"Dice Movement the new trend?" Topic

I have noticed lately that some miniatures war games rules use a roll of dice to dictate movement. In the past, a unit had a set movement rate/factor that was reduced/increased depending on the terrain. Now, some rules use a throw of the dice to move units. My questions are a) which method do you prefer, and b) do you consider the dice throwing for movement to be a sign of laziness and or expediency by the rules designer in researching the movement of a unit?

Hardly new. Larry Brom's rules all use dice for movement, as do many of Don Featherstone's.

Depends on the scale of the game. If I am playing a game with only a few units on the board, then I don't mind rolling for move distance. The more units I have to move, the less I want to roll dice for movement distance. At some point it begins to take too much time; the law of diminishing returns.

I don't look at it as the designer was too lazy to look up movement rates. My view is the designer wanted a random element in his game to eliminate the players helicopter view of the battlefield.

Just my .02 cents

Your mileage may very

Mostly a) but also c) – there is no research that can predict how fast a unit in modern combat will move. Threats, real or imagined, will cause units to go to ground with alacrity. Random movement covers that quite nicely.

Although admittedly the higher up the scale you go, the less likely a unit will be affected by snipers, or stray rounds, or a suspicious movement in the hedgerow, or a short timer telling his sergeant that he ain't going to first down that trail.

Squad yes. Whole companies I'd agree shouldn't be subject to random movement.

It also adds a bit of fog of war to the game, as well as some excitement, which is never a bad thing.

So, in my humble opinion, at lower levels random movement in modern (1900+) is not only more accurate, but also more fun.

I think Foundry's Darkest Africa game uses D6 for movement, if I remember correctly.

We use Larry Brom's rules and are very comfortable with a random move distance. We just put it down to a cautious leader, boggy ground, or something similar.

Jim

Yea, in battle, nothing is a given, so randomizing things like movement, to-hit %s, etc. make life "interesting".

Years old. As others have said TSATF have alway had it. My own ACW rules have a bit of a hybrid of fixed movement based on formation and + or – one or more 1D4 depending on the situation (road movement, rough going, charge, etc.).

For my own homebrew 1:1 skirmish rules, each mini 'rolls' 2D6. The score is the action pts it can use, but odds dice allow a 3" move, and evens allow a 6" move (any move 8" or over is termed 'running', and most terrain mods on movement are eliminated.) This gives a min-max move of 6"-12" (instead of rolling 2D6 and taking that as your move distance "Let's see, I need to run over to that cover 7" away, aaand… I rolled a 2…" :-(

Thank you all! My experience with "fixed" movement rates started with Avalon Hill games where unit movement rates were influenced by terrain, and using dice for movement was only for games like "Monopoly", "Sorry!", etc. The past few years I have been buying rules from "Snip!" that utilizes dice for movement. A couple of games of "Snip!" and I was convinced dice movement brought a new and pleasant experience to the games that actually made sense to me. For me, it boiled down to what Thresher01 posted, and I do agree with that sentiment. As far as the Featherstone references, I did not know of him until the mid-1980's (Avalon Hill boardgamer, I was) and still have never read his books, so I had no idea he pioneered the use of dice for movement. Again, thanks for the conversations, I enjoyed your input!

I think it would be cooler to adapt movement based on the situation and the aggressiveness of the leader.

Something like:

"under fire, but not pinned, movement -2"
"aggressive leader, +1 movement"
"cautious leader, -1 movement"

And then the usual terrain modifiers..

All good and interesting thoughts.

In this argument, I always remember the reason for cadenced marching by formed troops, it standardised the march rate so a general could largely predict when a unit would reach point x.

At least, that was the theory!

Or you could expand the topic by including card-based movement systems … Many use playing cards where the suit determines whether the terrain and/or obstacle/challenge can be crossed this bound (and/or with what limitations) …

I quite like this approach – as, broadly, you have to allow extra time for the extra difficulties (but it is never clear exactly how much extra time is required). Which seems appropriate.

Phil

I like base movement plus a die roll modified by terrain.

Generally say 6" plus 1D6, halved for rough terrain, etc. for cautious advance with a bonus against being spotted or for taking damage.

6" plus 2D6 for rapid advance in open terrain with a penalty for being spotted or for taking damage.

