Ten

This Bastionland Editorial was originally sent as a reward to all Patreon supporters, and is released freely on this site a week after its original publication.

If you want to support my blog, podcasts, and video content then head over to my Patreon.

-----------------------------

I was reminded that this coming Friday and Monday are Bank Holidays here in the UK, so I should take a few days off work.

Well I care deeply about the wellbeing of every member of the Bastionland Press corporate empire, so in addition to taking next week off work, I decided to give myself a free day to work on a project that probably wasn't going to go anywhere, and you know what that means...

The dreaded return of Project 10!

I've written about it before, but I'm very aware that it lies outside of the interests of many people that read this patreon/blog, so I've tried to keep it in the background. Well, today is the exception, so let's get on with what I've been doing with this little wargame.

The whole point of this game is that I wanted something I could use with big bases of small-scale miniatures. This week I painted a block of foot knights and a commander.

 

Bringing my 10mm collection to a still-tiny 4 (and a bit) units. 

Not quite the dozen units I'd need to actually test this game on the tabletop yet, not to mention my delayed aspirations to create a modular 1x1m battlefield. TTS is fine, but I want to get a proper feel for this. 

Who needs miniatures when you have blank cards?

 

Very much drawing on the aesthetic of 90s White Dwarf Battle Reports, which were a huge catalyst for this project. Note the very first example of artisan, homemade, oversized Combat Dice™

It's no substitute for seeing a miniature army laid out, but it works as a stopgap and might even spur me on to paint more quickly. 

Taking my luxurious variety of units for the Empire of Steel, Guild under the Mountain, Guardians of the Wood, Raiders of the Shadowrealm, Red Sun Horde, and the Army of the Dead, I had a morning of playtesting, an afternoon of making changes, then repeated it all again the next day. 

So what's changed and why?

Traits

Look... if you're actually following the progress of Project 10 then my biggest piece of advice is not to get attached to any of the traits. Treat them like a pet hamster. Enjoy the time you have with them, but know that they are unlikely to join you in your retirement. 

As these are the core of what makes units (and by extension, armies) interesting in this game, I'm always changing them and trying new versions, sometimes reverting to the original. I'm aware that any specific changes I talk about here are just as likely to change again before you read this, or snap back to a previous ruling, but I'll live dangerously and highlight a few. 

Missile: Previously this was split into Short and Long, with each having slightly different restrictions for when they can fire. Putting them together makes it easy, as units with this trait now just follow the standard rules for shooting. You can't shoot after your second pivot. Done. Artillery still has its "no moving and firing" restriction but it feels more intuitive there. Again I'm dipping into Neil Thomas' wisdom here, as he often gives an extended range to slings, javelins, and other short ranged weapons favoured by skirmishers, representing a more abstract sense of that unit's area of control, rather than a strict range based on their static position on the board. 

Tough: This trait has changed names a few times, but represents units that are better able to withstand damage throughout the battle, be it through armour, discipline, or physical resilience. Formerly reactive (essentially having Damage Reduction of 1 point), it always felt slightly at odds with the other traits, which largely occur on the unit's own turn. It also increased the instances of "I roll... nothing happens" which wasn't desirable. So instead it's now tied to Rallying, allowing a unit to more readily recover after taking damage. The idea that damage represents both casualties and failing morale is key to this, and I'll talk about it a little more further down. 

Loose: Look, I hate this Trait. I need it, as I want to allow for units that are primarily made of skirmishers or other loose form infantry, but it's probably changed more than any other rule. Dip into your wargame of choice and find the section on skirmishers. It's rarely a succinct little ruling, and commonly involves at least three special effects that apply to this unit. Maybe they can move and shoot, or move through rough terrain, or move through other units, or move after shooting, or move and shoot in any direction, oh and they should be weaker in melee, but harder to hit with missile fire, and less able to reform, and and... You get the idea. So currently I've got a ruling I don't really like, but I wanted to at least point it out and shame it in public. One day there will be a great rule here, but today is not that day. 

Terminology

Rolls of 1-3 are now called Hits, and 4-6 Misses. This might seem small but it's one of those many tiny things that makes other rules easier to understand, and gradually improves the quality of life factor of a game as you bash away at it. 

Terrain

I previously had a very clever set of terrain rules that involved a grid with two axis. One was "affects movement" and the other "affects shooting" and it resulted in 9 sub-categories of terrain that had examples and made me feel like I was doing great work.

Well, something I've learned is that if you look at a piece of your writing and think "oh yes, very clever" then maybe you should stop patting yourself on the back and look again with a more pragmatic set of eyes.

This very clever system was actually just a clunkier way of describing 5 common types of terrain (open, rough, blocks movement, blocks vision, blocks everything) and then 4 weird edge cases that didn't really need a common rule.

And for similar reasons to my changes to the Tough trait, I've taken a more hardline approach to cover. No more damage reduction for being around some bushes. Either get in the woods (blocks vision) or deal with getting shot at.

Flanking and Supporting

The rule that "flank and rear attacks roll double" felt like a core part of the game. Almost too core. Out of curiosity, I tried a version of the game with no bonus for hitting the flank or rear. 

I actually, mostly, preferred it. 

The previous bonus was so impactful that most games would come down to "who can flank most effectively" and while I knew this was going to be a "rank and flank" game, I didn't want it to be the only way. 

I'd previously tried a version of the game where flank and rear attacks got +1CD, instead of doubling the damage, but I landed somewhere slightly different (see the next section).

Supporting had always slightly annoyed me, as having these big block units in two ranks always looked a bit wrong, not to mention the strange situations that occur when you have a supported unit pivoting, or getting flanked and everything descending into a huge central scrum. So that's gone for now as well, and I've been enjoying battles that more readily use the width of the board. 

But you can't just remove the two most significant ways of causing big damage in the game! Surely everything just grinds to a halt and turns into the sort of attritional warfare I wanted to avoid, right?

So let's inject another one of those deliciously divisive chaotic elements. 

Shock

Gasp! A new rule! 

I didn't include separate morale rules in this game as (like in One Hour Wargames) I saw that all as being abstracted within the damaging and eventual breaking of the unit. Likewise, any attacking reluctance by a unit is modelled in the existence of the three "miss" results on the Combat Dice. But I wanted to try something out, so I first tested the idea that units would take 1CD of damage whenever they were charged on the flank/rear, when they became Shaken, or when an ally within 1 measure was Broken.

