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.

Greetings Designers,

Today, let's talk about the role of Initiative in games. Traditionally, many games have some sort of mechanism or roll to determine who gets to take and action first. Some would argue that going first in many games is an advantage. So, how does a games designer handle this problem of granting who goes first?

Some examples:
1. The Random Event (oldest/youngest player) gets first turn. Popular in board games like Candyland.
2. Some opposed test, with no modifiers. Occassionally, as a sub-category the winner could choose between going first or second.
3. Opposed test with stat modifiers. However, the players may also get a choice of going first or second.
4. Attacker/Faction always goes first.
5. It doesn't matter as all actions are simultaneous.

So, how should a designer consider "going first" when creating their game.

Beyond that I believe Initiative can be woven into the game mechanics.

I think probably the first step is to get a clear idea of how much advantage there is in going first. Plenty of games, especially rpgs but I’ve seen it elsewhere, place a huge premium on going first, despite the game having few conditional effects and no ability for a first strike kill. I don’t know how many rpgs I’ve played where I got interested in agile fighting character, only to realise early on that I was giving up hitting power or defence to basically get the honour of rolling first as we start grinding away at the bad guy’s 200 hit points.

So really, that’s where I’d start – establishing how much benefit there is in going first. Once you know then I think you’ve got a framework how much complexity you need and can justify for initiative.

RPG have the issue that they are not designed to be balanced, while I have not played 4th, all the people I talked with said it was the most balanced rpg between classes they have encountered and this is what they really hated,

I feel that one must make a game system first and then playtest how important going first is and adjust accordingly.

The choice on who goes first though is equally important, is it random? is it build in the list? does age make a difference? is it not important enough?

The other thing is, what is "initiative" supposed to represent? is it representing individual soldiers,vehicles or units' speed and/or reflexes, battlefield awareness? In that case, then you might want to look at something like the old Babylon 5 Wars game, where you rolled initiative for each ship, not just per side. That's also how RPGs do it, although it's less noticeable for anyone except the GM. It's also how 40k's combat phase works.

If you use this sort of thing? do you allow early-acting units to hold their action until later? That adds a level of command and control, rather than individual units acting on their own (for example, you may allow disciplined elven regiments to hold their activations, while mobs of orcs cannot. Or it could be tied to the presence of commanders on the battlefield).

Or is it a feature of the army itself (tactical doctrines, technology or the skill of its commander, i.e you)? In that case, it makes more sense to make it a single roll per side.

There's also the question of is it just to determine who goes first (chess, 40k, Infinity)? Or is it something that occurs every turn (representing one side having the tactical advantage and keeping the enemy on the back foot)?

In a game design I have on fridge initiative is handled by training.

Players assign orders in order from the less trained to the elites and each training level must be completed by both players before the next level is given orders, orders are visible, then on activation it goes from elite and downward again all elite units must be activated first from both sides then the next level and so on.

It is heavily biased towards elite trained units but this is what I wanted.

the tie breaker between same tier units was handled by a communications stat which made it crowded for stats and it is one of the reasons I have it on fridge, probably it will get discarded and the idea salvaged for something better.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
RPG have the issue that they are not designed to be balanced, while I have not played 4th, all the people I talked with said it was the most balanced rpg between classes they have encountered and this is what they really hated

That really depends on the rpg. In a combat heavy rpg you want as much balance as possible between classes. Still have unique play styles and abilities, but one class’s ability to hit multiple models needs to be balanced against another class’s ability to score loads of damage on a single target, and another class’s ability to soak damage.

Even in a game with moderate combat focus, most players can see when the points they sunk in to initiative don’t do anything useful.

I feel that one must make a game system first and then playtest how important going first is and adjust accordingly.

I think you can start with a reasonable plan for how important going first will be. If you’ve got a lot of condition effects and attacks are fairly deadly, then you know going first is going to be important. Playtests will always be an eye opener, of course, but there’s no reason to go in completely blind.

And if you find that your complex and interesting mechanic for initiative doesn’t really matter in play because there’s little advantage in activating first, well there’s two ways to solve that. You might adapt by going to a simpler initiative mechanic, but you might also adapt by changing your combat rules and unit stats, so that going first is more important.

The answer to that depends on where you want your game to focus.

5. It doesn't matter as all actions are simultaneous.

I handled it with "real-time" system. No matter who's turn it is, other players can always interfere by responding with their own actions. Suppress an enemy assault with a machinegun fire - no problem. You also fight and shoot simultaneously, meaning both players make their rolls at the same time before removing casualties and such. So in a gunfight both duelists may be eligible for an AP roll and both can end up dead or wounded. Suitable for RPG and Wargame of all scales.

