"New blog entry on creating command friction in game rules" Topic
6 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please remember not to make new product announcements on the forum. Our advertisers pay for the privilege of making such announcements.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Game Design Message Board
Areas of InterestGeneral
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Recent Link
Featured Workbench ArticleNeed some trees for your wintery tabletop?
Featured Profile Article
Current Poll
|
Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.
Elenderil | 20 Dec 2018 3:27 a.m. PST |
I have posted an article with some concepts I use in my home brew rules that might be of interest to the hive mind. You can find them at Elenderilsblog.blogspot.com |
jwebster | 20 Dec 2018 12:40 p.m. PST |
I think you are trying to overcomplicate command and control friction. There are so many factors that can affect C&C that it is worth abstracting them all into a simpler mechanism Good luck John |
Jcfrog | 20 Dec 2018 1:00 p.m. PST |
One thing often overlooked , and completly misunderstood with points allocated and reset each turn, is time delays ( esp. If short time per turns) and the hardships, if not near impossibility to stop distant moves/ attacks once launched for pre radio modern coms ( even ww2 up to a point). Always found it ridiculous when your flank attack stops moving for lack of poinst after launch, because points being swallowed elsewhere or because all of a sudden you do not want it. Annoying, frustrating as it should be, orders stay and should be slow to change if distant transmitting. |
Andy ONeill | 20 Dec 2018 2:55 p.m. PST |
Modes, combined with a direction arrow are one way to handle inertia. You can have covered markers next to units or separate like in an a4 box file. Kind of clunky though. Our computer game will have modes and go to location orders issued by both players then simultaneously resolved. Once units move out of the general's sight he only gets to know their location via adc, which will of course usually be stale data by the time the rider has travelled. |
UshCha | 21 Dec 2018 2:12 a.m. PST |
Elenderil, Aggressive command rateings to me don't work. We have generals who however you rate them or do things to the rules they are intrinsically cautious and will never behave in any other way and attempting a change is just pointless. If your rules would encourage one all out battle then fundamentally your rules are invalid in some way. There needs to be infighting so If one man stays out of the big battle he gets to keep his land and properties whoever wins. In the English civil War families has assocations with both sides to this end so you nbeed a modicum of "politics" in the rules. Simply controling orders is not a good simulation. In addition in the ECW the logistics to keep a large army in the field limited times and places large armies could meet. Again it does not have to be complex to get the effect. |
Elenderil | 27 Dec 2018 1:43 p.m. PST |
I came up with the command point concept to solve a problem I came across in other people's campaign rules way back I. The early 1970's. I found that it solved a different issue of enforcing realistic command spans. I use a command system where a unit is given an order consisting of a target (unit or location) a speed (rapid or cautious) and an action on arrival. The unit will attempt to carry out that order unless a new order is issued or they pass a reaction test for a change of situation. |
|