"The Problems with IGOUGO..." Topic

You were asked – TMP link

What's Wrong with IGOUGO?

27% said "none of these/no opinion"
13% (tie) said "lack of player interaction" and "unrealistic"
11% (tie) said "game can be decided before second player can act" and "too predictable"

As of the time of this response, 73 of 144 that responded said they had no issues with IGO/UGO.

So really 50.7% said "none of these/no opinion".

I'm not sure which sort, Element By element IGOUGO or side by side IGOUGO. The former is great with a few Twaks and even the latter can be OK for early periods much less so for Late WW 1 onwards.

Played a lot of simultaneous move games back in the early 1970s. Did not like them at all. i.e Quarrie Napoleonic, WRG 3/4th, Gush Renaissance, WW2…… yuk!

I feel the same way about IGO/UGO…yuk!

@Ushka
for clarity, I would reserve the term IGOUGO for side by side IGOUGO and call "element IGOUGO" changing initiative or something like that.

so IGOUGO OK for linear wargames like DBM. Element IGOUGO is better for more moderen games where flexiblity of of attack/responce is required. Our own rules use a version of element IGOUGO. Without some felexibility, element IGOUGO can have problems like getting a coloum down a road can get a be implausible, hence why we modify it somewhat but to me it offers a very good solution. Many folk have opinions on how element IGOUGo should be done some random some not.
If I wre to point a finger at element IGOUGO it would be basicaly that it is an inherently 2 plater system. I am aware that randon selection of elements can make it more multi player friendly but to me that is the worst incarnation of the system. However it is rare you will get a good demanding multi player game anyway so maybe it matters less in that case.

IGO U Wait
IGO U Die
IGO U GO for a beer
IGO U Bored
IGO U GO to the Loo
IGO U Complain
IGO U Quit

Wolfhag

Element by elemnt IGOUGO system. The worst possible untill you consider the alternatives.

I would think it all depends on 1. what is being represented and 2. how it is done. It isn't like there is only one kind of IGO/UGO system.[e.g.Decebalus's "element IGOUGO."]

For pre-20th Century warfare with reaction times based on what could be seen and reported [by foot or horse] a action/reaction system can work well. It all depends on the system.

For instance, follow the action and reaction moves of the armies at Salamanca, Waterloo, the Second Day at Gettysburg or Mars-la-Tour.

I can see after the advent of the radio, planes etc. that
IGO/UGO systems don't seem as viable representing the decision-making dynamic.

McLaddie,
Aren't "reaction times based on what could be seen and reported" valid for any period of history? Especially at the lower level and 1:1 engagement?

I think that an IGOUG system is attempting to solve the interactive timing between all units that should ideally solve any initiative determination too.

Basically, IGO before UGO because I react faster (timing) and am quicker. Timing determines initiative between individual units/combatants, not necessarily entirely for one side or the other.

Wolfhag

"Aren't "reaction times based on what could be seen and reported" valid for any period of history? Especially at the lower level and 1:1 engagement?

Wolfhag:
That depends, what a brigade commander could see in 1800 is about what a company commander could see in 1944. To get the information to the right person and then institute a reaction to what had been seen didn't necessarily equate for the two periods.

I think that an IGOUG system is attempting to solve the interactive timing between all units that should ideally solve any initiative determination too.

Personally, I hate the 'initiative determination' concept. It suggests something that it isn't really trying to represent. For example:

Basically, IGO before UGO because I react faster (timing) and am quicker. Timing determines initiative between individual units/combatants, not necessarily entirely for one side or the other.

If you and I, as commanders,have the same initiative and react at the same time, then your ability to respond faster is an element of the command system, not your or my or even any of our subordinate's super 'initiative.'

Timing doesn't determine initiative. Initiative is the willingness to act or the combat situation. Timing is when one acts. How can someone 'lose or win the initiative' if it is simply the ability to do things quicker? If one tanker gets a shot off before the enemy, do we say the enemy has 'lost the initiative' or that the friendly tanker got off a shot first because of superior 'initiative?'

I think you aren't talking about initiative here, but the ability of an organization to respond when a commander takes the initiative.

There certainly are ways that designers have attempted to portray superior organization and timing in IGO/UGO systems. However, the mechanism of rolling for 'initiative' is nonsense, as if it were entirely by chance that one side seizes the initiative or another loses it.

McLaddie,
I was talking about the initiative in lower level 1:1 games as it is used in determining who goes first, not C&C.

