"What’s wrong with IGOUGO?" Topic

Are you seriously trying to claim that everything in life is simultaneous?

I like IGO/UGO am pie, so there!

Nothing?

Player interaction or lack thereof. In extreme cases it could lead to a game being decided before the second player gets a chance to do anything. I prefer:

A moves
B reacts/fires
A fires
Close Combat
B moves
A reacts/fires
B fires
Close Combat

I think there was a version of this in TRACTICS

I also prefer IGOUGO, though I think there's room for a reaction or response phase and/or simultaneous fire. It's not perfect, but I find the game flows faster and involves few arguments than marked maps or written orders.

And no, of course everything in life in not simultaneous. Lots of things happened years ago, and some of them are happening right now.

no, but I'm fairly certain the sides in a war don't go "Your move!" over and over.

I find that IGO/UGO and alternating or integrated activations both have their place in certain kinds of games. I used to be really against IGO/UGO, but I now understand it's value in many situations.

I am all for it with some variations

What Saber6 said, which is why I like the reaction system in Two Hour Wargames rules.

I find true UGO/IGO systems make the game primarily a math exercise. Over the years I have found players who are risk averse prefer this system because of its inherent predictability and their comfort with the level of control that gives them.

You can figure the probabilities of success based on "X" number of casualties caused at "Y" range resulting in a "Z" chance to break morale. Then rinse, lather, repeat, mathing it out as you alternate turns.

Using move/countermove sequence, defensive/opportunity fire option, opportunity charges, etc. you can mix it up a bit and take away some of the predictability.

I like it. But I also like a random die roll for units or divisions with the highest moving first.

hiya

>>>>>>>>>>>>

Dr X said

I find true UGO/IGO systems make the game primarily a math exercise. Over the years I have found players who are risk averse prefer this system because of its inherent predictability and their comfort with the level of control that gives them.
>>>>

Depends on what your command and control rules do in the Ugo/Igo, if you have a PIP system or other chaos in getting troops to move, or indeed a random event overlay, you can generate enough uncertainty to mix things up.

If indeed each player can move everything, and once only in their go, such games can be effectively concluded after deployment. (assuming the combat / morale system is not too chaotic)

DB

DB, once you mix in PIP's, or random events, or C&C rules, it's no longer IGOUGO.

Me, I like random activation (e.g., The Sword and the Flame or Look Sarge, No Charts).

Nothing wrong with IGOUGO; it brings order to chaos.

The problem with this notion of some players wanting some form of "reaction" move is that then does the first player get to "react" to the "reaction" of the second player. And so forth. It creates an infinite loop of action, reaction, reaction, reaction…etc. The entirety of military combat is one of actions and reactions. A game breaks it down into discrete segments of time with players alternating moves to keep the game from being chaos to play. So my answer to anyone wanting a so call "reaction move" is that you get to do that when it is your turn once again and not before. So suck it up cupcake.

"So my answer to anyone wanting a so call "reaction move" is that you get to do that when it is your turn once again and not before"

Yes i remember sitting in my tank, watching the enemy move left to right from cover into cover and thinking that I could not shoot because it was not my turn! Ha ha how funny a pilot calling folks cupcake from his nice hotel room,

Tally Ho!

I find IGOUGO makes for a gentler game, and makes the play easier to follow.
My own rules allow some reaction where I deem appropriate.

Many games which claim not to be IGOUGO seem to me, to have a sort of random IGOUGO where a unit moves then a random one etc.

Beneath the Lily Banners has one of the best WEALLGO systems, where priority moves depend on the order given, and there is a reaction possibility from the other side.

I play Piquet, and that's a IGOUGO system, but both sides don't get equal 'time' to play within a 'turn' and there is no fixed sequence of events. A turn is made up of 'initiative bounds', of varying lengths, and in some you'll get to do lots of things, in others virtually nothing at all. Within the turn time is elastic, only equalising everywhere at the start and end of a completed turn.

