"Invisible rules" Topic

Do you like your rules "invisible". What I mean is that they are so simple and familiar that they no longer are really consideration and all the decisions are at the management level, what where and at what risk. Dice rolling being just an incidental "anoyance" and minimised to give a reasonable expectation of a given situation. No daft gains or losses just a credible reasonably repeatable result.

This to me is the real sweet spot. Really complex tactical situations being possible with minimal direct consideration of the rules.

Yes. When I had time for Role-Playing Games, the advent of the Chaosium d100 games made such a big difference. We ended up with a majority of players who didn't consider themselves to be gamers, but liked the setting. 'Invisible' rules really helped with this.

'Familiar' is the key here. Rules become more 'automatic' the more often you play, though I'd agree that it's easier with simpler rules.
I can go back to a game of 'King of the Battlefield' after a year's break and play without really thinking. We just played Ramillies on Saturday at Carronade. large numbers of units on the table (70 or so per side) and we could have finished it within 3 hours – excluding an hour either side for set up.

Isn't that what differentiates excellent games design from lazy games design?

Dear Phil

Right you are Phl! In good game design, the rules should be as disposable as the owners manual for your toaster is. Something you read once and then put into the junk drawer of your kitchen cabinets for the archeologists to find 20,000 years from now. This goes for all levels of game.

Yes.

I design them that way. As stated above, "familiar" is the driver. That is facilitated by "easy" which is a contextual condition. I usually lead to that with "intuitive" based on "presented logical flow".

The PLF, I think is the key. If you present the rules so people see a logical flow in the process, then the process becomes "intuitive", which is "easy" to learn, making the rules seem "familiar", and thus, "invisible".

One bit … I don't think the warfighting situations presented to the players are a function of the rules. They are a function of the scenario. If the rules primarily drive the tactics and strategy, you end up with a constrained system that will violate the "intuitive" idea. That's why I design light rules that focus on Pk and basic maneuver and let the scenario drive the rest.

If the rules primarily drive the tactics and strategy, you end up with a constrained system that will violate the "intuitive" idea. If the rules primarily drive the tactics and strategy, you end up with a constrained system that will violate the "intuitive" idea. That's why I design light rules that focus on Pk and basic maneuver and let the scenario drive the rest.

Can you expand on this? I don't understand.

It seems to me the rules are critical to tactics and strategy. At the very least, weapons should have the correct relative ranges, strengths and capabilities, and the relationships between fire and movement should be correct. If these things aren't defined right in the rules, players will use them as incorrectly as possible for their own advantage, which is how we get Age of Sail men-o-war sinking and exploding in long-range artillery duels, AWI riflemen slaughtering rows of redcoats from across the table, English longbowmen more deadly than machine gun nests, moving walls of Napoleonic attack columns, and so on.

Are you considering the period unit and weapons capabilities to be part of the scenario?

- Ix

Do you like your rules "invisible". What I mean is that they are so simple and familiar that they no longer are really consideration and all the decisions are at the management level, what where and at what risk. Dice rolling being just an incidental "anoyance" and minimised to give a reasonable expectation of a given situation. No daft gains or losses just a credible reasonably repeatable result.

Ushcha:
I do. I want to play the game and think about the decisions rather than constantly trying to remember/look up rules exceptions etc.

This requires some real designer skill and simple games OR the tendency is to use same mechanics regardless of the game design or subject--the familiar and simple rehashes. It does provide player comfort which isn't a bad thing.

This to me is the real sweet spot. Really complex tactical situations being possible with minimal direct consideration of the rules.

Absolutely.

Does anyone disagree with this?

RetroBoom:

You mean does anyone want rules that are so complex the players have to spend all their time simply learning/studying the rules rather than playing the wargame?

I think Ushcha's "Sweet Spot" spans a surprisingly wide continuum in our wargaming community. The board wargames might find their 'Sweet Spot" on a different continuum.

Examples please.

Yellow Admiral said:
It seems to me the rules are critical to tactics and strategy. At the very least, weapons should have the correct relative ranges, strengths, and capabilities, and the relationships between fire and movement should be correct.

What would be the correct relationship between fire and movement?

How can you get that right fire & movement relationship with a random activation, reaction or IGOUO game?

