lean into the Playbooks and the tropes of the series for a more rewarding experience.  It will also help you set-up the game easier in the Session 0.  However, when we played many of the players had 0 knowledge of the series and it was not a detriment at all. 

The mechanics of the system naturally lean you towards playing the game "the right way" and capture the "fiction" of the game.  That is the key purpose of the rules, to capture the feel of the series.  Overall, I think it is very successful at what it sets out to do.  If you can lean into the conceits of the game, you will have fun.  If you try to fight against the conceits and style of the game, you will struggle with it. 

If you've played the game, let me know your thoughts in the comments.      

 

You can follow Blood and Spectacles Facebook page for more fun: https://m.facebook.com/pg/BloodandSpectacles/posts/?ref=bookmarks&mt_nav=0

Or our website:

http://www.bloodandspectaclespublishing.com/

Or our Messageboard:

http://bloodandspectacles.proboards.com/

Or our Wargames Vault Page:

https://www.wargamevault.com/browse.php?keywords=blood+and+spectacles&x=0&y=0&author=&artist=&pfrom=&pto=    

Wargame Design: RPG Lite and Wargaming

 

Long time readers of the blog will know that I have an interest in RPG or Role-Playing Games.  Therefore, I also have an interest in the overlap between wargaming and RPG games.  In RPG games, a player often only controls a single player in the game, while in a Wargame the player controls multiple characters.  Therefore, there is a big difference between the play experiences.  Wargames came first, and RPGs grew out of the wargaming scene by changing the "scale" of the games.  The closely linked nature of the two types of games is interesting to me.  

What is RPG-Lite

Typically, a wargame is interested in resolving the 4Ms within the game.  Those 4Ms are Movement, Missiles, Melee, and Morale.  When you add RPG-Lite elements you are adding a few more pillars into game play, and adding more options a player can follow to resolve the game.  

Typically, RPGs have a different set of criteria beyond the 4Ms.  Those are commonly referred to as the Pillars of Gameplay.  In this case, RPGs use the following as the basic forms of the game; Exploration, Social, Combat, and Intrigues. 

When a wargame includes elements of RPG-lite it is allowing players to resolve conflicts within the game outside of just the 4M process and instead dip into the RPG Pillars of Gameplay as a form of resolution.  

So, typically in a wargame you resolve a challenge by either shooting it or hitting it with a stick.  If you are adding elements of RPG-Lite a player could resolve a challenge with a social ability, Intrigue, or even exploration.  

Here is an example in gameplay.  Player A has a unit standing on the objective.  Player B moves his unit up, and the commander of that unit tries to "bribe" the unit holding the objective to move.  The game has a mechanism to resolve the bribe attempt, and the result is Player A's unit leaves the objective, and Player B's unit occupies it.  The challenge of moving Player A's unit off the objective was not resolved by shooting or melee. It was resolved by an intrigue.  This is RPG-Lite in a wargame.  

What are the RPGs Pillars of Gameplay

Typically I break-up the Pillars of Gameplay into the following four categories when thinking about RPGs: 

1. Social - This Pillar focuses on interpersonal interactions and power dynamics based on these interpersonal relationships.  For example, in Turf War there is a mechanic using a Brains check to talk your way past a guard to get to an objective. 
 
2. Combat- Most Wargames cover this in detail.  However, in an RPG sense this covers 1-on-1 duels, skirmishes between small groups of individuals, and Mass Battles which involves units fighting each other.  

3. Exploration- Exploration is focused on using the environment in a new and interesting way to resolve a challenge or conflict.  This may involve finding secret passages, discovering a new path through the mountains, uncovering a lost temple, revealing a mine field, etc.  The player can use the environment in a way to resolve or complicate a situation.  For Example, in Ragnarok a player can "burn a forest" to change the keywords associated with the terrain.      

4. Intrigue- An intrigue is where a player is trying to use subterfuge, espionage, criminal, or covert means to drive a result or resolve a challenge.  For example, in a game like Mad Dogs with Guns you can find blackmail material that you can use to influence NPCs in game and in the post-game.   

