Right now it is 16 sections and coming in at about 12-13 pages. The hard cap I set is 16 pages but right now we are well underneath that. Hopefully that means we have room for plenty of examples.
In the definitions of Regions, I think it becomes a bit confusing to write that mountains are "just like marsh except for these 3 things." It's not just like marsh at all! it's like marsh in only one way (must stop upon entering).
I personally would rather these read as a bullet point list in the following manor:
Clear : -Movement: No restriction -Engagement Limit: 2/4* -Combat: Normal -Other: None
Desert: -Movement: No Restriction -Engagement Limit: 2/4* -Combat: Only Armor/Mechanized units score assault hits. -Other: No Garisons may be placed in Desert
Marsh: -Movement: All units except Cavalry must stop upon entering Marsh -Engagement Limit 1/3* -Combat: Attacking units score attrition hits only -Other:
Mountain: -Movement: All units except Cavalry must stop upon entering Marsh -Engagement Limit 1/2* -Combat: Attacking units score attrition hits and tech bonus hits only -Other:
Etc.
*Limit per border/Limit per region.
I just find this layout much faster and easier to grasp. Trying to figure out how mountain is different from marsh requires a re-reading of marsh.
Ok, I never did finish reading the last one. Going to go through this one thoroughly and see if I can find anything that needs touching up.
Where do you want feedback Mike? In this thread? I have started using annotations in foxit reader to make my comments, thinking that would be easier to see the feedback in context.
First let me say that really appreciate your work and I feel that SE would be a THE game, especially for all us WWII dorks I feel that design, historical relevance and playability all seem well balanced. I have played a lot of games; from A&A (irrelevant historically, quite some dice rolling and some strange exploitable mechanics - however playable not only by board game geeks) to WWII ETO SPI/TSR (unsexy hexes and too complicated/slow for many players).
Being a lawyer (and not the complicated anglosaxian version) I feel that it would really be desirable to have not only ultra clear rules but also ultra comprised rules. My experience is that - in order for my friends not to be scared or lose interest - it would be desirable to design rule book in the chart/powerpoint style indicated by Adam above. Always try to: avoid that extra unnecessary word, "chartify"/"sequencify" as much as possible, seek absolute clarity and conformity in the way the rules are drafted. I am talking conform "step plans": 1: .... 2: .... with subheadings with colon thereafter etc. For instance, I believe that the sequence and options under the combat heading in the draft rules can be much clearer and "chartified".
Margins are very useful for providing clearly separated examples or historical context. Also, colors, bold, italics etc can further clarify. If there is an exception to rule it might for instance be pedagogic to create a conform pattern, for instance always inserting the same underlined: "Exception:".
I know these things are not rocket science and clearly are nitty gritty... but I think it is really helpful in order to help this game becoming wide spread and a commercial success.
I am interested to know how far Sturm Europa is similar to the Europe Engulfed. Seems they are similar with actions to move and fight the combat units.
Posted Tue May 11, 2010 10:55 pm
I feel that design, historical relevance and playability all seem well balanced. I have played a lot of games; from A&A (irrelevant historically, quite some dice rolling and some strange exploitable mechanics - however playable not only by board game geeks) to WWII ETO SPI/TSR (unsexy hexes and too complicated/slow for many players). 
