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,

Activation is a vital part of any game system, but especially wargames. Who can do what and when plays a key part in determining a players choices and strategy. Some layers prefer when their toy soldiers do everything that needs to be done when they want them to be done. However, in many other game systems an Activation Roll (or similar mechanic) is needed to ensure your troops do as they are commanded. I have generally seen two major forms of this in practice:

1. Positive Activation: In such a game, the Player knows how many orders they have and spends them like a resources to move and activate troops. However, their are not enough activation to go around and choices must be made. A good example of this system is escaping me at the moment, so feel free to add an example below.

2. Negative Activation: In this process, when you want a unit to complete a task, a command check or similar roll is needed to 'activate' the unit to follow you orders. Therefore, you can not be certain your troops will do as they are told. I have seen this in the various Warmaster variants, Lion Rampant/Dragon Rampant, and Dux Bellorum to name just a few.

So, which do you prefer and what are good situations to use one method over another? Feel free to share examples of both systems as well.

I prefer faster play, so, either:

0. Full Activation - all models activate once; or

1. Positive Activation - X models activate once.

I skew time-space simulationist, so I do not like reactivation for any reason.

I definitely think it depends on the game type/genre/setting. For example, I like what Lion/Dragon Rampant does with its checks to activate as it represents a commander trying to command over the top of a battle while also being in the thick of things himself; orders are going to get lost or misinterpreted, charges and defences are going to falter, and when they do, the enemy are going to take advantage (hence activation passing back to them). In that scenario, it keeps things both 'realistic' and engaging, no standing around for ages waiting for a go.

The more advanced your setting is, the higher the level of combat it fits at, I think. Going from historicals to moderns to near futures to sci-fi, troops become better trained and led, command and control becomes more sophisticated, battles as a whole are less dependant on a single figure at the tactical level. So you have Epic, where Order checks are necessary as you're taking on the role of a commander overseeing an entire and widespread engagement (hence the same problems arise commanding 6,000 men that a commander in the Dark Ages under Lion Rampant rules might have commanding 60), but at the level 40k is played at, everyone will have designated roles, act mostly autonomously and often have an effective communication system in place that means the role of 'orders' takes a back seat to actual battlefield events like being directly attacked, coming under suppressing fire, your squadmates being blown away ect.

That said, there's place for both; I have a platoon-level sci-fi ruleset written built on the Lion Rampant model (the core of it is largely L/DR IN SPAAAACE, with a bit of 40k and some Infinity thrown in for good measure), but while that provides (at least to me) a more fun gaming experience as I like the unpredictability and the need to think carefully as, unlike 40k for example, the chance of each unit doing exactly what you want is low, it is more 'gamey' and less realistic. That's not necessarily a problem, but if you're looking more for a simulation than a gaming experience then it doesn't really fit the genre at that level.

The best example I can think of for a predetermined 'orders pool' is probably Infinity, which to be honest I'm not a fan of; the idea that bringing 3 extra riflemen means my giant robot mech suit can suddenly run 3 times as far or shoot twice as many people really seems jarring to me. I believe this was discussed quite a lot in a recent Game Design Discussion thread so I won't harp on about it again, but yeah, I'm not so much a fan of that system.

 Easy E wrote:

1. Positive Activation: In such a game, the Player knows how many orders they have and spends them like a resources to move and activate troops. However, their are not enough activation to go around and choices must be made. A good example of this system is escaping me at the moment, so feel free to add an example below.

Infinity is close to this- sure, you have one order per model, but in practice you often will have models which won't act, and other models which take multiple actions.

Only other example that I can think of is Mage Knights (and maybe Heroclix?), where you get a set # of actions based off of points, and spend them among your models.

Positive activation, I quite dislike negative activation.

The question is resource allocation versus risk management. In one model, you have a fixed pool of activations to utilize and must allocate them as effectively as possible. In the second, you are gambling on potentially fewer or more activations.

The question would be what the game is trying to reflect. Fixed activations would seem to reflect situations where action is guaranteed, but the focus required may preclude large numbers and seems to fit with an elite or advanced force or a faction that operates by undeniable imperative (robots, hive mind, whatever). The second model would reflect a situation where communication may be less clear or subordinates may have conflicting imperatives. I think it reflects uncertainty of battle conditions for most humans pretty well with better training, comms, etc. making a unit more likely to actually do what a commander wants versus just sitting in cover, running away, etc. which are more likely with degraded morale, broken equipment, casualties, etc. Of course it runs into the problem that, especially with a poorly trained force, you won't be very "in control", which may or may not be a good thing. I happen to think many wargames give the player far too much granular control over units that do not represent the player directly. It gives the effect of an operator with drones more then believable acting forces.