Being able to act before everybody else is a special skill, say a gunslinger's quick draw or a samurai's "iai" - out of sheath slash, marking a character of exceptional prowess.

RPG have the issue that they are not designed to be balanced, while I have not played 4th, all the people I talked with said it was the most balanced rpg between classes they have encountered and this is what they really hated

Because 4'th is an attempt to make a tabletop MMORPG )

Another thing to consider is what is allowed in a turn. If initiative determines which player gets to activate all of their actors without response, it will have a much larger effect than a system where a player may only activate a single actor and may trigger reactions/counters/ etc. Activation mechanics that require sacrifice (IE acquire a token that prevents reaction to activate where reactions are strong) may further reduce the value of activating first.

Someone has to always go first and in cases of tie, initiative is used to determine who is currently in control of the tide of battle. Even in X-Wing you plan your moves in secret but someone still has to go first. It does however have less of an effect based on the fact you don't know how the opponent moved. Ultimately there should not be a huge advantage to going first. If there is a huge advantage to going first, then there is a flaw in the game mechanics unless that is the point (there are a couple games where this is the whole idea). Risks vs reward should balance out.

I don't know anyone who would enjoy playing a game where players roll dice. Player A gets initiative and chooses to shoot first, since he is shooting first at Player B... Player B can't do anything. Yes Player A still has to roll to hit and Player B usually gets to roll an armor save to determine if they take a wound or not. However ultimately Player B takes all the risk, just stands there to be shot and Player A takes no risk. Providing rolls work out, Player A will kill someone while Player B can't respond. It isn't fun for anyone and tends to results more in frustration and poor sportsmanship where the mantra develops, "He went first, if I could have gone first it would have turned out differently".

Some games try to make adjustments by allowing a reaction shot, snap shot or having an over-watch system. It isn't as good as being active on your turn, but does introduce some risk to the opposing player. There are other ways that a person can "take initiative" through the use of limited command points or maybe a tactics card of some sort. It helps lesson the blow of someone going first but since it is limited, you have to choose when to make a sacrifice and when to push the advantage.

If all actions happen simultaneous then initiative becomes less of a factor. It just allows someone to start moving their pieces first, over another or maybe it is used as the final determination in case of ties.

 Dark Severance wrote:
Someone has to always go first

Apologies for taking that sentence out of context, but not always. Full Thrust has simultaneous movement (by pre-plotted orders) and by only applying damage effects at the end of the turn, you can make firing simultaneous too. Even in the case of X-Wing, it's trivial to make movement simultaneous (models only collide if the end positions of all ships involved overlap, and then you move each of them back an equal amount).

Obviously, pre-plotted moves don't alywas fit the feel of the game you're making. It's an idea more suited to naval (water or space) games or large-scale pre-industrial warfare (i.e. until WW1). It also handily helps demonstrate the C&C difficulties of controlling an army when your only method of communicating is to actually send a runner.

Wings of Glory is simultaneous plotted movement. I think it's quite good.

I am increasingly a fan of balanced (Thue Morse):
- AB-BA - BA-AB - BA-AB - AB-BA ...

However, for game purposes, serpentine is easier:
- AB-BA - AB-BA - AB-BA - AB-BA ...

Either way, reversing the order with the back-to-back turns helps keep the initiative equal over straight alternation:
- AB-AB-AB-AB...

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
Apologies for taking that sentence out of context, but not always. Full Thrust has simultaneous movement (by pre-plotted orders) and by only applying damage effects at the end of the turn, you can make firing simultaneous too. Even in the case of X-Wing, it's trivial to make movement simultaneous (models only collide if the end positions of all ships involved overlap, and then you move each of them back an equal amount.

That is slightly correct. Orders and Movement are determined blindly at the same time by writing them down. Since they are written down, when it goes to the movement phase they can move them simulteanous to speed things up or alternate. However it doesn't make much difference since neither can react to another players moves.

During movement though there are times where a tie will occur. What I mean is there are situations where two ships could be crossing each other's path, depending on who goes first can alter their final positions. In some instances providing someone moves first they can continue movement without issues. Then there are also fighters which have movement and are not done simultaneous but in their own phase.

