Interviews by an Optimist # 50 -

Rick Young

Rick says this about himself...
“Hmmm, ok, I am 47 years old, and I have always loved playing board games for as long as can remember. I was introduced to wargames at the age of 15 by fellow members of the Chess Club at my high school. My first wargame was the old SPI game Anzio Beachhead, which began a long love affair with this new game type.

I was introduced to the current Euro-type game at a GMT West gathering in 1992, where I won a game of Puerto Rico. I really enjoyed it and purchased my own copy, which has seen much use, along with quite a few other Euros that now share space in my closet with my wargames.

I am married (3rd time) to my Lebanese wife, Liliane, who is fluent in French, English, and Arabic, and conversational in German. She keeps me intellectually sharp and dominates me in Wyatt Earp, while I dominate her in Ticket to Ride.”

Tom: Can you tell us about the game(s) you've designed?

Rick: Europe Engulfed was designed as a direct result of EastFront not being published as anticipated at Origins in 1990. Jesse Evans and I were roommates at the time and very much looking forward to this design from Craig Besinque and Columbia Games. We were very disappointed that EastFront was not available, and Jesse challenged me, saying:

"Why don't you just design your own, Rick?"

I replied that if I did it would be on the entire war in Europe, and not just the Russian Front, and asked if he'd be willing to assist. He said, yes.

The dream was hatched and the partnership formed. We designed EE for ourselves and not for publication; but after more than three years of playing it constantly, developing it, and having entirely too much fun doing so, we felt it unfair to our fellow gamers that we should be having all this fun to ourselves, so we copyrighted the rules and sent the game to Columbia in early 1994. Columbia rejected the game as being too big to be marketable, so we figured it would stay in our closets for our own enjoyment.
In 2001 I discovered Consimworld; and when on one of the discussion boards a gamer complained that no one has made a game that covered all of WWII in Europe that was playable in a day, I replied that the game he wanted was sitting in my closet, and opened up a discussion board for it, freely distributing the rules to all that asked. Interest snowballed, and in 2002 I was invited to a GMT West weekend to play EE with Gene Billingsley, who liked it enough (despite my having beaten him in Puerto Rico) to give the thumbs up to Andy Lewis; and EE was added to the GMT P500 list on June 22, 2002.

Orders trickled in, but at a much slower pace than A World at War, which went on the P500 list at the same time as EE. In February of 2003 we were told that EE would be cut from the P500 list unless it hit 500 orders by the end of May. Yikes!! We were sitting at about 350 orders after 8 months and had to garner 150 more in 3 months. That was when I made everyone on Consimworld sick of me by shilling the game to no end. That was also when I discovered BoardGameGeek, where an EE page was opened by a fellow gamer that wanted to see EE published. We survived the cut-off (whew), and EE was finally published in December of 2003, 13 and 1/2 years after its inception!

Jesse and I are now working together on Asia Engulfed, which will link with EE, and I am flying solo on another project, The Fast Action Battle (FAB) Series of games. Volume I of the FAB Series will be the Battle of the Bulge, and other battles will follow, provided the public likes the first game.

I am enjoying designing and playtesting FAB, and again, like EE, I am designing it for my own enjoyment, hoping there are gamers out there with similar tastes. Since I design for myself, it is a labor of love, which I hope shows through in my designs.

Tom: Were you surprised at Europe Engulfed's immense popularity after it was produced?

Rick: Immense is a pretty strong word, Tom. After all, only 3,000 copies of EE were printed, and the game has not yet sold out after 18 months on the market (there are about 500 copies left).

That being said, Jesse and I felt very strongly that EE was the best Strategic WWII wargame out there (certainly to our tastes). I had hopes that the BGG ratings would reflect this, because I felt that other wargamers would share my enthusiasm once they played the game. As such, I hoped that it would break into the top 100 games. I never expected that EE would be in the Top 50 on BGG, let alone the Top 25, where it has been for more than a year now.

Yes, I am surprised, happy, and humbled at the outpouring of support for our design. My thinking was that a wargame with 24 pages of rules would never overtake the simpler "Euro Games" in popularity, no matter how fun the game was once learned.

Tom: Where would you place Europe Engulfed on a scale of complexity from one to ten - and why did you pick that level?

Rick: I picked '3' as the level to put on the box when the game was published. In retrospect that was too low, but again, this was our first design, and I was guessing. The game was certainly easy to me (having played it for more than 13 years ). Now I would rate it a '5', with no optional rules used. The game is easily a '6' with the optional rules added in.

I say this because of the many rules questions and clarifications that have been needed since publication for those that purchased the game. A lot of things that are simple to grasp once the game is played are not simple to write into a rulebook. The rules certainly have their fair share of exceptions, which also drives the complexity up.

On the other hand, the game is nowhere near the '10' of games with a 200 page rule book on the same subject, so I think that 5 is probably the right number.

