"A Simple Method of Simulating Off Table Movement" Topic
16 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please don't call someone a Nazi unless they really are a Nazi.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Campaign Message Board
Areas of InterestGeneral
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Current Poll
|
Mark Strachan | 29 Jun 2017 2:20 a.m. PST |
I have always been a little dissatisfied with the way in which most tabletop games are set up. In many of our games the deployment is either established by the game organiser or an area is defined in which players are allowed to deploy. Sometimes flanking manoeuvres or reinforcements are allowed, but their arrival seems a little artificial and I have sought ways to make this off table movement a little less contrived. Of course a campaign solves that problem, but getting people involved and then keeping them motivated is always a problem. In the last few weeks I had the idea of using some pretty old gaming mechanisms to create a solution that will allow that off table movement within the context of a tabletop game. The idea is pretty raw at the moment, but I have posted it here stracmark.blogspot.co.nz. I hope to be able to put it into practice soon. |
Caliban | 29 Jun 2017 2:51 a.m. PST |
Thanks for posting, Mark. I hope you don't mind – I've posted a link on my blog thing. This is a really neat way to represent all sorts of useful things. |
pzivh43 | 29 Jun 2017 3:10 a.m. PST |
An interesting concept. I assume that in a 2-player/side game, each side will have one of these maps to keep the fog of war engaged? |
Mark Strachan | 29 Jun 2017 3:12 a.m. PST |
No problem. I have thought of a few more things this evening and may add them to the post tomorrow |
Mark Strachan | 29 Jun 2017 3:16 a.m. PST |
Yes you could user separate maps but I don't know If they are necessary. If you use a number of dummy counters you can introduce some interesting twists. |
Wargamorium | 29 Jun 2017 5:20 a.m. PST |
This looks quite interesting and I look forward to any follow up. Please post again when you have tried this system. Regards |
Extra Crispy | 29 Jun 2017 5:39 a.m. PST |
Very interesting! Loads of possibilities here! |
Bob in Edmonton | 29 Jun 2017 6:10 a.m. PST |
I've done something similar using secret point-to-point movement, varable movement rates (light units move faster) and roadway carrying capacity limits (X units per turn, only movement in one direction per turn). Basically a simpler version of what you have done (so as not to distract from the miniature game too much) that introduces the possibility of flank marches and late reinforcements (depending on how effectively the players manage their road columns). Adds a fun bit of fog of war to an encounter game for not much extra work. |
Tom Molon | 29 Jun 2017 6:40 a.m. PST |
Mark, I like your idea. As already said, it opens the door for a lot of interesting options. One thought occurred to me as I read it. Along each hex trail pathway you have readable notes/instructions (like "Go back 3"). If both sides are using the same chart, the enemy knows what's going on. If only you can see the chart, you can examine the various trails, look at the messages indicated, and choose your path accordingly to give you the safest or quickest route. What about replacing the visible instructions on any trail hex with a "?". When landing there the player draws a chance card or rolls against a random occurrence list to discover what happened: "delayed 1 turn", "bridge unusable, find a ford", "locals show easier/faster route so you arrive 1 move quicker", etc. That way you don't know what to expect, and if your opponent can see the chart, he gains no extra knowledge. Obviously you could make the instructions as detailed as you wanted. Anyhow, just my thoughts. You have a good idea there. I'd be curious to see what additional modifications you make to it. Thanks for sharing it. Tom |
attilathepun47 | 29 Jun 2017 9:13 a.m. PST |
This looks to be an excellent basic idea for a better method of handling off-table movement. Although many refinements could be made, I would suggest avoiding the temptation of making it too complicated, as that would tend towards bogging down the actual table-top game. |
Shagnasty | 29 Jun 2017 9:30 a.m. PST |
|
The Virtual Armchair General | 29 Jun 2017 10:37 a.m. PST |
