"SIMULTANEOUS MOVEMENT." Topic

Been working on this trick for a few years now. Tried all sorts of things. The problem is that they all take MORE time, and that's the one thing that's not allowed. Right now we have simultaneous combat that's REAL simultaneous combat,and it reduced the time wasted by about 80%

Now we're working on Simultaneous movement. We tried all sorts of ways to simulate it non-simultaneously, that is, a process whereby the effect or result of simultaneous movement in real life is taking place, but it's still cumbersome. Now we're to the point of trying it another way, which is -- simultaneous movement- both sides actually do movement at the same time and the same moment.

It's quite hairy! But we are hopeful! It seems it will work, though it's taking some getting used to. The one thing we are trying or going to try is the idea of ranking players. That is, before the MOVE, not the game, we are dealing out a number of cards equal to the number of players in the game (total of both sides. These players "clip it" to a badge they wear on a pocket with a close pin. Both players then start moving whatever units they wish. Any unit moved is where it is moved to and subsequent players have to deal with it.

Example: Newt Rogina moves the "Rottingham" horse as far as he wants or wishes. Jockson Jills is off moving his "Sivelie &Whinnie Grenadiers elsewhere and comes back and finds the Rottingham Horse exactly where he wanted to move his own unit of Lord Donefore's horse through. Tough darts.

In all of this chaos everyone is moving everything and hence some

Note however the numbers clipped to the pocket have no effect.

In another example, Helen Highwater wants to move her Lichtensteiner Polka (Mein Schatz) regiment to reach a specific point, while Pete Zaria wants to move his own Floatsam und Jetzam Regiment (the Royal Marines) to the same point. As Helen has a 7 clipped to her blouse pocket and Pete has a four, Helen's unit gets there first.

The actual time that we have had to compare the rankings of the players has been only once or twice. For the most times players are doing other things.

So far it seems to be working but we can't quite figure out why. That seems odd, but we're wondering why no one's thought of this before. One thing that might be part of it is that we are using a "left to right rule " a player starts with his left most unit and goes right. The other thing might be the dissimilar movement between player with initiative and that without. The player without initiative can move cavalry two measures (the frontage of a unit) for cavalry and one for all else. The player with initiative can move his units as far as he wishes so long as he doesn't enter rough or very rough terrain, or come within one measure of an enemy unit. If he does he must stop.

Anyway, I'll let you know how the idea pans out.

That's one of the big motivators behind my programming computer war games -- I wanted something a bit more realistic and without simultaneous movement and limited intelligence, you're pretty much hitting a wall there.

I was part of a gaming club (still am kinda) for years that used simultaneous movement in all our games. It just required a little conversation and agreeing to "meet in the middle." We never had a problem. I was surpised when I played my first game elsewhere that that was a very rare exception!

In a sense, though, the units are activating for movement purposes one at a time as the players work from one end of the table to another? And also each sides left flank wins the initiative in effect and their right side is reacting to the opponent every time? Or do you find this doesn't happen?

Sounds good. Speaking from long past experience, the start from opposite ends with initiative thus only important in the middle works well enough…the cards are a nice touch, though. Obviously enough, trust in the other fellow to move properly is necessary as well as abatement of over-competitiveness.

A variant that occurs by natural selection can be that initiative only occurs where the actual crossover does – so (s)he who moves quickly might gain more ground, but possibly at the expense of non-ideal placement. Also, to avoid the person who might just delay in order to react to the other player's moves, use a timed system. That too can be a lot of fun!

Johnny Reb I, II and III has been doing that since the '80s, with the occasional pro-rated movement, for areas under contention, it works fine.

Thanks for your comments. This is good to learn what the experience of others has been. One pint I have to bring up though is that the environment of the game now is rather different which I think might mitigate in favor of doing it.There are three factors.

