"Timing in games" Topic

Are there any rulesets that use or build on the following:

Let's say we are in turn/phase/pulse X. When a unit performs an action, the action is carried out, but the unit can only act in turn/phase/pulse X+d. The number d might be action-dependent.

I know roleplaying games have used such systems in their combat systems, but I was wondering whether something similar has been done in (miniature) wargaming.

The closest I could find was that when you give a (new) order to a unit, it takes a number of turns for the order to arrive or take effect.

The reason I'm asking is that I am currently experimenting with such a system in my house rules, but I don't want to completely reinvent the wheel …

I think RPGs are your only template; I don't know of any tabletop wargames that implement that mechanic the way you are talking about it (i.e. not the "I fired artillery, but it doesn't hit until the end of next turn" mechanic, which is pretty common).

RPGs usually have very elastic timekeeping, so the GM can adjust the granularity to what is appropriate for the story. The timing mechanic you're talking about is usually (always?) used with respect to "combat rounds" – very small durations in combat, a couple seconds to less than one second. Thus I may need three combat rounds to swing a halberd but only one to stab with a dagger.

The time dilation and contraction is part of the storytelling aspect where we see minute details of combat or intense negotiations with shopkeepers, but only know everyone goes to sleep, the guard changes and everyone wakes up overnight (unless there is a night attack, then we go back to minute detail).

Hobby tabletop wargames generally don't have this type of elastic time sequencing. Generally they focus on a specific part of the overall story where you want to keep the time scale static for purposes of the interactions.

This leads to the other recent discussion about why we usually have to "repeat" orders. We're not really repeating the order, we're just creating discrete opportunities for individual units to decide if and how to follow that order based on how their situation changes during the time that they are executing it.

It's not to say you couldn't do it. I have used that timekeeping mechanic with tabletops and simulations for training an experimentation. What you will have to do is create a bookkeeping system to support the mechanic.

That leads to the other continuing discussion about "all the fiddly rules". I really don't subscribe to that point of view. What makes a rule "fiddly" is not the detail involved in it. A rule is fiddly if a player is not interested in those interactions.

The original BattleTech had huge, detailed sheets where you tracked individual hits against different systems. If you were really into the mecha war frame of mind, then you were really interested in the idea of taking hits on different systems and how your mech responded overall and also giving hits to different systems and possibly even targeting specific systems (like going for a mobility or comms kill first). That mindset becomes part of the tactical experience of the player. And the rules aren't fiddly – they are essential to the experience.

Likewise, if you're in no way interested in fighting your mech as a complex system of systems, then the hit system is mind-numbing accounting that comes between you and the part of the experience you are interested in.

A problem with such mechanics is if the multiple paths they create don't lead to different outcomes. If my mech fights and survives the same way no matter where and when it takes which hits, then that mechanic isn't even an accounting system … it is a waste of time.

So, I suppose the big point is to ensure you know what you want players to get out of the mechanic. I would assume a time-sequencing challenge in managing their engagement. Along those lines, be very deliberate about your choice of relatively prime numbers.

For example, if one of your cycles is in units of ten "combat turns", using only 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 as order durations will create a different game than 2, 4, 6, and 8. Things will sequence and align differently. And, of course you can mix prime and composite numbers to create subdomains within the performance space where some things come together easily and other ones are harder to sequence (or create more "waste" turns where units wait for other to catch up).

Variable order durations would add another dimension to tactical and operational planning, but also to accounting. If that type of uncertainty is important to the effect you want, then it would be worth the accounting.

One suggestion, really a preference. I prefer to encode accounting into physical manipulatives rather than tables and charts … though I do love a good nomogram now and then. (Let slip the sliderules of war!)

etotheipi,

Thanks for the ideas. I was indeed thinking along the lines of using a variable duration for an action, indicating the number of 'turns' a unit would have to wait before it can be activated again. The core idea would be that moving a larger distance takes more time than moving a short one (e.g. D6 + distance moved turns), or that firing takes a different time than moving (e.g. D4 turns). Modifiers can be built in to encode sluggishness in command. E.g. a badly commanded army that reacts slowly, would take just a little bit longer (e.g. +1 for all actions) for the same action as a well-led army.
The idea would be that players will have to think about what action to make – actions with a larger impact (e.g. further movement, heavy fire, …) will take longer, and it will last longer before the unit can be activated again.
From a "simulation" pov it also provides a more flexible mechanic by allowing various small and large actions that don't always fit in the rigid IGO-UGO turn, in which all actions get the same "slice" of time.

