DESIGNER NOTES

 I wanted the rules to reflect a very detailed level of play. I planned The Face of Battle to be an advanced tactical game with plenty of rules and rule options. Experienced commanders should be able to lead their forces as best as they can, without loopholes or missing rules. The game should cover all aspects of infantry and vehicle combat during World War II. That is not to say you must read and absorb every rule. Many special rules may not occur during a typical game play.

I also tried to keep the abstraction in the rules to a minimum. In any game, there is a certain level of abstraction for various reasons. But at the skirmish level of play, a significant amount of detail is required.

I also did not want to have to look up rules very often. The rules are a reference. The rules should be logical and follow common sense. Every action should not have to be looked up in the rulebook. If you think a situation should resolve a certain way, the rules should reflect that thinking.  I did not try to cover every possible situation. I think players will be able to make the correct decision for any unwritten rule or event. I have tried to limit the game mechanics from interfering with good player tactics.

I designed the game to be fluid, and players are always involved in the game. 

Finally, I am not trying to obtain 100% realism. Certainly, there are historical references, details and influences in game design and mechanics. I will leave the judging of “How realistic is The Face of Battle?” to each player.

Players who are used to a set turn structure (e.g. you-go-I-go) style of gaming may be at first hesitant or turned off by the randomness of a game turn that uses cards. To reflect the scope and feel of skirmish wargaming, and to force quick decisions, actions or reactions, I needed a sophisticated yet playable system to determine the sequence of events. The tried and true, you move, I move, you fire, I fire, typical combat rounds would not give the feeling of a moving and chaotic close combat battle situation. 

Some people would argue that a tactical game could not rely on a random mechanic to ensure playability or at least keep the tactical feel to it. I maintain, if you rely so heavily on knowing exactly when a man can move or fire, then I think you have been absorbed by the game mechanics and not fighting a battle. Skilled tacticians, more experienced players, and solid attacks and defenses will win battles, not definitive sequence of play. 

I do like the card sequence as it keeps most confrontational play situations clearly defined. When did the soldier move? When can my gunner fire? And so on. You know exactly when things happen. Traditional turn-based games usually have mechanics that appear as oddities to handle special situations. 

Finally, I personally like the random sequence of play achieved with card-based mechanics.  The random actions preset the player with a few more decisions. Do I risk running my soldier across the field? Will he get shot before he makes it to the other side? There is an element of the unexpected in the rules. With real combat, no plans go exactly as anticipated. In a standard move/fire/move/fire sequence of events, the player can foresee more and react accordingly with a structured battle. A method around this is to allow opportunity fire. That is, a unit is waiting for a target and then fires if a target is present. To me, that is a way around a rigid sequence. In this game, the player makes an educated tactical call for each action. They will not know for sure that the action will succeed exactly as planned. Nor are there unnecessary rules (like opportunity fire) to allow opposing player options to prevent an action. Soldiers, leaders and battle plans are not perfect.

I recommend first-time players skim the rules and get a general feel for the game. Players should adopt a graduated learning approach. Learn basic rules like movement and firearm combat. Then move on to more advanced rules like vehicle combat. Each player should then command one or two squads or a single vehicle. As players become more familiar with the rule mechanics, they can increase the number of units in their force.

The amount of real time a turn represents is not relevant. During the game design, a set amount of time was used to determine the weapon rates of fire and for infantry movement. I did feel a need to quantify the game time. 

Due to the cards, some players may find it annoying and unrealistic that certain soldiers may move out of sequence with other soldiers. I think that if you look at the results at the end of one turn, you will find that a charging squad of soldiers with the same combat initiative will arrive together. Don’t get hung up on the fact that one soldier is ahead of another. It is the result that counts.

Here is one area where I felt some level of abstraction was required. I also think the ranges for weapons, although may appear to be limited, are ideal for the game and scale. Soldiers were reluctant to shoot without a specific target for fear of revealing their own position. Therefore, players should try not to fire when the odds of inflicting damage are low.