Kris Hall: John Firer and Card-Driven Wargames

This week I continue interviewing designers of card-driven wargames.  John Firer agreed to give me a preview of his new designs.

Kris:  You seem to be one of the busiest designers around.  You are working on Age of Bismarck for ComsimPress, Spartacus for Compass Games, Successors III for GMT, and Ides of March.  Any other game projects that have escaped my notice?  Has Ides of March been accepted by a game company yet? 

John:  I would like to start off by thanking you for the honor of being interviewed and for your kind words above.

Let me begin by stating that “Ides of March” has long been under contract with John Kranz’s CONSIM Press and is being taken over by a new developer, Neil Randall.  I have worked with Neil on “Spartacus” and am very happy to be continuing our professional relationship.

If I may at this point, I would like to briefly discuss how important a developer is to any game design project and why someone like Neil is so valuable.  I prefer to have the developer serve as a buffer between me and the playtesters.  For me this accomplishes two objectives, first to avoid the development of any group-think whereby I consciously or unconsciously lead the playtesters in a certain direction and secondly it keeps my ego out of the process.  That is why I have not directly asked any members of my local gaming group here in Milwaukee to playtest any of my designs.  They are all great gamers and have done valuable work in this area for many designers.  However, I would be just too close to the process.  With the developer as the buffer, if they are used for any of my designs, I would not be aware of it and the integrity of the project would be kept sacred.

In regards to other projects, I have finished “1866 – The Austro-Prussian War” about 18 months ago but do not have a publisher for it yet.  It is ready to submit but I have held off as I have many irons in the fire right now with my other contracts and wanted to wait a little bit.  The same is true for “Panzers of Spring – The 1940 Campaign in Western Europe”, which is 95% finished but which has not been offered to a publisher yet.  Both are CDGs and both have some unique applications of the system to better replicate the type of warfare represented and the operational situations in existence.  However, if any publishers are interested, they can by all means contact me on any of my designs.

Kris:  How did you get involved in so many games?  How do you juggle so many projects?

John:  Well Kris, these are all on subjects that I am interested in and either they weren’t addressed before or the games out there didn’t reflect my take on the situation, so I decided to take up the design.  I am an ardent student of history and when I read a book, I often think that this would make a good gaming situation and if interested enough, I’ll put it in the queue.  These are all subjects that I would actually like to play a game on.

It IS difficult sometimes keeping all the various designs in my head!  What I try to do is take fairly extensive design notes at the beginning of a project such as general game system, what I want to stress or concentrate on in the design, level of play, geographical area, and card ideas.  These are typed up and added to as I do further work on the design.  I can then go back to these notes if I am interrupted by other design work or if some new idea takes my fancy.  I generally try to work one design from start to finish but as I said, this isn’t always possible due to the spark of an idea or the demands of a publisher so I found this method keeps me from reinventing the wheel and preserves my ideas for later implementation.

Kris: What is your background as a game designer?

John: Ever since I first started wargaming back in 1963 when I was 11 years old, I was always tinkering with my games, developing additional scenarios, house rules, etc.  As I got older and became a more experienced player, I actually started designing some of my own games.  I think if you go back and read my notes on the idea behind “Age of Bismarck” as published on the CONSIM Press website on December 18, 2005, you will get some idea of how I was bitten by the design bug and how it manifested itself.

In addition, my Army experience also complemented my interests.  When I became a field grade officer, I became involved in simulation as a training tool and that actually carried over into civilian life after I retired.  I’ve taken formal simulation courses as well.  So between the desire, practical experience and some formal training, the various threads have coalesced into game designing.  Fortunately, I am now in a situation where I can devote much time to game design and that has been very gratifying.

Mark Simonitch has been an exceptional mentor to me upon entering the formal design arena.  He has devoted much time working with me on “Bismarck” and getting me on the right road towards game design.  He has freely offered to do map work for me, as indicated by the draft mapboards of “Bismarck” and “Ides”.  In short, I feel very fortunate to have had Mark’s unselfish help and if I dare say so, his friendship.

Kris: All four of the game projects I’ve mentioned seem to belong to the popular card-driven war game genre.  How do the four games compare with each other in terms of complexity?  In terms of playing time?

