"Interesting blog article - Turn Sequence" Topic

Interesting. The 3 card idea is somewhat similar to the Command & Colors style games.

Here's yet another simple system I use in a LOT of games.

Each turn is comprised of two phases. Units will activate either in Phase 1 or Phase 2. When activated they may move and shoot or shoot and move. Which phase a unit moves in is determined at the start of the turn. Roll a die. Odd = Phase 1, Even = Phase 2. Units in Phase 1 may voluntarily "phase back" and activate in Phase 2 instead.

Gives some control but also builds in some simple reaction. And you can "modify" an army or unit by tweaking the dice roll. A slow ponderous army is Phase 1 on a 1 or 2, Phase 2 on a 3+. Or an elite unit (Navy SEALs for example) are always Phase 1, while crummy militia are always Phase 2.

And in my rules you only shoot when active which is a simple way to create "shoot and scoot" or ambush moves.

Melee in this system comes at the end of the turn.

I've played card activations systems many times and they don't seem to be worth the trouble. They DON'T yield a realistic result in any of the systems except very small scale skirmish or in the modern period, and in the 18th and before periods are completely bizarre. I find that what gamers are trying to do is avoid some of the drawbacks of the IGOUGO system as far as GAME actions (who fires what and when) and attempting to overload the system to simply be able to fire at an enemy without getting fired back. All of this comes from trying to adapt what might happen in the very small to the very large. Yes, a person might have an ambush, and be able to fire on the enemy and take advantage of his surprise to retire or get out of range, but that happens when the side attempting has two to five men and the action time is a minute or less. It doesn't work with big units of a company or more in formation. The other fault with the IGOUGO people don't like is the often laborious process of sitting around waiting for the other guy to do his turn.

The card activation system developed to try and get around this in my opinion simply offers a cure that's worse than the disease.

Unless you are dealing with very small forces (ten to twelve figures representing ten to twelve men) the dynamics of these operating individually more or less independently of each other defies any sort of activation system. Further in the modern period where one figure is supposed to lay down "covering fire" for the advance of another all depends on the flip of the card. Similarly the problems with "overwatch" where one unit stays stationary and "watches" an area of terrain and fires on anything coming within it.

It depends mostly on what you are modeling. Most of the times games model real life in one way. Movement is easy to do and uncomplicated-- outside the range of the enemy. Even militia were trained to march and maneuver tolerably well, the discipline of the mass overrides the will of the individual and everyone goes along and does what they are told to, even in the modern era where soldiers are not in massed formations, and "activation" is immaterial. But once the bullets fly the instinct of individual self preservation and the vagaries of doubt as to what is going on begin to assume a more present factor and are not so easily overridden by discipline or orders. This is present in all periods but in the pre-modern era the press of shoulder to shoulder and others has a more powerful effect, unlike in the modern.

But that is in real life.

In a game where we are only "pantomiming" these things it becomes a problem of what do these units (men or groups) do?

Here it depends on other factors. How long is you turn? If it's a few seconds of minutes that's one thing. On the other hand, if it is like mine, representing an hour of time, a lot can take place in an hour and these small scale perambulations and decisions wash out and become insignificant. In an hour there can be dozens of eddying charges and counter-charges, volleys and advances and retreats. runs and rallies, and so you are only gauging the "net effect." The higher matters of command and control (whatever that is) as it is termed in the rules is either to a general plan of the army, or the catch as catch can of movements in the immediate area, that is ad-hoc plans.

All of this I worked out to my satisfaction by the use of THREE systems of movement inside an essentially IGOUGO system. The game sequence of action starts out with the side that had the initiative first drawing a card from an event deck which may impose some condition on the game for the following turn ONLY. Then the side with initiative rolls to see if it keeps it for the upcoming turn. The side with initiative goes first (whoever has it). Both sides have three ways of movement. The first is a movement ability of the individual units which you must roll less than or equal to in order to move. The second is a "maneuver" move. In this all the officers on the field have an officer ability. These can be added to any stat of the unit to increase its ability in the game actions (move, to stand, charge, rally or fire if they are within 8" of the unit, OR a group of officers within 8" of each other can make a maneuver by totaling up their abilities to a score of up to 5 and rolling less than or equal to that. They then can move EVERY unit within 8" of the group as they wish. This allows players to maneuver a whole wing forward and bring them, coordinated onto some part of the enemy line. The THIRD system of movement is disguised in the attributes of the unit which are "special power" such as allowing them to make split moves with the ability to try and get in a shot without the enemy being able to respond etc. Technically there is even a fourth method which allows a player to designate "charmed" units which can move freely during an enemy move.

