“Bayonets & Tomahawks Biweekly” is an article series appearing on InsideGMT periodically every two weeks. It features articles from the Bayonets & Tomahawks development team regarding the game’s design, development and upcoming release.

NOTE: The cards in the final product have replaced the Action tokens.

Issue #1: Action tokens PART 1 — Nailing down the operational tempo… and more

One crucial aspect in a strategy game is operational tempo. Each historical period has its own, tied to technological constraints: too bad, no railroads in antiquity or trucks in the Civil War! In Bayonets & Tomahawks I endeavored to stick to the tempo of the French & Indian War. The action token system I came up with provides added benefits in game flow, fog of war, randomization, and initiative, but most of all enjoyment!

What are Action tokens?

Action Tokens are an abstract yet rich summarization of the flow of supplies that allows units to operate. The British and French each have their own set of 14 tokens. The non-player Indians also have one set of 12 tokens that are used by the French player.

On each token, there is between 1 and 5 supply points (SP) icons (there’s also a ‘no SP’ token in the Indian set). Each SP allows one stack of pieces (or part of it) to perform one action (e.g. move, construct, raid, etc.) during a round. There are two kinds of SPs: army SPs that can be used for any mix of units; and light SPs that are required for stacks (or part of stacks) composed exclusively of light troops. There are other subtleties that I will cover in part 2 of this article.

How do they work?

There are 8 Action rounds in each game year. The players start the year by drawing one of their action tokens as reserve. At the start of each action round during the year, both players draw one of their tokens. They then choose between the token they have just drawn and their reserve token for use in the current round. The unused token becomes the reserve for the next round. The French player also draws an Indian token. There’s no reserve Indian token so the drawn token is always the one used in the round. At the end of the year, drawn and undrawn tokens are reshuffled for the following year.

Key aspects of that system

Because players are not allowed to accumulate tokens (only one token stays in reserve each round), they have to manage their operations according to the token flow. The irregularity of that flow (varying number of SPs) can represent a single factor or a combination: delays to procure supplies, wastage, rotten rations, adverse wind or tide, and even some commander’s inability to act. Because there are more tokens in each set (between 14 and 12) than will be used during a game year (8 for action rounds plus one reserve), SPs’ availability will vary yearly.

British, French, and Indian Action Tokens

Design choices

I had 2 options for simulating the supply of armies in the game:

1. a) Simulate every aspect of supply as game elements: incoming supply ships, harvests, supply trains, depots, tables, die rolls, etc.
2. b) Devise a system where you don’t see the supply chain but you feel its limitations and variances.

Thanks to James Pritchard and other excellent authors and documents, I would have had enough data to make option a). I had even worked on elaborate supply/harvest tables prior to the new direction I took for the game in fall 2013. But in my opinion it would have burdened a significant part of players. Some like to manage supply on the board, some prefer to focus on moving armies. I’m part of the latter group — as long as there is the required degree of realism. Another disadvantage of option a) is that putting all supply on the board gives players a ‘satellite’ view of their opponent’s capability that didn’t exist until modern telecommunications.

On the other hand, too abstract supply rules (or their non-existence) leads to oversimplified situations such as those found in some wide-audience games. Definitely not an approach for B&T!

Birth of the action token supply system

I’m indebted to Josh Winslow, a grognard from Vermont, who tried my game in its early stages at Stack Académie Montréal, for giving me the first hint of the present token system. He enjoyed playing B&T, but felt quite rightly that the operational tempo was way too high (I think he said something like “it’s W.W.2 tempo!”). Following our discussion, I went to work on a first crude token system. It was a huge step forward for gameplay and became one of the core elements of B&T. But I wanted to anchor it more definitely in hard data.

How the hell was I to do that? From the supply data I had, I could have built a theoretical FIW supply model (I studied engineering before turning to graphic design ;-)) After countless hours designing the game, I had no stomach to undertake that work. Plus, whatever I would have come up with was bound to have flaws, need extensive testing and adjustments, more data, etc.

I took the problem from the other end: I worked from the result (armies’ operations during FIW) instead of the source (supply data). Using the documentation I amassed on the subject and including some excellent books about remote theaters (Virginia/Pennsylvania frontier and Nova Scotia/Acadia), I made an inventory of ALL operations of the FIW. Not just the ones we hear over and over again, but all the raids and other less significant actions. Such as “On January 20, 1756 (…) Boishébert led 120 guerillas against Fort Cumberland (Chignectou).”

From that list, I put together a timeframe chart with each action codified by shape and color (e.g. troop movement, construction, siege, raid, etc.) This resulted in something like that:

Chart of All FIW Operations

The smaller raids were mingled together to reflect a ‘raid activity level’. Working from that chart, I could clearly see for all combatants the total of each type of ‘action’ that was done yearly.

The added bonus of that chart was to help me determine the optimal number of turns (action rounds) in a year —  7 evolving to 8 rounds after playtest. First round (spring, including part of winter) and last round (autumn) represent a longer stretch of time due to dwindling tempo.

From actions to actions tokens

Now I needed a system that would randomize supply within plausible limits. The basis was: one SP allows one stack to perform one action during one round. Now I had to decide, based on the above chart, how many SPs would be put on each action token. The SP distribution had to correspond to the distinct historical tempo of British, French and Indians.

After much useless brain exertion, I came up with the simple idea of arranging colored cubes to find the ideal distribution of SPs between tokens. It was during this exercise that ‘double SPs’ appeared by piling up some actions (see image). A ‘double SP’ allows a single stack to perform two actions in the same round (sudden strokes). In that era, it was not uncommon for an enemy’s movement to remain unnoticed until it is too late (such as De Lery’s raid on Fort Bull in 1756 or Bradstreet’s attack on Fort Frontenac in 1758). So the French have a marginal bit more of these double actions while the Brits benefit from more abundant SPs. At last, something to play with!

The Action Token abacus!

Why do the non-player Indians have their own action token set?

It is paramount that the Indians have a degree of independence from the French. There’s always an uncertainty as to how much they will assist that is reflected by their token set (that includes the notorious ‘no SP’ token!). The French player can always counter-balance this by using some of his own light SPs for Indian pieces, but it will curtail operations of French light units. Finally, Indians are multiple nations not under a unified command. Consequently, Indian SPs are more limited: they empower a single Indian piece instead of a stack. Only the French can use Indian tokens/SPs. British allied Indians use British light SPs. It reflects the fact that most of the time they were tied to British operations.

Action tokens double up as initiative system

When Volko Ruhnke tried B&T, it had an arbitrary initiative system (the latest in a chain of lame ideas for initiative!). He threw me a curve by asking me if it would be good to give the players some kind of ‘gas pedal’ to affect initiative. I found his idea great and tried it out. It works from the principle that the more you act at a given round, the more your forces are spent. This decreases your initiative capacity. So tokens with the highest number of SPs give you a lower initiative value for next round. Players have thus another cornelian choice as they choose which token to play…

In the end, it just has to feel right

For me, a game must convey the essence of a particular historical period (in this case my favorite), the difficult choices the commanders had to make at each turn of events and how the ‘friction of war’ messed their plans perpetually. In addition, it must be entertaining — with almost movielike qualities.

By focusing on a ‘feeling’ of supply instead of supply minutiae, B&T’s action tokens deliver a convincing portrayal of FIW operations without having to resort to the complex option a) described earlier. For a medium complexity game of FIW, I can’t think of a more tailored approach!

Next Issue #2: Action tokens PART 2 — Play example

Author: Marc Rodrigue