"How far should a minature be able to move in a game?" Topic

Some minature games stand out to me as Great Games. What to me makes them stand out is that under the right circumstances (i.e unopposed) they can reasonably re-deploy within a game to a completly different section of the table. Without mentioning my own rules but relating to their inspiration in what is achieveable is DBM with regular troops they can move great distances. This makes the other players deploy more plausibly and for more modern games allows genuine outflanking if an unprotected flank is detected. At a large scale this could be Dickies bridge in WW2.

How far is far, to me at least 1/2 to a full board in a single move. Note this move is not expectd to be in battle formation but in a mode comensurate with getting there quickly. Typicaly over open ground or down a none to bendy good roads in coloumn, so dessing of battle lines is not practical on the way.

I did read on here a series of opinions on a so-called proffesional writer who thouought games should be down to 6" and 12" move only. This typifies the stunted approach of the "Feathersone Clones" which have not really improved rules over decades, just added even more bucketfulls of dice. Of of course this view may contrivercial ;-).

My opinion is that a game must test the players ability to concentrate in time and space, plan in detail and contantly ajust the plan in accordance with circumstances, rather than spend hours working out army lists and throwing buckets of die, may in of itself be controversial, whether being more so, than the inderstanding that a good game should not allow idle social chatter as it means you are not fully engrosed in the game (ducks and runs for cover).

Well as youve trashed anyone with an opposing point of view, answering seems pointless.

Im sure you're a fun guy to game with…

It seems to me that context is more important than a general 'move great distances' philosophy. What are you trying to simulate? If the subject matter and behaviors of the combatants require 'great distances,' then use great distances. If not, then don't.

I appreciate you stating your opinions on what makes a great game FOR YOU. For others, it may be buckets full of dice and army planning. Others may prefer a Kriegspiel approach. Or playing a 'Featherstone Clone.' The hobby is big enough to allow all of it. For me, I don't ever want to be accused of telling anyone that they're 'not having fun the right way.'

Crossfire does that well, for a limited situation.
And it's surely dependent upon the scope of the game. And how do you amount for the hundred foot generals who can see that there's behind those woods is undefended, or who know where, on the other side of the hill, their opponents reserves are.
What scale of games do you play?

I would be fascinated to hear how a battalion of Hessian Grenadiers could march the length of the table in a single turn, if it were not for that inconvenient battle taking place. But then, I'm stunted and I'm un-enlightened. So I'll continue to use 6" and 12".

It must be that time of month again. We're going to be lectured, again, about how juvenile and stunted we are if we aren't playing simulations.

"I may be controversial, but it is blatantly obvious to anyone with an intellect that I am correct."

Ehh. Some of would be juvenile and stunted even if we are playing simulations.

Your statements are meaningless without context of scale. On a skirmish level, yes, of course as Advocate says, Crossfire does this well. Other than that, I agree with eveyone else you come off as looking for validation more than wanting to have a discussion.

I think more limited movement rates actually require more detailed planning, because you don't have the instant gratification of zipping a unit down the whole table length. You have to set up your moves and adjust things as they play out over a few turns.

I've played games where, in extreme cases, the very fast movement rates make things sort of tactically meaningless. It starts to become like teleportation. Not my cup of tea.

That's not to say there is no place for very fast movement. But I like games where a lot of thought has gone into scaling movement rates to be appropriate to the subject matter and ground scale of the game.

I think I will continue to play as I have for the past 50 years and enjoy rolling dice and participating in idle chatter with my friends and co-gamers.
But please elaborate on the rational of what you are proposing – moving 1/2 to the full length of the table.
Oh yes – I would appreciate it if you had a bit more respect for Mr. Featherstone and those who reccognize his contributions to our hobby.

My opinion is that a game must test the players ability to concentrate in time and space, plan in detail and contantly ajust the plan in accordance with circumstances, rather than spend hours working out army lists and throwing buckets of die, may in of itself be controversial, whether being more so, than the inderstanding that a good game should not allow idle social chatter as it means you are not fully engrosed in the game (ducks and runs for cover).