The Oxford Dictionary defines initiative as "the ability to assess and act on factors independently; the power or opportunity to act or take charge before others do; an act or strategy intended to resolve a difficulty or improve a situation"

If you and I, as commanders, have the same initiative and react at the same time, then your ability to respond faster is an element of the command system, not your or my or even any of our subordinate's super 'initiative.'

Yes, I agree as it relates to C&C.

Timing doesn't determine initiative. The initiative is the willingness to act or the combat situation. Timing is when one acts. How can someone 'lose or win the initiative' if it is simply the ability to do things quicker? If one tanker gets a shot off before the enemy, do we say the enemy has 'lost the initiative' or that the friendly tanker got off a shot first because of superior 'initiative?'

In my simulation how quickly you can execute an order to fire depends very much on your tactical advantage of overwatch, surprise and flanking. Situational Awareness (mostly a function of the commander and his exposure), weapons platform performance, and some Risk-Reward Decisions by the player to act quicker but with an accuracy penalty. That can be seen as the "willingness to act" as you stated.

This allows players to a greater or lesser degree "the ability to assess and act on factors independently" and each 1:1 engagement across the table is doing this independently too. If your units overall are executing their orders more quickly (inside their opponents OODA Loop) it should reflect an overall initiative for your side (there would be some variables and other events) and the enemy will be forced over to the defensive and have to react to you.

This is the reason I don't have any rules that determine initiative in a 1:1 shootout. Whether it really replaces initiative doesn't really matter in the game.

The scenarios I'm playing generally simulate an engagement that took up to 15 minutes but generally 3-5 minutes. This does not allow much time for commanders above Company level to make a difference unless they attached themselves to a forward element.

Historically, there are many accounts of an individual taking personal initiative (what you may call valor) and turning the tide of the battle allowing his side to get inside their opponents Loop. The same goes for higher level command initiative but there are many different and nuanced factors than a 1:1 shootout.

I agree about the idea of rolling for initiative but I don't think there are many other ways to decide it and there are factors outside of a players control that can affect it as you go up the chain of command.

I'm open to suggestions that would better represent initiative in a 1:1 engagement than timing.

Wolfhag

Wolfhag:

If you accept that initiative is an action taken by commanders [and thus players], then it is just a matter of providing them with the same tools and circumstances the original combatants faced. The commander may or may not be able to get the information he needs to act. When he takes initiative, he may not be successful. Certainly there are factors outside of a commander's/player's control that effect the decision-making process… however that isn't initiative. It certainly can influence a commander's willingness to act--to take the initiative, but that is a decision, not some chance event.

This applies to a 1:1 engagement.

Historically, there are many accounts of an individual taking personal initiative (what you may call valor) and turning the tide of the battle allowing his side to get inside their opponents Loop. The same goes for higher level command initiative but there are many different and nuanced factors than a 1:1 shootout.

so, in a 1:1 engagement [I am assuming one stand equals one soldier?], you still have a soldier taking personal initiative, not by chance being given it. Chance may influence his decision, but that chance circumstance isn't the decision, the initiative.

So, provide those factors that "allows players to a greater or lesser degree the ability to assess and act on factors independently" but don't confuse the factors with the assessing and decision to act.

If you are trying to represent the actions/initiative of a subordinate lower in the food change, not represented by a player, then of course THAT could well be a chance event. But remember that following orders and 'taking the initiative' are not necessarily the same thing and probably should be considered two different decision-making processes, where following orders isn't "an individual taking personal initiative (what you may call valor) and turning the tide of the battle."

McLaddie,
I think I see where you are coming from. Remember, in the game, there is no initiative determination and no initiative rules like other games, we have some agreement there. I try to keep away from using the term "initiative" as it may confuse new players with its normal use in a game which is what side goes first (do those games have it wrong?).

If you accept that initiative is an action taken by commanders (and thus players), then it is just a matter of providing them with the same tools and circumstances the original combatants faced

Yes. The circumstances are a tactical advantage (flanking, surprise, ambush), crew training and weapons platform performance. The tools are different tactics and decisions.

So, provide those factors that "allows players to a greater or lesser degree the ability to assess and act on factors independently" but don't confuse the factors with the assessing and decision to act.

Yes, exactly.

I explain Action Timing as replacing initiative as it is normally used in games – the side that goes first. I agree that in reality initiative is deciding and not acting but I'm not trying to give the players an education or get into discussing different definitions. The explanation seems to work.