I also have a couple of ideas for translating this into an elegant and simple-to-use mechanic (which I think is indeed an important part – otherwise you end up with tedious bookkeeping), but first wanted to see what else has already been explored.
But my current idea would be either:
- to use a D10 or 10-dial next to unit, and use modulo-10 arithmetic to track turns. E.g. we are in turn 6, a unit takes an action, this take 7 turns => 6+7 = 13 => turn 3 to activate again. Why modulo 10 instead of 12 or 20 or something else? Because it allows for easy bookkeeping using dice or numbers, and is intuitive to use for the arithmetic-challenged :-). Advantage: you immediately see when a unit will activate. Disadvantage: no easy overview of all your units at a glance.
- Or use a time-track with 10 discrete boxes, and with an ID (counter) per unit, again based on modulo 10. Advantage: easy overview; and both sides can have their own time-track, hiding information about their own units. Disadvantage: one indirect level between the toy soldiers on the table and the counter ID on the time track.

I totally concur about your remark w.r.t. outcomes being the same for multiple paths. If it all ends up in a big random time-delayed chaotic jungle, without significantly affecting decision-making by the players, then there's no point to it all.

I like the dial idea best. I have used dice for things like this; in tabletop games, you (or maybe it's just me and my players) tend to knock them over. Plus. if you use dials, you can really use any modulus you want, because the dial does the math for you.

Along those lines, using base 12 for the turns lets you have a master "clock" that looks like an analog clock. You get five minute increment turns.

I like the idea that I have to track the different units in my head. I think that is part of the challenge.

For a more modern scenario, you could give players a plexiglass sheet with a tactical display aid printed on it and grease pencils to track things on their own. Tabletop C2 capability. And if they get it wrong on their C2 … well, haven't you ever seen a COP that actually got messed up by the operators? That's realism!

One of the tricks to a system like this will be the "opt out" of actions. That is, if I'm half way through an action can I still change to another?

Example: I order a squad to move from point A to point B. In your rules this takes, let's say, 4 turns. Now, half way there a hidden enemy unit is revealed and fires at them. How do we "cancel" the move and have them do something else (go to ground and return fire, or fall back to the wall or…).

You'd want to limit this somehow (the 2 Hour Reaction test system might be a starting point). It should be possible to catch the enemy in a bad spot.

Likewise "overlapping" activations will need to be thought about. Example: Player A orders a unit to cross a field from one stone wall to the next. Player B does likewise, in the same field. Do these two ships just pass in the night? What if A had to make a very long move but B a very short one?

Possible strange situations. Take my silly field example. player A has to move a long way to get to the wall. Player B has a unit that can make a very short move and jump the wall. It will thus be in position to activate again before PLayer A and be able to shoot at him from behind.

And there would need to be an incentive for actions that take a long time. Why would I do a move that takes 10 turns if I can do 10 moves that each take 1?

It sounds like a system that would require a GM to make adjustments on the fly a lot, but it does sound like a very interesting system.

I agree on dials versus dice. Plus you can flock dials or mount your squad leaders on them so they don't distract from the look of the game.

in tabletop games, you (or maybe it's just me and my players) tend to knock them over.

:-) That's why the D10's used for this mechanic should have a unique colour, e.g. orange, and combat mechanics should not use D10's or orange dice …

As for dials, I was thinking like this (from Litko), but a 12-sided clock dial might be even more intuitive.

Likewise "overlapping" activations will need to be thought about. Example: Player A orders a unit to cross a field from one stone wall to the next. Player B does likewise, in the same field. Do these two ships just pass in the night? What if A had to make a very long move but B a very short one?

Easiest solution would be for all units that activate in the same turn, to still have an IGO-UGO system for both players. Thus, all units that get activated on turn 6, mine go first, then yours.

Once a unit is activated, it's action is completely resolved, whether a long or a short action. This is not that unusual, we also do that in more classic game structures. E.g. in IGO-UGO, units also suddenly move from here to there instantaneously without any interruption. But it would depend a bit on the combat resolution, and whether op-fire is allowed etc.

And there would need to be an incentive for actions that take a long time. Why would I do a move that takes 10 turns if I can do 10 moves that each take 1?

