"Move/Fight or Fight/Move?" Topic

Which do you prefer?

Savage Worlds-you can do both.

If it's move then shoot in a operational level game then you have to think ahead at least 1-2 phases to take advantage of the enemy's casualties…I think I said that right.

I prefer games that allow both.

Yes. Why not both?

All of the above.

I know some rules won't let you fire, and then move, since they don't have any overwatch rules for the other side to intervene, as would be done historically.

In ambushes, a lot of troops/vehicles fire, and then withdraw to other positions to keep from being hit by return fire.

Depends on the era, really.

In an era where defense is ascendant, fire/move is more appropriate.

I prefer both options, but for artillery, and depending on era and scale.

My brother moved forward, shooted on my roman infantry and retired with his partian horse archer units, all in his turn. I 'suffered Carrae' thanks to a mixed movement-shooting allowed by my homemade rules.

I think the best is the most versatile (mixed shoot-movement, opportunity fire-charge…) as far as complexity doesn't make the game slow too much. You decide where is the limiting line.

I think I prefer move/fight.

It only matters relative to the other turn mechanics of the given rules.

QILS – You can do either. You can also expend your attack dice to move further instead of shooting (lowering and eventually nullifying your Pk).

I like this variety as it gives options and avoids the "deathlock" where one player successfully exploits the rules and the other can never regain the advantage. You can still envelop opposing forces, but it takes more than just timing the turn sequence. You have to use actual maneuver tactics and account for terrain. And breakout from envelop is possible, but costly.

Depends on the era being simulated. For low level stuff I really prefer fire OR move unless the unit in question is capable of EFFECTIVE fire while moving.

I would think that all depends on how well the game system works. I know some crap games that use one or the other, or both, and I know some really enjoyable games that use some form of either or both….

Can't say I have a preference for the sequence divorced from the game system[s].

You should have the choice to do it whichever way you want.

Yea, the other issue with some rules is that the movement rates/time scale are out of proportion in comparison to the range of guns, bows, crossbows, etc..

They're able to cross the "beaten zone" far too quickly when compared to real life.

Depends on what is being modeled…

A Modern Naval Combat Board Game I played was fire/move which reflected that ships flee certain death (which they would likely do rather than play martyr) and reflected airplanes Bugging out when the threat was sure death odds.)

You moved in with overwhelming force and the "intended victim" fled.

Of course you could surround the ship with planes/ships (you could not move through a marker) and hope to survive the fire before movement then destroy your opponent's ship/plane.

Move
Fire
Charge
all dependent upon following orders.

Not a big deal either way.

Move then Fire seems more traditional, I suppose.

Move/fight.

With fight/move you can't charge and strike in one turn, and worse, even when you initiate combat, your opponent gets to strike before you do.

Some of the answers above are answering for move/fire versus fire/move, which is a different question. I agree with shooting there's a good case for allowing both. Historically a tactic of fire then move (either forward or away) has been used, as well as move (usually forward) then fire.

For the original question though, allowing fight then move away seems to only fit very narrow scenarios. The general scenario would be your opponent (if still alive) gets to strike back, which you can prevent readily if the rules allow fight/move.

It depends.

Move/fight or fight/move only has meaning when considered together with the other aspects of the gaming engine, most importantly ranges for firing in relation to movement rates and line-of-sight rules, but also whether the firing phase involves one side only or both sides.

Also depends whether fight equals close combat, ranged combat, or both.

I also think that the rather artificial turn sequence move/fight (or move/fire/melee), which has been around since Wells, but also has been codified by e.g. Featherstone (a.o.) in the 60s, results from more classic games where you move a pawn and then "do something". You move a piece in chess, then strike the other piece. You move your piece in the "Game of the Goose"/Monopoly/… , then something happens etc. Even the classic board wargames (Tactics II etc.) use that same sequence.

This classic game structure has dominated much of wargames design, such that it is difficult for many gamers imagining there can be other sequences imposed on structuring a game turn.

E.g. randomize move/melee/fire/moral; pick your own sequence; sequence can very per unit; intersperse movement with any of the others; activation-driven sequences such as Piquet etc.

Many discussions (dislikes) about new experimental rulesystems focus very often around this basic premisse.

It depends. But to expand on what Martin said:
Move/Fight seems more intuitive, but it doesn't always work, and there are many variations – move OR fight; or two actions which might be any combination: move/move, fight/fight, move/fight, fight/move. Indeed SoBH allows up to three actions of your choosing (but the more you try, the more likely you are to fail). One six doesn't fit all: choose the solution that works for the specific rules in question.
My variation of Black Powder for later 19th Century had fire/move to prevent troops rushing up to close range and firing before the defenders had a chance to react, and slowed down troops who got into a firefight, for example. This doesn't matter so much with shorter-range weapons.

Move
Fire
Melee
Morale

Charging is part of movement.

A lot depends on level in regards to the best sequence. It is a question where one answer or sequence will not fit all systems.

At the lower levels opportunity fire that moves into your fire plan is more frequent than at a higher level. The higher level, the players represent higher HQ staffs and the operation operations will be a more cut and dried sequence.

