This famous chapter from the Wargame Design book has been posted here. Lots of other good stuff there, too.
It's interesting not only as a statement of Mr. Simonsen's philosophy on game graphics (I tend to agree with 95% of what he says), but as a snapshot into the game production process 30+ years ago and source of interesting tidbits and trivia (why unmounted maps?).
There's a bit on rules layout that would be applicable to another recent thread around here, too.
Thank you thank you. I want to make a "keep OOP games in the hands of players" badge. I would willingly donate GeekGold so you could get one for your efforts.
I have pretty good eyesight and prefer fancy maps and counters, like those from Clash of Arms. If I fancied chewed for abstraction I wouldn't play wargames in the first place. I'm not a fan of the whole "keep it short and simple" philosophy anyways.
So why are SPI games not played anymore (as opposed to AH games)? Are they just worse rules-wise? I guess the fact that they look drab is a big issue.
I still have to say that the map for CITYFIGHT is cool.
Last edited Mon Dec 14, 2009 5:09 pm (Total Number of Edits: 1)
Thanks for posting. I bought the SPI book this is from and really enjoyed this chapter. The map needs to be an intregal PART of the game, enhancing the GAMING experience, not a "work of art" in it's own right.
Make it as much a "work of art" as possible, right up to the point where it tends to detract from the expereine of playing on it.