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

It's been a good discussion – and illustrates there's differences even among the "friction activation camp", and this after a 100 post thread (so that's an illustration of some of the thickness to this).

I want to thank TP and PG for relating the interrupt mechanics within two of the rule systems being explored here.

Now, a callous generalization (but injected anyway) – some rule systems seem to be played by gamers (IMO), and some seem to "play the gamer". I've always been in the camp that after all the good and worthy stuff of historiography seems intact, that the rules need to get out of the way of the game at hand. Like many have related here already, but which has almost become cliche on this board – "it's a game". I believe there's a healthy recognition in coming back to this point sometimes, that gamers need to "let it go", and get out of their own way to have fun over the product that's generated from gaming. There's not always going to be a purer understanding of history or tactics as the achieved by-product, but better yet, having a good time with your bud(s). And frankly, they're not always interested in your "take" on history either, but in first having a fun gaming experience over a tabletop, with overtones of some time in the past.
Like-mindedness isn't going to cover all of us hobbyist obviously – you don't decide what others might like (but perhaps you'll attract some new adherents). Just be mindful yourself, that what you think is the greatest thing today, won't be that as your years accumulate.

The point I've been inarticulately trying to make is that friction is already built, more or less, into most gaming rules.

How long does it take to casually walk 100 yards at 3 mph? Without working out the formula and the coefficient of friction lets say it would equate to moving 12 inches during a game turn/bound/impulse. How many inches do most games have you move in that same time frame? 4 to 6 inches seems to be the norm. That equates closely to the old military adage that to estimate how long something will take, double your best guess and add 10 percent.

It also fits with Parkinson's Law that length of activity will expand to fit the allotted time. If you give a unit two turns to reach the objective and its 8 to 12 inches away from their present position they will take two turns, not one, to arrive using the good old 4 to 6 inches movement rate.

In vehicle movement this disparity is even more pronounced.

Many game designs have been using this concept/formula since the mid 1960's. If its already factored into movement rates, is it important to add additional rules for more, non-enemy supplied friction/resistance than that? Some say yes. Some say its unrealistic or adds too much detail to game mechanics.

One last post here.

Let me tack on a story my Dad related to me from his experience in Normandy on D+2. After his glider had landed and his squad assembled, the company moved out. Shortly thereafter a single shot rang out, and being combat veterans the troopers went to ground immediately. The officers and NCOs began barking out orders – Sniper! – where did that shot come from – anyone have a spot, etc. Dad, having heard the shot "danger close" had looked to his vicinity, and to himself! Rising from the breech of his M1 was the wisp of smoke from its shot – safety off his trigger had snagged onto part of his gear. Did Dad relate this to his squad leader, or the company at hand ("all clear") – hell no! Even in this situation, Dad quickly decided it was more important to lay low, not fess up, and let the moment pass – without suffering the consequences if he had.

Pure and random friction.

On the back side of this, guys were always getting wounded or killed at random. Stray bullets, unexploded ordnance -he lost his best friend and foxhole buddy who grew up on a farm in Ohio and liked machinery, and wanted to check out a KO'ed German tank on the crossroads up ahead. Dad stayed in his foxhole, Walter was killed by an artillery strike zeroed in on that crossroads – to catch some American who liked farm tractors as a kid.

Friction too.

I'm really not interested in seeing these kinds of things happening in my game experience. Sometimes understanding more about reality means it isn't really meant for pure simulation.

I'm not sure I understand that Big Red. Where a commander can predict accurately that his army can march 36" in six turns, then friction is not built in. In your example, where my unit is 8" away from yours, I know that I won't make contact in this turn, but it will next turn. In real life a commander will not have any such certainty.

However, what I would also add to the mix is that a variable rate of movement is not just about the commander not knowing how far his troops are going to move in a period of time, but also how quickly the enemy will respond.

For example, let us assume that I am leading a section of men. We come to the end of a run of buildings and we want to cross a gap of thirty years. We know that an enemy machine gun emplacement is in a position to shoot at that beaten ground, but in the heat of the action we may get across before he reacts (there's a lot of noise, smoke, distractions which may, and probably will, mean that the machine gunners might not react quickly enough. On the other hand that may just me being optimistic).

So, when my section rolls 3D6 to run across that gap. We may be lucky and get all the way across. Or we may be unlucky and the machine gunner reacts and we get shot at. The roll of the dice does isn't so much about how far we move in x seconds, but how far we get before the enemy reacts. My take on this is that this is a variable length bound. As a player I can measure the distance across that gap, I can work out my chances of moving across it, be thy good or bad, and then I make a decision whether to take that chance or not. In a game where movement was fixed at, say, 6" a turn. I would KNOW that I would make it or I would not make it. That for me is too much knowledge for a section leader to have. In that situation I want the player to weight up the risk and then decide whether to take it or whether to find a different, more safe route. I just feel that is a much closer approximation of reality than certainty of fixed distances.

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

Entirely fantasy?
I wouldn't call historical gaming ‘Entirely fantasy'.
In fact the Australian army invests a modest amount of resources into Wargaming. The training value of these games is appreciated I can assure you.

Once again this seems to be about different people wanting very different things from a wargame. Some people are happy to play a game which they see as "entirely fantasy". I really don't want that.

As well as being a wargamer, I am an historian. I like to study a battle and then use one or more forms of wargame to examine what happened in the action. By playing through a well-researched scenario I can gain insights into the problems faced by the protagonists and, hopefully, the wargame will inform the study of history as well as vice versa.

Do I expect everyone to want the same thing? No, I certainly do not. Which is why I do not ever say "my way is right". All it is is what suits me. Sadly, I do get a lot of people telling me that my way is wrong because it doesn't match their version of what wargaming is about.

As I have said already, we should enjoy the fact that we can play the games we like and which closest to what we want from a game.