Wolfhag

The reason I posted this is that in many cases there seems to be over elaborate dice rolling mechanisms (admittedly the D6 fixation does not help) and I do see players making a big issue of rolling die. Our rules are optimised to minimise the use of die and de-emphasize their impact as much as is practical. The ever running die mechanisms threads points to another way. We decided the odds and where necessary the distribution and then went for the absolute minimum rolls to get there. Random is a necessary evil to us.

Move throw a minimum number of die to resolve the issues and move again, to save time whoever is nearer the die throws it's just a random factor and get in with the planning and moving. It does mean inferior players will almost always lose in a fair fight and scenarios are best "balanced" to account for the players ability as tactics and planning dominate with no real reversals from the random elements.

Wolfhag,
No system is going to be perfect and there are always rules. Of they are simple to understand and are a good approximation it helps. While a bit off topic the rules you now have are players controlled element alternating systems. It does usefull things its easy to understand. In part it allows some reaction without extra rules (but not competely) it reduces some daft issues as all of one side cannot always do in syscronous what would not be possible on the real world. But above all its simple, both sides understand how it might be used so can eliminate daft impact be a bit of thought.

The key is that it has to be intuative and only enough detail to get it "good enough". Activation sequences should be on another topic.

Mako11:

If you are asking me for examples [not sure that was in response to my comment], here are popular games that have different levels of complexity and die rolling, thus different 'sweet spots' as far as the players are concerned:

1. Johnny Reb
2. Fire and Fury
3. Black Powder
4. Longstreet
5. Big, Bloody Battles
6. Pickett's Charge

Can you expand on this? I don't understand.

It seems to me the rules are critical to tactics and strategy

Sure. I can play a hostage rescue game using many different systems of rules. The rules should provide the basics of interactions, and as you state they must provide a "realistic" framework so that people are playing the scenario instead of the rules.

As mentioned above, that "sweet spot" for "realistic" rules is pretty broad. It is largely a function of what your preferences are. If advance and transfer is absolutely necessary for you to get the feel of really commanding a privateer or a pirate killer, then you will need different rules (with different mechanisms and different types and numbers of die rolls supporting them) than someone who doesn't know or care what those are.

Are you considering the period unit and weapons capabilities to be part of the scenario?

Yes and no. For my ruleset, the rules don't define stats for specific weapons, that is left for the scenario. But I have no problems with rules that provide an integral armoury list.

Either way, when setting up the game, you are choosing which weapons (picking from a list, or specing out the stats) and other capabilities are being used by each side. I consider assigning weapons to each side to be part of the scenario, but the basic mechanics of how weapons work (range, force, Pk given hit, etc.) to be part of the rules.

"For my ruleset, the rules don't define stats for specific weapons, that is left for the scenario."

A sensible approach: create a focused scenario-specific weapons performance sheet. There is no need for players to wade through reams of unessential line entries covering weapons not in play.

I like it.

B

It is interesting that while this thread is running there is again lots of rules about dice throwing as if what you throw is somehow part of the game not just a neccessary evil to be minimised. Yet in this thread the role of the dice does seem to be generally minimised.

as if what you throw is somehow part of the game not just a neccessary evil to be minimised

… in the same way that having miniatures and terrain is a necessary evil to be minimized. Or moving miniatures. Or measuring. Or having the minis painted.

There is no need for players to wade through reams of unessential line entries covering weapons not in play.

With QILS, we actually don't have any charts, either. The stats for units are encoded on the dice and the system uses opposed rolls, so you just roll and win … or don't.

That makes the stats a little more "invisible" at the cost of a little work (30 seconds with a die and three Sharpie markers) outside the game. This is one of my major design criteria for "invisibility" of rules … offloading work during play for work outside the game.

So, to the other comment, the dice do actually become a part of the game.

etothepi,
we may have to agreer to disagree here. To me, moving the mianatures over the terrain to your plan against the enemys, is the thing. I just want to know the result of any fighting or action. If it could be done in an instant without an single die or time used, so we could be moving again, that would be heaven.

Dunno, UshCha. There wasa reason why all Roman legionaries always carried dice in their kit ….. ;-]

On a more serious note –

1 – I agree that unnecessary dicing is the enemy of efficient game mechanics. Case in point – "saving throws" – which I find an unnecessary waste of time. The effect could be simply accounted for by adjusting the "to hit" dicing thresholds.

2 – I also consider that lengthy lists of minor modifiers to a die roll (a typical hallmark of insufficiently refined game mechanics IMO) unreasonably slow the pace of the game.

