Introduction
Hello! I’m sorry if this is posted in the wrong place. I’m new to the forum, but not A&A, and I’m inquiring about a way to help new players.
Lately, I’ve been reading through the rules to Spring 1942, 1914, and the 1940 versions as I’ve tried to form a new gaming group. In my opinion, these rule books are vastly too wordy. (Examples below.)
To that end, I’m wondering whether anybody has rewritten the rule books to make them more concise–and if not, whether anybody would find it a valuable thing for me to do.
To be clear, I’m not asking for a set of beginner-oriented house rules; I’m asking about alternative drafts of the rule books with equivalent gameplay.
Examples
I’ve noticed a few kinds of ways that the rule book can be improved. Here I provide a description and an example for each. (All excerpts are from Pacific 1940, 2e.)
Eliminating redundant explanations and examples
Air Defense: An AAA unit can fire at an air unit only when that unit attacks land and/or air units in the territory containing that AAA unit. AAA units fire only once, before the first round of combat. Each AAA unit in the territory may fire up to 3 shots, but each attacking air unit may only be fired upon once. In other words, the total number of air defense dice rolled is 3 times the number of AAA units, or the number of attacking air units, whichever is the lesser. For example, 5 fighters attacking a territory containing 2 AAA units would have 5 shots fired against them, while those same 5 fighters would have only 3 shots fired against them if there were only 1 defending AAA unit.
This can be drastically shortened by eliminating the redundant examples and explanations:
Air Defense: An AAA unit can fire at an air unit only when that unit attacks land and/or air units in the territory containing that AAA unit. AAA units fire only once, before the first round of combat. The AAA units in the territory collectively fire a number of shots equal 3 per AAA unit, or 1 per attacking air unit—whichever is fewer. Roll 1 die per shot.
Even the remaining sentences could be shortened considerably, but that’s beyond the scope of this point.
Eliminating redundant caveats
Add 2 to each die rolled for a strategic bomber (but not for tactical bombers), then total the result.
I don’t think that this parenthetical note is necessary. If the instruction didn’t mean to exclude tactical bombers, then it would have said “strategic or tactical bomber”, or simply “bomber”. It should read:
Add 2 to each die rolled for a strategic bomber, then total the result.
Utilizing existing keywords
Strategic Bombing Raid: A strategic bomber can either participate in normal combat, or make a direct attack against an enemy industrial complex, air base, or naval base. Such an attack on a facility is a strategic bombing raid (see “Strategic and Tactical Bombing Raids,” page 16).
The word “facilities” is used a dozen times throughout the document, and the meaning of that term is explained in the Unit Profiles section. This should read:
Strategic Bombing Raid: A strategic bomber can either participate in normal combat, or make a direct attack against an enemy facility. Such an attack is a strategic bombing raid (see “Strategic and Tactical Bombing Raids,” page 16).
Introducing new keywords
I don’t have a clean before-and-after for this one, but I’ll provide two ideas.
The mechanics of offshore bombardment, anti-aircraft fire, escort & interceptor fire, and perhaps even kamikaze strikes seem like they could be usefully generalized to the concept of “opening fire”.
Just as battleships and carriers are grouped into “capital ships”, it may be helpful to group battleships and cruisers into “gunships”—ships that are capable of offshore bombardment.
This technique can negatively impact readability if it’s overused or used poorly, so I would appreciate specific suggestions here.
Side-barring historical context
I sincerely appreciate the historical nature of A&A, but the free flow between historical context and the instructions themselves makes finding a rule unnecessarily difficult.
While being invaded by Japan, China is also fighting a civil war. This limits China’s interests to matters within its own borders, resulting in a limited range of occupation for Chinese units. They can be moved only into territories that have a Nationalist Chinese emblem. However, Kwangtung and Burma are special cases. Although they are not Chinese territories, Chinese forces can move into them. These are the only non-Chinese territories that Chinese units can occupy. China can even temporarily control them, but only if it recaptures them from the Axis while India is under Axis control. Chinese units cannot be loaded onto transports.
This can be split to an instruction section:
Chinese units can be moved only into territories that have a Nationalist Chinese emblem. However, Kwangtung and Burma are special cases. Although they are not Chinese territories, Chinese forces can move into them. These are the only non-Chinese territories that Chinese units can occupy. China can even temporarily control them, but only if it recaptures them from the Axis while India is under Axis control. Chinese units cannot be loaded onto transports.
…and a flavor-text section:
While being invaded by Japan, China is also fighting a civil war. This limits China’s interests to matters within its own borders, resulting in a limited range of occupation for Chinese units.
Ideally, I would place this section in a box on the side of the page, similarly to the Combined Arms graphic.
Conclusion
I know that was long-winded, but I think that underscores my point; there are a lot of ways that the rules can be made more concise.
I’d be happy to hear any of the following:
whether you think that a rewrite like the one I envision would be useful to new players
critiques of the techniques that I’ve identified, or the ways that I’ve used them in the examples
ideas for new keywords
if I were to rewrite the entire instruction book, would anyone have the time, interest, and graphic design skill to turn the new version into a pretty booklet?
If you’ve made it this far, then thank you very much for your time and your consideration. GL HF!
