"My hidden movement experiment" Topic

TMP poster and all around good guy epturner has made occasional remarks about my thrown together ad hoc hidden movement rule we used in a TSATF Pontiac's Rebellion game.

Background. I had bought a box of poker chips about 10 years ago, knowing "they would come in handy" for wargaming. Ten years later…
I spray painted them in Krylon's camoflage paint, half khaki, and the other olive drab. (The blue chips needed two coats. )
I then numbered the khaki chips and lettered the olive ones.
White, blue and red chips would have been too garish for use. That's why I painted them in camo tones.

The game table was heavily wooded and hilled. I threw the chips around and filled the table, even putting them in clear areas.

The Indians were allowed to mark their location on paper, using the code on the chips.
They were allowed to move 2 chips per turn when their card came up.

The English (in 1764, they were still English ) had complete LOS view, but with cluttered terrain blocking LOS. Make up your own rules for what constitutes "blocking LOS". The Indian players would reveal if they were … revealed. Once revealed, they stayed revealed. One guy spotted revealed the whole unit.

It's quick and dirty, and the hidden players should be Men of Honour. So are they all, honourable men.

I know this is probably an old (very old) idea, and I take no credit for it. Just thought I would mention it.
It worked well, particularly since the Indian players were all honourable men.

Thanks for sharing that idea. I like it and it is clever and not too difficult to keep track of. How many units could be in each Poker chip? Just one?

Yes, Only one platoon per chip. The Indians had to coordinate that.

Glad you shared this because I'm guessing there are a lot of gamers who never heard of this.

Now the important question.

Do you have poker chips painted to blend in with the changing foliage color of the seasons?

Since I do not have my British regiments in separate 1775 and 1781 uniforms, no.

However, poker chips are quite reasonable at Dollar stores, so that is something to think about.

It's also up to the GM to determine whether or not the hidden player can charge from "cover". That is up to him and the scenario.

I game alot of Plains Indians and they have hidden movement. They can basically move anywhere they please as long as the "chief" keeps his records of where they started from. Of course once the war parties are discovered by scouts they are visible until such a move takes them out of view, but by that time its usually a battle and they stay out in the open.
I love hidden movement, it adds a level of unease to a game.

Sounds simple and easy and effective to me, and reminds me of some night air combat rules for Mustangs I saw once. In those, the poker chips would have been RADAR hits which might be an enemy plane, or might be nothing, or might even be a friendly.

Anyway, I assume the indian player can choose to spend his available movement on the dummies or on the "real" chips? Some interesting decisions to be made there.

Doug

Better than the paper bits I use

Also a lot more cost effective than purchased counters.

If cheating is a concern you could always have slips of paper numbered the same as the chips with the unit written on them. I have seen one set of counters used in a skirmish game that worked this way with each figures name on the bottom.

I've always wanted to try a version of the feldmachink:

link

I still think it would be better with a GM though.

That is a good idea and could be used for regular TSATF games.

Its a good technique for sensory environments with a lot of false positives.

For modern "false negative" environments, the double-blind multi-table set-up is still king. Not simple or cheap, mind you…

John, does the chip move when the hidden units move and does the native player get to move the other ones around as decoys also? Cool idea, thanks for sharing.

Allen

@John;
Thank you for such kind words. You are a true gentleman in person and I am glad we have both met and enjoyed our mutual hobby together.

@Rampantlion;
The chip does not move. The natives move chip to chip. We marked then down on an index card (so there is a wee spot of honour amongst thieves) how our platoons/bands/conglomerations moved.

The chips themselves being visible, caused no end of confusion to our White Man opponents. Every chip was considered a potential target, much like a radar signature could be a target.

It's a very simple, but very elegant system for "hidden" movement. I am adopting it for my own table.

Eric

Very cool idea.

But more importantly…there's a Pontiac's War version of TSATF? I'm a big TSATF fan and after reading several articles and a book about the period, and being inspired by Brigade Games "King Phillip's War" miniatures, I'm curious about this version.

There is an official Sergeants3 adaptation of TSATF called "The Sword in the Forest".
I prefer to use "straight" TSATF with adaptations to be found here:
TMP link

I don't see why KPW can't be gamed with either version. I should note that in the KPW, the Indians had the superior firepower to the settlers, since they had flintlocks to the settlers' matchlocks. The Indians also had the forts too, so KPW is a nice role reversal.

The chip does not move. The natives move chip to chip.

I completely misinterpreted that, then. So then is the indian player obliged to place the chips within allowed move distance of each other, in order to be certain that the "actual" troops can, in fact, make the move from one chip to the next?

