"Friction! Some people just don’t get it" Topic

Frankly, with this allure on friction, I'd be surprised if any opponent's Toy Soldier force could ever make it as far as showing up on a tabletop's battlefield –

Sorry no game today guys, the column took a wrong turn, found a stash of vino, or you know – just rolled the wrong dice number (hey it happened all the time in war is the argument).

Getting back to the concept that Rich mentioned, where "Friction, as defined by Clausewitz, means Command Uncertainty". I would think that any game that is not pure "I move everything, then you move everything" simulates command friction.

We can use chess as an example of this. In chess, you can only move one piece in your turn. Now when it is time to do your move, there could be an enemy knight in a position to take out your bishop, your pawn could move into a reinforced position to threaten the opponent's queen, and you have a plan that by moving your rook you can bring about a check on the opponents King with a few turns. You can only move one piece however, you cannot do everything. Is this not friction in command without using dice?

From here there builds so many of the other "activation" systems to simulate command uncertainty;

- draw a counter to see who moves next, so you might be able to move multiple times (BA)

- roll dice to see how many peices/units you move in your turn (DBA/CoC)

- keep activating until you fail to activate (Rampant series, blood bowl)

- some games stay with the diceless chess system (such as DH2, and Necromunda I think).

- etc…

It comes down to personal preference, I don't believe one system can claim superiority over another.

"Overcoming friction is a command challenge, perhaps THE command challenge."

Don't agree with this statement either.

The command challenge in wargames is overcoming your opponent's command decisions, that is if you game socially. Solve static puzzles if that's a hobby, but to many of us it's always about matching wits with a good opponent (or if you're lucky – opponents), and the friction their actions and decisions bring to the game experience.

Layer onto a game, the need to cooperate as a team in a multi-player format, to arrive at an initial plan of action, and then to manage the evolution of this plan as it contorts and flows in reaction to the opponent team's efforts to thwart it. Then discover the friction that occurs between players as stress and losses build, and the player teams attempt to counter on-board-generated adversity.

Now, to Verily's point above (and acknowledging his game count), what does the game industry most need to generate…..new product$. It's just a fact, and sometimes to change, just for "change" sake, and that you can almost certainly buy into!

Wargaming provides one of the few opportunities in which we can be all-seeing Gods in our omniscience, all our well-conceived plans do survive contact with the enemy and be perfectly executed like a well-choreographed ballet. Don't take that away from us.

Dear Mr Clarke, you wrote
"Eighteen years ago a bloke on TMP said that to be into TooFatLardies rules you had to be into free love and mind bending drugs"

I would like to complain.
I have purchased several sets of your rules and search as I might I cannot find any drugs mind bending or otherwise in the booklets and certainly no free love, not even with the Kiss Me Hardy set of rules!
signed
Disappointed of Dulwich

There is a roster of TMP members, and I am not naming names or giving the number, with whom I would play a game once. Then never again.

The command challenge in wargames is overcoming your opponent's command decisions, that is if you game socially.

That's one definition amongst many and really a matter of opinion.

Command is just that, command – telling your units what you would like them to do and trying to see that it is executed as you would wish. Naturally you do that in relation to the activity of your opponent, but 'command' is instructing others what to do. If I command a unit of raw conscripts the chances they will carry out a plan, no matter how brilliant, are surely greatly reduced when compared to issuing a similar command to an experienced, elite unit. The challenge of command must be broader than simply overcoming your opponents decisions it must also be about how you harness what you have and make effective use of it. You then need to add in external factors beyond both you and your opponent's control, anything from the variability of terrain, changes in the weather, systems or equipment failures etc.

The more factors you consider the greater the opportunity for one or more of these to influence outcomes. The actions of your opponent is only one of them. Montgomery used to talk about commanders having 'grip', referring to the way a commander needs to try to control events much like a rider gripping the reins of a galloping horse. The command challenge is to react quickly to balance all the variables and still keep the horse galloping forward without the rider falling off.

I think command is about managing a multiplicity of factors, most of which are variable. There are many very satisfying game experiences designed for solo play or co-operative play where there is never an actual physical opponent, where you deal with the challenges of simply bringing your team or units to a certain point successfully.

I'm probably too late for the party but here goes…

I'm fairly familiar with two of the games refereed to, the Two hour system and Black Powder.

As mentioned above, when combat begins in the THW system, it is handled in a semi-random manner. This doesn't take ALL of the decision making out of the player's hands but does a lot to determine what the game pieces can or will do. In most IGO-YGO systems, the player often logically wants to eliminate the enemy's most potent figures such as machine gunners and such. The player's figures may not agree, in fact, if fired upon by a more lethal system than the figure may possess, it may dive for cover instead!

In Black Powder, Brigade commanders give orders to their subordinate Battalions/Regiments. This is not totally random but based on their Staff rating. This is a combination of their skill at command coupled with the competence of their staff in one number.

A dice is rolled and 1,2,3 or 0 movement 'bounds' may be taken. If you can fulfill your orders in 2 bounds and are granted 3, just ignore the excess. Also you can get a 'blunder' roll and movement is determined by a random chart roll.

Once the subordinate units are within a certain distance to the enemy, they dispense with the orders system and do what ever the player wants. This simulates the regimental Colonel fighting his unit according to his personal orders and not relying slavishly to the Brigadier.

I have played many games where a player has to simulate giving orders to subordinate commanders, including the physical task of writing and receiving them. BP just uses a dice roll to encompass all of them.