If you need/want to preserve resources use cautious advance. If you absolutely, positively have to get there use rapid advance.

An uncomplicated system involving choice/decision by the player (one of the things that make a game system fun) while adding a bit of randomness (one of the things that add tension to a game) covering a range of things like "that guy", analysis paralysis by the junior leader, the unexpected – good or bad.

Dice rolls to dictate movement doesn't make too much sense in my mind.

What instead should be influencing and regulating movement is bounding for terrain objectives, and then consolidating on these areas for further action or movement.

This is also how units set local objectives, either during map planning or as battlefield maneuver evolves.

Even with low level gaming, makes little sense for a unit marching down a road to one turn be double-timing on their own initiative, and on a next turn stopping for a tea break irregardless/divorced from the local situation.

If variable movement is desired, then as Uparmored wrote above, there ought to be situational influences for it.

I think a general lack of terrain detail in games brings on much of this desired need for movement variability (even firing variability), basically because there's little physical friction being exerted by the limited terrain on the game board itself. Instead, some game system are "filling in the blanks" by random occurrence, attempting to add battlefield friction because many tabletop battlefields as laid out will be largely devoid of it.

Not a fan of total movement determination by a die roll but a base movement with a randomized situational modifier can be interesting particularly for charges.

What instead should be influencing and regulating movement is bounding for terrain objectives, and then consolidating on these areas for further action or movement.

This sounds like the way movement is handled in Crossfire. In that case the way movement distances were made less predictable meant a unit could bound from terrain to terrain for as long as they were not interrupted by enemy action. This ensured players covered their flanks and employed a reserve. No dice but the lack of a turn structure meant movement was randomised enough to avoid the predictability of IGO-UGO movement turns.

It seems to me using the dice for movement achieves two key objectives, one is to reflect various reasons units may move faster or slower than ordered or anticipated. Secondly it prevents gamey play that occurs when you are able to make ahistorical decisions because you can predict with certainty your enemy's arrival at a certain point.

Also depends on how the dice are used. 1D6 will give completely random results with equal chance of movement any number of inches from 1-6. Use 2D6 and the bell curve means a lot more chance of moving between 6-8" and occasionally things will go slower than anticipated or a lot faster than anticipated. Therefore much depends on exactly what mechanism you use to vary movement rates.

My experience with "fixed" movement rates started with Avalon Hill games where unit movement rates were influenced by terrain, and using dice for movement was only for games like "Monopoly", "Sorry!", etc.

Yes, me too, but as I point out above, much depends on how you use those dice. I played Avalon Hills Advanced Squad Leader for twenty years, but finally sold it all after becoming exasperated with the very mechanical and predictable way play unfolded. I've written a longer explanation of how I got to that decision on my blog which you can read here Farewell to Advanced Squad Leader

When looking as rule systems aspects like this the question that needs to be asked is, what problem is this solving and what is the effort in implementing it.
A die roll to determine the movement allowance of an individual element can add some historical flavour, especially if you apply modifiers, but represents a massive amount of work.

A die roll to determine if a formation can move, or not, or to determine movement order, is viable as this represents a minimal die rolls in a typical game, as long as it solves a problem. In this case the problem being solved is normally to reflect the greater ability of more experience troops.

A typical game, any rules, last for 12 game-turns, and should consists of no more than 50 elements per side, organised into 2 or 3 formations per side. Thus during a game one die roll per element could represent 1200 die rolls, a die roll per formation represents 72 die rolls and a die roll to determine movement order represents 24 die rolls.

No dice but the lack of a turn structure meant movement was randomised enough to avoid the predictability of IGO-UGO movement turns.

But there's been lots of game mechanisms which have been designed to deny the predictability of IGOUGO movement – command and control ranges, suppression fire results, and morale rules. These are mechanisms to be managed, or that an opponent attempts to use to alter the enemy's freedom of movement.

In this case the problem being solved is normally to reflect the greater ability of more experience troops.

Or perhaps more so, experienced die rolling. ;)

Kidding aside, I'd rather look at what a rule does to promote the use of tactics, and have the players reflect their own experience for maneuvering troops.

I really liked the dice driven movement in the original AK47, it introduced an acceptable degree of friction.