1. The "initiative" in the game is chosen each turn by a process which is a simple die roll. At the start of the game, each side has a set of initiative cards, six in number, and on the cards a range of numbers, 1 to 6, 1 to 5, 1 to 4, 1 to 3, 1 to 2, and 1. Each turn the person who had initiative last turn can play one card (it goes to the discard pile and can't be used again), and rolls on the range with one six sided die. So if he plays the 1 to 4 and rolls a 2, he keeps the initiative this turn. If he were to roll a 5 or a 6, he would lose it to the other side. Remember, he choses which card to play. If it goes to the other side then that side now has it and can wish to keep it the following turn by his choice.

Definition, a "measure" in the game is the length of frontage of a unit in its normal combat formation. In my game it's 8" because a regiment in line takes up 8" of frontage.

2. The advantage of initiative is that you go first, but far more, while the side WITHOUT initiative can move 2 measures for cavalry and one measure for everything else. For the side WITH initiative you can move any unit as far as you desire, from one end of the field to the other, so long as you make your movement roll for the unit (which range from 1 to 5) however you must stop if you come within 1 measure of an enemy unit, or you move into rough, or very rough terrain. So yes, there is a huge advantage to a unit having initiative but that's simply in redirecting the major effort of the force.

There is second style of movment but it's a variation on the above and we need not explain it here and confuse.

3.Combat in the game is absolutely and strictly simultaneous, and identical in operation. It is handled in the middle of the move. Each unit has a combat power in Melee and a combat power in fire and a range. Most fire ranges are 1 measure, but some units can fire two measures. All mellee range is 1 measure. Within one mesure then a unit can use its melee or fire combat. Some units, like heavy cavalry have no fire, and some like dragoons have both melee and fire, and it's up to you to determine which one you use.

The combat procedure itself is different, but unrelated to the question of simultaneous movement. Movement does not make "charge" only only puts you in range of where you could use your charge factor.

So let's analyze this for a minute. As the side without initiative can only move two measures, the MOST conflict on movement (and that's what we're talking about as to who gets to point A first) would be within that two measures. But one measure of that is already taken up by the combat range which more or less locks units so…. we are only talking about UNINVOLVED units or uncommitted to combat range units. Units of the side with initiative further than 2 measures can therefore do what they wish and won't even have the chance of being "opposed" while those within 1 measure won't be moving much anyway, so really only units within that 1 exra (2nd measure) are affected.

That's why I'm thinking it should work because the possibility of conflict (who gets to the stone wall first) is not going to happen often and the player "seniority card" should take care of the few times they do.

The whole point of this is to speed up the game. It's pretty speedy right now, but I do game design by Industrial Engineering. That is, I consider time wasted standing around, when you're not moving troops, rolling dice, or making decisions as wasted and presently letting the initiative side move first then be reacted to by the non-initiative side is wasted time and I'd like to get it out of the game, and if I can it will save about one and a half hours out of a five hour game at the largest end.

To give you an indication of scale, the Largest game can have over 1,000 30mm minis total from both sides on a 6 x 12 table top. Right now the longest game we've had was six hours. Those are rare, most are 4 to 5. But I want to (like any good industrial engineer) get as much wasted time out of the game as possible. Things like standing around waiting for the other guy to take his turn, reading rules, looking up charts and tables, calculating modifiers and of course-- arguments -- are all unproductive time, like down time on a line, and the prime target to be tossed out of a game.

The normal type of movement in the game was described above. A unit has a move ability of 1 to 5 depending on type. Heavy Artillery or Militia a 1, Light cavalry a 5. To move a unit you roll 1 die and if you are less than or equal to the ability you can move it. If not you can't.

This sometimes leads to herky-jerky movement. There is a second style of movement called "the maneuver." This works as follows.

Officers or general officers in the game are present and they have an ability of 1 to 4. They can add this ability to the unit for movement to raise it up. This an officer with a heavy artillery piece or a militia can add his officer ability to it. Assume the officer in question has an ability of four. Thus the above w rated units can be raised to 5, and you will be able to move them on anything but a six. (Hence the first rule of the Game and every gamers anguished cry "Oh God!!! Anything But a six."

