DESIGNING INVASION 1940
By Woody, Kent Rangers
Issue 47
In previous editions of the magazine, there have been a number of informative articles about the work undertaken in order to host a scenario game. Rather than attempt to cover the same ground, this article aims to describe some of the design work decisions taken by both the Kent Rangers and NRG paintball who had joint responsibility for producing the Invasion 1940 game last year. Although the decisions made were to produce a game at a specific site, many of the challenges faced are universal to any scenario game designer.
Sources of inspiration
In regards to game design there were two key sources of inspiration - previous experience of playing scenario games, in addition to wargaming in general. In comparison to other UK scenario teams, the Kent Rangers are a relatively new outfit. A number of our members do have a long association with wargaming however, be it as designers of commercial board games, playing computer and table-top wargames and also studying conflict simulation at University.
In purely logical terms, scenario paintball is the same as a computer or board-based wargame. It is not a simulation per se, rather a competitive representation of conflict based on a theme. There are a series of fixed parameters – geographic area, opposing forces consisting of a number of units, game time and a whole series of variables. The obvious key difference is rather than the units being counters, toy soldiers or pixels, they are human beings. This is what makes the whole experience a lot more fun and interesting!
One of our key aims was to try and bring some of our favourite elements from wargaming and combine them with some of favourite experiences of other paintball games with a theme that could be related to on a number of levels.
Theme
The location of NRG Paintball site being only 1.5 miles from Winston Churchill’s home and 2 miles from the GHQ line, made a 1940 invasion scenario an obvious choice. Studying the German Invasion plans for 1940, a number of divisions would have driven up the A21 towards Sevenoaks. There are very few scenario games that are able to directly link the venue with the theme in such a direct manner.
Unlike some scenario themes, World War 2 is universally recognisable but this is not without its potential drawbacks. The two main challenges were firstly, how to avoid trivialising important events and contribution of those who fought and died, and secondly, how to avoid associating paintball with extremist politics.
The first was avoided by setting the game in a ‘what if’ scenario, ie a German Invasion of Britain which in reality didn’t actually occur. This freed the game from accusations of historical inaccuracy on the basis that it wasn’t actually simulating a factual event. The second key decision was to adopt a policy in line with Oklahoma D-day: no SS units or convicted war criminals would be depicted (the German VIP character was General von Klinkerhofen of ‘Allo ‘Allo fame…). No SS or Swastika images would be used or allowed to be worn by players.
This compromised historical accuracy, but it was felt that this was appropriate, given that this was a paintball game rather than an historical re-enactment. It would avoid potentially offending players, while avoiding the association of paintball with extremist politics.
Beg, steal and borrow!
Although we wanted to bring some novel elements to the game, there is no disguising the fact that we were going to blatantly copy some of our favourite elements from other games!
Base camps
The idea of having separate base camps for each team at opposite ends of the field was directly copied from Staargate 2006. It was felt that having two separate base camps improved the game in a number of ways. Firstly, it created a team spirit and allowed team commanders to brief their troops away from the opposite side. Secondly, it prevented players from re-spawning near each other while also reducing re-spawn time and thus making life easier for the player and removing an incentive to cheat. NRG’s commitment to putting on the game was amply demonstrated by their willingness to chop down trees and clear an area for a second safe zone built purely for the Invasion 1940 game.
Platoons
Playing at Staargate 2006, it was clear that many players felt a more intense loyalty to their faction than their team; a sort of regimental spirit. This often manifested itself to great effect on the field as some factions acted as integrated tactical units. Scenario games attract a variety of players, from established teams to the individual walk-on player who may know nobody else at the start of the day. Feeling allegiance to and working together in a smallish group would hopefully help everyone enjoy the game more socially, but also be more effective on the field.
In addition to the social aspect, we wanted to replicate the factions as platoons for other reasons. Firstly they added to the colour and depth to the game as each had its own T-shirt and back-story, players could (and did) dress in historic costumes appropriate to their platoon. For those players who did not, the t-shirts also provided a great souvenir. Platoons allowed for greater flexibility in scenario design as they could have different starting positions on the game field for each mission, rather than each team all starting together en-masse.