B

Blutarski,
The Roman issue may not be off topic. It occours to me that some folk like the dice bit in their wargames. The very wide range of results in some games appears to be deliberate. Stargrunt II the last game before we wrote our own had an incredibly wiode rane of results in close combat. It was not a feture dissaproved of generally. I was one of the things we ganged in our rules to an approximation of a normal distribution (as good as you can get with a D20 ;-).

I have wondered whether I could come up with the beginning of "perfect" (ha!) rules by just putting figures on the table and playing with them, just rolling dice (because I like to do that if not too much) and making up answers. I'm not saying that would be the perfect game, but I wonder if it would point me to what I really want (and don't want) to be doing. Maybe it would turn up what I want instant and what I want a bit more resolution in because it is the fun part.

I suppose you could do it with any simple, familiar rules system, except that you'd still have those rules' assumptions on you.

andy

UshCha wrote – "It occours to me that some folk like the dice bit in their wargames."

….. Count the number of craps tables at any casino. Many people like to romance Lady Luck by throwing those little cubes of fate. My observation at many wargames has been that the loudest cheers and greatest excitement usually ensue after some ridiculous "totally pulled it out of his hindquarters" dice roll to save/win/survive the game.

;-)

B

It occours to me that some folk like the dice bit in their wargames.

So Tuesday, I had a crocodile attack SWMBO's Scooby Doo figure (long story to be posted in an AAR later). She knew the risks of maneuvering Scoobs between the croc and the rest of The Gang. She also knew that it was the best way to block and the figure with the best chance to not get hit. She talked through her options and chose one.

I rolled a six. Under the rules, she would need a six to defend and avoid damage. She rolled a six.

The second paragraph of that story was equally as exciting and dramatic for us as the first.

Anyone have invisible rules for opportunity fire?

Wolfhag

In QILS, the stats for the units are encoded on the dice. For multiple die units (high end combatants or groups), you can assign different dice to different attacks.

We tried out opportunity fire rules where you put the a die on the board during your turn to obligate it to cover an area. So basically, you have to reserve some of your attack power on your turn in order to take advantage of opportunity fire during your opponent's turn.

If there is a reasonable way to divide up combat capability, any token could represent dividing up the "attention" of a unit.

Likewise, for other systems you could put a token on the board to represent dividing your attention between the attack and the area you are covering. The token would then be a penalty (-1?) on your shots during that period and during the opportunity fire. You could allow additional tokens (up to some limit) to be places to increase the accuracy of opportunity fire and decrease regular fire.

etotheipi,
I know this is going to sound snarky but are the dice on the board invisible?

Personally, I look at opportunity fire as a timing issue. If you need special rules, markers on the board and rule exceptions for opportunity fire then how can it be invisible?

Wolfhag

No problem with the tone, Wolfhag.

Nope. The dice are not invisible.

In fact, the dice being visible is what makes the rules invisible in my view.

In the case of the QILS opportunity fire, you have one rule, which is not none, but you have to have something if you think the action merits being in the game. The act of taking one die out of the dice pool for a unit means you are not rolling it for any other attack that turn – no tracking. Not rolling that die applies a penalty to other attacks that turn without any bookkeeping or accounting to integrate the effect setting up to cover an area has on the unit's combat effectiveness that turn. Having that die on the board reminds all players the unit is covering that area – no rule about checking for covering fire during players' phases. The covering fire die (or dice) are the ones you roll for the opportunity fire, so no special rules for the opportunity fire attack – it's just a regular attack using the regular rules.

So, it's not nothing, but (1) it is two sentences that have half a dozen effects, (2) it is simple to integrate, and (3) it integrates with the existing rules rather than creating a whole new opportunity fire sequence.

I'm not sure what you mean by a "timing issue". In my combat experience, assaulting a target takes focused attention. So does watching another area to look for and respond to a "pop up" threat. If you do both, you have to divide your attention between the two actions. The amount of effectiveness you have in each effort is directly proportional to (amoung other things) how much attention you focus on each task.

etotheipi,
Thanks for the clarification.

I have not played QILS but did download the free version.

I take a different approach to "dividing" your attention to different sectors but it seems playable and I always like player decisions in a game.

I look at it somewhat like fighter pilots Situational Awareness. He's always oriented to the greatest threat (his front) but is less aware to his flank and rear but is swiveling his head around. I think a tank commander could make the same comparison. You always have 360 degree situational awareness but less aware and less chance of noticing a threat in your flank and rear.