John:  Let me start off by discussing the card driven game (CDG) system and my relationship to it.  In the article mentioned above, you will see how I first was introduced to the CDG system and how I was captured by it.  While I would not exclude designing a game or simulation using another system, CDGs are my true love and I will predominantly use this system in my designs, if it is appropriate to the situation and the period I want to depict.

I believe that all four games are about the same level of complexity.  I try to make them a little above average in complexity but not super complicated.  Since I have reached the point in my life where complex rules are hard for me to retain and since I want above all to play my designs and not just produce them, I try to keep complexity down while trying to increase problems of decision making, resource and risk management, and fog of war.

In regards to playing time, “Successors” is probably the shortest due to its many auto-victory possibilities.  “Spartacus” is probably next as it has a quick playing system but some of the scenarios can be longish.  “Ides” and “Bismarck” are probably the longest due to the long periods they cover, “Ides” being 15 years and “Bismarck” being 13 years – of course these don’t equate to turns as some years have been combined as in “Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage” (my favorite CDG by the way!).

Kris:  I believe that Age of Bismarck and Successors III are multi-player games.  How many players can these games handle?  Does either Spartacus or Ides of March accommodate more than two players?

John:  Actually, with the exception of “Spartacus” all of the above are multi-player games.  “Bismarck” is a four player game, “Ides” is a three player game, and “Successors” is most commonly a four player game, with possibly five players (see my earlier variant on the CSW discussion board and in the 2nd Edition rules).  However, all of the above can be played with lesser numbers of players – “Bismarck” being especially good as a three player game (France, Austria and Prussia/Sardinia) “Spartacus” of course is a two player game.

Kris: Let’s talk about Spartacus.  Although there have been games dealing with the Spartacus slave revolt before, I believe your game is the first to deal with the grand strategic issues of the time.  In Spartacus, the Roman player must fight a loose association of anti-Roman allies who include Quintus Sertorius and Mithridates VI, the eastern king who was to be thorn in Rome’s side for decades.  What drew you to a period of Roman history that many gamers may find obscure?

John: Well, once again we get back to what I discussed earlier – what inspires me to want to game a period.  I first became really interested in Sertorius when reading Colleen McCullough’s excellent historical fiction series on the late Roman Republic.  She provided a rather vivid portrait of the man which stuck with me ever since I first read “First Man of Rome” in 1993.  Of course I had come across him in my readings many years earlier but her character description was quite exceptional and if I can say so, romantic.  Many years later, I read Philip Spann’s book on Sertorius and I just came alive to the possibilities for an interesting game on the period early on in my reading of his book.  Spartacus had also fascinated me so when I woke up to the fact that Sertorius and Mithradates were all warring against the Sullan Republic during roughly the same time period, I drooled over the possibilities for three separate theaters of war requiring Rome’s attention.  So I started the process of codifying my design ideas and intent. 

Then I was bitten by the France 1940 bug and downed pens on the Spartacus design and actively pursued the former.  However, in the late Summer of 2004, I was approached by Mark Kalina (one of the founders of Compass Games) to design a game for that start up company.  He wanted to know what I was working on and I rattled off my design interests.  “Spartacus” appealed to him so he asked me to finalize a design for submission to Compass for consideration.  I then downed pens on “Panzers of Spring” and resurrected “Spartacus”.  The rest is history.  You can sort of see why I get my design ideas down on paper right away as I didn’t get a chance to really get back to “Panzers” until this past Spring.  It wasn’t as hard to get back into it as I thought it would be and my original ideas proved to be pretty solid.

Kris: What are the differences between the two sides in Spartacus?  Does one side have bigger armies, and the other better leadership? 

John: In many ways, the two sides are somewhat asymmetrical.  Rome has a powerful army and the ability to raise many legions.  However if they raise too many, they put the Republic at risk due to the negative political aspects of large armies and dangerous political generals.  They also have many good leaders but due to the requirement to elect new consuls every year, they cannot always guarantee the right man at the right spot.  Likewise, if too many proconsuls are retained, it further destabilizes the Republic.  In addition, they have difficulty dealing with raids by light troops.