Command and control
One of the key aims of the game design was to integrate the platoons into a command structure. This wasn’t purely to make the scenario seem more realistic but was for practical reasons.
The greater the number of players in a scenario game, the more difficult effective command and control becomes. As recent events have witnessed, even the best General will have difficulty giving orders to 400 players a time. Although the scale of the game was much smaller than this, it was still felt that it would be beneficial to have each team broken down into platoons of around 25 players each with their own leader. The platoon commander in turn would report to a team Captain. This may seem slightly excessive, but the desire was to improve the gameplay experience of both players and commanders alike.
Players would hopefully enjoy the game more if they were given coherent guidance; it would be easier for them to get into the action at the key spots and make a contribution for their team.
Splitting the command responsibilities would hopefully ease the burden for commanders and make them more effective. Platoon commanders would command their platoons, the team commander would ensure both platoons were co-ordinated and that reinforcements were sent to the correct spots. Commanding is stressful and difficult but is an essential part of scenario paintball. Designing the game to help facilitate this would be beneficial to all players.
Game format
Analysing the various scenario formats, a number of conclusions were reached. The non-stop 6-hour games such as Flashpoint are excellent; possibly the ultimate test in UK scenario paintball in regards to stamina, command and teamwork. Re-spawning is an excellent idea as it makes the action more intensive and reduces the incentive to cheat. Analysing our performance at these types of games, the design committee came to the conclusion, that on average we probably only spent four out of the six hours on the field - the remainder spent in the safe zone rearming, hydrating or simply having a quick break.
The alternative seems to be the recball inspired linear mission format. A series of 30 to 45-minute missions played in sequence. These can be quite interesting, but the key weakness was in relation to the narrative – the next mission you played didn’t necessarily bear any relation to the result of the previous mission. On the other hand, breaks between missions did ensure everyone was playing at full tilt during the missions.
As a result of the aforementioned analysis, it was decided to adopt a format of four times one hour missions with re-spawning. This would ensure value for money on the basis that the average player would be on the field for four hours in the equivalent non-stop format. Given that the game was going to be held in June, the breaks between missions would give everyone a chance to hydrate and eat and hopefully avoid heat casualties. This seemed to work very well. The vast majority of players spent the entire hour of each mission on the game field with only very brief trips into the safe zone to grab paint or a quick drink. This ensured that there was plenty of action.
The key change from the linear format would be that the scenarios would be dynamic. This was an idea directly copied from SSI Wargames such as Age of Rifles or Panzer General. The net result of this meant that ten scenarios had to be designed (each scenario had two or three potential sequels) but only four would be played. The logic being was that if team A beat team B in mission 1, then Team A would start in an advanced position in mission 2. Team B would be pushed back, but being closer to its safe zone possibly had a good chance of getting revenge in mission 2. This played out exactly as designed with the Germans winning missions 1 and 3, the British 2 and 4. The extent of the German victories in missions 1 and 3 ensured that they won the game overall on total points scored.
Marshal design
A key element to the success of the game was the design work undertaken by Rafe Farmer in regards to the marshalling of the game. Schematic diagrams were drawn up to allocate the 20 marshal or game control staff to the key areas of the field, or to act as runners for armbands. This ensured that the field received wide coverage and that marshals were in the key places at all times. The high marshal to player ratio (approximately 1:6) ensured that paint checks, armband removal and chronographing were carried out efficiently. From my perspective, this was approach was a revelation.
Conclusion
The feedback from the game has been extremely positive, and those of us who designed the game over the previous nine months thoroughly enjoyed ourselves when out on the field. This was due not just to the commitment of the attending players, but also the huge effort put in by Rafe Farmer and all at NRG paintball. The design elements of platoons, two safe zones and dynamic missions resulted in significant overheads for the site, both in financial terms, but also in organisation given the complexity of the missions and the demands this placed on marshals and game control. If the commitment from NRG hadn’t been there, then none of the more novel elements that comprised Invasion 1940 would have been present.
