Choosing the strength of the counters for new module

Module Design
1

Hi,

I’m in the process of designing a module with my own scenario that is takes effect in present day and a variation for near future.

What I’m strugling to comprehend, is how the strength of the counters are determined.

I have the counters (Divisions, Brigades, etc.) but I would love to know how the designers are choosing the properties of the counters, and why they give different properties to the same type of counter for different players. For example, why would a designer decides that a tank division of player 1 to be (6,2,5) and a tank division of player 2 to be (5,3,4) .

2

Are you referring to the game design and how to determine unit strengths, or Vassal module design and how to give the counters within a module the strengths designated on the game counters?

Basically, are you having a vassal module problem for a physical game that already exists or are you designing a new game and don’t understand how game designers determine unit strengths?

3

I believe @ManserDimor is asking about game design (not module design).

If that is the case, then there’s no clear-cut rule, but depends a lot on the game, the setting, and so on. If the game is historical, then one can study various sources to get an idea how to assign combat factors to units - possibly relative to each other. There are some general sources out there, such as

In that book, Dunnigan outlines how to design a wargame, and illustrates the process with the game The Drive on Metz, 1944 - shameless self-promo of my module :slight_smile:

In that, Dunnigan writes

Assigning combat values to these units is a fairly simple process initially. Simply take the worst unit (as best you can determine it) and assign it a value of “1.” It’s a good idea at this point to take the best unit (as best you can determine it) and ask yourself the question: How much better is the best unit than the worst unit? If you come up with a number no greater than, say, 9, you’re probably in the ball park and at that point all you have to do is fit all the remaining units in the game in between the best and the worst by just asking yourself the question: How is this unit in comparison with the best and the worst? If it sounds simple, it is. There’s no mystery involved in it. The system is further refined when you start playing the game and any misjudgments you have made quickly become evident in your attempts to recreate the historical event. You then modify the values on units and eventually end up with a rather accurate numerical appraisal of each unit’s combat ability.

For non-historical games, you cannot compare your design against historical outcomes, so the correction part - from play-testing - becomes a bit more complicated. For example, is a Russian armoured battalion - with T90 tanks - stronger or weaker than a Ukranian armoured company with Leopard II tanks? How about Abrams versus Type99?

Yours,
Christian

3 Likes
4

Perfect answer. Dunnigan was going to be my follow-on suggestion as well.

5

I really appreciate your precise and concise answer, and thanks for the book.

As a side note, I’m in the case of non-historical game situation and precisely I’m designing a game for real armies in their current and near future projected forces, as you have described the problematic in your question at the end.

For example, is a Russian armoured battalion - with T90 tanks - stronger or weaker than a Ukranian armoured company with Leopard II tanks? How about Abrams versus Type99?

In this situation, I want your opinions.

  1. Is it a good practice to give all similar units of different armies the same strength values?
  2. Is there any way to make these properties modifiable by the users?
6

You\re welcome. Also, if you feel like you got an answer to your question, please tag the relevant post - possibly your own - as the answer to the question. That helps other users find relevant answers to their questions. Only you, as the original poster, can do that.

Consider to take a look at Littoral Commander: Indo-Pacific (another self-plug :slight_smile: ) and Littoral Commander: The Baltic. The system is a sand-box grand-tactical game set in the near future. Perhaps it is what you are looking for or you may be able to derive some inspirration from it.

If you follow Dunnigan’s advice - which I think is probably not a bad idea as he designed a great number of renowned games - then the answer would be: it depends.

Yes, I know - annoying. To put a bit more flesh on it: If you believe (ideally through some sort of research or observation of real-life situations), that a near-future Iranian combined-arms division is approximately as strong as an Indian infantry division, then those two formations could have equal strengths. If, on the other hand, you believe an Australian armoured brigade is stronger than the equivalent New Zealand brigade, then those could have different strengths. Heck, they could even vary offensively or defensively.