Well, the impact was huge! I rolled some unlikely results, but I saw a chain reaction rip through an army, with 4 units Breaking as a result of a single attack. The devil in me liked it, but really it just made me want to keep my units further apart from each other, which didn't feel right. 

So Shock now exists in a tempered form with just the first two triggers: Flank/Rear charge and becoming Shaken. It can cause small chain reactions, and lets me explore a new  design space with the Fearsome and Dauntless traits, but the jury isn't quite out on it yet.

Rallying

In reaction to a number of the changes above, Rallying is now slightly easier to do than before. You can basically do it in place of attacking, so a melee-based unit that's marching through fire is probably going to rally every turn. It's another Chaos element, so perhaps we're reaching critical mass, but I'd always rather test something that's about to explode rather than something that bores me to tears. 

So I'm granting myself a little more P10 testing this week before my break, then we'll return to the world of the primeval.

5 Minimal Scenarios

Project 10 currently has a mini-campaign of 5 Scenarios, intended to ease players in with small forces gradually growing to full size over the length of a campaign.

I'm currently trucking away designing Horrors and Scenes for The Doomed, so I could do with a change of scenery for today. 

Let's dive back into One Hour Wargames and see which of its 30 Scenarios are especially ripe for the picking here as standalone alternatives to the include campaign. They're already pretty minimal, fitting on one page of text and one for the map, but we can go further.

For me, a good scenario moves significantly away from a pitched battle. As much as I touted the mantra "there are no pitched battles" in the design of this game, in reality I think they have a place as a simple throwdown, or opportunity to test out some more wacky army compositions or board layouts. 

So a proper scenario doesn't need to compete with the pitched battle, it's something else. Balance isn't an end goal, but I want both sides to face interesting decisions coming from challenging objectives and some chaotic elements thrown in by the scenario itself. It's tricky, but a great scenario also paces itself well to avoid both early anti-climax finishes and long drawn-out epilogues after the battle has already reached its peak. It's not a huge concern with a game this fast, but it's worth keeping in mind. 

Basics

All Scenarios assume units of base width 10cm, and board sizes around 100x100cm. Terrain is mentioned when needed for the scenario, but it by no means an exhaustive list. Always give your board a nice mix spread of terrain types, mainly based around Open, Bare, Cover, and Rough types.  

Players are designated as Attacker or Defender, and each takes an opposite side of the board. 

Unless noted both armies are composed as follows:

1 Commander
3 Common Units (typically some sort of basic infantry)
2 Uncommon Units (a more specialist unit type like cavalry or artillery)
1 Rare Unit (go wild here, whatever suits the flavour of the army)

Unless noted each player attaches their Commander to a unit of their choice at the start of the battle. 

Objectives

I wrote about self-assessed objectives back here and I'm keen to try them out in a more traditional one-on-one wargame context, so that's what we're doing here. The objectives are broad and may involve some discussion at the end of the game. Of course I can imagine some players not enjoying this approach, but as always I'd rather make something with specific appeal over general. I never much liked counting up how many units I had within x inches of an objective marker. Better to just cast an eye over the final situation and make the call. Guess this rules out a Project 10 Global Tournament. 

And now, a few very simple Scenarios to use in your Project 10 games. 

Scenario 1 - Bridgehead 
Inspired by OHW Scenario 4

Battlefield: River running across the width of the board, with a single crossing on the defender's half of the board. Variety of terrain on the attacker's side of the river.
Deployment: The defender deploys one unit just on the attacker's side of the bridge. All other units and commanders are held off board. 
Special: At the start of each defender turn they deploy a unit of their choice from their board edge, attaching the Commander if they wish. At the start of each attacker turn they deploy two random units from a random board edge, excluding the defender's edge. These units must deploy on the attacker's side of the river. 
Victory: After 15 Turns the side that controls the bridge most effectively wins. 

Scenario 2 - Double Delaying Action
Inspired by OHW Scenario 9

Battlefield: River running across the width of the board with two crossings on the attacker's half of the board. Mostly beneficial terrain on the defender's side of the river. An exit point on the defender's board edge marked with a road. 
Deployment: The defender deploys their units anywhere on their side of the river. The attacker deploys theirs on their board edge.
Special: Any unit can leave the board via the exit point on the defender's board edge. Defending units cannot cross the river. 
Victory: The game lasts 15 turns, after which the attacker wins if at least two of their units left the board via the road. The defender wins if they prevent this while also withdrawing three of their own units via the road. If neither are achieved the attacker wins. 

Scenario 3 - Surprise Attack
Inspired by OHW Scenario 11

Battlefield: A hill, crossroads, or other significant objective in the centre of the defender's half of the table. Variety of terrain outside this. 
Deployment: The Defender deploys two units in the centre of the board, with their Commander attached to one of them. The attacker deploys all six units on their board edge. 
Special: At the start of their third turn the defender deploys 2 units from their board edge. At the start of their ninth turn they deploy 2 units from the board edge on their right. 
Victory: After 15 Turns the side that controls the objective most effectively wins. 

Scenario 4 - Twin Objectives
Inspired by OHW Scenario 21

Battlefield: A small town or ruin in the centre of the defender's board edge. A lightly wooded hill on one corner of the attacker's board edge. Variety of other terrain outside of this, but no more hills or towns to avoid confusion. 
Deployment: The defender only has 4 units. They deploy 1 unit on the hill and the others on their board edge. The attacker deploys on the half of their board edge not containing the hill. 
Victory: After 15 Turns the defender must control both the hill and the town, or else the attacker wins. 

Scenario 5 - Shambolic Command
Inspired by OHW Scenario 29

Battlefield: A large hill in the centre of the board. Mixed terrain outside this.
Deployment: The defender deploys 4 units on the hill and 2 on one of the corners of their board edge. They do not have a commander. The attacker only has 4 units and deploys from anywhere on their board edge. 
Special: The defender's shambolic command means they can only activate 2 units on each of their turns. They must declare which units are being activated before performing any actions with them. 
Victory: After 15 Turns the side that best controls the hill wins. 

Historical Project 10

One more thing I like about One Hour Wargames is that, as a very casual enthusiast of History, I can put together a battle using the four units that Neil Thomas uses to define a particular era and get a feel for how things were different from Ancient to Dark Ages to Medieval and so on.