Interestingly, the 1978 British Army Tactical Wargame (Chieftans vs T62s) covering reinforced battlegroup operations also used randomised movement for operational movement of combat teams and battlegroups. As soldiers don't roll dice, the movement table is graded in 16.66% increments:)

But there's been lots of game mechanisms which have been designed to deny the predictability of IGOUGO movement – command and control ranges, suppression fire results, and morale rules. These are mechanisms to be managed, or that an opponent attempts to use to alter the enemy's freedom of movement.

Don't disagree and if we take Crossfire as just one example it also had these elements as well.

There are the things that your opponent can do to you (or you to your opponent) to interfere with their movement, as you mention – suppressing fire or hampering command. These you try to plan and manage. In the same way as you need to plan for the unpredictability of the outcomes in those situations so you should also plan and manage the unpredictability of more general attempts to move, like failure to have an order communicated in a timely fashion; unexpected ground conditions; getting lost etc.

Command is management and if I've learned anything from my years managing in a range of different organisations it is that no two people will perform a task exactly the same way. Even well trained and drilled people will respond differently, even more so under conditions of stress or danger.

In any enterprise on any normal day I would expect managers to run their departments as planned and directed. What makes a manager stand out is how they respond when things don't happen as planned or expected.

How many times in history has a commander sent a subordinate to a unit with instructions to ‘find out what's holding them up and get them moving'? It seems military history is replete with this timeless story.

These you try to plan and manage. In the same way as you need to plan for the unpredictability of the outcomes in those situations so you should also plan and manage the unpredictability of more general attempts to move, like failure to have an order communicated in a timely fashion; unexpected ground conditions; getting lost etc.

This is where we diverge, as I think there's mechanisms that already create battlefield friction in games, and ones that your opponent(s) are trying to leverage to do this. I don't feel a rule set needs to step in and add another layer to the mix, and a layer that's randomly generated.

Matter of fact, I'd feel a lot less satisfied as an observer, or as a participant if one side in a game defeats the other, primarily because a side botched their random activation rolls. So I don't think this adds anything to gaming, other than random game tilt.

TP, you can certainly prefer to chose, and enjoy your activation rolls (we are square on that).

Good discussion here. I play IABSM a lot. In general, I'm fine with the D6 for movement. Each squad gets 3 actions usually so for movement it is all about how many actions you want to dedicate to movement. Sometimes if you roll bad on using 2 actions (i.e. 2D6) for movement, and you get stuck in the open, so then you use your 3rd action to go to ground. However, I've thought of modifiers such as (a) if unit has not been shot at yet, then discard all "ones" or (b) if unit is moving behind solid cover such as a wall then discard "ones" or (c) unit was activated by a leader then discard "ones"

I don't mind dicing for movement allowance but it depends o the game. Dice movement can add a huge amount of unpredictability to the game. I like that.

I remember the old PanzerArmeeAfrika board game from S&T back in the 1970's or early 1980's.Dicing for the British movement was annoying but surprisingly god in term of reproducing history. But you can do something similar with command points, or multiple actions per game-turn based on quality, or a host of other ways which do not require any specific movement die rolls.

I agree with your both your comments pfmodel. There are better mechanisms to accomplish the same result than having every unit roll every turn for movement.

I have to agree with FlyXwire to a lage extent, does random make sence in the real world? Team X walks down the road to that house. Why would the unit stop in a stupid position?

Now having said that in our game if you chose to go quickly you speed varies in our Game (D20*10/2)+40 in meters. our "normal movement" movment for comparison is 60m. That means you are a bit random but you are scarificeing order for an increase in speed, this seems acceptable. In very unpredictable suituations like moving through buildings it a bit random. Here however that seems reasonable as the internal layout may vary somewhat and is generall not known beforehand and be confusing with internal obstructions. However in both cases you can move less than the total allowed, should you chose so the random is "controlable".

To me excessive random is a definite degredation of the game, too many games to me feel more like snakes and ladders, decided by die not the cpmmanders ability.

In addition too many games I see have dreaful terrain, like they have never seen the real world, too few hedges ditches, trees, roads etc. These in thre real worlds create varuiability as teams go firm to overwatch the movement of the next. This of course is not possible with some rules which have excessive range bands that are unrealistic sp cpovering fire iis inefective, this gives rise to unrealistic movement, rather than correcting the ranges or the terrain density, they add pure random movement effectively adding insult to injory. Just my thought of course.

