Now reading the rules for Arriba España and I realize that Mr. Train's designs depend on routines. This is why I was thinking about ASL while playing Algeria: I was referring to the rulebook each time the phase changed and then, often, looking to one of the many charts. Four playings in, some of this is becoming intuitive. Arriba's rulebook is organized similarly. Logical approach.
Is it possible to "normalize" such an approach where multiple routines become more intuitive? How can materials help? I think this is the main reason why CDGs have become so popular. Each card is effectively part of the rulebook dispersed to the time and place the rule is needed. Speeds play enormously. How to do both? How smooth can routines be made while remaining distinct?
I anticipate this will be a struggle, since I'm taking a more military science- and doctrine-based approach, and I might become burdened with more potential routines which risk having no significant game effect. Algeria does a nice job of avoiding this trap, actually.
Oh, by the way, even though this is solo play the score is FLN 4, FRA 0.
Inscription à :
Publier les commentaires (Atom)
1 commentaire:
I write my rules generally following the game's sequence of play. In Arriba Espana the political phases come first, so you read all the political rules, then how to build yoru forces, move and fight. It works for me.
I take your point about how Fiery Dragon publishes - the tin box and the not-much-larger cardboard box forces them to put charts on many little separate cards. The older version of Algeria published by Microgame Design Group had only four pages of charts. Greek Civil War has even fewer.
As for routines - well, they become, um, routine after a while. I acknowledge the system takes a bit of getting used to but the key is
1) figuring out what you want to do, and why
2) what will help or hinder you in doing it
3) setting it up and carrying it out.
Not a whole lot different from constructing arguments in a matrix game.
Enregistrer un commentaire