Did the regimental commander have trouble reading or interpreting his written orders? Did he waste time conferring or arguing with his staff? Did any verbal instructions clarify or muddy the orders? Did the courier get lost or have his brains blown out en-route?
Is the Colonel moving quickly by guessing properly ahead of time or is he simply an incompetent twit? Just throw the dice and write in the back story later.

The commander stuff comes in when you allow for fact that the perfect plan may need a fall back position sometimes. You are also posed the challenge of reinforcing success and hedging against failure. Friction is both fun and educational!

The OP seems to reject any "simulation" of friction that includes a die roll.

Wrong.
Where did I ever say or suggest that?
Talk about ‘verballing'

So, again I ask, what game simulates "friction" WITHOUT a die roll?
I'm not being snotty. I am genuinely curious how he expects it to be done.

I never suggested what you're implying, but CoC, DH2 and BA are three examples just off the top of my head.
Oh,… and ALL of the Command and Colours Games

Hi Big Red

Trailape, what games do you feel are fun AND reasonably realistic that also represent friction very well?

All the Command and Colour games
Chain of Command
Sharp Practice
IABSM
Black Powder
Pickett's Charge and GdA
Maurice
Longstreet
I'm sure there are plenty of others.
I'm not saying there aren't plenty of good rules that factor in ‘Friction'.
I'm suggesting there are just a lot of people / gamers who don't understand what Friction is as articulated by Clausewitz.
😀
Hence the title of my post.
Hence why it's not ‘Friction: Some Rules Don't Include it, so they suck'!

The examples I've listed are examples of I've ACTUALLY experienced on operations.

Trailape et all.

Hi. I find that friction is a fun element in wargames and an important one in warfare.

I'll bet that while all those random occurrences happened in your experience, they didn't all happen with equal frequency and your unit/team did things to mitigate them… Different units would experience rates of 'friction' in different amounts and different areas.

Contrary to Clausewitz's view, friction doesn't happen everywhere in equal amounts or frequency. Lots of studies and combat experience to that point. Certainly unpredictable things happen, but if we are talking realism/copying the Friction found in combat, any portrayal would have to mimic the actual rates and areas of 'friction.'

And certainly it has to be defined. I think the 'chess' article including player 'indecision' or a lack of a goal as 'friction', paints with to wide a brush. McClellan's indecision at Antietam was a lot of things, but as a commander's challenges, that was friction.

what games do you feel are fun AND reasonably realistic that also represent friction very well?
All the Command and Colour games
Chain of Command
Sharp Practice
IABSM
Black Powder
Pickett's Charge and GdA
Maurice
Longstreet

All those games represent different scales and thus different types/scales of friction. Chain of Command has @ 4 second turns whereas Pickett's Charge and GdA have 15 to 20 minute turns. [And I have and enjoy a number of them.]

All those rules sets are good examples of what I mean. For example, Brigades in Pickett's Charge has a raw average of 1 of 3 chance of hesitating. Now, depending on what events are circumscribed by that term 'hesitating', the question is did ACW brigades hesitate one third of the time without Command prodding/attention? Is that 'realistic?' Based on what 'realism.' I asked Dave B. what he based his hesitation rate on and he simply found that game-wise 'it worked.'

That's fine, but does that hesitation rate have anything to do with ACW warfare [Or Napoleonic in GdA for that matter]? And that isn't counting how often or how many staff aides are available.

The old adage about 'For the want of a nail, a shoe was lost, for the want of a shoe, the horse was lost…"

What is forgotten is that message the courier is carrying is at a critical juncture in the battle compared to the typical messages. The commander failed to send two couriers [Common practice for that very reason], or well-informed [like Nolan at Balaclava] or a competent rider on such an important mission.etc. etc.

How often were couriers sent out? Napoleon didn't send out any messages for the first several hours of Austerlitz.

Randomness is fun… I love it, but just having card or dice randomness doesn't necessarily represent anything close to reality's friction.

studying freeway accidents, it has been found that:

1. The time of day
2. number of on-ramps
3. number of lanes
4. curves

All impact where accidents occur and how often. While accidents can and do occur anywhere on a stretch of Freeway, it has been found that usually car collisions occur far more frequently at certain times, in certain areas depending more often on the freeway construction. Most all organizations, including the military have studied those points of increased friction, know where they are more likely to occur and take steps to lessen their impact.

Most game designs treat this situation by simply rolling a die and say an accident happens 1 out of 3 times anywhere regardless 'cause it works in the game' and gamers call it realistic because there is friction represented.

I think designers can do better, even without evoking the dreaded word 'simulate.'

"The command challenge in wargames is overcoming your opponent's command decisions, that is if you game socially"

is it really possible to define what wargaming is? Of course such a definition is possibly a great description of what one person wants from their wargaming, but it cannot possibly be applied to all Wargamers. That's not about friction, that's just about personal choice.

As has been said, surely the great thing is that we can all choose the type of game we want and find a set of rules that does that, friction or not? To say that EVERYONE should conform to one such narrow definition smacks of saying that everyone should like what I like and if they don't then they are wrong.

Contrary to Clausewitz's view, friction doesn't happen everywhere in equal amounts or frequency.

Everywhere and in equal amounts?
I don't think that's Clausewitz's view.

As for ‘doing things to mitigate',…
Of course.
This is why we conduct rehearsals of every op and why we have Doctrine and SOPs.
However friction throws up situations you sometimes just can't predict or forecast for in any way shape or form.
That's what we have LEADERS for.
If everything was predictable or every contingency could be planned for there would be no need for NCOs or Officers.
All you would need to do is drill your soldiers rigoursly and hammer doctrine into them.

Everywhere and in equal amounts?
I don't think that's Clausewitz's view.

