"Card w or w/o Dice driven activation " Topic

I have yet to play a card and Dice driven activation for a semi "you go I go" rules. (IE pique, Hey Sarge NC, others using cards w or w/o dice) I understand it presents friction to the game-but don't you have that with the conditions plus some randomness with dice roll?
So I was wondering:
1) Does the fact that activation becomes more "the luck of the draw" takes away from the playability vs. initiative driven which is greatly affected by the players plan, orders and aggressiveness (IE Empire)
2) How effective it with some players not getting to move as much due to this "luck of the draw" vs. commander ability and conditions determining the number of "pulses or moves" he has that game turn- this "luck" seems very gamey
3) What is one's preference after playing both types and why?

1 – No.

2 – Those with more "initiative" should have more cards then those without. To reflect the fact that they are more decisive. Some card games do this by giving each commander an initiative level and drawing a hand of cards, activiate any commander on each card (perhaps once per turn, etc…), others do this by having multiple cards for a single commander or group in the deck.

3 – I play with or without cards or initiative. I'm going more and more with card based due to it allowing strange events to occur without a ton of special rules, to easily integrate a commander's ability into the game (more ability = more cards), and to allow special events without special rules – just follow what the card says to do.

Hi,
There has to be some sort of mechanism, either in rules or added to them, that models the imperfection of command and control of the period. For example, St. Hillare's division at Teugen-Hausen fought the inital series of engagements without artilley- due to a staff error, it was in the rear and not 'activated' with the expediency you or I might wish on the tabletop! There has to be some way to represent that happenstance in battles that are not play by play refights of the actual.
Given that, the 'odds' of a snafu are difficult to calculate. The above might have occured in the efficent 3rd corps and veteran French division of St. Hillare once in a hundred battles, or 5 times, or 12- who is to really say? My preference is to weigh/link the likelihood of such imperfections in the transmission of orders to the rating of the commander and his staff, and the vagarities of the particular campaign, including type of unit, national staff practices,the situation of the army (beaten,victorious,advancing,retreating…etc.) morale and weather if appropriate.
The rules I use are excellent but don't actually have that 'activation' (meaning those type of circumstances)
modeled at the 'who gets to the table' level, so I use 2 d10 and a 00-99 percentage table with modifiers to see if the units ordered to the fight have any snafu's getting there such as forgotten orders or bad directions. I do represent that it is much easier to loose track of an independent battalion, squadron or a battery than a regiment, and larger, in the calculations.
I find that 00-99 is a wide enough range to provide a good representation of the possibility of cock-ups when more modifiers are involved. I believe modifiers must be involved because while there is an element of outright chance, "luck" is more often a by-product of circumstances. Of course a card system can do the same, with enough cards. I will say I have not seen a system that appears to simulate this type of friction that I like better than my own, but I'm biased!
Best,

napoleoniccampaigns.com

Dynaman8789

<Those with more "initiative" should have more cards then those without. To reflect the fact that they are more decisive. Some card games do this by giving each commander an initiative level and drawing a hand of cards, activiate any commander on each card (perhaps once per turn, etc…), others do this by having multiple cards for a single commander or group in the deck.>

I recall now I did play Gnomes war which used a system of card per command. I was able to thumb through the entire book on Davout's corps of 1805-1807 ( can't rememeber the title) and didn't miss a lick since there was so much idile time waiting for my card to draw. Being shot at didn't require much of my attention. This method I am not convinced of.
"Hey Sarge No Charts" ACW uses both card and dice which results in multiple commands taking action simulataneously and there is a cut-off built in which results in random activation opportunities before the turn ends. Some get shorted on moving while others may get two.
Has anyone played with such similiar type or these rules in particular? How well did it work for your experience?

As one of the authors of Look, Sarge, No Charts (not hey sarge), I won't offer an opinion. I did want to clarify how the dice and card system works for purposes of facilitating the conversation. First, the card and dice system was pioneered in Battles by GASLIGHT, but it is now used in all three of the Look, Sarge family of rules.

First, I was trying to avoid the inherent problem in many card-activation games described by marshalGreg in which the bulk of the players stand around watching one person at a time do things. There are a number of ways to compensate for this, such as making what you do on a card be very simple and quickly executed (as we did in Blood and Swash) or allowing the non-active players to interrupt actions (as in Crossfire -- which is not card based, but it was mentioned earlier and allows interruption), and others. In our case, I was looking for a mechanism that would allow several players to activate at once.

