FTGU Counter Design

From the Ground Up Rules 16JAN2016.docx
Squad and vehicle counter design for FTGU.
BoB:GP counters
Early counter comp
Early playtest counter

Laurent Closier leaned over my playtest table at Atlantikon, Nantes 2015, took in my NATO symbol counters for FTGU, and remarked,Mais les pions de tout les jeux tactiques ont besion des petit bonhommes.” Outrages to wargame tradition come across so well in French that I could only agree. So I redid them with silhouettes, which you see above.

I chose to make 5/8ths of an inch counters this time, as it allows the hex number, which contains elevation information, to be more visible. In any case terrain is meant to be the star of this design so I want it to be more visible. And 5/8th-inch counters will be more cost effective, given the number of new units and all the second-line US units necessary to play the campaign game.

Terrain and tradition had to be satisfied. I also took the opportunity to change the basic design a bit. The smaller counter size meant that I had to dispense with a full-color treatment of the silhouettes. I did away with the watermark behind the silhouettes as well, instead relying on the background color to convey nationality. Additionally, I’ve relied on placement to convey the morale and firepower series as well as the range number, thus eliminating further watermarks which are ultimately a distraction.

I’ve done away with the casualty number series, instead relying on the number of silhouettes to convey the first casualty number while leaving the second one in red. This compromise was to free up space for the NATO symbol, the SATW symbol and number, and a unit ID number. I was briefly tempted to play with different colored numerals beyond the morale series, but these were distracting, too. Red and black read better than anything else, given the smaller counter size.

Enabling Lies Wargames Tell

Recent playtest of St. Léonard, Situation 1, "Not Such a Bad War After All."
Recent playtest of St. Léonard, Situation 1, “Not Such a Bad War After All.”

No notion takes flight without a leap of faith. Games are of necessity simplified ambitions of the designer. I think there’s a long literary explanation for this bearing on how one best spends one’s limited time on earth, but I’ll spare you further elaboration. After all a game can’t quite save your life but it can feel that way. And it certainly helps if the designer feels the threat or possibility that time might run out. To distract ourselves from this, to get any game started, we need enabling lies.

Hexes are a lie. CRTs are a lie. Until they are tested, probabilities themselves are a lie. But some lies are better than others. A designer’s job is to choose the most enabling ones. A developer’s job is to leverage those choices even further. You can’t have a game otherwise. Good lies suspend disbelief, enable appropriate paranoia, but also seem to rhyme with historical truths. Band of Brothers is a good game system. Do I move or do I fire? What if I am making a terrible mistake? Players end up torturing themselves with the same questions which bother tactical commanders.

Historical truths themselves have crossed the horizon of probability and become validated as facts. I don’t mean to be so obscure. In the broad context of From the Ground Up, it wasn’t at all certain that the entire Normandy invasion would not be thrown back into the sea, although it is difficult to imagine this would be the case now. It turns out the telling fact was the amount of shells that an ever-growing artillery park could deliver to enemy targets was the central fact of the campaign and, not incidentally, one of easier ones to calculate beforehand. More on such knowable unknowns and low-hanging fruit, later.

In designing historical games you have to come to some understanding of which factual results represent outliers to probability. To take up Normandy again, it wasn’t considered possible that simply offloading supplies to the beachheads without any port infrastructure could surpass the capacity of a port or artificial harbor, yet hindsight shows this was the case. This was not an outlier, but in the order of things, however unforeseen. The challenge to the designer is more pronounced when you climb down through the operational echelon to the tactical. Study of any given tactical battle often argues that it was yet another for-the-want-of-a-nail event.

Over the next few posts, I’m going to look at some of the enabling lies that I’ve had to tell to get the design of From the Ground Up, ahem, off the ground. I mean to write something about time, scale, artillery, and (my favorite) terrain.

Le Bourg St. Léonard in 3D

POV ~50m above positions of 1/A/359 along the first axis of the 3 SS PzGr's attack.
POV ~50m above positions of 1/A/359 along the first axis of the 3 SS PzGr’s attack.
Playtest scenario. Developer Brendan Clark's 3 SS PzGr pushes back the US line.
Playtest scenario, depiction of same area. Developer Brendan Clark’s 3 SS PzGr pushes back the US line.

Click through to a manipulable 3D visualization of Le Bourg St. Léonard, the fourth battle in From the Ground Up. Terrain relief is exaggerated 30m SRTM data. The building footprints are from Open Street Map before I visually compared them with my field notes and the 1947 aerial survey photo of the IGN. The Z height of the buildings is a database merge based on my field notes and an aerial photo from 1944. This is a very preliminary model. Later on, I’ll tease out polygons for the ground cover and assign heights when I next have some time to devote to making further progress in QGIS.  For the moment, I’m hammering out artillery and campaign rules.

Radio Check

Coming back from a very long absence. Things looks strange but stable. From the Ground Up continues and has even taken on momentum. We have a good VASSAL module. We have a developer and head playtesters. Our playtesters range from California to Poland and we hope to have new ones in Asian time zones soon.

I’ll be restoring previous posts. I have a few new posts to make and they’ll be up soon.