"Move-Shoot-Melee v. Shoot-Move-Melee" Topic

Seems reasonable to me.

I see no reason why you can't do both even, though depending upon your turn length, perhaps there's a little negative modifier for troops moving, and then shooting, as opposed to those that shoot before moving, or remain stationary the whole time.

A defender's bonus per se, and fairly accurate, since even with modern rifles, troops that conduct strenuous aerobic activity have more difficulty firing accurately than those that don't.

Stationary archers also should get to shoot first, or more often, compared to those moving, as well (perhaps even both).

Always good to give troops/commanders a choice, from a tactical point of view.

Interesting, what if you have an iniative roll and the winner sets the sequence for that turn/impulse/move/tuna sandwich/whatever? That way the players decide.

Move-shoot-melee has been altered and experimented with in many different ways. Either restructure the turn for all units (e.g. by reordering the sequence or by introducing various movement and shooting subphases), or restructure the turn for individual units (e.g. an action system per unit), or even randomize the turn sequence (e.g. draw cards to determine in what order move, shoot, melee will occur). Any of these options can then be intermingled with the enemy units as well …

Over the years, I've come to the conclusion there is no "proper" way to do it. It strongly depends on the other mechanisms in the gaming system, such as how to resolve shooting and melee. E.g. shooting in support can be abstracted as having an archer unit nearby, and simply factor it in during melee (as opposed to actually resolve the shooting as a seperate action). It also depends on tactical situations you want to represent in the game, and relative movement and firing ranges. E.g. a strict movement-shooting-melee sequence, with large movement ranges compared to fire ranges, does need some form of overwatch or opportunity fire. Shooting-and-then-movement eliminates some of that, but then introduces other issues.

Personally, I am in favour of an action sequence per unit (units can do a number of actions each turn, in any order), but YMMV.

As for the traditional sequence of move-shoot-melee, it goes back to Featherstone and earlier toy soldier games (of which Wells is the best-known). If you come from a more traditional boardgame angle, it makes sense to move first and then "do something". Many classic games have the player move a pawn or a playing piece (chess, chutes-and-ladders, monopoly, …) , and then the playing piece executes an action. Hence, putting movement first is a tradition that has a strong pedigree.

As for the relative order of shooting and melee, I guess it was somehow random, although one can imagine that shooting occurs more frequently than melee, and therefore, we resolve shooting first, and then melee if there is any. One does need seperate mechanisms in early games design, as a result of a strict IGO-UGO turn sequence. Shooting is an action in which only the enemy can get killed, but melee is an action which can kill both my and your playing piece. A cleaner design (at least in my book), would have been to make shooting and melee very similar as a procedure, and possible a single phase in the turn, but that's not how the history of wargames design evolved ;-)

All my post 1900 games use a two phase action sequence. It goes like this:

Roll for each unit. Odds = Phase 1, Evens = Phase 2.

Roll for initiative. Winner activates his Phase 1 units. They may move then shoot or shoot then move. Loser now does the same with his Phase 1. Winner repeats with Phase 2 units, followed by the loser.

Melee comes after all the Phases.

Built in fog of war, the phases add a lot of drama and excitement to the game, and it really breaks down a lot of gamey tactics based on turn sequence.

Roll for each unit. Odds = Phase 1, Evens = Phase 2.

Roll for initiative. Winner activates his Phase 1 units. They may move then shoot or shoot then move. Loser now does the same with his Phase 1. Winner repeats with Phase 2 units, followed by the loser.

I like it!

However, that seemed almost TOO flexible for ancients,

We play a lot of ancients games with QILS that has units Move-Act (=ranged combat, close combat, or sprint) or Act-Move. It does not allow "interspersing" movement with acting, so each unit does one then does the other.

There is a lot of freedom for the player, but it does avoid the "functional deadlock" you describe above as well as other types of burbles.

If I move-stab, I must end my turn in a position vulnerable to my opponent. In order to stab-move, my opponent must have had the opportunity to stab me on the last round. You really don't get any undue advantage, and it lets you do maneuvers like surge, disengage, charge, fall back without specific rules for those types of maneuver.

I like extra crispy process. I use it in some WW2 FOW variant games that I got from him.
LaSalle from Sam Mustafa has a react/fire phase as the first phase of a turn. It is really a great feature.

Shoot – move has a problem in modern periods for an attacker / defender game. The attacker moves into range. The defender shoots and moves back out of range or back into cover. The attacker moves up again, etc. The attacker never gets to fire until the defender cannot afford to move back any more.

