"Rolling for move distance?" Topic

What is your preference?

Games with fixed movement speeds are faster (since it cuts out a die roll) but being able to exactly plan when a unit reaches a location can feel unrealistic.

Examples include old Warhammer 40K or Bolt Action.

Rolling introduces surprise and "friction" but also adds more rolls, which can bog down a large game.

Examples include Chain of Command and Contemptible Little Armies.

A third approach is "mixed" systems where f.x. a unit moves at a fixed base rate but can "rush" or "run' a random additional distance.

Examples include the new 40K edition or my own FiveCore rules.

What is your preference?

A: Fixed rates.

B: Random rates.

C: Mixed (Fixed base + random bonus)

It depends. I don't mind random rates in skirmish games. With just a few figures per side the time consumed in rolling the dice is not that much. However, for bigger games I prefer fixed rates.

Variable move rates do break up the granular nature of turns.

It also bugs me when someone moves figures up to just outside charge range so that they maximize firepower without fear of reprisal. When a player pulls out his ruler to make sure of it, it throws the game's command control plausibility to the side of godlike. No chance of stumbling, particularly if no hidden placement exists.

Terrain surprises, such as the hidden muddy ground, and wrong turns etc are best represented with variable moves. Try achieving a flanking move such as the Polish lancers used at Albuera for tactical surprise without such a mechanism. No one at the game table will suffer the consequences the historical forcesdid.

Keep in mind that certain systems that have fixed movement rates might provide a C&C mechanic that allows a unit to move a random number of times in a row, thus giving the unit an overall distance result that is effectively random. Warmaster would be such a system; the distance any given unit can move is fixed, but the number of orders it can receive to move in a turn is not, subject only to a successful or failed order roll. As a result a unit's potential final movement on any given turn is unknown, though the distance of any distinct element of movement is not random. (I note, however, that retreats, "fall backs" and the like are random…)

Variable movement rates are one of the main attractions of The Sword and the Flame.

A). There are an infinite amount of variables in war. You can't plan for them all mainly because you don't know what all of them are, there is always something not thought of, or something that will surprise you. With that said, for planing purposes you need to make some assumptions. One assumption is that units will move as ordered. The real chaos will ensue when contact is made. A game should limit the amount of variables to just a few so that some strategy can be applied; otherwise it will all come down to dumb luck.

Depends. For faster games, I prefer fixed rates (less confusion, dice rolling, etc). For smaller games or where command/control is being modeled, random move rates throw in some added decisions (do I attack with what I have, or spend a turn getting the slackers up to the line).

C.

>A game should limit the amount of variables to just a few so that some strategy can be applied; otherwise it will all come down to dumb luck.

I will argue that planning for bad luck is the very essence of strategy.

I essentially agree with Basileus66. I don't mind variable movement and can find it exciting. I fear that most gamers really enjoy the chess like nature of godlike knowledge and control however.

I'm not most gamers, though, so for me it's fine.

D. Fixed rates with special terrain that induces variable movement.

So, the overwhelming majority of the time, you can precisely plan your movement. But if the scenario calls for movement distance to be a significant effect, you implement it.

This also interacts with the trade-off between movement and accuracy. Moving more than the base move detracts from your combat effectiveness (mostly). So you can fall back and shoot or run away and not. This puts the effect into the decision space, not the random space.

For the random space, I prefer to design where Pk can surrogate for variability in movement by creating the tone of maneuver. With a high Pk, I can create an environment where players are strategically jockeying for position, trying to get that decisive first strike. If there is a time limit with high Pk, then we get a tense, high risk game instead. If I throttle back the Pk, then you don't just have to be able to move into the "sweet spot" first, but you have to maintain it best and longest.

I prefer that movement has both a random and fixed percentage. The more well trained are the troops the more of their movement allowance should be fixed. I this way the movement of less well trained troops becomes less predictable. I think that provides a good feel on the table.

Surdu – Ooh, I like that idea a lot.

for sure variable rates so long as it does not get too complicated. While I like what surdu says and I want to represent that, you also need to represent the unknown terrain. A squad has no idea what is 100 yards ahead often times and I want there to be some friction to represent that.

>A game should limit the amount of variables to just a few so that some strategy can be applied; otherwise it will all come down to dumb luck.

I will argue that planning for bad luck is the very essence of strategy.

