Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

You could allow limited premeasurement,

eg a unit could measure the distance to one enemy (it's them concentrating on knowing exactly where this enemy is),

but not to several so they can't decide which is the sure thing to charge (or they'll be under fire from) as they can't keep everything in full sight (unlike a player looking down from above)

it give a lot of the benefits but prevents the annoying bloke who measures everything, every turn

That is another great idea! Make it a resource.... now there is a decision around it. Fantastic!

I am going to steal that.

 Valander wrote:

 Overread wrote:
The thing is in reality measurements of distance have a bit of fuzz around them. You might know that your catapult can fire X distance but that's only a guideline - sometimes it might be a bit more sometimes a bit less. So not only have you ranges and distances, but you've some room to move around them.

A unit of horsemen might charge X distance but you can make them go X+2 and know that they can just push themselves that far etc....


In a tabletop wargame distances, functionally speaking, are very exact. You are either in or out of range down to an accuracy of a few millimetres.


So now if you make it a required skill you're making it a very exacting very high level skill to work with. It might work better in a game where there's more random on distances being used and where there's room to "push" units to go a bit further etc... ;but otherwise in a game with exact measurements it adds a very high level skill to the game. One that is perhaps not a skill most getting into wargames are going to think is important.

That's actually a very solid point about distances in real life vs. on the table. A longbow shot in real life has a fungible range, affected by lots of things, but in most tabletop games it's something like "exactly 24 inches then it just stops and falls to the ground." Of course, we have to have some sort of those measurements on the table (or use other things to compensate) because, well, it's a game.

If we were to add in something like "A longobow range is 20 + 1d6 inches" people would likely throw lots of complaints about that system, even if it was slightly "more accurate" and would remove the cat-and-mouse shennanigans (for either pre-meausre or on-spot-measure).

Having such a system wouldn't be of much use if it only varies in one direction. If you'd have the variable range also take on negative values, like having those longbows be 20" with a 50% chance of rolling either d6" more or subtracting d6" from it, it would introduce actual variance into the decision which could only be negated by putting your long range troops pretty close to danger. Naturally, such systems would really rouse the ire of many. Most players don't seem to enjoy random setbacks, though they are constant things on actual battlefields of any age.

Can't really fault them for that, either. I prefer wargames with effective distances that already abstract the natural fuzziness of maneuver and position so that we can move our dudes pretty accurately on the table, with the operational friction coming to play in command and control instead of rolling for the sake of rolling in maneuver. Sometimes I feel everyone should play a game or two of Crossfire just to see the turnless initiative system in play where you can keep on moving and shooting as you like until something either goes wrong or your troops get bogged down by walking into prepared enemy fire.

Crossfire is fantastic for taking out fussy stuff like ranges and turns, and letting a good back-and-forth develop.

Nurglitch wrote:
Crossfire is fantastic for taking out fussy stuff like ranges and turns, and letting a good back-and-forth develop.

It is pretty unique in that regard, though it also takes some effort to get in the system from the traditional turn based model. It also falls apart horribly if the players make errors in parsing the rules, as any meaningful changes in the shooting probabilities swing the system hard into one sides's favor when you either can't ever get a turn or anyone actually doing things just explodes

Not the system's fault, but I've seen that lead to some feelsbad moments.

I hate game without pre-measuring, it was one of my biggest complaints about old 40k.

"I'm a super solider with 100-1000 years of experience in a futuristic that is only war and I practice war all the time, I have instruments to help in that as well, but IDK how far to shoot my gun"

 Sherrypie wrote:

Having such a system wouldn't be of much use if it only varies in one direction. If you'd have the variable range also take on negative values, like having those longbows be 20" with a 50% chance of rolling either d6" more or subtracting d6" from it...

That's unnecessary. There's no difference between varying in one direction and two. What you suggest is just the same as 14" + 1D12.

Polkovnik wrote:

 Sherrypie wrote:

Having such a system wouldn't be of much use if it only varies in one direction. If you'd have the variable range also take on negative values, like having those longbows be 20" with a 50% chance of rolling either d6" more or subtracting d6" from it...

