"Weasel's Timing Rule." Topic

This is something I've been using in many of my designs but I thought I'd share it for discussion, adaption or evisceration.

It's one of those principles that stemmed from looking at what made my gaming group unhappy, then adapting our gaming to deal with that.
The old group had a mix of wargamers, roleplayers and complete neophytes, including many players new to historical games and some new to miniatures at all, so a broad range of perspectives.

One thing that struck me as often disappointing or confusing players was what I call "abstracted positions".
This is any case where a figure is assumed to be in more than one place at any one time.

The most common example is the option in many older historical games of "moving back" a unit to fire on it at any point it occupied in its movement in the last turn.

***The Weasel Timing Rule simply states:

***At any given time when you go to resolve a rule, all figures are assumed to be in the exact position they currently occupy on the gaming table.

***Additionally, it states that when any rule is resolved, you resolve all consequences before you begin resolving anything else.
For example, if I shoot at someone and they fall back, that retreat move is completely resolved before I get to do anything else.

This is somewhat influenced by my preference for skirmish gaming of course, but those two rules have drastically simplified the way we play games and the type of rules questions generated.

In my opinion, the sort of rules question you DON'T want is about how basic things execute in the game.

Thoughts? Brutal tear-downs?

I see the point, but watch out for Panzerbush Syndrome. (First you can't fire on them because they're in cover. Then they drive right across your front at close range, but you can't fire on them because it's movement phase. Then you can't fire on them because they're in different cover. I attend games in which this happens exactly once, and not that often if I hear about the rules first.)

The First Principle of Wargame Design is--well, should be--"Nothing which is stupid or insane in real life should be good tactics in the game."

I've liked your use of "it happens when it happens, not at an abstract point later in the turn," Weasel.

I generally follow it in my own game design, as well, but have no problem with simultaneous fire phases common in many games.

I am definitely not a fan of the opportunity fire system in which Side A moves, and then Side B moves---and can decide to have fired when Side A units were back moving in the open. Way to easy to get confused and lost.

Does your definition preclude interrupts, Weasel? It didn'tr ead to me as if it did (assuming that you have a secondary interrupt rule).

Weasel,
Using the concept of "timing" normally denotes a finite measure of time. How long is a game turn? what is a gun's ROF for a turn?

I think when you have game turns that are longer than the shortest action a unit can take you start getting into a lot of IF-THEN-ELSE exceptions, opportunity fire, interrupts, etc.

Example: A 1:1 vehicle game where a turn is one minute. A vehicle could easily move 300-400 meters into and out of LOS a half dozen times in one minute. A tank gun could realistically get off 3-6 rounds in that amount of time. So how would opportunity fire, interrupts, overwatch and an abstracted ROF handle that in a game to everyone's satisfaction? What would be a good solution?

Wolfhag.

Your dilemma is a difficult one and one I have seen man times, including Roberts note on Panzerblitz.

In my own experience I solved it (to my satisfaction) by in my pre-modern games by making the combat phase nominative, not the movement phase. That means, side A moves, side B moves and then there is simultaneous combat of troops within range. Thus there is no question of who moved what where, nor does it matter. If the cavalry is 32" maximum range for artillery the artillery fires on it there. If the cavalry is in direct contact with the artillery, the artillery fires at close range. If the cavalry cross the front at some distance from the artillery but goes from one hidden position to another. No fire.

In my modern game the sequence of action is not symmetrical.

It goes

Defender moves
Attacker fires
Attacker moves
Defender fires
Attacker close assaults
Defender close assaults

In fire it is non simultaneous, attacker fires extract casualties on defenders and defender against attacker without return fire.

In Close assaults each side rolls against each other and it is very bloody. In all phases everything is where it is at the moment of fire.

HOWEVER my modern rules are an ARMY level game..

There is no such thing as overwatch or the like.

Advocate/Wolf – Overwatch and other "interruptions" can happen under this philosophy sure and for some game types as you guys note, you need it to avoid Panzerbush.
In this case, they have to happen as you move, not after the fact.

(For a board game example, original squad leader op fire is out, but ASL style op fire is in.)

Otto – I like that approach a lot as well. Very straight-forward.

Dear Weasel

Thank you for the kind words. But I have to admit it was a solution with no genius behind it. It was a response to failure, namely I could not after working on the problem for a decade not come up with anything better. Everything else I tried came up with an immensely complicated system that I as GM couldn't work let alone expect my players to.

