"Pros and Cons of individual element move systems." Topic

I thought it would make an interesting ropic to discuss the pros and cons of individual element moves.

In the Fearherstone and its clones the sequence of movement is all of one sisde rhen all of the other. The traditional move sequence.

The alternative which we use is that used by STAGRUNT II and I think Squad Leader where fundamantall an element of one side moves then an element of the other side moves. The sequence of the protaganists elemt moves can be either random or in some proscribed system. Out rules (Maneouver Groupe) use the option for the side with least number of unactivated elements ro have some level of choice who goes first and when.

Now for modern games where responces are much more felexible this latter system gives a much more felexible responce to the local situation. It also stops too much unrealistic simutanious movement. A frontal and flank attack are less likely to hapen in dead syncronous due to the movemet system.

However one percieved issue is it is not optimum for multi player games where the level of competence with the rules is low. With competent players the game can be effectively split into several "sub" games where the sequence is againt an other players and not the whole board. This leads to stunning games IF THE PLAYERS ARE VERY COMPETENT but is poor if this is not the case.

The Fearherstone clones seem better for older more rigid behavious (Napaolionic and earlier major battles) and for multi player games with less competernt (in the rules) players.

What are your opinions?

Depends on scale, too. If the elements are individuals (skirmish games), they should have more freedom of action than a whole company. The smaller elements getting moved one element at a time keeps both players doing something each turn.

I would also argue that in many battles the IGOUGO turn sequence models the reality better that other structures.

One element at a time has its limitations as well. For example, unless you can redefine elements on the fly, how do you have a team of infantry follow a moving tank, using it as cover?

It also assumes each side has about the same number of elements. If I have 20 elements of rabble to your 10 of veterans, I end up with 10 moves in a row at the end.

The 2 phase turn structure I use in most of my games is a nice blend. Not strictly IGOUGO, and not one at a time, but I move half, you move half, I move half you move half. But the trick is you roll for each element to see whether it moves in the first half or the second half of the turn.

We tend not to use elment moves because our games are almost always 6-10 people which guarantees 3 or 4 are new to the rules (or have not played in a long time).

I tend to play older and more structured wars, but in moderns or skirmishers, there is much to be said for randomized movement--card draw or equivalent. But as EC points out, the definition of an element can be tricky--infantry following tanks, as he says, but also units entering in road column.

Most such systems seem to have a presumption of roughly equal numbers of elements per side, and everyone already deployed. That's fine if it's explicit and baked into the system, but otherwise, some provision needs to be made for other situations.

Another few points to add:

In non-linear element-based move systems, scale time can be difficult to judge or reconcile, when the "turn" can go on and on for an unpredictable length of time until some kind of concluding sequence of events.

In Igo/Ugo systems, the scale world exists as a series of snapshots. Special rules are needed to handle actions/reactions outside the frame of each snapshot (e.g. opportunity shots at passing units).

An Igo/Ugo framework is sometimes chosen because it's "simpler", but as the rules (or period/genre) gets more sophisticated, the special rules to handle out-of-frame actions can get quite complex. Once they get too complex, the advantages of Igo/Ugo are negated.

I *like* non-linear initiative-based systems, but I tend to gravitate toward Igo/Ugo because I mostly play multiplayer games.

- Ix

In any system that uses activation by element – or a subset of all elements, you need to take care of the following:
- the number of elements a player can activate each turn is proportional to the total, thus eliminating the disadvantage of the larger force moving less elements each turn;
- some sort of group activation should be possible to ensure you can move elements in formation. This might be dependent on the period, but some form of cohesion is usually needed.

As for multiple players per side, you can still use element activation. Just allow each player to activate elements. It's really the same as igo ugo – everyone on one side takes their turn in parallel, no matter how that turn is structured.

QILS does not proscribe a turn order, because that is really a genre specific question, as is somewhat indicated above. It specifies "rounds" in which each "unit" (a miniature element or elements that receive the same "command").