The way Battles by GASLIGHT and Look, Sarge games work is that each command (battalion in Look, Sarge, No Charts: WWII, brigade in ACW and Napoleonics) rolls a d6 at the beginning of each turn. Note that this is re-rolled each turn, not once for the entire game. Then a deck of cards, numbered one through six is shuffled. When a card is drawn, all units whose d6 matches the card activate and do things. In Look, Sarge, we added two cards of each number, red and black, and a reshuffle card. The red and black cards are related to morale, so I won't go into that detail here. The reshuffle card ends the turn. This means that a unit may activate twice, once, or not at all in any given turn. To account for sides with initiative, better C2, etc., up to three additional cards can be shuffled into the deck, depending on the amount of handicapping desired for the scenario. Only one side activates on these extra cards -- if the number on their d6 matches the number on the extra card.

Obviously, we think this works well. I will now leave you to debate the merits of this system and/or other systems.

Buck

I was going to respond, but then I realized this was cross-posted to the Nappy board, so I'll just keep quiet instead.

Your no fun today TKindred :-)

The TFL card-initiation games don't let players stand around too much, given a good GM to keep things rolling.

I'm going to guess game pace depends a lot on the GM (or lack of one) and how familiar folks are with the rules.

The Cards system in La Feu Sacre napoleonic rules from the Too Fat Lardies works really well. It isn't purely random like drawing playing cards from a deck and it is easily weighted to reflect the initiative and officer skill levels of armies. I'm using the same system for a SYW set of rules I'm developing.

Hi,
I've played quite a few rules which use a card-based system or dice based system to regulate the turn sequence and although some of them are fun (like GASLIGHT), I find myself moving away from that style of rules because I hate games where I have to make or aquire extra playing aids and making cards is a pain. Card driven games also never work very well for multiplayer games unless you have a good umpire to keep things running smoothly.
I also don't like the Warmaster/Black Powder style of game where if one player gets lucky he can do multiple actions with the same unit while his opponent does nothing for turn after turn.
My favourite rules mechanisms for turn regulatuion are those which use a variation of I-go-you-go but with dice to determine initiative or allocate actions. Rules such as such as HoTT or Principles of War , or (all be it with special dice) SAGA are good ideas of what I mean.
Using dice means no need to make extra play aids and dicing for initiative or actions means every player takes some sort of action every turn. However, there is always a limit on what a player can do in a turn and usually some difficult choices to be made.
Wargames rules with cards seem to be the current fad yet I don't think they give much more to a game than simple regulation by dice. Good wargames rules should be as simple as possible to learn, be easy to play without the need to buy or aquire more than figures, a ruler and dice, but make players have to make difficult choices. This you can do just by using dice.
Just a few thoughts.
All the best,
George.

Alright, I'll comment…..

To my mind, the best system is still that from TSATF. All you need is a deck of regular playing cards and some D6.

All movement and fire is done via cards. Red for one side, black for the other. Shuffle the deck, and turn over a card. If it's red, then the red side gets to activate and move (or not move) a unit. Could be a regiment, a brigade or a division. If it's a black card, then the black side gets to choose a unit, etc. Do this until all the units have had the opportunity to move.

Repeat for firing.

For small-scale games, casualties are also decided via the cards. Roll to hit normally, then for each unit turn over than many cards. If it's a heart, it's a kill. Any other suit is a wound. If it's also a face card, then it's an important figure, say an officer, sergeant, etc. If it's the Ace, then it's the unit leader.

I love this system and use it for a number of game systems in lieu of the regular rules. VERY easy to incorporate and does away with the UGOIGO bit.

V/R

I also don't like the Warmaster/Black Powder style of game where if one player gets lucky he can do multiple actions with the same unit while his opponent does nothing for turn after turn.

Which is why, although its from the same stable, Hail Caesar is a better game than both of those as it caps the actions to a max of three.

Forgot to say on the card activation front, the new "Maurice" rules seem to introduce another aspect, in that they enable 'interference' rather than activation options.

This seems a departure from other card driven sets to date by allowing players to introduce elements of randomness in there favour, or to the opponents detriment, rather than have them occur on the turn of a card.

I use a modified IGOUGO system in my rules. At the beginning of each turn, the army commander on each side rolls a D10 and the side with the highest die roll gets to chose from:

1) first move/second fire
2) first fire/second move

You would think that #2 above would be the most popular choice, and it is. However, there are times when you would rather move first (e.g. you want to charge into your opponent's flank – movement comes before firing phase) or you want to turn your facing so that he does not charge YOU in the flank.