Please don't tell me that this ultra-simple game doesn't actually offer a robust simulation of the eras at hand. I'm talking in broad strokes here just as the game intends. 

So of course I dive back into tinkering away on Project 10. The game is designed to capture some of the big-battle feel of the Warhammer of my youth, but could it work for Napoleonics or the War of the Roses? Time to steal even more brazenly from One Hour Wargames and recreate its "Four Units per Era" in P10.

Self-Imposed Rules

1. Four Units per Era, no more, no less
2. No new Traits
3. No new Rules for each era, we're just doing it with standard 2 Trait units
4. The units for each Era are represented as per their place in that era, relative to the other three units

Okay let's do this after one big disclaimer. I've drawn on One Hour Wargames a lot for inspiration during Project 10, but this is significantly more direct, to the point that I feel obliged to direct you once again to the original book.

Era boundaries are always messy to define, so I've been deliberately vague. If you feel like you need to draw on two adjacent eras for a specific battle then who am I to stop you?

Ancient

A: Infantry (Heavy, Armour) 

B: Archers (Long, Focus)

C: Skirmishers (Short, Loose)

D: Cavalry (Cavalry, Loose)

An era dominated by somewhat unwieldy blocks of infantry. Archers and Skirmishers serve to soften them up through direct fire or harassment tactics respectively. Cavalry lack the raw power of later eras, being almost entirely defined by their mobility here. 

Using the army compositions from OHW always sees at least 50% of your force composed of Unit A, which in most cases is your standard Infantry. Here I thought the Cavalry flank charges would be key, and while they were a factor in my test battle I found Archers and Skirmishers surprisingly useful in cracking the tough shell of the infantry. Remember that units lose their secondary Trait when they are Shaken (halfway to being Broken), making it much easier to finish off one of these blocks once they'd taken some damage. 

My Verdict: Enjoyed this era more than I expected, but I long to break the four-unit rule to bring in some chariots or elephants. Still not entirely sure about the implementation of Cavalry here, maybe I'd drop Loose from them. 

Tribal

A: Infantry (Armour, Heavy)

B: Warband (Impact, Loose)

C: Skirmishers (Short, Loose)

D: Cavalry (Cavalry, Loose)

Based on the Dark Age section of OHW, but I think this era in particular feels like it has potential to bleed into its neighbours, especially with the presence of the Warband. 

I've read wargamers lamenting that early-medieval wargames can deteriorate into two shieldwalls just leaning into each other. OHW portrays the Infantry of this era as just as tough as their Ancient equivalent, but lesser in fighting power. Here we can use the two same traits but swap them to make for a more defensively focused unit. The other big change to this era is the Warband, which provides some actual punch and allows for some devastating flank charges. In my test game a Warband was key in breaking the enemy line, allowing the other units to be flanked and eventually broken down. 

My Verdict: This was still a bit of a drag out fight, especially for the side that was two-thirds infantry. Really walking the tightrope between representing the spirit of the era and making a fun game here. 

Feudal

A: Knights (Cavalry, Impact)

B: Archers (Long, Brutal)

C: Men-at-Arms (Heavy, Armour)

D: Levies (Heavy)

The only era to have a non-Infantry unit in slot A, making up the majority of armies. That alone lends this era a frantic feel of shock warfare. I can't vouch to the authenticity of this, but it's a lot of fun on the table. As with every era, I think you'd want to get creative with your army compositions if you were playing more than a battle or two here.

Archers get Brutal to represent the arrival of armour-piercing longbows and crossbows. Men-at-Arms are something of a return to Ancient Infantry in terms of their on-board role, but it's interesting how different they feel when you only have a unit or two, as opposed to them making up the majority of your army. In the test game they mostly served to protect the Archers. Levies are the only one-Trait unit in this whole experiment, being a strictly worse version of Men-at-Arms just as ruled in OHW. It feels bad to have them in your army, and I guess that's the point? As much as this might just be a fact of any era, I don't especially like having them here. Perhaps I'd replace them with a unit from an earlier/later era depending on the battle at hand. Or maybe split Foot Knights off from Men-at-Arms into their own distinct unit (maybe Heavy, Focus). 

My Verdict: A fun change from the chunky units of previous eras, and definitely one I'd like to play around with more. 

Renaissance

A: Infantry (Heavy, Long)

B: Swordsmen (Impact, Loose)

C: Pistoleers (Cavalry, Short)

D: Cavalry (Cavalry, Impact)

OHW's "Pike and Shot" era begins the transition to range-focused units in the core infantry slot. Here they lose their ranged attack when shaken, a nod to the limited ammo rule from the book.

Lots of manoeuvrability in the other units, with Swordsmen essentially being a return of the Tribal Warband. Feels strange that the Pistoleers here are the only "horse archer" type unit in this whole experiment, but they're a welcome arrival. Under my self-imposed rules I haven't quite captured the anti-cavalry effect of the Infantry's pikes, but in my test game it still felt more useful to use Cavalry to hit the Swordsmen or chase down Pistoleers. 

My Verdict: I enjoyed the missile focus a lot more than I expected, though not 100% happy with the implementation of infantry. 

Revolution

A: Infantry (Long, Heavy)

B: Skirmishers (Short, Loose)

C: Artillery (Artillery, Brutal)

D: Cavalry (Cavalry, Impact)

From the "Horse and Musket" section of OHW, which includes the Napoleonic era that seems to dominate historical wargames in a way that I hadn't quite appreciated. In the research I've done over the past few months, I think I get it now. Even within this single rules system it feels like a sweet spot where you have blocks of infantry and cavalry charges alongside on-board artillery and musket fire. 

Again we see a subtle change in Infantry, swapping the traits from the Renaissance to allow for a unit that will keep firing, but lose some of its effectiveness once shaken. From this point onwards, OHW prevents non-cavalry units from charging, but my rules forbid such bloat. We also get our first on-board artillery, though perhaps a little overpowered here if we're trying to follow the guidance in OHW. Could make an argument for treating them strictly as a one-trait unit in this era. 

My Verdict: I can see the appeal of this era, you've got all the ingredients you need for dramatic battles with lots of gunfire and decisive charges. The Skirmishers make sense as light infantry, but were the least interesting unit in the test battle. Perhaps I'd mix it up with some sort of Elite or Heavy Infantry instead (Maybe with Focus or even Armour to represent their improved morale). I should also confess that these test games were essentially pitched battles, so perhaps not the best situation for Light Infantry to shine. 