So, when my section rolls 3D6 to run across that gap. We may be lucky and get all the ay across. Or we may be unlucky and the machine gunner reacts and we get shot at. The roll of the dice does isn't so much about how far we move in x seconds, but how far we get before the enemy reacts. My take on this is that this is a variable length bound. As a player I can measure the distance across that gap, I can work out my chances of moving across it, be thy good or bad, and then I make a decision whether to take that chance or not.

And this is exactly the type of dilemma a Section Commander or Platoon Commander faces.

Trailape, exactly mate. And that's just what I try to model in our games. By adding this kind of "friction" (or uncertainty if people prefer that), the game then encourages the player to think like the commander on the ground, to make the same command decisions. Without that, it's just toy soldiers.

Rich

Rich wrote "I want the player to weight up the risk and then decide whether to take it or whether to find a different, more safe route. I just feel that is a much closer approximation of reality than certainty of fixed distances."

That makes eminent sense to me. I find it slightly amusing that people want more certainty in a wargames rules system than a trip for a pint of milk.

But I can see why some people would only want to play poker when they can see all their opponent's cards. While it would ensure their own enjoyment, It wouldnt necessarily be of much interest to others. When they say that it doesn't make a difference to the game or detract from it, I generally switch off.

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

Every man made object on earth was once "entirely fantasy".

Wargames for the army?
Yes. They definitely use them.

At the moment I'm working with Dr Ezra Sidran ( UMS and UMS2 ).
Since building computer wargames for the public, he moved on to building AI for the military.
One project is used to suggest what the best option is to the troops on the ground.
Since he moves in those circles, one of his contacts works for the US military organising wargames.
And of course Kriegsspiel was originally invented for military personnel.

Some thoughts.
Some of which are a bit random, but hey ho.

Friction can be expected to increase in the face of the enemy. Hence if you have difficulty organising your platoon hiking through forest during peacetime then you'll have pretty much the same hiking during war. So long as no enemy are around. As soon as they say hello then you can expect to have even more friction.

I would also point out that friction doesn't necessarily have to be represented by a separate roll or mechanism at all. It can be part of some other mechanism. For example when you roll for fire effect and get none then one of the reasons for that could be your mg temporarily jams for most of the time you would expect it to fire. Your gunner is flipping the cover, shaking dust out and pulling the bolt. Or he misunderstood the order and fired at the bush next to the one the target is in. Or whatever.

Not played it for a while.. but…. We play double blind. A game with duplicated boards and a referee. This is low level skirmish usually on a 4 by 4 board which is a BUA.
There are several players per side with just a few figures each.
You don't need morale or friction rules. The players provide both. Several times, I've discussed and agreed actions for our next turn. The way a turn works is you state actions and the ref works out what happens. He comes in the room and asks each player in turn what their little men are doing. Only he may speak. It's not unusual for one or more players to then say something different from what you just discussed.
Which can be hilarious.
Well.
More so after the game is done.

It's my experience some people loathe what they see as too much randomness in their games. You say friction they same "no thanks". Just one of them things.

I would also point out that friction doesn't necessarily have to be represented by a separate roll or mechanism at all. It can be part of some other mechanism.

Exactly.
Some designers of games do this very well.
Richard Borg
Sam Mustafa
The TFL team
I'm sure there are many others also but these are the ones that spring to mind simply because I have played their games.

There's more than one way to handle that scenario of crossing the road though. Rather than building the uncertainty into the player rushing the unit across by giving him variable movement, it is just as viable to put that uncertainty into an opportunity fire against anyone who tries it.

A group of men in that situation could quite easily look at that distance and know, given their training and capabilities, that they could make that dash (here's your 6" movement). What they don't know is if they can make it without getting hit by anyone watching with an MG covering it. So you can load the uncertainty into a snap fire mechanic. Maybe the MG Team rolls hot and nails a poor chap from the team as they cross. Maybe they whiff and roll all misses and the team was not looking or happened to be reloading.

Fixed movement is no less realistic as long as you build uncertainty into what happens when a unit moves. In this case it builds it into how the other player responds, not how the unit itself moves.

I see them both as legitimate solutions to building uncertainty (or are we still calling it friction?)

I tend to prefer the uncertainty at platoon level and that 50m fight to come more from player interaction, as I enjoy that specific tactical back and forth. That does mean that my mechanics will sometimes not feature uncertainty where some players expect it or prefer it, but more in resolutions than loaded up front in attempts. Mine are also informed by my readings and study of history and combat in that 50m space. That comes out in a much different way though.

They both work, but they really are very different minded sets. In some ways different enough that we're speaking different languages but talking about the same thing.

I feel that I'm a very minor leaguer playing in the big leagues. I much admire TFL designs and background material and try and use as much of it as I can for scenarios, etc.

I'm not a professional game designer or historian but have been an amateur version of both for a way too long a time. As Maurice de Saxe once said, 10 campaigns as a mule you are still a mule. So forging ahead, unarmed and unafraid:

I understand (I believe) about the variable length bound. As an alternate explanation to the above situation, the squad makes the dash across the gap and the enemy mg attempts op fire. If the squad does have the movement (say 6" and the gap is only 4") and is lucky, the mg misses their op fire or doesn't see them in time (accounted for by a bad firing dice roll), it gets across without complications.

If, in the above situation, the squad is unlucky, gets hit (accounted for by a good op firing dice roll) and may get pinned/suppressed and/or take casualties.

You still don't know if you will make it across the gap and there are no additional mechanisms for movement. Movement is much less than theoretical so gaps in cover already become two or three times more difficult to cross.

The variance is not in the bound but in the success or failure of the action. The friction is in the results, not in the rules.

The game tension is still there. There are less rules and dice rolls to take into account, making the game move along faster and thereby creating even more tension and uncertainty on the table top.

Oops, looks like Keith beat me to the punch.

I feel that I'm a very minor leaguer playing in the big leagues.

Me too. Don't worry, there's only one award winning rules designer here :D

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

Yes, I have seen & used a similar system.

We also like a Random Mission Generator system. We almost always used it.

Roll off to see who Attacks or Defends – high roll chooses …

Then both Attacker & Defender get a list of missions.

