"Card Activation---Feedback Requested" Topic

It looks like my original post got caught by the infamous TMP bug, so I will try again…

I am thinking about introducing a few gentlemen I game with to using numbered cards for unit activation. One thing I like about card activation is it is an easy way to add an element of uncertainty. Card activation also increases the feeling of uniqueness to battles; each battle does not feel like the last one. This is a feeling I easily get when gaming the horse and musket era.

I don't think they are ready for Piquet or Field of Battle, so I was thinking of something much easier.

1. At the beginning of each turn, each unit gets dealt a numbered card, face down. The owning player may look at the cards his units were dealt.

2. Each commander for each side gets dealt additional cards, face down: a poor commander gets one card, an average commander gets two cards, and an exceptional commander gets three cards. The owning player may look at the cards his commanders were dealt.

3. Units are activated in the order of the number on their cards, lowest number to highest number.

4. Units may either move (melee is resolved immediately after a unit or group moves), fire, or rally when activated

5. Commanders may replace the card of any unit within 12 inches (or whatever number you like) with the commander's card. Poor commanders may do this once, average commanders twice, and exceptional commanders three times.

6. Commanders may also use their card to activate a group of units. A group of units must be in base-to-base contact (any part of base to any part of base). Poor commanders may activate one group, average commanders two groups, and exceptional commanders three groups.

7. Units being activated as part of a group must all perform the same action.

8. I was thinking of using a simple deck of playing cards. Jokers would let that unit or group activate at any time, including at the same time as another unit or group of the owning player. Or a joker would let a unit or group perform two actions instead of one.

I was thinking of just dealing out the cards for the player to hold as a hand, then the players would choose which units to activate based on their hand of cards.

What say you, TMPers?

I've played a similar system in the past. I think activating a group is redundant unless you are saying that it gets the group move AND the unit move. Personally I think it would be enough for the commander to be able to swap cards with nearby units. Other than that, it's a pretty solid system.

The only real drawback is that it works more smoothly with fewer units per side say 8-12 units per side.

That is how "Went the Day Well?" rules (for A Very British Civil War) do their activation. They use a regular card deck and also prioritize the suites.

You can also do as "The Sword and the Flame" rules do and use a regular card deck with the red cards controlling one side and the black the other. The senior commander on each side chooses which unit goes when a card is drawn. This also works for firing. If you have a lot of units you can roll a D4 and that many units get to move.

Finally you can make cards for each of the commands on each side and that command gets to move when its card is drawn.

Jim

I have used similar systems in many games for quite a few years.
If you're going to use ordinary playing cards then:
1. Get yourself some small "patience" cards – the standard size are a bit too big for use on the table.
2. Define a suit precedence for when two cards have the same number but different suits. We use H C D S.

Works fine.

I used a similar system in the predecessor to my Sword and Spear ancients & Medieval rules. I used plastic counters with numbered stickers attached. The numbers go from 1 to the total number of units on both sides. Each player picks a number of counters out of a bag, one per unit and assigns them to his units. Group moves are unnecessary – if you want multiple units to activate together you give them consecutive numbered tokens. Units are activated in order of the numbered tokens. Tokens or counters can be purchased cheaply and are easier to place beside a unit on the table top.
Then main difference with the system in my rules to the one you describe is that in addition to the numbered tokens, there were an equal number of blank tokens, so you would only be able to activate half your units on average each turn.
You can see more about them on this old thread here TMP link including photos of the activation tokens on the table. As I said, these are a predecessor of my current rules, but I'll happily provide a copy to anyone who's interested.

I hate IGOUGO systems and support anyone's attempts to tinker by using random activation like this. There are many good rules sets out there that could benefit simply from a small bit of randomness to the order of activation.

I thought about something as simple as a player is assigned a suit, and then you turn over cards and whoever' suit is showing gets to move and fire, or whatever. Mark activated units with cotton balls or something simple.

I like the randomnes of card activations,
and have even used them in multiplayer games (8 players usually, with only a single sectin/squad each),
I dealt out cards of a single suit at the start of each turn, players went in decreasing order,
But I let the players trade cards among themselves before
we started the actiuon each turn,
added some great interactions and ammusement!
("I'll trade you my Ace if you go get me another beer,
or only attack that guy over there" type of arrangements)
Good Fun!
(Will probably use similar system for War Plan Pink, Jim)

Not a fan of card activation as I prefer to take my chances with the dice gods.