The initiative applies to the entire army, so all players on one side are doing "something" when it is their side's turn. Additionally, one is not stuck in a funk because he can not get his units to activate or move (one of the weaknesses of the Empire system).

A bad thing about using cards to decide which sub-unit on which side is activated, is that the game becomes very very slow. You have to wait for each move to complete before starting the next. A lot of time spent with the thumb up.

A bad thing about using cards to decide which sub-unit on which side is activated, is that the tactics on the turn are very dependant upon what your first result is. The following moves of you side, might change drastically if the initial moves have different results. This did not happen in reality. The 5th unit of yours to move, does not see the results of the first 4 unit's move before coming to a thoughtful "100foot tall general's" decision on adopting a radically different plan. They would have advanced at the same time, with results that could be better or worse. If you do this repeated going back in time and rethinking, you are operating in a different time/space universe. "Beam me up, Scotty!"

For example, Side A may start off with their first move wanting to be an assult by a top of the line unit. In reality, most of the time, they would have things well lined up, officers and troops prepared and they would move out on schedule. Opps, a vew bad card draws, and the strategy is changed to something completely different. It changes to something, maybe entirely different, in a friggin instant. Something that they would never have done historically. Forget about command control, planning for an assult- you are now gaming the card system.

Forget about prepared assults or historical orgaized attacks. You set things up to take advantage of fortunate card sequences and hope that the opponent's sensible organization and location of troops is negated by lucky sequences. There is miniumal reward for a prepared advance.

A bad thing about using cards to decide which sub-unit on which side is activated, is that too much depends upon how many units each side has and that battles being fought miles apart now become linked through a very artificial restriction of "whose turn is it?" There is a place for "tempo" in chess, but this is not chess. Its a game, but not one that resembles reality.

A bad thing about using cards to decide which sub-unit on which side is activated, is that you can violate the real time-space reality of an attack. For example, if two infantry units are advancing and assulting a stationary foe, the card sequence may allow an enemy calvary unit to attack the flank of a first-advanced unit. In reality, the two attackers would be operating with a parallel advancing front, and that space would be occupied. Sort of nonsense.

A bad thing about using cards to decide which sub-unit on which side is activated is that some really strange stuff can happen. Such as an enemy unit can march directly to the front of an opponent, and then the opponent is prevented from shooting (e.g. an end-of-turn card comes up). Things like this make the wargame really drift away from what is on the tabletop and into a never-never land, where strained explainations of, "what would have happened to make this reasult plausibe" have to be accepted.

Not my cup of tea.

I run a fair number of games of Brother Against Brother, which uses card activation. The rules say to assign one card per each 10-figure "squad", and to draw two cards simultaneously. This can be fairly slow in larger games, so as a result, I modified the activation rules so that for each 3 to 6 squad "command" you assign the same card for each squad. In other words, the designated first squad from each formation on a side performs its turn at the same time. If the squds are in a formation all can go on one card, but only once per turn. It works well!

A bad thing about using cards to decide which sub-unit on which side is activated, is that you can violate the real time-space reality of an attack. For example, if two infantry units are advancing and assulting a stationary foe, the card sequence may allow an enemy calvary unit to attack the flank of a first-advanced unit. In reality, the two attackers would be operating with a parallel advancing front, and that space would be occupied. Sort of nonsense.

A simple way to fix this is to allow the whole brigade to move or activate at the same time rather than drawing a card for each regiment in the brigade.

Or you could use the "chit" system per Johnny Reb/Final Argument of Kings wherein each player picks a command chit and places it upside down to represent that unit's orders for the turn. This eliminates the problem of one side having a "first fire" advantage over the other side if both players select a "fire" order before the start of the turn.

"A bad thing about using cards to decide which sub-unit on which side is activated, is that you can violate the real time-space reality of an attack. For example, if two infantry units are advancing and assulting a stationary foe, the card sequence may allow an enemy calvary unit to attack the flank of a first-advanced unit. In reality, the two attackers would be operating with a parallel advancing front, and that space would be occupied. Sort of nonsense."

That's one way of looking at it, but history is replete with examples of attacks that went awry because some unit that was supposed to be moving up in support got confused, or was delayed, or was foiled by an unexpected appearance of the enemy, etc.

