"Alternative and House Rules for unit activation" Topic

I've been playing 1:1 armor and infantry company sized games using a non-traditional activation system. It does not use randomized activation, chit or dice draw, or cards. New players pick it up pretty quickly and the overall system plays more quickly than many games because multiple players can be firing at the same time and movement is simultaneous. It's a two pager so I posted it on Slideshare: link

I think much of this could be implemented for modifications or house rules and used with other systems for firing and movement. I'd be interested if anyone else is working on something like this.

Wolfhag

Interesting thoughts. Thanks for sharing!

"Activation" is a fancy word for "what moves when." These can be either orderly (units do what you want) or chaotic (at the mercy of some random element. Most of the jibber-jabber going on about this centers on the use of one system or the other and the contradictions and unrealistic conditions that result.

This is because real war is a blend of orderly and chaotic, and several secondary steps as well. Opportunistic, unforeseen, and independent (the latter when the units seem to have a mind of their own and officers on the spot make the decisions.

My own rules use FOUR systems of movment or "activation."

"Maneuver" where a large number of units do exactly what you want and you can move a whole wing of an army as you wish.

"Independent" each unit has a move value you have to roll against to move it.

"Attribute driven" This is a standard battlefield maneuver a unit can apply at any time- for example horse archers being able to withdraw if fired on and escape return fire

"Reserved Movement" a portion of the army can move in response to the other side.

All of these can be done during a move by either side and all of them have varying degrees of 'planned" and "random" in their mechanic. Goes much faster and yields a far more realistic result.

The key to it all is game time. Turns in my game represent about an hour of battle time. That's the key.

It's the opposite of the system the poster used, where he is down to a few seconds. As long as the "net effect" is satisfactory it does not matter what is done with the minute divisions of time.

Otto,
That's a pretty creative way to have a system for larger battles representing 30 minute turns. I think realistically a unit can maneuver however it wants whenever it wants limited by their coordination, formation, road nets, communication and friction created by the enemy. You seem to have broken it down into a realistic way that give a military and command "feel" to it without dice and rule exception mechanics ruling the day.

I designed my system to solve the problem of opportunity fire and over watch. The opinion of many players is that they are hard to implement and play. When you are trying to create a 1:1 tank battle and have turns that are greater than the guns rate of fire you are going to run into problems that can only be solved by artificial/gamey rules and exceptions. I've seen many rule sets that have over watch and opportunity fire rules and I admit I cannot offer suggestions on how to improve them.

Lets say a game represents 30 seconds of time. A vehicle traveling at 30kph can move about 250 meters in that time. That path may put him into and out of LOS any number of times for any number of enemy units. Some of the artificial solutions are only units on over watch can fire and target is moved back to a specific point to be fired at (fractional movement). Opportunity fire rules generally degrade ROF and accuracy which I agree with. Other rules like covered frontage/zones, firing arcs, limiting engagement range, fractional target movement, etc are exceptions that impact playability. I can't argue with any of the opportunity fire and over watch rules I've seen as it's a best case solution for a very difficult simulation. Just play the ones you like or feel most comfortable and make house rules.

My solution was to look at opportunity fire (or any type of firing for that matter) as a "time and task" problem to get your gun on the target, aim and fire. It's somewhat like role playing a crew but not each crew member. Sighting the target and getting the information and orders to the crew will take a little time (Situational Awareness). Good crews take less time then poor crews. Next is getting the gun on the target which involves rotating the turret. Since we know historical rotation rates to a great degree (depending on your source) we can measure that in time. If you are expecting the enemy to come down a road and have your gun pointed down the road (good over watch) it will take a minimum of time. If he comes out of a treeline to you flank you may be screwed.

The other problem that a 30+ second turn presents is the interaction between units shooting at each other when a gun may be able to fire 2-4 times at more than one target. Games like Panzer and Panzer War handle this by determining the chance of multiple hits with units that have a ROF greater than one with a single die roll. An accurate and playable way to do it. Panzer War can have a single unit get multiple hits/kills in a single 75 second turn but needs to take into account fractional movement and other shooter restrictions for opportunity fire just like other rules. There is no way to get around it.

The system I'm using has no specific initiative rules. Better crews will be able to perform more actions like spotting, tracking and firing than lesser trained crews. That's where the initiative comes in. SNAFU's will also effect poor crews to a greater degree too.

It actually plays faster because you are not immersing yourself into mechanics to determine initiative, remembering rules exceptions and special rules, having one player activate while other sit and watch or have to gloss over a number of additional rules or exceptions to account for over watch and opportunity fire. By breaking a turn into smaller time slices you eliminate the need for fractional movement to simulate opportunity fire. Speed of 30kph is about 8-9 meters per phase making it easier for interaction with a unit attempting to fire at it.

We have had a couple of situations where opposing tanks targeting each other at short range did get their shot off in the same turn and phase. Both penetrated and KO'd each other. It didn't need any additional initiative or activation rules or special rules or exceptions to the normal firing rules.

One of the more interesting situations that has occurred is when a static T-34/85 fired at a target and immediately placed a movement arrow designating the tank as moving. It was being targeted by a Panther that was 1200 meters away and had a flank/side shot at it and fired on the same turn and phase as the T-34/85 did. However, at 1200 meters it takes just over one second TOF to reach the target and the T-34/85 had moved enough for the round to miss by the time the round had arrived he was not there. Nothing the Panther could have done about it. This was done without additional special rules, die rolls or rule exceptions.

By eliminating as many special rules and rule exceptions as you can makes it easier for players and speeds up the game.

Wolfhag

Dear Wolfhag

"Opportunity fire" and "Overwatch" are enormously complicated and difficult to model especiallyw ne down to the individual tank versus tank or anything versus anything. This is because so much depends on getting in the first short, and in a 1 to 1 on ANYTHING people or tank, that first shot can be the ONLY shot. When you are dealing with it as I do, you are taking units of 1,000 men or so and modeling the effects of unit on unit, which is a compendium of all the one on ones in the unit. Inaccuracy of weapon and vulnerability of target enter into it, but not by much.

You have the same problem when you get into the historical periods (like mine, 18th century) when you come to skirmish and individual actions which again, consider only a very small interval of time.

In my modern game "The Shattered Century" it's an ARMY level game where a stand of infantry of 4 men on a 2" by 2" stand represents a battalion or a big company at smallest. Again though this is a game which theoretically recreates the combat between armies (which in the book are shown as betw4en the ----xxxx----- lines on the map.

I understand entirely what you are trying to do. I just don't know how do-able it might be. The problem in modern war is that to be seen is to be dead. Tehrefore the methods of combat you have ,Overwatch and opportunity fire, may be the ONLY means considerable at that level. The other problem you face is that at your level the duration of combat may be radically short and soon taken out of the hands of the participants entirely. Once a unit is taken under fire the battlefield may soon be deluged with lead and iron such that "opportunity" and "overwatch" may become immaterial as everything from company heavy weapons to battalion mortars all the way up to Army Artillery Battalions may take part.

I often thought about how to model the type of game you are doing and I gave it up entirely and simply used a factor which I call "the lead content of the air." In this I used a top or bottom hoop from an old lamp shade as a circle of fire and players assigned tubes of mortars, guns machine guns, to the are. Any figure in the area simply then had a percentile saving throw which they had to make to stay alive. It was graded if they were standing advancing downt o groveling in a reinforced bunker. If you lost your saving throw you were kia wia or whatever, but in any case out of the game.

We tried it a few times but though it was highly realistic in all ways, it was too grim for anyone's taste. Even JSIII's and King Tigers did not mix well with the 8" shells from Army Artillery.

I just had a quick read through your slideshare link. It looks rather complex to me and would require a group of people who know it well to get a good game in, which unfortunately I don't have.

Last night I was watching (again) "Tanks with GoPro's" on Youtube and was thinking of ways to recreate this in a simple fast play game.