I wonder if you could somehow combine the two systems? Say, you receive X number of orders (Representing priority communications, personal attentions of reliable subordinates, etc.), but may attempt to order multiple units with one order. Catch is, if you order more than one group at a time, there is the risk of them failing and the order/turn ending. This would catch the best of both worlds- if all that you need to do is adjust your position slightly to brace for an attack, you can do that reliably, but if you want to carry out a major, sweeping attack you are going to need to take risks on units.

The key would be to have the numbers of orders surpassed by the number of units, probably by at least 3 to 1.

it will fall in the second more dominant risk reward system even with a few fixed resources.

Personally I prefer resource management than push your luck game mechanic.

"Positive activation" emphasises the abilities of individual acting units and their equipment, while "negative activation" emphasises command and control.

To me, the former feels like playing a game, while the latter feels like commanding a battle. My preference would be the latter for anything other than a gang skirmish game, although leavened somewhat with some sort of "default reaction" to allow troops engaged by the enemy to react on their own. Something like Infinity's ARO, over watch or even like the old "instinctive behaviour" for Tyranids.

The non-interactive units under Instinctive Behavior / classic Rage results in things like "wind-up" Khorne Berzerkers. That's not really much of a game when half your army is doing automatic movement / behavior.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
The non-interactive units under Instinctive Behavior / classic Rage results in things like "wind-up" Khorne Berzerkers. That's not really much of a game when half your army is doing automatic movement / behavior.

What if it was reactive, and less effective? Say, can't move, can only respond to enemy attacks, and get fewer shots?

The problem is that "instinctive" units aren't things I'm actively playing. They are things I am observing passively. That's fine for mindless enemy units in a game like Zombicide, but it's not good for active units nominally under my control.

As a "free" reaction, it's more tolerable, but then, it raises the question why I wouldn't control the reaction. Or why I couldn't just take a regular action as a regular turn in response.

Indeed, having such units reduces the player in just running the game system, not much entertaining.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
it's not good for active units nominally under my control.

... But, that style and rule is literally representing that you DON'T have control of those units at that time...

Which kinda makes it pointless to have a game, the worse offender I have seen is 5150 were the game can be played alone and the player just needs to roll the dice for the reaction templates.

The more you take away control from the player the more he is reduced to a part of the game system and not a player, likewise the luck of the game increases depending on the randomizes used, worse if you try to fix the luck aspect the more the game becomes a weird positive activation.

What if, for negative activation, the game revolved around controlling the odds of your units behaving? So a unit with the right conditions will succeed (almost?) automatically and attempt to follow orders.

Something like this (Must roll equal or less than score on 2d6):

Elite Troops- 9
Fresh +1
Unengaged +1
Senior Officer +1
Moral Good +1

Total 13, meaning that these guys follow orders automatically. In contrast:

Conscripts- 6
Decimated -1
Under Fire -1
Communications Poor -1
Demorallized -1

Total 2, meaning these guys will probably not follow orders, and will just fight any combats that your opponent starts.

Naturally, such a game would focus on moving up fresh troops, placing officers in important positions, etc.

 Slaanesh-Devotee wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
it's not good for active units nominally under my control.

... But, that style and rule is literally representing that you DON'T have control of those units at that time...

Which defeats the point of it being a game of forces that I control as a player. As a designer, I think things start to fall apart when players lose control of their units more than 20% of the time. That is, if it's more than 1/6 of the time, you have a real problem with how players are going to perceive the game, because most players don't like the chore of babysitting wind-ups. And if the rate is much less than 1/6, as a very rare exception, why is loss of control even in the game? At least, at a skirmish scale.

At a larger scale, where one deliberately creates a command game where each unit is a platoon (or more!), breakdown of command and control is more acceptable, because the game then revolves around who can get their army to more effectively follow their will.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crazy_Carnifex wrote:
What if, for negative activation, the game revolved around controlling the odds of your units behaving? So a unit with the right conditions will succeed (almost?) automatically and attempt to follow orders.