It works well and produces realistic results and moves very fast.

Combat is in the next to last phase of the turn and is always simultaneous. The last phase of the turn is rally.

One point about initiative must be noted. In the game the normal move distance of cavalry is 16". For anything else it is 8". however, if you have initiative you can move whatever unit it is as far as your little old heart desires. This means you can move it from ANY point on the table top to ANY other point on the table top, only you must stop when you come within 8" of an enemy unit, or if you come into heavy or light terrain. "Charmed" units can be moved unlimited movement even if you don't have initiative.

The emphasis then is on plans and intentions. It works. We fight big battles of over 900 figures on a side and come to a definite conclusion in four to five hours.

it ha

In essence, any game system needs to do turn management since real life is so confusing – If there's 10,000 men a side, then there's 10,000 stories about what happened. In game terms, we separate and work out actions, interactions and reactions to make them resolvable and manageable. That's always going to clash with realism.

QC:
That's what we all do every day of our lives. It is the reality of most all humans. We separate our days into hours, worktimes, minutes, deadlines etc. etc. Without such organization, life can be confusing. [That is, far more confusing.]

That is also what the military does. Parse out time, schedule time, estimate procedures. Anyone who has been in the Army, for instance, will know how long it takes them to walk a mile. Navy drills times for many, many actions. Napoleonic soldiers parsed out time down to paces and steps per minute.

As you point out, the backbone of any game or simulation is how time is monitored, what happens when and how much.

It is very realistic to do this…depending on how it is done in relation to what the system is supposed to represent of reality.

Combat is the denial of order. As Keegan pointed out a few decades ago, as an example, historians of Waterloo impose an order on a set of disorder, those five or six so called phases, the precise time when say Wellington launched the final British attack and so forth. But it's just attempts to simplify a confusion that should not be simplified.
Indeed, war game turn sequences in which time is cut into manageable pieces, be it supposedly confused through initiative rolls or card driven turns produces amazing sets of incongrueties.
As I pointed out in another TWP.post on my favorite game of Command Decision a surprise cavalry charge came to nothing because the cavalry could only move so far in the turn, and not making contact with the enemy, and with no other rule or restriction on the enemy reaction, allowed the enemy to turn and form against the cavalry for the next turn, even though the enemy had not spotted the cavalry, but the figures were on the table so the enemy excuse went. Indeed, I pointed to a very much older set of rules that while having those timed turns, had a reaction chart for this very situation Funny how an experienced was game designer with many playing experiences such as Frank Chadwick missed this

Any read of say Fraser Quartered Safe out Here or Marshalls Battle at Best exposes the lie given by the ordered turn sequence combat, to include the problem of the empty battlefield
The only game system that acknowledged the untied confusion was George Jeffreys Code Napoleon with the Variable Length Bound (also Michael Korns Small Unit Tactical Combat) Unfortunately these are in need of umpires, and so they died. Yet the unbelievable of Fraser, Marshall and Griffiths, can almost be simulated showing a better simulation of combat than even the clever and innovated yet shackled to the baleful timed turns
If nothing else, military basic training is an attempt to reorder the civilians own time sequence in thinking, to teach him that even in the so called order of marching and pressed uniforms, much chaos of a different kind takes place

Combat is the denial of order.

Keegan didn't say that. He said that combat was the effort of each side to destroy the 'order' of their opponent. There has to be order, and that includes 'timing' to have it 'destroyed. The whole effort of an army is to control the chaos of battle while the enemy attempts to inflict it.