Secretly draws a chit from sperate cups, one for the Defender, and one for the Attacker …

E.g. A7, D2, etc. is on chits which tell you which mission you are assigned. And you opponent does not know what it is. The chit is put off to the side upside down until game's end.

The mission, e.g. D8 or A4, tells you if your basic force level [decided before the game, e.g. 4000 pts, etc.] goes up or down or stays the same … And any special instructions and Victory conditions, etc.

It makes a very interesting games as neither opponent knows the others mission, if his force level has changed, etc.

The mule wakes up, sort of. It occurs to me that variable movement and op fire capability are similar forms of variable length bound.

In the above examples using variable movement distances the success or failure of crossing the gap is due to dice controlled movement rates. If you make it with 3D6, the bound ends when the squad reaches the other side. If you don't make it completely across the bound ends where the squad ends its movement. It is now subject to fire from whoever takes the opportunity to do so during the enemy's turn.

Using op fire, if the unit crosses the gap and op fire is ineffective for whatever reason, the bound ends when the squad reaches the other side. If the op fire is effective, the bound ends where the squad receives the effect of the op fire. It is now subject to fire from whoever takes the opportunity to do so during the enemy's turn.

To use both, which is what got stuck in my head, would be double jeopardy.

Thank you Richard and Keith.

> The mule wakes up, sort of. It occurs to me that variable movement and op fire capability are similar forms of variable length bound.

Yes and no. There are plenty of cases where a unit, down to a single man and up to armies that did not move with no threat of enemy action causing the lack of movement.

I do have to laugh at the "award winning" bit. My wife once said to me that being a 'famous wargamer' is a bit like being famous for exposing yourself in the park. It's more notoriety than fame.

Anyway, interesting discussion as Keith says and, Big Red, I can assure you there is no pecking order here' we are all just wargamers with our own ideas about what we like.

I would just like to pick up on the OP and some of what Keith has said about preferring his friction to come from enemy action rather than rules mechanisms as I feel it is pertinent.

It is very easy to discuss this and come to the conclusion that there is more than one way to skin a cat. Failing to get the right result due to the enemy's action is the same as failing to get the right result due to friction. Actually, in military terms it is very different.

In military terms there are two chief things that mess up your plans. One is indeed enemy action. "I couldn't get to the bridge as the enemy were there and they shot my men". The second is friction which does not involve the enemy. "I couldn't get to the bridge IN TIME as that area on the map was actually a swamp and it took me two hours to cover 400 yards".

Now that is an extreme example. I can recall as a sixteen year old leading a section of men on a basic map reading and navigation exercise. We came to the head of a valley and a road circled right around the edge for about two miles. I was keen to gain time so I suggested that we walk right across the valley in a straight line. What I was unaware of was that the saplings planted there, none over 4' high. had the most absurd irrigation system with 4' ditched between each row, so taking the "guick route" took much longer. That is friction. It can interfere in big ways, such as a bridge collapsing under the weight of a tank and it taking half a day to restore. But it can also happen in minor ways.

Again, using an example. If my platoon is advancing and I send one section off to the right to take position on some elevated ground with a view to them covering our advance, how long will it take for them to get there? At 6" a turn I will know if it is 24" away (converting this to wargame scale), whereas in reality I on't know precisely. In a game where a turn is one minute then this may be irrelevant. In a game where it is a few seconds then it is critical.

Looking back to the OP's comments, I do understand that he, as someone with a military background, will be keen to see friction based on a myriad of uncertainties one encounters on operations. Why? Well, because that is an important part in approximating the reality of war within a game. Why did that section not get there when I expected is not important. How do I now change my plan to incorporate that delay is.

I can understand the OP's reason for posting. At Historicon I was approached by a chap who accused me of "inventing friction" as though I was wilfully attempting to ruin his gaming fun. ":Not me" I said "blame Clausewitz". But in truth Clausewitz didn't invent friction. It's always been there. Adding it to a game is not about trying to remove fun it is about trying to better present the gamer with an experience which approximates the real challenges of command at the level the game is pitched at.

Part of the perceives problem here is that as humans we are brought up where we play games against an opponent and there is no real friction. Let's take chess or chequers. When I play my pal at either I am competing with him. My Knight never complains of bad going which held him up. My rook never had trench foot or blisters. For many years this was pretty much how wargames were designed. I go, you go, very typical of any board game we had ever played. Now we see games which are trying to embrace some of the realities of command and adding in friction. I am unashamed in doing so because as a game designer I am inspired by trying to replicate command choices within a game which mirror those that commanders on the ground have to make.

So, my example of crossing a road was probably a poor one as it involved enemy action, but I was attempting to show how the situation demanded the gamer to weigh up the risks as the commander would in reality. Real friction is events which don't involve the enemy but which make the battlefield an uncertain place even when the enemy isn't around. Combine the two – enemy action and friction – and you have a real challenge that isn't just about defeating your opponent, but doing so in an environment which is a challenge in itself.

I thought that worth a clarification.

Big Red. Actually, on the double jeopardy front, Chain of Command has both random movement and an chance of reactive fire. So we DO have both. The latter is just not always available based on a built up reservoir of tactical awareness which you can spend to do clever stuff. However, like pennies in a sweet shop,. once you've spent them you can't spend them again.

BTW. I love your mule analogy. I know that feeling all too well.

Rich.

I hope it is just Wargames design you are notorious for Rich. The thought of you flashing your manhood in the Park is not one I care to entertain! :-)

Don't kid yourselves, you guys are way more sophisticated and award winning than this mule! You can count my awards on one hand with five or six fingers left over – there are no awards for critics.

I do believe in the situation normal beyond all recognition point of view. All I'm saying is that the friction is often built into game movement even from the Featherstone/Bath/Barker days. At least they said it was.

Time distance calculations would make it possible to move 12 inches in the length of a bound but movement distance is 6 inches with the Laurel and Hardy effect already built in.