Very true. Currently, I am using a D6+#hexes (I use Kallistra hexes, but you could as well use increments of 2"or 3" or whatever) for the time-cost of movement. Thus, if you want to move 10 hexes in 1-hex increments, it will cost you 10(D6+1) time cost total (but you have some more flexibility); if you do it in one move, it will cost you D6+10, but you are then stuck for a longer period. But yes, such things need to be balanced carefully. Overall, the cost function should not be linear, but rather logarithmic.

Some additional stuff:

* Another thing I currently also have is for a unit to "pass" and move its clock forward without doing anything. Otherwise, it is difficult to coordinate actions between multiple units. Cfr. other activation mechanisms where you have some sort of mechanic for group activations as well.

* Note that in my current implementation all costs are not larger than 10, otherwise the modulo 10 arithmetic system doesn't work as elegantly, and you would need an extra marker to indicate another period of 10 turns.

* I also thought about putting markers equal to the time cost next to each unit, and at the start of the unit remove one marker from each unit. Those whose last marker is removed, can act this turn. But that seemed way too cumbersome, and visually not very attractive.

Terrement,

Computer games allow for such system rather easily – the bookeeping is done by the computer. Most real-time strategy games work on such a system as well, with time elapsing before you can activate the unit again with a special power or something.

But I will check the system you describe, thanks for the link.

One of the challenges I see is to turn this in an elegant workable mechanic *and* to provide meaningful decisions to the player.

You get something like that in Science vs pluck of the genial Howard Whitehouse.

What about Star Fleet Battles? From what I recall, it uses a 36(?) impulse turn, with different speed ships moving on different impulses. I think weapons fire played into this to some degree -- you couldn't fire everything in the last impulse of this turn and do it again on the first impulse of the next, but I haven't played it in years. I always thought it would be interesting to try a similar system for horse and musket, but the drawback was you had to do a lot of paperwork for each ship (unit) and predetermine speed. This, of course, was all an attempt to generate simultaneous movement/combat.

For horse and musket there is a simple and elegant way to get something like that. It is a 3 phase system. Basically you roll randomly for each unit to see if it activates in Phase 1, 2 or 3 this turn.

Each Phase is then I-Go-U-Go. So my Phase 1, your Phase 1, my Phase 2, your Phase 2 etc.

Units may voluntarily "phase back" allowing coordination at the expense of initiative. Easy to build in special rules for troop types too. Impetuous units are always Phase 1. Elite units may pick their phase. Etc.

I liked Starfleet Battles. Where there was a 32 phase system and you moved depending on the speed of your ship. You can add to that a number of phases to reload.

So you could have a person firing an arrow, it takes so many phases to reload and in that time others get to move.

Phil,
I've been using a system similar to what you're discussing for a 1:1 tank/infantry game and have used it successfully at conventions for almost 2 years with micro armor up to 28mm.

The simple version is that when two units come into LOS or you want to engage a new target you roll dice to determine an "Engagement Delay" in what future turn you fire or "activate". The modifiers are it takes less time if you are unbuttoned and if the enemy is to your front and have a better crew. It takes longer if the enemy is on your flank/rear, buttoned up and a poor crew. That "Engagement Delay" number is added to the current turn number and written down by the player (the only bookkeeping involved). When that future turn number comes the unit can now fire. Fog of war is created as neither player knows exactly when his opponent will fire. On occasion units do fire simultaneously. If it looks as if your opponent will get off the first shot you can decide to maneuver or move and fire.

Successive shots at the same target take into account reload time and crew type. As soon as you fire/activate you IMMEDIATELY decide on your next action and it does not hold up other players.

This system effectively replaces random activations and IGOUGO sequences. There is no need for an orders phase or special over watch and opportunity fire rules. If a new threat comes into view you can cancel your current turn to fire/activate and engage the new threat. When engaged tanks can only respond to their front 90 degree arc.

Moving units have a movement arrow showing the speed and direction they are moving. Every 5 or 10 turns (depends on scale and terrain density) units with a movement arrow are simultaneously moved in the direction of their arrows which really speeds up the game. If a target moves out of LOS before you get the shot off too bad.

The detailed version uses a play aid to take into account other modifiers for Situational Awareness and historic turret rotation rates to engage. The player also has an option to perform a snap shot trading accuracy for speed or taking longer to aim and getting an accuracy bonus.

At conventions I give a 10 minute intro and a sample turn and we get started. No need to read a bunch of rules. After about an hour players are running the game themselves and I'm mostly observing or clarifying things.

Wolfhag

Wolfhag,

Any online gaming reports?

Your system sounds interesting. How many units are typically managed on each side? Does it scale well to a larger number of units, let's say >10?