As Keegan pointed out a few decades ago, as an example, historians of Waterloo impose an order on a set of disorder, those five or six so called phases, the precise time when say Wellington launched the final British attack and so forth. But it's just attempts to simplify a confusion that should not be simplified.

Rick:
Keegan was looking at the experience of the common soldier, and then how historians impose order [a narrative] on those memories.

Indeed, war game turn sequences in which time is cut into manageable pieces, be it supposedly confused through initiative rolls or card driven turns produces amazing sets of incongrueties.

I don't like 'initiative' rolls because makes gaining the initiative on the battlefield a matter of sheer luck rather than tactics or skill. However, every human being cuts time up into manageable pieces and the commander who is able to do that in a superior way, wins.

George's Code Napoleon was very much 'shackled' by time and 'turn' sequences. In fact, it foundered on the representation of time, what happens when.

We can debate the ability of different mechanisms for representing time and the sequence of events, but I don't think it is reasonable to see the battlefield as 'untied confusion'. If it was, plans, training and experience of any kind would be pointless.

There certainly was confusion on the battlefield, in an variety of shapes. It is a question of how to represent that reality to some extent with a procedural system.

And keep in mind that an army was a procedural system too.

Interesting discussion and blog post, thanks for bringing it to my attention.

Having written and played many different types of games this is a discussion I have had and thought about many times and all the above posts dont talk about what that group of players enjoys / perceives as correct.

Some of that will stem from the type of game / group of players you game with. I have regularly gamed at the same club for coming on 30 years and game even more often with a smaller group at my house. If all the players agree or like a style of rules, choice of play is easy. If you play competitions or game with people you only see once a year at a convention the requirements are different.

I never liked igougo systems in fact I recall a time when they were very rare, when I started (queue Hovis theme quietly in the background) virtually all sets of rules were simultaneous moves, everyone declared charged, moved, fired, mêléed etc. The problem of the gamer who waited to see your move before moving themselves was solved in a number of basic ways, my personal preference being not playing with that person again !

Systems of moving left to right or dicing off vs initiative or unit class when actions conflicted were popular but for me the best system was the Johnny Reb order chit system. We still use those rules today and have adapted the system for a number of other rule sets. For those not old enough, each unit is given a small card chit with a marker on which determines that units move. You can fire first gambling that the unit in front doesn't charge you, or hold you fire thinking it will while your opponent worries do I charge, shoot, move etc. Great system makes for some interesting game play.

There seems to be too much game play in igougo for me, you sit there for 20 minutes while all yoir stuff gets killed or outflanked before you spend 20 minutes trying to clear the mess up.

I am a fan of the card system though, it does break it down, you could argue into a mini igougo, but you are only waiting 30 seconds or so. Toofatlardies rules are the best for this. We invented a Poker style play to solve the co-ordination issue. Basically you deal two cards to each player then deal 5 cards face down in a "flop". The player with initiative is in control of the flop, they can just let it run or intervene by moving the order of the flop, adding a card, taking a card from the unplayed deck etc, however every time they do this they have to roll against their command level to keep the initiative, it gets harder each time. It takes a bit of time but it's great fun and adds another dimension to the game.

The other system we use are written orders, used only for our naval games however, a ships captain will write down there move at the same time as the other captains and then all move /fire together.

But going back to my initial point, turn sequences are all about the people you play with and the time you have to game (are you in a home set up where you can leave a game for weeks or do you need to clear up before 10pm) those factors make a massive difference.

WW2 Desert today, card activation ahoy !

Regards, Ken
yarkshiregamer.blogspot.co.uk

Hey McLaddie. Good discussion. I'm not a fan of the totally random activation thing using cards or dice. I don't like "initiative" rules in a 1:1 vehicle game either.

This is what I've been using for armor games using micro, 10mm and 12mm scales using a 5 phase turn. We have played tank/infantry at 28mm too.

Any moving units have a movement arrow placed to show the general direction of movement. When playing a scale of 1" = 25 meters the movement arrow also shows the distance the unit will move. Each phase is equal to about one second so a vehicle moving at 35kph will move about 2 inches. The movement markers also show distance moved in each phase giving a good visual indication of distance and direction. The game is speeded up by both players moving their units at the same time governed by the direction their arrow is pointing.