You know its going to take four turns to move 24 inches instead of two because the 8 ball privates and the unseen quicksand are going to mess things up. Not to mention that enemy player and his evil schemes. It could take longer but the game part can easily get lost (as in waiting to move, turn after turn, in Black Powder, et al).

Random movement and op fire seems to be two penalties for one act.

I do have to laugh at the "award winning" bit. My wife once said to me that being a 'famous wargamer' is a bit like being famous for exposing yourself in the park. It's more notoriety than fame.

Ha! Totally. We used to joke in Iron Ivan about wargaming fame and the dozens of dollars in fortune!

Though in all seriousness, even after all these years, I still genuinely feel I'm the amateur enthusiast among the crowd. I'm still in awe of so many good designers. The experience of simply sitting in on so many discussions here on TMP when it was overcrowded with so many knowledgeable people has had a big influence on my designs.

I will clarify that I don't feel that the *only* friction should come from enemy action. Just that at 50m, I build much of it around that. There's plenty of ways I like to work uncertainty in other ways. Thought you were going to get that HMG to support your assault? Sorry, they've been firing the entire time in support of 2nd platoon and the 60mm mortars must have run out of ammo because no rounds are falling on the positions I asked them to. And where's the smoke? Holy crap, recce didn't tell us they had an AT gun covering that road. The platoon sergeant went to round up 2nd squad and only came back with three blokes and no MG. I stood up and shouted "let's go!" And only Jones and Smith came with me…

Just because I like the interplay of friction from enemy action doesn't mean other friction isn't present. Just that enemy action informs a lot of what I'm trying to capture in 50m. It's such a small place that I felt much of it should come from an enemy who is so close whereas the friction outside of that mostly comes in pre game events (though it's other places as well).

Stuff happens. Like when I ran a demo at Historicon for Allen Rockwell of Gamecraft and he rolled nine 10s in a roll of 9D10…

"Time distance calculations would make it possible to move 12 inches in the length of a bound but movement distance is 6 inches with the Laurel and Hardy effect already built in.

You know its going to take four turns to move 24 inches instead of two because the 8 ball privates and the unseen quicksand are going to mess things up. Not to mention that enemy player and his evil schemes. "

The difference is there is still certainty. The actual time/distance is actually irrelevant. The more important part is that both sides know that a specific event will occur over a specific amount of time. That is why the removal of that certainty is the key aspect of friction. For both sides.
On the subject of double blind games, some of the best games I've ever played were double blind. I haven't played one in decades. Why? Probably no coincidence that I (and all of my group) were young, single, childless, and had the opportunity and strength to play games for 18 hours straight.
Double blind isn't really an option for an evening or an afternoon.

Double blind gaming can be incredibly rewarding. When it works, it creates an experience like no other. It can also be a lot of work and very tedious to prepare.

My own efforts for our club use this system discussed on my old blog:

link

The only downside has been the time it takes. Even for a small two player game it takes longer than our club typically meets on a given week. As such it hasn't seen much use.

I might have to dust it off soon and give it another go.

@Pizzagrenadier

There's more than one way to handle that scenario of crossing the road though. Rather than building the uncertainty into the player rushing the unit across by giving him variable movement, it is just as viable to put that uncertainty into an opportunity fire against anyone who tries it.

Correct. I'm picking up what you're laying down.
However this ignores the issues of movement being delayed /disrupted /prolonged by circumstances that are not related to enemy action.
The issue I have with fixed movement (particularly at the sub company level) is exactly how my types of terrain will be defined within the rules?
For example let's assume we have ‘Open', ‘Close', ‘Thick' and ‘impassable'.
The last is easy,… 0 movement.
But open terrain can sometimes be more open than other ‘open' terrain.
I'll give you a real life / actual example.
I have an ANA ‘Toli / Company' moving through reasonably open ground in Afghanistan in ‘Contact'.
A section is tasked to move across a field, over an irrigation ditch and take upna position near a low clay wall.
They are receiving no incoming fire.
The terrain is flat, covered with waist high crops.
The section steps off and moves about 20 meters and then suddenly goes to ground and two men start shooting at the irrigation ditch!
There is no return fire.
A pause.
No forward movement.
After a few minutes the issue is sorted out.
There is no one in the irrigation ditch.
There is no reason the section shouldn't have covered the ground in about 2 minutes.
It took 10-15 mins.
Why did they stop, go to ground and start shooting?
Who knows?
It certainly wasn't due to EN action.
Was it simply a jumpy Forward Scout or Section Leader?
Was there actually a EN in the Ditch?
Was it simply a local moving through the area using the ditch as a ‘safe route'?
If so was he mis-identified as EN?
Or
was it that someone in the section was hell bent on not going into another Itrigation Ditch?
A few days earlier a lad from the same platoon was killed by a IED placed in an irrigation ditch.
This is just one of many examples of ‘friction' sending a pineapple 🍍 down range that has nothing to do with the EN that can only be classed as ‘Random'.
What was important wasn't that the section stopped moving.
What was important was it wasn't ASSUMED the section would simply waltz across the field.
To the platoon commander's Credit he didn't move his remaining sections until our jumpy one was where it needed to be (even it it was late getting there and minus about 100 5.56mm rounds.
So
Should such possibilities be factored into every set of Wargame rules?
No, not necessarily.
But it shouldn't be a point of criticism if it is and IT'S DONE WELL.

The difference is there is still certainty.

😂 😆 😝 😂
Sorry,…
No
Nah
No way
Certainly not
WT @#%!!!!

There is no certainty when in contact with the enemy in any way shape or form other than uncertainty, fear, sweat and the occasional soiled underwear.
YES, planers of operations will state:
"At H minus 5 Call Sign 1 will engage VR1157 with 30 Rounds HE PD.
At H hour C/S CHARLIE will step off
At H plus 2 C/S 1 will check fire on VR1157
At H plus 3 C/S 1 will engage VR1158 with 30 Rounds HE DELAY….".

But things don't always go as plan so the order ‘Dwell' was invented.
In other words
"Keep shooting at VR1157! Charlie isn't maintaining his rate of advance".

