Routines, normalization, and intuition

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.

Algeria, actual play

Actual play if you want to call soloing AP. The conceptual basis of this game is fantastic. It's right up my alley.

I get a weird ASL-ish feel sometimes, as the rules treat individual cases. Each type of mission works in a slightly different way, forcing me to resolve questions by paging through the rulebook. I guess what I'm saying is that it isn't intuitive. But what can you expect for a game that goes against the grain of a fifty-year gaming tradition which is the echo of stacks of western doctrine piled up on accounts of Eastern Front warfare in WWII and the Arab-Israeli wars?

It seems easy to come up with intuitive combat systems. Modeling intelligence operations is a damn sight more complex. How, for example, to model logistics' impact on intelligence collection? Much easier to figure out relative combat strengths. After all, the latter are written down in the manuals. Brain's game is illuminating because he understands that operations is not just a move-and-shoot affair.

I'm in my second solo play and it is going easier as I learn the routines. I still have the feeling that there are far too many charts. (Part of the problem is the way Firey Dragon chose to publish: there are no charts in the interior of the rulebook and each chart is published on a separate card, resulting in a hell of a lot of page turning and confusion).

While Brian's system seems scalable to smaller AOs than entire countries, I think the point of departure for our designs is different. The smallest unit in Algeria is a company. I'm thinking of a batallion-level simulation where the maneuver elements are platoons, squads, and teams.