For spotting and shooting purposes any unit with a movement marker is assumed to be moving even if it has not actually moved yet. When you stop remove the arrow. At the end of a 5 phase turn all units on both sides with movement arrows are actually moved simultaneously by both players in the direction of the arrows. Units stop to shoot and can change their direction arrow after moving. Any moving units that come into LOS can immediately be engaged (opportunity fire).

To determine when a unit shoots I use a "time & motion" type mechanic with time measured in number of phases to perform a task (not action points). A tank with a historic ROF of 12 rounds per minute could fire every 5 phases (additional time may be spent for turret rotation and crew training delay). So if a tank engages a target in turn 3 phase 2 it can and takes 8 phases to get a shot off it will fire in turn 4 phase 5 (some bookkeeping involved). You never know exactly when your opponent will fire or start moving.

When a new 5 phase turn starts all tanks/guns that are firing that turn are exposed and fire. There may be some interaction with opponents firing at each other during the same turn. If you fire one of you guns in phase 3 at an opponent that was going to fire in phase 5 and he is KO'd he does not get to fire and you engage a new target. When playing with four or more tanks you'll generally be firing at least one every turn and not sitting around waiting. Seconds count in the game just like in real life.

There is a lot of interaction between players during a turn. Movement is in small enough increments without needing additional complicated overwatch and opportunity fire rules. Units fire or are "activated" when it comes to their turn and phase of firing. We do have SNAFU cards that will interfere with a players command and control or impact his crew efficiency.

Crews are rated for the additional amount of phases to perform an action or "activate". This allows better trained crews to get inside their opponents decision loop and accomplish more in the same amount of time.

I've played this at a half dozen conventions with players running up to 12 vehicles and works well. There is a built in FoW as your opponent does not know exactly when you'll be shooting at him. We also play a rule that you can shave off a phase or two to fire quicker but with less accuracy so even if the enemy knows your historic ROF he'll still be unsure of when you'll fire.

You can really simulate "shoot & scoot" by laying down a movement arrow (immediately become a moving target) immediately after firing and move to another location while reloading. So if you were static and fired in phase 2 and then put down a movement arrow any enemy units targeting you are now firing at a moving target starting in phase 3.

You can move from turret down to hull down, fire, then reverse to turret down to reload and pop up again.

There is no IGOUGO movement or fire phase. No order phase. At the end of every 2-3 five phase turns is when other actions can happen like admin, communications, breakdowns, etc.

Artillery can land during any phase of a turn. If a round lands in phase 3 and a moving unit may be hit you can see exactly where that moving unit would be in phase 3 by looking at its movement arrow, keeping in mind it is not physically moved until phase 5.

There are times when tanks get a shot off at the exact phase and moving vehicles are able to move out of LOS before the enemy gets the shot off. We're able to use historical ROF, movement and turret rotation without abstractions or complicated overwatch and opportunity fire rules. No cards, no random activations, no command interrupts, no roll offs to see who gets first shot or continue an initiative. Coordinating actions between different tanks units is chancy and not automatic.

In a game with 12 vehicles per side and new players playing for the first time we did 34 five phase turns of movement and fire in 3 hours. Players were on their own after about 30 minutes.

Thanks,
Wolfhag

My own experience is that there are far too many different card based games to make any general sweeping statement about whether they all "worth the trouble" or yield realistic results. There are card systems where the individual units are represented, where individual leaders are represented, where different troop types are represented, where a turn end card is present, where no turn end card is present, where multiple turn end cards are present, where the cards activate single units, where the cards activate multiple units, where the cards trigger events, where the cards enhance or influence command, where the cards replace dice, where the cards dictate movement rates, where the cards do none of these but something quite different.

It seems to me that there are so many types of card driven games that all we can really conclude is which specific games we like or dislike and that to condemn the genre carte blanche (pun intended) is rather like saying all IGO-UGO games are the same. And they are clearly not.

To my mind some card driven games do the job admirably, others do less well. Same as any other genre.