When we get to the shooting phase, one player does go first. They would choosing one of their ships and state all the weapons they are firing and at what targets. Damage is then recorded immediately, if someone is destroyed they are immediately removed from play. After the first player activates and fires one ship, the players alternate with each other until all ships have fired. But during the fire phase there is someone who has initiative. It can be determined by the one having the most individual ships in play or rolling a D6.

In X-Wing movement is plotted similar simultaneously in a blind format like Full Thrust. If you make movement resolution happen simultaneous (which would be a house rule, not actual rule) it changes the concept of the game entirely. Initiative is part of determine if Person A's ship will be in the firing arc to fire. If Player B moves before Player A, they might be within the firing arc. If Player B moves after Player A, they would no longer be in the firing arc. If movement was simultaneous then it removes that aspect of the game entirely and changes the outcome.

I'm not saying you couldn't make firing happen simultaneous but it can create awkward situations. You've dealt damage to a ship, it has a zero hull... but it is still able to fire. It seems minor but some people have issues with that break.

But sometimes an "unfair" turn sequence works fine. For example, in a system where you can have a few high quality units or lots of low quality units, it would not be surprising if the higher quality units consistently activate first and can eliminate a low quality unit. Here, the numbers act as a balance- sure the low quality units don't act as quickly, but their number allow them to absorb losses and the counter en masse. Think spec ops commandos versus miltia. Here, you are using asymmetric forces that might still be balanced. So, if the high quality units can limit exposure, strategically eliminate threats, etc. they may win. OTOH, if the low quality units can block the smaller force in, force unfavorable trades, and generally bring their numbers to bear, they may win.

I do like reactive options personally as they keep players more consistently involved. A system that allows the acting player to make lots of moves with few or no options for the non active player can lead quickly to disinterest. Most classic board games, for example, only allow players to move one piece in alternating turns. Allowing a player to move lots of pieces, shoot his enemies, then cut them down in melee not only heavily weights the game in favor of whoever wins first action, but also makes for a very dull game for the non active player.

 Dark Severance wrote:
I'm not saying you couldn't make firing happen simultaneous but it can create awkward situations. You've dealt damage to a ship, it has a zero hull... but it is still able to fire. It seems minor but some people have issues with that break.

That's how Battletech does it. It's a system with a lot of quirks that generates probably more system mechanic discussion than any other game I’ve played, but I’ve never seen anyone find a problem with or want to ‘fix’ the simultaneous fire.

Then there’s game like Epic, where you have unit based activation that gives a massive advantage to activating your key units first (as the enemy will not only have less units to shoot back with, many of them will now be suppressed). But then when you make an engage action (get up close and use small arms and melee), the combat it is simultaneous - all models get to fight, neither side ‘goes first’.

I'm not saying you couldn't make firing happen simultaneous but it can create awkward situations. You've dealt damage to a ship, it has a zero hull... but it is still able to fire. It seems minor but some people have issues with that break.

But if they both fire at the same time, then the ship discharged its weapons before being destroyed by the countershot. Not to mention there would always be a lag between "target hit" and "target neutralized". For the sake of simplicity we can assume that if both models are able (loaded, facing the right direction, etc) to shoot this turn, they will both have time to discharge their ammunition before any damage is applied. Extreme situations are covered by skills. For example if one ship has an experienced cannoneer on board and it is clearly stated: "X shoots first". In terms of my rules as long as a model has unspent actions it can actively counter the enemy. Once spent - it is at the mercy of someone else's dice rolls.

If we are talking realism - turn based is always a bit abstract. Let's take, so called, "concentrated fire" - one model attempts to kill a target. If it fails - the other one attempts. Then the other, until target is eliminated. Then the remaining models pick another target. That's one of the reasons why the military don't use turn-based strategy games for training. It has to be taken for granted as the rule of the game.

I decided to include real-time in my game as a possiblity, because you can always revert to a classic turn-based by not applying the extra rules, but it is always good to have a choice.

The "real time targeting" rule means you have to declare all models attacking a particular enemy. After that, no other models can target this enemy this turn. You don't know if 1, 2 or 3 elven archers will be able to stop a torch bearing uruk berserker. Perhaps 2 will be not enough and 4 may be an overkill, extra shots wasted, while needed elswhere. It is a real time tactical decision.

The "real time casualties" means you don't remove the dead and wounded, nor apply damage effects (stun, weapon destroyed) until both (or 3,4 or whatever number) sides involved have resolved their actions. Both groups of archers each 10 strong release 10 arrows each at one another. Afer all hits have been resolved - one group can end up with 8 members - the other one with 6. It is usually the elite troops who are more organized and can shoot faster, maneuver better, etc and can fire a volley before the enemy rookies take aim, routing them entirely in most cases due to low morale. But they can't eat bullets for dinner and will still fall like wheat if exposed to a fussilade.