Detailed planning and high levels of concentration preclude consumption of beers and whiskies. How can it be a "good game" without those?

- Ix

For large scale rules there seem to be two issues – can the redeploying unit get to wherever in time, and will it be moot because the opponent can see the long line of columns hoofing it across the back of the board.

We have experimented in ACW games a couple of times with using the reverse of Chain of Command's jumping off points. Certain points in the back are assumed to be sufficiently screened (as long as no enemy is too close) to allow units to be removed and given a secret order. Later the order can be revealed and the unit moved on at the selected jumping off point.

Hi UshCha – Your "ducks and runs for cover" closing remark certainly signifies intelligent advance planning on your part. While you and I almost certainly dwell on the same side of the game vs sim spectrum, I myself might have chosen language a bit less flammable to articulate my outlook. ;-)

"How far should a miniature be able to move in a game?"

What does the miniature represent – a foot soldier, a horseman, a tank, an F22? I wonder if relating the question to distance is necessarily the correct approach. Perhaps the question might best be approach from the point of view of time, or time available. What period of time would be available to a moving element before the opponent was able to detect and react?

It's a complicated issue.

B

Interesting question and context of scale is important.

In a game to get some type of interaction involves IGOUGO, reactions or timing.

My approach is to determine what I'll call a "lowest common denominator" for timing. In a 1:1 skirmish tank engagement that attempts to historically recreate a shot by shot outcome using historic rates of fire this comes out to a "lowest common denominator" of from 1 to 5 seconds.

So how far can a unit move? At 35kph a vehicle is moving at about 10m per second. In WWII an "average" engagement time for the first shot at a target could be from 5-15 seconds (I won't go over all of the variables here). That would allow a vehicle at 35kph to move 50m – 150m and potentially move out of LOS before getting shot at. During that 5-15 seconds, any number of enemy units could shoot at and knock out the enemy tank engaging the moving tank. Timing recreates interaction between all units on the table without the need for traditional reaction rules.

The way I look at it is that "timing" between moving and shooting units handles all of the opportunity fire problems created when you have a turn of 30-90 seconds and attempt to determine exactly where the moving target is when fired at. Using a timing value of 1-5 seconds allows you to use historic performance values for movement, turret rotation and rate of fire with a minimum of abstraction and still be playable. Turns are called out in sequence and units with an order to fire for that turn do so.

In games using musket armed linear formations, the timing value might be 60 seconds. So a unit movement rate of 1.5m per second would let them move 90 meters and be long enough for the enemy to reload and fire their muskets. Using 60-second turns would also allow a good recreation of units changing formation and orders being relayed from the rear to the front lines. Better trained units perform their actions more quickly giving them the initiative over the enemy.

The benefit of this is that the players are thinking about a time and distance relationship between his units and the enemy rather than binary reaction results or an IGOUGO turn. You don't need to teach players time and distance relationships as it's already ingrained in all of us.

In the image above you can see that moving tanks have a "movement arrow" that shows the speed, direction and distance it will move in 5 turns. The arrows are divided into 5 segments to show a second-by-second movement without the player needing to move the vehicle (I call this "virtual movement"). Every 5th turn ALL players with a model with a movement arrow move the model to the end of the arrow and it is pointed in the new direction of movement. This allows a playable simultaneous movement with movement restrictions so players can't cheat.

It's easy to visualize or estimate the time and distance relationship where moving units will be in any future turn. If you are going to engage a moving target taking 10 turns to get the shot off will allow the target to move two movement arrow distances.

Ushcha uses a similar method with his "Gaze" rule.

Wolfhag

By the way, that quirky teleportation rule in DBA 2 is Removed from the newest edition, DBA3

Thanks, Wolfhag for giving the OP a useful answer.

UshCha, I think that game designer Frank Chadwick largely agrees with you. If I recall correctly, he has been increasing the ability of units to move consistently with his later rulesets, leaving it to terrain and enemy units to restrict movement.