The loose coalition on the other hand, varies from large but relatively weak units in the Pontic and Servile armies, to Sertorian heavy units (both Roman and Spanish) which are comparable to the Republican forces.  There are also an abundance of Spanish light units, capable of moving fast and raiding (as can the Servile armies).  Both the Spanish and Pontic armies have the ability to improve their individual units through training as pseudo-legions.  This investment can pay off when coming toe to toe with the Republican legions.  Sertorian leaders are somewhat better than the Republicans, having higher initiative ratings in general and with some leaders being equal to or better than the Republican generals, e.g. Sertorius and Spartacus.  The exception being the Pontic generals, which are generally poor on both initiative and tactical ratings.

Kris: Will Spartacus feature more than one scenario?

John:  Most definitely!  There are four scenarios: The Campaign Game which covers the entire period in 10 turns (80 – 71BC), the Spartacus Scenario which covers the last 3 turns of the period (73 – 71BC), the Republic in Danger Scenario, which covers the last six turns of the period (76 – 71BC), and the Marians Resurgent Scenario which runs 8 turns (78 – 71BC).

Kris: What aspect of the Spartacus system seems to you to be the most innovative?  Another way to say it is: what are you most proud of in the game design?

John: There are quite a few innovations, like the raiding/pacification, the foraging/winter attrition and the theater of war/designated hand paradigms, but I think the one that I am most proud of is the Republican Crisis Track with all its subtleties.  Somewhat loosely patterned after Mark Herman’s Strategic Will Chart in his excellent”For the People”, it is much more insidious in that it affects literally everything the Republicans try to do in the game.  Actions such as retaining proconsuls, using a resource card, raising and maintaining large armies (especially in Italy), loss of provinces to the coalition, key events, etc., all have long term political effects which can lose the game for the Republicans.  They can be winning the war militarily but if the Republic goes into anarchy, they automatically lose the game.

Kris: Ides of March deals with a topic that may be familiar to anyone who watched the TV series Rome: the Roman Civil War between Caesar and Pompey, and the struggle for power that occurred after the assassination of Julius Caesar.  What are the similarities and differences between the game systems used in Spartacus and Ides of March?

John: They are quite different games.  But before I get into that, let me state that “Ides” was conceived and roughed out back in 1998, way before “Rome”.  Like “AOB”, it was a topic I had long been interested in and wanted to game but until Mark Herman invented the CDG system, I was at a loss as to how to properly do so.  I finished the design in 2003 and submitted it to John Kranz who immediately offered me a contract on it. BTW, I owe much to John, who gave me a chance when I needed it!

“Ides” is much more similar to “Successors” than to “Spartacus” which itself is akin to “HRC” in regards to simplicity of system but complexity in application.  “Ides” begins with three set factions: the Antonid, the Octavian, and the Tyrranicides. Additional generals/leaders are obtained by card play.  Victory is achieved through a combination of victory and dignitas (political) points.  There is no set reinforcement schedule – armies of legions and auxiliaries must be raised through recruiting which is affected by the popularity of the leader, where recruiting takes place, and the dignitas level of the faction.  Navies are raised through card play and control of naval provinces and fleet movement is difficult to coordinate and execute, as in real-life ancient naval campaigning.  Lurking in the background are “barbarian” armies such as the Parthians which one faction can sic on another.

Also, “Ides” includes a Caesar vs. Pompey module, with a common operating system in effect (see below in discussing this design innovation in regards to the evolution of “Successors 3rd Edition).

Kris:  Let’s talk about Age of Bismarck.  As I understand it, this is a game about late nineteenth century European history when both Germany and Italy were first being formed as nations.  What are the different national goals in the game?

John: The basic game is a four player configuration: Austria, Prussia, France, and Sardinia.  With the exception of Austria, the other powers are primarily interested in gaining victory points through the creation of the Kingdom of Italy (Sardinia), the North German confederation/ German Empire (Prussia) and Greater France (the French Second Empire).  This is done through the acquisition of the appropriate ethnic provinces by those powers, either through diplomatic warfare or through military conquest.  Also, these provinces cannot be obtained for the most part except from Austria, which is the only status quo power in the game.  France also can become a status quo power rather quickly if it reaches its goals through the acquisition of some of its ethnic provinces such as Nice/Savoy, Belgium, Luxembourg and the Rhineland.  That leaves Prussia and Italy as the general disturbers of the peace.