I spent 3 years in the infantry and never really thought about "dividing" my attention. I orientated myself to my sector of responsibility and subconsciously was aware to anything outside of my peripheral vision and would occasionally look to the left and right. I have to admit, I have been surprised – once. After that embarrassing moment I became more aware of my surroundings.

I use that concept of Situational Awareness to determine how quickly you can engage a new target whether it is static or moving. If you are suppressed or buttoned up there could be a delay in game turns to respond. There could also be a delay if the target is in your flank or rear. There is no special rule for Over Watch or Opportunity Fire.

I use game turns in a similar way a video game uses frames to stream action. A video game uses 50-70 frames per second but there is not shooting in each frame. I use one second turns as a timing mechanism (like a video frame) to determine the future turn action takes place. This eliminates the need for initiative determination, unit activation and IGOUGO turns. Turns are announced one by one sequentially. If there is no action to perform we move right to the next turn. All units scheduled to fire (activate if you like) do so when their turn is called out. All units are synched to the same turn number. That's basically how the timing works.

So if you engage a moving target (normally called opportunity fire) and it takes 12 turns/seconds to engage the target (any delay plus turret rotation and aim time) and he moves out of your LOS in 10 turns you missed firing at him. The mechanics of the game and the time and motion physics handles the details with no special rules. I can't claim they are "invisible" but there is no special rule for opportunity fire or markers on the table other than the direction the turret is pointing.

Wolfhag

Wolfhag,

Thanks for downloading! Have fun with the rules (the only version of the rules is free) and the provided game outlines. There are also a few free scenario on WGV, but most of the scenarios (where I personally feel the real game design resides) cost a buck or two.

I start from the ship-driver standpoint, where you are tasked to cover a sector (and a warfare area – air, surface, or subsurface) and that is the main focus of your attention. In addition to that, you are always responsible for defense of ownship, which is part of a defense in depth concept (though you may be on the outer edge of the defense as opposed to being the High Value Unit in the center of it). So you have to divide the attention of your (~20 man) team amoung those priorities.

From my armour colleagues, it is the same concept, except for a team of four per armour unit.

Based on my (limited) tactical ground experience, being a support unit, not a rifleman combatant (I was a Naval surface warfare officer, but with responsibilities supporting other ground units) in sporadic specific active conflicts over the last two decides (or so), different tactical squad and/or platoon members (or fireteams) will focus on different areas such as (1) main objective (2) this or that flank (3) rear guard, dividing the attention of the composite unit.

Applying those paradigms, I implemented a concept of a total "combat power", represented as the total dice pool, and the division of those amoung different objectives (main, flank, rear, etc.), which beyond the QILS basic rules included opportunity fire during opponents' turns.

I think the divided situational awareness is a parallel concept, based in a different frame of reference (QILS is fundamentally different than other wargame rules). You had a sector or responsibility, just like my (peer or subordinate) ships did, as a part of the composite force.

I think the fighter pilot is a similar analogy, where the pilot has a focus of their (individual) attention, and lesser attention in other areas. My experience in this area is building military simulations for supporting a "four pod" (four aircraft with one "flight commander"), where the commander allocated sectors, and main attention to the different aircraft. Also, a bit of a ground control station allocating responsibility amoung a number of different UAV.

QILS does not tie to a specific time frame per turn, but as long as all turns within a round are roughly of the same magnitude of tactical importance, the flow is consistent.

etotheipi,
I see where you are coming from and how it works from your viewpoint and design. What I've been working on seems to be a level down where the battalion/company commander has already defined sectors, tactics, approach, etc. My stuff is more from the tank commander and squad leader viewpoint. Radio communications can change what units are doing if the communication gets through in time.

I think where our differs is that yours has dice pool for a unit's activity resources? My approach is when a threat is detected all resources are put into acting and engaging the target. When tanks engage a target they are blind in their rear 270 degrees. There is really nothing wrong with either point. The degree of "invisibility" is somewhat subjective. The fewer rules, exceptions, orders and die rolls the more invisible.