Seems odd to me that people are fine with rolling dice for combat, many others for activation, but almost no one likes to roll for movement.

Should such possibilities be factored into every set of Wargame rules?
No, not necessarily.
But it shouldn't be a point of criticism if it is and IT'S DONE WELL.

Definitely got what you're saying. I just want to make clear, for me it's not a criticism, it's a preference for using other variables. I don't use variable movement in my systems. I feel like other factors I already mentioned take care of that. Plus, it's an easy enough house rule to add it.

I also totally understand using it and never minded any game where it's been a feature. In the video review, it wasn't me expressing a preference for fixed movement, just to be clear.

It's all good.

Plus, it's an easy enough house rule to add it.

I was just about to say that very thing

Nooooo..you misunderstand (or rather I write poorly), I meant there is certainty in Big Red's example, which is not the way to represent friction.

Nooooo..you misunderstand (or rather I write poorly), I meant there is certainty in Big Red's example, which is not the way to represent friction.

Ahhhh,…
I see.
Apologies

I will confess I was the reviewer who said "I've come to like fixed movement." I also said that in the context of how important friction and the importance of big men are…so not really an anti-friction statement. I like friction at all levels. I have just come to find that in the interest of moving a game along…that fixed movement combined with terrain, shock modifiers and potential overwatch would tend to do the trick for me. A fresh unit, not yet under fire should be able to cross the road without tripping on their shoelaces. I get that sometimes they in fact do…but in a 2-3 hour game I don't need to model every aspect of Murphy's law. As long as neither player is able to do everything they want, when they want and to the extent they want…I am comfortable that the point is covered. I would also like to point out that everything I said was tied together in the recognition that it all works and emphasizes the Big Man aspect of the games which I enjoy very much.

On a related note I am just setting up a game of At Any Cost: Metz 1870 by GMT games. It uses a chit-pull system which is intended to emphasize 'fog-of-war', 'friction-of-war' and 'fortunes-of-war'. I like that formulation and look for it in any game I play. We'll see if this one works as advertised.

I will confess I was the reviewer who said "I've come to like fixed movement."

HERETIC! UNCLEAN! BURN THE WITCH!

It has been fun reading all the posts, observations and conclusions. I do have some random responses to some of the comments:

1. Friction, as defined by Clausewitz didn't include enemy actions, commander hesitations because of the unknown, etc. etc. etc. I think that really confuses the issue. Friction related entirely to the internal working of the army organization. Clausewitz wrote:

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.

2. The random, generally unpredictable nature of friction fits under the label of 'the unknown'. There is a lot of that, but only the various decision-makers' responses within the army hierarchy can be called friction--and that has a lot to do with training, culture and experience. Those responses can be 'friction', if that is how it is experienced by the commanders. The example of a unit going to ground because some troops started shooting as a ditch is a good example--the commander wanting that unit to advance sees the situation as 'friction'… the troops see it as combat. McClellan's hesitations at Antietam was not Friction. That was all on McClellan.

3. It is true that lots of miniature rules over the decades have used the same unit movement rates of 4 to 12 inches regardless of scale. That has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with modeling 'friction.' Those distances are chosen solely because of table sizes and the difficulty modeling the actual movement rates of units on a table top. Designers simply didn't know how to deal with the fact that units should be able to scoot across the table much faster, crossing a 4-6 foot wide table in a few turns, let alone the fact that it makes artillery, attrition fire difficult to model.

The idea that this demonstrates friction is after-the-fact rationalizing…at best. First of all, units didn't move that slowly 'on average'. Second, averaging all units' movement leaves you with a real problem, sort of like the average American family having 2.4 children. The average doesn't represent ANY unit's movement rate. Third, those movement rates always, and I mean always keep units from being able to move and replicate historical movement rates. Pick a rules set of most any scale.

"Averaging" movement to represent friction always fails to represent friction--even if that actually was the reason for creating short movement rates.

4. Friction is also something that increased the close an army was to the enemy. The enemy is trying to disrupt you to destruction… Friction is about the internal operations of the army, their experience with Friction. That 'close to combat' friction is generally covered with combat mechanics. Richard C. [TooFatLardies] makes this point about the difference above.

On the Morning of the Battle of Austerlitz, Napoleon asked Soult how long it would take his two divisions to reach the Pratzen Heights @1500 yards away. He responded "20 minutes." [some books say 10 minutes, but that is not the original account] From all accounts, Soult's corps made it in that time.

Soult was an experience tactician, Napoleon called him the best in Europe. He knew about Friction and speaking the the Emperor, wasn't going to make promises he wasn't sure he could keep.

His troops moves at about 80-85 yards a minute. That isn't really all that rare. The three divisions in Pickett's Charge sixty years later crossed the same distance at the same rate under artillery fire. Compare that movement rate to most all rules, F&F, all versions for instance.
The rate is less than half of that…

Where is the 'friction' in those accounts… How much unpredictable randomness was Soult dealing with? The Confederates?

Even the Allies at Austerlitz, dealing with an army seemingly designed to create Friction, was able to keep to their battle plan time schedule even with the monumental screw-up in the early morning, where the cavalry corps marched through two infantry columns throwing everything into confusion.

I am annoyed by games that include mechanics specifically "intended to emphasize 'fog-of-war', 'friction-of-war' and 'fortunes-of-war'" when the actual type and rates of such things are never established…just thrown in for 'feel' …of something.

Don't get me wrong, I love games with random effects… and they don't have to represent anything other than fun…but if that is the reason for the random mechanics: representing historical battle, they should at least know what and how much actually occurred.

5. At this point in game design discussions, as during this tread, at least one person has to remind us at length that these are wargames played for fun etc. etc. It is sort of like a group gathered to discuss automobile engine design being reminded that a car is meant to be driven, so don't get too involved with the quality of the engine performance. What is the persistent fear here?…that designers and gamers will forget why games are designed or what they want from them?

Of course, we play for fun…involving a wide range of fun. Duh. If the game is designed to model something from reality like friction, you got to talk about what that is and how that can be done in game terms… and the whole process can be fun.

