D6 Junkie | 24 Jan 2016 9:27 a.m. PST |
So Simultaneous Movement, I just don't get how it works. All I picture is players fumbling, 'Well if you're going to do that then I'll do this" In games without orders it just seems like chaos. Even with orders I just see too much hesitating. So is it just a British thing? Because it just doesn't seem to work here in the States, at least in Georgia. |
MajorB | 24 Jan 2016 9:30 a.m. PST |
I'm a Brit, but I can't remember the last time I played a game with simultaneous movement. |
martin goddard | 24 Jan 2016 9:49 a.m. PST |
D6J i concur with your thoughts. Last time I used it in the UK was 1982 with WRG ancients 6th? It is still used in quite a few game set rules. Some folk will claim their rules are simultaneous because they split the turn into a lot of ugo/igo parts. Hope I have not upset any one, if so very sorry. martin
|
Extra Crispy | 24 Jan 2016 9:51 a.m. PST |
One of my local game clubs here in the US uses it extensively. Never had a problem. But you have to play with gentlemen. |
vtsaogames | 24 Jan 2016 9:58 a.m. PST |
It is an old thing, rather than British. It was standard for most rules in the 70's. And yes, it caused quite a fuss when rules lawyers and hyper competitive players were involved. I recall an 1814 Napoleonic battle that featured an enormous argument between two guys about who moved first (revealing their intent). Multiply this by the number of cavalry units that each had and that turn dragged on for 90 dreadful minutes. Wish I'd thought up the simple solution: each pair of opposed cavalry units would dice, high roller moving second. No yelling, the turn would have been over way faster. |
MajorB | 24 Jan 2016 10:01 a.m. PST |
It is still used in quite a few game set rules. Can anyone identify any of these? |
M C MonkeyDew | 24 Jan 2016 10:01 a.m. PST |
" it caused quite a fuss when rules lawyers and hyper competitive players were involved." The crux of the matter. It's only a problem if any one player makes it a problem. Done right it makes games faster and keeps both sides involved. Also agree its a "historical" thing in that from the dawn of the hobby some rules were and others weren't and some said you can play their game either way. Bob |
Ferbs Fighting Forces | 24 Jan 2016 10:38 a.m. PST |
I haven't seen mention of the fact that most rules said that you had to write orders for your units which were then revealed and acted on simultaneously. This got round most of the problems. I think the first edition of Johnny Reb had order tokens which did the same sort of thing. |
Bashytubits | 24 Jan 2016 10:42 a.m. PST |
The way my group handled this was to measure the distance between the 2 units and pro-rate how far they moved based on their movement ability. The faster unit would move a bit further than the slower unit when they met. Both would be allowed to charge and get whatever bonus. |
Shedman | 24 Jan 2016 10:42 a.m. PST |
Doesn't the Wings of War/Glory and X Wing series use SM? Other than that the last time I played simultaneous Movement was SPI's The Crusades |
Tony S | 24 Jan 2016 10:44 a.m. PST |
Can anyone identify any of these? The old WRG ancients rules. Can't remember which editions. Was it 5th or 6th where players would show up with binders full of pages and pages pre-written orders for every occasion. Weren't there also standing orders, or am I thinking of another game? "Shock of Impact" from Tabletop Games had written orders, and were simultaneous if I recall correctly. That said, just played a game a couple of weeks ago with written orders and simultaneous movement. Full Thrust, not a recent game by an means, but still popular, unlike the rules I've just mentioned. Simple orders though, so rarely any room for argument. Interestingly enough, if you drift to the boardgame aspect of wargaming, simultaneous movement was almost entirely US based. Remember the period where SPI games were all "si-move", and how realistic they claimed they were? |
M C MonkeyDew | 24 Jan 2016 11:04 a.m. PST |
"Remember the period where SPI games …" Oh dear those were doleful days. |
ubercommando | 24 Jan 2016 11:12 a.m. PST |