Most games are alternating turns by player, around the table. Sometimes we alternate players around the table by team. Of course, players move around the table during the game, but after a couple of rounds, the order is pretty much set. Plus, everyone likes to get back to their own cookies and beverage. And often, if your units get too far for a reasonable reach, you just ask the closest player to move them for you, staying put. By your cookies.

Only for truly blitzing one figure per player games do I like random order initiative. A really interesting one we did once was to have each player get two cards from a deck (of Ace=1 through 10) dealt and initiative went largest to smallest. (CHSD of the largest card breaking ties.) Then the right hand card was discarded and the left became right and new cards were dealt. Reshuffling happened when all cards were out. This game the game a sense of changing "momentum" where you could estimate the next round's order to a certain degree. We have considered, but not played, with three cards, which would make order more "predictable" turn to turn.

Other than that, I prefer deliberate order changing systems. A good one is "negative gradient". If by some measure of progress toward objectives, one side is "losing", they can choose to advance or fall back in initiative between rounds. This system occasionally has a problem with turtling. So do our gamers, so turtling is not really tolerated.

The answer, if there is one, probably rests in what the non-phasing troops do when the active troops interact with them.

Regards

David F Brown

I tend to prefer IGOUGO for linear warfare, where it tends to evoke the move/counter move nature better.

As OP says, it's also beneficial for multiplayer games.

Alternating activations (or limited activations where you only command a portion of your forces each turn) are better suited for modern warfare and smaller player counts.

Of course, in an alternating activation system you could have each player on that side activate a unit when their go comes up.

Extra Crispy

We like the system because we feel it is optimum for dissimilar number of elements a side. While it does work for even numbers it is not a restriction in our opinion.

Poor troops are probably better represented by larger elements as they would be incapable of subtlety. Or you can have lots and attempt to achieve wonders and fail miserably.

Phil
We allow some redefinition of element and hence a tank and its troops can become an element. This has advantages (obvious) but does have disadvantages as it can be hard to respond to some threats if hampered by infantry a gain for the system as a whole.

There are systems in place using the command structure to move large formations coherently by the lower elements becoming a "single element" but in doing so all HAVE TO do so. Everybody except X would not be an accepted command.

Evilgong,
Our system has a quire sophisticated response system which covers interaction. It needs attention paying to it for instance if a formation moved in a group over a ridge line into fire. However the resolution is straight forward but could be awkward for large numbers of inexperienced players.

This does highlight some interesting issues. While we do run training games and in limited numbers they have merit but only one learner at a time generally. However for us the ultimate games for have only 2 players (very occasionally 4) who are experienced. These games are complex and demanding the players plan ahead (even though the rules have no requirement for written plans).

A decent battle would have multi players games with players just sitting as watching as their job would be to defend unless attacked. Not a great game for them.

While we tried random element activation we found this was a distinct disadvantage. It added implausible chaos in places and in our opinion never added to the experience.

Thanks for the responces it is an intreresting thread.

Of course it all depends, depends on what the designer wants from a game system. However, the formations and coordination that units followed should be taken into account. For instance, the initiative and individual brigade movement system for the old KonigsKrieg is fun, but has little or not relationship to how brigades moved on the battlefield during the SYW in relation to other friendly brigades. So would a IG/UG system of individual units.

There are any number of ways to combine IG/UG systems with group movement, alternating movement, Initiative-type mechanics [though I hate the term 'initiative' applied to a chance die roll] None-the-less, the options and combinations are legion.

I learned there are four elements to any game or simulation system that control movement [with examples]: Time [turns that cover X time], Decisions [Player decisions determine time spent or movement], Activities [pips or cards] and Events [When X happens, movement can occur.] Those four can be mixed and matched in any number of ways.

I have been developing a Napoleonic game where movement is based on what part of the battlefield a unit is in, different movement for different 'zones' in an attempt to divide up the battlefield the way Napoleonic generals conceptualized it. Nothing particularly new, but it produces some interesting decision-making challenges.