Trailape:

Here are the second to fourth paragraphs from his chapter on Friction for his work "ON WAR". The pertinent part is the third paragraph below, but the first two do give a good idea of what Clausewitw's concept of 'Friction' was and why it was important.

Everything is very simple in war, but the simplest thing is difficult. These difficulties accumulate and produce a friction, which no man can imagine exactly who has not seen war. Suppose now a traveller, who, towards evening, expects to accomplish the two stages at the end of his day's journey, four or five leagues, with post horses, on the high road—it is nothing. He arrives now at the last station but one, finds no horses, or very bad ones; then a hilly country, bad roads; it is a dark night, and he is glad when, after a great deal of trouble, he reaches the next station, and finds there some miserable accommodation. So in war, through the influence of an infinity of petty circumstances, which cannot properly be described on paper, things disappoint us, and we fall short of the mark. A powerful iron will overcomes this friction, it crushes the obstacles, but certainly the machine along with them. We shall often meet with this result. Like an obelisk, towards which the principal streets of a place converge, the strong will of a proud spirit, stands prominent and commanding, in the middle of the art of war.

Friction is the only conception which, in a general way, corresponds to that which distinguishes real war from war on paper. The military machine, the army and all belonging to it, is in fact simple; and appears, on this account, easy to manage. But let us reflect that no part of it is in one piece, that it is composed entirely of individuals, each of which keeps up its own friction in all directions. Theoretically all sounds very well; the commander of a battalion is responsible for the execution of the order given; and as the battalion by its discipline is glued together into one piece, and the chief must be a man of acknowledged zeal, the beam turns on an iron pin with little friction. But it is not so in reality, and all that is exaggerated and false in such a conception manifests itself at once in war. The battalion always remains composed of a number of men, of whom, if chance so wills, the most insignificant is able to occasion delay, and even irregularity. The danger which war brings with it, the bodily exertions which it requires, augment this evil so much, that they may be regarded as the greatest causes of it.

This enormous friction, which is not concentrated, as in mechanics, at a few points, is therefore everywhere brought into contact with chance, and thus facts take place upon which it was impossible to calculate, their chief origin being chance.

Nice to see it quoted in full. It holds true for almost all human endeavours but in the case of conflict add the threat of violence and death and it's easy to see how it rises to a level all its own.

One only has to look at a game of professional sport, the nearest thing to ritualised conflict that we have – two teams of elite athletes at their peak of fitness and performance face off in competition against each other.

They know the terrain intimately, they have studied their opponents in great detail, they know exactly what they face, what they have to do and how much time they have to do it in. They have trained and honed skills under the eyes of experienced coaches. They line up on the field of play, the whistle blows and suddenly there is chaos, no one can predict exactly what will happen next – the flight of the ball, its bounce, a momentary lapse of concentration, an instant of sublime skill from an unsung player, a thousand factors come into play.

Who will dominate? Surely the team best able to grip the chaos and try to bring it under control, but nothing is certain. The underdog has the upset win, the star player has an off day, the referee misses a crucial event…..friction. It's ever present and one measure of success is how well it is managed – in fact we celebrate those who overcome the odds, who despite all the friction that comes their way rise to the challenge.

McLaddie
Everywhere? Yes
I'm equal amounts and equal frequency? I think not.
It's profoundly random.
Sometimes everything seems to go like clockwork with the occasional hiccup.
Sometimes it's a train wreck from the kickoff.

Northern Monkey -

"As has been said, surely the great thing is that we can all choose the type of game we want and find a set of rules that does that, friction or not?"

Yes!

That's why I know good games can be played without activation friction mechanics.

TacticalPainter –

"You then need to add in external factors beyond both you and your opponent's control, anything from the variability of terrain, changes in the weather, systems or equipment failures etc."

Still, no one has answered how a game force ever arrives to a game's tabletop in deployed order of battle if friction plays the role touted here. The claim is greater realism or some such, but extend that claim to a force "9 feet" off the playing surface in a combat environment, and apply the same friction mechanics then, and next do it for the force 20 ft. off, then 50 ft. away..

You see the concept of activation friction breaks down when applied to a greater context. So is it the innate knowledge that fighting is at hand that suddenly triggers friction, the so called knowledge that now is the time to overcome the environment? Actually, combat-related mechanics in rules can express this triggering response. I'm of the opinion that's a lot more plausible in explaining how combat troops deploy and respond to action – as a direct reaction to combat affects.

Certainly others can have different viewpoints on this, just as a number of us have said friction mechanics are basically redundant – that there's other ways friction operates in rules, or between players in team play.

Still, no one has answered how a game force ever arrives to a game's tabletop in deployed order of battle if friction plays the role touted here. The claim is greater realism or some such, but extend that claim to a force "9 feet" off the playing surface in a combat environment, and apply the same friction mechanics then, and next do it for the force 20 ft. off, then 50 ft. away..

If you want to game the logistic struggle then you can add friction to that gaming experience if you wish.
The reality is that Friction is MAGNIFIED in the presence of the enemy.
What is an annoyance when on the approach March becomes life threatening when the lead starts flying.
And if your off table artillery suddenly stops firing in support of your on table troops it could be due to enemy action or it could be because the supporting guns are under direct threat or switched to another target threatening another friendly unit involved in a more important sector or in more peril.

Still, no one has answered how a game force ever arrives to a game's tabletop in deployed order of battle if friction plays the role touted here. The claim is greater realism or some such, but extend that claim to a force "9 feet" off the playing surface in a combat environment, and apply the same friction mechanics then, and next do it for the force 20 ft. off, then 50 ft. away..