What I have come up with as an initial thought was using cards or even Bolt Action dice. Each unit has a movement/firing order which is concealed from the opponent in a box or similar on your table edge. Then each player reveals the dice/marker at the same time and the movement or firing is played out at the same time. I think that there would be loads of room for fog of war. The mechanics of working out firing or movement could be from any set of rules. Probably Bolt Action in my case as I would want to run it as a Demo game.

I think I will try and test this while I am on Christmas Holiday and have some spare time.

It looks very interesting, but I agree with Dan that it seems a little complex. I'd love to see some examples of the system in play.

I once came up with an initiative system that I liked, but I never got around to using it in a game. It involved rolling a polyhedral die for each unit based in quality (d12 elite, d8 regular etc) and then counting down from 12. When a unit acted, it reduced its initiative roll by the action cost (so attacking might cost a typical unit 3 pips), meaning that a unit could theoretically act multiple times in a turn. It was quite fun to imagine tanks trading blows back and forth as they spent down their initiative.

Complex – I get that a lot! It certainly is different.

Almost all of the games have been at conventions with players totally unfamiliar with the game or the concept and not having read any info on the game before starting. You are the typical player. I generally give a 2-4 minute intro, game play example and go over the play aid they'll be using. Anything longer makes people's eyes glaze over. People want to have fun, not be educated. I concur and aim to please. They normally control four vehicles but some have started out with eight or twelve.

The basic concept of the game is a "time and task" mechanic. I want to do something, how long will it take. Add up the time the tasks take and that's the numbers of phases in a future turn/phase to act, if you are still alive. It seems to be a pretty universal and intuitive concept with all humans.

I have found that a player totally unfamiliar with WWII tank warfare or the game was able to wrap their head around the concept of "time & task". The play aids they have are tailored for their specific vehicle and gun (that means no modifiers to worry about) giving them the information in their hand for any task to perform (movement, turret rotation, aim time, situational awareness/spotting, crew delay and reload). It's kind of like action points but different. There are generally a few numbers to add with one of two player decisions that can influence the outcome. Nothing more complicated than adding up some die roll modifiers. With the gunnery rules on occasion you may need to divide a number by 2 and there may be a decimal involved. You've been warned! I have an intro and detailed version.

There are five charts: movement, SNAFU's, gunnery, moving targets, damage and armor penetration. I know that's a deal killer for some people. Everything else needed is on the player status sheet. Each ammo type has its own information and stats so no figuring modifiers for range bands, ammo types, etc.

The "time & task" mechanic replaces the randomized mechanics and structured turns of typical games. There are no chit pulls, order dice or flipping cards. No waiting for other players to do something before you do. No surprise turn endings. No artificial randomizing to create a fog of war. No move/shoot, shoot/move, move/move, shoot/shoot decisions. No sitting on the edge of your chair helplessly sweating that next card drawn from the top of the deck to dictate your fate. No watching as your favorite unit gets decimated while waiting for the right die or card to fight back. No fighting with your "friends" on who has priority to get the next die or card to do something. No fancy dice mechanics comparing different colored dice to determine actions. If you like some or all of the above in your game that's fine by me. I'm not going to criticize other games or systems. I've seen people have fun using all of the above mechanics, including me. That's what counts. If you want something different continue reading.

With my system you will survey the battlefield and not know who has detected you. You'll be able to see who is moving, in what direction and about how far they'll move in a five phase turn. If you see three tank guns pointed at you it may be a good idea to place a movement marker ASAP and haul ass presenting a 90 degree deflection shot and forget about shooting. If you get in a tank to tank shootout are you going to risk accuracy and maybe miss but get the shot off two phases sooner and KO him before he shoots? What if you miss? I've watched players agonize over a few phases of aim time. It puts a smile on my face.

Tank commanders that are unbuttoned have been known to have their head taken off by a large AP round, beware. Even your best plans can be interrupted by a SNAFU (5% chance each time you fire) that leaves a round stuck in the chamber, driver panicking and backing up, gunner hitting the coax switch rather than the main gun, loader loaded the wrong round type, poor aim or range estimation, etc.

When running a game I'll ask the player, "What do you want to do?" He'll tell me and then I'll ask, "How long will it take?" They look at the play aid in their hand, see what tasks to perform (turret rotation, aim time, crew delay, etc) and add up the amount of phases and write down the turn/phase they'll fire. Everyone does the same thing and catches on. That's the complicated part. Really.

If they want to move place a movement marker by your vehicle in the direction you want to move. Now anyone that fires at you in a future turn/phase is firing at a moving target. Do you see an enemy you want to engage? Roll your Situational Awareness and hope your tank commander is unbuttoned. Rotate the turret onto the target and determine aim time based on crew type. Write down the turn/phase to fire/activate. Wow – that's what a real tank crew does! The options at any time are pretty simple, maneuver, move and evade or shoot.

As you can see the game concentrates on crew activity and player decisions, not game mechanics.

The biggest challenge for war game veterans and beginners is that as soon as you finish an action you go right on to the next one – don't wait as there is no orders segment. After firing, reload (time & task) and select a new target (Situational Awareness Check) or add aim time plus reload time for the new turn/phase of firing at the same target and hope you don't get hit in the meantime. To move place a movement marker in the desired direction of movement. Sound complicated? Think like a tank commander!

While you are doing that other players are not waiting around for you to finish. There is no need to as it takes 10-15 seconds. You cannot walk away from the game for more than a few minutes or you will miss something as it's always "your turn" to potentially do something. You need to pay attention to what's going on and react as needed when you see it. Some people don't like that.

The people that catch on the quickest are the ones that have been tank crewman. That's because the terms, nomenclature and mechanics of the game are taken from real tank and gunnery manuals. The "tasks" you perform are the same ones a tank crew would do. I tell players to think like a tank crew and they'll figure it out pretty quickly. Believe it or not most players are on their own after 30 minutes (4-5 game turns) and there are no three ring binders full of rules, card decks or dice cups. I'm not into torturing people.

I'll get a simplified gunnery action including graphic play aids up soon. It's still a WIP but I'm getting close.

Thanks,
Wolfhag

I can't fault a lot of the ideas as MG uses some similar mechaisms, like turret pointing to depect where situationa awareness is directed and overwatch by default, so the ideas in this system are close enough to what we understand to have significant merit and is most certainly a novel approach. What I don't understand and think is a major gain, is that you seem to get players activating what I would call an IGOUGO SYSTEM working simultaniously. How in practice do you get players to do this? Do you just call PHASE 1 and give them 30 seconds to all do there "stuff' allowed in Phase 1 and Then call PHASE 2 etc?

I can't fault a lot of the ideas as MG uses some similar mechanisms, like turret pointing to depict where situational awareness is directed and overwatch by default, so the ideas in this system are close enough to what we understand to have significant merit and is most certainly a novel approach. What I don't understand and think is a major gain, is that you seem to get players activating what I would call an IGOUGO SYSTEM working simultaneously. How in practice do you get players to do this? Do you just call PHASE 1 and give them 30 seconds to all do there "stuff' allowed in Phase 1 and Then call PHASE 2 etc?

This issue with this to me is that, we have to admit at time even with MG, which has simple rules the sheer scope of the decision making can have us pleading for time just to plan out what we want to do bought on by the much better decision matrix. When faced with credible decisions about who to move, whether to unbutton, where to look etc, This can take longer than the rules themselves. Again how do you cope with this, or are the scenarios so open and simple this is not an issue? All told very interesting.

Ottoathome,
I introduced the discussion around company level WWII 1:1 combat. Not army level or modern vehicles. It looks as if you have a pretty good handle on the Army level maneuver game.

I'm working on stuff that should be playable up to the the mid 1970's. Modern tank warfare doesn't seem to be much fun for the reason you stated.