That's unnecessary. There's no difference between varying in one direction and two. What you suggest is just the same as 14" + 1D12.

It's not, if it isn't always such. Like in the above example (admittedly hastily written), you get a weapon with 20" range and a chance it changes every now and then. Tweak probabilities and ranges as desired. Very similar results, yet not entirely.

The point here is that unless there is a stricter possibility of mucking it up, a mere +dN" is both cumbersome and uninteresting, because the players will go for the safe minimum distance basically all the time unless the system punishes shooters hanging in such ranges with certain doom in short order.

Which is honestly what most military commanders would do if given the choice. If they know the best and worst limits they'd always aim to use the best limit point for any given situation.

Having fixed effective distances in a game is just simulating that aspect.



I think increasing the amount of random risk is fine, but at the same time the punishment has to reduce. Otherwise there's a high risk that a highly random game would end up overly punishing people for making sound choices and getting bad rolls.
So it would suit a game where there was far more back-and-forth in terms of damage being dealt and in the ebb and flow of the game.


That often also translates to a game that lasts a greater number of turns/activations in general. That way giving room for alternative resolutions and recovery from mistakes/bad random results etc...

A curious idea would be to tie the range of punitive randomness to the morale state of the unit. Fresh, unshaken archers could shoot pretty reliably while those who lost their sergeant and already legged it once from a cavalry charge could have wild swing in how far they can even shoot tellingly. Or use exhaustion points of how many actions they've made without resting (in a longer game system than six or so rounds) etc.

Thing is the more complex layers you add the more you burden the game. Eventually you can hit a point where you've a lot of complexity and interactions, which slows the game down; makes it harder to plan ahead and can sap the actual fun from the game.

Especially when you remember that all these variations have to be checked, marked, remembered and put into use by the players themselves.
Players can certainly deal with increased complex layers, but such systems tend to work better with automation found in video games. Where remembering and tracking is done by the computer and the player only has to recognise the influences and deal with them accordingly.


So part of wargames is also keeping it simple. Sometimes a simpler system is more engaging and fun because you get to play rather than forever be adjusting mechanics and such.

That's more of a design aesthetic choice than a truism, though. Advanced Squad Leader and Charlie Don't Surf have their fanbase as well, even if I wouldn't personally call them very fun to spend time on.

In many cases fixed ranges are good enough for verisimilitude and make the game less fiddly, but if the premise here was to include such variations, the question becomes how to do it in a way that encourages interesting play instead of defaulting to safest options or just rolling without thought. I would probably look into the general state of the unit as the basis more than individual weapons, as that both thematically fits with stressed and exhausted troops sucking more and allows for nice counterplay on the field (much like, say, Epic Armageddon deals blast markers that pin troops and make commands harder when formations come under attack, even when no casualties are caused. Throwing critical distractions in enemy lines before they act can mean all the difference).

 Overread wrote:
Thing is the more complex layers you add the more you burden the game. Eventually you can hit a point where you've a lot of complexity and interactions, which slows the game down; makes it harder to plan ahead and can sap the actual fun from the game.

While you're not wrong (actually, I totally agree with this philosophy; K.I.S.S exists for good reason), I think this specific instance can be checked relatively easily. Something like this should work:

Unit is at -1 to hit for each of the following:
> Lost their unit leader
> Retreated in the previous turn
> Under 50% unit strength
> Unit is Pinned/suppressed.

Just a generic list, but it's pretty easy to keep track of and sort at a glance. You can usually tell if a unit is under half strength, etc.

But this is getting off-topic. On the case of varying ranges - well, does that really do much to solve the issue of pre-measuring? I feel like it just changes the parameters rather than address the issue. If I know a unit's default range is 24", but that could swing anywhere between 30" and 18", I'm going to bank on the 18" while hoping for the 30". Admittedly I don't have any actual experience with any games that use that mechanic, so if anyone else does I'd appreciate your input here.