|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
PALO ALTO
|
|
|
|
(Fought: 16 February 2008) |
|
|
|
||
|
One day in corporate headquarters in the Game Room (basement of
chez Freeman), we began a discussion of what we wanted to do next. Topics
abounded and ideas flew, but we kept coming back to SYG. We knew that the
scenario booklet was nearing completion and of course, the first thoughts were
to produce a second. Musing it over, I ventured that what would really be
cool, would be to have a scenario booklet that embraced more than one era, so
players could try several different battles all basically involving the horse
and musket. That, of course, is impractical because trying to please everybody means that nobody will be pleased, but the byproduct of that conversation was that we began defining how far we could take the game system. My fear was that the rules would become this object where players can game from the English Civil War all the way to the Franco-Prussian conflict. I can already hear some of you snort in derision of such a claim and I agree. Once again, rules that cover everything, cover nothing and are about as exciting as jell-o (no offense to Bill Cosby). It was then I began thinking seriously about the progression of arms and what is defined in the core rules of the game. First off, I looked at our design principles. The musket loomed large in this era so to me, that was the first benchmark. The rules could only go as far as the musket could dominate. This gave us now a cap. We could go no further than the Mexican-American War, the last major fight dominated by the combined arms developed during the Seven Years and French and Indian War, refined during the American War of Independence, specialized with the War of 1812 and the Napoleonic period before it reached its apex with the war started in 1846. After this, we see the rise of repeating pistols, rifled cannons and the introduction of the Minie bullet. All of those items would completely trash the old way of fighting in the upcoming American Civil War even though both sides would tenaciously try to cling to the ideals espoused by Jomini fifty years before. This gave us the chance to expand the rules through scenario type books that would give the owners the ability to try out the War of 1812 with scenarios and just a few additions to what they already knew. So we had to know, would adding some special rules for the period work to give us the same experience we had when pushing lead for the AWI and FIW games? It all seemed so remarkably easy to do, yet we had to maintain that balance where each side had to fight the way they did, not because the rules told you to do so, but because it made sense with you and your armies to behave in that manner. It was at this point, we involved Dollar Bill. Now Bill is the resident Mexican American War expert. He has so much lead on it that if we were ever nuked, Bill would simply look up from his painting desk and ask what was that noise? While talking with him we looked to keep the battle small, yet with a known historical result. We quickly settled on Palo Alto because it was the first battle in the war and it has been extensively researched (a side note here: as a Historian, I constantly scour the web and libraries for primary source materials on any conflict I study. It is difficult for the FIW, period, a little better for the AWI, but I was stunned by the quantity and quality of references for the 1846 era. I need to get out more!). So the maps were poured over, the terrain and troops were discussed and we quickly settled on a scale that made the fight manageable on the table top. We noted we would need to discuss adding squares for a new formation, horse artillery for Ringgold and Duncan's flying batteries and we settled on baseline morale values for all of the troops on both sides. We were ready, but would it actually work? |
|
|
No Map Today
|
|
|
|
|
|
Content Owner: |
Larry Freeman |
||
|
Technical Design: |
Larry Freeman |
||
|
Never forget! |
|||