No shame in creation by need. If no better solution has presented itself, then the current solution must, by default, be workable :-)

Weasel,
In your example how long is a game turn? What is a gun's ROF for a turn?

How would you handle: A 1:1 vehicle game where a turn is one minute. A vehicle could easily move 300-400 meters into and out of LOS a half dozen times in one minute. A tank gun could realistically get off 3-6 rounds in that amount of time.

I understand the "it happens when it happens" and agree completely. My question is how and when during the movement would it happen in the above example.

Wolfhag

I usually play (and write) fairly low level, in the squad to company level zone, so turns are assumed to be short.

For firing at a moving vehicle, it's typically done by the moving player indicating the path of movement and the firing player indicating the point of fire.

Place the vehicle in that spot, resolve the fire, then finish the move.
Timing rules would indicate then that at the moment when hte shot is taken, the tank is in the exact position where it's placed when the shot is taken and never abstracted to be anywhere else in the path.
This might be relevant if say, the anti-tank shot also has an explosive effect or in games where fire causes a morale impact on nearby infantry.

I always wanted to do an ASL type of movement system where you move a few inches at a time, then the enemy declares whether they shoot or not, but its more cumbersome in miniature.

This is pretty much the effect we use in QILS. Units can move and act (which is usually, but not always attack) or act and move on their turn. So you can pick which of your endpoints you attack (if at all). QILS also has a base move and extended move. Extended moves require using the dice you have available for attack. So if you run at full speed, you have no dice left to attack; this creates degraded attack for moving faster.

The vehicle issue (when it is relevant) is handled by requiring things that move fast (like vehicles) as part of the scenario, to only move in a straight line. It's a simple rule to implement, and it forces vehicles to stop at vulnerable positions when they get into constraining terrain that won't let them move in a straight line to where they want to go. It may, also give them more dice to attack with that wouldn't have been available in a full out run. Again, it is a tactical trade-off decision.

Weasel,
That seems logical and makes sense.

You'll have to excuse me but I'm a little anal on the whole time and scale thing. Some games say the game time is abstracted but you can't abstract physics. If a tank is moving at 20kph it is moving at the rate of about 6 meters per second. Based on that and the D = mph x time formula you can determine the turn time. If you can determine that you can determine the historical ROF.

So if a gun has a historical ROF of 12 rounds/minute it has the ability to fire every 5 seconds (under ideal conditions) and the target moving at 20kph will move about 30 meters every 5 seconds. That's the reality of the situation unless my math is wrong. From there you start doing your abstracting and balancing to make it playable to find that sweet spot and balance.

So if a target is attempting to get out of LOS and must move 100 meters he'll be fired at 3 times (3x30=90)and will be out of LOS for the 4th round. For my warped mind, this works well and does not need a lot of abstracting for lower level 1:1 engagements. It would be inappropriate for large battles.

For me this is very simple, for others, it's too minutia. Now as the game designer, you need to determine how long a turn will be. Too short and it's not playable. Too long and you need to parse the turn into different segments which makes it more complicated.

My opinion is if you are using some type of timing mechanism it should be based on reaction. I look at lower level combat as mostly reacting to enemy activity. The timing comes in on who reacts faster. In my mind, this is more than just spotting.

Another approach on turn lengths is to eliminate a specific length and approach the entire game as an exercise in timing and reaction between units.

I understand some games abstract the game time scale, distance and ROF to the point it has no historical comparison. That's fine. But for me, that's an abstracted game of dice using miniature models.

Weasel, it seems like your approach mirrors my example above. I think we are both on the same page or at least the same chapter.

Thanks,
Wolfhag

Yeah, I hear you completely.

I do historicals as well as scifi and fantasy, so my starting point is almost always the game mechanic itself, while a lot of simulation-oriented players start with the math and then build the mechanic from there.
Hence the lack of specifics :)

With "No End in Sight", when infantry moves, the need to move in short rushes means that your move distance is randomized when in sight.
If the roll is not enough to reach cover, you are fired upon and pinned down.

That removes the need for exact declarations of when you fire, which makes the game very pleasant to play and changes the focus from rates of fire to reaction speed.

Not a superior method but an alternate one, I might add.

I should add that this is exactly the sort of creative discussion I was hoping this board could host :)

Here is a basic version of the system I played at a convention to solve the problem I posed.

We had 8 new players, no one familiar with the rules. Russian assault on a German-held town. Each player had a vehicle/tank/AT gun and an infantry squad. Used 1/72 scale models.