McClellan's hesitations at Antietam was not Friction. That was all on McClellan.

I'll stray off topic:
Little Mac was an Big ass!
I return you to your regular programming

I tend to favor games that yield some reasonable level of realism without an encyclopedia of rules. Many things are best represented in an abstract way. Some of the best rules avoid the minutia of micro management to focus on overall "feel". And we all know given 2 gamers in a debate you'll have 3 opinions! So my solution is if it feels good game it!

Simple is good.
Simple and challenging is better.
Fun is essential

I tend to favor games that yield some reasonable level of realism without an encyclopedia of rules.

Simple is good.
Simple and challenging is better.
Fun is essential

I'll second that… +2

I have found this interesting and challengeing and wanting to sream loudly "you fools" at one side or another ;).

Clearly its an interesting and emotive subject. GeorgeWyrd has a point.

Too many rules slow a simulation down and so generally makes it less realistic. Any friction specific rules need to have a really low game time impact whatever they are. Secondly and this is personal opinion, I have see too many games fail to entertain because the "random factor" standard takes the game out of the set of interesting games. Having the equivalent of "the game turn ends do you don't do anyting" is not fun or interesing and does not lead to a better understnding of tactics. I will admit it may in some cases add realism but not in a usefull way.

There is another view that is from a modelling point of view is adding friction the best way to improve a given simulation. Are ther other thiungs that could be introduced instead of friction to improve the relationship to reality?

A simulation in many ways would be improved by control of ammunition in some cases. Also rate of fire and barrel changing on Machine Guns which cause a halt in fire potentially just at the wrong point. Are these less critical than the odd gun jamb that may or may not happed? Both spoil the "continuity" of gun fire, both for the enemy are an interuption in fire he will never know the cause of. One may be less interesting but that is not a factor on which to technicaly judge a simulation.

Too many rules slow a simulation down and so generally makes it less realistic

Slow it down? Yes
Less realistic? Maybe but I can't see why a slower game is a less realistic game.
Less enjoyable? Almost certainly for most I suspect.

Any friction specific rules need to have a really low game time impact whatever they are.

I'm unaware of any friction specific rules personally. I'm suspect they exist but I'm not aware of any. Good game design will subsume friction into the rules.
Sam Mustafa, D Brown, Richard Borg and Richard Clarke and Co are very good at doing this as are others I suspect.

Having the equivalent of "the game turn ends do you don't do anyting" is not fun or interesing and does not lead to a better understnding of tactics. I will admit it may in some cases add realism but not in a usefull way.

Ok,.. so the only rules I am aware of that have an ‘End Turn' mechanism is CoC.
Personally I'm a big fan of this. It simulates a ‘tactical pause'.
As a veteran all I can say is ‘it happens'. Why this isn't usuful I can't understand. How else would you seemlessly create a situation in a game where smoke clears (as it does or as a Commander might want to happen)?
How else could you create the situation where you could realistically expect to ‘motivate' a Pinned section to get back into the fight or simulate ‘sorting out' the confusion in an FUP or Line of Departure due to a Mortar Bombardment just as you're ‘stepping Off'?
Answer: well I guess with a different mechanism but the ‘End Turn' mechanism that TFL use seems like a good one to me.
But I'm biased. I think Chain Of Command is the best Platoon Level game I've ever played.

A simulation in many ways would be improved by control of ammunition in some cases

Agreed!
I think the mechanism in the ‘General d'Armee' and ‘Pickett's Charge' Rules in this regard is excellent where the more you simply blaze away the more likely you'll sustain ‘Fire Casualties' in the case of the Artillery (fatigue of your gunners, damage to your guns) or a loss of Fire Discipline amongst your infantry. As a Gunner I rely appreciate these rules.

Also rate of fire and barrel changing on Machine Guns which cause a halt in fire potentially just at the wrong point. Are these less critical than the odd gun jamb that may or may not happed?

No, they are not except to say one is to be expected and iscwithin The firer's control in regards to ‘timing' (a barrel change) and one isn't (a jam / stoppage always seems to happen at The WORST possible moment )

Both spoil the "continuity" of gun fire, both for the enemy are an interuption in fire he will never know the cause of.

Game wise this is a good thing is it not?

Slow it down? Yes
Less realistic? Maybe but I can't see why a slower game is a less realistic game.

It has to do with what the players are asked to do. Empire is a good example. All the detail, regardless of how much history/reality it includes, asks the players to spend lots of time in carrying out administration tasks and mechanics, rather than actual decision-making--what the players are actually doing and thinking about has nothing to do with reality…though that was the intent.

Also rate of fire and barrel changing on Machine Guns which cause a halt in fire potentially just at the wrong point. Are these less critical than the odd gun jamb that may or may not happened?

The question keeps coming up of when friction happens and how often.

I'm unaware of any friction specific rules personally. I'm suspect they exist but I'm not aware of any. Good game design will subsume friction into the rules.

I think that is often because it is subsumed under 'random' events, whether dice or cards. Too often it is just game a randomizing system that creates unpredictable/or predictable odds events.

It still comes down to where and how often such things actually occurred in reality.

For the ‘General d'Armee' and ‘Pickett's Charge' Rules: How often did brigades 'hesitate' in reality? One third of the time? How often were staff available…and did commanders know that ahead of time?

The 'End of Turn' mechanism in TFL games…does that represent the same thing at all scales… and what exactly does it represent?

Does choosing when to throw out terrain or 'out of ammo' cards against an opponent in Mustafa's games actual represent how friction was experienced by commanders in a battle?

Game-wise, these all randomizing mechanisms may be fun to play, which is fine. I enjoy them. It still isn't clear whether they represent anything in reality for the players.

What friction commanders had to deal with and how often, what were unknowns among all the achievable knowns are the questions being asked. The question of HOW to represent them in a game, simply or subsumed, can only be asked after you have those answers.