There is another method movement, called Maneuver. In this ANY group of officers can pool their abilities so long as they are within 1 measure of each other, and they can then move any and all units who are within 1 measure of the group as they wish (within the limits imposed by iniative) together. All they have to do is roll less than or equal to the accrued officer ability of the group. Thus if you have five #1 officers within 1 measure, that's a total of 5, and they could move any units they wished within 1 measure of them on a roll of 1 to 5. You can never exceed five on anything, there is always a chance to fail. Thus you can, like any good seven Years War General, make a seamlessly ordered movement of a wing of an army against an enemy flank or section of the line.

Of course-- terrain and skirmishers could pose impediments to this.

I don't think the simultaneous movement will hamper that.

Column, Line and Square uses proportional, map-marked simultaneous movement. No need for command and control or initiative rules, since players determine that with their orders. If you misjudge your orders, units blunder into each other and don't complete their orders. I've been playing since the 1960s and have yet to find other mechanics that give a more exciting game.

Rick

Command Decision has it in versions 1 to 3 (dumped it in 4). It only became a problem when two groups are heading at each other under a certain move order are only allowed to halve the distance, I don't think I ever read which halving applied in that case, are they allowed to end up adjacent?

Jack Scruby was doing the "starting from opposite flanks" movement back in the 1960s.

Jim

Otto, my free online WWII rules from panzer-war.com are semi-simultaneous movement and fire.
What is required is a strict movement phase system and a system of simple and limited orders. The orders only have about 8 choices so instead of writing them down, chits or cards could be used for the orders. The player can place the chits face down next to the unit until the turn begins then turn them all over at once.

With this system you could still have initiative and make one player move before the others but they are locked into their movements by their orders. So much less reacting to what someone else has done in the turn. One of the biggest problems with non-simultaneous systems is players planning their turn movement of the turn right after seeing their opponent moves.

So you really focus the mind on trying to come up with an order that if you move first won't expose you to all kinds of attacks and if you go second will allow you to counter an enemy attacks.

It could be adapted for Napoleonics but more than 8 orders would be required.

Dear Col Cambell

Where did you think I stole the original idea from?

Jack's "Long Move" allowed for troops to fire upon the moving troops as they wended their way.

Dear Mobius

OK, draw the line on the last conversation.

I know what you are saying. I've seen it in many games, but that's what I didn't want to get into in mine, the chit/order/ definition thing which many rules attempt to use to do simultaneous movement.

Johnny Reb used something like that, but I always found that immediately upon revealing orders the "intention redefinition" phase began where the "I only used that chit because no other chit really allowed me to do what I want." This was also accompanied by the "move the little ball of lichen shrubbery to cover the chit you placed by the unit, and reveal you hid under the shrubbery in case your opponent bet wrong and did what you didn't think he'd do." action.

I originally tried this, but got fed up with it and tossed it out. My response to the inevitable tendency of players to "redefine" or as is commonly known-- cheat-- was to let them. make it part of the rules and move on.

You are correct that one of the big problems with non-simultaneous movement is players making their planning a after they see what the opponent who had initiative is doing first. This little bit of cheating I defeated by the long movement so that by the time it comes to that, he's got you by the throat and you have no chance to wiggle out of it.

The other difference is in the theory of the game, which is where the "prejudices" and "privaleges" from our last argument came in.

In a modern game you're dealing with minutes, seconds maybe. In Ogabas, the turn represents an hour. A lot can happen in an hour. Dozens of volleys, charges, small actions and bits of uniquery can go on between two units ranged in close proximity to the enemy. The long combat range (8 inches in effect) means that you can have lots of things going on. So the combat of applying a units charge value to the enemy in combat can represent one, or a dozen charges, or their volley one or a dozen volleys, etc. The whole combat phase has one net effect.

By the way the movement system where you can dash from one end of the table is simple. Let's take an example.

The famous Union "Fishook" at Gettysburg is 3 1/2 miles long.

In one hour how long can a man walk at a normal brisk pace.? Three and a half miles per hour. That means you can walk the entire length of the Union line in one hour.