I admit that much of what we discuss is impossible to model "realistically" which is why I always try to avoid using the word "real" with anything I'm doing.

The system I've been playing seems to have some merit and good feedback from people that have played it. I wanted to run it by some people on TMP as there are many knowledgeable people that could critique, find holes or give suggestions.

Wolfhag

UshCha,
Some people have called this an IGOUGO system and it sort of is but I don't like to call it that because it confuses people. If you work things out right it's an IGO before UGO system. If you don't fire quickly enough it's an I didn't GO but you did GO (ha, ha). There is an element of fog of war on both sides that they generate with a small amount of randomness plus the occasional SNAFU. Even though all tank models are equal a better crew will spot, engage, fire, reload and fire again more quickly than a poor crew in the same model. This allows veterans in an inferior vehicle to out fight poor crews in superior vehicles where seconds determine the outcome.

I'm not really sure what you would call it. It's a "time & task" mechanic to see when you'll activate/fire using small one second time slices giving the ability get within the enemy decision loop. As soon as you finish one action select and plan the next one. If you are in the middle of performing an action (like reloading and firing) and your Situational Awareness detects an enemy threat you can "interrupt" your current action and change to another one. You can do it with special rules and die roll with modifiers but I've taken a different path. I think this could be considered an "open rules system" because you can simulate any type of action by determining how long it takes and what effect it has without special rules and die roll modifiers. We can model a tank commander tossing a grenade or firing through his pistol port at an enemy ready to toss a Molotov cocktail. It meshes with infantry small arms fire and hand held infantry anti-tank weapons too. It also solves the problem of plotting an artillery barrage against a moving target. Unfortunately it's not really scalable for large actions.

Each phase is one second and a turn is five phases or five seconds. I break it down into a 5 phase turn because that's the time when units with movement arrows are actually moved. If I didn't break it down like that all units would be moving on a second by second basis – that's crazy. Ten phases is a little too long. At the end of a five phase turn there is some other actions performed that there is no point going into right now. Call it an admin phase.

I'm just going to answer your questions one at a time:
Players do not get a specified period of real time (like 30 seconds) to determine their firing time or perform Situational Awareness Checks (SA Check) in each phase. Regarding SA Checks, think of the tank commander swiveling his head around with most of his attention to the front and can detect enemy activity when it occurs in a specific phase. It actually depends on the player paying attention to what is happening. Talk to your friend on your phone for a few phases or a turn and you may miss an enemy emerging on your flank or rotating his turret to shoot at you. If so too bad.

Where to look: The tank commander is assumed to have a 360 degree view and looking around, not in a specific direction. The SA Arc is divided into a 90 degree frontal arc, a left/right front and left/right rear of 45 degrees and a rear 90 degree. The SA Check values are shown in each arc for buttoned up and unbuttoned. To perform the check roll a D20, if rolling equal to or below the value enemy is spotted with no delay in engaging. The player can select any target in any arc in his LOS to engage, targets to the flank and rear will take longer. Being buttoned up will take longer too. It takes one roll only. If the tank is engaged/firing it is blind in all but the frontal 90 degree arc as the tank commander is concentrating on firing. I only consider the tank commander for spotting, not other crewman. Delay is the value of the roll greater than the SA factor for that arc. If the SA factor for an arc is 12 and you roll a 15 on a D20 there is a 3 phase delay to engage the enemy.

Just to clarify the SA Checks. When performed the enemy will always be detected if within LOS and within maximum spotting range. It's just a matter of how long it takes. I'm not saying that's entirely accurate. I've tried a few other methods I was not satisfied with. On occasion it may take 10-15 phases to react and engage and the enemy may have moved out of LOS so there are some discrepancies. Enemy locations can be given via radio too. Visual cues like tracers and WP make it quicker too with some modifiers to the D20 roll.

Button or unbutton: It could be done during any phase but I limit it to deciding on the 5th (admin) phase of a turn. A SNAFU, sniper, small arms fire or an AP round almost hitting him may make him button up during the turn.

I'll post a sample turn in a few days.

Merry Christmas,
Wolfhag

Wolfhag,
I can see how it works technicaly. What is not clear is how you can get to :-
" Talk to your friend on your phone for a few phases or a turn and you may miss an enemy emerging on your flank or rotating his turret to shoot at you. If so too bad."

How does the game continue for the rest of the players ignoring the idiot. It implies that you do have a time limit for that phase and if you have not participated its too late! How long do you give the group each phase?

UshCha,
The way a game is run the GM or any player calls out the phase that is taking place to see if there is any action to be performed (shooting, actions that trigger a Situational Awareness Check and engage or place movement markers). If no actions or activation take place then we move to the next phase and see if anyone is performing then, mutual movement takes place in phase 5 (end) of each turn.

If the idiot is not paying attention and was supposed to fire in a particular phase when it was called out and misses it because he was not paying attention too bad, we've moved on to the next phase. If he comes to his senses two phases AFTER he should have fired we'll let him fire at that time but the target and situations may have changed. Of course this can be cruel – however, I point this out to all players before the game. We call it the "You snooze, you lose" rule. Everyone seems to be in agreement with it as we can't really have any do overs but do need to set the player expectations. It's the same as a player thinking he is firing on turn 22 and on turn 22 he looks at his status sheet and it shows he should have fired in turn 20. Most of the time it's not really a big deal but if on turn 21 he got hit and destroyed and he looks at his status sheet and shows he should have fired on 20 and not 22, oh well. Think of it as a real life crew delay. However, he did not get destroyed because he did not know a specific special rule or exception.

When an engagement is hot and heavy with rapid exchanges there is an air of suspense that builds up between the opponents of who is going to get to shoot next whenever a turn/phase is called out because no one knows until it occurs.

I think some of the confusion may stem from my use of phase and turn designation (and maybe my inability to clearly write rules too). In the past I had been running games where each second was a "turn" and every 5th game turn units were moved. We'd get up to 200 turns in a game but of course many of the turns there were no "activation" like shooting and actions that trigger SA Checks. So if it was turn 22 and it was going to take 3 phases to rotate a turret on the target and four phases of aim time (total of 7) you'd shoot on turn 29. On turn 25 would be mutual movement and his target may have moved out of LOS or now present a different targeting aspect. If his opponent was going to fire before turn 29 he gets the shot off. Hopefully that clears up what is a turn or phase.

When only a few units are actually engaged no action may be taking place in a phase and this may happen fairly frequently because most guns will fire every 5-15 phases, depending on engagement (turret rotation and crew delay) time. A 180 turn game might take 3 hours to play, no different than using a turn with 5 phases that may take 30-35 turns each turn composed of five phases. They are both the same.

For this example I'll use just phases/seconds as turns (1 turn = 1 second) to clarify.
Let's say it's turn #25 and Mr.K just moved his vehicles at the same time everyone else did and then stepped off to the side and started updating his Facebook page. He didn't notice that an enemy vehicle that last movement turn that had been out of his LOS now rounds a corner and they both have a mutual LOS – SA Check is performed at the MOMENT that mutual LOS occurs as a real tank commander would have a chance to notice right away. Mr. K, thinking he's safe and updating his Facebook status, fails to notice the enemy threat. The enemy player notices and performs a SA Check, stops and wants to engage and fire. Let's say there is no SA delay, 1 turn crew delay, 2 phases to get the turret on the target and 5 phases aim time. That's 8 phases/seconds and he'll shoot at Mr. K's vehicle in turn 33 (25 + 8 = 33). shooting is really no more complicated than that and all of the info needed is in the players hand on his status sheet.