How about move – shoot – charge – melee?
The charge can be treated like a separate action type, only allowed to troops that didn't move, or it could be a shorter movement but allowed to all troops.

Remember, John Hill solved all problems in the original Squad Leader.

Move- Melee- Shoot

Move to contact with the enemy.
If you are in contact you melee with them.
Troops that did not melee may shoot once melee is resolved.

Mike Bunkermeister Creek
Bunker Talk blog

Simultaneous missile fire can solve some problems, in larger-scale battles, and seems a reasonable abstraction of what would be occurring in real life. Allow either or both sides to fire in a Fire phase, following each Movement phase. And you can only normally fire once in a turn, so there is an element of strategy in deciding which Fire phase to fire in.

Only remove casualties after all fire is completed.

A rough outline of the Turn Sequence I have used for years for my generic Fantasy rules:

***
Roll for initiative. Winner chooses if he will be Player A or Player B.

Player A moves (including move to contact; initiating possible Melee).

First Simultaneous Fire Phase: any eligible unit may fire. A unit may normally only fire ONCE in a turn but the fire may occur in either Fire Phase. Casualties are removed after all fire is complete and morale checks are made as required.

First Simultaneous Magic Phase: eligible Magic-Users may employ magic; in the event of a conflict, higher level figures perform actions before lower level figures, dice off between ties. A figure may normally only use Magic ONCE in a turn, in either Magic Phase. Casualties are removed after Magic is resolved and morale checks are made as required.

Player B moves (including move to contact; initiating possible Melee).

Second Simultaneous Fire Phase: any eligible unit may fire. A unit may normally only fire ONCE in a turn but the fire may occur in either Fire Phase. Casualties are removed after all fire is complete and morale checks are made as required.

Second Simultaneous Magic Phase: eligible Magic-Users may employ magic; in the event of a conflict, higher level figures perform actions before lower level figures, dice off between ties. A figure may normally only use Magic ONCE in a turn, in either Magic Phase. Casualties are removed after Magic is resolved and morale checks are made as required.

Simultaneous Melee resolved between all hostile units in contact. Morale checks made as required.

Morale Phase: Any necessary Morale checks or Rally checks are made (simultaneous effect).

END OF TURN

In essence, any turn sequence is a discretization of simultaneous events into chunks that are placed in a linear sequence. There are many ways to do that.

Let's say that in any given complete "turn" (i.e. all units on both sides get to do something), any given unit can do movement, shooting, melee and morale (just to keep things simple).

The question then is how to order all these action one after the other. Let's say red side has two units, R1 and R2, and blue has 2 units, B1 and B2. Then we have to order 16 actions: R1 move, R2 move, R1 shoot, R2 shoot, R1 morale, R2 morale, B1 move etc…

A classic move-shoot-melee-morale sequence does this as follows:

Unit R1, R2 move
Unit R1, R2 shoot
Unit R1, R2 melee
Unit R1, R2 morale
Unit B1, B2, move
…

But you could also rearrange things, e.g. by making movement first for all sides:

Unit R1, R2 move
Unit B1, B2 move
Unit R1, R2, B1, B2 shoot
Unit R1, R2, B1, B2 melee
Unit R1, R2, B1, B2 morale

You could also have an action sequence, in which each player in turn activates a unit:

Unit R1 move, shoot, melee, morale
Unit B1 move, shoot, melee, morale
Unit R2 … etc.

Or you could have random draws:

Unit B2 morale, unit R1 move, Unit R2 shoot, Unit B2 move, … etc.

Or you can have the player decide in which order he wants to executes his chunks.

So, all turn sequences try to organize those 16 actions in various orders and combinations.
Whether each chunk gets executed is a different question. E.g. if you use activation rolls per unit, it basically means that a die roll might decide whether chunk R1 move is executed yes or no.

Any specific ruleset has to address the following:
- how does one chunk affect the other chunks? Are they independent, or intertwined? E.g. can movement also happen during melee resolution (push back), or morale (rout)?
- does the specific ordering give rise to unexpected weird effects? Do you need special out-of-sequence actions to counter these unexpected events? (Overwatch or opportunity fire being the best known example, countercharging might be another)
- is coordination (movement, fire) between units possible and/or desirable?
- is the sequence easy and fun to use?

Of course, in "reality" we do not have these seperate chunks. It is not as if a real battle is halted every half hour and everyone takes a morale test. Nor do 2 units in melee wait to fight each other until another one has finished its shooting.
Hence, good games design should try to integrate all actions for a unit in a single smooth mechanic. The superficial division of movement, shooting, melee, … is an abstraction that's only there to allow for wildly different rules procedures and mechanics. In a sense, it is lazy games design.