I can see the need for variable movement at larger scales and time length of turns, like platoon-sized units in a 10-15 minute turn. It allows for variables and the unexpected. The platoon leader will have less control and there are more units that can run into difficulties.

I can cite many examples of our Company Commander attempting to move/maneuver/coordinate three platoons in the woods of N. Carolina. Sometimes one platoon would be moving across a clear area and another platoon gets bogged down in a swampy area. Trying to move my squad was no problem as it was easier to bypass bad terrain.

However, at the team/section/squad level with 30-60 seconds turn lengths, it should not be variable but there are a number of enemy actions or surprises that can occur to make them slow down or stop. It's easier for the squad leader to get the unit under control and move and fewer units to have a problem.

Their formation would make a great deal of difference too. In a skirmish formation, you could go 1 mph but have to occasionally halt to dress the line. In a column on a road/trail not expecting enemy contact, you could do 3 mph for an hour or longer before needing a break.

Personally, I like the enemy action to create friction, not the dice. But there is no right or wrong way to play a game, it depends on what you like.

Wolfhag

wolfhags comments reminded me of a strange conversation I had. Explainibng to a gentlmen about the rules I noted that without any rules you could if not carful get traffic jams just like the real world. He replied to my supprise that he wanted to dice for the effect not have it actually occour due to bad planning. This to me highlits the diffeneces in approach to what a wargame is between diffrent factions. The die for movements seems to be one of those fault lines, game vs simulation.

UhCha,
I think that goes with the "Design for Cause" or "Design for Effect" decision. For the most part, I like to see what causes the effect because of player's decisions, poor planning, etc. Some designs just give it a random chance of happening to build it into the game. They both have their uses.

Wolfhag

Hmmm…

"Team X walks down the road to that house. Why would the unit stop in a stupid position?"
Stupid is a relative term. Are you saying grunts never stop in the open? What if you're in a minefield? And is taking cover in that alleyway a better position? Not if that's where the enemy was trying to channel you.

"To me excessive random is a definite degredation of the game… decided by die not the cpmmanders ability."
I agree 100%, it makes for boring games, but let's not pretend that that how actual combat works. Or did the commander mean to have all the radio batteries in the CP die, supporting fires on the wrong freqs, his resupply go to the neighboring battalion, and one of his companies get lost, wander too far south and get bombed by friendly aircraft, all without having even seen an enemy soldier? Do you think traffic jams happen only as a result of bad planning?

And I'm afraid I have to disagree that it can't be applicable to skirmish/squad level games moving individual troops. You might want that scout/rifleman/machine gunner to move a full 8", but what if he spots something, or hears something, or trips and falls, or just flat out isn't as intent on recklessly moving that quickly on the battlefield?

I understand the design issues (cause vs effect), just to me you are controlling things as a player that are impossible to control in real life. Yes, all you simulationists read that again, as a fireteam leader you can't make Private Smith move faster if he doesn't want to, as a platoon commander you can't make 1st Squad move faster if they don't want to, as a battalion commander you can't make K Company move faster than they want to, you can only scream, curse, cajole, and maybe kick a couple of them ;)

So I'm not telling anyone how to play toy soldiers, but my personal opinion is that diced movement can be very effective as a tool of friction, and that doesn't take anything away from you or your opponent's plans. Having said that, even I rarely actually use it. On the one hand, I like my skirmish fights quick and brutal and rolling for movement slows it down too much. On the other hand, I tend to play games that already have a lot of friction in them, typically in the activation system (such as IABSM and 5Core Company Commander), so all that friction plus diced movement is simply too much (too many units sitting around doing nothing the whole game).

FlyXWire, my wargaming brother wrote: "This is also how units set local objectives, either during map planning or as battlefield maneuver evolves."
I was involved in countless Tactical Exercises Without Troops (TEWTs), from battalion to Corps level, and afterwards we'd typically go exercise them, and the one thing that never changed was troop movements, whether foot, mounted, or aerial envelopment, always took longer than planned ;)

This is why we (at least in units I was in; I'm reticent to say "…in the Marine Corps," lest someone jump in here and say "that's not how my battalion did it!") sought to move from timetable-based controls to situational and/or physical controls (enemy activity, phaselines, objectives, etc…). They were always present in OpPlans, but the emphasis changed. The only time that became important was H-Hour, and everything else after changed from "Bravo Company assaults Objective Y at 1300…" to "Bravo Company assaults Objective Y once Alpha Company is on Hill 350/reached phase line Quebec."

