Having spoken to a number of established players I've come to the conclusion that MeG is becoming unnecessarily complicated.

The next version of the rules should be used as an opportunity to streamline the the whole game. If not, MeG is in danger of becoming an esoteric, tournament rule set.

Do you mean the rules themselves or how they are written?

IMO the rules have not changed in their fundamentals since they were published, although there have been some clarifications and so on. I was very critical of the first versions that suffered from numerous grammatical and editorial errors but they have been addressed for the most part. I do not understand how the rules themselves are now 'becoming' complicated when they remain effectively the same as they always have been.

Alternatively, if you mean the rules 'are' overly complicated and you would like them to be simplified - that is a different matter and I would be interested to see some detail around your streamlining proposal.

As a rule set I find the combat simple and intuitive, the I use of cards for orders is likewise simple and effective.  If there is one area I find complex it's the manoeuvre, it's a game where mm matter, and while I enjoy the challenge doesn't quite feel historical. I can't see even Roman legionaries manoeuvring on the battlefield with that precision.
I guess There could be some simplification for example in an evade a simple, is your distance ran plus starting distance greater than my charge then you get away but changing it more would lose a lot of its flavour
There are also rule sets out there that are much simpler such as TTS which uses a grid, so there are much simpler rules already out there, and players have a choice as to what they prefer.

Mark, I think we are on the same page. My small group has often discussed the excessive manoeuvrability and flexibility attributed to 'most' of the armies. This promotes the micrometer measurement methodology.

However, the dilemma is that if we made units maintain a more continuous battle line rather than allowing individual units to operate more or less independently, the game would become a bit of a dice-off. While this might be more historically accurate, it might also be less entertaining as a game.

So, like you said, if people want less complex games there are other options for them. I don't mean this to sound dismissive because it is a conundrum that I also struggle with. I too hate the cheesy flank charges.🤷‍♂️

Unfortunately there is no set of rules that will perfectly suit everyone and compromise will be necessary. I just look for one that is historically based but enjoyable to play. MeG meets those criteria for me overall.

Importantly, I also want a stable player base so I know I can collect armies safe in the knowledge I will get a return on that investment in time, money and energy. That is why I have been worried about the recent discussions on the forum that appear to show growing dissatisfaction. When a well known and popular WW2 wargames ruleset underwent a metamorphosis to appeal to a new audience, our previously strong WW2 wargaming community fragmented and I ended up selling off my WW2 stuff!

Well, it is pretty complicated and perhaps as things get clarified, it becomes clearer to players how complicated it is (hence it seems to be becoming more complicated).

e.g. skirmishers contacted by a enemy are destroyed. In the charge phase. Unless it's a grazing contact. Or the contact is with an evader, not a charger, in which case movement is blocked.
But in the movement phase, a grazing contact forces the skirmishers to move 1 BW away, using one of two methods, unless they decide to run away instead. Unless it was a second move.

However, arguably, given the detailed modelling that the game uses, it is necessarily complicated.

This is not the same as simple rules having complex consequences when you put them into practice. I think you would get "battlelines breaking up" even with streamlined rules.

Quote from: rayfredjohn on November 23, 2023, 09:44:44 PM
... I've come to the conclusion that MeG is becoming unnecessarily complicated.

Care to give any examples of changes made to the rules that have made them "unnecessarily complicated"?

Quote from: LawrenceG on November 24, 2023, 06:08:15 AM
Well, it is pretty complicated and perhaps as things get clarified, it becomes clearer to players how complicated it is (hence it seems to be becoming more complicated).

I think this is very much the case.

I also think it is not an uncommon thing with rules, especially those which have a significant competition scene.

I'm not sure that the rules are so complicated. I rarely look at the rules book these days. Usually I can agree with my opponent what happens and if we can't then at a comp tend to appeal to the umpire (apologies to Nik, RJC and everyone who umpires ... I do try to keep appeals to a minimum, honest) - and outside comps just guess at the spirit of the rules and if we still can't agree then roll a dice (or if I'm playing one of my usual opponents, Mr Stead, I just assume he is right because he usually is!).