One could just as easily say that the traditional "Movement Phase… Combat Phase" sequencing of games is sort of nonsense, because no commander could ever be 100% sure that he'd get to move all of his units, reliably, at the same time, and always before the enemy could intervene.

A Special Loathing for Cherubs brings up a good point for "friction of War" achieved using the cards as an affective fast means –
so now the question is what should be the limit of the activation… by Batt, Regt, brigade or a wave of elements from a DIV ( more than just the brigade and all suppose to attack or redeply while maintaining position amougnst each other [ relative position])?

I read a mix regarding all the comments/feed-back so far.

Buck – sorry on slaughtering the title – i have yet to receive my copy of the ACW rules and should have them any day now – I look forward testing to see how this activation will work [compared to my paradigms from traditional games ( FnF, Empire, LoG etc)]

I like simultaneous movement as Dear Alt Fritz mentions for JR/FAK. Lots of friction created when you cannot move as planned because your opponent has much the same idea for the space as you. Or in a division game, the brigade on your left collapses. Does require gentlemen gamers and/or a good GM. Rules stress what the designer deems important. I have played in very few card driven games and spent way too much time sitting waiting for my card to come up. I always felt it a little odd to stand and receive artillery fire, infantry fire, and have to sit there and take it. Worst game was in a Mex/Amer war game when if a certain card was drawn, the entire sequence would start again. Sat for three such draws before my card was drawn. So I could do something once in 4.5 hours. Tend to avoid card driven games. Perhaps if a I played at an army level game, maybe.

In reality, most of the time, they would have things well lined up, officers and troops prepared and they would move out on schedule. Opps, a vew bad card draws, and the strategy is changed to something completely different. It changes to something, maybe entirely different, in a friggin instant. Something that they would never have done historically. Forget about command control, planning for an assult- you are now gaming the card system.

Good points.

Don't mean to knock cards, but it sounds like some activation systems can get carried away by their own "chaos" of battle theories.

Impetus (not in this historical time-frame, I know) uses activation by Command (1-4) units, which works well. That could be a way to do it.

With the card-driven games I've tried (either commercial or house rules) there is always an issue of everyone counting cards and sweating on what is left in the deck, even when there is a redraw/reshuffle card. The other main issue is having certain random/whacky event cards inserted. They often don't have the effect they are meant for or they are often drawn at times to invoke unrealistic outcomes.

Using dice has it's own set of imperfections but it's more fun for me to have to roll 9+ on a D10 than let a card tell me my fate.

Saying that, I'm interested in the trying "Maurice" and "Look Sarge, No Charts" methodology.

I love using a Card Activation system.

I have found it to give far faster games though the gaming group that I was in also added in a 5 minute timer.

We were able to fight Multi-Corps battles using Empire rules in a day.

The thing is that each Division/Bde has it own card so when it turns up you know which unit is acting.

True I have seen individuals plans go up in smoke due to the opponent acting before them.

I once had to pull my Corps back because of the opponents getting their moves in before me. So I pulled back regrouped and went back onto the attack.

If one side has the better General then that side get a few more Division cards which the overall Commander then chooses which Division that gets to act.

As to the points made above one just needs to read any of the major battles and they will fine out that even the best laid plans went up because the enemy or something else acted before the plan could happen.

As for the events you should only include events that could happen; like change in the weather, etc…

The group I was playing in had a couple of melee cards and melees could only be fought when they came up.

Remember most games turns are covering around 20-30 minutes of time and a lot came happen in that time.

But I can tell you that using Empire rules we got in far more turns in a game then the normal UGO-IGO Empire rules.

Bandolier:

We'll be at both Origins and Historicon with Look, Sarge if you can make it.

Buck

you are now gaming the card system

Have to say that's what bothers me the most with "Maurice".

Of course Sam can tell us different and say you are introducing things that happened in reality that other systems miss out altogether which may be so, depending on what they include.

However, that "gaming the card system" aspect describes what makes me wonder about "Maurice", innovative though it is. Which is me wondering BTW, not a 'I wonder why you would think this is any good!' kind of statement.

The game appears to include nothing that didn't happen, I just question the introduction of these elements under player control which kinda makes it feel like a game of Bridge or some such.

Yes it takes skill to make the best of your hand but you are doing it rather than outside events – well except when you have had a 'bad card' played against you, of course.

Trajanus:

Could you email me at gwedd AT hotmail DOT com?