I don't have any markers or dice on the playing surface denoting overwatch, etc. A vehicles "sector" of responsibility is basically the direction the gun/turret is pointing. I use an engagement play aid to determine if there is a delay penalty for enemy units appearing in his flank or rear. You do need to write down the turn # that your units will "activate". I use a deck of customized playing cards to track the turn # and sequence of action within a turn. So things like shooting and artillery landing can happen every turn. Moving vehicles are physically moved every 5 turns. Results from damage (fires and explosions), communications, small arms fire results, close combat and radio communications are checked every 10 turns. SNAFU's can happen during any turn and when a unit fires. I try to keep things a little unpredictable.

I have not delved a whole lot into the command and control issues as of yet. The engagements I'm playing out take only a few minutes of "real time" so it's quite different than games with multiple turns of 90 seconds and more. However, we do on occasion fight multiple engagements with successive attacking waves or a defender counterattack.

I'll try to get back on the "invisible" rules topic.

One of the advantages of breaking a turn into smaller segments using them as a timing mechanism also seems to hide some traditional game rules:

All units on the playing surface are in synch with each other on a turn by turn basis. That eliminates structured game turns, activations and turn interrupts. No one is waiting around for their turn or being idle as the enemy shoots or maneuvers on them (there are games where this is not a problem).

Smaller turn segments allow for an almost real-time interaction between the shooter and moving targets eliminating opportunity fire rules and no markers are needed other than a movement marker for the moving target. If you take too long to shot someone may knock you out before you fire or the target could move out of LOS or range.

You always have the ability to react to new threats in your LOS. However, delays may keep you from taking action before it is too late. Dice and game mechanics play a small role. It's more about time and action based on the player's decision on how to respond.

Wolfhag

The fewer rules, exceptions, orders and die rolls the more invisible.

Completely agree.

The degree of "invisibility" is somewhat subjective.

I might say contextual instead of subjective. I like the way you have partitioned things up to focus on the detailed, split-second tactics of vehicle combat. You have built into the construct many things that might be dynamic in other systems, which allows you to optimize for what you want to be the key dynamic.

All units on the playing surface are in synch with each other on a turn by turn basis. That eliminates structured game turns, activations and turn interrupts.

Hey, Wolfhag:

Having played your rules, I want to point out that you have structured game turns…by seconds and then every five, movement. So turn 'interrupts' are there as well as 'activations' i.e. movement. It is that those things are defined differently or portrayed differently in your rules. Any game with turns have all units on the playing surface 'synched' up at the end of a turn. That is one of the purposes of turns. What you are saying is that all units have moved at the same time so it isn't a IGO/UGO sequence.

No one is waiting around for their turn or being idle as the enemy shoots or maneuvers on them (there are games where this is not a problem).

Yes, that's true, though I did hold my breath when someone shot at my tanks. Does that count as 'waiting around being idle?

McLaddie, thanks, for responding. I was explaining the rules in a broad sense but it looks as if I have some explaining to do in more detail. The game we played in Sacramento had very little movement because it was an ambush scenario. The North Africa game at Pacificon was a much better representation of maneuvering in the game.

I think the best way to respond to UshCha "invisible rules" is his last sentence: Really complex tactical situations being possible with minimal direct consideration of the rules. Nothing is really invisible.

I'll try to explain how the "Time & Action" concept using turns somewhat like video game frames to trigger a decision for action happening in a later turn. Using "Time & Action" eliminates the need for special rules and few exceptions to perform historical actions and tactics.

Where most games use die roll modifiers and special rules, Treadheads uses variables like crew WIA, haze, camouflaged targets, etc as time variables that can increase the turn of action. That's basically how initiative works, you act on a turn before your opponent. Any new tactic or action a player wants to introduce uses the same "Time & Action" concept which should not impact existing rules. Any gunnery or to hit rule can be used without the need to heavily abstract them.

Once you understand how to use the customized vehicle data card and Engagement Play Aid the "Time & Action" concept has very little referring back to the rules. Most first time gamers are up to speed within 30 minutes of gameplay. My opinion is that many game designs need to use different activation rules, rules exceptions, and IF-THEN-ELSE situations because the turn length does not interact with the performance of the weapons and movement does not interact with shooting in a realistic way. That's why you need additional opportunity fire rules and exceptions.

So if a gun has a ROF of 6 rounds per minute and it's opponent is a ROF of 5 rounds per minute how do you have them (and everyone else involved) interact in a 60-second turn without abstracting the engagement parameters and creating some type of activation rule?