You see the concept of activation friction breaks down when applied to a greater context. So is it the innate knowledge that fighting is at hand that suddenly triggers friction, the so called knowledge that now is the time to overcome the environment? Actually, combat-related mechanics in rules can express this triggering response. I'm of the opinion that's a lot more plausible in explaining how combat troops deploy and respond to action – as a direct reaction to combat affects.

Actually that is handled very well in CoC. Before the combat begins you have a patrol phase where you establish the general location where your forces will enter the game area. It can range from the table edge to well into the centre of the board. These positions, called jump off points, are the location you can attempt to start your forces from. Just like activating units in the game units have to be activated in order to enter the game. The play of the activations but primarily your pregame force allotment decisions affect how well you control your units ability to enter combat. So the effect of randomness and a large dose of thought before the game influences your ability and success at getting units into the battle.

Some may not like having to play a deployment game before starting the game itself but I find it innovative and ends the all units start at the same time on my table edge. Now lets spend X hours getting into combat.

That sounds like another mechanism to a mechanism (thanks for taking the time to put it down on paper Stephen).

Obviously, combat encounters aren't always set-piece, they occurred off the march, as products of enemy flank attacks, and without the time for deployment drills, etc.

"Some may not like having to play a deployment game before starting the game itself but I find it innovative and ends the all units start at the same time on my table edge."

Is this limitation prescribed?

FlyXWire

It's called a campaign. I've fought interesting battles that were caused by unexpected events off the battlefield.

If I'm fighting a one-off game then normally I create something relatively balanced. I won't deliberately un-balance it by randomly removing or adding units. The emphasis here is on "game".

Coming on to activation mechanics, I treat them as accounting in some way for the fog of war, and specifically the "hundred foot general" that can see every action of the enemy, and react to it. As well as "friction".

FlyXwire

I am sorry I don't understand what you mean by;

Is this limitation prescribed?

It is possible to have your jump off points end up on a table edge but in play having them more forward is worth the effort, and frankly I find it an enjoyable aspect of the game. The patrol phase is part of the set up.

Ah ok.

This all can be done through scenario design. I'm getting the feeling that systems like this are played unmoderated?

Unknown op forces, unknown entry points, unknown enemy placements, unknown counterattack points, and even unknown mission objectives for one's opponents have/are part of moderated scenario construction (preparing and presenting different battle problems where the player sides have limited intelligence has been a hallmark of the flexibility of GM'ed encounter designing). Friction is part of the encounter when players aren't privy to complete scenario awareness – they're preforming in an intelligence-limited environment. No "hundred foot generals", the battle scenarios are evolving as they occur, and players must react as they encounter on-going, unknown game elements and situations.

I just realized that I'm the one being (incorrectly) paraphrased.

My actual post he is referencing is here:

YouTube link

The text of it is:

I tend to not mind random movement. I think it can add some nice randomness to movement that can account for the friction of men moving across ground in the face of the enemy. I don't mind if a system doesn't have that element either, though. I tend to dislike randomness when it comes to whether a unit is activated or not. Not because I think every unit should always be under the control of the player at all times, but because I think the friction should come from the actions of the enemy. So I'd rather see the randomness of activation on the other end when trying to activate a suppressed unit, for example. For that reason I really dislike the randomness of card activation. I think CoC does a decent job of meeting in the middle with the dice Activation and being able to add dice together and what activates on certain dice etc. It works, adds some uncertainty, but leaves the player with being able to formulate and plan and react to the enemy. Friction, not randomness.

The key part he left out is:

"So I'd rather see the randomness of activation on the other end when trying to activate a suppressed unit"

By saying "I expect friction to be generated by the enemy but that's essentially it", it does sound like people don't understand friction, which is his main point. But by leaving out that other part, it might be less that people don't understand friction, and more that people disagree about how friction should be handled. I think this discussion alone proves the latter than the former.

It seems we all agree there should be some friction in a wargame, so I think there's a little bit of the hyperbole in the OPs claim that people don't get friction.

In my own designs, I tend to want that friction to come from the interaction of players, enemy forces, and those kinds of interplay. I don't mind randomness, I just prefer it in different places and for different reasons.

For example, adding a randomness to when a unit moves is a fine way to build tension in how far a unit can go due to unexpected events in getting there. I personally don't use it in my own designs not because I dislike it, but for two reasons:

At a platoon level in that 50m space where the two forces meet, it is such a short distance, and infantry move in such quick rushes in those circumstances, that modelling an unpredictable movement rate wasn't a concern for me. If I was designing at a higher level, where say, platoon stands in a battalion level game are moving across ground, I could see a movement modifier or random movement being an important part to add. I felt it unnecessary on the 50m battlefield.

The other reason is that the table set up adds some of that randomness anyway. Pair that with hidden forces and you still get friction. Your unit may be able to move 9" this activation, but that tree line you want to make a break for is 13" away. You need to cross that field, but it's going to take two activations to do it, and you don't know where the enemy is, so it causes friction. You could make a break for it, and hope for the best, or you could stay put and lose time (activations) exercising caution.

In this, random movement adds friction on the front end in a direct mechanic applied to every unit every time. Nothing wrong with that at all. It also tends to work out even when something like that isn't applied simply due to the terrain on the table anyway.

It all depends on how you want to model it and there are a never ending set of possibilities for doing it.

I disagree that most people don't get friction. I think we tend to disagree about how we get it.

Just my two cents. I always enjoy design discussions.

Resonates with me.

I have also taken exception to the OPs contention that some people don't get friction because we disagree on how it functions in game design.

