Old CW vs New CW

[43Supporter]

Originally Posted by HeatDeath

My working theory is that back in the day, it was sufficient for a boardgame to offer the sheer novelty of executing a complex simulation by hand. [...]

And yet: That was not necessarily the case. I have a couple examples from Metagaming sitting within arm's reach (_Stalin's Tanks_; _Rommel's Panzers_), which are spectacularly uncomplicated. And then there's SJ's own delvings into uncomplicated games -- _OGRE_, of course; _TFT: Melee_; heck, even _One-Page Bulge_.

I think the idea back-when was not so much "executing a complex simulation by hand", but "executing a complex simulation by hand *in as simple a manner as possible*", rendering down detail wherever possible. One could have games like _Harpoon_, or _Air Superiority_ (god love GDW, but did they ever get over-detailed); but one could also have games like the one mentioned earlier. And that, sadly, is where _CW_ went off-the-rails: It started simple, but so much barely- or un-, necessary stuff was added... well, I've told the tale of seeing prospects walk up, take one look at _Catalog From Hell_, and walk away. What _CW_ needed was, to put it mildly, a Rules Purge -- delete or move to companion manuals anything which wasn't necessary for arena fights, and have a "basic set" which is just, as folks like to say, "Zoom, and Boom".

[HeatDeath]

I don't think we're actually disagreeing. but I'm definitely using a broader definition of "complex simulation" than you are.

None of the games you mention, and especially not "One Page Bulge" (112 counters!) would be considered "spectacularly uncomplicated" by non-hobby boardgame standards (e.g. Monopoly, Sorry, Snakes and Ladders, even Catan).

Chess and Go are already well outside the realm of "uncomplicated" by mainstream standards, and while Melee, OPB, and Ogre may have a smaller decision space than Chess or Go, their decision space, combined with the number of units in play at any time, is far larger than that of mainstream boardgames even today, let alone back when they were published.

Car Wars when it was first published as a ziplock or pocketbox was already a substantial beer-and-pretzels wargame, well outside the realm of "uncomplicated" as defined by the Parker Brothers pantheon of the time. I agree completely that by the time the RPG and worldbuilding elements were folded into the core rules, you had a total package that was indeed very intimidating even to experienced hobby gamers, and that was definitely in need of a significant editing pass to restore focus to arena and highway duels [as Battletech has done recently with their "Battlemech Manual" book].

I believe the Car Wars blue box later republished as Car Wars Classic was intended to be this, but speaking from experience as a young gamer in the early 90's, it didn't go nearly far enough, and contained editing and organizational choices that significantly damaged it as an entry point to the franchise for new players. Indeed, I have no confidence that that release was ever handed to players completely unfamiliar with the game for playtesting.

[43Supporter]

Originally Posted by HeatDeath

None of the games you mention, and especially not "One Page Bulge" (112 counters!) would be considered "spectacularly uncomplicated" by non-hobby boardgame standards (e.g. Monopoly, Sorry, Snakes and Ladders, even Catan).

[nod] While games like _OGRE_ and _OPB_ might have a lot of individual pieces on the board, the game mechanics aren't all that complicated -- as we said back-when: "If you can count to ten without taking your shoes off...." :)

Originally Posted by HeatDeath

I believe the Car Wars blue box later republished as Car Wars Classic was intended to be this, but speaking from experience as a young gamer in the early 90's, it didn't go nearly far enough, and contained editing and organizational choices that significantly damaged it as an entry point to the franchise for new players. Indeed, I have no confidence that that release was ever handed to players completely unfamiliar with the game for playtesting.

I cannot disagree with you there -- I'm still working on getting the OG CW rules rewritten in a manner where someone completely unfamiliar with the game can actually find a given rule.

But I do count that sort of thing as part of "complexity" -- if it's hard to find a rule, or understand a rule as-written, that's as bad as "take the cube root". (In my perfect world: I'd like to have a rulebook which reads like LEGO instructions -- *no* words required.)

[swordtart]

Part of my issue with CW was inconsistency. It seemed almost every time a new supplement came out it didn't just add rules, it changed how the existing rules worked. Unfortunately these supplements were not always compatible with similar rules or identical equipment in other supplements (presumably written by other people).

When these were all compiled together, rather than take a simplification and unification approach they were all just bundled in often using the exact same words from the original issue resulting in contradictory rules in the same book.

As an example, rather than invent every more complicated liquid dropping weapons, there could have been a single liquid dropping weapon and the different effects achieved with a variety of ammunition. We had smoke screens and paint sprayers with different magazine sizes. Smoke grenades and paint grenades produced the same size counter and used the same weight grenade, why couldn't the dropped weapons use the same logic. Or why even have dozens of different droppers when in fact you could have simply created a grenade "dropper" and have it drop every effect type from flaming oil to tear gas.