First I'll address how the rules have units performing movement of vehicles. A movement order consists of during any turn the player places a movement arrow by his vehicle which is now considered a moving target. There is no orders phase or pre-plotting. Playing up to 15mm scale all movement arrows show the length a vehicle will move in the next 5 turns as the arrow is divided into 5 segments. Since the movement arrow also shows the distance moved you could say that movement is pre-plotted but without the player performing any additional actions.

It is not really playable to have all vehicles moved a fraction of an inch every turn, so consider the vehicle moving along the movement arrow one segment as each turn is called out without the player acting.

As the game progresses turn by turn the vehicle is "virtually" (would this be the best term?) moving segment by segment across the movement arrow. Every 5 turns (mutual movement before shooting) the movement arrow is flipped over to measure movement distance and the new direction (if any) is shown and the vehicle is physically moved to catch up with its "virtual" position. One side of the arrow is green and the other side is blue. This way we move and flip the arrow over we can tell when everyone has moved in the mutual movement segment. So yes, there is a movement phase but it is really just to bring the model up to its "virtual" position at the end of the movement arrow.

Interacting with Virtual Movement: If a moving vehicle is fired at on turn #28 it has actually moved 3 segments along the arrow since turn #25 when it was physically moved. This is where the range is measured to when firing or targeted. If on turn #28 (three turns into a mutual movement segment) a vehicle wants to stop simply move it to the third segment on the arrow (its virtual position on turn #28) and remove the movement arrow. The vehicle is now a static target and it has moved up to its virtual position. At turn #30 when all physical movement is performed it will not move again because the movement arrow was removed on turn #28 when it stopped. So yes, there is a movement phase every 5 turns where all models are physically moved up to their virtual position. It's visual to all players.

The "Time & Action" concept enables the player to perform an action or link several actions together over several turns with very few additional rules or exceptions:
Opportunity Fire: No special rules. It's all about timing and where the target is each turn as it "virtually" or physically moves. It may move out of LOS before you fire or you may be knocked out before shooting too. The rate of fire is not affected and the target is not artificially moved back along its path of movement like in some games.

OverWatch: No special rules or order. Situational Awareness is best to the front and worst to the rear which can generate an engagement delay. Position your units in the direction the enemy appears so your Situational Awareness Check does not generate an engagement delay.

Initiative: No special rules. It's all about timing and how long the action will take to perform in a later turn. Better crews perform actions more quickly than poor crews. Being out of position, buttoned up or suppressed will generate a delay enabling the enemy to potentially shoot first (initiative). The future turn you fire or respond to the enemy is determined by your decision of where you position your vehicle, crew type and historical (not abstracted) weapon platform performance and a single D20 die roll.

Reverse Slope: Move the tank to a turret down position and perform a Situational Awareness Check to engage a target. It is almost impossible to be detected by the enemy when turret down. Then move from turret down to hull down and spend an additional 2-4 turns of aim time. Immediately after firing place a movement arrow in reverse and start reloading to prepare for your next shot. You were exposed to enemy fire for 6 turns plus the number of turns of additional aim time. This will not leave enough time for the enemy to effectively respond and will most likely force him to spend less aim time (snap shot) to shoot decreasing his chance to hit.

Halt Fire: Perform a Situational Awareness Check while moving to engage a target. Halt and spend 2-4 more turns of aim time and fire (a stabilizer needs less aim time). Immediately after firing place a movement arrow. You were a static target for only 3-4 turns. The rate of fire and movement is not adjusted like other rules nor are there any special rules or exceptions.

During the game, the two main actions a player will be performing is a Situational Awareness to see how quickly and effectively he can engage and he'll then determine the turn he'll fire.

Engagement Delay Formula from Situational Awareness Check: Delay (D20 + Arc Modifier) + Crew Delay. It is performed only when engaging or switching to a new target. This takes 5-10 seconds and one die roll depending on the angle to the target. It does not hold up other players.

Link to earlier version of the Engagement Play Aid: link

Determining turn of shooting: Delay + Pivoting Time + Turret Rotation Time + Aim Time (variable). It is done for each shot. Aim Time and Reload time are combined for consecutive shots. This takes 5-20 seconds, no die roll and does not hold up other players.

I didn't want to generate another long post but here is a link to a PDF that goes into more details if you are interested.
Slideshare Link: link

I hope this clarifies how the Time & Action concept eliminates a lot of the special rules, allows players to perform historic tactics and breaks down the game into small enough turns to enable movement, shooting and opportunity fire to interact each other without additional rules.