I think there is a fundamantsl problem with all of this. Set out some figures and to the best of your ability work out what you want to happen/did happen in the real (or fictional world)world. Now you know what the result is, what thre formations are and can dedfine what rules/sequence you need.

If I recall english archers were out in a V formation infront of the Men at arms. Thus they were shooting at the knights from the flank as they came in. Now working out spacing of the units (research I assume you would do if this was the period would largely dicate ranges and timescales. Then you need to fit the sequence arround the expected result. Setting the appropriate move sequence that achives your intended objective. Sorting rules first will not get the answer you need.

This is how we do it with our ancmed system, or for that matter, all the later period variants (which never advanced any further than the experimental, "club house rules" state):

1. Both sides roll 1d6. High roller chooses to either move first or second. The side which moves first is called this turn "first player."

2. Where troops are close enough to make contact with the enemy or receive missile fire, the turn is broken into halves, called "first impulse" and "second impulse."

3. All charges which receive any sort of combat bonus are called announced moves.

4. All automatic moves are performed in their entirety, in the following order: routing units move first, pursuing units move second, then the same from previous turns, then any withdraw post combat moves.

5. Movements attempting to evade any charges are now performed for the first impulse only.

6. First player moves his charging unit(s) one half a charge move for the first impulse only.

7. Note any contacted troops and make morale tests where required: the charging and contacted troops do not move for the rest of the turn, but remain where contact was made.

8. Second player moves his charging units for first impulse, and rule 7 applies afterward for these troops and any first player troops contacted. (Note: where two units are mutually charging each other and will reach in one impulse of movement, simply make a half move with each at the same time until the bases make contact. Movement of these units for the rest of the turn ends here.)

9. First player moves his non-charging units their first impulse. Second player may turn his troops (according to tactical limitations ) to face any attacks.

10. Second player makes first impulse movement with his units which are not charging. First player may not turn his figures to face if they are attacked: facing was his responsibility, inasmuch as he moved first.

11. All troops contacted for melee by charging and non-charging units make no further movement. For those troops not so-contacted, movement is now allowed during second impulse: follow rules 5 through 10 in executing second impulse.

12. Missile fire combat is resolved after all first and second impulse moves are completed. Do not fill in gaps left by removed figures before resolving melee.

13. Melee combats are resolved after missile fire casualties are removed.

14. Roll all applicable morale checks from casualties suffered this turn from missile fire and melee combat.

15. Note routing units by reversing the figures. The turn is now completed.

The advantages and disadvantages:

Simplicity and clarity, which becomes especially important when dealing with lots of units and players.

Shooting is not emphasized over melee, and visa versa. The effectiveness or lack thereof in missile weapons sometimes benefits from the movement system and sometimes is hindered by it, which over many games seems reasonable because of the many random factors in RL that benefit or screw over a commander's wishes. You, the play/commander, should not possess more control over how neatly your units perform than a RL commander of that army had (within the limitations of a simulation/game, of course), compared to other kinds of armies covered in the rules.

Any IGO UGO system is hindered by the sequential nature, but "impulses" with randomized "first and second player/side" ameliorates this to a noticeable degree over many turns.

A strict sequence of game turn steps becomes the reality, rather any attempt at simultaneous movement/action, and players adapt to the reality in order to carry out their tactics. As long as the sequential system does not produce ahistorical outcomes using the same tactics as determined by history, there should not be any valid argument against such a system of movement/action……….

A lot will depend on the era of the game system. There are pluses both ways. If a system is done right, then the flow will be easy and it will not matter which one is selected.
I have done a few systems where it is Shoot then Move (actually no move) and Shoot again for stationary units then melee.
This is very common depending on both the era such as 1800-1900 and the time frame of the turn. If it is such that a unit could reload and fire several times, then it is good to use.

I use a simple system. The wide with initiative moves first. That without initiative moves second. The side with initiative can move much further than the side without initiative. Then you have the donnybrook of combat, both ranged and melee at the same time. Solves all the problems.

There are at least 2 more. Command Decisions First Fire, some, Offensive Move, partial, Defensive Fire, optional Defensive Move, complete move, Close combat, Overruns, Finaloffensive fire, with Artillery, air strikes, AAA,and assorted in there somewhere.
and the chess like move, fire, melee found in Scott Bowdens Empire.