Like any work of history, every detail of an event can't be included, regardless of how small the time frame. The historian has to choose what to include, what to leave out. What is included and how is what makes it good history, accurate history. The same is true of wargames and simulations.

Whether the control of ammunition is included is a designer's choice… It's absence doesn't degrade the simulation or wargame… anymore than including it makes it a better simulation. It all depends on what the designer/historian is interested in representing. What improves a simulation is HOW it is represented--when the designer decides to include it.

IF the battle being recreated was lost because of a lack of ammunition… certainly that makes it a real concern… but that comes back to the issue of friction.

Was that a problem created by poor planning or something out of the commander's control? Was it a known condition going into the battle?

If one designer believes that ammunition use was vital, that is their prerogative--the question is whether how it is represented in the wargame actually mimics the reality it supposedly was meant to mimic.

At the moment, it seems like folks are just commenting on anything random created by fun mechanics and dubbing it 'realistic'. How is it realistic? Compared to what?

I think the mechanism in the ‘General d'Armee' and ‘Pickett's Charge' Rules in this regard is excellent where the more you simply blaze away the more likely you'll sustain ‘Fire Casualties' in the case of the Artillery (fatigue of your gunners, damage to your guns) or a loss of Fire Discipline amongst your infantry. As a Gunner I rely appreciate these rules.

That's the WHAT happens at times. Great. I agree those are terrific things to include.

However, IF we are talking about Friction, randomness etc., it still comes down to when and how often such things occurred.

The question keeps coming up of when friction happens and how often.

Oh,.. that's an easy answer.
At the worst possible time.
😆
The reality is there is no answer.
Have you ever had ‘one of those days'?
Nothing seems to go right.
Then you have a day where everything seems to just ‘fall into place' and the planets align.
To be sure the more attention you pay to detail the better prepared you'll be to deal with the pineapples (as they say, ‘prior planning prevents pi$$ poor performance‘ ).
Asking ‘how often does friction occur' is like asking ‘how long is a piece of string'?
It depends where you cut it.
As I and others have stated:
The more you get into the weeds the more friction will have an impact on you and your command.
Why?
Well, one reason would be that a platoon commander has less control over the command decisions that were made that has place him in a particular situation.

IF we are talking about Friction, randomness etc., it still comes down to when and how often such things occurred.

One cannot apply mathematical formulae to Friction in order to pin point when it should occur, it would be great if we could!

I have to concur with Trailape, it just happens!

I agree that as one nears the point of contact Friction is more likely to grow or to put it another way, a small element of friction prior to contact will develop into a large dollop once the lead starts to fly.

That "fact" is that friction is random and that distinctly unquantifiable element irks some wargamers, as they fall to the side of the Chess family of gamers; they like to know what the odds are, what are the chances, they like to weigh up the pros and cons in order to make an effective decision. (I'm not being detrimental here, that just the way people are! Especially lawyers and barristers it seems ) Now when you throw into the equation a random, unaccountable element such as friction, this throws out the calculations and can go down like a lead balloon; they don't like unaccounted elements getting in the way! Other players are risk takers, they will similarly be able to weigh up the pros and cons but accept that the next decision they make comes with a risk.

A classic example of friction is radio communication in the modern age. At various incidents I can recall poor radio reception, bad comms or simply being unable to get on the radio channel at all (because some idiot was blathering away blocking it!) happening and turning the planned response to the incident into a compete cluster. At other times the comms seem to have been perfect, no interference at all and all goes to plan. But can I account for it? Could I have predicted when this would happen, no – because it's ever present and random. Its impact will vary from trifling to mega-cluster and sometimes I over-came friction because I've simply got lucky! (E.G. I pressed the transmit button on the radio a split-second before the other officers and got my message across to control first – rather than waiting an age and struggling to get onto the channel because it's now busy! It's as simple as that at times.)

Friction, IMHO, cannot be pinned down or quantified. It's simply something you have to over-come.

DB

some friction mechanisms which we use, some already mentioned:

morale rolls, will the unit function after being shot at. Usually "bellcurved" on 2d6. Easy

variable movement distance (maybe combined with variable unit activation) Easy

enemy bluffing (think cavalry in Lasalle encouraging units into squares). I like this aspect, while the discussion seems to remove enemy action from friction, the threat of enemy action I think is friction. Units should not move in the open in front of cover.

moderated games where the umpire throws in an element. cavalry ? here ? impossible ? (one I like)

unit activation rolls (one I personally hate, just a random game determining dice roll).

army activation systems (DBA) where you know what you can do and then prioritise. This just mitigates friction.

army activation systems where you don't know the sum of what you can do (Blucher). But you still prioritise, so it is more of a random handicap.

Card drawn activation until Tea Break, Bad luck factor is strong in this one, I prefer a game that isn't quite so haphazard.

Game events drawn randomly but played tactically (Longstreet Poor Surveying or Confusion cards), not quite game changers but really screw up the plan depending on when the opponent plays them. If only you could bluff with them :) Problem here seems to be the devious way in which the opponent can game the card, the worst possible outcome always happens!

Hidden deployment with fake blinds, big fan of that one. Seems to me the biggest game mechanic we have to use is the God view, we see everything, unless it is a moderated game. I love not knowing where the enemy is and love being where the enemy doesn't expect me. Spotting or acquisition rules mollify this in 1v1 games, but you can still see the enemy. Of all the frictional things that stop movement, lack of intelligence must rate up there.

Communication "relay" time to call down the artillery, similar to reserve rolls (followed by random or weighted deployment and possible march moves). Just don't game them and block march eh ? :)

Artillery scatter

So lots of examples I think where we do factor in friction.

Final thoughts, increasing random friction (in a game using dice to determine intended outcomes) moves the game further down the scale from being a "competitive" wargame (think tournaments)to a "why am I here just throwing dice to see if my units will even move, damn I just lost" affair. I suspect not many of us want the random lucky door prize effect. Chess at one end, gambling at the other. I prefer to be closer to the chess end. At least where I can swing the odds somewhat in my favour.