Integrating Pillars into Wargames

To create RPG-Lite a wargame needs to integrate the Pillars of Gameplay into their core mechanics.  This typically involves a few key factors: 

1. Attributes

The game will need to have an attribute that goes beyond the 4Ms.  You may want to consider a general attribute that can be applied to each Pillar or that can cover a few.  I often use a generic "Brains" mechanic to cover the Social and Intrigue Pillars.  This attribute is used for tests that involve these Pillars.  

2. Rules Mechanics

The game needs space and mechanics to resolve these alternate Pillars.  How does a player try to talk their way past another player's models?  What happens if they succeed?  What happens if they fail?  These questions need to be covered by the rules via mechanics.  Thankfully, if you apply the Unifying Theory of Mechanics this is easy to cover. 

3. Special Rules 

The last method of integrating these Pillars is via Special Rules.  Obviously, special rules are semi-unique methods of resolving a situation that may or may not fall within the normal scope of the rules.  They may or may not need an attribute to resolve.  Many Exploration Pillars can be handled with special rules such as scenario complications or terrain rules.  Scenario design is also a place that can highlight RPG-lite elements.  However, Special Rules can also be used for any of the pillars.  

For example, in Heirs of Empire there is a campaign special rule can be used to "bribe" an enemy unit to switch sides during the next battle by spending campaign points.  This thematically fits with the period, as bribing units to change sides was common.  In addition, it is an "in-character" method for a commander to remove a threat without shooting or clubbing it.  

Why Add RPG-Lite Elements to a Wargame?

Ultimately, the best reason to add RPG-lite elements is to make your game fun!  The question is, why do they help make a game fun?  

1. Meaningful Decisions- RPG-Lite elements add more decision points that a player may need to make outside of the normal shoot/fight matrix.  The calculus of any given decision is made more complicated as now you have shoot/fight/talk/dirty trick/explore.  The more meaningful options there are to decide, the more interesting the game play.  

2. Hooks- RPG-Lite elements are a great Hook for gameplay.  A unique Hook can make a player decide to try a game and put it on the table, rather than play the 100th version of the game they always play. 

3. Re-playability- If there are more potential solutions to a game problem, there are more reasons to play and try the different combinations out.  The game can not be "solved" and new approaches can be consistently applied to it.  This quality makes players interested in trying and playing a game, as it is not the same experience every time. 

Final Thoughts

Role-Playing Games are an off-shoot of Wargames, therefore if makes sense that the two should influence each other.  Wargames tend to focus on the 4Ms for game structure, challenge and resolution while Role-Playing Games tend to focus on the Pillars of Gameplay.  Once you understand these RPG Pillars of Gameplay it is not hard to integrate these into the mechanics and rules of your wargames.  The addition of RPG-lite elements can add to a games re-playability and work as an excellent set of Hooks for the game.      

Bonus Content

Kill Team continues to be the favorite game at my FLGS.  Not a shock really.  To that end, you may recall I painted up my old late 80's Harlequins to play a few games.  They hit the table in a 3-way battle against some Marines and Grey Knights.  

We tried to grab an objective in the stone circle.  I completely misused the Saedeth/Performance rules early and never really got better with them.  However, the Strategic Ploys and Invulnerable saves were nice.  However, my opponents mostly didn't bother shooting at me, as with 3 AP all around we were up in each others grills pretty fast.  

We had a good run!  We completely wiped out the Ultramarines, and the Grey Knights were down to 1 model left.  However, I ended up losing by 1 VP to said Grey Knights.  On the plus side, some of my Void-Dancers actually survived the battle!  That is a bit unusual for me! 

Until next time..... 

 

You can follow Blood and Spectacles Facebook page for more fun: https://m.facebook.com/pg/BloodandSpectacles/posts/?ref=bookmarks&mt_nav=0

Or our website:

https://www.bloodandspectaclespublishing.com/

Or our Messageboard:

http://bloodandspectacles.proboards.com/

Or our Wargames Vault Page:

https://www.wargamevault.com/browse.php?keywords=blood+and+spectacles&x=0&y=0&author=&artist=&pfrom=&pto=