Russian vehicles had a ROF 8 German tanks 7 and AT guns 6. To engage a new target took a D6+2 additional turns (turret rotation, target acquisition, aim time, etc). We had a 12 foot table representing about 500 meters with 1" = 4-5 meters. Vehicles moved 6" per simultaneous movement phase and infantry 3". Movement arrows were used to designate the movement direction. The arrow was marked like a ruler for 5 sections (explain later) and showed the distance moved.

To engage a target the player pointed his turret at the target and wrote down on an index card the turn he'll be able to fire (that's the only bookkeeping).

Turn numbers were called off one at a time. When it was a players turn to fire he did so. Some turns no one would fire so we'd move to the next turn right away. Some turns multiple players would fire. Sometimes players would fire at each other in the same turn.

Any unit with a movement arrow was considered a moving target. Players could decide to move or stop on any turn. That means an attacking Russian tank could fire and then immediately place a movement arrow and now be considered a moving target. He'd move for 8 turns (his reload time), stop and fire, and then move again.

Every 5th turn all units with a movement arrow moved in the direction their arrow points (no cheating and responding to enemy moves). The movement arrow showed the distance the unit moves so it gives a good visual of future location.

As soon as enemy units came into LOS they can attempt to engage. There is no orders or spotting phase. All units assumed to be observing around themselves.

Having the movement arrow marked in 5 segments showed exactly where a moving vehicle would be in the 5 turns preceeding actual movement making it easy to see if a unit would still be in LOS in a future turn.

Example: On turn #25 a Russian tank is moving to get behind a building. The Russian player places the movement arrow (it shows the distance he'll move) to show where he wants to move. The 5 segments on the arrow show that he'll be in LOS for the first three turns of movement but on turns 4 and 5 he'll be behind the building. Any German units targeting him must fire on turns 26, 27 or 28 because on turn 29 and 30 he'll be out of LOS. That handles opportunity fire without additional rules or exceptions.

There is no abstracted positioning or moving units back in their movement to be shot at. You know exactly where a moving unit will be in any of the 5 future turns.

You need to understand that each turn the player is not performing an action for each vehicle. That would be ridiculous. If it is turn #32 and your ROF is 7 you fire on turn #39 and do not need to do anythnig else until that turn comes. However, if an enemy unit hits and KO's your vehicle before turn #39 you do not get to fire. This way the timing allows all units on the table to interact with each other without the traditional turn sequences like most games have.

The players picked up the game pretty quickly. I mostly just called out turn numbers and told them when to move and answered questions.

The next level of detail (complexability) is for player risk-reward decisions. Players can modify the ROF -1 with an accuracy penalty or increase their ROF +1 for an accurcy bonus. When engaging poor crews rolled a D6+4 rather than a D6+2.

This system is good for determining timing and reaction between units. You can use any type of gunnery or to-hit rule. It keeps all players involved because you can cancel a fire order at any time and engage a new target so you have reaction added to the timing. A player cannot walk away and wait for 10-30 minutes before it is his "turn".

In a 5 turn segment between moving you will normally not have more than half of the guns/vehicles firing before another turn of movement so the game moves along pretty quickly with a lot of action.

There is a built in FoW (especially with the ROF and crew modifiers)so you cannot predict exactly when an opponent will fire. You should keep your engagement roll (the D6+2) secret from the opponent.

This is the simple version that takes about 10 minutes to explain at a convention. The only game segment is movement every 5 turns. There are very few exceptions or IF-THEN-ELSE complications. The movement arrows showing direction and distance add an extra dimension to the game.

I've built a lot more detail into the system using historical ROF and turret rotation times with play aids that make it easy with no math involved.

Using these mechanics you can recreate tactics like reverse slope defense (moving for turret down to hull down, fire and the back up into turret down while reloading). Shoot and Scoot is easily done.

You can attempt to move from cover to cover and can be successful if the enemy D6+2 engagement roll is high or he has a high ROF. Guns with two piece ammo normally take 25 turns to reload.

That's enough for now. I'd be interested if anyone else is tinkering with something like this.

Wolfhag

Very interesting.

I've seen a few attempts to do a "tick" system like this, but I don't know if I've seen it as comprehensive as what you describe.

The RPG "Exalted" had something similar, but simpler, where your action imposes a delay (based on the action chosen and character ability) before you can act again and you simply count out the number of ticks that passes.

