Help support TMP


"Bland Combat Mechanisms" Topic


69 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

Please use the Complaint button (!) to report problems on the forums.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Game Design Message Board


Action Log

08 Apr 2016 12:02 p.m. PST
by Editor in Chief Bill

  • Removed from TMP Poll Suggestions board

Areas of Interest

General

Featured Recent Link


Featured Showcase Article

Lemax Christmas Trees

It's probably too late already this season to snatch these bargains up...


Featured Workbench Article

Taking the Spin Out of Magnetic Flight Stands

Can Personal logo Editor in Chief Bill The Editor of TMP Fezian solve the rotation problem with magnetic flight stands?


Featured Profile Article

Poker Set at Dollar Tree

Poker chips are back at the dollar store!


Featured Book Review


3,392 hits since 18 Sep 2015
©1994-2025 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Pages: 1 2 

McLaddie25 Sep 2015 7:54 p.m. PST

der Krieg Geist:

So what makes a wargame 'specific?' I can understand how the "The whole realism / simulation/game argument falls flat for me" as well as all you are asking of a game system is to have fun.

We're only discussing the issue of realism and simulation design because most designers write about it apparently believing it is something that will sell games…and one of the things that *can* make a game system 'specific' rather than bland is specific historical information… And no, that doesn't mean rivet counting.

Personal logo etotheipi Sponsoring Member of TMP27 Sep 2015 10:32 a.m. PST

Thanks for the clarification. So, from what I understand, the QILS defines the way units relate/interact and the milieu is captured in the scenario rules and/or any adjustments to the unit values in the QILS system. So, in the Allenstein game, the intel advantage is created by both unit value adjustments and scenario rules.

Yes, that is what I meant by "milieu" and "rules" being separate.

Visceral Impact Studios05 Oct 2015 7:11 a.m. PST

In developing our upcoming game we struggled with this issue in terms of vehicle combat.

Each vehicle model represents 2-4 actual vehicles. In our post-A rules, "Warfare in the Age of Madness", the subject matter liberated us a bit and in addition to hit point values we included vehicle damage results such as mobility kill and weapons kill. Admittedly, they doesn't make a lot of sense to a grognard if each model is about 3 vehicles. That's more appropriate for a 1:1 game. But when the game covers hovercraft, zombies, and mechs, I'm was fine with adding extra color.

So for our new game which is strictly historical we tested an approach without vehicle damage results, just the hit point values with a chance for a really bad combat result that would essentially take the vehicle section out of combat for a turn or two or destroy it in one blow. This represents the vehicle crews dealing with casualties and fires within the section with the chance that there was so much carnage the section is rendered combat ineffective for whatever reason.

The new approach made sense to our grognard testers at our FLGS but my sons didn't like it as much. I won't say which one made the cut but it was a near run thing in trying to decide between something that made more historical sense and one that added color but made less historical sense.

This also reminds me of an incident at a game run by another fellow a couple of months ago. That game is a 5:1 game in which each model is a full platoon. A spectator noted there was no model "life meter" or hit points, a tank was either ok (beyond a morale issue which could be rallied off) or totally destroyed. This made me chuckle since, if a model represents multiple vehicles, then hit points make MORE sense.

For example, I really liked the old Command Decision approach of vehicle hit points based on unit quality. Good crews remain combat effective as the carnage mounts. Bad crews are less effective as carnage increases and become combat ineffective much faster AS A UNIT. I like those shades of gray rather than a strictly binary result.

McLaddie05 Oct 2015 5:39 p.m. PST

I won't say which one made the cut but it was a near run thing in trying to decide between something that made more historical sense and one that added color but made less historical sense.

Made historical sense compared to what?

Visceral Impact Studios06 Oct 2015 4:18 a.m. PST

We had some grognards object to combat results such as "mobility kill" in a game in which each model represents about 3 vehicles. So I'm looking at it strictly from their perspective. For me personally I'm fine with mobility and weapons kills in that context. They felt it was not right for a game of that scope.

