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.

 Dark Severance wrote:
With miniatures games that have a classic you go, I go type of game play. If that game means the opposing player moves, attacks and I am essentially rolling saves... those games break the "suspension of disbelief" for me. The mechanics created an unrealistic resolution of where it looks like my units sit there and do nothing, while being killed. This is why I prefer games that tend to have an action/reaction or at least overwatch. That way if I overextend then it is more believable that my troops charged into that fire, vs using less actions, being careful and going into overwatch.

Question, are you addressing the counterpoints of fog of war, units being distracted and doing nothing on your turn, coupled with random movement distances, and suppression morale? or are your "realistic" reactions driven by absolute knowledge of the board state, absolute reliability, predictable movement and absolute control?

I would say that depends on the level of technology been involved the higher the more probable the "absolutes" exist to some extend.

But what it boils down is if the rules evoke the player to accept the reality they want to evoke or not.

If they do not then suspension of disbelief happens.

Personally I prefer a game to be "realistic" in terms of the action on the table being a reasonable representation of what could happen in the "real world" setting, rather than having to track a thousand things each turn and figure out how they interact.

For example, in ship games I am happy for the ship to be represented by a handful of stats (ie speed, agility, armour, weapons, crew/command skill, etc...) and maybe a couple of special rules (ie "mine layer" or "anti-air") with the complex systems that make up that ship being simplified into +/- bonuses to various stats, with damage to the ship then removing those bonuses.

As long as the fighting on the tabletop looks like a reasonable recreation of ship to ship combat, I don't care that I am not tracking how midshipman Bob is feeling about the dinner that was served just before contact with the enemy was made, and the impact this has on his fighting capacity and that of the ship.

A lot of wittering here, so TL;DR:

1) Detail doesn't always add realism and you may end up claiming a predictability about the situation and the effects on the model that may not be real;
2) Detail should be appropriate to the level of game you're playing;
3) Detail should be introduced where it can add appropriate tactical choices;
4) Quantifiable is not the same as realistic; qualitative is not the same as unrealistic.

*Ahem*

There's a tendency to focus on the aspects of combat that are quantifiable rather than those that may be important but "looser". So we end up with a pile of dice-roll modifiers for shooting in what are often combat-command sims (rather than pure combat).

There's also a tendency to assume that more detail = more realism. Having spent my formative years building plate-tectonic simulations, the desire to model every foot-long fracture and lava vent on a continent is tempting, but causes problems for two reasons:

First, if you wish your simulation to be explanatory (that is, you can recreate known events), you are claiming that you KNOW where every fracture is, or when and at whom and under what conditions every bullet was fired. This is not the case, and making that assumption will lead your model astray. Perfectly predicable models may become overwhelmed by error or an "outcome space" that is too complicated to explore.

Secondly, in making a predictive model (extrapolating from what we know to make statements about future events), we are assuming that every bullet fired, every inch of ground gained is significant. This is also questionable - we all know "for want of a nail...", but that may not be true for every nail, every bullet. It also goes against the German doctrine of "schwerepunkt" - that there are critical axes and points in a combat that must be focused on. Chaotic models are often assumed to be unpredictable. That is often not the case - large volumes of the results space are perfectly predictable. It's often boundary cases that are predictable only if you know the starting conditions perfectly.

So abstraction- for example, using bulk parameters to average out the unknown - is fine and has a perfectly valid place. And so much we do in wargames has levels of abstraction - balancing unit size vs firepower vs movement vs turn length is far more an artform than a science.

Also, computational speed is a perfectly valid objective for a model. Lost count of the times I've chucked out 95% of the calculations that were contributing 1% of the outcome.

In a game simulation, I'm looking for an appropriate level of detail - one that affects outcomes and so gives the the player tactical options. My suspicion is that a full physics model in a WWII fighter-plane game would result in the players spending all their time battling the elements and keeping the angle of attack on the wings correct (as described by many WWII pilots), and occasionally shooting at someone. The flying calculations would overwhelm the tactical choices - not fun, but far more interesting in a computer flight sim where the results and options are fed to you in a more intuitive, visual format. The players are not experienced pilots and that should be abstracted to allow them to focus on manoeuvres, firing arcs etc. It's a more top-down - a barrel roll does XYZ rather than being something that emerges from the physics.