Mr K, thinking he won't have to do anything until turn #30 (next movement turn) continues to post pictures of his latest meal and some pictures of his pretty models (which shortly will be flaming wrecks). Now at turn #30 his attention is focused back on the table to move and he notices an enemy vehicle with its turret pointed at him. What the ----? Now he becomes a victim of the Fog of War (remember, there are no set firing turns). Is that enemy vehicle going to fire at me? When? Do I have time to shoot or try to move and give a high deflection shot that he'll miss? Do I have enough time to move behind that house 30 meters away and get out of his LOS? Decisions, decisions. By not paying attention he only has 3 seconds of movement or engagement/firing before the enemy shoots but he has no idea of that. If his turret is pointed almost exactly at the enemy and he has a good crew he could get off a wildly inaccurate snap shot in 3 seconds and both tanks would fire simultaneously. Anything taking more than 3 seconds will be performed AFTER the enemy has fired at him. If he can get out of LOS in 2 seconds he's safe. Movement arrows show the distance moved in seconds so you can perform a very close time and motion check to see exactly where a moving unit will be during any 5 turns in the future. Believe it or not it's playable just by looking at the vehicle and movement arrow as you get a sense of motion and speed without any other game mechanics or charts. Really.

As you can see in the above example there are no artificial special rules, exceptions, die rolls, modifiers or command interrupts needed to work out the turn. Mr. K is faced with the same decisions a tank commander and his crew would need to make in a real engagement and has about the same amount of information on his opponent.

When you come up on an opponents flank or rear arc the SA Check delay will almost always generate a 10-12 second delay in engaging the flanking threat simulating the "surprise" and initiative the flanking unit achieves. Over watching becomes very important but does not require additional rules of exceptions.

I hope this explains it. If so I'll move to your next question about who to move and give an example of how movement and firing interact and an opportunity fire example. You may have figured it out already.

Thanks,
Wolfhag

I understand what Wolfhag is saying and I'm not going to contradict his assertions as to the success he meets with. The issue at hand is that he has created a game which showcases what he wishes and that can be said for all of us. The ONLY validity or lack thereof that can be ascribed to the game is how the group that plays it awards it. If that is what they came to Wolfhag's to play, then they consider the game valid. Arguments with him over the alleged difficulties or shortcomings of the game are moot points as we haven't played it and therefore have no experience of it.

It is important to remember that a game, any game has a reality that goes on INSIDE the game which is what Wolfhag is discoursing about and there is a reality OUTSIDE the game which are the social dynamics of the people gathered around the table for a social event. If the event is not pleasant, they will not be there as no one forces a gun to their head to make them attend. Wolfhag, like any GM puts on a game for the benefit of his friends to have fun playing. If they have the fun they came for it's a success and the game is valid. If many or all who play do not like the game then it is to that degree invalid, no matter HOW "realistic" or seemingly so the rules are.

Wolghag may seem a bit gruff with the "you snooze you lose" methodology but that's the dynamics of the game. He says he gets 300 turns in a game that sometimes takes only three hours. That's 100 turns an hour or 1.666 turns a minute. Given the nature of the game that's not unreasonable. Granted in many of those turns there is no firing and if I read correctly only every fifth turn is there movement, or the time to react. That means that if a unit is taken under fire, about five seconds elapses before the one side can react in a maneuver way. I assume that return fire or some sort can be made in three or so seconds, which corresponds pretty closely to observed times when a person is surprised etc. On the other hand, 300 turns means precisely five minutes of action. OK, hundreds can be killed in five minutes in the right condition.

The time required to roll to determine the effect of hits over and above that may take up significant game times, but still, if streamlined-- (you only have to know the stats of the specific tanks on the table. If you have a Mark IV versus a T-34 then only those numbers relevant to hitting and damaging are necessary and what the numbers required for a hypothetical meeting between a JS-III and an Italian tankette or a Maus are irrelevant.

The game would seem to me to be an intense, short one where players must have attention riveted on the situation and not be able to carry on a phone call with a buddy. That is , in a real sense, very much like real life the person who does not keep his wits with him on the field will soon lose his brains. Arguments about the system are pointless unless you can actually PLAY it and experience it. It's like saying you like Industrial Rock and listening to Mozart.

If there is ANY fault in the system then I would say that it is in that it limits the game to small forces of a tank or two and a few squads. If you get much larger than that, then the complexity of the system may bog it down, but I suspect that's not the type of game Wolfhag is into for this.

That's the game he wanted when he set out to design the system.

Thanks Wolfhag, I understand now how iyou run the system and how this system can give "Interesting results" and why the variable time to shoot is critical to the mechanism.

As Ottoathome notes a game is what the designer wants with is specific mix of requirements. It is a unique way of approaching the problem.

I prefer a rather more laid back approach.
Players shouldn't be messing with their phones mid game really. Anyone who does so is basically being rude.
Maybe you need a built in mechanic for a convention game.

The "you snooze, you lose" is more of a warning to players to pay attention and that if they miss a turn because of their inattention we cannot change the chain of events that have occurred to accommodate his missed turn but I will try to accommodate when I can. People seem to understand that. However, if he should have fired on turn 22 and it's turn 25 we do let him fire on turn 25, unless he's dead by then. When running a game I go out of my way to continually remind players to check.

I found that people got bent out of shape when I'd try to accommodate a player that was doing something other than playing and missed his turn. We have a group of GM's that run various games at conventions and our main goal is the entertainment value and a good experience. People should get their money's worth. When in doubt I put the social dynamics over the game rules but you do need to control the players at the same time and set expectations so they are not surprised.

Rather than trying to be judge and jury I'll ask the opponents what what they think is fair and try to get majority agreement when i can.

Personally I like the rule because it does actually portray some realism in a game. We have some hardcore players that take that rule seriously on mutual agreement. We like to poke fun at the guy that snoozes.

Otto: I agree it cannot accommodate more than a reinforced company per side and you also need to have realistic scale and distance. In 28mm games the entire table represents about 500 meters. Smaller scales use 1" = 25 meters. New players start off with four vehicles, I've run up to 12 in a game. We have not run a game with more than 20 vehicles which I think approaches the max playable number. I would not recommend this type of system for battalion and larger games as there are other more important dynamics happening in large scale battles.

At the 1" = 25 meter scale we are able to start the battle with opponents about 2000 meters away and they start maneuvering. What's been interesting is that players normally decline long range shots and try to maneuver closer to get a good shot. Once the ranges get to about 1000 meters it does get very intense. If a game starts out as an ambush under 500 meters it's over pretty quickly and not fun to be on the receiving end.

I appreciate the feedback and discussion. It's helped me in explaining the system.

Thanks,
Wolfhag

Ditto Tango,
That's the typical response I get from guys that have been tank crewman. Probably because I used tank manuals as a basis for the game and they understand the terms and what they do. I was a grunt myself, only ridden in amtracks and on the back of an M-48A3.

This is one I've used: link

In the gunnery part of the game the aim times are based on using battle sight and burst on target (good out to about one second time of flight) or ranging and bracketing but you don't really need to understand the concepts but it helps. I use an 8.5 x 11 inch status sheet that can handle six vehicles / AT guns and is a glorified cheat sheet. However, you can use any gunnery or to hit system you want.

I think these real life terms scare people away. Then the mechanics are non-traditional too. The new game system you need to understand reflects what tank warfare is, not traditional game sequences and mechanics. That's a mental barrier for many people but it's no more difficult than many other games. Determining time to shoot/activate is no more difficult than adding up two or three die roll modifiers.

I'm into simplifying and abstracting but if you do it too much the game loses the flavor and experience of what I think a real tank-tank engagement is all about. The basic/intro version does not use any bookkeeping but still keeps the interaction I've described. After I get the detailed version finished I'll finish the simplified one.

Wolfhag

the system uses a turn with 5 phases with each phase equal to about 1 second. you get through a whole 2 and 1/2 minutes in 3 hours how exciting.

sarcasm?