If anyone is more interested PM me and I can start a new discussion and post some videos.

Wolfhag

Really complex tactical situations being possible with minimal direct consideration of the rules. Nothing is really invisible.

Wolfhag:
I agree with that assessment.

I'll try to explain how the "Time & Action" concept using turns somewhat like video game frames to trigger a decision for action happening in a later turn. Using "Time & Action" eliminates the need for special rules and few exceptions to perform historical actions and tactics.

I appreciate the detailed explanation. I wasn't suggesting that what you are doing isn't different or doesn't work the way you describe, not at all.

I was just pointing out that you do have structured game turns… by seconds and then every five, movement. You even call the them turns…So turns 'interrupts' are there as well as 'activations' i.e. movement every 5 seconds of turns, just not the types found in other games with phases and initiative 'activations'. Those elements are defined differently or portrayed differently in your rules. All to the good.

There was no criticism of your mechanics or how well your game plays--even if the last game I was in was rather static. [I still held my breath…] --I was only pointing out how and where your system shares elements found in all games. As I said, any game with turns have all units on the playing surface 'synched' up at the end of a turn, but certainly not the way you have it done.

McLaddie,
I take all of your remarks as constructive and appreciate them coming from a professional trainer, educator, historian, and wargamer.

I like responding and answering questions as it helps refine my documentation. These long responses are as much for me as anyone else as it helps get things straightened out.

One of my issues right now is describing the game mechanics as turns, phases or segments. I think it could be said there are 5 phases to a turn culminating in the physical movement of the vehicles. Every tenth turn could be considered an administrative phase. I'm just not sure of the proper and accepted way of describing them.

In responding I came up with the "virtual movement" description idea. I'd never thought of it that way before. It seems right, what do you think?

Thanks again for the turn card idea. I don't know how I got along without it.

You were the first player to use the Reverse Slope tactic at Pacificon last year. I'm still working to fine tune it. I hope you can attend this year. I should have something in Sac before then.

Video examples are the way to go but I need to finalize my play aids. It should not take much longer.

One thing I forgot. One of the difficulties I've experienced in getting players up to speed on the finer points of the game is getting them to understand the use of historic gunnery and tank tactics. To help solve that problem I've made two dozen tactics cards (playing card size) that explain requirements, options, results, and post-requisites for things like battle sight, ranging shots, bracketing, reverse slope defense, jinking/evading, fire while moving, etc. Now all of the options are in the player's hands.

Thanks again,
Wolfhag

Its very interesting that most (but all) the respondenets are into integrated systems that are at least in part intuative. Our system does not have "opertunity fire" but is part of a "quick reactin subset". This is an approximation but has proved satisfactory as the "general" timescale with "not directly accounted for delay" is too long for some actions. This allows for play to cover both the deployment and actual shooting war in gane mechanics terms very quickly. Interestingly more delay is caused by players having to "think on their feet" when faced with a plethora of options. It does make the game demanding of qualatative decisons as in the real world.

Interestingly we are much more restrictive on observation. The player has gods eye view, if he forgets to look to the rear in a vehicle coloumn for example he will not see the offender. This is real "training", if you do not make your troops situationaly aware, given god eye view, you troops will not help with dice roles.

Again not suitable for players who simply want to "Kill Stuff" and is well beyond convention games with players not familiar with the real world tactics, unless simplified (which is what we do for conventiuons) but this much reduces the advanatges of the nes).

I was reading Manoeuvre Group by Ushcha. He has a rule called "Gaze" that is somewhat like overwatch(?). It allows the player to focus on a corridor 1200 meters long and 40 meters wide and immediately engage any unit that comes through. However, all of his attention is on that corridor and cannot respond to threats outside of it.

It's a pretty straightforward rule and the physics of the engagement time work out well – in my opinion.

The restriction I put on observation is similar to the "Gaze" rule. A tank firing is blind to their rear 270 degrees. Unengaged he has 360-degree awareness but unlikely to detect threats to the flanks and rear right away.

With reaction generating a delay can allow (in extreme cases) two opponents to move into and out of LOS before they detect each other. I had been using a traditional spotting rule but it was too cumbersome and time-consuming. The delay element works out better for initiative timing too.