A few rejoinders.
Since when did I advocate initiative rolls? I used them as example of attempts along with cards to introduce battlefield chaos.
I did not intend that "combat is the denial of order" become a quote by Keegan. If you read carefully, the remark comes before my discussion of what Keegan said or meant
Indeed, a read of his History of Warfare will actually almost have him saying that. An example of military disorder within its order is in Keegan discussion of the British regiment. It is interesting to note that while these regiments are of the same Army, the uniforms can wildly different amongst them and even the uniforms, adorned with medals and honors, come to make the soldier appear as a Christmas tree, adorned, if one didn't know better, in a chaotic style. And that's part of the point. Unless one knows the rationale or traditions behind the adornments, they seem chaotic and irrational. This also applies to the regiments, brigades, companies and Armies, be it Waterloo or Warsaw. So though there is an attempt at order, disorder is already present. Combat, the collision of soldiers, companies,or corps is the finish to any order. Be it the cavalry melee at Arbela, the tank melee at Kursk or the infantry melee, almost, at Imphal, the ordered timings and formations dissolve. The fantastic nonsense of being able to spend ten minutes between turns to determine the next move in a tactical aviation game such as Check Your Six or the same time to determine your next move in a tactical single soldier skirmish game makes a mockery out of any discussions of realism. No matter what move and shoot or whatever system you have, cards, dice, whatever, this kind of time keeping,,,well, gee I'd love to have 36 hours per day so I can catch up on my sleep, not to mention second guess myself. And I only wish that game turns, in which my units can move thus far and no farther, applied in real life so my car stops short of a rear end accident.
Georges game did Not founder because it was still shackled to the turn sequence. It foundered because his audience was too shackled to the traditional turn sequence to understand the Variable Length Bound . I was there at the creation and saw the incredulity and failure to understand the concept by Lochet, Simon, and even Zuparko. But I saw similar in the miniatures version of Harpoon. As well as Korns SUTC.
These uncomprehending were attempting to place that good old unrealistic order of the timed turn on a chaotic untimeable thing.
Whatever you do, because of the figures, it's a game first and last and the uniforms, movement rates and other "history" is the picture frame for a piece of impressionistic art, be it Monet or Dali

Rick:

I wasn't suggesting you were advocating initiative rolls. I was saying I didn't like them and why. One reason I didn't address that comment to you, while I did the others.

Georges game did Not founder because it was still shackled to the turn sequence. It foundered because his audience was too shackled to the traditional turn sequence to understand the Variable Length Bound . I was there at the creation and saw the incredulity and failure to understand the concept by Lochet, Simon, and even Zuparko. But I saw similar in the miniatures version of Harpoon. As well as Korns SUTC.

There was a VLB 'turn sequence', as unconventional as it was. In the end VLB didn't founder because of some failure to understand on the part of the audience. Its failure to work well was a systemic design issue, regardless of who did or didn't understand it. Conceptually, I think it was brilliant. The actual system designed to express that concept simply didn't work without George there to 'explain' it. That was because it didn't stand on its own.

If you read carefully, the remark comes before my discussion of what Keegan said or meant
Indeed, a read of his History of Warfare will actually almost have him saying that. An example of military disorder within its order is in Keegan discussion of the British regiment…

I think I follow your thinking, but I think it is far more esoteric than what either Keegan or I were talking about in reference to Chaos on the battlefield. I think we will just have to agree to disagree on that one.

The fantastic nonsense of being able to spend ten minutes between turns to determine the next move in a tactical aviation game such as Check Your Six or the same time to determine your next move in a tactical single soldier skirmish game makes a mockery out of any discussions of realism. No matter what move and shoot or whatever system you have, cards, dice, whatever, this kind of time keeping,,,well, gee I'd love to have 36 hours per day so I can catch up on my sleep, not to mention second guess myself. And I only wish that game turns, in which my units can move thus far and no farther, applied in real life so my car stops short of a rear end accident.

Having seen training simulations of aerial combat, infantry tactical exercises, etc. that actually do provide that kind of 'think time', obviously there is more to it than making" a mockery out of any discussions of realism."

