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.

 precinctomega wrote:
The object is to give the player(s) more decisions to make about the precise placement of the markers.

The question is should it? I mean grenades themselves are never a precise placement, even in reality. Sure someone can get skilled to a degree in throwing them and hitting their marks, but under combat situations there are multiple variables that effect that. Smoke is pretty much the same concept which takes a thing and abstracts it. It does so to allow simple use without complications. They are effected by weather and there is a skill in using them, knowing where to place to get the max effect.

Person throwing grenades:



Tank launching smoke grenades



I get they aren't an exact circle nor do they just completely block line of sight, they really just interfere with it. However there isn't a real way to make them more effective in a game. In fact I'd say some of the games make them too effective. It would seem to be more realistic to make the radius smaller or maybe simply X, Y, Z sizes. From the initial point place one, then the 'drift' direction determines where the plume tail goes which would be the Y and Z sizes.

Place X size circle which is smaller than standard smoke grenade templates, for example we'll say 4". Roll for hit, success means that is where it lands, otherwise roll for direction of scatter. Move it there. Then place Y size circle center, 3" radius example, on the edge in the direction of drift on the circle edge of X. Then place Z size circle center, 2" radius example, on the edge in the direction of drift on the circle edge of Y. In terms of gameplay, not much has changed it is still streamlined and doesn't slow down the process of popping smoke. In terms of functionality it still functions similarly in an abstract method, but in a more realistic abstract method. The size of the circles can vary, so instead of a larger cloud it is more of a trail.

That does actually works out better, providing the sizes are what you want for everything. Same basic principle but in a cleaner method.

I would also think it would be great to have other interactions with smoke. Enemy throws a grenade into the smoke which causes it to disperse. Maybe psionic abilities causing the plume to change directions (if using the flame template).

It wouldn't really be useful for UGO-IGO style games but interesting for alternate activation, randomized or initiative activation order, etc.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "not useful for Igo-Ugo". Both of my proposals should work just fine for KOG light, which is explicitly and deliberately an Igo-Ugo game. Can you clarify?

It wasn't referring to the proposal for smoke use, those were fine and are fine for IGO-UGO. I was talking about having the opposing player be able to have interactions with the smoke to counter to change it, like dispersal or psionic. It can still work, but usually that point they've popped smoke, utilized it to the advantage so it as ran its course.

 precinctomega wrote:
But one of my design axioms is to avoid templates if humanly possible. Yes, I realize that a 25mm (or 40mm, as Dave suggests) marker is basically just another word for a template and I'm still looking at ways to eliminate them to something more counter-y (I tolerate counters slightly more than templates.

I've been able to eliminate templates from blast weapons, and made them slightly more true to life in the process (don't shoot a blast weapon at close range in Zero Dark!). Still trying to get them out of smoke...

Why don't you like templates? It is interesting that you like tokens more than templates because I'm the reverse. I think tokens clutter the table when done incorrectly, so reducing them is a good thing in my opinion. Templates however are simply measuring devices that don't clutter a table so curious on why you don't like them.

 Desubot wrote:
Depending on the type i dont think most smoke grenades really explode. if anything it should ether be a circle template, or a flamer template if out doors and windy. (origin being the thin end)

I don't believe we are using the blast template because of explosion, just simply using an existing round circle template. Usually the scatter/blast template is used to determine if that is where the smoke pops based on hit/scatter. The scatter direction then determines where and how to place the flamer template.

 precinctomega wrote:
Perhaps it should be said that it's not templates I dislike so much as how they are used. By way of example, I recently played a game of Infinity in which one model was hiding behind a civilian (you can't shoot civilians). An enemy was able to hit the model by using a template weapon, perfectly placed so it just failed to graze the civvie and just grazed the target.

This is illustrative of the binary nature of templates - you're either under (or touched by) the template or you're not. If you are, you're affected. If you're not, you aren't. It's simple, but it leads to decisions that owe more to a perfect grasp of the game mechanics than it does to good tactics. My aspiration is to reward good tactics.

But you are talking about min/maxing which will never change and can only be minimized to a degree. That essentially is the barrier that newer or casual players have to covercome when playing against more competitive players. Honestly as a player if you are doing something to the best of your ability, then you are doing yourself a dis-service which does mean learning curve to discover what works and why.

I'll use the flamethrower template as an example, since it is the most widely known. When you utilize a weapon enough the person becomes fluent enough to eyeball it to use it to max effeciency. They don't practice just to practice. This even applies to a shotgun, when using the flamethrower template. When I shoot in person with something that sprays, I'm fairly sure I know the capacity of my cone to maximize damage. We are playing troops who purpose is to maximize damage.

Although I would say in your example, that the player didn't hide properly behind the civie. It wasn't necessarily that the template was perfectly placed, it was the other player didn't properly gauage the safety zone.

 precinctomega wrote:
Horizon Wars does this pretty well, if my play-testing experience is anything to go by, as I often lose games to people who've never played it before, despite a near-perfect knowledge of the rules.

Knowledge of rules doesn't directly translate into better skill or better play, it just means you know the rules. It also has to deal with a persons character. I often lose not because I try to lose but because I focus on the gameplay experience being enjoyable, than on simply winning. That is what I do when you demo games. Now that doesn't mean I can't be competetive, but I don't play competively against casual players (which are new players). One doesn't directly translate to another, correlation does not imply causation.

 precinctomega wrote:
Another reason for disliking smoke templates (because that's the topic of this thread) is that they are often rather larger than the table space they're supposed to be filling. This means awkwardly placing templates, moving terrain or having to fudge the result somehow (with FAQs that have to make it clear that smoke doesn't travel through walls - srsly?).

I've never experienced that personally, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. However I've seen different templates use. In almost every game I play though they don't use smoke templates, the templates is only used to determine placement, what it effects. At that point a marker is put there, often something like the below image. The template isn't needed for anything else. For those that want to place a template, there are also hallow flame rings which is a just a hallow ring. We have ours on a telescopic piece with magnets that floats above so need to move terrain.

 precinctomega wrote:
I'm now looking at counters again, as originally described, but with varying effect areas. So stuff within 1" of a counter is affected in X way, whilst stuff within 2" is affected in Y way. This overcomes the binary nature of templates in that there's a more severe effect the closer one comes to the core of the smoke cover. Smaller counters also allow smoke to fill irregular spaces in a more natural fashion.

That however isn't going to solve your initial example with the flame template that missed the civilian. All it does is create a new meta, where they learn to properly place the more "adverse" counter in the best position, which effects the game in a greater method.

Honestly the more crunchy you make a game, the more it creates it initial meta where competitive players will always be able to "Do X because they did something just right, hurting Y but not effecting the civilian". Meanwhile casual players because there are too many options, get lost because there are decisions, lots of decisions which includes lots of bad decisions (not because the mechanic is bad, but in the situation it is a bad choice). Casual players don't know how to deal with that. Usually you want there to be options, but you always want all the options to be viable and clear cut choices to do that during a time. That is one of the core issues with Infinity currently. It has gotten to the point, where there are literally lots of options that it becomes overwhelming, despite 70% of them being situational and the core 20% is what is always done.. with a 10% dependent on troop type.