Yep, definitely a 70s and early 80s thing. All games I played in back then that used simultaneous movement insisted on written orders, which would be scrutinised by the opposing players; both to ensure honesty and also to penalise any vagueness: "You said advance towards the church. Which church? There are two? No, you can't assume the nearest one. No move for you." Some of the boardgames from that era had nifty simultaneous move mechanisms: The unit's overall movement was broken down into phases so on phase 1, you move your unit a fraction of their total movement, and so did your opponent, then both would move another fraction until all their movement points got used up. Star Trek (FASA) used this. |
martin goddard | 24 Jan 2016 11:16 a.m. PST |
Standing orders were a WRG "thing" for 4th and 5th edition for sure. Ghastly sheet s of "flexible" text designed to allow players t do odd things. the only restriction was it had to be on one sheet. the sheet could be 10 foot long though! Is rapid fire simultaneous? martin |
John the OFM | 24 Jan 2016 11:23 a.m. PST |
I never liked simultaneous movement. It was a way for the more experienced players to bully those who played only twice a year. |
MajorB | 24 Jan 2016 11:25 a.m. PST |
a 1905 era set of naval rules called Quick Fire Never heard of them. Is it strictly simultaneous movement or do you write movement orders first? Rules with simultaneous movement and written movement orders (such as Full Thrust) avoid all the problems identified by the OP. But it only really works for naval or spaceship games. |
MajorB | 24 Jan 2016 11:27 a.m. PST |
Is Rapid Fire simultaneous? Nope. It's IGO-UGO. |
Ottoathome | 24 Jan 2016 11:27 a.m. PST |
Another of the great myths of games. Until the toy soldiers can move on their own you willnever have simultaneous movement. The only workable simultaneous move I ever saw was where the two sides each chose a table edge and they began on opposite ends and moved their units, from one flank to the other, and crossing somewhere in the center. That did not work anywhere near as well as one might think, with one side usuall "dogging it" fiddling around with one unit and watching till the other side was almost in front of him before going back and taking advantage of what the enemy had done. It WOULD work somewhat better when an egg-timer was used with both sides having ONE MINUTE to complete the left to right transit, and if it wasn't moved by the time the timer was up, it wasn't moved. Even this fell apart a little when one side would "tidy up" the movement after the timer was drained, which amounted to almost a whole new three minute move. The player howled when I simply picked up the units he had "tiedied up" and said they were eliminated. |
Martin Rapier | 24 Jan 2016 11:36 a.m. PST |
It is a mechanism which can be made to work with gentlemanly players. It worked fine for Charles Grants 'Battle', worked fine for Command Decision II (although it got dropped in CD IV) and still works fine for Megablitz and TAC:WW2. The latter both have the concept of unit modes/postures to restrain the more excitable players. It doesn't work if people are going to be idiots about it of course. Arguably it isn't a very good simulation in any case, as warfare actually seems to be much more about action and reaction, but there is something abut the best laid plans etc. |
rmaker | 24 Jan 2016 12:00 p.m. PST |
I agree with Extra Crispy. And I dislike playing with jerks anyway. |
(Phil Dutre) | 24 Jan 2016 12:01 p.m. PST |
Simultaneous movement is not a rule, it's an attitude. We have played games where both sides look at their units and decide what to do. Then everyone moves simultaneously. Gentlemen's honor to not change your mind, and to trust the other player he won't do it. |
doug redshirt | 24 Jan 2016 12:10 p.m. PST |
I will never buy a rule set that has simultaneous movement or where I have to write down orders for every element. |
PJ ONeill | 24 Jan 2016 12:16 p.m. PST |
Can anyone identify any of these? Johnny Reb, I, II, III For my tastes, the best miniature rules ever, and yes, I am biased. It needs to be played by gentlemen and absolutely needs a GM |
Whirlwind | 24 Jan 2016 1:13 p.m. PST |
I suspect the experienced gamers who played it when I was younger had just developed workable fudges, but the Bruce Quarrie rules used simultaneous movement. When I relatively recently tried to use those rules, my mind melted when simultaneous movement combined with a firing/charge sequence where a move then had to be broken down into very small fractions in some circumstances. |