I do skirmish gaming on a 2'x 2' board. Typically, a soldier can be deployed up to 6" from the edge. A 6" move is now halfway across the table. A +d6 Dash can put the soldier at the enemy deployment zone in first turn. A bummer about that Guard and Snap fire he (or she) faces during that move…

Terrain can also limit movement. No one plays on an empty board and just runs straight into the enemy machine guns, right?

I choose to remain stunted :)

Is it realistic to be able to redeploy in the face of the enemy?
I would think creeping and short dashes in order.

I think most ww2 tanks moved pretty slow if expecting trouble. The need to stop to shoot, keep an eye out for sneaky infantry et al.

And another stuntie heard from. In my ignorance, I thought movement distances should be a function of troop type, terrain, how much distance was represented by an inch and how much time by a turn. Obviously I've been overthinking the problem.

As for the "no social interaction" as the mark of a good game, surely that would mean that the very best games are played against computers? Now, as far as I'm concerned, if I have to wrestle with a computer, someone has to pay me serious money. It's not recreation.

Overall, that post was painful to read, and that had nothing to do with the content. You may find your ideas are treated more seriously when you master the intricacies of English spelling and grammar, and discover the delights of proof-reading. You'll still be wrong, of course, but you'll be wrong with dignity.

To OP

Depends how long a turn is, whether the units involved have sufficient training/leadership, what terrain is like over the distance and whether the enemy is able to shoot at them.

Depends on ground scale and size of battle and I am sure many other things.

In general I dislike turns that are long enough for troops to move a significant distance in a single turn, it can make forces very generic. I am fine with march moves that get to within a certain distance of the enemy

this move is not expected to be in battle formation

Now we start to take the period into account. For something like ancients, it is unlikely that a formation once lost, could be regained.

Just some food for thought

John

Tacitus, the OP is famous for framing every single "discussion" of rules mechanics in terms of his way, the so-called "simulation" way, or at least his interpretation of it. It is the ONLY correct and proper way to play a wargame.
All other ways are silly and juvenile, if not pernicious.
I sometimes wonder how he manages to use the words "play" and "game". They are SO non-serious.

Robert P does have a good point that I think applies to all of us.

Here is how I come across as an educated gentleman having mastered the intricacies of the English language including spelling and grammar.

It's free:
grammarly.com

Enjoy

Wolfhag

Seriously, UshCha, you would get a lot fewer belligerent responses if you didn't assume prima facie that everyone who doesn't play a game in your approved manner was an imbecile.

I think the OP has a valid point (even if he framed his argument in slightly confrontational terms). There are examples in all eras where the rapid movement of a section of an army has swung the balance. In my favourite period, Ramillies springs to mind. I think it perfectly acceptable to have a provision for units which are outside a certain distance from the enemy to be given the ability to move much more quickly than those which are in "tactical engagement distance" of the enemy.
I played a couple of games using the principle of " The Variable Bound"; these games create some practical difficulties for the GM, but they give an interesting game for the players and throw up tactical challenges.
I certainly don't subscribe to the notion that the social aspects of gaming are unimportant, otherwise, I would play solo.

Could it possibly be that the appropriate portion of a tabletop to be covered in a single turn would vary depending on the period and level of the game?

No, I rechecked the original post. All great games have the same movement rate, which can only be 6" or 12" if you play on a 12" board. Otherwise, you've simply refused to learn or grow up. That's not "slightly confrontational" Steaming Dave. That's insulting.

Interestingly enough, I think UshCha failed to read the book which provoked the previous thread. (Can't be sure, since he doesn't provide a link.) It sounds like the discussion concerning TABLETOP WARGAMES by Priestly and Lambshead. Except--Priestly doesn't actually provide a distance. He specifies a percentage of the table (1/8) to be covered by the slowest units, which in his experience works well in tactical games. It only becomes 6" if one assumes all miniatures games are played on boards 4' opponent to opponent, world without end, Amen. Many of us--myself included, when I'm not careful--tend to assume wargames are whatever is customary in our own circles.

UshCha, how far across is your board? And how fast does your infantry move once it gets out of its trucks?