I'd like to send you a pdf of a set of pre-gunpowder skirmish rules that uses a card system that I put together. I'd be right interested in getting your opinion/feedback on this.

I'm not quite ready to publish yet, but it's close to being there.

"The game appears to include nothing that didn't happen, I just question the introduction of these elements under player control "

The degree to which it's under player control, though… is very unpredictable.

You never know if/when you'll have the card in your hand, to do what you want to do. (And if it's not in your hand… does that mean it's in the enemy's hand? You don't know.)

Since each card can be used for more than one thing, but only ever one thing at a time, you don't know in advance whether the stars will align for you to be able to use that card for it's X-effect, instead of needing it desperately for its Y-effect. So you might miss the chance. Was that a decision that was in your control? Well, sort of… except that the reason that you desperately needed the Y-effect was because of a combination of chance events and the enemy's unexpected attack over there on your Left, and, and….

For me, it's about breaking-up not only the tidy predictability of game sequencing, but also I just love games that have some sort of Opportunity Cost with every decision. In a traditional "Movement Phase, Shooting Phase, ,Combat Phase, Rally Phase" sort of sequence, you have very little at risk, because you know that no matter what happens, you'll have a chance next turn – at a fixed and predictable time – to shoot with every unit in your army. So there's no reason not to go ahead and shoot; what do you have to lose, after all?

But card games give us a clever and unpredictable way of forcing you to make a tough decision every single time: if you choose X, then you've given up the chance to do Y, at least for the foreseeable future. Perhaps you'll get another chance to do Y… but you can't say for sure when that will be.

I personally just like that sort of tension in my games.

PS – one last thought: Think of all of those traditional games that have sought, over the years, to introduce some sort of friction by allowing the enemy to do something in "your" turn. Maybe it's "Opportunity Fire" or a "Countercharge" or a "Reaction Move," or whatever. I think those are clunkier, more rules-heavy and probably more difficult to learn, than just breaking up the sequence in the first place, and letting each side interact with the other constantly.

Right. With your card system, you can have the opponents elite guards standing with their backs to you 25 yards away and be prohibited from shooting at them. Happens all the time.

Right. If you have 10 more units than the other player, you can get 10 unanswered moves at the end of the turn. Happens all the time.

"With your card system, you can have the opponents elite guards standing with their backs to you 25 yards away and be prohibited from shooting at them."

Why would you be prohibited from shooting at them? I'm not sure which card system you're referring to, but in most of the card-driven games I've played, shooting is a very easy (often free) activation. Some games require a unit to be activated in order to shoot, so… activate it and shoot.

What game system are you referring to?

" If you have 10 more units than the other player, you can get 10 unanswered moves at the end of the turn"

In what system does that happen? I'm not familiar with that one, either.

Yes ….I too is curious- usually you can shoot if you move and or shoot if someone moves into your musketry range. Such rule not allowing such does sound extreme. These are all good points. Perhaps stating the rule system of which you are commenting about should have happen and I think would have helped all following the discussion. I am sorry for failing on monitoring that..

Mithmee…. I think I have seen your stuff regarding the Empire with card driven sequencing but can't find it or the link… good opportunity to present again!

Greg

Sam,

You never know if/when you'll have the card in your hand, to do what you want to do. (And if it's not in your hand… does that mean it's in the enemy's hand? You don't know.)

Well, OK but surely that's no different than Friday Night Poker with the guys, or James Bond at the Casino?

Since each card can be used for more than one thing, but only ever one thing at a time, you don't know in advance whether the stars will align for you to be able to use that card for it's X-effect, instead of needing it desperately for its Y-effect. So you might miss the chance. Was that a decision that was in your control? Well, sort of… except that the reason that you desperately needed the Y-effect was because of a combination of chance events and the enemy's unexpected attack over there on your Left, and, and….

This aspect I like – a definite departure from the Piquet idiom and one which gives a nice twist.

For me, it's about breaking-up not only the tidy predictability of game sequencing, but also I just love games that have some sort of Opportunity Cost with every decision. In a traditional "Movement Phase, Shooting Phase, ,Combat Phase, Rally Phase" sort of sequence, you have very little at risk, because you know that no matter what happens, you'll have a chance next turn – at a fixed and predictable time – to shoot with every unit in your army. So there's no reason not to go ahead and shoot; what do you have to lose, after all?

Fair comment.

But card games give us a clever and unpredictable way of forcing you to make a tough decision every single time: if you choose X, then you've given up the chance to do Y, at least for the foreseeable future. Perhaps you'll get another chance to do Y… but you can't say for sure when that will be.