McLaddie06 Oct 2015 9:46 a.m. PST

So the 'grognards' were hard-core gamers, experienced tankers?

I'm trying to get a sense of the 'reality' comparison in your sense of the historical. grin In other words, what history were the game mechanics being compared to that made historical sense?

Visceral Impact Studios07 Oct 2015 6:12 a.m. PST

One tanker, the others veteran gray beard gamers approaching social security age. ☺

And I share your confusion of their objections. From what I can figure out, it was this: they can buy a "mobility kill" result against a model using 1:1 ratio. They didn't like that result using a ~3:1 ratio (for whatever reason).

I really like such "critical hit results" whether 1:1 or 3:1 or 5:1. It adds color and interesting, story-like situations. I still remember when my son's close assault-focused force stalked through a wheat field and knee-capped my mech with a mobility kill while playing our game "Warfare in the Age of Madness".

This new game is focused on WWII to Moderns rather than Post-A scifi fantasy. Maybe that was part of their objection?

Personal logo etotheipi Sponsoring Member of TMP07 Oct 2015 7:09 a.m. PST

I think the issue might have not been believing that a mobility kill was legit, but what you describe is three simultaneous mobility kills. Where my games represent multiple units with one model, I try to have mobility kills represented by decreased firepower … one tank was stuck behind, the other two continued and only implement a mobility limitation on a composite unit in circumstances that get rarer with more units.

F're'x – For a three tank unit, you roll three dice for attack and defense. If you fail a defense, you go down to two dice. Unless you fail defense by rolling all ones, in which case the entire unit is a mobility kill. So damage might represent a hard kill – one unit is destroyed, a weapon kill – one unit can't fight, or a mobility kill – one unit can't move. Any way, their combat power is removed from the composite unit for the remainder of the game.

A more detailed mechanic might say if you exactly fail, you lose a die and gain a "mobility kill chit" and if you fail by one, you gain a "weapon kill chit". At the end of each round, if you roll less than your total weapon chits, you can add one die back to a damaged unit. If you roll less than your mobility kills, you can add a single die unit an appropriate distance behind (after all, a mobility kill could be limping behind the main force, not just immobilized, or it could be he was fixed a few turns ago, but only caught up now).

If you really wanted to, the mobility kill chits could be left in place and allow those units to still fire (if anything significant is in range) and be reactivated exactly where the mobility kill for one unit happened.

With any of the above variants, you could easily say it is or isn't representative. From my POV (and I think McLaddie's), it is as important or more to explain why you use your mechanic to represent different types of kills as it is for the mechanic to have the type of outcomes you plan. This is what we're trying to get done and this is how we're going to do it.

Wolfhag Supporting Member of TMP08 Oct 2015 8:22 a.m. PST

Here is what I'm using to get around "Bland Combat Mechanisms".

link

The player puts the cross hairs on the correct aspect of the target (front aspect shown) aiming like a tank gunner would. Accuracy is measured by the distance the round lands from the aim point measured in meters. That is done rolling a D100 that takes into account the gunner expertise, aim time, ranging or follow up shot and optics.

To determine direction roll another D100 and the direction is the numbers around the aim reticle.

In the example the direction roll is a 14. If the distance
is up to .5 meters the round hits on the driver plate. At .6 meter the turret ring, .7 to 1.3 meters hits the mantlet, 1.4 and 1.5 meters hits the turret roof and would ricochet off. Anything over 1.6 meters is a miss. There is no "To Hit" number or hit location die roll.

Rather than a bland hit or miss result the players get an immediate visual feedback of the results of the shot and hit location. The armor values are pre-computed for compound angles too but not shown.

At the ConQuest Avalon in Sacramento in November and DundraCon in San Ramon in Feb 2016 I'll be using a graphical interface on an iPod like this:
link

The exact hit location will generate the compound armor value with no die rolls or charts needed. There are still some details and anomalies to work on but so far players think it's pretty cool. They do have some input on the result of the shot by selecting the aim point. It's pretty interesting that they will almost always select center mass rather than targeting weak areas.