This, task organization, and the application of "mission-type orders" are the key tenets of maneuver warfare, the key aspect of which is getting inside the adversary's OODA loop.

And on a side note, terminology-wise, enemy action and friction are two completely different things.

"Matter of fact, I'd feel a lot less satisfied as an observer, or as a participant if one side in a game defeats the other, primarily because a side botched their random activation rolls. So I don't think this adds anything to gaming, other than random game tilt."
That's an issue with relying on dice though, isn't it? The same could happen with shooting dice, or saving dice, or penetration dice.

Wolf makes some great points from training exercises at LeGroin, but:
"Their formation would make a great deal of difference too. In a skirmish formation, you…"
I think on the one hand you have to take in the player's perspective, I.e., a Company Commander doesn't choose what formation 1st Squad, 1st Platoon is moving in, the squad leader does. But even if the player is ostensibly the squad leader, he can choose the squad's formation but he still doesn't control whether LCpl Johnson twists an ankle, PFC Williams is now in gastrointestinal distress because he ate some local food rather than his MRE, or Private Lucas is a bit jumpy walking point and keeps calling halts because he's sure something is out there.

just doesn't go the way you want it to go; I used to tell small unit leaders that your job is basically managing a train wreck at full speed, but don't worry, the enemy is going through it too, and the winner is the guy that can do it just a little bit better in bringing overwhelming firepower to bear DESPITE all the other crap going on. And a little luck never hurt ;)

"Some designs just give it a random chance of happening to build it into the game."
I think you have to have some form and amount of random in a wargame, purely because we humans simply cannot identify all the possible variables and the chance of them occurring, in order to make it a perfectly game. I mean, okay, I'm a battalion commander, it's Turn 1, let check to see how all 900 of my troops are doing. Roll individually for health, alertness, commitment level, make sure none of their equipment is worn out, none of them is in a tiff with a comrade, none got the dreaded "Dear John" or "I'm four months pregnant but you've been deployed for six months" letter, check water, ammo, frags, smokes (both cigarettes and grenades)… we haven't even gotten to the weather, the terrain, non-combatants in the area, and, of course, the enemy.

I'm sure everyone thinks I'm either insane or silly, but I'm trying to point out the obvious fact that a certain amount of abstraction is going to have to occur, and my contention is that this abstraction will actually make your game more realistic, not less realistic. I think any reasonable person will agree we can't grasp every variable, and simply leaving friction out is not realistic. As Martin said, "… it introduced an acceptable degree of friction."
Acceptable being the key word, and we all have different tolerances. Season to taste ;)

In any case, I humbly apologize for the incredibly lengthy post. I really love talking about wargaming mechanisms, I just haven't done so for a bit.

V/R,
Jack

The more unknowns you have the more chances for random and unknown events to make movement variable. Moving a platoon or larger formation will generate many variables. A 2-4 man team behind the FEBA may not but in front of the FEBA, it would.

My background is small unit tactics and patrolling so you know where my prejudices' and biases lie. In reality, a formation is only going to move as fast as the point element who will be moving fairly slow and making frequent stops to look and listen or based on their "gut". When you move into different terrain your speed may change. Coming to the top of a rise you crawl to the top to observe what's on the other side and don't skyline yourself. You stop and observe before moving into a clearing or avoid it. There are a variety of ways to carry this out in detail or abstract and randomize it.

Most of the games I play are encounters of a reinforced Company size unit. Historically, these encounters lasted a few minutes to a half-hour. There is not a lot that can go wrong but normally something always does. When not under fire movement can be somewhat variable. When under fire and maneuvering it's not so random as units are normally trying to move as fast as possible, which can result in accidents and poor Situational Awareness too. Of course, enemy fire can interdict movement forcing foot units to hit the deck (Immediate Action Drill). If you are moving under fire you are probably going as fast as you can.

I think it's a good idea to give the player a choice of more speed and less security/Situational Awareness or less speed and more security/better SA as a way of abstracting movement rate and Situational Awareness as a player Risk-Reward Decision.