What happens if two units act on the exact same count? Act simultaneously or do you roll off?

Weasel,
I'll have to check out that RPG Exalted. When engaging a new target to get the first shot off I feel there is an inherent "engagement delay" that can be quantified by using historical values for turret rotation, gunner aim time and a delay in the tank commander noticing and responding to the threat. I think it encompasses more than just spotting the threat. Poor crews will take longer than good crews to perform the same actions. I take these into account in the detailed version of the game.

Skill comes into play by better crews taking less time to perform the same action (decision loop). Military tank manuals talk about gaining a 3-6 second advantage to get the first shot off. That is achieved by pointing your gun in the right direction (overwatch and less turret rotation time), weapon platform performance (turret rotation speed and optics)being unbuttoned (noticing the threat with less delay) and a skilled crew (performs aiming, reloading and firing quicker than a poor crew).

A playable and fun way to achieve that 3-6 second advantage using historic weapon platform performance with some input by the player is my goal for the design.

As far as simultaneous action here is how I see it using the last example.

On turn #25 a moving Russian tank comes from around a building into LOS of a German AT gun. At the moment of LOS ALL units in LOS can attempt to engage and fire. Units with an order to fire in a later turn can check fire and engage the new threat (no specific interrupt rules or die rolls) other than the D6+2 engagement delay. The tank and AT gun already have a round in the chamber. They both roll a D6+2 to determine engagement turn and both get a 4. They both simultaneously fire on turn #29 – unless someone KO'd them before turn #29.

Why no roll off? The timing element or ticks I'm using are seconds (one turn = one second) as you may have figured that out already. A problem some experienced players have is wrapping their head around a "turn" where they do not move or shoot. In the example during the 4 turn delay for both units to engage and fire the crews are performing their duties to get the shot off (target ID, range estimation, rotate turret, aim gun, etc) without additional effort or die rolls from the player. I'm not role playing the efforts and success of each crew member but you could if you liked.

I think the one second turns are discrete and small enough that a roll off is not needed and simuteanous fire can be simulated.

In the more detailed version of the game, the gunnery system I use can make things very interesting. I use the rounds time of flight as part of the timing mechanism in the game. If a gun is fired at a target on turn #25 with a 2-second TOF (about 1500-1600 meters range) the round will impact the target on turn #27. If the target is firing at anyone (including the gun firing at him) he'll still get the round off if firing on turn #26 or #27. He can fire on turn #28 or later if the round misses or does not penetrate. There is no special rule, roll off, skill check, etc. It is not an arbitrary or subjective rule by the designer. That's just the way the physics of the model plays out. Players can figure it out intuitively without additional rules. If you know the guns muzzle velocity you can easily figure it out. This can give a slight but decisive advantage to a gun with a higher muzzle velocity in a shootout.

Once you understand the timing element you can see how all units on the table can react to each other without needing the traditional turn segments and sequences, command interrupts, skill checks, etc.

Showing up unexpectedly on the enemy flank or rear will generate an additional delay for him to notice and engage you giving you the initiative and first shot without additional rules, activations, skill checks or die rolls. It's all about "Time & Action".

Typically these factors are simulated by a turn sequence, die roll modifiers or special rules. I feel that in order to realistically simulate getting that 3-6 second advantage you need to have timing elements in seconds. It sounded completely ridiculous to me at first but I tried many other ways before settling on it.

As far as I'm concerned games are for entertainment and fun and not to torture players and give them a headache. I don't have a dedicated play test team so I've had to try the system out on unsuspecting players at conventions using them as guinea pigs. This has actually been a blessing in disguise as I've had to concentrate more on playability and streamlining the system. If players had a hard time with a concept or rule I tossed it. Taking more than 5 minutes to explain the games makes the players eye's glaze over so I need to keep it intuitive and simple. "Time & Action" is a simple concept to understand. Writing down the turn # to shoot has not presented a problem. New players have controlled 4-6 tanks.

I feel that in a 1:1 game if you want to simulate timing you need to use a small unit of time. I use 1 second, Phoenix Command uses 2 seconds. I tried 5 and 10 seconds but I could not get the right timing I wanted. The 2-second turn would work but then you might as well go to 1 second. Every game so far has had a tank get knocked out one second before it got a shot off. Players get a kick out of that. It's not complicated.

By giving a risk-reward decision to the player to choose between a quicker shot and accuracy penalty gives the player a hand in his own fate rather than a structured turn or random roll off.