There is a larger point which is that this is an analogue game (one where distances, angles etc can be divided up as finely as you want) which means there are effectively an infinite number of situations. Only by making a game digital (forcing it to a grid or something like that) can you limit the number of situations. Any analogue game will by definition have lots of complexities - but this only becomes apparent if there is a competition scene. Then people talk to each other and all these situations come up. All analogue rules sets have these issues but non-competition players don't notice because they are in a club only playing one or two games a week so don't see the rare situations every week (compared with a competition involving say 60 games over a weekend followed by endless discussion on a forum of the one anomalous situation). I can remember a set of Napoleonic rules used at our club where the players would arrive at a different interpretation of the same rules situation from one week to the next - apparently without being aware of any contradiction! They were quite happy with their game but this forum would have had a melt down trying to parse those rules! I suspect lots of non-competition rules sets are similarly sloppy and it is only the discipline of a tournament scene that tightens up a rule set!

Crazy, goodness sake it's just a game, thems the rules, play, it retire to bar to discuss why there are only blanks and S on my dice

Personally I'm happy with the current level of complexity of the rules I do think there is room for minor improvements.

For example do we really need shoot and charge, charge only shooting and integral shooters all representing shooting during charges?

Where I do think the game as a whole is getting more complex/could perhaps be usefully simplified is with special rules that apply to individual list or a small group of lists and some characteristics.

Recently we have the new rule on bodyguards that still allow a floating CinC and shower shooting. I like these but is it possible that too many "special rules" will put off more potential players than enthuse current ones.

A similar "it could be simplified" argument could be made to barricades and obstacles and caltrops and stakes used rarely enough that maybe the nuances are wasted?

The shield cover and shoot and spear protection is another example of characteristics that affect a few lists that have come into the game since I started. These two are also representing fighting in slightly different ways that are also represented in other ways.

Individually and all together I am happy with these but I wonder whether they are playing to a vocal minority and/or UK competition habitués? and might put off newer players or those that don't play so regularly?

Funnily enough I was just explaining the difference between Shoot and Charge and Integral Shooter to one of our club players (... and in the back of my mind I was thinking "don't mention Charge Only shooting, that will only confuse things"!). But these guys are playing more and more MeG so I'm confident that is only a phase and they will end up knowing all that without needing to look in the rule book.

Pacto was meant to be the simpler version that eased new players into MeG - and that did work for our club. So perhaps the key thing is to keep Pacto as simple as possible as an entry pathway for new players.

Quote from: nikgaukroger on November 24, 2023, 06:09:21 AM

Quote from: rayfredjohn on November 23, 2023, 09:44:44 PM
... I've come to the conclusion that MeG is becoming unnecessarily complicated.

Care to give any examples of changes made to the rules that have made them "unnecessarily complicated"?

I said MeG is becoming unnecessary complicated. That is the whole ecosystem. To be clear that's rules and lists combined.  The next version of the rules will be an opportunity for the author to assess where we are.

Many on here will not worry about MeG being an esoteric tournament rule set. Maybe that is its future.

One need only take a quick page through the Rules forum to see just how esoteric and picayune the rules are becoming more and more a set where one must be familiar with the rules AND Clarries  AND the latest from the forum. I agree that the rules as written are not excessively complex. When we must spend page after forum page arguing about whether side contact between Tug and enemy SuG destroys the Sug... well, matters are less than ideal IMHO.
Simon,Richard, and Nic do a fine job of responding to forum queries. May I suggest that they might be guilty of giving too much credence to 'spirit of the rules' claims instead of enforcing the letter? If the rules don't do what they are supposed to, change them. Until you do, players should play the rules as they are.

Quote from: AntiokosIII on November 29, 2023, 06:11:54 PM
Simon,Richard, and Nic do a fine job of responding to forum queries. May I suggest that they might be guilty of giving too much credence to 'spirit of the rules' claims instead of enforcing the letter? If the rules don't do what they are supposed to, change them. Until you do, players should play the rules as they are.

Amen

QuoteSimon,Richard, and Nic do a fine job of responding to forum queries. May I suggest that they might be guilty of giving too much credence to 'spirit of the rules' claims instead of enforcing the letter? If the rules don't do what they are supposed to, change them. Until you do, players should play the rules as they are.

Never forget that at least for a tournament you have a referee that has the difficult task of ruling the different cases . He may help solve problems