Ah but here's the rub – "CARD GAMES give us a clever and unpredictable way of forcing you to make a tough decision every single time" (my emphasis).

I'm going to assume you mean games that use cards rather than Card Games, otherwise I'll be forced to mention Pokιmon (Whoops, just did). :o)

Seriously though, my difficulty is where the wargaming part of this starts and the use of Card Game techniques begins.

When are you playing a wargame using cards and at what point are you playing a Card Game while moving model soldiers around?

That's a broad question by the way. "Maurice" just happens to be the example I'm using.

"When are you playing a wargame using cards and at what point are you playing a Card Game while moving model soldiers around?"

I'll confess that I've never really considered the question, nor worried about it. I mean, couldn't we just as easily ask: "At what point are we playing a war-game using dice, and at what point are we playing a dice game and moving model soldiers around?"

If people are having fun playing with their toy soldiers, and if the game gives them the sorts of challenges, fun, and historical flavor that they seek, surely that's what matters.

And if I may rant just a bit…

These sorts of discussions about specific individual game mechanics always puzzle me. There are some guys who hate games with "Saving Throws," for example. If you call the mechanic something else, they'll be perfectly Okay with it. There are guys who hate games that have certain kinds of sequences of play. There are guys who hate games with cards. There are guys who hate games that use "fistfuls of dice." There are guys who hate games that use markers on the table. I've even seen people argue that using a certain kind of dice (d6) is "historically unrealistic" in a certain kind of game (WW2)… as if there are specific kinds of dice that are "correct" and other kinds that aren't.

Just my opinion, obviously, but I think that if somebody gets obsessed about some specific game mechanic, to the point that he's not thinking about the game experience as a whole, then he's probably missing the point (and/or the fun). It would be like saying, "I hate sports in which the ball is smaller than 6" in diameter. Therefore: football and basketball are great… baseball and tennis are crap!"

Sounds to me like the battle plan gets dealt in card activation systems and how one plays their cards is the battle plan. Now that can be fun, but historical commanders had a lot more control over the tactical and grand tactical movements of their units than that. If they didn't, there wouldn't have been very many battles nor very many armies. When a commander loses control over the movements of his units more often than not he loses they battle as well, which is why many phased sequence wargames pair unpredictability and probability with the loss of a unit's morale/discipline.

Are there specific games that you guys are referring to? Because I don't recognize any of the card systems that you're talking about, and I've played several over the years.

In which system is the battle plan dealt out, leaving you unable to control your army?

Sam,

I'll confess that I've never really considered the question, nor worried about it. I mean, couldn't we just as easily ask: "At what point are we playing a war-game using dice, and at what point are we playing a dice game and moving model soldiers around?"

For me the difference is I can't control the dice. If I play an "Effect" card or an "Interrupt" card in "Maurice" as I understand it, the things on the card are a given – that's the point of them, is it not?

Its like Trumping someones Ace.

I totally take the point you can't do this endlessly and have to risk when you do so but its the player intervention aspect that turns things toward the "Card Game while moving model soldiers around" end of the spectrum for me.

You can't control *having* the card, either. Both sides are drawing from a single deck.

Not quite what I meant.

Once you have the card you control when you use it and it will have the result it says on the card – correct?

If its my turn to roll a dice it still doesn't mean that the dice roll will be successful.

That's the difference.

It's sort of like random grand tactical agenda setting. I can totally see where it would work really well for multiplayer games by providing an overarching, operational framework by which a side fights out their ‘battle plan' as dealt out by the cards… because it would give everyone something to do, most of the time. Whereas, in traditional sequenced games it is usually known that X or Y corps or this division or that brigade is a late arrival and whomever is commanding it may as well go and eat lunch and down a few beers before showing up. On historical battlefields, if you were held in reserve for the whole day it was ‘tough nuggies' those are your orders pal and it was probably a rarity that anyone actually complained about not getting their chance to 'play'.

Cherubs, I'm not referring to any game in particular just card activation systems in theory.

From what I've read, it sounds like your new game has an interesting and fun card system. I was also reading thru my copy of LaSalle yesterday. It has a lot of interesting and streamlined mechanics.

"If its my turn to roll a dice it still doesn't mean that the dice roll will be successful."

It bears mentioning that all the card-driven minis games I've played – except Wings of War – also use dice for randomization.