Spoiler:

Something like this (Must roll equal or less than score on 2d6):

Elite Troops- 9
Fresh +1
Unengaged +1
Senior Officer +1
Moral Good +1

Total 13, meaning that these guys follow orders automatically. In contrast:

Conscripts- 6
Decimated -1
Under Fire -1
Communications Poor -1
Demorallized -1

Total 2, meaning these guys will probably not follow orders, and will just fight any combats that your opponent starts.

Naturally, such a game would focus on moving up fresh troops, placing officers in important positions, etc.

I was thinking about something along those lines for a squad-based game, in which you roll an Initiative d6 against Command to activate each unit. Elite is 2+, Green is 4+, Conscript is 5+; Thorpian 6 may swap with any other die rolled, 1 goes to ground. There is an elegant mechanic behind this, as it links into Initiative / Activation when you work through units in descending value, and the die itself denotes which units have acted, and which are yet to act.

In contract, your version is awfully complex, with what is already more than a half-dozen modifiers out of what looks to be potentially a dozen modifiers. In my version, I'd have at most a couple re-rolls tied to supression / commanding officer.

I should clarify a couple things about my suggestion-

1) Most of the modifiers are meant as states on a good/average/bad spectrum (so, fresh troops>bloodied troops>decimated troops, etc.). So tracking states could be as simple as moving a coin on the units stat card.

2) These modifiers would affect other parts of the game- in fact, they would probably be major stats. So, say, in combat, troops roll Xd6 (1 for conscript, 4 for Elites) and pick 1, then add more or less the same modifiers. This would replace BS/S/T/Sv as stats.

3) This would be for a game which is at a scale where actual combat<command and control. This ties into the previous point, as when a platoon is represented by 1 base, how well a unit is fighting together beats individual stats. >

Got it, thanks!

Anyone else have thoughts on morale affecting positive or negative activation, or just morale systems in general?

This topic (morale affecting activation) doesn't seem to have been discussed all that much as yet in the sub-forum.


Types of activations, I would have to say the majority of player's I've met prefer to have complete control over every aspect of whatever game when they're playing it; I've encountered very few folks willing to accept ''loss of control'' as an inherent mechanism.
Although, this could also be a perceptual artifact of most games being needlessly complex or all but unplayable when the morale and variant activation rules are actually used in a game.

_
_

Loss of control is a real problem, amplified by low per player unit count. If I only activate 3 units, and one is instinctive, then I'm only controlling 2/3 of my force.

As an aside, I'm strongly considering ripping out the morale section of KOG light. Its a "win more" that kicks the losing player when they're down and slows gameplay, especially in duel /skirmish games of 1-3 models per side. Even more so on top of crippled / destroyed status.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
Which kinda makes it pointless to have a game, the worse offender I have seen is 5150 were the game can be played alone and the player just needs to roll the dice for the reaction templates.

See, and I like that system precisely because it allows you to control only your actor directly and others only indirectly and allows single play. I like that it requires you to act in context of uncertainty- even allied models are not guaranteed to do what you want.

That's why I think it boils down to what the developer is shooting for. Kind of reminds me of the design decisions in real time versus turn based computer games.

Frankly, I'd like to see you put together a matrix. The answer(s) depend (as pointed out above) on whether speed of play is favored over something else (role playing is generally not speed friendly, in my experience), depend on what scale the game operates at (galactic scale strategic down to single model tactical), and depend too on how many layers of commands (if any) are involved. I'm sure there are other paired characteristics that affect the decision to go with positive or negative activation, as you describe it.

What I mean by layers of command is this: As pointed out above, there can be default orders (instinctive behavior, etc. etc.--whatever you want to call them). The default orders could be conditional (so now we have a logic tree, right?). Over this layer of default orders, you can have positive or negative activation. If you go with positive activation, you could also 'stack' orders (see: Star Wars Armada for simple example). Default orders could be different from game to game; you have a deck of cards with 12 different orders on them (and multiples of each), each unit has a set of default orders that it can operate on, pick one and place it face down by the unit's data card (for example).

To answer the question directly however: I favor positive activation under ideal circumstances, with a mechanism that introduces 'negative' activation (morale, electronic countermeasures, etc.). Seems like it could be fun (where fun = dynamic; reliable but not predictable).