Aircraft (including Helos) should have been left out completely, they effectively make the Car part of the game pointless, ditto Tanks. Racing was the antithesis of what it should have been (painfully slow) and exposed the fundamental illogic of the control system. Did anyone play Hovercraft, all that nonsense with vector movement. I was really excited when I got an extra supplement with my Black and Green compendium boxed set, I was crest fallen when it turned out to be Boats (not least because all those rules were already in the compendium, so my bonus was some maps (or blue paper) and some counters. Someone should have actually looked at the 10 wheelers and compared them to a real version.

Why was the skill system so random. Traveller managed to use a 2d6 skill system that had a universal mechanic. CW Mechanic skill has a table, Running skill adds a fixed benefit and no roll is required, Gunner skill provides a bonus to your roll to hit.

Not to mention the equipment that ceased to exist, the cars that ceased to be legal after a reconsideration of a fundamental component (Gas engines for one) and the way design strategies flip-flopped as the latest hotness was introduced.

5th was a valiant attempt to rationalise, but the lack of a vehicle design system and the "collectable" way the books were published undermined it for me.

Sometimes I like to dust of Mini Car Wars, a whole game on a sheet of A4. Sometimes less is more :)

[Mark Skarr]

Originally Posted by sazzlefrats

Which is edition is more fun? I can't answer I didn't give the new edition a chance. I was in a bad head space when I got my kickstarter and basically gave it away.

I started playing Car Wars in the late '80s ('88, iirc). I've always loved the idea behind Car Wars. But, no one ever wanted to play with me. The few times I did get to play, most of the players were either really obnoxious or incredibly new. I had a few good games, at the random cons, but most of the time, the games were . . . bad.

Late last month, I picked up 6th Edition.

I just finished my second game of 6th Edition (I'm 0 and 2, both losses). And, I can say, I've never had as much fun playing Car Wars than in those two 6th Edition games. Hand of Bobb agrees (he won both games). He had agreed to play the first game, even though he hates Car Wars ("I want to play a game, not simulate geometry in my head"). And willingly offered to play the second game.

He likes this version. I like this version. It's a better game than the previous versions. It's easier, and more fun, to play.

But, we aren't into all of the finagling every last power point or mph out of the car, and wrangling every ounce. We'll play BattleTech if we want to flex our design muscles.

So, for me, 6th Edition is the "most fun" edition.

[43Supporter]

Originally Posted by swordtart

Part of my issue with CW was inconsistency. It seemed almost every time a new supplement came out it didn't just add rules, it changed how the existing rules worked. Unfortunately these supplements were not always compatible with similar rules or identical equipment in other supplements (presumably written by other people).

HOLY MOTHER OF KITTEN, YES. That was the Big Complaint back-when, esp. during the infamous "Gang Of Four" Era (in one case, the rules decisions were based around "however A Certain Midwestern CW Club does it, rule exactly the opposite, because their leader is Annoying).

Originally Posted by swordtart

When these were all compiled together, rather than take a simplification and unification approach they were all just bundled in often using the exact same words from the original issue resulting in contradictory rules in the same book.[...]

The example you provided -- this is part of my Long March through the rulebook. There's also stuff like the VSG, which only existed to put Vehicle-Level Damage on checkpoints -- goodbye.

Originally Posted by swordtart

Aircraft (including Helos) should have been left out completely, they effectively make the Car part of the game pointless, ditto Tanks. Racing was the antithesis of what it should have been (painfully slow) and exposed the fundamental illogic of the control system. Did anyone play Hovercraft, all that nonsense with vector movement. [...] Someone should have actually looked at the 10 wheelers and compared them to a real version.

10-wheelers, and Hovers, are being dealt with. Racing -- honestly, if you can find a copy of the old _AutoVentures_ _TurboFire_ book, use that; it's substantially less FUBAR.

This is why I am so bothered by being the age I am -- if I had been but a few years older, I could have prevented much of this. But at the time of the "Gang Of Four", I was still in high school, and I'm pretty sure SJG would not have offered the position of "_CW_ Guru" to me at the time....

[HeatDeath]

Circling back to the OP topic of Old CW, vs. New CW, I found an fascinating nugget of game design philosophy tidbit buried in a powerpoint presentation on the Harpoon game's website:

Historical wargames tend to fall into two major camps

• Design for Cause: identify the major causal factors that impact an event and put them into the game design so that the event is likely to occur if the players’ follow the same steps.
• Design for Effect: identify the “effect” or the outcome of an event and design the game mechanics such that the players’ results is consistent with the historical data used as examples.

https://www.admiraltytrilogy.com/pdf...n_HarpoonV.pdf , page 17.