Doug

For KPW, I would put the English at a "tactical" disadvantage, but with columns of "rangers" and First Nations allies, they could find themselves at an "operational" advantage.

Splitting hairs, but I think that might be a better representation.

It's worth a try. Anyone have some spare ECW figures?

Eric

No, the chips are strewn about the table, about 9-10 inches between chips. The initial placement, you took an index cad and noted which chip you wanted Magua's Heart Eaters to occupy.

You then wrote down which chip the unit moved to.

If Les Anglais spotted you or you wished to be spotted or charge, you popped out, Fosse' like and said "Here I am Mr. Lobster!"

If not, then you kept noting which chips you moved to, since they are numbered/lettered.

Does that make more sense? I know John and I aren't always clear on how we present our concepts and thoughts. Let me know if you have any other questions. I really like how this worked and I'm going to use this for other games.

Eric

Yes. The chips are put down by the GM on existing terrain. Frankly, I was limited by how many I had painted, so they were pretty far apart. Use more and give the hidden guys 3 chips to move per turn.
This is also a clever way for the GM to simulate "bad going" by placing the chips closer together. You do NOT have to have the chips placed as if on a grid. Clear terrain chips can be placed further apart.
Since the Indians can only move 2 chips per turn, placing the chips closer togeher in the woods can make the woods tougher to move through.

It doesn't look bad if the chips' color matches the terrain. I am lucky enough to have some drab automotive carpeting from my well paying job as my ground cloth, and the Krylon spray paints match up well.

Again, the Hidden Movement Players are kind of on their honor to only move between "adjacent" chips. I have no intention of auditing my friends' plots. This will probably NOT work with loophole-finders or the easily enraged.

We tried to limit the Indians' ability to pop out of cover by making "popping out" one chip in movement, and then dicing for the last chip. You can play with this. Heck, give them 2 dice for charging out!
Play with it.

I have done this one time, and at least 3 of those who played think it has possibilities for their own future games.

Well, for those of us who "think"…

Eric

And I won't claim to be one of them.

One guy gets hidden movement, not both. Trying to think of how to handle hidden movement for two sides makes my brain hurt.

As for letter vs numbers, no significance at all, except to make each chip unique. If in the future I see a need for two different markings, they are there.
I just painted and marked the chips on an idle afternoon, and then the idea for using them as hidden movement location markers came later.

I'm gonna try this for our skirmish AWI games. See how it works out for hidden movement. Thanky John.

The way I do it for my AWI games, is to only put on the table, the units which can be seen by the enemy.

All other units are represented by one base with just an American or British flag mounted on it.In addition,each general , depending on their ratings, has a handful of extra flags, to represent decoy units, which are also placed on the table. The players then just move the flags on the table.

Once the opponent is able to spot a particular unit, the flag is then replaced by miniatures, or revealed as a decoy !

I've wrestled with a more precise, simple, yet practical hidden movement problem for TS&TF myself, like the OFM, and my solution has been similar to Minenfeld's. I have a box of wooden spools (several sizes; any craft shop has these things, and you can use any shape you like) that are identical except for being numbered. I assign a number to each native unit (using a cardboard marker) and give the player a corresponding spool, plus a decoy or two. The proportion of decoys to genuine markers is about 2:3. For full-size units, I use larger spools; partial units or individuals get smaller spools. These are placed on the board by the native players in the regular manner of units, and moved as cards are drawn; the native player can choose to move a real unit marker or a decoy marker. When a marker becomes visible to the Imperial player, as per the usual rules, either the decoy is removed from play or the actual figures are revealed and placed.

I find this system is quick and allows for accurate movement to be recorded, since the marker (representing the center of the unit) allows for true movement on the game table, not guesstimated movement, yet the decoy markers means the Imperial player can never be sure what is an actual unit and what is simply "grass swaying in the breeze" or "animal noises in the brush". Bookkeeping is kept to a minimum. It works equally well with one side using hidden movement or both sides.

Now that TMP is merging with a psychic site, all hidden movement mechanisms will fail.

The government supplies hidden position markers at the raw price of one thousand for $10 USD US. What I do is to put paint, coloured white glue and flocking on one side of these markers, and on the other side, a unit identification or the word "dummy". I use slightly different colours for the two sides or paint the rim of the penny with the national colour. Each player gets several and a certain number of dummies. They may move them each turn as they see fit. You need a refeee and a table for sighting distances and observation quality of the spotting to make this work.

I like the idea of the little mechanical device, but it seems that it would only work well if the sighting distances were all the same.

You can't beat double blind with at least two tables and a referee.

With attack defence ww2 games we routinely have map deployed defenders, the attackers figures often being the only ones on table at the start of a game.