It comes down to what part of reality is the focus of the wargame, what is and isn't included. IF the purpose of the wargame was to give the players the same decision-making cycle as found in real combat, then YES, such a system would be a mockery of realism. If the purpose of the wargame is to provide a tactical laboratory exploring the tactical options, then no, it isn't "fantastic nonsense."

No wargame/simulation can represent all of reality. It will never happen, even with super computers. That means that the designer at some point has to decide what reality will and will not be represented by the game mechanics. It is unfair--and rather pointless--design analysis to judge a wargame design for qualities it was never created to provide.

Rick Don Burnette said:

The fantastic nonsense of being able to spend ten minutes between turns to determine the next move in a tactical aviation game such as Check Your Six or the same time to determine your next move in a tactical single soldier skirmish game makes a mockery out of any discussions of realism.

I understand your point and agree in principle, but disagree completely in the specific case of Check Your Six. CY6 isn't simulating the experience of a single pilot in a dogfight, it's a big-battle game with an aerial setting, and players are expected to control at least a flight of 2-4 planes and up to multiple squadrons. In this design context it's perfectly acceptable to take 30 minutes to plot out the aerial maneuvers of several planes, because what's actually happening is that a flabby gamer with zero training or experience in actual fighter combat is attempting to simulate the results of the split-second decisions of multiple pilots who each have dozens-to-hundreds of hours of seat time in actual fighters (and were good enough pilots to survive one of the most ruthlessly Darwinian training programs ever devised by modern man!). The game mechanisms are well-developed to channel the results of these simulated decisions into believable outcomes, and to that end the game works. I've played dozens (or maybe hundreds?) of games of CY6, and while I have a lot of minor quibbles with various game mechanics, I think that overall the game works well and produces believable outcomes and a satisfying player experience.

Regarding generalizations about card-based activation systems, I wholly agree with BobGrognard:

To my mind some card driven games do the job admirably, others do less well. Same as any other genre.

I've played a number of card-based games, and no two played exactly alike, even within the same shared architecture. I've even found that the reasonableness of card activation in Field of Battle can differ between two scenarios! There are a lot of variations possible within the context of card use, and it's really impossible to generalize that they are all good or bad.

I like the article that launched this thread, and appreciate the blogger exposing his thought process. I heartily agree with a lot of his analysis, and appreciate his attempt to mash up a new turn sequence out of existing mechanics to fit his particular needs. Thanks to QC for pointing it out.

- Ix

The card idea mentioned by the OP on his blog is pretty much what I do with my Day of Battle command system.

One of the defining aspects of any wargame is the turn sequence. This has a huge impact on how players interact with their units, the opposition, and get "period feel" from the game. As I consider tinkering with yet another OHW period, I find myself hankering for a turn sequence that is evocative of the period, encourages historical options/decisions by players, and isn't too gamey…

I certainly agree that the turn sequence has a big influence on how the players experience the game. Here, he is looking for a sequence that is historically 'evocative'.

He then writes:

So players should have a limited ability to plan and execute sequences of action as well as some simultaneous actions with units, such as moving a long column of troops down a road, or advancing together following a unit with the general's banner, etc.

I also like that since you can't predict easily when you will get to go – at least at the start of a turn, you need to play conservatively sometimes, which is part of the methodical, stately feel of the period. Commanders preferred to train for predictability and reliability than flashy tactics and wild possibilities.

I am unclear as to how unpredictability, particularly when he states that troops were trained for predictability, create the methodical, stately feel of the period. 1. I don't know whether the stately feel based on unpredictability is actually the experience and reaction of contemporary commanders, 2. Where does he get this idea of history?

As the whole point of the exercise is going for something more 'realistic', what is the historical 'reality' he is using as a template? Never mentioned.

Any Regular Troops should be trained well enough to carry out an order in a predictable fashion under normal circumstances. The variable is from what upper level in the chain of command gave that order and how much of a delay was there from the order issued and getting them to move. That can be somewhat quantifiable. The other variable is friction generated by the enemy trying to stop you from getting to your objective or carry out that order. Include in the fog of war and lack of recon that makes commanders hesitant to make a decision on their own.