They go on to say that Harpoon very intentionally uses both in different places. Neither is "right" or wrong" per se. They tend to use design for effect, particularly when the real-world process they're modeling is not fun - i.e. mathematically hard fire control solution calculations.

I would say that CW4e (as well as SFB, Battletech, etc) is a prime example of design for cause, while CW6e is a prime example of design for effect.

[I also think a lot of the philosophical divide underlying differing houseruling approaches is a result of some players wanting to houserule better simulation of a process into a game, vs wanting to design houserules for a particular desired effect.]

[43Supporter]

Originally Posted by HeatDeath

They go on to say that Harpoon very intentionally uses both in different places. Neither is "right" or wrong" per se. They tend to use design for effect, particularly when the real-world process they're modeling is not fun - i.e. mathematically hard fire control solution calculations.

[nod] Having played _Harpoon_: It's not actually all *that* difficult; there's just a lot of factors to cover (and not all of them actually come into play, if you'll pardon the pun -- for ex.: If it's a clear day, one can ignore modifiers for rain, fog, etc.). Same can apply to OG CW -- most arenas events are "clear weather" and "flat, paved arena"; so most of the TH and handling mods can be ignored.

"The world is what you make of it, my friend -- if it doesn't fit, you make alterations." [Stella, _Silverado_]

[Chris Goodwin]

Originally Posted by Overload

Back in the day, I played in a Corporate Car Wars Campaign. My company's motto was, "Olympic Motors: our cars are good, our drivers aren't." It was in reference to my poor dice rolling luck in games.
Car Wars, like Champions, Battletech and others, were old games with a rich 'meta game' of intricate design systems where a spreadsheet was needed to eke out a great design.

Every group had that one person -- sometimes more than one -- who was a brilliant vehicle designer but always crashed and burned on turn 3, doing a 15 degree bend at 30mph.

When I started playing with a play aid that shows not just your handling status but what happens when you reach that status, I stopped being that guy. Turns out if you don't maneuver as much, and keep your handling status in "Safe", you get a lot more driving in. :D

[swordtart]

Originally Posted by Mark Skarr

I started playing Car Wars in the late '80s ('88, iirc)....<Snip>... The few times I did get to play, most of the players were either really obnoxious or incredibly new. I had a few good games, at the random cons, but most of the time, the games were . . . bad.

Late last month, I picked up 6th Edition.

<Snip>

He likes this version. I like this version. It's a better game than the previous versions. It's easier, and more fun, to play.

<Snip>

So, for me, 6th Edition is the "most fun" edition.

I think a key point to bear in mind for us grognards who are comparing 80's CW and the new version is that we are 40 years older.

As a teenage boy raging with hormones WINNING was the whole point. I would screw every advantage out of the rules I could and spent more time arguing rules than playing the game.

As a 50 something I still spend more time discussing rules than playing but now it is because I have a job, children, and can't actually dovetail my limited free time with my contemporaries that have similar responsibilities and discussing rules on forums is my only outlet. However in compensation for the free-time I have lost I have gained perspective instead. Like Elsa I learned to "let it go". When I do play games I am more interested in playing than winning. I no longer feel the need to play the gamer rather than the game. I now get more fun out of games I used to find frustrating even when I am playing with other people who haven't grown out of the "WIN AT ALL COSTS" mindset.

Also having children means my standards are lower. Games like WH40K are deeply flawed but they are still more fun for me than the Moshi Monsters boardgame :)

I am still learning though. I am DM'ing D&D with my daughters and in our previous session we had a TPK and I came up with a clever reason to bring them back that was still consistent with the scenario. I felt quite proud that I hadn't "cheated". This week we had another TPK because of a lack of experience on their part. On this occasion I just reset the dungeon like it was a save game.

It felt wrong doing it, but in retrospect it was perfect. They had fun. They didn't have to create new characters and bin the ones they were growing fond of. I didn't have to bin the whole campaign. I didn't make my 9 year old cry and feel like a mean parent. They actually got to learn effective tactics and cleared the whole thing out the second time around without any difficulty. I didn't have to fudge any rolls or dilute the effect of their decision making by faking out the effects of them.

Afterwards I realised that the reason I was playing was to spend time with my daughters, not to show "tough love" to teach them the most efficient way to explore a dungeon. I had been seriously considering destroying any interest they had in the game by imposing my own purist idea of how the game should be played.

Every day is a school day :)