Experienced players that first play the game need to understand that the way the game uses turns is different than other games and there is no initiative determination and instead we use Action Timing. I try to keep it simple so they understand the concept. I could explain that there is individual "player initiative" to decide how to act but I think that's a given without needing an explanation at the chance of confusing them.

I don't get into an explanation of the OODA Decision Loop either because I don't need to, players are going to go through the process without being told.

The Oxford Dictionary defines initiative as "the ability to assess and act on factors independently; the power or opportunity to act or take charge before others do; an act or strategy intended to resolve a difficulty or improve a situation"

When both players make a Situational Awareness Check to respond they are both taking individual initiative. Both players have the initiative (as defined above) to carry on as normal, shoot or maneuver and take risks. There is very little random about it. Their decision, crew and weapons platform will determine how quickly they can act but I agree acting is not initiative. Their timing may result in one shooting first or with split-second timing both shoot at the same time. Shooting first is not a guarantee of success if you miss. In the game, players can choose to shoot sooner but be less accurate.

Getting inside your opponents Decision Loop has advantages but your opponent can still take individual initiative and risks to overcome it with very little left to chance. That's what I'm trying to simulate. In most traditional games the assignment of initiative seems to be more of a "design for effect" to force a historical back and force effect in the overall battle and get some play balance.

But remember that following orders and 'taking the initiative' is not necessarily the same thing and probably should be considered two different decision-making processes, where following orders isn't "an individual taking personal initiative (what you may call valor) and turning the tide of the battle."

We can agree on that one.

Quote from Otto Carius, Tigers in the Mud

"Unfortunately, impacting rounds are felt before the sound of the enemy's gun report, because the speed of the round is greater than the speed of sound. Therefore, a tank commander eyes are more important than his ears. As a result of rounds exploding in the vicinity, one doesn't hear the gun's report at all in the tank. It is quite different whenever the tank commander raises his head occasionally in an open hatch to survey the terrain. If he happens to look halfway to the left while an enemy anti-tank gun opens fire to his right, his eyes will subconsciously catch the shimmer of the yellow gun flash. His (the tank commander) attention will immediately be directed toward the new direction and the target will usually be identified in time.

Everything depends on prompt identification of a dangerous target, usually seconds decide.

That quote is the experience for players I'm trying to simulate in small 1:1 engagement, not large scale battles.

In the end, I'm not really so concerned about defining initiative as long as it does not confuse the players. Once players get the hang of how Action Timing works in the game there is no reason to bring it up. You are the first person in 5 years to bring it up but it has helped me to clarify it if someone does bring it up again. Maybe you can start a discussion of how some games get "initiative" wrong – that would be interesting.

I think Action Timing is IGYG but the sequence of when units perform an action or "activate" is deterministic and not random or by player choice. It has the advantage of not needing rules for initiative determination, unit activation, opportunity fire or some type of turn interrupt rule.

Because of the many variables involved to determine the timing of actions, a natural and playable Fog of War is created with the uncertainty of who performs an action next. That is what delivers the split second results I'm trying to recreate.

Wolfhag

n the end, I'm not really so concerned about defining initiative as long as it does not confuse the players. Once players get the hang of how Action Timing works in the game there is no reason to bring it up. You are the first person in 5 years to bring it up but it has helped me to clarify it if someone does bring it up again. Maybe you can start a discussion of how some games get "initiative" wrong – that would be interesting.

Well, your example of the tank commander's ability to quickly identify a dangerous target is a good one. The initiative is his decision of what to do, fire, retreat, maneuver, abandon the tank altogether?

Having played your rules, I never felt that initiative was something I was being handed or that it was simply chance that 'initiated' it and not my decision.

Remember the one game where I was commanding some Italian tanks. My job was to 'entice' the Allied tanks into chasing me into the German kill zones. While I lost two tanks and the Allies none, they 'chose' not to act against me and even in losing tanks, I couldn't 'entice' them to charge out. A lack of initiative… If I'd taken the initiative to retreat before any chasing, I might have encouraged them to charge, but as it was, they came out the other flank.

McLaddie,
I remember that game well. It was on a 16x8 foot table with 10 players and about 60 vehicles. It was a scenario on the battle of Halifya (Hellfire) Pass. The Brits didn't take the bait very well but some German players didn't want to cooperate with the overall strategy. We played the version using the graphical hit location. Unfortunately, I don't have any pictures.

Yes, there was no initiative determination in the game. Players determined how long for their next action for each unit and performed it when I called out that turn number.

In that game, I think it was you (a Napoleon Era guy) with no WWII tank experience figured out how to do a Reverse Slope Defense without any help.

Wolfhag