Mick the Metalsmith, I'd be interested in listening to your argument on 'planning for bad luck' as the 'essence of strategy'. When I wasn't flying in the Air Force I spent some time in planning missions. Planning starts with making basic assumptions backed up with statistical analysis. As example, an certain type of aircraft takes a certain amount of time to fly from point A to point B. Aircraft schedules are built around these facts. Plans are developed. We can also predict that a certain percentage of aircraft will not get off the ground due to a whole host of reasons. This is built into the plan by having back up aircraft/crew at the ready. Like I said before, there will be an infinite amount of variables along the way and no one can predict them all. You plan for what you know at the time. In a game; I want to concentrate on just a few key elements so I can develop a strategy which doesn't rely on pure luck. If it all comes down to luck then where is the mental exercise. Games decided by luck are no fun to play.

Sure, but let's say a unit moves 2D6" per turn. (Not uncommon in IABSM f.x.)

Over 4 turns, statistically we'll expect them to be around 24-32 inches along.

There's a small chance they'll be further and there's a chance they'll have been slow.

C

I think delay should be due to something more than a random die roll. Once troops are moving, there should be a fairly steady rate unless they are struggling through difficult terrain, or over obstacles. If threatened, I think a stop might be involved!
One of my problems with card activation games is the simple chaos that so often ensues, with units stopping for no good reason, some not moving at all, others moving a lot. In an active combat situation, this is more understandable, but walking across a field with no enemy around?
Much of basic training is involved with getting people from one place to another in a largely predictable time. Serious Command failures, unexpectedly difficult going, and enemy action IMHO should be the only factors affecting movement, and this can be factored into rules when appropriate, not at the whim of a randomly drawn card or die roll!

I like etotheipi's D option. Note that average dice might be useful for "norming" the random move distance, if that's your thing…

Surdu,

I like your idea a lot.

Thanks,

Pat

A for the majority of larger gaming…. C for the lower scale of gaming (skirmish or individual miniature level

Also tend to disfavor rules which allow "pre-measurement". Firing distance or range… ok, movement from point A to B ok, unit charging distance ok (committed forward movement). But measuring to get the exact distance for a rule or situation advantage…. nope. If the game allows… I just house-rule it out.. like FOW for example.

I play a lot of StarGrunt, which is a "C". It works well. Every unit has both a fixed basic movement rate and a dice-based combat movement rate. E.g., ordinary human infantry have a basic move of 6 inches and a combat move of 2d6 inches. On average, a combat move will be 7 inches, just slightly better than the basic move.

Unit can move a variable number of times per turn, too. Whenever a unit is activated, it can take two actions, both of which can be movement. The maximum number of times a unit can be activated depends on the number of command levels on the unit's side. Thus, if the side is a platoon, there are two command levels, squad and platoon.

So the enemy can't predict how far a unit will go. Sometimes the owner of the unit can't predict either. It works well in my experience.

I think that Dirtside uses the same system.

USAFpilot,

What you described in your planning is what I mean. Setting up a backup for that percentage of aircraft that could not make the mission is just that: planning for bad luck. Hitting a flock of birds and losing some of your mission's assets is bad luck. I think the key difference in our language is that you are more certain due to the law of averages that so many aircraft will always fail over a period of time, while I am pretty sure that if you already lost that percentage of failures from past missions it doesn't have any bearing on whether you are going to lose some to a new flock of birds in the next. We both agree that one who doesn't plan for it will probably lose the fight. Bad luck is a far edge of the curve, but at the point of measurement past and future results have no causal influence.

Luck has no history.

Mick The Metalsmith + 1!

TVAG

Mick the Metalsmith, I think our phrasing is different but we are mostly in agreement. You would say planning for bad luck is the very essence of strategy. I would say good planning is the essence of strategy; and good planing would take into account contingency plans for when you run into bad luck.

USAFpilot, remember too that in determining how much luck determines the victor in a game (barring preparing for its arrival) the MORE often you roll the dice the more likely it will average out. If it comes down to a single dice roll, you can say you had bad luck more often, but in any case lack of planning for the failure will cost you. Of course not all resolutions are equal to others in that it might be important to catch someone with a fast unit on one turn, and on another the successful move bonus had no effect, but I would say a good game will actually mollify that problem with as many dice roll resolutions as possible, particularly if the range of results is based on a curve of probability.

War is not science all the time, sometimes it is much more of an art. Napoleon always asked if someone was lucky to determining if he was good or not. I think he was simply saying that the intuitive planner could overcome unforeseen. Good luck is made, bad luck mitigated.