Today we begin the process of answering one of the wargaming hobby’s burning questions: Is it possible to play GMT’s “Fields of Fire” without first reading US Army Field Manual “FM 7-8: Infantry Rifle Platoon and Squad”?
Fields of Fire cover
A warning to readers: I don’t yet have an answer. This post begins a series that is sort of a voyage of discovery. It’s a solitaire wargame, so I figured Fields of Fire is well-suited to a ‘journal’ approach. Instead of trying to figure the whole thing out and then posting some sort of summary, I’m going to share some thoughts and ideas as I work my way through the rules and on into playing the game.
One reason I’m doing this is that I’m interested in getting some feedback on the process of learning the game. I’m always fascinated by the different ways people access (or fail to access) game rules. Our cognitive processes are amazingly diverse – and Fields of Fire is an interesting case in point.
Take a look at its ratings over on BoardGameGeek.com. A wide cross-section of gamers has given it ratings ranging from 10 (great game) to 1 (pet rock). The comments are even more interesting. A large block of gamers rave enthusiastically. A smaller – but still significant – group find the rules impenetrable and the game unplayable.
That’s the part that stirs my curiosity. How does that work? Some people find it the greatest thing since sliced bread. Others consider it a boat anchor. It’s a phenomenon that’s associated with many wargames, I know, but it seems especially exaggerated in the case of Fields of Fire.
One of the ‘access issues’ is fairly obvious. My initial skim of the rules produced the question that leads off this post, and it’s not entirely tongue-in-cheek. There are a number of concepts and bits of jargon used in the rulebook that might snare even an experienced tactical gamer unless he’s got some sort of working understanding of real-world, small-unit infantry operations. You can play tactical games for 25 years without ever encountering the phrase “primary direction of fire” or ordering one of your squads to pop green smoke to designate a helicopter landing zone.
I’m not saying that’s a bad thing. I’m just noting that in the tactical gaming genre, it’s different. And the wargaming audience always reacts to “different” – reactions both positive and negative. Remember the chatter when games like Streets of Stalingrad and The Longest Day were published with German tactical symbols instead of NATO symbols? Or maybe the various discussions of “icons vs. NATO symbols”. Or the “if we change it, gamers will kill us by slow torture” motivation behind the never-changing graphics of ASL.
As I noted, I’ve just given the rules a quick first read, but my initial impression is favorable. I’m comfortable with the concepts and terminology, so it’s not like I’m reading a diesel mechanics textbook written in Farsi. It strikes me as a logical decision: If you’re designing a game about infantry leadership, then you need to include the concepts and problems that infantry leaders encounter.
There’s a lot to recommend FoF (or Fields of Components as I called it when I first opened the box). And it has one big black mark, which is it’s rule book.
The problem isn’t the jargon; the milspeak is either familiar or easily liftable from the context, or in the concepts; which are pretty cool. When I’m playing PanzerBlitz (II, new from MMP!) I’m not particularly interested in how an op chit represents communications from HQ to unit, or FO to battery, but it’s fascinating to see it more explicitly laid out here as part of the problem of commanding your troops in the field.
Rules are, of course, a tricky bit of technical writing designed to tell you how to do something. In this case a series of interacting procedures that you perform that in sum make up playing the game. The rules suck at defining and explaining how the game is played. The rules as written are just very difficult as both a reference tool (I’ve learned of rules via the game folder that I’m still looking for in the rules) AND a learning tool.
The way I got my bearings with the game was to use the example of play, but at the time the XoP didn’t even comprise a full turn, so after a while I went back to excessive rule flipping mode. Reportedly the XoP has been extended, and a freshly printed copy will be on the table when I tackle that first Normandy scenario again.
As I’ve often said, a think a very interesting and different game lie in there somewhere, and I’m wanting to play it, but those rules…woof!