Now WWII pilots WERE taught about lift and turns and altitude providing visibility and speed, but modern pilots are taught more about energy budgets - for example, the use of potential energy (thrust and altitude as resources) and its conversion to kinetic energy - velocity. It's more appropriate to abstract the WWII sim somewhat, but provide more detail in the modern sim to allow for tactical decisions closer to the reality.

Random thought - I like how the desire to form units arises naturally from the spear/banner/leader rules in the LotR SBG - it offers flexibility without the straitjacket of "this is a unit", at a level that's appropriate to a skirmish game. I'm not against "bottom-up" models.

Note that "hard to quantify" is not the same as "can't model". I mentioned the issues with command and morale above, From too many first-hand accounts, we know that the "natural state" of troops in many places and periods was to go to ground unless led (not many wargames are cruel enough to model the men and officers who simply walked off the battlefield at the start of an action). Too Fat Lardies rules are good at giving troops limited actions unless ordered by a "Big Man" - some of the officer commands are quantified ("remove 1D6 shock"), others are qualitative (allowing more action types). In Two Hour Wargames rules, the figure representing you (the "star") the only reliable actor in your force. Where you can choose what to do at all times, in many situations your followers have to dice to decide whether they shoot, charge, falter or dive for cover.

The level of detail will vary from game to game. A computer can track a morale score for every warrior in a shieldwall, causing each man's morale to be affected by those around him. Depending on the battle, weak points will develop where a rout may start. So the commander has options to decide where to pull back, or reinforce, or send a "personality" to shore up the line.

Now if I were developing a shieldwall tabletop game, I wouldn't - couldn't - track morale for every figure. But I would want to do something similar. Perhaps split the wall into several segments and track morale for each, as well as reserves and captains for the unit. In a WFB game, where I'm commanding the army not an individual unit, a Leadership roll after a combat may be sufficient to check that the commander has done all these things correctly.

The computer model may have random variation in the scores, which the tabletop game would tend not to have - it's more of a deployment choice where you put the toughest and weakest troops. Random pre-game events help there, as do interpreting good and bad dice rolls for post hoc rationalisations, but that's a topic for another thread

Backpacking off Momtaro's excellent comments and continuing the shield wall example, I find that many wargames set in the ancient/early medieval period focus on maneuver way more than historical generals seem to have. Pre Norman conquest European/British battles seemed more about getting your men on the field and keeping them there than anything. Not a lot of clever flanking, or even real maneuver. Mostly just who will be aggressive enough to charge in and will the defender hold. Even going back to the Romans, the emergent strategies were more focused on ambush for the "barbarians" and logistics for the Romans. A lot of the attribution of heroics/generalship/etc. seems to be after the fact attributions.

But would that make much of a game? Okay, English 9th century defender, roll to see if any of your lords showed up- for you or switched to the Danes. Okay, now see if you can get them motivated enough to not run away when the Danes take the field. They stay and fight? Wonderful, now roll to see who does shield wall better. English win means Danes withdraw (check for conversion to Christianity). Danish win means Danes sack or takeover the area.

For me I want the following:

1. If I watch the game play out, the models move and act in a way that they would if everything on the table were real. The idea of 1:1 figure:ground scale is a goal, even if large boards and tiny figures are impractical. Something like 28mm Bolt Action firing a rifle with a known maximum range of 5km is not realistic.*

2. I like to have each bound resolve in a real time. So a game in which each player controls their forces for 45 minutes potentially represents something close to 45 minutes for the models on the ground, with an "active" playing time of 90 minutes. Something like Car Wars taking minutes to resolve 1/10 second just doesn't work for me at all any more.

Time / distance scale is very important to me, as it all feeds into the visual of how things move over time.

While I get the modern push for "interactivity", I believe that fast resolution for shorter turns promotes good play as well, as long as the actions are of sufficient granularity, and the scale is small enough. Basically, I think the push against 40k being bloated and slow misses the point.