I don't take offense to what Simo says. He's right about the time frame. A platoon to company sized tank-tank engagement did only last minutes, not hours unless there were lulls where no firing or LOS takes place. The shootout at the OK Corral lasted about 15 seconds. If you were going to build a game around a shootout like that how long would you make the turns? One second, 30 seconds, two minutes?

Is it exciting? Let's examine a popular and payable game like Bolt Action. In my copy of the rules it does not state a time scale. For some people (like me) if you don't have a time scale it's a little hard to wrap your head around the game. However, that does not impact play value so it is really no problem.

But let's examine what is really going on in Bolt Action. Using 28mm figures is 1/58 scale which if my math is correct one inch equals about 1.5 meters. An infantry figure can run 12 inches or about 18-20 meters in one turn. A world class sprinter can do 100 meters in 10 seconds or about 10 meters per second. If an infantryman is half as fast as a world class sprinter he covers that 20 meters in 4 seconds. So in "reality" six turns of Bolt Action would be equal to about 25-30 seconds of real time. If it takes two hours to play through 30 seconds is that a problem? Not if people are having fun and it recreates enough realism and flavor for the period. I've never heard anyone complain.

In Chain of Command 12" = 40 yards which works best with 15mm figures. Infantry moving at the "Double" you roll 3D6 and move that many inches. That's an average of 9" or about 30 yards. Using our rate of movement at one second per 5 meters we get a turn of about 6 seconds. I've never played CoC but if you played through one turn every 5 minutes that's 24 turns in 2 hours which is going to represent a few minutes of time. But again if time is abstracted it can represent amount of time you like. Again, it does not impact playability or the player's experience.

I've heard various explanations like the turn also represents things like resting, giving orders, stopping and observing, looking for the best movement route, unexpected lulls, etc. If the designer wants to make various abstractions to make the system playable that's fine. So with no time scale mentioned 6 turns of Bolt Action could represent 30 seconds, 5 minutes or 2 hours. Would it really matter? As far as playing the game I don't think so as long as the players are engaged and having fun.

I remember a quote from Otto Carius, "Everything depends on a prompt identification of a dangerous target, usually seconds decide."

What I see is the biggest problem to overcome in a tank-tank engagement is over watch and opportunity fire. A vehicle moving at 35kph can move about 10 meters per second. That means if you have a 30 second turn it's moving about 300 meters and could move into and out of LOS a number of times for any number of enemy units attempting to engage it. You need all kinds of special rules, command interrupts, orders, exceptions and die rolls to detect and engage it. Sound familiar?

If you have it moving 50 meters per turn the turn is really about 5 seconds. I tried many different ways and settled on using historic movement, turret rotation and rates of fire with minimal abstractions. That means the basic unit of time is one second. I know it sounds insane and unplayable. But it really portrays the differences, strength and weaknesses, advantages and disadvantages of individual tanks and guns without going to abstractions. Believe it or not it really keeps the players engaged and figuring the best way to move and shoot solving the same problems and confronted with the same decisions as real tank crews. I've had over 30 people play it at conventions and no complaints. The activation system creates a fog of war without other game mechanics and keeps players guessing as to who is going to fire next. It's not random but is not predictable either. In the game seconds really do count and means the difference between life and death. I like that but I'm sure it won't please everyone.

I'm sure any one of us could make a low level tank-tank skirmish game that would last only a few minutes. But then what fun would that be?

Wolfhag

I think that for resolving a tank battle its a clever and novel idea. It needs a scanario as its not great for the build up to the battle, its too detailed. But thats life you can't have it all.

To be fair Wolfhag could get vehicals to go further as he could allow phases to accelerate and slow down. However in the crutial few minutes of a tank battle that is proably not what you want to do. After all even the LAW 72 is only calibrated for a leas of 12 mpg which it states is the fastest you will see on a battlefield.

Our own rules (MG) do let you travel further in a bound than conventional rules but it needs forthought and can get you in really big trouble if the enemy sees you. But again it does not have the detail Wolfhag wants. And covers areas of the battlefield not addressed by Wolfhag's rules

While I may not play the game it certaily is an interesting approach.

I agree, sounds a fascinating idea, would be great if Wolfhag could do something like a YouTube video of a game in play to get a better sense of how it all pans out.

Timbo,
I'm actually working on a video right now but won't be ready until next week.

I was reading over the Nuts! rules and their activation method. It's similar to the one I'm working on as the reaction (I call mine Situational Awareness) is triggered as soon as both you and the enemy have a LOS. However, I use the concept of the action potentially being delayed for a number of seconds/turns. Delays are mainly caused by poor tactical disposition (not facing towards the threat or being surprised) troop performance and pinned/buttoned up. On occasion units will fire at each other right away.

If a moving infantry unit is fired upon/ambushed and wants to continue to advance it must pass an "Aggressiveness Check" anytime it wants to move under fire. If it passes it can sprint and not fire or tactical move and fire while moving. If it fails the Aggressiveness Check it can Hit the Deck (Going Prone) or Fall Back towards the nearest cover (Duck Back). It can also choose to Fall Back or Hit the Deck voluntarily and not attempt to move under fire.

What works well with the system is a planned Fire & Maneuver. Each pin marker placed on an enemy unit increases its delay +1. So with firepower superiority your suppressive fire element puts three pin markers on the enemy objective. Your maneuver element (who is Hunkered Down and not shooting or exposed to enemy fire) moves out at a sprint. They get three turns/seconds of uninterrupted movement towards the objective or to out flank it. If they are out of LOS by the fourth turn/second the enemy was suppressed enough they were not able to respond and fire in time. Approaching their flanks and rear will also increase their delay in reacting.

Another option is for the maneuver element to Hit the Deck and start laying down suppressive fire and the suppressive fire element now becomes the maneuver element. I think this is a pretty good portrayal of fire team rushes with teams alternating maneuvering and firing. Of course it works even better if you a have some sustained fire automatic weapons fire keeping the enemy pinned down the entire time too. As long as you can keep enough pinned markers on the enemy you can maneuver fairly safely.

I don't think this is anything earth shattering or novel. It does work nicely with the gun/tank rules and infantry anti-tank weapons use the same rules too. So if you pop up and want to fire a Panzerfaust at a tank select how long you'll spend to aim, more time equals better accuracy. However, if the tank has an infantry escort they perform a Situational Awareness Check the first second you pop up and may kill or suppress you. It's better to wait until you are on their flank or rear which can generate a delay to give you enough time to get the shot off accurately.

The system does all of this with no additional mechanics like command interrupts, card draws, random activations, etc.

I won't have the video ready until next week but I can post the current version of the "Frequently Asked Questions" document.

Wolfhag

I dropped off this discussion needing more time to get my notes together and do more play testing and documentation. I'll be putting up some short videos that will work with the augmented reality app.

The article basically goes over how the OODA Loop is really a natural way people handle activities in a number of areas. It describes what is going on with a gamer at each part of the loop and how he would use it to determine his action. Using different "Time & Action" formulas the player determine the turn in the future he'll activate (move or fire). So all units activate based on how long it will take to complete an action.

Observation is assumed to always be active so a unit can attempt to respond to certain action that would normally trigger a reaction if noticed if within sighting range and LOS. This means no additional rules for turn interruption.

Over watch and opportunity fire are complicated but I think I give a good example of how it works within the "Time & Action" routine without needing additional rules or orders.

This concept has been play tested at four conventions with some pretty good success using new players. The OODA Loop is natural so there is nothing to teach. The flow chart on the last page shows what a player needs to do if moving, firing or attempting to respond to enemy activity.

The formulas are slightly different for all vehicles/models with additional variable on the crew training and player decision points. Activation is not predictable nor is it random. Everyone's turn of activation is hidden creating a fog of war with no additional rules. The formulas involve adding up 2-5 numbers like die roll modifiers.

Here is the article: link

The article deals strictly with small unit 1:1 skirmishes. You can jump to the last two pages for some examples play aids and flow chart. It's a little wordy and repetitive in areas but I think I covered almost everything.

