"Pre-battle Determiners? "Good!" or "Get on with it!"" Topic

My question here concerns what takes place before your minis hit the gaming table. Do you prefer to just play a set scenario or a battle with a given number of points on each side? Or, do you prefer a battle in which some pre-gaming dice-rolls (tables, modifiers, etc…) might determine what troops actually show up and where?

Some gaming systems include pre-battle dice rolls be made to determine how your leader is feeling that day, if your flank marching troops show up, does your force get an unexpected last minute reinforcement, or does a shroud of fog suddenly roll in at the last minute over the battlefield?

I find these little "what ifs" to be fun and beneficial. They can even make the same standard scenario fun to play multiple times with the same forces due to the multiplicity of pre-battle conditions and outcomes. Others may find that these are unnecessary distractions and delays to playing with their pre-planned force they brought to play with.

In particular, I remember the original Rogue Trader book having an extensive pre-battle random 100 percentile dice set of tables to not only determine where you would battle, but all kinds of sub-plots that I found fascinating. It basically gave you the ability to play completely random scenarios or campaigns with just a few rolls of the dice.

So how do you feel? Are pre-battle random events that could effect your forces, the weather, or even the terrain (location) on which you battle a good thing, or should we just line up our minis and go at it?

Nah, I get to it. If I want the pre-battle stuff I let a mini campaign handle those issues.

Thanks,

John

The Ak47 Political Manoeuvring is what makes the game so much fun.

Reading of the Spartans busily sacrificing critters, hoping for favorable omens, before the battle of Plataea, it always seemed to me that there was a place for some prebattle stuff, but I've never had a chance to try that out with my Greeks.
Grelber

I like some variables and some unexpected things. Blitzkrieg Commander can provide enough of that on the tabletop, so these days I dont often worry about the pre battle stuff.

Enjoyable but has to be optional. There are times when your short of time and want to get stuck in or when a campaign is already taking care of those factors. Also I'd prefer they weren't too time consuming or extreme in there results.
Max

I imagine it depends.

If it is quick to resolve, and just adds a bit of color, it is probably fine.

If it totally unbalances the scenario, at least one side will not be pleased.

For replay value of a set of rules, it is probably a good idea, assuming the above doesn't get out of hand.

I've only come across it in the RFCM family, particularly PBI, Bloody Barons and Civil War Battles.

I like it in BB. It turns a points pick-up game into what could be a scenario from a campaign without the hassle of running a campaign. Doesn't seem to work as well for CWB.

Not keen on it for PBI. Essentially if you know the trick of how to win the pre-game, you win the table game.

I rare;y have ever used such things. I normally play in club, multi-player games, and the individual players seem to add all the chaos needed.

I run scenarios that I design, usually, but not always, based upon historical accounts. However, there is usually a twist, such as using the basic battlefield layout and objectives for, say, Antietam, but setting it in the 1st century BC with Romans and Barbarians, etc. If you don't tell the players what the actual battle is that the scenario is based upon, many won't recognize it (though sometimes one or two will), and it adds to their interest later when you reveal the source of the scenario.

respects,

More such things would keep games "alive" longer.
I had a quick discussion about it with my son over breakfast today. Basically saying that a (table top) game need new rules once in a while to get the fun back in it.
You usually play the world, not the rules. And with the same rules you sooner or later get stuck in a rut.
See BattleTech, where the clans killed the game, BT2 perhaps could have it really alive today. And see 40k, after 25 years still bad rules, but interest on top.
So what am I saying? With some of these pre-battle things incorporated one game is never the same. Thus perhaps can you keep the interest alive.

What I like is for the game-master to set up the battle and give "real-life" (not necessarily realistic!) objectives and victory points to each side. Let the players on each side wonder about what new incoming off-table orders mean in terms of victory points and a new situation. Neither side knows the objectives of the other side nor its complete order of battle. Bring empty or to-be-unused trays of troops. Give free reign to the players to realize their fears and personalities- or to play a strategy despite them.

What I don't like is someone "recreating" a historical battle. Geesch, if you know the OoB, the objectives, the reinforcement schedule, the distances, the outcome, the strongpoints the people of the time discovered…. what the heck are you doing? Why not just run a shadow rerun of the battle and discuss things over some nice brew-pub beer or port and skip the tension? At least change some things to give some surprises.

But we don't always have a "games master" and we are not all good at writing balanced scenarios.

A good pre-game routine can serve as an appropriate proxy

Fun, but in my opinion this can not be left to fate.
I prefer the players decide for it.
Hopefully not unbalancing the game and if UNbalancing than is their own choice!

RRR

If playing a non-historical scenario and if I have the time, I enjoy the pre-game variables. It can be a lot of fun. I like "fog of war" rules that make things really unpredictable, I think it would emulate the chaos of warfare, but some of the guys that I game with like more control than that. I am fine with both.