OK, so this is more Vassal specific. I wrote something about something similar some time ago:

What you could do, is to essentially have pieces with the following structure

  • BasicTrait - just the name of the piece
  • PrototypeTrait - Faction - which refers to the faction of the piece
  • ProrotypeTrait - Type - which refers to the type of unit - e.g., infantry, combined arms, artillery, …, and possibly echelon - e.g., brigade, division, corps, …
  • PrototypeTrait - Factors - which renders the pieces factors
  • DynamicTrait - AF - encodes the piece’s attack factor
  • DynamicTrait - DF - encodes the piece’s defence factor
  • DynamicTrait - MF - encodes the piece’s movement factor

The Faction Prototype contains a LayerTrait with the appropriate coloured background to distinguish faction A from faction B (e.g., NATO “friendly” and “hostile”).

The Type Prototype contains a LayerTrait that pleces the unit type NATO symbology on the piece.

The Factors prototype contains a LabelTrait that renders the properties AF, DF, and MF` appropriately.

You can then define key commands to change the values of CF, DF, and MF of the pieces. For example,

  • DynamicPropertryTrait:
    • Name: AF
    • Numeric: true
    • Minimum: 0
    • Maximum: 10
    • Value: 1
    • Commands:
      • increase
        • Menu:
        • Key command: incrAF
        • Type: Increment
        • Value: {1}
      • decrease
        • Menu:
        • Key command: decrAF
        • Type: Increment
        • Value: {-1}

and the Factors prototype could expose user commands to toggle these

  • TriggerTrait
    • Menu: Increase attack factor
    • Key:
    • Actions: [incrAf]
  • TriggerTrait
    • Menu: Decrease attack factor
    • Key:
    • Actions [decrAF]
  • SubMenuTrait
    • Name: Manipulate AF
    • Items: [Increase attack factor, Decrease attack factor]

and so on for all the unit factors.

See also this example module (it doesn’t use DynamicPropertyTrait for factors, but rather the constant MarkTrait - however, the change should be relatively straight forward).

Yours,
Christian

3 Likes
7

I just want to say a few words regarding scale.

It seems like you are making an operational level game and your units are division (xx), brigade (x), and perhaps regiment (|||).

Littoral Commander: Indo-Pacific is a grand-tactical level game, with formations on the scale of platoons (***). In that system, things like drones, long-range systems - such as Man-Pads, tactical air support, and so on, are modelled through Joint-Capability Cards, which makes sense on that scale. E.g., it makes sense to distinguish between a platoon that has Stinger missiles and one that does not have a similar capability.

On an operational scale, such tactical capabilities are probably best abstracted into an overall capability of a unit.

E.g., if an infantry division has significant long-range firepower - such as rocket artillery, then it could have a long range (2 to 3 hexes) attack factor, while other infantry divisions will not have such a factor.

On the other hand, it makes little sense to model drone capability - rather that capability would be subsumed under an overall attack factor.

For example, Russian combined arms divisions at this point in time, have developed significant drone capabilities that may give them an edge against NATO armoured infantry divisions, who may lack behind in the drone domain. Thus the Russian unit could have AF=3 while the NATO unit would have AF=2. On the other hand, a NATO armoured infantry division may have better Command-and-Control (C2) or equipment (Puma versus BMP-3) than its Russian counter-part, which would offset the lesser drone capability, and the AFs would equalise.

In the other end of the spectrum, strategic considerations, such as a country’s willingness to see their young men and women come home in body-bags, is also best modelled in an abstract fashion, since the on the operational level, those concerns are somewhat peripheral.

One could model the acceptance of attrition by imposing some sort of victory condition. E.g., if the NATO faction looses more than 10% of its combined force, then the Russian faction has won, while the same threshold would be 20% for the Russian faction.

These are my 2¢ on the topic. Perhaps you should start a thread in the BoardGameGeek wargame sub-domain general forum - I am certain that there will be many people chiming in with their thoughts on the subject - including seasoned wargame designers and amatours such as myself :slight_smile:

Yours,
Christian

1 Like
8

I can’t thank you enough. This was more than what I was looking for.

9

I’m planning to include all the new tactics learned from the Russo-Ukrainian war and either add them as special cards or directly to the unit strength.