Thanks,
Wolfhag

The original link doesn't work… ;-(

I think realistically a unit can maneuver however it wants whenever it wants limited by their coordination, formation, road nets, communication and friction created by the enemy.

But units in our games do not have volition -- the ability to move or make decisions by themselves. The players, normally representing a commander one or two levels higher, is making the decisions and moving the units. And higher commanders may -- or may NOT -- be able to get his units to move when/where/how he wants them to. And/or he may not be getting full information from his units on which to base such decisions and orders.

donlowery,
I agree with the above.

However, I'm using this for a 1:1 tank infantry game with an emphasis on individual crew performance and action. It's not division level, strategic, movement to contact or getting orders from three levels above in the CoC to deploy, move to contact, etc. The action generally starts at the FEBA with units deployed in tactical formation ready to fight.

When a tank commander tells his gunner to engage a target or the driver to move forward it's going to happen pretty quickly without the need for the Battalion commander to get involved. It's not going to happen randomly either. He may order the driver to move out but that does not change the terrain which may stop him. He may order the gunner to engage but that does not guarantee the turret will work. Better crews perform these drills more quickly.

If the tank commander gives the order for the gunner to fire the gunner is not going to respond by saying that he needs to wait for three other guns to shoot first.

My opinion is that a tank crew does pretty much have it's own volition to move, engage and respond to the enemy within it's engagement orders or one level above once the shooting starts. They go through drills and train so there is some prediction as to how long it will take. Any tankers want to comment? If I've got it wrong I want to know. However, the effectiveness and speed depends on many factors like crew performance, damage, suppression, friction, observation, SNAFU's, etc.

Now if you had ROE that an individual tank commander needed to get permission to engage that's different, no own volition there. In the middle of an engagement I think he's pretty much on his own volition but that can change depending on new orders of course.

Thanks,
Wolfhag

I am sick today but I will try to add something. Not enlightening though.

Some of the unit status would be done in the pre-game planning phase. battlefield activation is a process more common in inclement or dark weather.
Activation can be done easily but is best with company sized forces or smaller.
larger forces would be alerted based on their five paragraph warning and operations orders.

Well, yes, if you, the player, control only 1 tank, then it should respond to your orders just fine (assuming the crew has a modicum of training together). The crew confined within its vehicle, and each accustomed to its assigned duties (driver, gunner, etc.) But if you are a platoon leader, commanding your own tank and 2-4 others, it starts to get complicated.

Becoming alert on the perimeter of a firebase or defensive position is an example that situations would dictate the need for such a system.
I participated in a defensive position night patrol. We were told under no circumstances should be sound an alert unless the enemy fired first. The red force passed through the blue force without detectin them. It is a world a difference if the blue force consists of vehicles.
Even with the antique night vision sights of the 1970s, we could cont enemy soldiers from over a KM away especially if they were on the other side of a river or open area.

RudyNelson,
In the early 70's I was engaged in a training exercise where we were doing a night assault. While performing our final assault through the defenders all of a sudden off to my left the entire world lit up. I was spun around into a tree and hit the ground. The two guys to my left were rolling on the ground groaning with their hands over their face. Only about 20 feet to my left was an M-48A3 tank that none of us saw. When we were on top of their position he fired a 90mm blank that knocked all of us down. I was fine but the other two guys lost all of their facial hair.

I think the TC did it to us as a pay back. A few nights earlier one of the Grunts had climbed up on the tank turret and dropped a smoke grenade inside. I'm sure that didn't go over well with the tankers.

Playing by the rules I wrote on Situational Awareness mine generated a "delay" in noticing the tank and got me killed.

I checked the links and they are all working for me.

Wolfhag

LOLO, do not mess with a tanker's home!

donlowry,
I agree about a platoon leader commanding 2-4 tanks being more complicated.

I started the discussion to see if there were any players working on a similar mutual reaction and activation type system to replace the current activation systems for 1:1 game, not large scale regiment/division actions which is a different set of factors.

In most game rule sets we suspend reality to a large degree regarding the players ability to control the lowest level units. In a game with a platoon of 4 tanks the player can control the lowest level of detail for the tank (select ammo, select target, order move, etc). If that is what the player is interested in portraying great. If not he can randomize each action the tank could make and be a spectator that rolls the dice, that may approach reality more than the player making the decisions but sounds kind of boring to me – it's OK to disagree with me.

What I'm trying to recreate is the player being able to determine the ammo, targeting and risk-reward for aim time for all of his tanks. It's the experience of reacting to enemy threats (somewhat random with no guarantees) and deciding to move or engage and fire that I find interesting and want to portray. Some players want totally a random activation to reflect the chaos on the battlefield. That's fine. Personally I like the mutual reaction and then activating on a future turn based on crew, orders and weapon platform performance.

If it is overly complicated and unplayable it's no fun. If it has the right balance of detail, playability, believe-ability (call it realism but no games are real), surprise/randomness and meets the players expectations it has potential for a good game for some people. Like ottoathome said it is a combination of orderly and chaotic. Otto stated that is really gets out of control when lead from upper level artillery starts flying but I'm trying to keep it simple in a tank-tank and small unit infantry engagement. You are not going to be calling in 8 inch artillery fire with the enemy only a few hundred yards away. I think historically small unit tank-tank engagements lasted only a few minutes with a battle being numerous smaller unit engagements over a few hours or even days.

The thing I like most about reaction rather than random activation is that the player gets to immediately react (I think Nuts! is like that) but there are factors that will determine who will get the first shot off, it's not totally random nor is it entirely predictable.

The infantry reaction rules allow immediate reaction too. The player has the option to fall back, hit the deck and take full cover (harder to hit but not firing back) or hit the deck and return fire. Infantry units don't have a delay in acting like vehicle/tank units.

To advance under fire the unit (fire team or squad) must pass an Aggressiveness Check. If successful they can successfully move under fire but expose themselves to additional causalities. Failing an Aggressiveness Check lowers the units Aggressiveness Factor and they must fall back, sort of like failing a morale check.

Poor units have a lower Aggressiveness Rating. Good leadership can increase Aggressiveness Ratings.

If you disagree because the player has too much control and it should be more random or chaotic that's OK. Play what you like I always say. I was an infantry fire team / squad leader, we never did things randomly. We trained and had drills to react in specific situations. On occasion me or someone else did screw up. I have a SNAFU Chart to cover that.

Wolfhag

Personally this sounds interesting and goes in line with a lots of concepts that I favour in game design… as much as possible the mechanics of the system in use should increase immersion where too many decrease it, the more the mechanics mimic the choices that the person the player represents the better

The things I am not clear from reading the slides, is how you work running the turns of the clock and people doing things… for example if there is an interaction between opposing units that start at the "same time" ie in the same second.

How many people does this handle? I realise that a player would eb controlling one tank of fire team/squad but how many people have you had playing at once? and does the addition of more people have an effect on the pace of play?

Gamesman6,
Below is a sample small scale engagement. Players can react to things like firing, moving and turret rotation on the turn they occur. Responding by telling the driver to move can happen pretty quickly. Ordering to engage a new target on your flanks while buttoned up may take 15-20 seconds (I use seconds and turns interchangeably). You always perform an action just determine the "Time & Action" when it will occur/activate in a later turn. Nothing happens right away.

Engagement Example: There are two German tanks engaging three US tanks. They have all spotted their targets and are engaging to fire. That means they've already determined if there is any delay in detecting and have taken into account turret rotation (pointing their turret at their intended target) and aim time to determine what turn in the future they'll fire (there is a play aid to make that easy to do). Neither side knows exactly what turn their opponent they will fire (activate if you like) but they do know they are targeted because they see the enemy gun/turret pointed at them.