Just to be clear, I think there are games which can call for some fairly rapid movement--mostly moderns, those at at the highest levels of representation for time and distance--and, sometimes, "bathtubbed games" which is a separate issue. I just get tired of being told there is only One True Way to conduct miniature warfare. If I want to listen to religious fanatics, there are political websites.

Just to stir the pot, there is a grand tactical Napoleonic set of rules that have an option of horizon movement. In a nutshell, that is a mechanism wherein you can move units to the next obstacle, be that a wood, hill, town or the other side of the table. Basically, you can move in one turn to the unit's sight horizon – ie, the limit of their line of sight.

It's quite interesting – if one does take advantage of unlimited movement, one finds that your army gets into all sorts of awkward situations. The designer definitely gives you all the rope you could wish to hang yourself!

The rules are NOT Igougo, otherwise it would be pointless. But, given the opportunity to rapidly march a brigade and take the high ground across the table, do you do it? Isolated, can they hold off the superior numbers of the enemy until – or if – the rest of your army marches to support?

How far should a minature be able to move in a game?

To be perfectly honest, if I look over and see miniatures moving during a game, apart from these moved by players, I'm either going to stop playing in that basement, or take the pledge, or both.

When there is no longer a LOS between units we switch to "strategic" movement where players will indicate where they want to move to and we speed up the game with movement at 3x-4x the tactical rate until LOS is established again. We then revert back to "tactical" scale for the engagement. This speeds the game up.

If the attacker has a good speed advantage over a defender and can flank enough to move out of his LOS he can get a good jump on flanking the defender. This forces the defender to leave some units behind to intercept that type of move.

Wolfhag

Far enough to get where you need to go before the game ends…

There was a Bolt Action scenario where you had to move onto the board and get off the opposing edge to earn the most pints, everything else was a consolation prize. Troops moved 6" and fired or 12" without firing. The board is 4" wide and the game lasts 6 turns. Since you have to move onto the board, not start deployed, you could REACH the edge of the board in 4 turns of flat out running and leave on the 5th. So you spent the entire game running, getting shot at and trying to get off the board without attacking. If you stopped and attacked you ran the risk of never getting into the end zone or even off the board. God forbid there were any terrain features that acted as a choke point or terrain you couldn't run through…

For me – I always liked the Empire/Stars and Bars Strategic Move versus tactical move

However, I prefer games where the range is not the length of the table and units don't move with god like powers

Tactical or whats in front of me will usually impact my choices in movement and disengaging to move somewhere else to a different part of the battlefield outside of tactical range should have consequences or at least a check as I dont believe it should be automatic

The example of long movement in crossfire is a good one. By definition ranges of weapons are unlimited in crossfire so a board a few hundred meters across in ground scale is applicable.

Tony S example is Napolionic so period, and scale are not direct issues depending on the rule design scheme.

Thus the issue is more about the game design scheme than actual physical ground scale,

Interesting that chess games do not does not typically include beer breaks, so not doing so in a war game would not be without precedent.

Worse still in the UK we cannot drink and drive so consumption of beer and whiskey is not possible while moving the trappings wargame, perhaps this is the true reason for boargames, taxi and public transport friendly and hence whisky is a possibility.

I did have to look up Frank Chadwick, that is not surprising as his games are not ones I play, though even I was aware of Traveller.

As an aside is Crossfire the only genuine unmeasured movement set of rules? Obviously grid games are just measurement done by grid not measureieng tape. Even in our own game unlimited movement only applies to some types of movements, so does not qualify.

I suspect large movements typicaly (but not always DBM being one exception ) may be restricted to games where the board features dence terrain (Crosfire being one such) and hence allows movement out of sight/tactical range.

Lots of games have 'march moves' or 'reserve moves' available to units not engaged with the enemy. Those moves are often very large.
Look at the move distances in Volley & Bayonet, or the reserve movement in Blucher or Age of Eagles, or road movement in Rommel.
So, no, large moves are not restricted as you describe; maybe you've just not played many different sets of rules?

I'll try to answer be question.

A game that only allows 6" or 12" moves, but is really fun to play, is a Great Game.

A game that allows variable movement rates, but is not fun to play, is not, and never will be, a Great Game.

