Shrapnel Games Blog

Bioshock finished! Life goes on.

Turns out there’s more than just three instances of “I saw that coming” in the game. In many regards it’s a very conventional shooter (and in some ways it’s actually quite retro, such as the lack of encumbrance checking. The least they could have done is say the good scientists of Rapture invented a Heward’s Handy Haversack.), but no other shooter can match it for its atmosphere, which at times borders on genius. And hey, it’s been a loooong time since I’ve played a shooter that when I wasn’t playing I started to jones. I also will probably play it again at some point, which is something I don’t think I’ve ever done with a shooter. So yeah, it’s a must-play game. Not perfect, but really good. The kind of good that makes you want to talk about your game experience.

But enough about Bioshock, let’s talk about how two different games can provide players with essentially the same game mechanic, but because of presentation, it is often judged differently by players. What got me thinking about this was Battlelore and Men of Iron.

For the uninitiated, Battlelore is the latest Commands and Colors game from Richard Borg, and combines history and fantasy with a mythical take on the Hundred Years War (though you can play it as a purely historical game). Previous C&C titles include Battlecry (American Civil War), Memoir ’44 (World War II), and Ancients (you got it, men in skirts with swords). Listening to an interview with Borg from last year it appears that the next game to be released will focus on the Napoleonic Wars.

Men of Iron is Richard Berg’s (please note the vowel difference) game of medieval warfare. While Battlelore features overlying tiles that allow players to construct a variety of maps, Men of Iron features six individual maps, each specific to one of the half dozen battles included in the game. Men of Iron is first in a series, although it’s been two years and other than some chatter on the CSW forums, there hasn’t been much official news about a sequel.

There are a number of other differences between the two games besides the maps, but for the sake of this discussion they’re not important. What is important is that both games are about warfare in the middle ages, and one is more pure game (Battlelore) while the other leans towards simulation (Men of Iron), although it’s very light in rules. And what’s truly important is how command is dealt with in each game.

Battlelore, like all C&C games, divides up the playing field into three sections (left, center, right). Players alternate playing a single card, which either allows them to activate a number of units in a section (or sections), or provides special movement and bonuses to specific unit types.

In Men of Iron units under your command are differentiated by color, representing all the forces beneath a specific commander. For example, in the battle of Bannockburn the English have two colors (commands). The starting player chooses a command color to activate and then performs movement and combat with that color. He can then activate another command, but not the same command, by rolling lower than a commander’s rating. If the roll fails then the second player becomes active, and may freely activate one command. After that command is played, he attempts to activate his next command. If he fails, it goes back to the first player. In Men of Iron it is entirely possible, thanks to good die rolling, for one side to activate over and over again.

There is one other aspect of the Men of Iron command activation. A player can attempt to steal his opponent’s activation. Doing so simply involves announcing the fact and attempting to make an activation on your side. The danger is that if you fail then your opponent automatically gains his activation, which in this case, can be the same command he just activated.

So both games have random activation schemes, although the Men of Iron one is actually far more brutal than Battlelore. Sure, you can complain about holding a handful of bad cards in Battlelore, but you’ll get new ones. And the worst your opponent can do is one action. In Men of Iron it’s possible to sit there and watch your opponent hammer away at you activation after activation after activation while your units do their best impression of targeting dummies.

What’s interesting is listening to gamers debate how the C&C system is unfairly unrealistic since you don’t have the normal God-like powers found in most wargames, and instead are at the mercy of the cards. I’ve always thought it was a clever, easily understood mechanic to represent the inherent friction of battle, something too few games really try to do.

Men of Iron, while you do hear gamers bitch about the activation scheme (again, many of the same folks who think combat should unfold perfectly according to plan), you don’t hear as many. I think a lot of this is because Men of Iron, with hexes and counters, is viewed as more of a “real” wargame, while Battlelore is too much of a “game”. Why is that? Both systems feature the same mechanic, random command activation, just presented differently.

It’s funny how gamers filter things. If you like pushing cardboard and hate plastic soliders, then Battlelore’s command activation system is gamey, but Men of Iron accurately portrays the confusion of the medieval battlefield. If you like kewl miniature swordsmen and hate clipping counters, you take the opposite viewpoint. If like me you like both, you appreciate both game’s systems.

In the end we just to realize that mechanics are mechanics, and it doesn’t matter whether it’s a production heavy game with tons of plastic or a good looking cardboard game using them. “Real” consims can contain plenty of gamey elements, and “gamey” wargames can contain plenty of sim elements. What matters is how much fun you have playing them.