In short, you don't know how much you'll get to do in a turn or when until it ends – it's a brilliantly frustrating, exciting and tension packed set of rules. Not for the control freak or someone who always wants an equal break.

It's UGOIGO, but not as we know it, Jim.

My favorite turn system is in "They Died for Glory". It is IGOUGO but different types of units move a different times.

Nothing wrong with it as long as some sort of ation factor (e.g. A side cannot activate all its units in the same move).

Piquet is no IGOUGO, because everyone can have more than one GO in its turn.

I find true UGO/IGO systems make the game primarily a math exercise.

Any formal set of rules is a math exercise. It can be broken down into transaction and state components and analyzed with network analysis. And, yes, if you can figure out what is happening in IGOUGO then you can conduct network analysis. If you can figure out whether or not a unit reacts to another unit's action, you can do network analysis.

The problem with this notion of some players wanting some form of "reaction" move is that then does the first player get to "react" to the "reaction" of the second player.

Yes, one of the limitations of action-reaction is the inability to execute a "feint". Or any type of STOT activity, like a "pincer".

Yes i remember sitting in my tank, watching the enemy move left to right from cover into cover and thinking that I could not shoot because it was not my turn!

Yes, you probably did this as many times as you sat in your tank saying, "They moved away from my field of vision instead of into it, so I am going to just going to sit here and wait".

Every first person shooter computer game you have ever seen (or played) is IGOUGO. One side's orders are taken in, evaluated, executed, and states are changed. Then the other. Then back again, once each unit has had one turn.

This usually happens between 100 and 200 times a second.

Sitting around and waiting for the other side to go just destroys the realism of these games.

If by "IGOUGO" you mean that one side does everything – moves, shoots and melees – before the other has a chance to do anything, then I don't really like that type of system. I believe that Black Powder is sort of like that, isn't it? However, a system in which Side 1 moves, Side 2 fires, Side 1 fires and then they resolve the melees resulting from Side 1's moves, then repeat these for Side 2, is really still an IGOUGO system, although it is a bit predictable for some players' tastes. This is the way Fire and Fury does it, and it works fine although it is a bit predictable. If the chaos of battle is more what you are after, then you need to look for a system that has alternating movement, fire and melee in no set sequence.

Nothing.

One word: Flames of War (ok 3 words) – so I can run my tank platoon with flank exposed across your tank platoon's/anti-tank gun platoon's line of fire and hide behind terrain without any opportunity fire. No realism.

Unit activation IMO is better than IGOUGO … i.e. One player Activates a unit, then the other player back & forth until all units on both side have been activated.

Using Order Counters for each unit is also used to for this type of system.

And "Opportunity Fire" is used as well …

Nothing.

Of course the "BEST" system is the one that "works" for you & your gaming crew …

I find IGOUGO boring to play and too predictable. I like random activation with cards or dice and the possibility that not every unit will move in a turn.

I'm not a fan of IGOUGO. I've found many games using that system to be too boring.

I like the 2-Hour Wargames reaction system, alternate card draws, or the Force on Force "cascade of reactions" are more my style.

+1 Legion 4!!! Neither is best, we like what we like!

I'm with Legion 4 as well.

While I have no issue with it, I much prefer random activation- like Musket and Tomahawk, Bolt Action, and the like….

I think it depends.
It works well for fantasy games, like Kings of War, for some reason. Yet in historical games like FoW and Black Powder it sucks out some of the 'realism' and common sense.
IGOUGO often gives clean mechanics but the games feel a bit more bland.
Lots of rules have interesting and effective activations to keep all players involved. I'm enjoying Mortem et Gloriam a lot because of that.
There's a difference between making everything simultaneous and making a turn sequence engaging and interactive.

Yes i remember sitting in my tank, watching the enemy move left to right from cover into cover and thinking that I could not shoot because it was not my turn! Ha ha how funny a pilot calling folks cupcake from his nice hotel room,

You make a good point for that particular case.

By the way, it really sucks when the batteries are dead in the tv remote. ;-)

Cheers