For some odd reason I prefer card activation for smaller scope games, i.e. skirmish games like say Muskets and Tomahawks.

For others I just see it as a version of "I go, You go," which I detest. That said, I strangely only detest IGUG in some periods (most periods but not all periods, for instance, I can't stand it in Napoleonic or ACW but in SYW or American Rev. it doesn't seem bad).

Cheers,

The Bandit

I've had too many bad experiences with card activations systems to ever play another one, no matter who wrote it. On a small scale, it could work if the players were willing. But I agree with Bandit in that it is just another version of I go, You go.

I cannot see much reason for using a card activation system as commanding officers would have orders before a battle and not just stand around until told to move again. In one sense, I like Grande Armee for that if officers aren't given orders for control, they can act on their own whether you want them to or not.

To contrast it, I see Shako as having a superior system in that orders are given for movement on a map for attacking or to remain stationary on a defending order. This keeps units from doing insane things that we see in Black Powder or standing around scratching their rear ends as commonly happens in Piquet.

I wish you luck, but if you announced to me you were wanting to use a card activation system, I'd sit it out. It simply is not realistic.

I agree Piquet is a stretch (it's a very polarizing rules set), but FOB seems like a great introduction to card-based mechanics. You can mix experienced and green players without the grognards dominating the game too much, it's adaptable to a wide period of history and a broad range of conflicts, and it's also pretty easy to add chrome if you need more period flavor.

Even if you have issues with FOB (I do), I still recommend borrowing card activation rules from another game instead of writing your own. Unforeseen bugs in home rules can really turn your friends off to playing in your games. Not everyone likes to be a playtester.

Having said all that, some feedback on your OP:

The biggest drawback to one-card-per-unit activation systems like the one you described in the OP (and TSATF, etc.) is the "everybody watches" problem – since only one unit at a time is activated, only one player is playing the game while everybody else stands around watching him. In 2-4 player games with low unit density and simple mechanics, this isn't such a big deal. With a lot of units/players and/or a lot of move/shoot/combat steps, it makes slow games and bored players.

A partial fix is group activations, but the group move mechanics you described above might not help much, since they're pretty restrictive. It might be more helpful to let units activated by a "group card" just do whatever they would normally be allowed to do, including all marching off in different directions.

Another drawback to one-card-per-unit activations is that you need extra mechanics for reaction tests like evading, forming square, shaking out of column when enemy appears, countercharging, etc. Otherwise units get frozen in place by a bad card pull and you get unpleasant anomolies like infantry bayoneting cavalry, disciplined veterans being caught in the flank by militia, artillery that never gets to shoot, units famed for impetuosity that continually stand to receive charges, brilliant commanders outmaneuvered by incompetent fools, etc.

The drawback of revealing all cards at once is that the actions of many units will be pre-determined by the move order, leading to more gamesmanship, less period tactics, and less player influence on the battle. If each card activates a random unit and is played as it is revealed (a la TSATF), this problem is mitigated somewhat, as nobody knows how many actions he's got before his opponent activates.

I am very much in favor of the cards being in a hand of cards and played as the player sees fit, but many players are not. Having a hand of cards creates a "game within a game" of card strategy, which can lead to analysis paralysis for indecisive or analytical players, and is just distasteful for many miniatures gamers. Consider the gamers you'll be playing with.

- Ix

BTW: The group moves in rules 6 & 7 are appropriate for a disciplined army in a period of formal warfare, but might feel odd with units of irregulars, rebels, levies, or otherwise ill-controlled troops.

- Ix

Assuming you are playing 18thC, units did not move randomly nor individually as they might in a skirmish game, they moved pre-planned, co-ordinated, en masse. So random order unit by unit turns are not realistic.
Also remember that a turn in wargame rules represents a period of time. So firing is not an individual volley per turn but a number of volleys. In effect firing is simultaneous. So taking turns is wrong.
Turns have to be simultaneous.
An easy way to give units orders is by cards marked with the order e.g. Advance, Advance By Fire, Hold etc.
So have an orders phase where players pick the card and put it face down. Then both sides move simultaneously.
If you wish let a unit react to an opposing unit but only when half the turn has gone e.g. run away. This replaces the current order card with a new card.
Defensive firing should not need a card.