Tom: Can you outline the similarities and differences of Pacific Engulfed and Europe Engulfed?
Rick: Asia Engulfed will use the same rules as far as the land blocks go, but there will be a whole lot fewer blocks. There will be counters for the island garrisons, and blocks for the naval Units. The air rules will be more elaborate, still involving counters. The Pacific Ocean itself will be divided into naval zones, similar to Avalon Hill's Victory in the Pacific in terms of size. Each turn you will deploy your naval blocks, perhaps locate and engage opposing fleets, conduct Amphibious Assaults, etc.

Special Actions will again figure prominently into winning strategies, with a few new uses for them (concerning navies) being tested.

The game will integrate with EE, and a limited number of inter-theatre transfers will be possible (the receiving theatre having to spend a special action for each block transferred). Cross theatre WERP expenditures will also be possible for the Allies, on a 2 WERPs spent in theatre A gives you 1 WERP worth of stuff in theatre B basis.

The Unit scale will be the same, but the map will be much more condensed (one map instead of two, with the one map covering a much greater stretch of real estate). One map and probably half (or less) the number of blocks. The price point should therefore be lower.

Tom: Do you intend to utilize this system for other theaters and wars?

Rick: Eventually, yes - There is a game on the drawing board for the First World War using a slightly modified EE system.

Special Actions are also used in my Fast Action Battle Series of games, the first of which (The Bulge) should hit the P500 list later this year.

Tom: What more can you tell us about The Bulge?

Rick: Happily, I can tell you that it is very close to being finished. The game features one 32" x 22" map, 75 blocks, 228 die-cut counters, and at present, the Series Rules are only 8 pages long.

This game has what's fun to me designed into it. Decisions that need to be made each turn about scarce resources that are being requested by more Units than you can accommodate. You have to prioritize, and get by on the cheap sometimes.

The blocks in Bulge represent the divisions and brigades, while the counters represent assets (tank battalions, artillery units, engineer battalions, etc) and events (a quantity of available Air Sorties, Greif teams, replacements being made available, Special Actions, etc.). You draw 1/2 of the currently possible events/assets from a coffee mug and these are your available goodies for the coming turn (plus whatever assets showed up as reinforcements this turn. When you use an asset, it goes to the Used box on the display, and there is a recovery table in that box to determine if/when it will get returned to the coffee mug for another use. Events are one-time goodies, and the chit is removed from play after use.

It's a little more involved than that (and fun), but that's a quick overview.

Tom: What things in Europe Engulfed make it different from other games? It's currently in the top twenty ranked games at www.boardgamegeek.com, no small feat!

Rick: What makes EE special is that the decisions are plentiful and meaningful. Every turn you need to make important decisions and the impact of those decisions are often felt long afterwards. This means that each time you come away wanting to play again, because you saw the impact of decisions A,B,F,G, & R on the long-term game, so next time you want to try A,B,D,M, & V.

The Special Action mechanic is also unique and sets EE apart in that the game plays fast for a wargame. The down time is minimal and the excitement level is maintained. I still love playing the game after nearly 300 playings. Ticket to Ride is the only other game I still enjoy after so many play-throughs.

Tom: What games of other designers have most influenced you?

Rick: Games that I have found elegant and challenging. These include Rommel in the Desert, Tigers in the Mist, Ardennes '44, Ticket to Ride, Puerto Rico, Ivanhoe, Wyatt Earp, We the People, Russian Campaign, Overlord (Conflict Games), and Hammer of the Scots.

Tom: Do you think that Euro games have had an influence on war game designs?

Rick: I don't see much evidence of that, except that really complex games seem to be getting more rare. I can't say if that is a Euro game influence on the designers or their marketplace.

Tom: It seems like there are fewer and fewer people playing war games. Is this just an illusion, and if not, what is the best way to combat it?

Rick: Actually, from what I am seeing in the conventions over the past few years, the hobby is growing again, albeit slowly. The best way to assist the hobby in its efforts to rebound are to publish some exciting games that have a historical feel, meaty decisions to make each turn, and that the rules are easy to get into.

This is exactly the design objective of my FAB Series, and I am hoping to really bring some new folks into the hobby with FAB Bulge.

The rules are only 8 pages long, and I am trimming out as many exception rules as I can. The game is intuitive, fast, and fun. I am hoping it will be the bridge game to bring many into the fold.

Tom: For someone like me who's only really played fairly light wargames, like the Axis and Allies family, how does the FAB series compare?

Rick: The Rules are of comparable weight, but the historicity is much higher. You'll get a sense for the challenges of the historical commanders.

Also, I think the decisions feel tougher and more realistic from a command viewpoint, and the consequences more of a good or bad decision more profoundly felt.

Tom: What war game designers have influenced you the most?

Rick: In terms of designers with a track record, I'd say Mark Simonitch, for thinking outside the box, and Ted Raicer, for being able to design for effect and fun.

Tom: For someone new to the wargaming hobby, where would you recommend them to start: Games, websites, etc....?