NCC1717 | 24 Jan 2016 1:14 p.m. PST |
Fire & Steel (Game Designer's Workshop) requires simultaneous movement, and recommends a referee. |
Skeets | 24 Jan 2016 1:27 p.m. PST |
We still use simultaneous movement in our group playing CLS. There are about 40 of us and about 40 have been playing now since the 70s. We have asked newbies to play if we have had experience with playing with them and believe they will fit in. If a new player turns out to be too much of a rules lawyer or is too argumentative we don't invite them back. |
battleeditor | 24 Jan 2016 2:06 p.m. PST |
I – and pretty much everyone I knew – used simultaneous movement for all their wargames from the days of Don Featherstone ("War Games" etc) and Brigadier Peter Young ("Charge!"), Charles Grant ("The War Game"), the WRG Ancients rules (1st through to 6th Edition), Bruce Quarrie's Napoleonics rules (firstly in "The Airfix Guide to Napoelonic Wargaming" and then "Napoleon's Campaigns in Miniature"), Peter Gilder's "In the Grand Manner" used at the Wargames Holiday Centre and elsewhere, all the Newbury rules for various eras and so on. It was only from the late 1980s onwards with the influence of Warhammer that I recall a major switch to alternate IGO-UGO moves. I love simultaneous movement with written orders. Over the nearly three decades I played a lot of such rules, I can only recall one or two major disagreements arising. As has been said above, a great deal comes down to choosing your opponents carefully and curbing one's competitiveness in favour of fair play and deciding on what the most likely outcome would have been in reality. I think what killed off many of those 1970s and 80s rulesets was not the simultaneous movement, but the increasing complexity of the other aspects of the rules – having to headcount individual *men* as casualties rather than whole figures (e.g. 1 figure = 33 men, so musketry this turn inflicted 21 casualties on unit X, artillery inflicted 17 more, so take away 1 figure and carry over the extra 5 casualties on a sheet of paper). It was all part of the 'simulationist' trend of those days. The one thing that simultaneous movement is able to achieve better than any other method is surprise. A unit has been given specific orders to do X, so can't suddenly swerve or about-face when an enemy unit does something unexpected. Ever since the general change to IGO-UGO, rules writers have had to come up with all sorts of alternative ways to reintroduce surprise into games when simultaneous moves did the job perfectly well. Incidentally, another pleasant byproduct of simultaneous moves with orders is that after the game, you have a nice little memento of how the game went. I still have sheaves of order sheets from significant games I played decades ago. Since these were the days before convenient digital cameras and smartphones to take blow-by-blow photos, those order sheets are highly evocative: look, I remember the Knyphausen Grenadiers suffering from a terrible enemy volley in that move; here's the moment when I sent in the Brettlingen Kürassiere and they crashed through the enemy line… and so on. These were often accompanied by little sketch maps which made it clear precisely what I wanted a unit to do (definitely bombard *that* church on the right!) and the outcome of amusing moments. Such things were the stock-in-trade of Charles Grant's 'Table Top Teaser' series for years in the magazines. With or without an umpire, I still hanker for simultaneous move games. Henry MWBG P.S. I'm British, but have read about plenty of simultaneous move games played elsewhere too. |
Ceterman | 24 Jan 2016 2:35 p.m. PST |
MajorB, Free Quick Fire rules here: link |
MajorB | 24 Jan 2016 2:49 p.m. PST |
used simultaneous movement for all their wargames from the days of Don Featherstone ("War Games" etc) and Brigadier Peter Young ("Charge!") Actually, in Featherstone's rules in "War games" (1962) the turn sequence is roll for first move, then he who moves first fires second. In the elementary rules in "Charge!" it is alternate movement. It is only with the advanced rules in "Charge!" that simultaneous movement is introduced. |
MajorB | 24 Jan 2016 2:52 p.m. PST |