Industrial

A: Infantry (Long, Brutal)

B: Elites (Short, Focus)

C: Artillery (Artillery, Heavy)

D: Cavalry (Short, Cavalry)

Finally I lump OHW's Rifle & Sabre, American Civil War, and Machine Age into one era. I feel like the system struggles slightly with these later eras. I did draft a version of the WW2 era too, but decided to draw the line here instead. 

Rifles allow infantry to be a little less static. Elites represent smaller units that aren't quite skirmishers, but are a little more manoeuvrable and reliable. Cavalry are less effective in their shock role, but now have firearms of their own, even having a sort of dismount-mechanic when Shaken. The test game felt a lot like the Revolution era, but with even more focus on shooting. Felt a little like trench warfare at times, for better or worse. 

My Verdict: After the test I'm glad to draw the line here. I understand that every era has its fans, but on a purely gameplay perspective this doesn't do enough to stand out from the previous era. Perhaps I tried to fit too much into one era, but my gut tells me that this system is just better suited to the earlier periods. 

Conclusion

As you might expect, this "rank and flank" system struggles as warfare starts to move toward looser infantry formations and increased focus on ranged combat. If I had to pick a favourite I'm surprised to say that I'd be choosing between Renaissance and Revolution, though if I allowed myself the luxury of a few extra unit types I'd like to revisit Ancient and Feudal. 

Stickiness

This Bastionland Editorial was originally sent as a reward to all Patreon supporters, and is released freely on this site a week after its original publication.

If you want to support my blog, podcasts, and video content then head over to my Patreon.

-----------------------------

Have you ever had that one game book that just sticks with you?

Maybe you don't even play it. There might be significant parts that you don't like. But you just find yourself going back to it and getting inspired.

In 2021, for me, this has been One Hour Wargames by Neil Thomas. 
(also widely available from your typical big online places)

I wanted to highlight a few specific sections that speak to me especially. First, on the the false dichotomy of simplicity vs realism: 

"Readers should always bear in mind that simple rules are not necessarily unrealistic, which all too common misconception has resulted in some monstrously turgid and hideously complex rulebooks being produced in the name of realism."

On creating a simple solution to a complex action (here, manoeuvring a block of troops): 

"Turning is instead depicted in a simple manner, by pivoting units on their central point. This avoids the complexity of wheeling manoeuvres, where wargamers have to precisely measure the movement distance of a unit’s outer corner. The difficulties of turning are instead provided for by only allowing evolutions at the start and/or the end of a unit’s move, but not during it. This reproduces the historical effects, but makes the tabletop process much easier."

On "choosing your battles" when it comes to simulating specific elements of a unit's behaviour. Here we see a "rule breaking" ability used to represent loose formation, and the use of an existing system (weapon range) to represent a more complex manoeuvre common for the unit:

"Skirmishers were noted for moving quite rapidly, and may also take advantage of their dispersed formation in order to pass through other units of all types – this is not something that close order units could achieve, which is why such interpenetration is only possible for Skirmishers. What may appear surprising is that Skirmishers are not permitted to combine movement with shooting – especially since they specialized in approaching the enemy, discharging their javelins, and then retiring to their original position. I have covered this in a slightly different but simpler way, by preventing moving and shooting, but by increasing the firing range of the Skirmishers’ javelins to equal that of Archers’ bows: the process may appear odd; the effect is accurate."

On slaughtering a sacred cow of wargames without sacrificing realism:

"They retain their full fighting ability until destroyed; this reflects a model whereby real casualties are at a fairly low level, but that the sustained experience of combat will steadily degrade a unit’s morale, at which point it routs. This is both simple and historically accurate: most casualties in any ancient battle (and those of most other periods too) were inflicted when the enemy fled, rather than the initial clash of arms. Essentially, loss of morale is reflected in elimination, rather than having to make frequent checks on a unit’s status, which tends to be a feature of complex wargames rules."

Feel like there's a real parallel for those of us with too many RPG systems on our shelf here:

"There is a paradox at the heart of wargaming, in that many players are absolutely and rightly fascinated by finding the right set of rules, but pay far less attention to the type of battle (or scenario) which they play. All too many wargamers will acquire many different rulebooks, examine all facets of their contents, and have very definite opinions upon their veracity – and confine their scenario to the traditional pitched battle."

On randomly generated armies. Perhaps a tough sell to those slow painters among us, but I love the idea of it:

"[Army] variety is always provided by varying the composition of each. Generals invariably had to operate with the troops they were allocated, rather than those with which they would necessarily prefer to act. This doubtless regrettable if historically accurate fact is accounted for by the following mechanism: players must roll a die and consult the relevant table below to ascertain the composition of his or her army (if identical armies are generated, players should re-roll their dice until distinct forces are created)."

Obviously I've done a lot of solo play during the testing of The Doomed and Project 10, so perhaps that's why the next section speaks to me. I like the idea of approaching a solo game like gazing into the petri dish and seeing what emerges. You can "play to find out what happens" even if you're flying solo. 

"These singular contests are very easy to arrange, at least on the most basic level of playing both sides to the best of one’s ability. This style of solo play can produce satisfying and informative games – you can learn a great deal about military history by attempting to execute appropriately realistic tactics on the wargames table, and evaluating their strengths and weaknesses according to the results which occur."

Okay, maybe I've got all the gushing for One Hour Wargames out of my system. For full transparency I should admit that I've only tested the rules out a couple of times solo, and I found there are definitely rules implementations that I'd like to change (hence Project 10). 

Even with that said, it's small, cheap, fast, and if you have any interest in game design focused on simplicity then I still can't recommend it enough.

Designing for Minimalism

I spoke about this on last night's stream, but wanted to dwell on the subject a little.

I've made a bit of a point about wanting to make games that push up against the minimalist end of the spectrum, rather than drifting toward the middle. So what does this actually mean when it comes to the process of making a game?

I'll be referring to some parts of Project 10 as examples, but it's the same process I use when working on RPGs.

My thoughts on this can be summarised into a few main points. This isn't intended to be an exhaustive thesis on the matter, so much as the things that are currently at the forefront of my mind.

Minimalism is Compromise

Minimalism in games goes hand in had with abstraction. You're using a few simple rules to (typically) simulate something complex. In Project 10 terms you could break down every clash between units into its own game lasting hours. You'd consider the qualities, position, and condition of every individual soldier on the front line, and the wealth of specific manoeuvres and tactics that they could implement. 