Here is another example of how "Time & Action" and engagement delays affect the outcome of an engagement. If Panzer III with an unbuttoned tank commander outflanks a buttoned up T-34/76 he should have on average a 6-second initiative advantage which is enough time to stop, have time to aim for maximum accuracy and fire before he is detected. If the T-34/76 takes more the 6 turns to engage and get a shot off the Panzer III will have enough time to reload, aim and fire the second shot. That's how maneuver and superior situational awareness can defeat a superior weapon platform.

The player's options for the T-34/76 would be to get off a snapshot with minimum aim time which would most likely miss (3 turns turret rotation and 3 turns of aim time = 6 turns). He could also start moving and evade which he could do before the Panzer III fired a second time. He could move to face the Panzer III taking 5 turns of maneuver to turn, 1 turn turret rotation and 3 turns of aiming = 8 turns.
He could also choose to fire on the move.

The above example is with equal crew types. If the Germans had a Veteran crew and the Russians a Trained crew the Germans gain an additional 2 turns of initiative and 4 turns against a Green crew.

As you can see these are all player decisions on the course of action to take. The engagement play aid has all of the info needed to determine the best course of action. Dice and random mechanics play no part in the decision.

Wolfhag

Wolfhag,
The Gaze is indeed an overwatch but a special kind. You might call it a snap shot (in some cases). It is used where fireing time is extreemly limited or thre is extra time to make an accurate shot. An example would be watching the crossing of a road obscured both sides to give a very limited window of opetunity to fire. Hence the need to "concentrate". While not the only example, one may be from WW 2 where anti tankguns were positione to shoot accross a road being sighted by looking down the tube; then simply waitING BUT AT 20 MPH you need to have your wits about you.

What would be called more nomal overwatch, is not directly identified a such in our rules but is a reaction responce (an interupt in computer terms) allowing short timeframe responces. This is not just fireing but can, depending on circumstanses be defensive e.g moving out of fire. It uses a mechanism that I think is unique. Reactions can only be for units that have had the ground for which the event is taking place under observation at least a limited time previously. That means for instance for a tank parked looking down the road, when an enemy tank comes onto the road from a blind corner, the watching tank firer first first as it has had the ground under observation. The tank coming round the corner as has is a lot of terrain to look at in minimal time and hence is behing in fireing. Hence the order of fire is credible. Not as sophiticated as Wolfhag but it has to deal with longer timescale actions and infantry.

UshCha,
The Gaze rule seems to work with a minimum of special rules.

For me, the problem to overcome was fitting small unit reactions and shooting into a turn length that was longer than the action itself. I tried 10 second turns but trying to fit the different rates of fire, snapshots, variable aim times, rapid fire and the time allotted to switching/engaging targets made it unplayable. I looked at the Phoenix Command game system with 2-second turns and came to the conclusion one second turns would be just as easy and be able to recreate split second actions which for 1:1 combat is about as ideal as you can get just as long as it is not too predictable.

The "Engagement Delay" from a reaction was a solution to keep from performing spotting checks each turn. I've tweaked those variables so that reaction engagement times (spotting, turret rotation, aiming/range estimation and firing) approximate what I've found in training manuals and AAR's with a single D20 roll. Having customized play aids for each vehicle helps simplify the process for the player.

The activation system you use is pretty neat and seems to work well with very few special rules. It gives a chess-like feel to the game like a move-countermove. Forcing a player with more activations to activate before you do has some interesting strategies but can also be a double-edged sword.

Wolfhag

Wolfhag,
We went for our rules as they are simple (I may say Fast Play if you describe Chess as fast play). In reality like at work lots of the time is doing nothing. Basically the "reaction" system allows high speed interaction of maybe 20 seconds in a ten minute turn. Certainly in modern terms 20 seconds is a long time and actions can be over in that timescle. For instance if your tank is hull down. At least one tank commander noted the brief to his driver was second shot driver and pull back. The driver had the engine up to speed and clutch in, when he heard the second bang he let the clutch out and was rolling back. This fits within our system with a bit to spare.

Like Chess its best not to get too caught up in the moment the reaction system is such that you use it only when necessary, it is carefully designed so that it is not easy to exploit beyond its intended extent. You win or lose on the gross scale not on individual element moves. Because its all simple (and hopefully intuitive) the rules soon do become invisible. On that bit, note that you have to understand the (We now call it the Cowboy scenario) move and reaction example shown in the back of the rules. It hard for some wargamers as they are so conditioned to a mindless move and shoot they find it had to adapt. LOT more decisions in MG and not many die throws.