MajorB, Free Quick Fire rules here: Interesting. I note that these rules offer a choice of simultaneous movement or alternate movement. |
Dal Gavan | 24 Jan 2016 2:59 p.m. PST |
Phil Dutre, MC Monkeydew, etc are right- it's an attitude. If you can trust your opponent and abhor cheating then it works fine. JR 1 & 2 (never went to JR3- I hate re-basing figures) and variants using order chits/counters work well for those who don't like writing orders. I don't mind orders, though using JR 2 counters for Grant's The War Game does speed things up. IMO you'll get more "tactical" surprises in si-move games than you ever will in IGO-UGO, as well. There are those who see winning as being the only objective of a game and cheating/rules lawyering/ endless argument as a legitimate way of getting there (competitions bring them out in droves). For them si-move games are just a cornucopia of "winning opportunities" and I doubt they'd ever get a si-move game finished, so it would be "unplayable". I don't play them more than once and, fortunately, they don't last long at the Moruya club. Often, these days, a game against someone like that will end after half an hour with "OK- you win, I surrender. Goodbye". Major B, the Wings of Glory/Wings of War rules are si-move. It's not as uncommon as you believe. Dal. |
Goonfighter | 24 Jan 2016 3:22 p.m. PST |
I presume it isn't. There were American girls in college but I never got to find out, sadly. |
MajorB | 24 Jan 2016 3:24 p.m. PST |
Major B, the Wings of Glory/Wings of War rules are si-move. It's not as uncommon as you believe. I didn't say it was uncommon, I just wanted to quantify the rules that actually use simultaneous movement. And Wings of War uses planned movement – a bit like Full Thrust's plotted movement. So it avoids the pitfalls identified in the OP. |
Ed Mohrmann | 24 Jan 2016 4:45 p.m. PST |
Yep, fire and steel (aka ClS lite) did require sm – to its detriment. |
Henry Martini | 24 Jan 2016 5:47 p.m. PST |
Doesn't 'Under the Lilly Banners' use this system? I think that's why I dismissed it out-of-hand. SM is a legacy of the search for 'realism', the simplistic thinking behind it being 'in the real world one side doesn't stop moving and wait for the other side to move. We're simulating reality, so everything should move at the same time in our games, too'. This attitude failed to recognise that we're actually first and foremost playing a game. A game can do no more than abstractly represent certain aspects of reality, and the overall effect and result are more important than the individual elements. Abstraction is unavoidable at all levels, and we happily accept it in every other facet of the game; e.g. the physical representation of units – so why not the turn sequence too if it's more ludically effective? I find SM a clumsy, unsophisticated, and inefficient relic of a bygone era of the hobby, and won't touch any rules that still use it – order counters or not . |
Parzival | 24 Jan 2016 10:11 p.m. PST |
Pure Si-Move, no, but a move some/move some then shoot/shoot structure is the system GOBS uses (Generic Outlandishly Big Spacefleets!). Both sides alternate moving ships by their speed capability and according to an initiative roll (loser moves first), which results in a mixture of both players getting to react to at least some of what the other player is doing. After all ships are moved, both players shoot, but in turn according to the initiative (winner shoots first). So there are elements of Si-M, but with an ordered structure derived from IGOUGO. |
Dal Gavan | 24 Jan 2016 11:08 p.m. PST |
MAJ B And Wings of War uses planned movement …….. So it avoids the pitfalls identified in the OP. The OP is referring to both as si-move, in fact: In games without orders it just seems like chaos. Even with orders I just see too much hesitating. The arbitrary distinction is yours, it seems. In any case, apart from Little Wars, Fletcher Pratt naval and Charge!, I haven't seen any rules that don't use some form of "planned movement"- whether chits, cards, counters or written orders. |
Early morning writer | 24 Jan 2016 11:27 p.m. PST |
Simultaneous movement has the problems illustrated above – even in JRII with its order chits, sadly. IGO-UGO works fine for a pleasant game among amiable opponents. Tactical surprise should be built into the scenario, not achieved by which system is in the rules. IMHO. |