I don't really get the popularity of multi-step plotted movement a la Wings of Glory. That seems too much like wind-up robots, and less interactive when one sees how restrictive the movement options are.
____

Note that the iconic Britich Lee-Enfield rifle of WW1 and WW2 had an effective range of 400-550 yards. If one uses the lower bound of 400 yards, that's a minimum range 1200 ft. In 1/144 scale, that's a minimum effective range of 8.33 ft, ranging out to 11.45 ft. Which is kind of irrelevant, as the a 6' x 4' gaming board is only 7.2' corner to corner. And that's a true micro scale in which the models stand less than 1/2" tall. If you're playing 1/60 scale "28mm", that rifle should have an effective range of 240-330 inches on the tabletop. With a 24-inch hard limit on rifle ranges, that's 1/825th scale. That's like 2mm scale, not 28mm! So yeah, this stuff doesn't work for me.

I would say that historical period games may have issues with the players living in a modern era and been influenced by a millenia or two of refining combat doctrines.

In general they will attempt things the generals of that era would never have.

What sort of things do you have in mind?

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Question, are you addressing the counterpoints of fog of war, units being distracted and doing nothing on your turn, coupled with random movement distances, and suppression morale? or are your "realistic" reactions driven by absolute knowledge of the board state, absolute reliability, predictable movement and absolute control?

The realistic reactions are driven by not necessarily absolute knowledge but some knowledge of board state. Unless I'm playing old war games, which I normally don't, fog of war doesn't really exist in terms that we have defined in video games. In modern/future warfare units have a basic understanding that there are X hostiles, they are in Y direction, there is information from scouts, communications, satellites and other pieces.

One example on a small scale. Player A during the movement phase moves all their units into range of enemy units. Player A after moving now goes to shooting phase. Player A chooses which units fire and what the targets are, fires inflicting damage to Player B units removing destroyed units from the game. (Player B doesn't get to act, it is basically they are caught unaware and just take damage... I don't like this abstracted that there is no response and units just die, doing nothing because it comes down to who moves first having a larger advantage.) It is now Player B's turn who starts out already units short. They move their units for their movement phase. Then it moves to their shooting phase and they choose targets and shoot and so forth.

Yes there is a bit more to it than that... but overall that is how that feels when you play or someone watching a game from the outside. I understand they abstracted quite a bit, but it doesn't have that feeling that is how combat works out. If someone is surprised attacked, sure the opposing forces wouldn't shoot back. But at no point in normal combat does one side just shoot and the other side isn't returning fire at the same time, or dodging or simply not being able to move until it is time for them to move.

In your example, if Player B moved their units out into the open, knowing that Player A had units nearby and ready to engage, then they deserve the losses. That is an example of bad play, not bad mechanics.

He didn't say that though, he expresses his dislike in the abstraction of an unresponsive IGYG system and his preference in an interactive system.

IMO, there is no such things as a bad game turn mechanic.They all work well if the game size size and scope is a good fit.

However, there are badly applied game turn mechanics!

Most war games that use alternating game turn, (IGO/UGO,) need to rely on tactical maneuver into effective weapons range, for the bulk of the combatants.

Most war games that use Alternating unit activation, need to rely on good internal and external balance between units/models in the game.

Most games that use variable bound game turn , tend to use fewer active elements , as it is quite complicated to track events with larger numbers.

Most war games that use alternating phases, want more interaction that alternating game turn, but may be too big for variable bound game turn.Or may not have good enough balance* to suit alternating unit activation.(*This is mainly decided by player perception.)

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
He didn't say that though, he expresses his dislike in the abstraction of an unresponsive IGYG system and his preference in an interactive system.

I'm not arguing his preference. I'm saying that his example doesn't really prove the point he was trying to make. Reactions shouldn't cover for bad play.

For me, I think that fast resolution trumps reactions.

He never said player B left his units in the open, he said player A chooses and annihilates selected units that never get to respond, these units were never mentioned to be "in the open" for all we know they may have been well placed.