Successive shots become more "accurate" by decreasing the amount of dispersion from the aim point simulating the gunner making range/elevation changes for corrections. There are no die roll modifiers.

Wolfhag

McLaddie08 Oct 2015 3:06 p.m. PST

I think there are two game design issues here:

1. Player Point-of-View: The player is being asked to pretend to be in some environment and they expect that environment to 'make sense'. The 'grognards' don't see 1 shot [die roll] taking out three or more vehicles as sensible. Game-wise, with the right time scale it would make perfect sense, but not if the players' POV in the game includes that division of time. In other words, what does the player know about what the machanics represent. It is a representation issue. Having a armor stand represent three vechicles with three or more 'hits' possible before being taken out makes more sense on the face of it, without any more information.

Wolfhag [I might see you at ConQuest] has that Player POV 'solved' or has at least involved players in something that is clearly self-explanatory when it comes to what the mechanics represent…unlike the one hit, three vehicles down mechanic.

2. Game representation: Wargames only simulate to the degree that the players know the connections between the game processes and what they specficially represent. Wolfhag has presented part of that very clearly: What is represented. The question would be as far as the game mechanics whether that game process mimics something of actual tank to tank warfare…which means it would be based on some sources of information, whether personal experience or documentation.

So it is about what the rules are meant to represent and how much of that is known by the players. Too often things don't 'make sense' because the players don't know enough to 'make sense' of the mechanics.

Wolfhag Supporting Member of TMP09 Oct 2015 8:09 a.m. PST

McLaddie,
I'll address point #2 regarding my attempt to have game mechanics mimicking something of actual tank warfare.

I originally started working on some trajectory formulas I found in the book "WWII Ballistics" with no intentions of using it in a game. Rather than typical to hit + DRM mechanics I found that using a formula that included muzzle velocity, max ordinate, aiming errors and other error budget items from this paper: PDF link

By assigning these different "errors" a milliradian value (I don't use all of them) it was easy to develop a spreadsheet formula in 100 meter increments and add up all of the errors to get the basic MPI/accuracy value at any range.

Rather than having DRM's that modify a "To Hit #" I modify the distance from the aim point that the round will land in 1/10 of a meter increments using the error budget items. For example if a particular gun has an basic mil value accuracy of 1.0 that's one meter at 1000 meters. At 700 meters it's 0.7, at 1500 meters it is 1.5, 2000 meters 2.0, etc. The basic mil accuracy values is randomized like a bell curve in a way that any shot will have a 1-2% chance to get a lucky hit or a poor shot could be 150% of the basic mil value. It's not the only way to do it but is what I'm using right now.

The biggest reason the first round misses is because of range estimation error which is normally 20% off. In the formula I assign a Veteran crew a value of 20%, Elite 15%, Trained 25% and Green 30% range estimation error in the formula. Scissors binoculars are 15% and coin/stereo rangefinders are 10%. There is no math the player needs to perform as the system and formulas are "black box".

The second biggest reason for a miss is the gunners aiming error. This is a function of the gunner expertise, optics quality and magnification and amount of time spent aiming. Spending a minimum amount of time aiming on the first shot (snap shot) can generate a large enough error to miss a tank target at 25 meters. Seconds do count and spending a few extra seconds to aim has spelt the doom for many tank crews. The games does allow some latitude for the player to trade accuracy for speed or speed for accuracy in an engagement. Turret rotation speed is another factor in getting off the first shot. There is no need for special over watch and opportunity fire rules as the game uses a "time and motion" system to determine engagement.

To simulate bracketing in the game after a round misses the next shot basic MPI value is 50% of the previous shot. So if the first shot was 3.0 meters off the second if missed would be 1.5 meters and the third .75 meters which should be a hit on a 2.0 meter tall vehicle if aiming center mass.

Using distance increments in 1/10th of a meter gives 100 potential hit locations per square meter of target area. Combined with an optional aiming location virtually any location on the target image can be hit without needing to use a hit location table or an additional die roll. This gives an easy way to portray enemy armor strengths and weaknesses. Areas that generate an armor slope of over 70 degrees will bounce off. Drive train, ammo and fuel locations are historically designated on the target to get an idea of damage from penetrating rounds eliminating additional die rolls.