I think some have "discovered" friction, because their gaming experience has been overly structured, or informed by the legacy of tournament style match gaming, with equal points "armies", programmed scenario formats, rule books that are the "bibles" prescribing proper play (but bibles that somehow change from one addition to the next), or might be uncomfortable to design their own scenarios, or won't get them played because their friends aren't interested. Yes, front-end friction mechanics might certainly mix up this type of gaming expectation – I think COC improves on that design.

Still, I get your idea of friction PizzaGrenadier, and am very familiar with its functioning.

Something to build on PG -

"It all depends on how you want to model it and there are a never ending set of possibilities for doing it."

Lately I've been incorporating the access to limited "interrupt" mechanics into my designs and rule mods. To allow players decision points where great battlefield need or peril engenders them to react (out of sequence if desired). This allowance can work with any activation system – IGOUGO, card pull, dice rolls, etc…. It allows a player to make a critical command decision to act once during a game with a unit (a morale re-roll, a simultaneous action with an enemy's action). There's the threat of the "act" that produces friction onto the phasing player – will my opposite use his interrupt in reaction, taking away the impact of my phasing advantage.

The buds are taking to this intervention ability very well, and it can be bolted onto most rule systems.

On a related note – I'm not fond of rules that require lots of on-board markers – it blows the immersion level of a nicely presented battlefield (IMO). An on-going effort has been to create related scenics or miniature markers that are shoe-ins for these required game aids (lots of guys here are experts at crafting these tie-in elements). One thing I've been pushing for lately, is conceiving how markers can be expressed by removing something from a board (or off a related figure's base), or the actual, function-related figure itself.

I had no idea that the OP was referencing a specific comment.

Having now watched the video I have to say that i am surprised that Little Wars TV think it is a good idea to have Keith Stine review a set of rules which competes directly with his DH rules and sit there calling them boring and generally criticising them, that seems a very poor choice of reviewer. Was it not possible to get someone who didn't have a dog in the fight?

IMO, Unit Activation, where one side "activates"[i.e. moves, shoots, etc., etc.] a unit. Then the other side activates one of it's units. Back & Forth, until all units have been activated.

And if one side takes losses, etc. and has less units than the other side. Well, that is a fairly "realistic" "simulation", etc. As we know battles never start out with sides being "even". E.g. 10 units vs. 10 units.

I know this system works very well at 6mm Plt(s) vs. Plt(s) level(s) up to Co/Co Tm /Bn/Bn TF …

L4, another functional and suspenseful activation system is the blind chit pull method – but where your opponent draws the chit, and holds it in secret, and tells the opponent player or team when the action allocation has be used up. This is a system designed by Peter Bogdasarian for his Tank On Tank board game series. Not only does it maintain a fog of war for the phasing player, and encourages high-priority activations first, but the non-phasing side stays engaged during the opponent side's turn (carefully monitoring the expenditure of their actions).

It's an elegant but high-functioning game mechanic (all with very low rules overhead).

Northern Monkey: I don't recall criticizing the rules. I acknowledge it's not my cuppa, but score wise I give it a decent score. It's no mystery that I wrote DH II and we're not claiming some high standard of unbiased coverage of rules. It's our club and our channel (which doesn't take itself or ourselves seriously). We're a group of friends that game together and disagree over these kinds of things. We're not hiding anything. If you go to our site you can see the reviews by the other members of the club and you can see a wide variety of opinions on CoC and other rules. CoC is in fact, the only system we've reviewed so far that got a 100.

If you watch our Foy video, you'd see I'm the butt of a joke about preferring to use DHII over CoC.

We're having fun. Try not to take it all so seriously please.

Lately I've been incorporating the access to limited "interrupt" mechanics into my designs and rule mods. To allow players decision points where great battlefield need or peril engenders them to react (out of sequence if desired). This allowance can work with any activation system – IGOUGO, card pull, dice rolls, etc…. It allows a player to make a critical command decision to act once during a game with a unit (a morale re-roll, a simultaneous action with an enemy's action). There's the threat of the "act" that produces friction onto the phasing player – will my opposite use his interrupt in reaction, taking away the impact of my phasing advantage.

CoC has this as a built in option. Every 5 rolled in your command roll hand gives you 1 CoC point. Once you have 6 points you have acquired a CoC dice, you can acquire as many of these as you wish and choose to expend them in a number of ways. One choice is to interrupt an enemy action. There may be other pressing tactical situations that mean you use the dice for an alternative action and of course in the run of play you have no idea how many CoC points you may (or may not) acquire.

You can also use the CoC dice for an ambush to surprise an enemy, and the rules also allow for units on overwatch to react with fire during the enemy phase.

FlyXwire: I like interrupt mechanics as well. I use snap fire and push activations in my system that allow a player to activate a unit, then immediately activate again with any unit they want (with certain restrictions). Push activations are limited and not all forces have them, but they give the player the chance to push his force further, whether that's to grab an objective, coordinate an assault or fight one off, plug a gap, etc.

It breaks up the activation sequence.

I also like rules for regrouping lost units. That means a unit that is gone might not stay gone and HQs can bring a unit back into the fight under some conditions.

Still, all of this is based on my preference for friction from actions and reactions as they are all based on what players are doing to each others forces, not randomizing what they can do up front before they do it. As I mentioned in my Youtube comment, I don't mind randomness, I just prefer it to have an impact as a result of the actions of the players and the battle. For me, I'd rather make it a random chance a unit won't activate as a result of suppression, rather than just assigning them a chance of not activating just because (whether it would be card or dice draw, or similar). Nothing wrong with those random mechanics creating friction through uncertainty of activating, I just put them at the other end as a result of something. However, that is a preference I have at the level I design rules for which is platoon level close in fights where the distances are so short, that I feel a lot of the friction should come from contact with the enemy, not the larger battlefield. At 50m, the problem you're facing isn't supply or the terrain, but the blokes 50m from you pouring fire into you or moving in for a close assault. By that point, the other friction has taken a backseat to the more immediate problem of your opponent. YMMV of course. But when I got into the weeds with platoon level combat, that is what I felt was most important.