The has been one of the most interesting discussions on here for a while, so thanks to TrailApe for starting it.

Just a few more points from me: further back in the thread, a poster pointed out that Soult was able to very accurately predict how long it would take to move his command to a certain feature. I think that this makes a very good point: all things being equal, well-led, highly disciplined troops performing a relatively straight-forward task shouldn't suffer from too much friction… Soult's timings could still have been thrown off – one of his sub-commanders could have been thrown from his horse, there might have been an unseen ditch etc – but this would have been rather unlikely.

I mainly game the Boer War. To return to the debate of fixed / variable movement, I make all movement variable, but the movement of British units is a little less unpredictable that that of Boer ones. I factor in that the British units were disciplined, professional troops, blessed with foul-mouthed NCOs to keep things moving along – though even then, there still has to be the chance of a cock-up happening, as that happened in reality.

So while I fully agree with using variable movement as a way of illustrating friction, I do think this needs to be thought of a little, for example:

Movement in day time should be less variable than at night – indeed, there should be a pretty decent chance that a given unit won't move at all on a night turn.
Units moving well away from the enemy along a road will move at a more predictable rate than a unit moving cross country in an area thought to be near the enemy.
Units in close order should move at a more predictable rate that those in very open order – to portray the additional 'grip' a commander could exert.
Well-disciplined / well-led / elite units should move at a more predictable rate than a rabble.
Units moving in an area which has been well recce'd will move at a more predictable rate than those blundering into an unknown area.

I just throw these out to refute the commonly-held view that friction = randomness. The two are certainly linked, but a high quality commander / unit will have done everything in its power to lessen (though certainly not eliminate) the chance of a cock-up occurring, while a poorer commander / unit will not.

I prefer to be closer to the chess end. At least where I can swing the odds somewhat in my favour

I prefer to ‘crisis managment' Model.
It's a more realistic test of one's ability to manage chaos and combat is essentially managed chaos 🤔
The guy who can manage the chaos better should win.
The person who can dominate the Boyd Cycle or ‘OODA LOOP'.
Obviously just a personal preference 😁
There's no ‘Right or Wrong' game.
Variety is the spice of life and as gamers we've never been so spoiled for choice.

GL,

Just throw these out to refute the commonly-held view that friction = randomness. The two are certainly linked, but a high quality commander / unit will have done everything in its power to alleviate (though certainly not eliminate) the chance of a cock-up occurring, while a poorer commander / unit will not.

I absolutely agree – sort of!

The higher quality commanders, such as Soult, will be better able or better placed to over-come that random friction when it arrives and good training/organisation may eliminate much of it. A less able commander may not. So yes, you could have a very good commander with a highly disciplined unit that brushes friction side for the most part, or prevent much of its occurrence due to that level of ability and training. But it didn't always happen and even the best generals and formations cocked up – Ney at Quatre Bras springs to mind!

Friction it's still there (somewhere) and still random but simply less pronounced with less obvious effect or simply over-come quickly/may not appear at all within the more professional organisation.

I suppose, one could equate that to simple command die rolls – the better the commander the better his chances of ignoring or over-coming friction with his die roll. Though if I refer to my earlier example even the best unit in the world cannot over-come the all too common occurrence of crap radios or radio signal black-spots!

DB

Friction is when your Afghani allies stop to skin up in the middle of a firefight. ;o)

David Brown

Yes – absolutely. There will always be the chance of a cock-up: that is the nature of the beast.

All I meant was that a force which does proper planning, walk-throughs, kit inspections, detailed O groups etc, is less likely to forget to bring the wire cutters or have the wrong maps.

But yes: there will always be the chance of a cock-up.

You can have too much of a good thing.
Too much friction is heading towards randomness.
If a player starts thinking "but this is just all random" then he's probably not having fun.

There's also likely times when fixed movement is reasonably realistic. You know the terrain, have a fair idea of enemy positions and your men are reasonably reliable with sensible command. Maybe the approach is straight forward or your men are not going to be under substantial fire.
I would suggest that the difference between movement on a modern battlefield whilst under fire and on the approach whilst not under fire is huge. To the extent that friction is reasonably predictable in the latter.

Now its interesting in the mention of "radio Blackspots" as an issue. This would be a properties of the terrain for example a ditch or depression. Now they do occur but thay are likely to occur for everybody in that spot. Those of mobile phone obsession will understand. Now dicing for it could become ridiculous if one guy stood in the same place and did not get one. Absolutely unrealistic. Similarly dicing for a river being fordable, once its checked it stays that it does not change when somebody turns up 10 min later. So is this Friction or just highlighting a need for better definition of the battlefield?

Personally I see no need for Friction with our rules the number and scope of the decisions is wide and causes even myself the co-author at the top levels possible, to generate Friction without rules, you move down a road forgetting the need to get other troops down the road at the same time. Now you have a traffic jamb and a hell of a mess to get out of. If you were the guy in a truck it would seem just a random event but actually it was a staff (mine).

Adding random events could push the game beyond what I would want to cope with and possibly out of the set of interesting games. The jamming of the odd gun may be real but is it a useful thing to model? Take American MMG platoons. They typically fire at 100 RPM. When one needs to change the barrel the other two up their rate of fire to close on 300 RPM to cover for the other gun being out. It would be the same for a jammed gun. Given we do not model the subtly of changing rates of fire (for good reason) why would adding, in effect a specific case of a jammed gun be advantageous? Now if the fault was severe and all guns jammed at the same time, what is the probability of that, answer very unlikely and beyond the accuracy of the model so a bit pointless. What would be the response if they did, some more guys die and the assault is either abandoned or postponed if it was that critical, neither are interesting outcomes in my opinion as the game falls into a stalemate.

Oh and speed of play. Most battles swing too and fro positions being taken and re taken. Hard to achieve if you only get enough moves to get and take the position once. Too few bounds prevents the flexible response commanders are renowned for, if there is no time to respond, drastically reducing the quality of the simulation far more than a simulation of "rare" events enhances it (in my opinion).