Instead we roll the deliberately swingy Combat Dice and accept that all those factors are tied up in that roll. An attack came up with maximum damage? I guess the defender's front line got broken wide open. Roll a single point of damage, which got blocked by their Shield trait? Guess they pulled up the shield wall and held strong. 

The compromise is that the players don't get to have input on those little fictional details, but in return they get to focus on everything else. Which leads to...

What's the Point?

Making a quick, simple game is all well and good. You sit down and play it in less than an hour, pack it away, and declare it a good, elegant game. Then you forget it exists and start thinking about that monster-sized boardgame you've never managed to get to the table, or that RPG campaign you've been planning since you were twelve. 

In its current state, Project 10 runs nice and quickly, has a balance of strategic manoeuvring with chaotic drama. But what's the point of it all?

In all honesty, that's something I'm still working out, and it's all part of the process. I like that you can run battles so quickly that you can bash out a short campaign in an evening. I like that it's easy to make new army lists that feel different to each other. I like that the short, chaotic games lend themselves well to weird, asymmetric scenarios. But I need to put this all into practice on the page. The sample campaign and army lists are a start, but there's more room to grow here.

For a more complete example look at Electric Bastionland's single spread of rules being supported by hundreds of pages of flavour-filled characters, conducting procedures, and an oddendum of essays. Because the reader isn't spending hours learning the system I can bank on them actually exploring and absorbing that other stuff. 

Table Outranks Desk

It's so easy to sit at your computer and think about rules that this game should have.

I mean of course there should be a rule that lets skirmishers move after shooting. Of course these rocks should slow down units that move over them. Of course pikes should get a specific bonus against cavalry. People who read your game might even suggest these changes, whether they've played the game or not. Some people just want to help, after all. 

Don't go too far down the rabbit hole. Make the minimal viable game and get it to the table yourself, even if you're playing both sides. The stuff that happens on the table is the real test of whether a game needs to have more rules or not.

When you're getting feedback from others, ask for how the game felt at the table, not what they think they'd change or add if they were making this game. Ask them for their problems, you don't want their solutions. 

Cost Every Rule

At this point it's worth pointing out that I love rules! I think every game should have at least one.

And things get really interesting when you have two rules (see below) but for now let's look at the two sides of every rule.

Every rule has a cost. There's the cognitive load on the player of learning another rule, the literal space on the page, the indirect problems that could arise from its interaction with existing or future rules, and even an opportunity cost that comes from closing up an area of the design space. 

Sure, they sound bad, but remember the point here is to weigh them up against the benefits. I recently added a rule to P10 where units that are halfway to being destroyed are Shaken and no longer benefit from the second of their two traits. This rule definitely adds complexity, and it meant I had to reconsider each of the individual traits, but so far I feel like the benefit has been worth it. Now a unit with Shield and Brutal is significantly different to a unit with Brutal and Shield, and there's more incentive to pull your shaken units away from combat so that they can regroup, which is the sort of manoeuvring I want to encourage. 

But really the most interesting thing about that new rule is how it interacts with the traits and prebuilt units. It's almost like...

When there's less, each part matters more.

This can be both a good and bad thing. It's great when you have two simple mechanics that interact with each other in an interesting way, but finding those moments can be tough. It's a bit of a cliché to say that designing a simple thing is more difficult than designing a complex thing, and I don't necessarily think it's true, but it definitely carries a different sort of challenge. You've got to look out for those moments where things click together and jump on them before they escape.

Indulgent Epilogue

Last year I wrote about my early experiences with tabletop gaming, specifically how I spend the months before I actually owned any Warhammer rules or miniatures pouring over issues of White Dwarf, especially the battle reports with their armies arrayed and top-down maps of the battle as it played out.

I think Project 10 is all about trying to capture how those battles felt as I read them at ten years old. 

Project 10 - Commanders

This part of Project 10 has been tricky to get right.

Originally, I gave Commanders all sorts of wacky abilities to represent the armies they were leading, but they felt a bit too incoherent. 

Then I standardised them pretty heavily, with every command either granting a 1 point Trait to the entire army or a 2 point Trait to a single unit. Just regular stuff straight off the unit trait list. It's fine, but lacks a bit of the excitement of the weird stuff.

Revisiting them really got me thinking about what I wanted these Commands to achieve. I want them to give each army some character, even if their units are similar, and give the Commander themselves some presence on the battlefield. 

Equally important is what I really want these Commands to not do.

In some early playtests, I'd have a Command like "Ignore enemy Shields", which is very useful against that shield wall army, but if your enemy doesn't have any Shield units then it's just wasted space. Here I'm not concerned about balance, but I want to avoid anything getting totally neutralised. Similar to the thoughts I had on units.

Stripping things back to the skeleton, I looked at all of the elements that I could reasonably expect to feature in every battle, regardless of army composition.

I got the following ingredients list: Damage, Move, Pivot, Charge, Flank, Shoot, Melee Attack, Disengage, Engaged, Initiative, Support, Broken, Regroup, Commander, Rough, Cover.

There are some edge cases in there, like some armies just won't have Shooting, and some battlefields will lack Rough terrain, but you've got to draw the line somewhere. They just made the cut, but I can't guarantee their long-term safety.

I'm hoping that by sticking to those core ingredients I can get as weird as I want with the actual effects. The latest revision walks the line between order and chaos. I'm aiming for easily understandable, but having that feel of breaking the rules and creating dramatic flourishes, regardless of the army composition. 

1: General

Barrage: Any units that do not move can Shoot twice.

Reinforcements: Supported units recover 2CD of damage.

Exploit: Flank and Rear attacks roll triple CDs instead of double.

Charge: Units can move an extra Measure when they Charge over Open Ground. 

2: Champion

Slayer: If your unit damages an undamaged unit they take double damage, after all other modifiers.

Behead: Your unit causes double damage on any 3s rolled.

Crush: If you charge a damaged unit they double their existing damage.

Rouse: When your unit causes damage they recover that much damage. 

3: Raider

Burst: Shooting attacks within 1 Measure roll twice as many CDs after all other modifiers.

Keen Eyes: Your Units ignore Cover and Concealment.

Manoeuvres: All units make a Free Pivot at the start of the Turn.

Missiles: One unit gains Short 2.