The results compare favorably to different nationality test firings and after action reports. However, since there is no final authority on this subject and different nationalities used different criteria and definitions on their testing I cannot claim a certain level of "realism". I can claim I've attempted to use data and information from military manuals and research and to a certain degree the game does mimic them. It's still a WIP. So far in play testing it has given the right feel to players and they seem to pick up the concepts without the mechanics bogging them down. That's the important thing.

People with tank crew experience have no problem with it. There are some military concepts and terminology that I had to dismiss as it was a little too confusing to players without military experience.

That's the short version, I won't bore you with additional details. I hope to see you in Sacramento.

Wolfhag

McLaddie09 Oct 2015 9:07 a.m. PST

The results compare favorably to different nationality test firings and after action reports. However, since there is no final authority on this subject and different nationalities used different criteria and definitions on their testing I cannot claim a certain level of "realism".

Wolfhag:

Thanks for the clear explanation of what you are working on. Here is the point where I find some frustration in talking about 'realism' with many on the TMP list. First of all, there is NEVER any 'final authority' for simulation accuracy. It is simply:
1. The data[AARs, tests, manuals, eye witnesses, what-have-you.] you have chosen to simulate.
2. The mechanics you have chosen to represent that information.
3. How the game processes then 'compare' to the data.

In other words, do the mechanics work--'compare favorably' to actual 'real' information? There are methods for testing this to a very credible level. That is the definition of a functioning simulation: It works. To the extent that it works, the game system achieves that 'level' of realism.

It isn't mysterious, some stray opinion, or impossible to gauge. It certainly isn't rocket science.

If you can achieve that favorable comparison, then you certainly can claim a 'certain level of realism.' What's real is the descriptions of reality you used and how well your mechanics mimic that reality. That is it. As you say:

I can claim I've attempted to use data and information from military manuals and research and to a certain degree the game does mimic them.

It's still a WIP. So far in play testing it has given the right feel to players and they seem to pick up the concepts without the mechanics bogging them down. That's the important thing.

That is important too. What players are asked to do in the game process is critical if all that realism is going to be translated into an enjoyable, playable game. I hope to be there at ConQuest. If I am, I'll look you up.

Bill

Wolfhag Supporting Member of TMP09 Oct 2015 1:15 p.m. PST

McLaddie,
Almost all of my play testing has been at conventions where players had no exposure to the game and no chance (or desire) to read over boring and poorly written rules as I'm not a professional rules writer. At conventions people want instant satisfaction with good eye candy. I try to please. I give a 10 minute explanation of the concepts and what will be expected of them and how they can do it with associated risk-rewards. Then we jump right in. I had to make it easy to grasp the concepts so using established military concepts and terminology was needed. While detailed it does not resemble ASL.

I'll try to explain how I attempt to mimic reality in the turn system I use. It is basically an open ended "time and motion" mechanic that interacts with other players without using initiative, activation, card or dice draws, etc. In the game there is no set IGOUGO or turn sequence for moving, shooting, ordering, etc. This confuses players at first. After you complete an action for a vehicle or gun you immediately select the next action. DON'T WAIT! I tell players to do exactly what a real tank commander or gunner would do, basically move or shoot again at the same target or select a new one.

If a player wants to shoot at a target he has detected he counts up his engagement time using turret rotation (degrees per second), rotates the turret onto the target, selects the amount of aim time (from 2-10 seconds)and adds any crew expertise delays (0 to 4 seconds). That is the number of phases (one phase = about one second) in a later turn he'll get the shot off. However, the enemy has no idea exactly when this will happen creating uncertainty and a Fog of War. The gun may not even have a round in it or be jammed but it is still a threat if is pointed at you.