Rick: For Websites, I'd recommend they go to both www.Consimworld.com and www.boardgamegeek.com. Each site serves a great purpose in a different way. On the Geek you can look at geeklists specifically made for beginning wargamers, and compare ratings to get a general idea as to which games they should start with. Then, after narrowing the scope of their search on the geek, they could go to those specific game folders on Consimworld and ask there if this would be a good first game for them, and why?

As to my recommendations for a game to begin with, it should be light in rules, give a good historical feel, and be FUN! Games that come immediately to mind for me that meet these criterion are Hammer of the Scots, Tigers in the Mist, We the People, and Down in Flames (and in a year or so, my own FAB Bulge).
Tom: How much playtesting do you give your games, and how much do you think a designer should playtest their games?

Rick: I playtest my games extensively, and I think it is very important. Early in the design process I have some ideas about what I want to accomplish, and then I play the game, and it works; but it always seems I can infuse more fun and find a more creative way to get around fiddly mechanics and get the same effect with less fiddle, if you will.

So I keep playing and keep refining. I played EE about 200 times before it was published, and there was a lot of refining going on during that time. FAB I've only played about 40 times so far, but I've learned a lot from the process with my first game, and I'm getting a lot more 'bang' for each playtest now. FAB is extremely fun and much less fiddly than it was a year ago. I'm very happy with it now and getting happier with each playtest.

I think a Designer should playtest his game and refine it until he cannot foresee getting sick of it. It’s hard, but it’s the hard that makes the design stand the test of time, IMHO. I hope that my designs will succeed this test and still be played a decade and more from now.

Tom: What other tips would you give to prospective designers?

Rick: 1) Design games you want to play, not games you think that others will want to play. If you design games for your own enjoyment, and you succeed, there will be others that will share your enjoyment. If you design for others, your heart will not be in it, and it will show in the design.

2) Re-read the rules you've written after each playtest, while the play of the game is fresh in your mind, and try hard to find improvements in clarity on each page.

3) Seek honest feedback. Don't ask, "How was it?" when you finish playtesting with someone. Ask, "What could be better?" "What parts of the game seemed slow?" "Would mechanic X be better at maintaining tension than the current mechanic Y?" "Why did you enjoy it?" - ask probing questions and don't get defensive of your design in response. Sometimes the feedback will be wrong to your mind, but if the same feedback keeps occurring from others, maybe your concept of what is wrong needs to be challenged.

Tom: How did you determine which company to submit your games to?

Rick: GMT was the first company to offer me a contract, and they've treated me fairly and have been totally professional and courteous, so I'm giving them first crack at my future designs.

Tom: How important are quality components to a game? Do the costs justify them in most cases?
Rick: I believe that quality is worth paying for. Mounted maps are the exception, at least with wargames. With print runs of only 3,000 copies, mounted maps add a high cost, which could only be absorbed by selling direct. Going through distributors would leave nothing for profit.

Quality artwork on the box and on the components makes all the difference, which is yet another reason for sticking with GMT. House artists Roger MacGowen and Mark Simonitch are among the best in their field (IMHO).

Tom: Why do you think wargames are so popular in America, and not nearly as much in the remainder of the world?

Rick: I did not know they were more popular in the US than in other parts of the world. For me, I enjoy them not because I'm a warmonger, but because I enjoy losing myself in another era and feeling, to a very limited extent, some of the challenges that existed in command for that period.

As I mention in the designer notes for FAB Bulge, Wargames are at their absolute best when used as "Paper Time Machines" (Redmond A. Simonsen - R.I.P.)

Tom: You mentioned that you enjoy games "not because you are a warmonger". What do you think of accusations made against war gamers like that? Do they ever have any validity?

Rick: There is no doubt that a small segment of wargamers fits this stereotype, trust me when I say it is a small percentage.

I enjoy the hobby, and I think others would too if it were more accessible. I intend to design those more accessible games

Tom: Several designers, yourself included, have determined to make more accessible games. Do you think the era of the "monster game", with thousands of counters, is over? Could such a game still be published today?

Rick: No, the era is not over. Monster games are still being published, in fact a battalion level Bulge Game with four maps was just released by Decision Games.

Monster games have their place, but finding the time, space needed to play, and opponents willing to play is becoming harder and harder for many of us. They are still played at Consimworld Expo in Tempe, which is where I will be in June of this year, and though I won't be playing the monsters, lots of other people will be. The three games with the most sign ups are Wacht am Rhein II (Monster), EuroFront II (Monster), and Europe Engulfed (not quite a Monster, but a big game with lots of pieces).

Tom: Rick, thanks for the time you took to answer these questions. Do you have any final words for our readers?

Rick: I would just like to say that I appreciate greatly all of you that took a chance and bought Europe Engulfed despite Jesse and I being first-time designers. Thanks and enjoy the game. I certainly enjoy talking about my designs and answering questions. Please look for FAB Bulge on GMT's P500 list later this year, and Asia Engulfed sometime in 2006. Enjoy the games!

Thanks Tom for thinking up such good questions, and providing this forum to allow designers to reach their audience.

Tom Vasel
“Real men play board games.”
June 22, 2005