I'm familiar with the blind draw system. Though the one I know of is from, if I remember correctly, Snappy Nappies, where the opponent rolls a cup of dice that gives a number of things the player can do and they do them until the opponent that rolled in secret for them tells them they're out. That was a fun mechanic for me, though Nappies isn't my preferred period. It certainly makes you prioritize. Though I found that I have a terrible poker face when I roll for the other players…

‘I have also taken exception to the OPs contention that some people don't get friction because we disagree on how it functions in game design'.

You can take exception all you want.
My point still stands.
Some people don't understand what friction is as it pertains to military operations.
Are you suggesting EVERYONE understands what friction is as it pertains to military operations?
If so, why is it in the curriculum of every Military Academy and why was I teaching it for about 4 years at Officer and NCO schools?
I will make this further comment:
At the various command levels friction can be ‘abstracted' away.
For example. In a game where you're a Army or Corps Commander Friction can be modelled in a more abstract manner.
‘The ADC didn't get through' could just as easily read ‘the Brigade Commander is confused'. Or
‘A stray round has carried away the Bridage Commander's Chief Of Staff. The order can't be accepted until the Brigade HQ is reorganised'.
Or
‘Brigade HQ has redeployed or moved to an alternate CP'.

As a general rule (no pun intended) friction tends to less of a life altering issue. It's usually someone Reese's problem. As a LtCol once commented to me, "Logistics is something that just happens RSM".
Brass tend to have lots of staff (never enough) to sort the minor issues out).
But down in the weed even the slightest friction is a massive issue in the face of the enemy.
Rich gives a good example but permit me to expand.
How many people here have had to move toward an enemy armed to the teeth whilst maintaining cover when there's very little cover to be had?
Scrutinising every little fold in the ground as if it's a life or death decision.
This is why at the lower levels (squad / platoon) a movement rate being random is in my opinion (FWIW) is handy.
At a command level of a Divisional Commander cycles of 20 – 30 mins are reasonable but at Platoon or company level a lot can happen in a couple of mins that can completely derail your operational concept / plan.
In short, the further into the weeds you decend the more friction becomes a critical issue for you as the commander.
These are all simply my opinions.
People can simply read them dispassionately or they can take them as personal slights if THEY CHOSE to.
I'm here just to have robust mature respect discussion.
I stand by my comment that some people just don't get it when it comes to friction.

I had no idea that the OP was referencing a specific comment.

Correct, I wasn't. Thanks for pointing that out 😁
I was using an example of a comment I've heard uttered repeatedly by a few people actually.
FWIW, I think DH2 look like good rules. I particularly like the ‘retired removes pins / shock concept'. From experience I know edging back into cover away from the cause of your discomfort does have a positive affect on ones disposition. 😊

My tuppence ha'penny worth.
I personally like the way the AK47 Republic rules work to randomise the troops who actually arrive and fight on the battlefield. (I understand there are similar mechanisms in other Peter Pig rules, but these are the ones I know.) The kind of mini campaign before the game sees units decrease or increase in strength; arrive early or late, or not all; behave heroically or disintegrate at first contact. Just because a unit has been chosen by a player doesn't mean it will be on the table. To my knowledge, it's the best simulation of friction in a Clausewitzian sense that I know of.

Your squad is poised on the edge of the clearing. Its not too far to the next cover so they should be able to make it across in one bound. They are alert and don't have any special problems like having the GI's or hidden stumps on the edge of the woods.

The order is given to go, go, go. As they reach the middle of the clearing, a concealed MG42 opens up on them using op fire. They are suppressed/pinned and the section leader gets greased. What do they do now?

Movement, command, morale and firing all determined by player interaction and a short series of die rolls. Does this mean your flanking attack is going in late or not at all?

Is this friction?

Big Red
That's enemy action.
Friction? Well ‘yes' buuut,…. in that situation I wouldn't report ‘the enemy is causing me some friction'. That's kinda to be expected.
I'd report ‘Sunray, this is 2! Contact! Wait out'!
The friction I'm refering to is:
Your squad is poised on the edge of the clearing. Its not too far to the next cover so they should be able to make it across in one bound. They are alert and don't have any special problems like having the GI's or hidden stumps on the edge of the woods.

The order is given to go, go, go. As they reach the middle of the clearing the become aware that the ground is littered with discarded wire! Not barbed wire but discarded fence wire". It will take a little while long than expected to get across the (not so) open ground'

trailape,

OK, sure. Makes sense and may even have been the reason that they were exposed to the mg fire for a longer period of time causing more casualties, suppression/pinning (good shooting die roll?).

The platoon leader may not hear from the squad leader who is no longer at his best which could mean anything from a sucking chest wound to a smashed walkie talkie with a dead battery. Hard to tell what the bleeping problem is.

He may or may not have heard some mg fire over there but all he knows is that his flanking attack is going in late or not at all. What should he do when nothing is happening on the flank? Go sort it out himself, send a subordinate to get things going, send reinforcements, attack frontally without a flank attack?

Cause and effect, narrative?