Smilodon_UP wrote:Anyone else have thoughts on morale affecting positive or negative activation, or just morale systems in general?

I have probably said it before in this sub forum, but I had in the past toyed with the following system, player has a pool of dice representing their command value and rolls them then assigns them on the units he has, the units have a minimum value needed for activation that is adjusted by moral modifiers like suppression and casualties, dice can be combined for a higher value but this can leave units without activation dice.

It didn't work for me because the above is such a clean explanation of the core, in the system I also had modifiers for coms equipment, units leaders and other modifiers than bogged the whole thing down, now that I wrote the above I think I should try and use the above mechanism again in a cleaner fashion.

jmurph wrote:
That's why I think it boils down to what the developer is shooting for. Kind of reminds me of the design decisions in real time versus turn based computer games.

Yes, it does indeed boil down to what the designer or developer want, I do not like loss of control on the players side and strongly dislike excessive "automated behavior" that makes players spend their time doing things for the game system, I understand that for a coop game and there I believe a simple streamlined AI needs to be designed to minimize players downtime, but enforcing AI behavior on the players force? it impacts their game enjoyment and cuts from their game time.

Sure some players will love the loss of control from minor to total, but its not something I enjoy and I do not like to design such systems as an extension.

This is an interesting question.

De Bellis Antiquitatis is an example of what you call positive activation. An army has 12 elements, which can be moved individually or formed into larger formations to move them more easily. At the start of a player's round, he rolls a D6 and that is the number of activations he can use that round (called Player Initiative Points, or PIPs.)

The key point here, compared with negative activation, is that you can be certain of activating at least one unit in the very worst case, and it is the one you choose. In negative activation, it would be possible for all of your units to fail their activation roll. You would never be sure of activating anything, or what order they will be activated.

A third type of activation, which might be worth considering, is where you have a chit or card for each unit, and draw randomly for the order of activation.

As far as playing goes, I think all three systems have pros and cons. The DBA system is quick and easy, open to some simple modifiers, and gives the player always at least one action per turn.

FWIW, I see card draw as a form of positive activation, with the focus on random initiative.

I agree with you, card drawn is this, the "dice in the bag" (bolt action, Antares) mechanic is another variant that does the same thing.

Please elaborate on the card drawn and dice in the bag mechanics.

 jmurph wrote:
Please elaborate on the card drawn and dice in the bag mechanics.

I don't play the games mentioned, but from what I understand, each unit/model (depending on game scale) has a corresponding dice or card, selected at random, determining the order units act in. So if the dice/card for a unit of riflemen is drawn, I activate the riflemen. If the dice/card for a tank is drawn, I activate that tank, so on and so forth. The idea being that the more units activate, the more certain you can be that one of your units/a specific unit will be up next. If the opponent draws 3 out of 5 of their units in a row, and I've only activated one of my five, I can be reasonably confident that the next draw will be one of mine. If I only have three units left to activate, two infantry and one tank, I know I've got more chance of drawing an infantry unit than a tank.

Personally, the concept doesn't appeal to me. I'm all for an element of chance in actually getting units to activate, but the random order (if that's how it works, I've not read up on it in a while) makes things far too uncontrollable for my liking. I love the Lion/Dragon Rampant system where you take 2d6 tests for a unit to activate and a failed test ends your turn, as it means you have to constantly be thinking about priorities and chances; If I have a Cavalry unit that has a mid-low chance of pulling off a vital charge, an infantry unit with a good chance but less potential impact, and a unit of archers at the back that aren't going to do much, but have a very good chance to activate, a lot of thought has to go into it. Obviously the archers in this case are going to be last, but do I take the risk on the cavalry, and either pull off a game-changing move or end my turn then and there, or do I take the safer bet with the infantry so I at least get to do something this turn, then go for the cavalry afterwards?

The random order takes away that, puts it beyond your control. I don't mind it for things like determining initiative for a turn (Knight Models' Batman and Marvel games do this), but on a unit-by-unit activation basis, I'd want more control.

It depends whether you are designing for player control or player lack of control as the first objective.

In real warfare commanders often find they have very little information and control over what their units are doing. A card draw system can simulate this surprisingly well, and present the players with significant challenges.

Whether it makes for a good game is partly a matter of what the players are looking for. A lot of tabletop players expect to be able to micromanage a lot of aspects of the game.