In the basic game the only record keeping needed is to write the turn # down for firing (activating) for each vehicle. Players can do that on a small piece of paper or index card. This has not presented a problem for new players.

Turns of firing:
German #1 firing at US #3 on turn 18
US #1 firing at German #2 on turn 20
German #2 firing at US #3 on turn 21
US #2 firing at German #2 on turn 21
US #3 firing at German #1 on turn 23

Here is the order of firing for the tanks in the engagement:
Turn 18
German #1 firing at US #3. He hits, penetrates and knocks out US #3 who will not be around to fire on turn 23. He chooses to reload and engage US #1. Let's say it's going to take 13 seconds to reload and engage. He's scheduled to fire on turn 31 (18+13=31). He rotates his turret to point at US #1 who can choose to react to that action by aborting fire on German #2 to fire at German #1 or start moving.

Turn 19 there is no firing

Turn 20:
US #1 firing at German #2. It's a miss. He chooses to reload and aims to fire again taking 12 seconds so firing on turn 32 (20+12=32).

Turn 21:
German #2 firing at US #2. He missed and reloads and aims again at US #2 taking 15 turns and firing again on turn 36 (21+15=36).

US #2 firing at German #2. He misses. He determines he's in a bad position and wants to maneuver to a better position. He aborts firing and places a movement marker arrow showing speed and direction of movement. He is now a moving target.

So you see that two vehicles can fire at each other at the same time. That's the way the system handles it without any additional rules. This would be a surprise to each player. You can see where one second means a lot. There is always the chance they'll knock out each other, it's happened in games.

Turn 22 there is no firing

Turn 23.
US #3 would have been firing but is knocked out.

The next round of firing would go like this, unless a vehicle chooses to react and move or engage a different target:
German #1 firing at US #1 on turn 31
US #1 firing at German #2 on turn 32
German #2 firing at US #2 on turn 36
US #2 moving and not firing
US #3 knocked out

Any vehicles firing at a later turn can always react if they detect an action in their LOS. That means they can abort firing and engage a new threat (determining new Time & Action for turn when they fire) or decide to move. This makes the game interactive and players cannot walk away from the action like in some games. You need to pay attention.

Play proceeds with each turn being announced to all players. When a turn is announced that a player is firing all players do so at that time. If you get knocked out before your turn of firing/activation too bad, you are dead. After firing IMMEDIATELY determine what you are going to do next (fire at the same target or engage a new one or move), determine how long it will take (Time & Action) and write the turn you'll activate and hope someone isn't going to knock you out before you get to fire again.

Your decision on an action and determining how long it will take replaces the traditional IGOUGO or random activation systems most games use. It does not delay play and takes about 10-15 seconds to do once you get the hang of it. I've developed customized play aids so there is no fishing around on multiple charts to find die roll modifiers for a basic number. This is not a Tractics or ASL type game.

Tracking Targets: Let's say it is your turn to fire but your target is moving or you want to wait until he gets closer. Rather than firing write "T" for your turn of firing/activating. That means you've held fire and are tracking the target. This will allow you to fire immediately in any future turn as long as the target is in LOS. Your opponent has no idea what you are doing.

At Pacificon last year on Saturday and Sunday we had nine new players with each player commanding one vehicle and one infantry squad or two vehicles or two infantry squads. I ran the game calling out the game turns. The scenario was a two pronged US attack on a German held town using 28mm and Remagen Bridge in 28mm. No one had read the rules prior to playing. I did a 10 minute intro and went over a few turn examples and what each player would be responsible for doing. Each player determined their turn of firing/activation and wrote it down on an index card. After about 45 minutes they were pretty much running the game on their own. We were playing the intro game. The detailed version has more variables thrown in for crew performance (aiming and reload times) and environmental factors that affect Time & Action times.

You almost need to forget turn sequences and activations from other games you've played. Some experienced players had a hard time and could not understand why "turns" would go by and they could not fire. Maybe the best way to explain the game is that it plays out like a video game that goes frame by frame with players performing their action when it comes to their "frame" (turn). So if it is turn 25 and you are firing on turn 31 your crew is busy performing the actions that will be completed on turn 31, they are not sitting there doing nothing or waiting to randomly be "activated".

While it may seem a little complicated or confusing in reality you are performing the same exact tasks as a tank crew would perform. The variable is the amount of time it will take. That's why I call it "Time & Task". The amount of time is variable depending on player decision for the task, crew effectiveness and weapons platform limitations like turret rotation. That helps create the fog of war as it is not predictable. Because each turn is one second we can use historic values for vehicle and weapon performance like rate of fire and turret rotation without having to abstract them.

You don't have to worry about random activations, command points, turn sequences, interrupts, over watch and opportunity fire. There are very few rule exceptions or complicated IF-THEN-ELSE routines.

I really need to get the video done. It's much easier to show people than explain it.

Thanks,
Wolfhag

Thanks WOlfhag for the detailed reply, and for taking the time to do that…
I like the ideas and have been familiar with Boyds Loop for some time… I've never been much one for normal rules and have always been a tinkerer and looking for new approaches… looking to give the players pressure in a fashion that at least mimics the role they are taking.
I can certainly see how it works more clearly from the slide presentation and your description… and can see the good fit it makes for vehicles and especially tanks.
I can see more clearly how to make it work with tanks where one has quite specific data, ground speed, turret and gun function data, speed of loading etc.
Being more focused toward infantry action I am wondering how you work that, ie how your time and task actions work for an infantry squad. Observation for a squad of ten men. movement rates?
I can think of ways of course, but just wondering how you approached and solved the problem.
oh and yes a video would be great! ;)
thanks again…

Gamesman6,
I use 2-6 men for the basic infantry team or gun crew. Infantry teams use the same Situational Awareness rules as vehicles but have a better chance of not having a delay and better all round awareness. Rather than a buttoned up and unbuttoned factors they use a suppressed and unsuppressed value.

I define suppression as decreasing your ability to observe, fire and move. Decreasing your ability to observe will generate a delay in intercepting and firing on new threats. This delay will give maneuvering units a chance to get closer or move from one blocking LOS to another limiting the amount of time they can be fired on. If an enemy team is exposed for 5 seconds and the defender has a 3 second engagement delay because of being suppressed they only get two seconds to fire and their fire is less effective for being suppressed. If they are out of LOS after 3 seconds they are safe.

I watched a German WWII training video of a Grenadier popping up from his trench to fire a Panzerfaust at a tank. It took 3 seconds to pop up and deploy the weapon and it looked like an additional two seconds to aim and fire. That means he was exposed for 5 seconds. Lets use that as a benchmark for the next example.

Here is an example of an infantry hand held weapon (any type) firing at a tank. Lets say on turn 15 the tank and their escort is notified a Panzerfaust troop has popped up in their LOS and unknown to his opponent the German player has written down he'll fire on turn 20. Exposed for 3 seconds + 2 seconds aim time.

On turn 15 any infantry teams in LOS perform a Situational Awareness Check in an attempt to suppress the Panzerfaust gunner. If the Panzerfaust is in their flank or rear he'll have a pretty good chance of getting the shot off without being shot at.

If there is any infantry teams as an escort for the tank, or in LOS, they'll roll a D20 on their unsuppressed or suppressed factor and any modifiers. Ideally the Germans fired on the escort to suppress them giving the Panzerfaust gunner a better chance at unmolested shooting.

If there is a delay to engage by the infantry of 5+ turns the Panzerfaust shot goes off unmolested on turn 20 – unless someone or something else gets to him before turn 20. For each second < 5 they have a chance to shoot and kill/WIA the gunner or force him to duck back. I think this is similar to Nuts! reaction rules. If any crew members of the tank with a MG or SMG are in LOS they get a chance to shoot too. The German gunner could have selected an aim time of 2 seconds added to the 3 seconds to pop up. If he had selected 1 second of aim time there would be an accuracy penalty but also one second less for the enemy to respond. One second can mean the difference between success and failure!