Big Red!
Nailed it
Just to be clear (because someone will go down this path) I'm not suggesting every clearing is littered with unforeseen man traps! 😂
It's just one example of a countless number of POSSIBLE problems that MIGHT throw a wrench in your well crafted plan

trailape,

That's what I thought you meant. If the squad made it through the opening without any casualties (bad shooting dice or mg decided to hold fire?) then maybe the wire wasn't an impediment to movement after all.

I'm not sure I nailed it or missed the barn from the inside.

In the little fiction above, the "problems" were caused by player interaction (movement, op fire, fire results, morale) rather than any special rules for friction.

Big Red
There is no need what so ever in my opinion to have specific ‘friction rules'.
Just that ‘friction / uncertainty / ‘fate' / dumb luck needs to be a part of any ‘realistic' rules.
Chess is the most UNREALISTIC ‘wargame' ever Invented.
In fact it's simply a game of skill.
If I lose a game of chess it's because my opponen is simply better.
Combat is about making your opponent MORE reliant on luck than you are.
As Napoleon said ‘I'd rather have lucky Generals than skilful ones' (or words to that effect).
For my part, I want Rules that are challenging in so far as the system as well as my gaming partner throw up unexpected and frustrating problems to wrestle with. But that's just me.
But this post ISN'T about rules,…
It's about the ignorance that some people have in regards to ‘Friction as it pertains to military operations'.
And I don't use the word ‘ignorant' as a put down.
I'm ignorant on many issues. That's why I take my car to a mechanic when it fails to go.
Someone suggested the issue isn't understanding friction rather it's definition.
Ok,..
uncertainty seems a reasonable definition.
But uncertainty of what?
Uncertainty of the enemy's strength and position? The terrain?
We use to refer to it as ‘Pineapples'!
"What's taking Bdr Smith so long to get his gun into action"?
Reply: "He's been pineappled sir".

But I'm pleased to see that the bag of dead cats I've dumped on the desk is promoting discussion 😁

Pizzagrenadier

I don't recall criticizing the rules.

In the comments you refer to the rules as tedious.

It's no mystery that I wrote DH II and we're not claiming some high standard of unbiased coverage of rules….We're not hiding anything.

But your not being totally upfront about having a conflict of interest either. Not everybody knows who you are by sight and you don't introduce yourself in the video.

I don't think you were being purposely deceptive or dishonest just that if your going to review a competing product you need reveal that fact before the review.

As I said in my comments on the video, on the whole I think the review is pretty fair even if I disagree with parts of it.

Jdginaz: fair enough. We didn't think my opinion mattered all that much.

I think a conflict of interest would have been me reviewing my own rules. As it was, the guys in the club made me the butt of a joke about using CoC for our Foy scenario. I think because it was obvious in that video we didn't think to mention it in the review filmed at the same time and released back to back.

I guess what seemed obvious to us isn't as clear if you only watch the review.

Apologies for that.

I take the approach that as a rule writer I feel I'm allowed my opinion on other rules. Or at least I don't shy away from it. That rubs some people the wrong way. We discussed it at the club when we filmed these and decided to go with it.

I stand by my opinions. They're not founded on malice. And I don't hold others opinions of my rules against them. 15 years in the business and I've grown pretty thick skin.

There is no need what so ever in my opinion to have specific ‘friction rules'. Just that ‘friction / uncertainty / ‘fate' / dumb luck needs to be a part of any ‘realistic' rules…. As Napoleon said ‘I'd rather have lucky Generals than skilful ones' (or words to that effect).

I think the OP and above quote is more likely "bad luck" rather than "friction". Friction to me is ANYTHING that provides any form resistance from you going from point A to point B (as in Clausewitz's own example of the horse journey). What can provide this could be, as an example, (1) your mental (eg indecision/stress/taking other options), or (2) enemy action (they block the path or cover it with fire), or (3) private so and so trips over a log, sprains his ankle, and slows the team down.

I get the impression that the OP is specifically focusing on point 3 only as being the "valid" form of friction. All wargame rules model friction to varying extents, otherwise you would not have a playable game.

I think a conflict of interest would have been me reviewing my own rules.

😝😂😆
Please don't take this as an insult but that sounds like the kind of comment I'd expect to hear during Question Time in our Parliament 😆.
I think reviewing your own rules is ‘advertising'.
Disclosure: I'm keen to get a copy of DH2. They look interesting

I think one part of the problem is an inadequate understanding of certain terms. Friction is a cause, not an effect. Friction is a form of Drag. The effect is a reduction of Velocity and Momentum. e.g. The friction of mud reduces speed over a given distance, waiting for an ammo resupply delays the jump off and slows the time table. Friction, if you will, comes from behind.
My opponent is not a cause of friction. Encountering that enemy Mg half way across the clearing means that my troops have met Resistance. Resistance is restriction to flow, it is also a form of Drag, and has the effect of reducing Velocity and Momentum. Think of resistance as something which comes from the front.
Both Friction and Resistance are forms of Drag. Both Friction and Resistance have the effect of reducing Velocity and Momentum (they slow things down). Friction can be overcome with lubrication (better training, contingency planning). Resistance can be reduced by reducing the restriction to flow (in this case, call artillery).
Against drag, to maintain a constant velocity, and thus momentum, requires additional energy (command effort). The drag of resistance is a given. Without an opponent there would be no game. The drag of friction, both how it is acquired and how it may be overcome in a game, I leave to the individual's choice.