I think Wings of War is pretty brilliant, by the way. There's a game with total fore-knowledge of what you can or can't do: I pick three cards, you pick three cards, then we reveal simultaneously. And yet that game is full of unexpected and exciting twists and turns, and trying to out-smart your opponent. It's a wonderfully clean and effective game system.

"Once you have the card you control when you use it and it will have the result it says on the card – correct?

Well, if you're taking Maurice as an example, then each card has at least two functions: one for "Span" – which is a numerical value that you use to activate forces at a certain distance from the CinC – and the other for "Effect" – which can be any number of things, such as modifying a combat, or shooting, or altering some part of the sequence of play, or messing with the opponent, etc.

It's not just the fact that you know what cards you have in your hand. It's the fact that you don't know what cards I have in my hand. And you don't know whether I am going to use them, and for what, when.

Fundamentally, we're talking about randomization. To take just one example: the rules say that Shooting happens before Movement. And that if you, the active player, declare shooting, then you do it first, before I can shoot back. But it is possible that I have a card that upsets that sequence. Or it's possible that I have a card that modifies my return fire. Or it's possible that I have a card that can makes your shooting less effective. Knowing all of those possible complications… do you still want to shoot?

And if you do shoot, and it all goes as planned, does that mean that I *didn't* have any of those cards in my hand? Or does it mean that I was conserving them for another purpose later (such as using their Span?) Or does it mean that I just didn't think this was the opportune moment? Perhaps *I* know the answer to those questions, but you can't know. From your point of view, it's a mystery and a risk.

I suppose you could find ways to structure a sequence of play – using only dice – that could achieve all of that level of tension, mystery, and randomization. But cards are just a really fun and elegant way of achieving it.

I think cards can help to define and organize the strategic tempo of the game, as well as to help simulate the feeling of surprise. A lot depends on what the cards do when they are played because to a certain extent I don't think players like too much randomness during a game. It's sort of like playing a game of basketball and when your team hit's the game winning 3 pointer, the other team's coach has a card which immediately negates it and takes it off the board. The majority of the historical commanders had a pretty definitive idea of what they were facing and what the enemy could do, and though they knew the opposing side might pull a rabbit out of the hat, they also knew they were never going to defy the laws of physics in doing it.

PS I like your game designs, Sam. I own two of your games. M&R and LaSalle. I appreciate the way you try and make your games accessible to a wide range of people by standardization, streamlining and coming up with easy to understand mechanics for complex battlefield interactions. That's something that all game designers should be pushing for in their designs, and the fact that you're doing that with regular output pushes everyone to do the same. When I was reading LaSalle the other day I was reading some of your movement mechanic stuff and seeing similar stuff to what I use in my own design and saying "OK. I'm on the right track if S. Mustafa is doing that too". I look forward to buying your other designs soon, including Maurice, rather than later I would hope. I also liked the way you "require" cotton ball smoke as actual markers in LaSalle !

Jim

In reality, most of the time, they would have things well lined up, officers and troops prepared and they would move out on schedule. Opps, a vew bad card draws, and the strategy is changed to something completely different. It changes to something, maybe entirely different, in a friggin instant. Something that they would never have done historically. Forget about command control, planning for an assult- you are now gaming the card system.
------------------

personally having played WRG, WAB etc where troops move off as if on Horse Guards Parade whilst you as the commander buzz overhead in your command chopper, I like the idea of activation/chance – whether by the BP/HC order system or something like Maurice. certainly of Ancient, DA and Medieval games the possibility that one wing of your army doesn't move at all etc seems to me very realistic. Equally some of the friends I game with like to be in control as otherwise they feel that its the cards/dice that are directing the army and not them.

One of my criteria for evalulating rules, is if the rules will allow me do do the actions in most historical battles.

Try doing Elyna or Picket's Charge with these uit- card activation schemes. Would it work? Not unless you made a Corp sized unit as a single-activation unit.

Opps…… isn't that a simple UGIG system?

RIP

In fact, I just incorporated a change in my own design based upon a review of Maurice by trailape in another thread. He wrote: "Once you have units in a firefight it's very hard to extract them."

I agree. Once a unit hunkers down to a firefight it isn't easy for officers to just pick up their stakes and get them maneuvering and moving at full speed.

I think Wings of War is pretty brilliant, by the way.

So do I as it happens, just to prove I'm not a card phobic! :O)

Its also a completely card driven game, including damage results.