Another variable is local commander initiative or lack of it. Can they react to enemy threats? How quickly? What information do they have about what's going on around them?

If you have a game that has let's say 5 phases per turn the delay in giving an order from a higher command to a lower one can be measured in phases of delay. A lower commander in reacting and changing orders on his own initiative could result in a number of phases of delay. I think these delays are what give the opponent a tactical advantage and the delay gives them an initiative without abstracted mechanics.

Commanders like Napoleon and Alexander the Great commanded their best cavalry because they had the initiative and speed to react to an enemy weakness, mistake or gap in their lines to exploit it with a minimum of delay and with maximum speed. You can't do that from a command tent in the rear sending order dispatches to sub commanders.

This whole thing of trying to simulate the unknowns and randomness on a battlefield using artificial random mechanics like cards seems to me like the tail wagging the dog.

The unpredictability should be how well and how quickly your sub-commanders will carry out their orders and if they'll use their initiative when they need to. Cautious commanders can also have an advantage as they'll stick to higher echelon orders and not make mistakes in acting when they should not.

Having your commander on the right flank will give a minimum of order delays to sub-commanders on that flank but will not be able to react and change orders on the left leaving it up to the local commander's initiative or lack of it.

In the heat of battle orders delay from higher echelons may arrive when the situation has drastically changed and the battle is in the hands of the sub-commanders. The side with the leaders that have the best initiative will act with less delay catching their cautious opponents off guard and unprepared because they could not respond in time.

That's how I see it anyhow. However, I have not played any Napoleon or ACW miniatures game so I'm probably not real qualified to comment on them but basic command and control, friction and delays and local commander initiative are pretty universal in all periods of combat.

Wolfhag

This whole thing of trying to simulate the unknowns and randomness on a battlefield using artificial random mechanics like cards seems to me like the tail wagging the dog.

Oh, yeah, I can agree with that. The notion of unpredictability and chance, while real battlefield phenomena, is dealt with in such gross and often unthinking fashion. Some of the mechanics are:

1. Dicing for initiative. Initiative on the battlefield was something seized, not always granted by the gods.

2. Rolling for command 'pips' or CPs: As you say Wolfhag, orders can be delayed or become useless. With command points rolled for, you can't plan on how many you will have a turn, except conservatively, but you always know how many you have and divide them accordingly…like knowing which orders will fail so only successful orders are sent… after a fashion.

3.Ending a turn by dice rolls: I never understood this one in connection to reality. Oh, I know the rationale, that a commander can't do everything he wants in X amount of time… but I haven't seen any historical examples such a mechanism could be said to model. It's just a nice game mechanic… period.

4. Cards: Again an effort to insert chance. I like cards in general, but many card systems seem to be used in very odd ways that have nothing to do with actual command challenges or processes. Fun mechanics, but completely ahistorical, the lack of predictability having no relationship to the kind that commanders faced.

The unpredictability should be how well and how quickly your sub-commanders will carry out their orders and if they'll use their initiative when they need to. Cautious commanders can also have an advantage as they'll stick to higher echelon orders and not make mistakes in acting when they should not.

I agree. It should be one aspect of unpredictability on the battlefield, and something the player should only know AFTER the order is given. There are many other types of unpredictability and chaos that can also be modeled.

Like a few posters mentioned, having small enough turns/phases to issue one order is probably the best way. The small incremental tuns/phases allow you to recreate getting inside your opponents decision loop and beat him to the punch. That's how you seize the initiative.

You issue an order and then see how effective it is in being delivered and acted on. That's the fog of war and the unpredictability.

Example: A gap opens up in the enemy lines. Your CiC has positioned himself with his heavy cavalry to exploit this type of event. He sees the opportunity and responds with no phase delays and starts moving into the gap. The opponents CiC is positioned further away and wants to issue an order to a sub-commander to plug the gap. However, there is a four phase delay in getting the order to the commander. Your CiC basically gets four phases of uninterrupted movement to exploit the gap before the enemy can respond.

You could also have the sub-commander test his initiative to act without orders but even if he does a delay may still give the initiative to the enemy. An excellent sub-commander can make up for the ineptness of higher command.