Move
Fire
Charge
Fire
Melee (Hand-to-Hand)

Also depends on the time frame of a turn. The larger the time frame the more actions can be abstracted into the turn (move and shoot). The reverse for shorter time frames (move or shoot).

Unit type reaction times (ooda loop) is also important. Some units were able to make decision/actions more quickly.

Unit sequencing has already been mentioned and is a way to introduce FOW effects.

Sorry, didn't actually answer the question.

For me it depends on what feels right based on the period, turn time frame, theme and/or the designers intent.

A system that flows means that the phases mesh so you cannot tell the difference. This makes some activity activation being less desirable.
Activation manner as well as level of combat will influence the move or fight order.

Even the term move or fight is wrong. There are three key phases not two plus admin functions. Move, Distance firing and close combat sometimes called melees .

I have used one activation system for jungle fighting that had players elect to use either a firing card or a move card when it was their squads activated order. Once the unit had used both cards, they could no longer operate that turn.

Large units require more internal administration to function so a more pre-set activation or you go/ I go may be better realistic order.

I use what I think can best be described as a time and motion based system that is nothing like traditional sequenced move, fire, activation, etc systems. It works best with figures up to 20mm but we've done it with 28mm too.

The game uses a turn with 5 phases. During any phase a player can have his units attempt to respond to enemy activity by moving or firing. However, there is "friction" that will delay or prevent them from doing what they want when they want to do it. They can also be hit by enemy fire before they shoot if they are too slow or take too much time aiming. There is an admin phase at the end of each 5 or 10 phase turn.

When a player sees an enemy unit fire or come into their unit LOS they perform what we call a Situational Awareness Check to notice/spot that activity out to his maximum spotting range. Not being suppressed and the enemy to your front gives the best chance of responding immediately (like over watch). Each pinned down marker adds one phase of delay and units to your flank and rear may have additional delays to notice them. Vehicles buttoned up will take about twice as long as unbuttoned units. Direct fire weapons have an engagement delay time to lay the gun or turret on the target and an additional delay in aiming before getting the shot off in a future phase/turn. Many things can happen before they shoot. Poor crews have an additional delay.

Moving units have an arrow shaped movement marker placed to show the general direction they will move. The length of the marker is the distance it will move in 5 phases (one turn) and the marker has 5 hash marks on the edge to show how far it will move each phase. If a vehicle placed the movement marker in phase 3 it will only move a distance for 2 phases. If a unit moves into an enemy LOS you can tell how many phases it will initially be exposed to opportunity fire. This makes it easy to determine where a moving unit will be in a future phase and eliminates the need for special opportunity fire or over watch rules.

Small arms firing units have a firing marker directed at their target. The results of the volume of fire in a fire fight is determined at the end of a 5 phase turn. If the target was in their LOS for only 3 of 5 phases their firepower value would be 60% (basically 20% for each phase).

Direct Fire: If a tank comes into an AT gun LOS it may take from 3-10 phases to engage, lay the gun, aim and fire to get the shot off. If during those 3-10 phases he moves out of your LOS you don't get the shot off. During that 3-10 phases before firing if the AT gun is targeted by someone else it make be knocked out or crew killed or pinned down which will increase the number of phases to fire. It's all pretty interactive and the only bookkeeping is players making a note of the turn/phase they will be firing and who they may be shooting at. Direct fire results are determined in the phase they fired.

Artillery and mortars land during different phases so you can determine exactly where a moving vehicle is in that particular phase when the round lands. Indirect fire results are determined in the phase they land.

At the end of each 5 phase turn both players move units with movement markers and the results of small arms fire is determined.

Pinning down enemy units causes engagement delays and makes their shooting less effective. This makes it easier to move and attack against them without needing other initiative or activation rules. Firing and moving units can interact without needing a move/fire phase for them. No special opportunity fire or over watch rules are needed. Units can attempt respond to friendly or enemy activity when it occurs so there is no need for a structured turn sequence or orders phase, command interrupts, activation, etc.

We played this system at PacifiCon with nine players that were new to the system and each player had a squad of infantry and a vehicle or special weapons team in 28mm. We played through 18 turns of moving and firing and finished the scenario in three hours. I concentrated on the firing results and the players concentrated on their orders and moving. At the end of a 5 phase turn all units with a movement marker are moved simultaneously. This really speeds the game up. Small arms firing is performed with one D100 die roll using the volume of fire from each figures weapon, not individual die roll with to hit #, modifiers, hits, cover saves, etc. This speeds up the game too.

No one was waiting around for their turn or a chance to "activate". Players really needed to pay attention to the development of the battle as a real life delay by the player translates into delays in phases to engage the enemy. There is no orders phase. As soon as you fire you need to make a decision to fire at the same target again, engage a different target or move. You never know exactly what turn/phase the enemy will fire creating a good fog of war. Direct fire weapons have a variable and optional aim time that translates into a delay in firing. Firing quickly reduces your accuracy but taking your time may mean you never get the shot off because you are dead. The system takes 3-4 turns to get your head wrapped around it but once you understand the concepts and how they interact it's easier.

Wolfhag

Move/Fight