It's most interesting when two tanks are at medium range where the chance to hit is about 50%-60%. You want to get an edge in getting off the next shot but if you miss you may not get off another one. Take too much time to be accurate and you may be dead before getting the shot off. Sometimes players will agonize over the decision. I like agonizing players like that. Their fate lies in their decision, not the dice.

I think this accurately reflects the advantage of a gun with a higher muzzle velocity and accuracy. A player with that advantage can afford to shave off a second or two and still have the same accuracy level as a gun with a lower muzzle velocity and accuracy that cannot afford the accuracy penalty for a quicker shot.

You can do the same thing with a die roll in a traditional game. You have a roll off with the lowest number shooting first. Both players could choose to have a -1 or -2 die roll modifier with the appropriate accuracy penalty. Conversely, a +1 or +2 die roll modifier with the appropriate accuracy bonus. If the modified roll comes out the same for both players the shot is simultaneous.

The bottom line is the system concentrates on the reaction and timing between all units, not a structured turn sequence with interrupts or skill checks. Players have some input and decision on getting off the first shot with a risk-reward decision. I think this system handles opportunity fire without exceptions or additional rules too.

I hope this helps.

Wolfhag

Being able to rush or take your time does add a significant gambling aspect to the game, which I like a lot.

Have you experimented in adding a random "delay" factor for lower-quality units?
f.x. regular quality troops roll a D6 with a 5-6 adding 1 second to an action, low quality troops roll 3D6 etc. ?

Or do you want it to be deterministic on purpose?

Weasel,
The approach I'm taking is that a certain action like reloading historically took X amount of turns/seconds to perform. An Ace and Veteran crew perform historically. A Trained crew is X+1 and a Green crew is X+2. I don't get into randomizing it but you could if you liked. There is always the chance of a SNAFU that will affect crew performance too.

When two units first come into LOS and engage each other in an attempt to get off that initial shot (call it reaction fire, opportunity fire or whatever you like) is when you want to get that 3-6 second advantage like the manual states.

To encompass spotting and reaction I use what I call a "Situational Awareness Check". Both players roll a D20 when getting mutual LOS (no reaction check needed). The result is compared to the vehicles value for buttoned up or unbuttoned tank commanders. An Ace crew gets a -2 modifier, Veteran 0, Trained +2 and Green +4. If the modified roll is <= the buttoned up or unbuttoned factor the vehicle notices the threat and can respond right away (they were looking in the right direction). If the result is > the factor that is the number of turns of an Engagement Delay before the vehicle can rotate their turret, aim and fire. With all things equal an unbuttoned vehicle will have a 4-6 second advantage over a buttoned up vehicle.

Example: Using the above info with all things being equal an Ace crew will potentially have a 4-second advantage over a Trained crew and 6 seconds over a Green crew. However, since it is randomized with a D20 you never really know. If an unbuttoned Ace crew rolled a 20 minus 2 = 18 he'd have a 2-second engagement delay. If the buttoned up Green crew rolled an 8 + 4 = 12 he'd have no delay so he'd start with a 2-second advantage for the first shot even though he's less skilled and buttoned up. Nothing is guaranteed.

However, the Ace crew could overcome that 2-second disadvantage by having a faster turret rotation time and spending less time aiming (Snap Shots can be simulated by spending less time aiming with a greater accuracy penalty). The Green crew may want to take more time (range estimation and aiming) to get better accuracy giving up that 2-second advantage (poor crews need to take additional aim time to get the same accuracy as better crews). Some of the variables are randomized, some historic and some the player decision, nothing is guaranteed. If you have a poor tactical position and the enemy shows up on your flank or rear you'll spend additional time getting your gun on him. Flanking surprise normally results in getting off an accurate first shot even against an Ace crew. If you are caught surprised you also have the option to move and evade if you feel he'll shoot first.

A typical initial shot could be an Engagement Delay of +2, turret rotation time of +3, Aim time of +5 = 10 turns from initial LOS sightng and responding to getting the shot off. If you had your gun pointed where the enemy emerged (good overwatch and tactical deployment) it could be Engagement Delay of 0, turret rotation +1, aim time +5 = 6 turns to get off the initial shot.

There is a customized play aid for each vehicle type that makes this process pretty easy without additional charts. I'll save you the pain and suffering of a longer post. Go to this link for a detailed explanation: link

Thanks,
Wolfhag

Appreciate the link, i'll give it a read-over tonight!