"Why Move then Shoot, not Shoot then Move?" Topic

I'm just curious why IGOUGO games use the move and then shoot turn sequence instead of shoot and then move? Is there an advantage or disadvantage that I can't see? Does it really matter?

Lets you move into range of the enemy and then shoot them

Not all do. Some allow two actions of Move/Shoot, Shoot/Move or Move/Move or just Shoot (with bonus).

And some let you move/shoot/move.

In Disposable Heroes you can do either.

Shoot/move could make attacking nearly impossible.

My turn: I move into range. Turn over

Your turn: you shoot me, then withdraw just out of range.

My turn: I move into range. Turn over.

Your turn: Rinse. Repeat. Cackle.

Obviously a simplification, but it's something you'd have to design around

As others have pointed out in many you can do either. That is the way in works in DzC.

Shoot/move could make attacking nearly impossible

So in WWI the allies thought they were playing "move then shoot", but the Germans had read the sequence of play?

We use a slightly different SOP for our napoleonic games. Simplified goes as…

Side 1 moves (facing, formation changes then movement)
Side 2 Shock combat
Mutual Artillery then Mutual Infantry small arms for both sides

2nd half of turn…has
Side 2 Moves (facing, formation changes then movement)
Side 1 Shock combat
Mutual Artillery then Mutual Infantry small arms for both sides
End of complete game turn.

Note; I removed the charging cavalry and counter charge options which are involved in the shock phases. Also I removed the "bookkeeping" phase in our SOP.

Basically, A "Side" can react (move, change formations etc) before the shock of the other "Side" but suffers opportunity firepower if reaction done in minimum fire zones of opposing "Side" units.

WR

All basically covered in video introduction on blog site: link

LOL, love it, Lentulus!

One thing I do not like about Black Powder is how one player can move up to three moves if he rolls well, walk right up to you standing behind your rail fence watching him advance and shoot your face off. No one will convince me that is realistic.

PanzerBlitz is shoot or move.

I have used shoot then move, move then shoot, move then shoot at the same time. i have used control cards to shoot or move at your own choice for that specific unit.

A lot has to do with troop ratio, unit scale, era being depicted and type of weapons.

For example instead of a single bombardment phase, i would have two. One if you were a slow rate of fire mussle loader. Two bombardment phases at different places in the sequence for rapid fire breach loader or machine gun or mussle loaders who had not moved or changed direction of fire..

The split move has been around since at least 1962. Featherstone's Wargames

Why I do not understand is the obsession with having two separate phases fr moving and shooting. What I like of systems like Force on Force is that both movement and shooting are part of combat; the designers considered that movement (maneuvering, to be more exact) is as much part of combat as shooting or melee are. However, I realize that for games bigger than skirmishes it can be too complicated, and separating movement from shooting and melee simplifies things. Still, I wonder if it could be reproduced for other periods and levels of combat, besides Modern skirmishes.

Shoot/move could make attacking nearly impossible.

My turn: I move into range. Turn over

Your turn: you shoot me, then withdraw just out of range.

My turn: I move into range. Turn over.

Your turn: Rinse. Repeat. Cackle.

Obviously a simplification, but it's something you'd have to design around

Which has several effects. First, it makes possible a rearguard action, giving a defender a chance to conduct a fighting withdrawal, or it creates the effect of a skirmisher screen able to harass the enemy. Second, it's only desirable if the one side wants to give ground: if the position of a force is ideal or one that it has to hold, then it can't afford continually to give ground.

I've used a fire/threat then move sequence for 10 years quite successfully in my rules. Most of the time a defender on a hill or lining hard cover such as a wall doesn't want to give up such an advantage. :-)

Armati is shoot then move. I rather like that.

AMW does shooting at the end but allows 'split move' shooting to skirmishers ..

Many rules allow you a defensive shot during the charge (from FoG ancients to PBI WWII!) …

One of the standard variants of Black Powder is to move the shooting to the beginning of the turn. Again, in general I think it is an improvement.

Skirmishy WWII games like PBI allow you to pick when within the turn of 'fire and movement' you take the shots ..

I think the key is how well has the designer conceived the turn sequence and does it mesh together properly? If yes, then, in answer to the OP, 'no, it shouldn't really matter'.

If you think it does make a difference (and detrimentally), then you should change the sequence as many have done for BP. Depending on the game, this is more or less easy to do: with BP, having played it both ways, the change seems easy enough.

Phil

I've been experimenting with giving the active unit two "actions" per turn. The player decides what and when their unit will do, including the option of shooting or moving twice. I also include the option for saving a action for "reacting" to enemy movement or fire later in the turn. This is used with random unit activation.

Michael in Cloverdale

"Shoot/move could make attacking nearly impossible. "

And neatly models the power of the defence in twentieth century warfare without a lot of complicated pratting around with opportunity fire etc.