I've tweaked the engagement times to match up with my research on how long crews took to engage, estimate range, aim and fire. From my research crews were expected to take 10-12 seconds to engage a target accurately for the first shot under pretty ideal conditions. Being buttoned up will increase response time. Being unbuttoned could mean getting hit in the head by a high velocity tank round. That's happened more than once in games.

Now the interactive part of the game gets interesting. Lets say a Sherman is moving along not being shot at and observes that there are no German tank guns pointed at him. That would be safe to keep moving to out flank them. However, he now sees the German player move the turret of a Panther tank and point the gun directly at him. Drat! I'll tell the US player he has anywhere from 6-12 seconds to do something before the Panther gets a shot off at him. Experienced players will already recognize this.

I explain the options and effects and he makes the decision. After a few turns everyone gets the idea. If the Sherman has a WP round in the chamber he can most likely quickly steer directly at the Panther and lay the gun to get a round off with a snap shot (minimum aim time) before the Panther does (or not) and obscure him from the Panther gunner and then keep moving. He could do the same with an AP round too. Another option is if there is blocking terrain close enough (40-50 meters away) he may be able to move out of the Panther gunners LOS before he gets the round off or force him to shoot more quickly with less aim time and miss. He could also dodge and steer to give the Panther a difficult 90 degree deflection shot and move at full speed. Real tactics and options from the real world, not die subjective roll modifiers.

Shooting at a moving target uses a simplified mechanic based on trials by the British at Bovington after WWII taking into account speed, range, time of flight of the round, angle and aiming error (leading target error). It gives a lateral dispersion from the aim point in front or behind the target in addition to the results of the shot.

If engaging he does the same as above counting up the amount of time to get the shot off. If moving he places the movement arrow that shows speed, direction and distance moving per phase. Models and figures are physically moved every 5 phases but having a movement marker means the units is fired at as moving. This gives a small enough time slice to make over watch and opportunity fire work without special rules.

I encourage players to be creative and ask questions about options or actions that they could perform based on historical or fictional accounts. To implement any action we just need to determine how long it may take and the effect on moving or shooting outcomes.

For example: Shoot & Scoot is performed by immediately after firing place a movement arrow showing the vehicle moving in reverse. If the enemy cannot react fast enough there is a good chance you'll be out of the LOS before he can get a round off. Take up a new firing position and repeat. The same can be done using a reverse slope defense. Start by being turret down to acquire the target and then move to a hull down position, fire and reverse to turret down again while reloading.

You can overrun and crush anti-tanks guns, chase down those crunchy infantry in the open, toss a grenade from your open hatch while overrunning an infantry trench, shoot from your turret pistol port, etc. Whatever level you want to portray you can.

It's different than most games and I hope I presented it clearly.

Wolfhag

McLaddie11 Oct 2015 9:54 a.m. PST

It is basically an open ended "time and motion" mechanic that interacts with other players without using initiative, activation, card or dice draws, etc. In the game there is no set IGOUGO or turn sequence for moving, shooting, ordering, etc. This confuses players at first. After you complete an action for a vehicle or gun you immediately select the next action.

With only one tank to maneuver etc. [I am assuming from your description], you can have that kind of detailed parsing of time without it being too complicated. With you, the designer there, that makes it easier too. Do you have any charts or player aids besides the 10 minutes of instructions?

I remember a set of WWII rules conceived of by the military [Or used by the military] back in the '80s where units had different numbers of 'time segments' so that tanks had six, armored cars might have eight and where infantry had three. [don't remember the actual seqments]. This meant that a tank might have to use three segments to aim and fire, five to move and sight the enemy, but only two to move X distance, so that a similar time dynamic was portrayed. I have it on my computer someplace, but can't remember where at the moment. grin

Anyway, having the players think in terms of seconds and time intervals more closely related to a tanker's experience is a powerful simulation method. When you have fifteen minute or half an hour turn phases, it changes the player's sense of time, basically determining at what level the player is commanding.

It does sound like you have done your due dilegence, tying your mechanics to research and the statistical work done by the military. It also sounds like you have tested your completed system against historical engagements, yes?

