Let's Do the Numbers, The Problem with Making World at War Counters Readable
Few things have received greater
praise, or more derision, than the twelve numbers written on (most) World at
War counters. Some folks love having the data on the game chits, some folks
feel it's confusing, almost all say the font is ridiculous.
 |
| Russia's Latest Weapon? |
Let's face it; games can get
pretty damn confusing. Often they are made more so by anything within the
design that requires you to pull your focus from the game board and the pieces
on it, and refer to charts, rules, etc. Some of this is unavoidable. You can't
play a game without rules, and few, if any, conflict simulations can be gamed
without terrain effect charts, combat results tables, etc. What I tried to do
with World at War counters is eliminate the need for unit data charts and a
combat results table. Let gamers focus on the game, not the charts.
As for the numbers on the
counters, the game's combat engine, where did that come from? You might not
believe me if I told you, but I simply don't remember. Okay, I'll admit that is
only a partial truth. I've played many role-playing and miniature games where
dice are thrown, and hits are assessed based on rolling a target number. Those
games were the inspiration for World at War's combat system. But was there a
specific game? Not that I remember. I just wanted a system that allowed gamers
to toss dice, resolve combat, and have fun. I think World at War does that.
As for those that feel that the
counters are a confusing jumble of numbers. I feel your pain. I might write
like a young guy, perhaps I even think like a young guy, but I'm as old as just
about anyone playing the game, and those numbers are hard to read. Here's the
problem. Bigger counters mean fewer counters on the counter sheet. Okay, I
think we could all deal with that. LNLP could either reduce the number of units
in the game, or charge a little more. Unfortunately, the costs associated with
bigger counters don't stop there. Larger counters mean larger hexes in which to
play with them. Larger hexes means less hexes on the same size map. Less hexes
on the same size map, means that you need to have larger game boards, or more
of them. Both options mean more expense. In the end, I think increasing World
at War counters from their present 5/8" to a very nice 1" would
probably raise costs 25-25%.
I’ve looked at other options.
The Cards of War that failed to fund with Eisenbach Gap Deluxe was the best.
Cards of War would provide a card for each counter. Just pull the cards and lay
them beside the game board for easy, large-numbered reference. Unfortunately,
we didn’t raise the money to print them. Maybe it’s an option for the future.
Time will tell.
Next World at War post I’ll dive
into why an Abrams is a 4-4, a Leopard II a 4-3, and what’s up with the T-72’s
speed. Non-gamers? Sorry, I’ll get back to you soon, maybe even tomorrow.
Mark H. Walker served 23 years in the United States Navy, most of them as an Explosive Ordnance Disposal diver, he is the author of Desert Moon, an exciting mecha, military scifi novel with a twist, with plenty of damn science fiction in it despite what any reviewer says, as well as World at War: Revelation, a creepy, military action, with a love story, alternate history, World War Three novel thing, Everyone Dies in the End, and numerous short stories. They are all available from Amazon Kindle Direct Publishing right here. Give them a try. I mean, what the hell?
Comments