I tried this out a Pacificon and it worked pretty well. It works for grenades too. When a grenade lands the team rolls a Situational Awareness Check. If they notice in time they can hit the deck or attempt to pick it up and throw it back.

As far as movement rates I use historic rates when possible. I have not mentioned movement yet but basically here's how it works. Any time a unit wants to move it places a movement arrow showing the speed and direction they are moving. At the end of every 5 seconds/turns ALL units from both sides with a movement arrow are mutually moved with direction limited to the direction of the arrow. This speeds up the game immensely.

Any unit with a movement arrow is fired at as a moving target even if it has not actually been moved yet. A tank can fire and then immediately place a movement marker and move while reloading. Then after the reload time (5-12 seconds generally) he can halt and fire and move again. No abstractions for ROF, rules exceptions or modification like most games.

Think about it. You can perform any action just determine the Time & Action and the effect it will have. I tell players to be creative and I've learned a lot form players with no real war gaming experience or knowledge of the period.

I hope this answers your question. I have my video set up now, hopefully video example tomorrow.

Thanks,
Wolfhag

Thanks again, yes that makes things a bit clearer…
You mentioned that in the games you had people controlling 1 squad and 1 tank, 2 squads, or two tanks, have you had players controlling more units or is that number the one that works best optimally?
For example I like putting my players in roles that reflect a level of command, so a FT leader commanding 4-5 figures, a Squad leader controlling 2-3 fire teams, a Plt commander controlling squads etc, though I try to reflect that one will have some information two levels below, so a Plt Lt order his squads but will know something about where the FTs are and what they are doing.

Cheers

This is the more detailed version of Situational Awareness in the game.
link

I'll have a video of this example soon.

Here is how we played the basic version of the game at Pacificon last year with 7 new players, a 10 minute intro and no rules to read. It was a tank and infantry assault on a German held town.

All Russian tanks (T-34 and SU-85) had a ROF every 8 turns, German tanks (Panther and Panzer IV) every 7 turns, AT guns every 6 turns and hand held anti-tank weapons took 5 turns. To engage a new target involved rolling a D6+3 and adding that to your ROF. Players wrote down their turn of firing on a small piece of paper. No one had a problem with it.

Infantry squads were given an order that could be Improved Position (in the dirt taking advantage of available cover and returning fire), Tactical Move (can fire while moving), Sprint (no fire while moving), Hunker Down (in the dirt not returning fire but better protection from direct fire) or Pull Back (move away from threat towards cover or out of LOS). They reacted to enemy fire with the player determining the team hit the deck in an Improved Position to return fire, hit the deck and Hunker Down or Pulling Back towards cover or out of LOS.

Infantry movement under fire is not automatic. To move under fire they need to pass an Aggressiveness Check. Failing the check meant pulling back. If moving as part of a Fire & Maneuver with a suppressive fire element providing cover movement under fire was automatic but could increase causalities. There are no activation or command points used.

All small arms fire is simultaneous after every 5 turns using the entire team's volume of fire and one die roll to determine causalities. That speeds up the game and no complaints from players.

Performing simultaneous movement and small arms fire speeds up the game immensely. In a 3 hour game with 7 players each commanding a vehicle and squad we got through 26 five second turns of moving and small arms fire with vehicle guns firing when their turn came. The Russian tank that that fired the most got off 12 shots during the game. Using Time & Action rather than individual unit activation's speeds up the game and keeps players involved. It also keeps the players interested because they don't know who is going to fire next and if there will be a new threat.

Thanks,
Wolfhag

Thanks Wolfhag…
What is the maximum number of units you have had a player commanding/controlling?

Gamesman6,
I normally play micro armor or 1/144 scale for large tank battles on a 6x12 foot table with 1" = 25 meters. That gives me a max range of about 3,500 meters and enough room to maneuver around.

So far the biggest game was 12 Russian T-34-85 attacking 4 German Panzer IV and 2 Tiger I's with one player on each side. I had the Russians and a new guy the Germans. I have a status sheet for 6 tanks to keep track of turn of firing and your target so I had two sheets to track. I didn't find it a problem. In other tank battles new players start off with 4-6 vehicles. We played the detailed version with all of the bells and whistles and optional aim points determining hit location. The new guy was on his own after 45 minutes.

The only complication I've run into is with 28mm tank-infantry battles in a town using those new laser cut buildings that you can stuff guys on every floor. With single figures players are always wanting to have single guys running around performing different tasks. The game system can handle that it just takes additional time and turns may get a little bit out of sync.

I'd say if you are looking at a big game up to 15mm you could have four players on each side with 4-6 vehicles and use a ground scale of 1" = 12.5 meters on a 6x12 foot table. It will be a little cramped and not much room to maneuver on the flanks but throwing in a fair amount of terrain you could get up close. Don't forget AT guns too.

I'll be at Kublacon running demos, recruiting play testers and giving out free into games. At Pacificon we'll be running North Africa scenarios on Saturday and Sunday in 1/72 or 28mm.

Wolfhag

Ok that sound promising…
These days with limited space etc, I tend to do smaller scale stuff, with the advantage that it can give a better ground scale, I think I mentioned earlier that I follow the idea of two down one above, so if players are commanding a platoon the smallest unit would be a fire team… even with single mounted figures they can be placed individually for aesthetics but the move and fire etc as a unit, so the player platoon commander, would have say 3 squads of 2 fire teams, so 6 or 7 units to move and track

Wolfhag,
Have you used this as part of a bigger aspect or operation.
As it stands this part of the system seems to kick in at the point where the enemy is spotted or the fire fight begins and ends.
HAve you played games that cover the lead up, from point when say the unit begins it's movement to an objective?
Second by second of course works when you are in contact but when you are moveing or patrolling forward for minute or even hours?
Obviously I can see that one can just up scale from here and plot things in minutes or multiples of, instead of seconds until the bullets fly and then shift to seconds.
As you say all you need to do in doubt is think what do I want to do and how long will it take…
Also have you dealt with what happens after the fire fight/contact? say when one side breaks contact out LoS and the winning side moves to is next objective
Best

Gamesman6,
All of the games have been preset scenarios. I'm sure there are a number of ways to use a different system as a run up to the actual engagement.

There would be a number of ways to integrate a small unit action into a larger battle. If both sides or one sides withdraws out of LOS then you can have a lull in the fighting or go into an abstracted longer game turn using minutes or hours. Any number of things can happen during that time.

Example: An attack is not going well so the attackers withdraw to wait for artillery, air strikes or reinforcements. That could allow the defender to redeploy or call up reserves. At a certain point the attack resumes.

In a small unit tank engagement taking about 5 minutes of real time we don't get into artillery because in reality it takes at least a few minutes to call it in and it's pretty ineffective against moving targets. However, from the paragraph above you can make it happen.

I do have rules infantry rules that integrate with the armor and same activation/reaction system including mortars and artillery.

No rule set can cover everything. The one I'm working on reflects the timing and effectiveness of individual crews and weapons systems using historical speeds, ROF and turret rotation. In larger battalion+ engagements and longer turns those factors are not relevant as they would be in a smaller company sized engagement.

Wolfhag

Thanks
Yes I have ideas on on how to work it and make a shifting or sliding time scale, More I was wondering if you had tried it yourself.

Indeed no rules can do it all, though many try to and more often players want to be everything from the individual solder. squad leader platoon Company and Battalion CO etc

Anyway all this has given me lots to think and work on… The challenge at the moment is that as opposed to tanks, where the mechanical nature make it relatively easy to discover times, speeds etc. that it is a little harder for infantry to quantify in the same way. Also the psychological aspects, crewed vehicles and crew served weapons are more likely to keep functioning in situation where individual soldiers. fiore teams and squad may not…
But hey that is part of the fun of designing rules…