(Phil Dutre) | 25 Jan 2016 12:20 a.m. PST |
One could argue that with more sophisticated ways of chopping up the movement phase (all sorts of activation die rolls or card-driven mechanisms), the disadvantages of IGO-UGO are largely addressed in other ways, and hence less of a need for simmoves in games. BTW, I consider simultaneous movement and planned movement (of which written orders is one possible implementation) seperate mechanisms. They can combined together, but you can have simultaneous movement without planned orders and vice versa. |
(Phil Dutre) | 25 Jan 2016 12:32 a.m. PST |
Simultaneous movement is indeed an approach to the game that moves away from the philosophy that the entire game needs to be captured in well-defined, discretized rules, with as few loopholes as possible. There is also another approach to wargaming (but less well-known and less-practiced these days), in which the wargame is more approached as a storytelling or discussion game, and in which not as many rules are written out, but players (and umpire) use their judgement how certain situations would develop. Call it free kriegsspiel if you like, but that specific name has other connotations, specifically to 19th century training exercises for officers, and probably was/is too much umpire-dependent. Simultaneously moving your troops on the table can be seen as a step towards this latter mode of playing the game, i.e. a game not in which both players are adversaries, but are cooperating in watching a battle unfold. This does not mean both players cannot have their own objectives, but the game is not seen as a competitive slugfest. Most rulesets these days subscribe to the idea that everything needs to be defined as precise as possible, down to the composition of forces on the table (army lists and point valies) and initial setup of the troops. Hence the sometimes overdetailed discussions about various die-rolling mechanisms or troop statistics. But also this instills a specific mindset in wargamers, insofar that the competitive setup with clear predefined rules seems to be the only viable model. But let's not forget there are other ways in which you can use your toy soldiers to play out battles. Simultaneous movement is a small symptom of that. |
Dal Gavan | 25 Jan 2016 12:35 a.m. PST |
EMW, there can be problems, I agree. But with a good group they're minimised, if not completely eliminated. Phil, interesting POV. I consider them the same because I would think that people will be moving the units to an already-devised plan. Even in our big games of FP naval in the '70's there'd be a sort of O Group before the game, to sort something that could pass for a plan (at a long distance). Not that it helped much, most of the time. Dal. |
ubercommando | 25 Jan 2016 2:31 a.m. PST |
Someone mentioned Tac:WW2 earlier and I agree that the movement and tactical modes are the best aspect of the game. I'm very happy with IGO-UGO as a gaming concept and I don't have the hates for it, what put me off simultaneous movement in the 1980s (when I started gaming) were the written orders aspects, particularly when you had to be precise or the other players will pounce on any loopholes you may have inadvertently put in. But then this was the same era which produced role-playing GMs who would hang you by your omissions "you never said you were holding a sword. You die." I also noticed that whilst everyone is moving at the same time and concentrating on their forces, some less scrupulous players would take advantage of not being scrutinised to squeeze out an extra inch or two of movement or to reorganise their forces more to their liking. I'm now more of a fan of card driven or chit driven movement rules, such as I Ain't Been Shot Mum and Sword and Spear. Simultaneous movement I feel is a concept that is quaint but not the best I've experienced. |
MajorB | 25 Jan 2016 2:55 a.m. PST |
In games without orders it just seems like chaos. Even with orders I just see too much hesitating. The arbitrary distinction is yours, it seems. In any case, apart from Little Wars, Fletcher Pratt naval and Charge!, I haven't seen any rules that don't use some form of "planned movement"- whether chits, cards, counters or written orders.