Kris: You have mentioned that the wars of this period were often only a few weeks long.  What are the players doing when their nations aren’t fighting?

John: Primarily carrying on diplomatic warfare, recovering politically from wars, expanding their armies, and playing key events.  These activities set the stage for hopefully short but effective wars.

Kris: I see that you are listed on the GMT website as a co-designer of Successors III along with Richard Berg and Mark Simonitch.  What part have each of you played in this edition of the game?  What changes can we expect in this edition?

John: Well Kris, my work with Mark Simonitch on “Successors” began in 1999 when I compiled a complete set of errata based upon his answers to various questions on the CSW folder along with the previous AH errata.  He validated the list and we began a dialogue on the game which eventually became the 2nd Edition rules, which I co-authored.  My main concerns with “Successors” at that time were twofold – the rapid uselessness of many of the cards after the initial land grab and the inability of certain factions to raise Macedonians based upon geographical base.  Both these issues were dealt with successfully in the 2nd Edition.

The 3rd Edition came about through my suggestion that Mark and I develop a dual game situation, where a common operating system, mapboard, counters, and certain base cards be used for both Successors and for its prequel, the conquests of Alexander.  Each individual module would then have scenario specific rules, counters and cards which would supplement the base system.  Mark liked the idea and we began work on it, incorporating many of my card ideas previously published in Bruce Monnin”s “The Boardgamer” in 2000.  I had proponentcy for the “Successors” module and Mark had the proponentcy for the “Alexander” module. However both of us provided input to the other in regards to their module. We decided to drop the “Alexander” module and just stick with “Successors”.

The major changes to the system are in these general categories:

• Many additional cards (see above)
• Simplification of rules, e.g. siege of major cities is now the same no matter whether independent or faction controlled
• Use of the ops number on the card to simulate a movement die roll for a specified general
• Incorporation of the most commonly played optional rules into the main body of the rules set

BTW, as I am writing up this interview, I have become aware that Richard Berg is presently in the hospital.  I am sure I am not alone in wishing him well.

Kris: Which of your games is likely to see print first?  How many are likely to be published this year?

John:  I think it will be a dead heat between “Spartacus”, “AOB”, and “Successors”!  All most likely in 2008.  I don’t really see any published in 2007, mostly due to production constraints in the case of “Successors”, graphic design in the case of “AOB” and some minor development issues in regards to “Spartacus” which need further testing before the game is ready for graphic development.

Kris: What future projects would you like to work on?

John: Well, my reach probably exceeds my grasp but there are many CDG topics that I would like to work on in my designing queue.  These are the ones I am really interested in:

- “1859” and “1870” – a further development of my operational “1866” design
- “Tunisia: Bridgehead or Pocket” a further development of my “Panzers of Spring” WWII operational CDG system.
- “D+90: Lodgement in NW Europe” – 1944 invasion using POS system.  Including a 1943 scenario.
- "Lion in the Gates: The Greek - Persian Wars 490 - 479BC”
- "The Captain General: The War of the Spanish Succession”
- “Red Sun Rising: The Russo-Japanese War”
- "Tunes of Glory: The Two Germanys at War in 1914” – an Alternate History type game based upon the POG system where Austria and Prussia split Germany
in 1866, and Hungary was allowed to leave the Austrian Empire to form its own country.
- "Battlefield Italy: Italian Wars During the Roman Republic 218 - 40BC” – seeing Carthaginians, Germans, Socii armies and Roman civil wars armies battling
on the peninsula in various scenarios using a common system as discussed above.
- "Twilight of the Successors: Rome’s Wars Against Macedon and Antiochus”

Those should probably keep me pretty busy for awhile!

Kris: Thanks for the interview, John.  Two weeks from now I will interview Charles Vasey about Unhappy King Charles.

Comments:

< Back Home