A system like this you are commanding and reacting to beat the enemy to the punch. Many of the popular systems use variable chances for initiative and you are playing the mechanics rather than commanding the troops. There can be variable amounts of delay (or none at all) with a die roll modified by the leadership value (better leaders have less delay), whether or not the leader is engaged in combat (increases delay), on reserve (decreases delay), cavalry or foot (cavalry decreases delay because of speed), fog of war, recon, etc.

You issue the order and then roll to see how effectively it is delivered and carried out. You don't know until AFTER the die roll like McLaddie suggested.

What could get really interesting is an order from the CiC that has a delay that by the time the order executes the situation has changed. In that case you could check to see if the initiative of the sub-commander can evaluate the situation and disregard the order and act on his own or blindly carry it out.

We all want some unpredictability but like McLaddie said some of them are pretty arbitrary.

Wolfhag

Like a few posters mentioned, having small enough turns/phases to issue one order is probably the best way. The small incremental tuns/phases allow you to recreate getting inside your opponents decision loop and beat him to the punch. That's how you seize the initiative.

Like Wolfhag notes, there are a number of designers who have taken this approach. For instance, Mike Collins' Grand Maneuver [Apologies: US spelling of Maneuver…] has four minute turns for corps level games. What that means is you use that for small-scale games with a few figures which play quickly representing short durations of time for the whole game, or large-scale games that become fairly detailed…even if they can avoid becoming bogged down in the detail. [Looking at 15 turns per scale hour] Then like Kriegspiel you find umpires and such become into play [excuse the pun].

In designing a system with unpredictability similar to a particular reality/battlefield, you have to ask where and how such chance things occur. Not surprising, the contemporary commanders including SYW and Napoleonic generals really concerned themselves with this question. It is what Clausewitz meditates on in his On War calling some of it 'Friction' like a machine, in an organization, but he didn't see that as the sole source of unpredictable events.

Here is something I came across that quantifies friction:

Friction is the force that makes the easy difficult.

There are 4 types of friction
mental, physical, external, internal

mental friction: indecision

external friction: any interfering effect from an object or action that is out of our immediate control

internal friction: self induced

physical friction: friction by way of the physical impact on the person

Battlefield Dynamics: Friction, uncertainty, fluidity, disorder, complexity, the human dimension, violence and danger, physical, moral and mental forces

For me the main effect of the above is indecision which in game terms translates into a delay in observing, engaging and changing orders.

Typically humans when faced with the unexpected (or something they have not trained for or never experienced) will hesitate or freeze or run away. Better trained and experienced troops will less frequently be confronted with the unexpected.

Good training results in drills to immediately respond to an enemy action when engaged without the need for "activating" or being given an order. The primary factor here would be the troop training/experience level (veteran, green, etc). Good troops respond quickly because they have trained and drilled on what to do immediately. They don't need an order or be activated.

Poorly trained and inexperienced troops will not know what to do and will hesitate or fall back when faced with the unexpected (unless they have their courage fortified with some type of medication, liquid beverage or desperate). It's not a matter of "activating" but of responding.

I'm also using what I call an "Aggressiveness Check" when troops attempt to move under fire. Moving troops is easy unless the enemy interferes then the easy becomes difficult. It's a dynamic rating that can be determined by the scenario. Poorly trained troops in a human wave or banzai attack may have high aggressiveness and move well under fire but poor Tactical Competence.

During the game a unit's aggressiveness can increase or decrease. Failing an aggressiveness check, being out flanked, causalities, enemy vehicle overruns, fatigue, night combat, bombardment and falling back will decrease it.

Good leadership, winning close combat, seeing the enemy withdraw, arrival of reinforcements, air strikes and artificial stimulants can increase it.

In games attacking units that are not being successful will slowly have their aggressiveness ratings decreased to the point of just defending and not moving forward unless they get some help. I like it better than morale suddenly and unexpectedly breaking and the unit routing.

If you have a higher aggressiveness rating than your enemy you will be more able to attack which basically give you more initiative without needing artificial game mechanics to determine initiative.

Wolfhag