The fact is they were removed from the table without doing anything except maybe rolling to save.

If the units were well-placed in a game with a functional cover system, then Player A will not annihilate them in a single turn.

Yes, there will be some losses, and that's understandable. If you are in position to shoot, you are also in position to be shot at. If the game revolves around camping, that's not much of a game.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I'm not arguing his preference. I'm saying that his example doesn't really prove the point he was trying to make. Reactions shouldn't cover for bad play.

For me, I think that fast resolution trumps reactions.

Player B didn't move, they were already in cover when Player A moved into range and fired.

What I'm saying is that the mechanics behind the how players resolve their turns, isn't realistic in how combat happens in real life. It isn't Army forces moves all units, then they fire at what they can hit. Meanwhile enemy forces just wait, once the opposing side has finished all their moving and firing then they can finally move and fire.

It would be slightly different if they played that way, but then final combat resolution didn't happen until a cleanup phase after both players had gone... instead of removing them during the active player's turn. For speed and momentum it allows turns to be setup and executed, but gives a more realistic representation of resolution.

I tend to prefer alternate activated units vs completely IGOUGO style of games. That tends to be because the flow of the game has a more realistic feel of how combat is resolved simultaneously.

Fast resolutions is fine and indeed a preference. But fast resolution tends to not be a realistic representation of combat. That is where making the decision on what to abstract in terms of making things flow and move faster vs keeping something because it is more real.

What makes you think that the they're just waiting?

As above, how does your system not encourge overwatch camping as the default play mode? Why should anybody attack when the clear advantage is to hold deep cover and shoot when models appear?

Does that make for a good game?

And why alternate activation? Why not card deck / dice bag? Why should there be absolute certainty that the opponent immediately responds?

The counter argument is why should there be absolute certainty that the opponent will never respond.

Does that make a good game?

I think dynamic play trumps static play, so yes.

Simulating trench warfare with intelligent commanders is a terrible game.

I know you have a heavy bias against reactionary gameplay, even aversion, but reactionary gameplay does not make what you say it does.

We're talking realism and trench warfare is a fact, so there are times when you may want to make a game about it.

Then the problem is how you deal with the situation as a commander, and in the case of WW1, this becomes an army level game until the late war when modernised infantry tactics started to be used, making small actions more interesting.

The whole basis of infantry warfare since the end of WW1 is "fire and movement". This assumes that the enemy may be able to spot and shoot at you as you approach, and provides various tactics for dealing with the situation. In other words, a good and realistic game should not allow you to assault easily, it should allow the enemy defensive fire, but as a game it shouldn't let you get blown up at the beginning, unless you have deployed your units really badly.

If weapon range is realistically greater than movement, then incoming units will take fire without having to fall back on reactions.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
What makes you think that the they're just waiting?

As above, how does your system not encourge overwatch camping as the default play mode? Why should anybody attack when the clear advantage is to hold deep cover and shoot when models appear?

Does that make for a good game?

And why alternate activation? Why not card deck / dice bag? Why should there be absolute certainty that the opponent immediately responds?

It isn't my system. ^_^ Overwatch is something else entirely, not firing when enemy units get in LoS, but being a response to assaults only (close combat). The game is objective based so you can't just sit and camp. If you aren't trying to achieve and capture objectives, then you will just lose. You have to play aggressively to a degree.

It doesn't have to be alternative activation. MERCs uses D10 initiative, you roll D10 per unit and then assign them and they activate based on number. Card/dice bag are good alternatives or even a bidding system like Batman Miniatures uses.

What makes it a good game, depending on preferences and the other parts of the game is debatable. That however wasn't what the discussion was about. It was more an example of how the gameplay wasn't a realistic representation.

There are different flavors of "overwatch."

Do you allow caster kill / tabling as an alternate victory condition in addition to objectives?

There are different layers of realism. A bolt action rifle that can't even shoot across the street isn't realistic, no matter how people activate or respond.

And what does this have to do with preference in activation, turn order and reactionary mechanisms?

As I said before, there are different areas that "realistic" design can go.