4: Engineer

Explosives: One of your units and all enemies engaged with them suffer 3CD of damage.

Smoke: Your units may disengage in any direction, even through enemy units, as long as they end in Open ground.

Surge: Supported and Supporting units make a Free Move of 1 Measure.

Bane: Enemies cannot reduce Damage taken from Shooting this turn.

5: Warlock

Wings: Your unit gets Fly.

Flames: All enemies within 1 Measure of one of your units suffers 1CD of damage.

Curse: The enemy commander’s unit suffers 2CD of damage.

Shadows: Swap the position of any two of your units. 

6: Sage

Battle Prayer: All units roll +2CD on Regroup actions.

Glory of Battle: Units with 4 or more Damage roll +2CD in melee.

Visions: You decide who wins the next Initiative roll.

Fate: Roll 3CD and keep them aside. You can swap each of these in place of any CD you roll this turn. 

Balance is much wonkier than it was before, but they feel way more fun, which is more important for this design. 

They're also tied to Commander types now, as I continue to hammer out a broad idea of what this setting is meant to be. As always, I'm looking for a setting to serve the game, not vice versa. In that post I just linked I talk about how the old Realm of Chaos books let you add all sorts of weird units to your warbands. You might have a Khornate champion leading a warband of Chaos Dwarfs and Beastmen, or a Tzeentchian Dark Elf Champion with a pack of hydras and gorgons and a few skeleton henchmen. 

I like this approach, where the boundaries between the different factions are a lot less distinct. Both sides in a scenario might have elves and dwarfs, but I've got centaurs and you've got vampires. It feels a bit silly and freewheeling, but I still like it. Feels like something that gets me inspired to model up a unit of wraiths without having to worry about where they fit into some grand plan. 

In my TTS playtests I've mainly been using Warmaster miniatures or an anachronistic mess of historical units. At home I'm building a mix of medieval and fantasy-human stuff from Pendragon. I'm keen to get a bit weirder with some skeletons and maybe some lizardmen. 

My very first attempt at painting 10mm. Even trickier than I expected!

Now, there's an obvious way to make all of this work together. Put the focus on the Commanders, rather than the armies. Your bond might be idealistic, but is more likely to be financial.

You aren't running an Elf Army. You've got an Elf Captain riding around on a stag, sure, and she's determining the Commands you can pick from based on her dual archetypes (Raider and Sage), but your army is much more fluid. 

If your army is going to be 6 units, then one of them can be your personal Retinue. Let's say some Elf Stag Riders (Fast, Impact 1, Tough 1).

The rest are going to come from Mercenaries and Levies. Typically the Mercenaries are the troops that you've hired for this particular battle, and the levies represent the support you can muster from local forces. Guidance is to take 2 Mercenaries and 3 Levies.

Mercenaries are generally more specialised. We'll take a Ballista (Long 2, Artillery 1, Rigid, Clumsy) and a pack of Beasts (Vicious 2). Let's say this part of our army is typically Elven. Maybe the beasts are those old Wood Elf beastmasters that would have hounds, boars, and bears running alongside them. 

Levies tend to be better all-rounders, but still have their focus. We'll take a unit of Riders (Short 1, Fast) to support our Stag Riders, and 2 units of Infantry (Fight 1, Long 1) to guard the Ballista. These are the local human troops. Less a grand alliance of men and elves and more a desperate rabble of locals that are forced to call on foreign help to survive, even if they can't truly afford it. 

Don't like it once it hits the table? Maybe next time your Captain employs some mercenary ogres or dabbles in the dark arts and brings those skeleton horsemen to the table.

You can see the living version of the game here. Let me know if you get it to the table, even if it's just with scraps of paper. 

Project 10 - Distilling Units

Project 10 has really been keeping me busy.

And looks like these little guys will be doing the same for my evenings.

Order and Chaos

I explained the basics of the system in the previous post, and the tests that I've done so far have really highlighted the weird mix of order and chaos that exists in this game. 

There's no explicit command and control or morale in here. Lots of wargames simulate the fact that a commander doesn't have total control over their units, so sometimes they just won't do what you want, and in the heat of battle they might turn and run or freeze up.

I get this from a simulation point of view, but it's never appealed to me in gameplay. The systems can feel a bit fiddly for me, and I find them more frustrating than interesting. So in this game there are still times you'll want to withdraw a unit so that they can regroup, but that's all in your control. For movement and positioning, units always do what you want them to.

It's a different story once the fighting gets started. 

The Combat Dice you roll for attacks (imagine d6s with the 4, 5, and 6s changed to 0s) really deliver those moments where you line up the perfect flank charge and roll a handful of zeros, or your peasant levies get a sudden surge of bloodlust and cut through an entire unit of knights in two turns. 

Even something small like rolling for first-turn each Round can make the whole battle flip because of chance. You knew that there was a chance the enemy would get a double-turn, but you just didn't want it to happen right now when they've got everything lined up. Now that two-turn peasant-on-knight bloodbath is happening before you even get a chance to respond. 

You get moments that feel great, and moments that feel like you've been cursed, and this is very much by design. Manoeuvres and strategizing feels orderly, but then the bloodshed provides spikes of chaos. 

For now I'm happy with that, but it'll be interesting to see how more players respond. 

The Units

I've always been interested in how mass-battle games handle different unit types. At this scale it's common to have a few unit archetypes with quite specific rules for how they interact with the battlefield and each other. 

Pikes can't move through woods but get advantage vs cavalry. Swords get advantage vs Pikes etc. 

One Hour Wargames, which was the catalyst for this game, has some units that work this way, but most units are just specialised at doing one or two things, rather than being explicitly designed as counters to another unit type. 

On the one hand, this sort of game is often based around a web of hard and soft counters, but I prefer a more subtle guiding hand. Some unit types are made to excel against others, but I don't want it to be an outright paper-beats-rock situation. 

The chaos mentioned above helps with that, but the unit design is really where it comes in.

Units are now defined entirely by Traits, of which there are currently sixteen (and I'm always looking to chop this list down). A typical unit might have two Traits, three if they're fancy or elite, with four being restricted to those that need some weird restrictions to feel right (typically artillery and chariots). 

So let's look at the current list and see if they all justify their place on the page. We'll split them into a few broad categories to help with comparisons. 