Done it, verified it, several times.

Makes all this idly-piddily movement in war games kind of ridiculous if you have an hour turn, doesn't it? If you cut your turn down to a few minutes, as it usually takes an hour or so to adjudicate a turn in war games, it means you'll be spending eight hours to do one and your battle will never finish. Another example of where scale makes any sort of realistic expression of a minute game ridiculous.

So for example. You can't cheat on orders because-- THERE ARE NONE! You can't fudge your moves, because there's no point in doing so. Remember too, you're the general in charge of a wing of the army, left, right, center, or the overall commander. You don't worry about mounting/ dismounting, limbering/unlimbering, type of rounds fired, facing, formation (you got only one) and all the other folderol most games bother with. As a general you get the choice to send your troops into combat or pull them out, and there's none of this "I want to just get him into range so I can fire at him and he can't fire at me. I honed the roles so that a player only gets to decide what a general decides.

That means you're faced by stark choices.

The combat results system is also brutal. Whole units can be swept off the field in a turn. As I tell gamers at conventions who have not played the game before. "Don't get too attached to your units, they're not going to be her for long."

That part of the environment is there to ensure that the prevaricator, the guy looking for the angle, and the cheater is going to be swept off the field in short order. Be decisive or be dead.

The thing I like about the game is that it yields realistic results. The edge of the table is not the edge of the world so unless you have it resting on an unturnable obstacle, the enemy can zip right around the last most unit on the left, or he can even make an off the table march and come in on the rear. If you have a second line, which can face him, things are not too bad. If not? The point is people act like generals in the 18th century. Very touchy about their flanks, looking to anchor them on an unturnable obstacle or cloak them with skirmishers to give plenty of warning and hold an enemy up. Players even station troops "off to their right" off the table to intercept anyone attempting a sneaky flank march.

But to return tot he table top. As I said, I am trying to speed up the game and add a bit more excitement to the movement and make it as exciting as the combat resolution phase. In the combat resolution phase everyone is frantically rolling dice, moving units around from retreates and taking them off the field, and there's no "down time at all.

Otto

Anyone pulled that crap on me and I would not game with them again.

Here is the basic concept of Panzer War modified for non-armor miniatures.

Within a turn actions are divided by type of action rather than the time the action actually takes place. It may be necessary, within a single turn, to go back in time to resolve certain situations.

The basic idea of movement and combat system of Panzer War is that units moving the most fire the least. A unit that moves all its move in a turn will fire last in a turn. Those not moving at all will fire first and fire the most. Those that move half will fall somewhere in between.

Movement of units is broken into segments. The first segment is just for those units moving full movement allowance. The next segment is just for those that are moving half movement. The next is just for those changing facing or dismounting buildings.

When it comes to units firing things proceed in the opposite order. First goes the stationary units, next those moving half or dismounting. Lastly, the units that move full may fire their first and only time and the ones that are stationary can fire a second time.

Anyone pulled that crap on me and I would not game with them again.

What, go off map and come back on to flank units on table? See solution to Gene McCoy's Military Digest Vol. 11, No. 12 Battle Stations problem.

Why Dynaman?

It's in the rules, it's allowed. There's a procedure for doing it, and if it's only a short way, I have a modular table which I but up against the side to hold the troops. It's not illegal, in fact, it's encouraged.

Otto

Why – if people are going to purposely cheat the way you describe I want nothing to do with them. Hiding an orders marker under a shrub? Saying they did not have another order marker? I don't see why you would even bother trying to do si-move with a group like that. Or game with them at all.

Instead of chits you can write down a single character next to the unit name on a roster for each order. Simultaneous is real hard to do unless you have a way of nailing down units intended moves before they actually start moving.

Dear Dynaman. OK, I was unsure as to what you were referring to.

I used to be outraged at that sort of thing too, but after a while I realized that if I rigorously excluded such people I'd be playing solo.