The current 20th century miniatures games ignore these issues and more. There is plenty of TMI, stop and go, etc in Chevk your Six, General Quarters Team Yankee, Flames of War and Bolt Action. It comes down to the problem of playability vs realism, indeed I asked if a seemingly realistic game like CD is really more real than another game, even by the same designer, that has much less detail or statistics or dice rolling. Team Yankee, of what I have played, has few spotting rules, no rules for tanks evading on the battlefield, no bull down, on a 6 by 4ft table a cramped battlefield seemingly no off board artillery, no electronic warfare, by which commanders may be killed and communications/orders jammed, the TMI of knowing where everyone is and what they are, etc. Is this bad. Depends if you are looking fof a playable game or as in the case of CD,you want to attach the realisgic seeming stuff that has bogged the game down.

So, whenever I read messages attempting to correct or address these issues, considering eve if fixed, how far away we are from something that appears in G M Frasers Quartered !
Safe out Here or R Massies Castles of Steel, I resort to needling remarks about pink T54 and nude infantrymen and Team Yankee done using Muskets

Phil,
Here is a link to a detailed explanation of what I am using to determine timing between opponents to replace activation's and IGOUGO turn sequences.
link

The first page is an overview and explanation of the Situational Awareness concept and rules. The second page is an example of the basic version that uses traditional die rolls and modifiers. Page 3-9 is a detailed encounter between a moving Panther and a static KV-1 using historic turret rotation values and other modifiers. You could say it is an example of opportunity/reactive fire. Pages 3-9 also go into more detail and my narrative is repetitive in places on purpose. Pages 10-16 go into a summary of the engagement and what the other options the Panther and KV-1 have and how a player would execute them. It is somewhat long to answer questions in advance.

I know some people are going to get hung up on one second game turns. I've already heard the "You can't blah, blah, blah". Maybe a better way to describe the game is that it flows second by second and when it is time for a unit to execute/active its order it does so. If no one executes it flows to the next second/turn and so on. That's about as complicated as the turn sequence gets. There are no activations, interrupts or skill checks to perform an action. If two tanks fire at each other in the same turn the fire is simultaneous. If you are going to fire on turn #21 and get knocked out on turn #20 you are dead and do not fire. Seconds really do count. Very little is left to chance.

Since it would be unplayable and ridiculous to move a vehicle every second it is done every 5 or 10 turns depending on the game scale and terrain density. Movement is simultaneous and in such a way players cannot end every turn pirouetting to face the enemy or move after watching your opponent move his first. We have never had a problem with players trying to pull that stuff.

The player experience and decisions in Treadheads is completely different from any other game I'm familiar with. Treadheads has the player issuing the same orders a tank commander would. The success and quickness of those orders being carried out (time to perform an action) is determined by the tank commander, crew, tactics and weapons platform performance. However, the overriding factor is the decision the player makes and the amount of risk he is willing to take. The player concentrates on decisions and their variations and the amount of time to perform them. These are real things you can find in the manuals. Traditional games have the player dealing with abstractions, artificial mechanics and random activation's in an attempt to get some interaction between the opponents. These are a step in the right direction to get away from a straight IGOUGO system. In most game units are normally assigned non-historical combat factors because it is unrealistic to use historical values. However, there are designers that have developed enjoyable games that recreate believable outcomes without total historical authenticity. I'm not bashing any other games, just presenting an alternative.

Thanks,
Wolfhag

Star Fleet Battles used such an impulse system. Naval wargames (space and sea) did as well, as I recall (dangerous). In a distant corner of my memory…Trireme by AH? Wooden Ships and Iron Men?

Russ,
I think impulse systems is more about movement and I think it needs some prediction to determine in what impulse you'll move. I'm using a movement phase every 5 or 10 turns, not every second.

I could use impulse movement every second but as I said it is not needed. Occasionally during a game you may have a situation where you need to measure movement (like impulse) to see if a moving unit would get out of LOS before getting shot at.

Example: Turn #20 and a target is moving 50m in the next 5 turns and after moving 30m it will be out of LOS. If the shooter shoots after turn #23 the target is out of LOS. This could force the shooter to take less time aiming to get the shot off but with an accuracy penalty.

When your turn comes to shoot you can decide to hold fire and "track" the target to fire in a later turn with no delay. This will let you track a moving target and shoot when he stops. let them get into closer range (ambush) or shoot when they turn and you have a flank shot.

Thanks,
Wolfhag