Allen

We Still used the strategy cards but removed the toxic grenade one which decimated open faced armies.The idea works good for skirmish campaigns or the old WD running battles where previous results gave a little bonus next game until the final meeting.I do remember playing an RT game where the ref suddenly said he would generate a vortex grenade,He put a vortex marker in the centre and moved it 2D6 randomly with a scatter dice each turn.this made the game tense and very enjoyable. Remember haywire grenades (Tau players will not like this),anti plant for shooty armies in jungle fights and random radiation areas placed in the game area at the start of battle?

Oh yes. Bring it on.

If it's a historical scenario that probably not.

For anything else, by all means.

Nothing worse than a straight up even points battle with each army lined up on its baseline.

Bob

Are pre-battle random events that could effect your forces, the weather, or even the terrain (location) on which you battle a good thing, or should we just line up our minis and go at it?

I use that random entries and secret choices fairly often, but I can't say I ever turn to the rules for it. It's not hard to make up. And even an historical re-fight can benefit from some uncertainty. It's not like Meade knew down to 20 minutes exactly where on what road Lee's re-enforcements would arrive. Heck, it's not like Lee knew.

You're basically asking if I use a "scenario generator" or not. Usually not. I do have a random army generator and terrain generator than I have used to come up with a game when we didn't have anything all ready to go. But I prefer the mini-campaign as well, to give a battle context.

My problem isn't determining how to get my minis to the table facing-off: my difficulty is getting myself to play the battle once the minis are arranged. I have a solo battle in my solo "Raider" campaign that's been sitting on my table for over half a year now, waiting for me to make the first move….

Scenario driven games preferred and the only things I will now organize with variations on terrain or troop arrival. Frequently I have give commanders on each side separate objectives that are can allow each to fulfill different victory conditions.

I absolutely loath games with points values and everything even because that is where the rules lawyers hang out ready to millimeter you to death.

If you are talking about face-to-face games, and if time is limited (when isn't it?), then these things should be done by the judge/GM before the players assemble. If you don't have a judge/GM, whoever owns the table and/or minis and/or chooses the scenario can do it.

I sometimes use scenario generation systems (most obvious being AK47 and KISS Rommel), but generally prefer scenarios, ideally historical and linked to some sort of campaign.

Things like dice throws for flank marchers are no different to calling artillery, air, reinforcements, or stuff like supplies not turning up or vehicle breakdowns. They are part of the scenario or game systems, not part of the setup.

What's the trick of winning the pre-game in PBI then?

I agree that it has a huge influence, but didn't realise there was a technique, other than to judge how far you can push your dice rolls…

My favorite pre-game thing was 40K 2nd Ed. There were certain points that were always put on the table. You might or might not use them because both sides drew their scenario objective out of a (way too short) deck.

For a general bring-and-battle I prefer to get straight to the action. Handled well a pre-battle set up can be a lot of fun though, particularly when part of a scenario.

One thing I've always been interested in doing is running a fantasy battle, and on the front-end stick a short (30 minutes or less) RPG-lite session. During this time rival commanders would be politicking, wizards and priests would be doing sacrifices, looking for omens and trying to cast spells, champions would issues challenges to each other, etc. All of this would have an effect on the actual battle. Each 'player' would have a personal goal as well as a trying to make sure their side won the overall battle.

-Will

I think pre-battle stuff can be interesting as long as it's not required and too weighty. I think alot of people who play more mainstream games tend to fall into the habit of just deciding on a point value and playing a game. The real fun comes in setting up scenarios and seeing how they play through. In many ways I often prefer games written more for scenario use then "fair fights" since most fights tend not to be fair.

I am partial to the idea that the Generals determine (to most but not all) the pre battle planning. There was a fantasy system called Raven where Generals had a certain amount of points to spend. You could purchase more terrain, or less, you could extend your deployment zone, advance your deployment zone, deploy fortifications, deploy ambushes etc etc.

Army selection, deployment and spending your generals points becomes part of the battle process. Each battle could be truly different.

1 x D6 to determine the state of Napoleon's piles?

I've played Conquerors & Kings & Civil War Battles from RFCM (see Peter Pig). The pre game is excellent. It's all about each side bringing a points based "equal" army and then "fate" turning it into attacker vs defender (with different objectives and differing numbers).
It's very well done and hugely enjoyable….and moves quickly to the battle, especially with Conquerors & Kings.

Rules of Engagement which I play WW2 with, does have the odd dice roll for a force, usually just to check if paratroops have suffered any losses prior to reaching the battle field, or if the germans have a reinforcement unit of slightly lower qaulity in it. But its not much.

However I do in my own designed games like to include pre game determinors from time to time but they tend to be the larger games with more players involved.

"It's very well done and hugely enjoyable….and moves quickly to the battle, especially with Conquerors & Kings."

I havent played this but I like the sound of the pre-battle stuff in it.

Scenario generatio nsystems should be done ahead of time. Our 12 step WW2 system only takes 5 minutes or less. The Napoleonic one takes about 5-7 minutes.

The placement of terrain can be time consuming if not pre-laid out on a map.

At conventions some guys spend as much time laying out the game board as they do playing the game.

In regards to a demo. A simple quick reference chart with items shown is better than trying to go over all the rules with new players before starting.