There is no need what so ever in my opinion to have specific ‘friction rules'. Just that ‘friction / uncertainty / ‘fate' / dumb luck needs to be a part of any ‘realistic' rules…. As Napoleon said ‘I'd rather have lucky Generals than skilful ones' (or words to that effect).
I think the OP and above quote is more likely "bad luck" rather than "friction". Friction to me is ANYTHING that provides any form resistance from you going from point A to point B (as in Clausewitz's own example of the horse journey). What can provide this could be, as an example, (1) your mental (eg indecision/stress/taking other options), or (2) enemy action (they block the path or cover it with fire), or (3) private so and so trips over a log, sprains his ankle, and slows the team down.

I get the impression that the OP is specifically focusing on point 3 only as being the "valid" form of friction. All wargame rules model friction to varying extents, otherwise you would not have a playable game

If that's the impressing I've given then that's my fault.
That's NOT what I'm saying.
But ‘luck' is important.
FWIW I don't believe in pure ‘luck'.
Fate or misfortune is the term I prefer.
A good commander tries to forcast every eventuality.
Not only am I well versed in I/CMAP, SMAP and JMAP.
I'm all over ‘Most Dangerous Course Of Action' and ‘Likely Course Of Action', ‘Actions On…' etc etc
I taught it for several years.
Friction is / are those things that conflict with your concept of operations / plan.
Yes,… that can include the EN doing his thing but it's more than that,…
However
As I've explained, it's gotta include the occasional pineapple 🍍
If you think only the enemy generates friction then that's patently wrong.

@Walking Sailor
That's a pretty good explanation 👍

I think it helps to separate out two things.

Firstly there is the action of our enemy, who will seek to make what we want to do as difficult as possible. While we don't know what they will do, we can be pretty certain that when we confront them they will respond and respond violently. We model that in our games with mechanism for gun fire, close combat, artillery support etc. Some of that modelling attempts to roll together a range of factors. Some focus on the purely scientific (my AP round will penetrate 40mm of armour at 500 yards), others attempt to model both the scientific and the abilities of the people behind the weapons.

Secondly there is the friction that Clausewitz refers to – those simple things that somehow become more difficult in combat. If I want to tell somebody 50 yards away to do something, I walk over to them and have a conversation. That's a simple activity, but in a firefight this suddenly becomes a much more difficult proposition.

Clausewitz is saying that this is war, you would be most unwise to expect things to go like clockwork. So the debate we seem to be having is, how does that translate into our games? How do we apply this?

It seems we can look at a few of the simple activities we could expect to see a military unit engage in and attempt to model how difficult that might be in combat.

Communicating – the history of warfare is littered with stories of failed communication, delayed communication and outright miscommunication. You can model how your units receive instructions much as you might model how they are firing – how far are they trying to communicate, how well trained are they, how good is their equipment, how good is their doctrine, what other factors could come into play? How many games feature a roll for radio contact? Surely that's a friction test?

Moving – the battlefield is not the parade ground, it's often unknown terrain across which there might be lurking enemy seeking to kill you. Surely we cannot expect on every occasion for our units to move off precisely as ordered and travel a completely predictable distance in a completely predictable time frame. We can find a way to model this in our games.

Here are two examples of simple things made difficult by combat, which could be factored into a rule set looking to reflect the challenges of command. The debatable issue shouldn't be, should we be modelling this? It should be how do we model this so that the outcomes are historically plausible and with a rule mechanic that keeps are games playable and enjoyable?

Clausewitz is saying that this is war, you would be most unwise to expect things to go like clockwork. So the debate we seem to be having is, how does that translate into our games? How do we apply this?

Bingo!

The debatable issue shouldn't be, should we be modelling this? It should be how do we model this so that the outcomes are historically plausible and with a rule mechanic that keeps are games playable and enjoyable?

Agree 100%

Reading this thread has been helpful. It does get a bit muddled, as do I. Some folks are talking about uncertainty and some folks are talking about friction which is a type of uncertainty.

Friction is the command challenge of making your units do as you want. Do I get enough orders? Are they orders for the right troop type I am trying to activate? Do they act on the order well enough? When they act on it how effective do they do it?

How many levels do we really need? When does this become a nonsensical exercise trying to apply real world outcomes to something that is entirely fantasy like a miniature war game? When does this layering of friction just make a game less fun?

I'm not in the camp of trying to limit what I can with my game toys. I'll play by the rules for sure, but if a game focuses more on limitations than possibilities I'll probably choose something different in the long run.

Make me roll for casualties before I even get to put my miniatures on the table, no thanks, I'll pass. An extreme example granted, of which I would still play an occasional mission or scenario of, but not as a norm.

When does this become a nonsensical exercise trying to apply real world outcomes to something that is entirely fantasy like a miniature war game?

How could it ever be a nonsensical exercise, an attempt to model some aspect of reality? Every military across the globe trains its leaders using wargames. Why would they bother if it was nothing other than fantasy? I can't help recall Moltke's famous quote when he first saw the wargame Kreigspiel demonstrated – 'why this is not a game, it's training for war'.

Yet even fantasy games have their own 'reality' – take The Lord of the Rings, would you consider playing a set of rules for this fantasy period if it allowed actions and events that were completely at odds with Tolkein's book?

We are having the discussion in the WWII folder, so it would be fair to assume that people here have an interest in WWII and playing games that bear some semblance to combat during WWII. We have a fairly good idea of what combat was like in the period and so we should be able to game something that comes close to replicating the command issues of the period. This discussion is about how we might come up with mechanics that reflect all of the issues faced by commanders in WWII – those issues reflect not just the theory but the reality of trying to put it into practice.

In my opinion you can do this within the context of a fun and playable game, however this will take a high degree of skill and creativity in the writing of the rules. That is an art and some succeed at it better than others, but I have no doubt it can be done.