Turn order, activation, and reactions are completely arbitrary and subjective. It's a designer's guess as to what the player will consider or accept "realistic".

Scale, time, distance, speed, and range are objective factors that are more objective.

Emphasis on subjective "realism" while ignoring objective "realism" seems ridiculous. Same with the notion of ignoring morale, command and fog of war.

Ah ok then.

Yes, from that perspective I will agree its any designers guess if the players will feel it looks realistic or not.

Generally speaking though waiting for the opponent to finish his bashing of your units leaves a bad taste to many players.

The great advantage of IGOUGO is that it is very simple and everyone os familiar with it from childhood games.

The problem you have described arises when IGOUGO rules allow a side to deliver too much combat power in their half of the game turn. In other words, it is to do with the ratio of damage and speed to time and space. It could happen because the time represented by the turn is too long, or because the amount of firepower is too large, or the range is too short, or units move to quickly.

For instance, imagine a Cold War nuclear war game in which each turn represents a day. It simply wouldn't work. Obviously player one's missiles would be able to launch, fly to the target and take effect, before any reaction from player two. This is not possible in real life, since the flight time of the missiles is about half an hour. A turn length of 6 minutes would be more appropriate, giving player two the chance to react, player one a chance to react to the reaction, and so on.

40K is an obvious example of a game with this problem. Notable turn one victory strategies include Rhino rush, Kroot infiltration, leaf blower, and Strength D weapons. If not scoring a complete victory in turn one, these can give player one such a huge advantage that he will certainly win in a few more turns.

There are various ideas that break up the flow of a game turn and make it more interleaved. Of course these complicate the rules, so, unless they are desirable because the time divisions of the game are small, it is better to stick with IGOUGO.

Many rules have concepts such as opportunity fire, and reaction moves.

There are other ways to approach this: simultaneous movement using written orders, and semi-simultaneous movement. I mean by this term the kind of game in which the two sides alternate moving one unit at a time, or move all their units one hex (or suitable movement division) alternately.

For example, in Star Fleet Battles (Task Force Games, 1979) the turn is broken down into 31 phases. A ship might be moving at any speed from 0 to 31. If it's at 31, it moves one hex each phase. If it's moving at 6, it moves one hex every 5 phases. There is a table to show the phases in which any speed of ship will move. Firing can take place in any phase, as desired by the ship captain.

Written orders are more appropriate when the command and communication time-lag is liable to prevent units from reacting to enemy movement within the space of a turn. They can lead to cases where hostile units move straight past each other, but this can be solved by a "zone of control" rule to make units halt or react when they get within critical rang.

Simply enlarging the map doesn't necessarily cure the problem. It can just lead to a situation in which the two sides cautiously approach each other, trying not to be the one that gets into charge range at the end of your own movement phase, as this allows the other side to get its charges in first.

@Killkrazy.
How does interleaved phases make the game more complicated?

A moves
A shoots
A assaults
B moves
B shoots
B assaults.

Goes to

A moves
B moves
A shoots
B shoots
A assaults
B assaults

Same number of phases, just interleaved.
In fact you can model simultaneous action, by leaving casualty removal until after both sides have made attacks that phase.
(We use a D10 damage dice to show wounds next to the units.)

I think this is the simplest way to get better levels of interaction in a game using alternating game turn , with the minimum of fuss.

Lanrak wrote:
@Killkrazy.
How does interleaved phases make the game more complicated?

A moves
A shoots
A assaults
B moves
B shoots
B assaults.

Goes to

A moves
B moves
A shoots
B shoots
A assaults
B assaults

Same number of phases, just interleaved.
In fact you can model simultaneous action, by leaving casualty removal until after both sides have made attacks that phase.
(We use a D10 damage dice to show wounds next to the units.)

I think this is the simplest way to get better levels of interaction in a game using alternating game turn , with the minimum of fuss.

All of that is true, and it doesn't look at all difficult to you and me because we are experienced wargamers, however, the very simplest thing is for player one to do everything, then player two to do everything, then end the turn. I don't mean that should be used for all games of course, but there are games for which it is completely appropriate. I don't think 40K is one of them.