Movement

Agile: Each pivot may be up to 180°. You can perform your Movement phase at any point in your turn. 
This is here for your loose units that can't gallop around like cavalry, but get a lot more flexibility for how they use their movement, allowing for some clever manoeuvring. 

Fast: Move 2 Measures in open terrain.
Other than Fly, this is the only way to move further than 1 measure, and works as an all-purpose Trait for cavalry and chariots. The limitation to open terrain is easy to remember and adds a nice little bit of terrain impact. 

Fly: Move 2 Measures, ignoring terrain and enemies.
Super niche trait that sort of needs to exist, but it really is just a better version of Fast. I wanted to avoid complex systems with different types of flight, soaring, landing etc, so this works as a simple approach for your eagles, harpies etc. 

Clumsy: Cannot enter Rough Terrain or Support allies.
This one emerged out of a playtest this weekend, where a catapult unit potentially ended up supporting an infantry unit, which didn't make any sense at a range where their catapult couldn't even fire. It also keeps Chariots from crashing through forests. 

Rigid: Cannot disengage from Melee.
Another one that arose out of necessity to stop artillery crews from fleeing melee with their cannons in tow. Wish I could roll this and clumsy together, but Rigid doesn't apply to chariots, so afraid they both have to stay for now. Could be used for things like Dwarf Slayers, but decided not to for simplicity.

Shooting

Short X: Shoot X CD at up to 2 Measures. Moving and one pivot allowed.
For this game I'm using tight firing lines, rather than a more typical 45 degree arc, so pivoting your ranged units to line up with their targets is key. This really helped me in making the three different ranges feel different. Short is for units with a limited range, but they're able to move and pivot before shooting, keeping them much more mobile than their long ranged counterparts. Great for getting at enemy flanks. 

Long X: Shoot X CD at up to 3 Measures. Moving or a single pivot is allowed, but not both.
This is the one for your blocks of archers and gunners. They're not quite as restricted as artillery, but you'll have to think carefully about positioning them to be able fire most effectively. 

Artillery X: Shoot X CD between 3-6 Measures. One pivot is permitted.
Sometimes feels like this should be able to fire over hills and forests, but for the sake of simplicity we're keeping the regular line of sight rules here. They can be devastating, but so far in testing they've worked as more of a threat, forcing the enemy to break formation to stay out of their sight. 

Breach X: Shooting CD of 1-3 cause X extra Damage.
Essentially, when you do damage you do even more damage, so it's great for cannons, units with guns, or even magical attacks. Works as a soft-counter to Shield, but the Shield still dampens the effect slightly. 

Volley X: Shooting CD of 4-6 cause X Damage.
Sort of an opposite to Breach. You get a guaranteed minimum amount of damage, but it doesn't do much to boost your overall output. Good for softening up a target before sending in a charge, or finishing off a unit that's badly hurt. Soft-countered by Shield, especially when rolling just one Combat Die. In fact, with 1CD it could be considered a hard counter, but you can turn it around if you get at their flanks. 

Melee

Fight X: Roll +X CD in Melee if you have not moved or pivoted this turn.
The Fight/Impact split is working pretty nicely at the moment. Fight is for any unit that's generally designed to form up, stand and fight. Impact is flashy, but Fight wins you the long brawls. It suffers when you get charged in the flank, as you have to use a pivot to turn and face your charger, meaning you have to wait another turn to benefit. Good for blocks of spearmen or other heavy infantry. 

Impact X: +X CD on the turn you charged.
Impact units have the advantage on the charge, so it's great for cavalry, berserkers, anything that you want to hit hard and then flounder slightly after that first hit. It can feel weaker than Fight at times, but if you avoid getting bogged down, and remember to hit the flanks, you'll see the advantages it has. 

Brutal X: Melee CD CD of 1-3 cause X extra Damage.
See above under Breach. Exactly the same, but for Melee instead of shooting. Having them as one trait caused weird issues when ranged units got into melee, so the split was necessary. This is used for line-breakers carrying big two-handed weapons, and monstrous attackers like ogres.

Vicious X : Melee CD of 4-6 cause X Damage.
As with Brutal, this is here as a Melee version of Volley. I chose similar-sounding names for these two pairs to help keep them together in your memory. Used for hounds, hordes, and attackers that go for a sort of "death by a thousand cuts" approach. 

Defence

Shield X: Ignore X damage from each attack to your front.
A very simple rule that's gone through a lot of changes, many relating to the now defunct Armour Trait (largely replaced by Tough below). Originally I didn't want it to only apply to the front, as it felt like a sort of double-reward for flank charges. However, having that counter of a flank attack means that any unit can potentially bypass a Shield if they can get into the right position. 

Tough X: Automatically recover X CD of Damage at the end of your turn.
The other side of the coin to Shield, and still not quite proven on the field yet. This is for units that can shrug off piecemeal attacks and need to be focused on. Works for hordes of orcs, monstrous ogres, and is especially relevant for trolls. Compared to Shield they don't have anything to protect them from just getting wiped out by focused fire or a precision strike, but they're much more well equipped to avoid getting chipped away across a number of turns, or recovering from an early onslaught. 

No Hard Counters

So you do still have counters in here, but they're generally soft. 

Fast units can run down those shortbow archers, and chariots are great at slamming into the flanks of shielded infantry, but those matchups are just one third of the game alongside manoeuvring and the luck of the dice.  

A good example is that Shield previously only protected against ranged attacks, with Armour (now cut) protecting against melee. This was a nice little split, forcing you to think about which units to send against which targets, but then I ran a playtest where I had three Shielded infantry units up against an enemy force of entirely melee units. Now the Shields would have literally zero impact on the battle.

Now things are designed so that every Trait has the potential to impact every battle. Even if you get matched up against an enemy army full of your soft counters, your units will still all be able to do the thing they do. You might be fighting uphill, but you'll still have your sword. 

Distillation in Action

With such broad strokes there's no room for subtle details. You can't give this specialist unit a +10% boost to something because it represents a specific historical factor. You've got to distil those units right down to their essence. Forget the tiny individuals. What does this unit, as a whole, do in a battle.

I'm using Warhammer units to test this out on Tabletop Simulator, but the miniatures I've bought from Pendraken are somewhat more grounded medieval troops, albeit with a suitably anachronistic span of equipment. 

Let's look at how these could be built. Bonus points if you can spot each unit in the image at the top of this post. 