Another mechanism is fuzzy placement. Each side has a number of individual figures they move. These can be scouts, units or nothing until spotted by an opponent figure. Only those representing something may spot and dummies are removed if spotted. Each side gets flavour and size factors. So indians have an advantage in their forest. Big units are easier to spot.
You don't necessarilly place your spotted unit exactly where the figure is. The more the enemy spots you by, the closer the centre or head of a unit has to be to the figure. So them sneaky injuns can spot your column of redcoats and force you to deploy it, but fade back into the safety of the trees before you can do anything. Unless it's a substantial war party and then the chances are they are forced to deploy themselves.
This is a mechanic I've only experimented with somewhat, but it seems to work reasonably well.

@AONeill – I've basically done the same thing as you. For large parts of the game we only have a few visible units and a lot of groping around to find the enemy. Along with some questionable intel, the effect seems realistic and raises apprehesion levels. As you say, you need a good referee to keep track of things.

Great idea OFM. I have some FIW – will have to try this before I sell them….

We use vertical view paper prints pasted on unit base sized markers as generic markers. Used by both sides with fixed numbers of markers you cannot be sure how many units the enemy has or where they are deployed. Only scouting and attacks will reveal what is really there. Many rules have them.

I've used a system with more figures on table than are really available. Never liked the idea of taking my toys to the club and them staying in the box. Each figure (element/unit etc) actually represents potential locations, when spotted either figures confirmed or they "melt away" (scouts or some such report enemy close and the real troops stay out of sight). The critical difference is that no "blind" has to be anything, but it can be, which is usually at owners choice but is affected by nature of terrain and access to the point in question.
I've probably made a hash of explaining this but it's worked reasonably well in practice….

We developed a successful hidden movement system for our Vietnam game. It required the combination of several unrelated mechanics to make it work.
Even works better with specific types of battle-boards.

I will be trying this for Cowpens soon as I get a few more figures painted.

Dad used a variation of this in the early to mid-1970's for his huge FPW armies but he had rocks/boulders that were numbered on the bottom. The GM placed them and when one side or the other physically reached the rock, they brought it to the GM who read a description of the terrain or morale action that one had to act upon. It made for some rousing battles and he may have used it in his ACW games as well. It didn't find its way into TSATF however, and as the hobby became more sophisticated, the numbered rocks fell by the wayside.

That may be where I got the idea.
I seem to remember numbered rocks in an early edition.
"There is nothing new under the sun."

I adapted the Conan-vs.-Pictish-hordes story "Beyond the Black River" into a game I ran at Historicon last summer that used hidden movement for the Picts. You can read it about in my post ( link ), but here's the gist…

"I've long wanted to incorporate a "fog of war" mechanic into my skirmish games. It wasn't ready for the playtest the month before, but I understood how it would work in-game well enough that I went forward with incorporating it into my Historicon session. Because the first scenario takes place at night in the jungle, the game starts with some of these red-eyed tokens placed on the mat to represent unknown foes that the players are vaguely aware are creeping about. The underside of the token has a number that corresponds with a numbered token that has been placed on top of a foe card. If a character moves within line of sight and 8" (the furthest anybody can see at night in the scenario), the foe card with a matching number is revealed. But because these foes are creeping about in the dark jungle, the token only represents the foe's approximate location: When the foe is revealed, the random direction die (with the arrows) is rolled, and the figures are placed in that direction 4" away from the token. This means that sometimes a foe is closer or further away than initially thought. It's a nice variable that I think introduces some unpredictability as these adversaries slink around in the woods hunting each other with only vague noises, half glimpsed shadows, and maybe sense of smell to guide them."

Our solution is to use dummy markers and actuals. In our case a number issues were addressed by our technique.

1) all markers are thin card painted cammo (I have thought of flocking like the base board). The underside is covered in clear tape to allow use of a white board marker so it saves record keeping off table and in our experience is much quicker. This also adds fog of war as if the player forgets which is which it adds to the confusion, without inavetent "cheating"

2) we found it neccessary to have a marker about the size of the element it might be representing. This helps with faceing and also as a prop to the placing player, so he does not put a large element where it would not fit, remebering that is not as easy as you might think to place dummy and real markers well.

We tend to only hide the defender. It would be better to hide both but basicaly that needs more time and an umpire. It could be done on two computors but my experience of computer interfaces with board games are that they are slow and unwieldy. However hidden units must stay where they are unless commanded to move by a higher element that has seen somthing or the attackers comes in LOS. As we use "standard " terrain with maps small numbers of elenets can be tracked as thet dissapear from sight and re-appear somwhere else, there route being pre set.