Wolfhag Supporting Member of TMP12 Oct 2015 2:00 p.m. PST

McLaddie,
That game you mention does not ring a bell for me. Sounds interesting but I can't recall the name.

The mechanic I'm using is a physical based time and motion (turret rotation speed, reload time, rate of speed/movement, etc) modified by an "engagement delay" caused by friction, suppression and crew quality. This determines when the action like shooting will take place. With this system I don't have to assign arbitrary values and can use historic rates for turret rotation, reloads, speed, etc.

One of the main concepts of the game is "Situational Awareness" which works like spotting rules. Whenever there is enemy activity in LOS and within range of your vehicle/gun you can IMMEDIATELY (no command points, activation or interruption rules) perform a Situational Awareness Check to see if you notice things like enemy movement, firing, turret rotation, etc and respond by engaging or moving. The only limitation is that if already engaging or firing at a target you can only check for your frontal arc and are essentially blind in all others.

The check involves rolling a D20 and if <= the base value for the frontal, flank and rear arcs (higher values for frontal arc and lesser for flank and rear arcs and lesser for being buttoned up) you can react without delay by engaging or moving. If you roll > the base number the difference is the number of phases delay before you can respond. Each vehicle has slightly different values depending on optics and vision ports and for buttoned up values. The biggest factor is unbuttoned or not.

A base Situational Awareness Factor of 12 with a die roll of 16 would involve a four second/phase delay. Don't laugh, every second counts!

Depending on the D20 die roll you may be able to spot a unit in 360 degrees or be blind in the flank and/or rear arcs. This can really create the effects of a buttoned up tank being blind and gives a realistic chance for moving units to outflank the enemy. Just forcing the enemy to button up is a real advantage.

To move simply put a movement/speed marker in the general direction you want to move, including reverse. Anyone shooting at you in a later phase will be shooting at a moving target but the vehicle will not be physically moved until the end of the fifth phase. Units are not moved in a second by second basis!

To engage and fire you first determine how long it will take to rotate your turret, select aim time in phases plus any crew delay (poor skilled crews have an additional delay allowing better crews to perform more actions in the same amount of time). You will actually get the shot off in that many phases in the future, unless of course an enemy fires before you and knocks out your gun or vehicle. While it may seem a little complicated the actions you are performing are what a tank crew would be doing in a battle. This is not a tank crew RPG rolling to check and see if a specific crew member was able to perform a specific action. The entire crew is rated which determines how quickly they can perform actions. There are SNAFU cards that can effect specific crew members making things a little uncertain.

When I GM a game a player might ask what he can do. I tell him he can observe, move or shoot. If he has no target and want to select one perform a Situational Awareness check. If he wants to move I tell him to place a movement/speed arrow in the general direction the vehicle will move and he'll move it at the end of a 5 phase segment. If he wants to shoot I'll ask him what target he has spotted and wants to shoot at and ask him how a real tank crew would do that. After a few seconds of introspection he'll normally say he needs to move the turret to point at the target and then aim at it. I say "well done, you are half way to knowing how to play the game". Then I'll tell him to look at his status sheet to see the amount of time in phases that will take to accomplish those actions and that is when he'll fire in the future. There are 2-3 factors to track for bookkeeping.

One of the tough decisions for a player to make is selecting the optional amount of aim time for his shot (generally 2-9 seconds/phases) while in the middle of a multi-vehicle battle and he sees one or more enemy guns pointed at him. You want to shoot as quickly as possible but that will throw your aim off, no good shooting first if you miss. You have no idea when your opponent will fire (cool fog of war simulation). It's fun watching some player agonizing over their decision selecting aim time.