But and for me its a big But, there are no special cards you can play to stop your opponent doing something.

Fires, engine problems, gun jams etc all come from the Damage Deck – you don't get to foul things up for the other guy when the time is best for you, it happens to him as a game mechanic.

I guess the "Interupt" style of card is just a little to close to "Magic the Gathering" for my taste – watch while I cast my spell of Amphibian and turn your Curassier charge into hopping frogs!

Don't mean that to be Bitchy, its just the feeling it gives me, personally.

"Try doing Elyna or Picket's Charge with these uit- card activation schemes. Would it work? Not unless you made a Corp sized unit as a single-activation unit."

You're still not naming specific games. In what card-based game would it be impossible for you to do Pickett's Charge? And why?

If your gold standard for historical accuracy is to be able to always move all your units together in perfect synchronization, and always at a predictable rate, without the enemy being able to react at any point in the midst of that… then I question whether you can really "do" Pickett's charge after all.

For instance: at what point in the midst of that huge corps-sized move, does Stannard's Vermont brigade wheel to enfilade the passing Confederates? How would you accomplish that without some sort of "interrupt" in the sequence? Not to mention all the Federal fire as the Confederates drew closer. Are you only going to let the Yankees fire in their "Fire Phase", after the Confederate units have all completed their moves? Does that sound historically accurate?

"One of my criteria for evalulating rules, is if the rules will allow me do do the actions in most historical battles."

Does that include the unpredictable screw-ups that happened in most historical battles?

If you always have predictable control over your forces, and always know when they will move, where, and how far… then how do you do a battle like Malvern Hill?

What mechanism do you have to reflect the confusion, poor communications, inability of subordinates to follow the plan, rivalries between commanders, and spontaneous decisions by men on the scene that don't jibe with the CinC's wishes?

* * *

When people say that they want the game rules to allow them to do the things that happened historically, what they're often saying is: "I want complete reliable control." I don't often hear gamers saying:

"I want the game to give me the unpredictability, frustration and confusion that happened historically."

When Lee "played" Pickett's charge, he didn't have any historical example to go from. Everything that he was doing, and all the Federal reactions to it, were happening for the first time. When we play it, we've got a historical script in our heads, so we imagine that there's a "right way" for it to turn out. But that's not the way that historical commanders experienced the battle. For them it was often a high-risk gamble based on very limited information, not knowing which cards the enemy held in his hands.

* * *

"In the whole range of human activities, war most closely resembles a game of cards"

- Clausewitz

"…then how do you do a battle like Malvern Hill?"

Easy. You make the Confederate players do two shots of bourbon before every turn.

Seriously, you write it into scenario specific rules that brigade arrival times are staggered, and the Confederates have a shortened period of time to carry the objective. Maybe that will encourage the piecemeal commitment which occurred. You could also limit the Federal OB so it isn't overwhelmingly crushing in the face of a piecemeal attack or give the Rebs full artillery support which is what they were supposed to have but somehow "bungled" it. Anyway, there are a number of options and "what if's" that could be pursued which could give the feel of that battle while still giving the Rebs a chance.

I think the few examples of poor communications, confusion, rivalries, spontaneous decisions by the men can be far too over-emphasized. It's like airplane crashes in the news. In the few instances were those factors really had an effect on a battle again write something into the scenario specific rules. Otherwise, confusion and uncertainty abound when units rout, leaders are killed/wounded or your enemy opponent flips a charge order at an unexpected time like when you're reforming, But your point of how to spice it up while maintaining a certain level of realism is well taken.

PS I think Clauswitz meant you're making decisions on probabilities with clear winners and losers in war. Not necessarily that the probabilities or the game play is identical to a game of cards.

"Easy. You make the Confederate players do two shots of bourbon before every turn."

You're going to do that for every game, for both sides? Or only for those games that represent a situation that we now know – in retrospect – had a lot of screw-ups?

I'm talking about creating an environment more like the uncertainty and friction of the battle, as it was experienced by the participants at the time – not knowing in advance who was going to screw-up, when, how, or for what reason.

You're talking about doing a more faithful recreation of those events, as they happened historically. But that assumes that they *had* to happen that way, for some set of specific reasons, and that therefore the battle is inconceivable without those handicaps that reflect those specific events. That's very different from the way that the participants would have experienced those events at the time. At the time, it was a series of frustrations and surprises; not a knowledge in advance that So-and-So was drunk or in a foul mood, or having trouble reading his orders, etc.