Vehicle formations can use more speed and more frequent breakdowns or a slower rate of speed and fewer breakdowns. Personally, I like a game that lets players take risks, including doing something stupid because sometimes stupid does work.

The faster you move the worse your Situational Awareness is and the better your chance of getting ambushed. The larger the formation that is moving the more variable movement will be because there are more things to go wrong than a four-man team would have.

However, if you are part of a maneuver element in a squad Fire & Maneuver and your team gets the word to advance 15-20 meters and hit the deck and return fire you'll move that far unless you choke or freeze. If you are going to cross a street under fire you are not going to randomly stop before getting to the other side. There isn't going to be much random about it. If you are attempting to get off the "X" in an ambush you most likely are going to take a chance of running through a minefield at max speed and not stop to check. When the squad gets on line to assault, movement is going to be pretty predictable because if you slow down your squad leader will kick you in the ass.

When things go wrong it's normally at the worst time so I have a 5%-10% chance of a major or minor SNAFU (misfire, jam, crew panic, gunner choked, etc.) whenever you shoot but there is a small chance it will happen to your target. There is always some suspense when the dice is rolled and nothing is 100% guaranteed nor should it be.

But again, it's what the game designer wants to simulate and build into the game for a player experience. Too much prediction makes for a predictable and dull game.

Wolfhag

+1 Just Jack.

I still recall half the section being left behind as the section/platoon moved off because one squaddie forgot to tell the others we were moving out!

A delay of 10 minutes at the very start of the excercise!

DB

DB – Amen! And that's in an exercise, not even being shot at! ;)

Wolf – I think a lot of players are looking at 'commanding' a company, battalion, regiment, etc…, and looking at terrain that doesn't seem like much and wondering "why would it take so long, it's so easy! Look, it's 1000m of open terrain!"

But you know and I know the difference between an admin movement and a tactical movement, transitioning from admin to tactical, changing formation/order of march, maybe the CO's scared of getting caught out so we're going to bound across, drastically opening up the interval for the open ground, then the headaches that come with trying to maintain the interval ("tell 1st Platoon to halt and let 2nd Platoon catch up on the left!"), and you know it's going to happen because you know there's no way the terrain is going to be uniform. Hell, let's talk about the 'accordion effect' in a rifle company on a pure admin hump, much less moving cross country on line. How many players look at crossing a road and think it's no big deal, but we know it's going to add another 45 minutes for the company to cross the linear danger area!

Hell, I think I'm ranting and have lost all focus! So we agree that 'higher echelon' maneuvering is ripe for friction, but I still gotta disagree that it doesn't affect the lower levels.

"However, if you are part of a maneuver element in a squad Fire & Maneuver and your team gets the word to advance 15-20 meters and hit the deck and return fire you'll move that far unless you choke or freeze."
And guys do choke or freeze, or trip and fall, or step in a hole and break an ankle. There are plenty of guys looking for any reason to get into cover (even if it's only going prone) rather than keep moving.

"If you are going to cross a street under fire you are not going to randomly stop before getting to the other side."
And yet I've seen it! Some guys will flop down prone, some will move out, then move right back to where they started from, I've seen guys stop and take cover behind light poles!

"There isn't going to be much random about it. If you are attempting to get off the "X" in an ambush you most likely are going to take a chance of running through a minefield at max speed and not stop to check."
You ever start with 12 guys and reach the other side of the street with three, and no one was hit?

And regarding immediate action to a near or far ambush, that is still a function of small unit leadership. Not every man on the 'X' is going to see/understand the situation the same way, and not everyone is actually going to be able to make themselves do it (to complicate things, I can tell you that's not always the case, that as units become experienced more experienced they tend to see things through the same eyes and react in a much more uniform, predictable fashion when they come under fire).

And I absolutely must disagree with the 'running through a minefield bit.' My experience is that guys are ten times more afraid of stepping on a mine or IED and being dismembered than they are of being shot and killed. But I digress…

"When the squad gets on line to assault, movement is going to be pretty predictable because if you slow down your squad leader will kick you in the ass."
You're kidding, right? How many guys can that Sergeant kick in the ass at the same time? ;) Moving a squad on line at a uniform pace, aligned to the center, has problems on the parade deck, to say nothing of doing it over undulating ground while you're being shot at or expecting to be shot at?