Any IGOUGO is usually invalid except for small time slices i.e. up to 5 seconds.

back in the old days we used a deck of regular playing cards..red for o9ne side and black for the other one deck for the Center one for each flank..flip a card over and 1 unit could move then next card flipped could be another for that side or could be the other side..total randomness in action..did lead to some interesting situations

The whole purpose of command and control is removed by such a system.
It is also creates too much down time as players wait there turn to do something. More the players the worst it is.
Movement should be a basis of command, his current orders, the friction he is overcoming, and whether there is already momentum.
There is already many systems out there that help establish who moves when with out "solely relying" on the luck of a draw.
Bringing "some randomness" to activation with cards can be good and Fate of battle does this with card draw, plus random die, along with a option to switch out (limited of coarse) for a commander to use personal initiative to over come things going south/bad at some expense that turn.
RE: 4 -8
I rather play cards in a poker game and not miniatures. A pip system works much on the sames lines. When a unit fires should be by the situation, not a luck of a draw and reason I do not play FoB.
I agree with the above… it is better for smaller time increments such as that of skirmish level play.
Sorry I would not be interested in such a game mechanic for tactical at brigade level ( GdB, C & G etc)or grand tactical at the corps level ( LoG, Empire, LFS etc).
my 2 cents,
MG

Cards are fun to use as a game mechanic, but the question of their use always revolves around what they represent for the players visa vie history. They have have their advantages in portraying aspects of historical operations, but have to agree, at the brigade level or higher, they are a mismatch.

I am not sure that IGO-YGO systems are all that unrealistic. Combat generally devolves to that action- response dynamic, even at the level of combat between individuals, whether it is boxing, fencing or a gunfight.

At the level of group actions, it becomes even more evident. While there is a simultaneous element to warfare, in is not the narrative you find at the brigade level or higher. Even the idea of 'Initiative' predisposes a IGO-YGO type of dynamic.

I am a fan of card-based activation, but not of the variant in which you draw a card, then that unit associated with that card is activated – which is basically the same system what the OP is proposing.
The reason this doesn't work is that, depending on scenario, it creates choke points. Imagine a scenario where a force has to cross a bridge. Then – unless the right unit always activates first – a huge traffic jam is created, which leads to much frustration.

Consider using cards that allow a degree of choice for the player (what units to activate, or how many, or a certain type). The advantage is that the player still has a level of control after a card is drawn, and this leads to a better game experience.

On top of that, you can indeed use "interrupt" cards as well, as you proposed with your commander cards.

To each his own, and I'm no critic of how a gamer want to play. I could probably conjure up all sorts of criticism for cards, but first and foremost is the table litter. Its already nuisance enough to have rulers, die, rules and coke cans. Now we're adding cards?

…but first and foremost is the table litter. Its already nuisance enough to have rulers, die, rules and coke cans. Now we're adding cards?

A well-designed card-based system actually reduces the amount of clutter. But that goes for all well-designed systems ;-)

The reason this doesn't work is that, depending on scenario, it creates choke points. Imagine a scenario where a force has to cross a bridge. Then – unless the right unit always activates first – a huge traffic jam is created, which leads to much frustration.

I think the terrain created that choke point.

If it only takes one or two turns to get across the bridge, the crossing could be split across several turns to keep your forces in a desired configuration. That type of effect is a reasonable outcome when crossing a choke point (even if the mechanism isn't representative).

If it takes more than two to cross and you can't put your forces into columns from line abreast, I think it's still a good effect, but the mechanism might become a bit strained, especially if you have several units on the bridge.

In that case, I would advocate for a "reduced capability" rule to activate different units. When you activate a different unit from the one the card indicates, they move less and take an attack penalty. This would (1) simulate the ability to power through a tough circumstance, and (2) still provide some random friction of war.

Cards, even card activation can be utilized in a miriad of ways with a wide variety of mechanics. The cards are just tools. depending on the particular type of cards, the mechanics involved, and how they fit into the system, it is difficult to say yea or nay to their use in general. It really is a game by game consideration except with several designs use the very same mechanics and card configurations.

I think the terrain created that choke point.

Yes, of course.

The point is that some activation mechanisms are not well suited for certain type of scenarios.
If the order in which units are activated is determined at random, then that might cause traffic jams in scenarios where you assume that units form some sort of long column (of march) and can get activated in the proper order.

Whether you like such occurrences is up to you. But they will happen with pure random activation.