You can also fire on the move but it is very inaccurate. However, we had a game at the South Bay Gaming Club in San Jose where a group T-34/85's were engaged in the flank and front by German Panthers, a very poor tactical situation. The Russian player decided to haul ass towards a hill that would put him out of LOS of both groups of Panthers and had nothing to lose by getting off a few shots on the move even though a hit would most likely not penetrate. He presented a 90 degree deflection to the closest Panther group and the first shot missed him going just past the rear of the turret. The same T-34 got a shot off at the same Panther a few phases later and got a very luck shot. The player had selected an aim point was pretty much center mass but the MPI and direction had the round impacted on the bottom of the Panther mantlet (model A, not G). The round failed to penetrate so ricocheted downwards and penetrated the 25mm hull top armor on the driver side and started a fire and the crew bailed. Needless to say the German player was surprised and Bleeped texted off but as they say that's the way the round bounces (ha, ha). With a system like this almost anything can happen.

I see this system is an alternative to the other "to hit + DRM" type games that need to go to a high level of abstraction to make it playable. While the above description sounds involved it's actually very intuitive performing the same tasks a tank crew would perform. We've had new players commanding 4-8 tanks in a game with up to 12 tanks per side and we can get in 15-20 turns of moving and firing in a three hour game. Over watch and opportunity fire require no additional rules or exceptions.

The increased delay time for poor crews can enable a better crew in an inferior vehicle use tactics to outfight a poor crew in a better vehicle and win. It's more than just die roll modifiers.

It's not been tested on any historic scenarios as of yet. Is there one you can suggest?

I'm working on the latest Quick Start rules that I'll post later this week. I've discussed the system on other areas of TMP. Do a search for "Treadheads" and you should be able to find them.

Wolfhag

McLaddie16 Oct 2015 5:49 p.m. PST

Wolfhag:

Thank you for the details. I still have to check. Are we talking about one tank-one player rules? It woul seem so with the ease of play you note, but the obvious detail.

"Situational Awareness" Ah, yes. Good show. More and more I am coming to appreciate the necessity of portraying that as well as the complexities. I am building that into my Napoleonic rules.

It was an itch I couldn't scratch, so I dug around for those rules.

The rules article was printed in Wargamer's Digest in October of 1979. It was about "The Modular System of FIRE AND MOVEMENT."

It was developed by Gene McCoy, who was a 'commanding officer of armor' with active combat experience during WWII. They coorolated the game with the "leading Combat Evaluation and Research Organizations" composed of former army officers and their studies of WWII combat…

Anyway, McCoy felt kime and distance was the key factor, but instead of dividing movement/actions in seconds, he used a 'modular system' where each unit, armor or infantry, had a set of activities in 'modules'. Where a tank might have six, an armored car eight, an infantry would have three. In other words, before an infantry unit could complete an action, an armored unit could carry out two, but before the third, the infantry would activate.

So, while your approach may be unique, it has been on gamers/military minds for a while now. grin

If you are interested, I might be able to email it to you.

Bill

Who asked this joker17 Oct 2015 7:45 a.m. PST

IF the dice rolls don't represent anything particular, then yes, a flip of a coin is just as 'accurate.'

Statistics is statistics. Don't try to fool yourself that some clever multi-roll game mechanic is somehow more accurate than flipping coins multiple times or taking taking a set of percentile dice and rolling just once to decide the task at hand.

I'm not saying one is more accurate than the other. I'm saying that "clever" game mechanics are often a waste of time when you could get it done with a single roll of the dice.

McLaddie17 Oct 2015 8:42 a.m. PST

I'm not saying one is more accurate than the other. I'm saying that "clever" game mechanics are often a waste of time when you could get it done with a single roll of the dice.

Agreed. At times the roll of multiple dice is seen as more 'accurate' because multiple things are represented, but in the end do not change the actual odds of something occurring as a result.

It all depends on what the dice are recreating in the way of statistics. Often the dice probablilities don't really represent anything other than what the designer sees as 'interesting' or clever mechanics.

For instance, die rolls are used to portray the ability of commanders to get things done on the battlefield, everything from gaining the 'initiative' to command 'pips'. However, I haven't seen anything to suggest that such things have been statistically analyzed from accounts that are supposedly the basis for such machanics.

On the other hand, in the absence of any real explanations of what game mechanics represent, multiple rolls to resolve say, combat, provide the player with more information about what is happening than one die roll.

Pages: 1 2 

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.