You can say, skill and combat situation (such as an ambush) grant initiative, not the order of turns - the latter is purely for the players' convenience, to keep things organized.

 sebster wrote:
That's how Battletech does it. It's a system with a lot of quirks that generates probably more system mechanic discussion than any other game I’ve played, but I’ve never seen anyone find a problem with or want to ‘fix’ the simultaneous fire.

At the point I am quoted, the discussion was revolving around X-Wing and Full Thrust not Battletech. I didn't say it couldn't be done or wasn't done, the game system has to be designed to support it. That particular discussion was centered around the statement "someone has to go first" with X-Wing and Full Thrust cited as examples of countering that statement. Even in Battletech there is Initiative, someone does go first but it revolves around movement and declaration not resolution. Initiative and resolution are two entirely things.

Denis Nazarets wrote:
But if they both fire at the same time, then the ship discharged its weapons before being destroyed by the countershot. Not to mention there would always be a lag between "target hit" and "target neutralized". For the sake of simplicity we can assume that if both models are able (loaded, facing the right direction, etc) to shoot this turn, they will both have time to discharge their ammunition before any damage is applied.... <snip>

I think your response is also out of context to what it was referring to. I didn't say it can't be done or even that it shouldn't be done. The game system needs to support the designs behind it, the game systems we were talking about weren't designed with that in mind. To simply add it, causes the balance of the game to shift and by doing so can create awkward situations (that need to be addressed in rules, not simply saying fire happens simultaneous).

Again I didn't say it couldn't be done. There are valid reasons to not using simultaneous fire though since in reality not everyone gets to shoot back, someone has faster reaction than another person. It all depends on how you are going to abstract that representation whether it is through initiative or a means of rolls to hit, then saving rolls or some other method. As long as the ultimate result is someone can remove opponents with no risk, without there being options to respond... no one likes to sit there and do nothing (which was the original point before we ended down this fork of discussion). There are pro's and con's to using simultaneous fire but that is probably meant for another discussion since this was supposed to be centered around Initiative.

IMO, initiative is a only a problem when models start in contact.

If the models start well outside combat range, initiatve doesn't matter, as going first becomes a function of pre-combat maneuver and positioning - something that 40k and such just don't do very well.

Games need maneuver space, along with real cover, something that 40k and others have forgotten.

Living space is indeed important, a 4x6 table can facilitate so many models before there is no place for maneuver.

Living space is important, to be sure.

The ability of units to cause damage is also important and this is related to the number of units in the game. Even if you have plenty of room for manouevre, most wargames come down to moving into range and fighting. The first time this happens, if Side A has the ability to eliminate 12.5% of Side B before they can shoot back, the initiative is very important. OTOH if they can only eliminate 1% of the enemy, it barely matters.

Obviously these circumstances are greatly affected by the turn sequence and the way that movement and combat are resolved. There are many ways of doing all these parts of the rules, as well as the way that initiative can be determined.

 Dark Severance wrote:

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
Apologies for taking that sentence out of context, but not always. Full Thrust has simultaneous movement (by pre-plotted orders) and by only applying damage effects at the end of the turn, you can make firing simultaneous too. Even in the case of X-Wing, it's trivial to make movement simultaneous (models only collide if the end positions of all ships involved overlap, and then you move each of them back an equal amount.

During movement though there are times where a tie will occur. What I mean is there are situations where two ships could be crossing each other's path, depending on who goes first can alter their final positions. In some instances providing someone moves first they can continue movement without issues. Then there are also fighters which have movement and are not done simultaneous but in their own phase.

Can you give me an example where the physical order of movement would make a difference, if overlapping only matters for final positions? In X-Wing it matters because ships explicitly do move before one another, so a ship's initial position could interfere with another's final position (or vice versa) and only the active ship is moved out the way.

Its ultimate ancestor, Wings of War, allows overlapping (because it uses cards) and the order of movement is irrelevant to gameplay. It started to matter once Wings of Glory became a purely miniatures-based game, and then X-Wing changed it again, from an unfortunate side-effect of using miniatures to a deliberate part of gameplay.

I think the physical order of movement will matter for any game that doesn't have some kind of written orders for simultaneous movement. In any other game, the players have some chance to react to enemy movement and change their own movement.