Positively elegant! When perfected--and I don't think that's much of a stretch to accomplish--I can definitely see this provided among the usual Optional Rules with a variety of systems. It would take relatively little effort to tune this system for Colonials, general Horse and Musket, possibly ancients (though flank marches, etc, are less representative of the era), and certainly at least up to WW I. For games in the era of air power, such flank marches are just as possible, but with an element of being detected from above. This could also be an encouragement to represent observation balloons from ACW forward by allowing the possessing side to "see" some number of hexes off the table before they would arrive on the table top. Indeed, there is no reason why the same system couldn't be used in a "pre-game" application to determine initial entry points from which the table top action would develop. So long as the table top has already been set up, each side could divide their force--or not--as preferred, and choose their route(s) of approach to the existing battlefield. Given the crucial variability in effective movement rates while off table on those routes, the action could authentically develop without requiring another arbitrary, mind numbing, repetitive set-piece initial deployment. Think of an event like Gettysburg: Both sides approach the (essentially pre-ordained) battlefield, but from several possible points of entry, then maneuver to contact. By this system, the Union Cavalry--moving generally faster than the Infantry--can arrive on the table first, and actually move to engage Heth's division to win time for the bulk of their forces to enter the table and, possibly, take the high ground before the enemy can. Indeed, so long as the scenario has a non-playing GM, all pre-battle map maneuvers can be done the night--or days--before the game. The players make their approach choices, deploy their units to the map, and the GM works out when the first unit(s) of each side reaches the table top. If one one or more units of one side can arrive before the first unit(s) of the other, then when the game actually begins, those first-comers can make as many "free moves" from their entry point for each turn they beat the enemy to the field. Not only does this system provide actual benefits of Observation Balloons (if not aircraft), but it re-emphasizes the value of Light Troops. As suggested already, by generally moving faster, they actually do become the eyes and ears of the army, scouting the battlefield, and reporting on where the enemy is, and even provide estimates of his strength. And there's this: Allow the lines of approach to work BOTH ways. E.g. if the left hand force can put units on the table, unopposed, those units--particularly Light Troops/Scouts--can cross the table unopposed and explore one of the right hand forces' lines of approach. Naturally, no combat "off table" would actually be fought--the table top being the action that matters--but could constitute further delays to approaching forces. In this environment, Light Cavalry (in particular) and Infantry now can play their true roles. Having Lt. Dragoons (or armored car recce units, etc) no longer have to be pitted against the enemy units they normally never would be. Such units can always remain on the table top, especially when they've completed their scouting/recce roles, but don't have to be used up on the battlefield simply because they're part of an OB. Light Cavalry, etc, are never meant to engage enemy Heavy Cavalry, Artillery, or formed Infantry--they just get blown away to no realistic purpose. Yet, this system can restore to them their very raison d'etre. Like all the best ideas, this is simple, direct, and can help eliminate that arbitrary "edge of the world" effect almost all war games previously had to accept. As this model becomes a bit deeper, by all means please keep us updated. |
Yellow Admiral | 29 Jun 2017 11:54 a.m. PST |
Excellent idea, and some good suggestions. Just a few things to add: Instead of totally randomizing off-table movement distance (1d6 per move), make the approach march speed a player decision. My simplest idea would be to give the units a maximum march speed (H&M example: art 2, inf 3, cav 5), with faster speeds causing increasing attrition (stragglers and weariness). If you prefer to have some amount of randomness, give the players a choice of how many dice to roll, with a roll of 1 meaning "no move", a 2-5 meaning "move one", and a 6 meaning "move one and suffer attrition". The exact nature of attrition would depend on the game system and maybe the scenario. If marching multi-unit commands along the off-table pathways (that's what I'd do), march order should be set before game start. Arrival order is a command decision infrequently allowed (or even unimportant) to miniatures gamers, but it can have far-reaching consequences on the battlefield, and it adds an extra level of engagement to the pre-battle planning. The first game or two, most players won't know what to do, but experience in choosing march order makes it into another general-officer skill set – and sometimes provides fun anecdotes ("last time I put my artillery at the head of the column, it got wiped out before I could protect it; but when I put it at the back of the column, it never got into the fight"). Speaking from experience:
- I would work to avoid off-table contacts. Just change the routes so it's not possible. Off-table encounters sound like a neat extra layer, but are likely to become a whole extra sub-game that, in the end, aren't the miniatures game everybody came to play. Caveat: multi-table games like Snappy Nappy make such a sub-game into an awesome part of the game.