Infantry

Mixed bases of men-at-arms and crossbowmen. I've actually split these further, with one unit's men-at-arms being more heavily armoured and carrying shields, while the other carry mainly spears and other polearms.

Again, let's think about what this unit's purpose is on the field. Clearly the crossbows are providing long ranged fire, so we'll give both units Long 1.

The unit with shields might seem like an obvious choice for Shield 1, but remember we have to think about the unit as a whole, not just the individuals. Is this unit designed to withstand damage from its front? I think you could go either way on this, but on balance I'll say yes and give them Shield 1.

Polearms are generally designed to withstand a charge or counter cavalry. We don't have such hard counters in this game, so giving them Fight 1 means that they can stand up to a charge and apply ongoing pressure to an enemy unit, hopefully forcing them to withdraw. Cavalry are usually Impact units, so we're getting a bit of soft countering in there. 

Shield Infantry: Long 1, Shield 1
Spear Infantry: Long 1, Fight 1

Foot Knights

So I said that most units had two Traits, but remember we're not chasing perfect balance here. It's fine to give a unit three or even four positive traits, just be aware that you're essentially creating an elite unit, and it's good to avoid creating good all-rounders in this way.

With these Foot Knights they're heavily armoured, carrying shields and mostly swords, and they look fancy enough that we can roll out an extra trait for them.

I like to start with any unit by considering how they attack, as most units will be getting one of the attack Traits. They certainly aren't set up for charging in that heavy armour, so giving them Fight seems like the best fit. But I'd argue that these are purpose made for engaging in standing combat with an enemy, so let's give them the full Fight 2. 

Shield protects from the front, but this unit's defensive prowess looks like it would come more from their heavy armour and general hardiness. Tough is a good way to represent this, so we'll give them Tough 1. Now they're really a unit that the enemy won't want to get stuck into a prolonged fight with. 

Foot Knights: Fight 2, Tough 1

Mounted Knights

Pretty much all cavalry starts with Fast. Then a common addition is Impact. These knights are modelled mostly with swords and axes, unarmoured horses, and large shields, so even without heavy armour or lances I think Impact makes the most  sense as an attacking trait. You could make an argument for Fight, but really a cavalry charge is always going to carry a degree of impact. 

Standard charge-focused cavalry could end here, but their large shields do seem to suggest the Shield Trait. However, on balance I don't think this unit is built to withstand damage from the front with their unarmoured horses. We could make them Tough like the Foot Knights, but again I think this smaller unit is best reflected as somewhat less resilient. They're for hitting flanks and weak targets, not standing up to a prolonged brawl.

Knights: Fast, Impact 1

Outriders (Mounted Arquebusiers)

Again we'll go for Fast, as this is a cavalry unit. They're carrying guns, which might feel like they should be Long, perhaps even having Breach to give them extra punching power, but this unit is definitely meant to be more of a mobile threat than a gunline. For that reason we'll give them Short 1. 

If we wanted them to feel like a more elite unit of outriders we could give them Agile, letting them dance around enemy units after firing their guns, but we'll keep them simple for this army.

Outriders: Fast, Short 1

Organ Guns

I can't believe it's taken me this long to realise that organ guns are so named because their barrels look like a pipe organ. I just assumed it was from some bastardised French word. 

So these are artillery pieces, which are slightly awkward in that you really need to give them Rigid and Clumsy so that they can't just act like a regular infantry unit.

These are definitely not built for Artillery range, so we'll give them Long 1.

Volley is a clear fit here, so we'll throw that on there. 

Now because Rigid and Clumsy are both negative, and we only have two positive Traits on there, we'll want to give this thing a boost to avoid it just feeling like a more inconvenient unit of archers. 

Here it's worth remembering that not all Traits are equal. An extra point of Long is generally better than an extra point of Volley (mean damage of 2 vs 1.5). But I'd argue that Volley better represents what this unit is for. I mean it's basically a Volley Gun. 

Organ Gun: Long 1, Volley 2, Rigid, Clumsy. 

Best of all, this entire army fits on an index card.

The Anachronistic Order

Shield Infantry: Long 1, Shield 1
Spear Infantry: Long 1, Fight 1
Foot Knights: Fight 2, Tough 1
Knights: Fast, Impact 1
Outriders: Fast, Short 1
Organ Gun: Long 1, Volley 2, Rigid, Clumsy. 

Clearly not all units are equal here, but every one is specialist in some way. The Foot Knights probably have the most raw power, but they won't stand up to focused fire or a decisive strike. The Organ Gun is arguably a touch weak compared to a more traditional missile unit, but when you absolutely need to cause damage to an enemy it'll do the job. Loose it onto an exposed flank and a near-guaranteed 4 damage is nothing to scoff at. 

You could make any number of match ups using these units and I feel like things would hold together. Obviously lots depends on the Scenarios, and I spoke out against pitched battles for this project, but let's imagine. 

Matchup 1

The Green Band: 3 x Shield Infantry, 2x Outriders, 1x Organ Gun
vs
The Red Order: 3x Spear Infantry, 2x Foot Knights, 1x Knights

Aiming for a relatively balanced matchup here, the main imbalance is the Green Band's ranged advantage vs the Red Order's better melee ability. I think this would come down to how effectively the Outriders and Organ Guns could target the Knights and Foot Knights. 

Matchup 2

The Cerulean Company: 3x Outriders, 2x Spear Infantry, 1x Foot Knights
vs
The Amber Guild: 3x Knights, 2x Organ Guns, 1x Shield Infantry

Putting so much on the cavalry here risks the infantry feeling left out, but there's plenty of shooting to be done. Amber has some real damage potential in the Knights and Organ Guns, so it all comes down to whether Cerulean can counter them with clever manoeuvring. 

Matchup 3

The Indigo Legion: 3x Foot Knights, 2x Knights, 1x Outriders
vs
The Ochre Militia: 3x Spear Infantry, 2x Shield Infantry, 1x Organ Gun

Ochre might feel like the odds are stacked against them at first, but those Foot Knights are going to have a tough time facing so much Long Ranged fire. If the Knights and Outriders can break up the infantry blocks enough to allow the Foot Knights to engage then it might be all over, but I don't think it'll be that simple. 

All three sound pretty interesting to me! I suspect they aren't perfectly balanced, but I'd happily take a swing at playing either side in any of them. 

Units are important, but a lot of the flavour of an army comes from it's Commander and their unique abilities. Next time we'll look at how they're coming along.