I'm not saying you don't get there, but there's plenty of cursing and kicking and it takes a lot longer than wargamers expect. My opinion is that part of why fire and maneuver works is because guys only have to be brave for a few seconds, then they get to take a break for a minute while it's someone else's turn. "I'm up, he sees me, I'm down" actually works ;) Crossing 50 yards of open terrain is a lot to ask of a man (which is why above I mentioned a company crossing a klick of open ground by bounds); the tension just builds, and this may sound funny, but grunts get real focused on concepts of 'fairness,' i.e., "why do I have to hang my ass out the whole time while 3rd Platoon is chilling in the rear with the gear?" It's somebody else's turn now, Semper Fi, Mac! ;)

And here's the best part:
"When things go wrong it's normally at the worst time so I have a 5%-10% chance of a major or minor SNAFU…"
It sounds like you're already working it in, you're just doing it in a different manner.

"But again, it's what the game designer wants to simulate and build into the game for a player experience."
Amen! We all abstract stuff, you have to, and we choose mechanisms that suit our biases, which is exactly how it should be.

Cool stuff to talk about, but still I apologize for the long post…

V/R,
Jack

I think overall we're pretty much in agreement. Anything can happen, how and what can happen depends on what you want to portray. I use 2-6 man units, not individual figures so that somewhat limits the "human factors" that I can portray.

"When the squad gets on line to assault, movement is going to be pretty predictable because if you slow down your squad leader will kick you in the ass."
You're kidding, right? How many guys can that Sergeant kick in the ass at the same time? ;) Moving a squad on line at a uniform pace, aligned to the center, has problems on the parade deck, to say nothing of doing it over undulating ground while you're being shot at or expecting to be shot at?

I'm not sure how you guys did it but way back in the last millennium when the Marine Corps still had flamethrowers, we'd fire & maneuver to about 20 yards from the objective, get on line with 1-2 yards spacing, stand and walk quickly (that's the assault part) through the objective firing from the waist. It's supposed to take less than 30 seconds. I won't comment on the tactic, it's how we trained. We were told if someone goes down to keep shooting and assaulting. The squad leader is right there supervising.

That's different than moving across dense terrain in a skirmish line spread out 50-100 yards which is a royal pain, slow, unpredictable and worse, it's noisy.

I'd say anything other than a column formation would be somewhat unpredictable and subject to frequent halts. If you are in a tactical formation you are expecting the enemy. I don't make movement random, but there are frequent halts that allow the unit to detect a nearby enemy or the point man to scout ahead.

When in tactical formations some sub-units may slow down from poor terrain and others can keep going. The player needs to stop and let them catch up.

IIRC in the book, "On Killing" discusses guys that are "reluctant" in battle mainly hang back when not being supervised or alone. The solution was to put them in a weapons team where he'd be close to other members and more likely to perform his duties.

In my system when a unit comes under fire, they take an Immediate Action Drill. This includes getting ambushed, crossing a street, etc. There is a small chance a team/section may hit the deck and seek cover in the kill zone or freeze. It's not random, there's a reason.

To move under fire they must pass an Aggressiveness Check. Depending on training, leadership, and the volume of enemy fire there is a good chance the unit might "freeze" and stay where they are and it could happen multiple times. I don't have a "Pinned Down" rule as other games do. An order to Fall Back is always obeyed. Leaders can exercise their influence but can "freeze" too.

Guys do get separated in battle. In one engagement, my son was in a guy went over a wall into a courtyard and got hit when he was going over the top and fell on the other side hidden from view. The fire was too intense and they went around the other side got into a heavy firefight that took them away from the courtyard. After the fight was over they remembered him and went back to the courtyard. The Marine was sitting in the corner smoking a cigarette and had applied first aid to his wounds. There were 6x enemy KIA in the courtyard in front of him.

Wolfhag

I think its interesting what one wants to portray and what is abstracted. to some extent that may influence how much Random is considered necessary. I am in the school of generally having logical random, where it is most plausible. For once I am not completely on my own on this.

For me too many games have too much implausible random, I guess that why 12 years on we are still playing our game not new ones that are for me to oversimplified and suitable only for an occasional game not a dedicated fanatic interested in games that at least vaguely read like real accounts that follow basic manual tactics.