It is good to hear there is a chance for the return of Simultaneous Movement. my favorite rules all have it and I didn't know there was any other way in miniatures until the shock of DB. Since then IGO/UGO has become the Accepted Paradigm. I long for the Good Old Days.

Really, why bother? This sounds like utterly over-complicated nonsense which doesn't add to anyone's enjoyment. Is it really that important to speed up a game if the price is this utter twaddle?

Definition, a "measure" in the game is the length of frontage of a unit in its normal combat formation. In my game it's 8" because a regiment in line takes up 8" of frontage.

Does formation matter? One thing I like in napoleonics is the different formations have their plus and negatives vs other units. Sort of like rock, paper, scissors. So can a square have unlimited movement?
Or, maybe you are playing civil war, then never mind.

Actually Mobius there is no formation or rather changes in formation. You can't-- well at least in my own personal collection. An infantry regiment is 36 men. Two colors, two officers 2 NCo's two musicians (fife and drum) and 28 privates. All of them, 30mm, are on one big 8" by 3.5" stand in three ranks. I do this because this way they LOOK like regiments in the 18th century really looked and it protects the figures. Players can't move them by the "steam bucket" method, which is just picking them up by the hand and bending all the muskets and breaking the flags off. They have to move them by the stand. It also protects the figures from bending. The outer four corners figuresare "reinforced" by steel mandrils run up through the base and into the under body of the figure. This way it's very hard to bend them. Fragile figures can thus b3 protected. I also make the Kurzgewher, the long pikes the NCO's have, and the colors out of hard piano wire which can give you a nasty gash if you're not careful.

The "measure system" allows the rules to be used for any scale and for any basing system. If you have multiples of small stands,you just have tokeep your troops in that frontage and you can match dissimilar systems together.

Others use my game with troops based for other systems and it works just as well. All that matters is the frontage. Cavalry units usually wind up at 6" frontage.

The only exceptions to this are Elites. Elites can be either Grenadiers or light infantry. These can have slightly different frontages and bases but the above rule is not really violated. For example, you can have light infantry on two stands, each 8" by 1.75. Normally when ranged as normal infantry one stand is right behind the othe. But if you want to extend the frontage you simply do so by stretching out the line. This second stand is purely a functional stand, the whole unit fires and combats as one. Grenadiers can be mounted the same way, or you can break them into two 4" by 3" stands (again in three ranks and use them independently like the brigaded grenadier companies from the regiments. Those are oddball units though. The vast majority are on one stand.

Simplifies movement and keeps gamers from making odd-ball units according to their own lights.

And, the battlefield LOOKS so much better.

See some of the stands also have little "dioramas on them.' The 6th Regiment of the Pricnesses Army is the Floatsam and Jetsam Regiment. It's troops in three raks,first rank kneeling firing, second rank standing firing, third rank is loading with ramrods out etc. Those are all lconversions I made. it has the standard officers, musicians and colors (all converted). Anyway this regiment also has it's regimental mascot with it, a seal- in a large washtub on a wheel-barrow pushed by an Nco. Another regiment has a harem girl displaying her charms to a sergeant in the back rank. I'm working on a third for a new regiment which has two officers behind the lines sitting at a table playing chess.

Militia regiments run wild. One of them, has the regiment at it's quarterly Militia Sunday meet with soldiers around a groaning barbecue table, others being painted by an artist, others being enticed into a tent by the local business girls, another with men singing around a keyboard while off on the side they're playing at bowls and tenpins.

But again, all ore on the big stands.

Actually Mobius there is no formation or rather changes in formation….

All of them, 30mm, are on one big 8" by 3.5" stand in three ranks

Gasp!

Dear Mobius

Yes, correct, when you see how beautiful they look it quite takes your breath away.

Otto

No formation changes isn't my style of play for nappies, but that will definitely help streamline simultaneous play. There are ways to have initiative and simultaneous play but I found it has to be rigidly structured phases and movement levels, not a free for all.

From your description how can there be simultaneous play when there is dice involved with movement? That will be an invitation for cheating.

Nobody watches the die roll when you roll for movement now.