- Ensure that units entering the table always have a way to come on. The simplest way I've found to guarantee this is to put at least one unit from each column on the table at each entry point at the beginning of the game. Rules to adjudicate "fighting your way on" can get complicated fast, and tend to make the edge of the world seem even more artificial (e.g., limiting how close enemies can approach an entry point, forcing enemy units to back up when someone enters the table, entering units having to assault their way onto the table, etc.).
- If possible, ensure that table terrain blocks long-range shooting at an entry point. Ranged fire interdiction of approaches is mostly anachronistic until well into WWI, and in game terms it should really be done entirely on-table anyway, where players have tactical options to avoid or negate it.
- Ix |
Mark Strachan | 29 Jun 2017 12:30 p.m. PST |
Thanks for the comments. I have added a few paragraphs to the original post about how to handle off table clashes. Tom, if the system survives the first live test, I may well add some detail as you have suggested, but don't want it to become too complex so that it detracts from game itself. |
Extra Crispy | 01 Jul 2017 1:59 p.m. PST |
I'm currently working on a Leipzig scenario. I may have the French deploy on map while the Allies "arrive" using your system. Should make for a very interesting scenario! With only one side using the map, that will make it a lot easier as GM. Once the French are deployed (I'll be using a semi-hidden system where you can tell there are troops, but not who/what they are) Turn 1 starts with the first column. Since it will be a multi player game, I'll have each allied commander roll for his column separately so they don't know exactly when to expect their Allies to show up. |
Ottoathome | 31 Jul 2017 5:53 a.m. PST |
I handle the whole thing with just a few dice rolls in my OGABAS system. This is for what I call large flanking movements. There are two types, narrow flanking movements off an edge that can accommodate this (scenario dependent) are handled by simply slapping another table up to that side. My war game table is made of eight small tables 3 by 4 ft in size. Usually six are used for a 6 by 9. Three others are available for these narrow turning movements. longer turning movements which can allow the troops to move off the table and re-enter at any allowed edge are handled this way. 1. All such movements must be led by an officer. This officer has a rating from one to four. 2.Only units within 8" of the officer may make the movement. Any number of units may move with the officer though they must have some part of their stand within 8" (note I use 30mm troops on big stands 4" by 8". 3. Any unit not within 1 measure of an enemy unit may make this movement. 4. The "flanking" force then rolls one die. If the die roll is a 1, the player may remove the units under control of the officer to a position off the field. You may add the ability of the officer to the die rolled. Thus an officer with a 4 ability could be added to the 1 to make the movement at a score of 5. A six is always a failure. You may take additional officers with you but they cannot add their score to the movement. 5. Once off the field the units and officers must stay there for a turn. You cannot immediately re-enter the battle. While in this state you must roll again under the same procedure as above and if you roll a 1 to 5 you are unaffected. If you roll a six the units are LOST and cannot re-enter the field. 6. On the following turn you may chose any point on any side of the battlefield allowed for re-entry (Scenario Depenent) and roll again. If you roll anything but a six then you can enter your troops AT the point or within 8" of it. You can move the troops only 1 measure onto the field. If you roll a six, the troops lose their way and never enter. That's the basic schemata. The rest is umpire driven. Once had a game at a convention where BOTH sides sent 2/3 of their troops off the table. I simply made a few extra die rolls and a lot of these wandering groups wound up in small battles on single table tops battkling it out until they decided to give up and go back (more movement in limbo) and so forth. The control is in the mechanism itself. Few players have the stones to chance maybe a quarter of their army never coming back, even though they can lose only on a six. Even less if they are going to be battling a similar wandering force which may be hugely superior to it. |
|