Which is why it is the turn sequence used in Panzerblitz, Panzer Leader, WRG 1925-50 and WRG 1950-80 (and to a lesser extent in Squad Leader, Tobruk as well as more modern rules like Command Decision and Spearhead, although in the latter some moving fire is allowed, but only after stationary firers fire first).

One needs to lay down enough supressive fire so the moving elements can actually move without getting shot to bits.

Micheal that is similar to what I do with our Vietnam sauad/platoon level rules. A player has a red for shooting and a black for moving card each turn for each squad. These are only tracking aids. When he fires during a segment or moves that color of card is discarded. he can do both in a turn segemnt whenever the time is right.

If he wants to remain hidden (we use a unique hidden approad) then he does not have to use either.

Whatever works!
No need to use buzz judgemental words like "obsession" or similar.

Omce again, it is "If you do not play with toy soldiers the way I like, you are wrong!"

It seems to me much of what goes on today is a reaction to SPI's rather cumbersome idea involving simultaneous action. Before that sequential turns were the norm for playability. Then the SPI thing. Then a return to the old sequential turn. But with various ideas to allow for a certain intertference.
This is only my opinion. And not as informed as might be. After all, I still play using Jagdpanzer for WW2. And my copy of TSATF is some twenty years old.

Ok, John, you are right. Let me rephrase it: " What I do not understand is why is neccesary to have two different phases for movement and fire, as both are a function of combat and could work as a single phase."

What I disagree is with the "whatever works" in the context of this particular thread. This is a thread about theory of game design, isn't it? Therefore open discussion about different approaches to it is perfectly normal.

Best

basileus66,
If you feel strongly about it, why not write up some rules of your own? This is not a snarkey comment, but a serious question. After all, there might just be a bunch of gamers out there that agree with you. Even if they don't know it yet.

Simutaneous movemnt and fire is an old concept. For napoleonics Empire used them in the mid 1970s about 1975-76. I used simultaneous movement in 1981 with guard due coprs and the Fire and Discipline series.

I changed the move and shoot sequence for Red Actions after I got sick of things like cavalry moving up and then shooting away gunners before they could reply.

In general shoot then move is a better system IMO, and most especially for 20th century.

Troops should be able to withdraw with covering fire.

There is always the Piquet option… Troops may shoot at any point in the turn. They move and reload only on designated cards, but may freely shoot before, between or after movement activations.

No turn sequence or action sequence is ever going to be perfect. Action in a real battle is much more fluid, often simultaneous and does not follow a turn sequence. Np matter how much we may try to fool ourselves with wishful thinking action on the tabletop is never truly simultaneous, if for no reason other than he simple fact that we cannot activate all of our figures at he exact same moment. To do so would require at least one hand per unit.

Rrobby

Because I am not a game designer. I know my limitations. My intention is to debate about different possibilities of game turn, nothing else. Actually, I don't feel too strongly about it. After all, I game W40K!

I prefer that one side moves first, followed by the second side moving, and a simultanious fire. advanceing troops would have reduced firepower, and who moves first is ether alternateing or random, since in this case whoever moves first would be at a disadvantage.

"What I do not understand is why is neccesary to have two different phases for movement and fire, as both are a function of combat and could work as a single phase."

One set of higher level rules which integrate movement and combat together are Colonel Dupuys QJM combat model, Opposed advance rates are a function of modified relative combat strength. ie movement rates are determined by combat outcomes.

Quite a useful concept and one I've tried to incorporate into my own operational rules, particularly when dealing with 'turns' a day or more long.

Thought provoking …

Good discussion. Thanks, guys!

What combatpainter said.

It's a scale thing again.

We know how fast men could move. And in just about any game, one "turn" is enough time for the soldiers to march across the table, if it were scaled correctly. So: Oops, that doesn't work. Make something up.

We know how fast men could shoot. And in just about any game, one "turn" is more than enough time for the soldiers to fire off every round they've got and be out of ammo. So: Oops, that doesn't work. Make something up.

So the traditional wargame arrangement was to abstract, well.. everything, but then to attempt to impose some sort of chronology and scale on it, after the fact. Thus, you shouldn't be shooting while moving, cuz that seems wrong (even though you're shooting so little in your shooting phase, and moving so little in your movement phase, that if the scales were true, you'd have plenty of time to do both.)

"Thought provoking …"

I've sometimes wondered if I could translate the same concept into tactical games, units advance/hold/retreat based on relative weight of fire (modified by posture, doctreine etc) projected into different areas. All design attempts so far have however ended up being a bean counting exercise, and while intellectually interesting, aren't much of a game:)

Phil Sabins efforts in 'Fire & Movment' are a step in the right direction but not quite what I had in mind.

One of the many things that drew me to Crossfire was that you can pretty much do what you want in any order, which removes the need for 'special rules' to allow things like overwatch/opportunity fire to happen. I have yet to find another set of rules that beats its flexibility.