The reverse of both statements is true as well. The common element to a Great Game is fun, not any single rules mechanic.

Worse still in the UK we cannot drink and drive

I hope that was an attempt at humour.

I can think of several instances of redeployment during battles in the ancient period, Metaurus and Pharsalus spring to mind. But it's not the norm and several conditions need to be met before allowing it; viz
1. Why is your general ordering it? Is the general figure actually in a position to see something to make him change his initial deployment? ie not you in your elevated 'helicopter' observation position.
2. Can he inform each of the units doing so by word of mouth, either personally or by messenger? Not by signalling, I doubt any army of the period had a signal for 'suddenly change flank'.
3. Can the troops pass a morale test to 'follow new orders'
4. If the troops move, they must be screened from the enemy by friendly forces, or view blocking terrain, during their entire forced march.
5. Forced marching units will suffer a cause of disorder whilst doing so, and a second cause of disorder if contacted by enemy whilst doing so, and must march in column.
6. Units arriving at destination require a whole turn stationary to recover their battle formation from disorder, before any other action.
7. Forced marching units move at normal speed plus three quarters.
It's slow, but works for us (home grown rules)

The movement of a unit is subject to constraints in the real world. To me that has to be reflected in a game. Yes an infantryman can sprint, jog, walk, crawl or cower behind cover. So they can move to cover longer distances in any given period of time, but at a cost. How important the cost is will depend upon the period the game is set in. Running to cover a long distance will tire men, leave them out of breathe, disrupt command and control and break up formations. If we are dealing with WW2 formation is less of a problem than it is for a SYW infantry formation. To me we shouldn't give the advantage with considering the disadvantage. Otherwise there are no decisions to make, no trade offs to consider. No basis for a game as all we have are a series of optimum actions with no downside so no choice to be made.

As far as their period models would in the time span of a game turn, given time to think, orders and overwhelming confusion and fright. Use period info. Use a bigger table if it gives trouble, or a different tile span.

I am primarily interested in the Boer War, and one aspect of that conflict was just how difficult it was to move troops around the battlefield once the action started. Indeed, even moving around before a battle was quite an under-taking, and could not usually be done without alerting the enemy.

I'm struggling to think of a battle in that conflict where a unit of either side was suddenly 'tele-ported' from one side of the field to the other.

One general writing about the war noted that it proved that 'in modern warfare' troops under fire can only move forwards or back. The wargamer fantasy of moving troops here, there and everywhere is just that.

If a player retains a reserve, I agree that this should have more options (which is, of course, why any commander worth his salt kept one) On the other hand, units anywhere near the action are pretty much stuck doing what they were ordered to do that morning, and any units which come under fire should only really be able to either assault that enemy unit, go firm, or retire (and 9 times out of ten, this shouldn't be decided by the player).

Oh, I believe the only real rule is that they stay are still on the table after the move.

Gree leader it all depends on context. One acount form a "moderen tanker" On the second shot move out. After the first shgot the driver reved up, heard the second shot, let the clutch out and reversed on the way to a new pre surveyed position.

I am not suggesting a fast move out of typical contact but it may be possible to move relatively fast to a new position if you are currntly not engaged, or like the above have a break contact drill.

Tactical movement on contact is as much about how many "rounds of fire" the designer wants to resolve a firefight vs the range over which this takes place. Napolionic games often whant to resolve fire more than once over the 180 or so yards of musket fire (Just over a minute at 150 pace a minute). This may be the controlling issue for tactical movement.

Yes, I agree that uncommitted reserve troops should be able to be moved reasonably quickly, though still not sure about them being able to move to a 'completely different section' of the table in a single turn.

Taking the Battle of Wagon Hill as an example: troops committed on Caesar's Camp and Wagon Hill could not be moved from one to the other really. Reserves were indeed brought up from behind, however, but some of these took several hours to be moved the few miles from Ladysmith to either feature – it was not so much the actual physical act of moving, but also the time taken to muster, issue orders etc.

We were always taught in the army that EVERYTHING takes longer than you think it will: for example, we worked on an average speed of just 1 km / hour when planning night time patrol ops.