I don't think it's an arbitrary distinction. The OP himself distingushes the differences – "chaos" as opposed to "hesitation". Although I don't quite see why players should hesitate when they are obliged to implement their planned movement. I have seen many rules that don't use some form of "planned movement" – whether chits, cards, counters or written orders. Or did you only mean rules with simultaneous movement? |
MajorB | 25 Jan 2016 3:01 a.m. PST |
I would think that people will be moving the units to an already-devised plan. Wishful thinking. No plan survives contact with the enemy. |
Martin Rapier | 25 Jan 2016 5:22 a.m. PST |
"No plan survives contact with the enemy." Which doesn't mean that you don't have a plan. They very act of planning means you think about possible outcomes and responses. It is the conversation and thought which has value, rather than the plan itself. Although what Von Moltke actually said (poorly translated from the German) was: "The tactical result of an engagement forms the base for new strategic decisions because victory or defeat in a battle changes the situation to such a degree that no human acumen is able to see beyond the first battle. In this sense one should understand Napoleon's saying: "I have never had a plan of operations." Therefore no plan of operations extends with any certainty beyond the first contact with the main hostile force." Which really isn't quite the same thing as the more common abbreviated quote. It is about feedback loops, plan-check-act-do, the Demming cycle, OODA and all that. It would have been hard to defeat Austria in 1866 and France in 1870 without a plan, even if it had to changed once major contacts had started, particularly given the reliance on railway transport. |
MajorB | 25 Jan 2016 7:51 a.m. PST |
Which doesn't mean that you don't have a plan. They very act of planning means you think about possible outcomes and responses. It is the conversation and thought which has value, rather than the plan itself. Absolutely agree. However, in the context of a wargame using simultaneous movement without specific orders, it is all too easy to "accidentally" ignore the plan and respond to what your opponent is doing eevn though in reality the unit you are moving in response would not be aware of the the threat. |
Decebalus | 25 Jan 2016 12:40 p.m. PST |
Unti 4 weeks ago i never had played a simultaneous wargame. I am coming from GW games, so i am used to very strict igo-ugo games (including some silly rules like "stand and shoot"). Last month we played "1866" by Bruce Weigel, that uses order counters and simultaneous movement (similar to first edition Command Decision i think). It worked absolutely easy. A few very short discussions, what would happen in a special situation (I charge here, you counter charge, i will not reach my target, but we will meet there.) It was exiting because you had to plan your orders without knowing, what the other would do. And it was fast, no waiting around. I really expected it to be cumbersome and feeling strange. But no, i really had fun. |
Dal Gavan | 25 Jan 2016 2:41 p.m. PST |
MAJ B, I have seen many rules that don't use some form of "planned movement" – whether chits, cards, counters or written orders. Or did you only mean rules with simultaneous movement? Yes, I'm only referring to si-move games. However, in the context of a wargame using simultaneous movement without specific orders, it is all too easy to "accidentally" ignore the plan and respond to what your opponent is doing I think the discussion is becoming circular. All the problems that the OP identified for si-move games do exist, but are minimalised if you're playing against opponents who don't cheat (eg by delaying to see what you do, moving more than they should, etc). The temptation's there, at times, but if I cheat I haven't really won. Luckily my usual opponents feel the same way. We even point out if we've done something wrong and try to correct it, not crouch there and gloat over our deviousness. Gloating is saved for the times when we wrong foot our opponents (very rarely, but it happens). Plans- what you want to happen, which probably won't happen, or was a stupid idea in the first place. But it's a really good feeling when plans actually work. And you always do worse without one. In my experience those who would cheat during si-move games will also try to fiddle any other game they played (complex boardgames, such as Wacht am Rhein or the Les Batailles series seem to attract the type). It's a deficiency in the mindset of the player, not really a deficiency in the system. Dal. |
christot | 26 Jan 2016 12:56 a.m. PST |
Simultaneous movement is really, really simple. Take good old In The Grand Manner Napoleonic rules: Each turn players alternate moving left to right, and then right to left. There is no problem (unless you want one, of course, in which case thats more your problem rather than the rules). |
Weasel | 26 Jan 2016 8:43 a.m. PST |
Face of Battle has simultaneous movement, kind of. You draw two cards at a time and those two actions happen at the same time (if I remember the rules right). We just sort of fudged it a bit but we're a pretty friendly group. |