"Wait time between turns" Topic

Since we can't play a game using simultaneous movement and shooting, rule designers need some way to parse the action.

In your experience, which ones have players waiting around the most for a two-player or multi-player game?

Traditional IGYG
Random activation dice
Card activation
Activation/Command Points

I'm sure there are others. Let's discuss the methods and rules and not criticize specific games.

Thanks,
Wolfhag

I don't think the turn mechanism is as important as the decision granularity and the execution overhead.

Having to make larger scope decisions that take larger number of steps to execute extend the time per player, which increases the potential "dead time".

That leads to the effect of decisions/player/turn, which in some systems is proportional to the number of units controlled by a player. Some turn mechanisms (like action points) do not make number of decisions proportional to number of units.

The other factor is how involved a player is off-turn. If all decisions are internal to the player making them, then the "dead time" is "more dead".

In my humble opinion, the Traditional IGYG is the worst. Usually because during your turn, the opponent is day dreaming instead of figuring out what he's going to do on his turn. So his brain doesn't kick in until you're done and you get to watch the wheels in his head start to spin up to speed.

Mechanisms like opposed die rolls (saving throws, etc) are meant to give the defender something to do, but don't make for a good game.

Usually because during your turn, the opponent is day dreaming instead of figuring out what he's going to do on his turn.

I think this is really a function of the player, not the mechanism. I've seen people ignore the game with chain reaction mechanisms. They not only had to be alerted, but the event that triggered their turn (which just happened) had to be explained to them.

Without wanting to contradict Stryderg, I'm of the impression that I-Go-You-Go turn based action evens out the waiting time.

The lads at Too Fat Lardies have done some innovative work in breaking down predictability and engineering friction in their game systems. I haven't played them but follow all of their Youtube posts with interest. What is does do well seems to come at a cost of this very concern – you could spend more of a game reacting to the luck of the draw as your opponent repeatedly gains initiative and then the turn keeps ending.

I'm not entirely sure waiting is a real issue unless your opponent is a real time waster – but then my fellow gamers like to chat as much as I do so we are never in a real hurry. Then again, we all like taking our turn.

Well, first of all, are we talking strictly 2 player games? Most of my games are 6 players or more. So any "one unit at a time" type game is dead on arrival.

All my own games have a 2 phase turn sequence. Units are either Phase 1 or Phase 2. But you alternate Phase 1 and Phase 2. So you only have to sit thru about half your opponent's turn before you get to go and vice versa.

I still like the old Star Trek inspired Starfleet Battles Impulse Chart where a turn was split into 32 parts (yup thirty two) and your speed determined when in those 32 segments you moved. The fast your speed, the more times you moved.

A simplified version from SJG can be seen link though the characters speed does not equate – but you should get the idea.

Though surprisingly complex to describe, it was simple to use (as long as you had a good memory and straight edge) and gave a good simulation of simultaneous combat.

Tracked a chart down!

Ignore the sequence on the left, it's the big table you need.

The number at the crossing point of the row impulse (part of turn) and column speed tells you who moves when. Taking mid turn (impulse 8) as the example you get 877665544-3-2-1-

This number relates to how far through the move that ships travelling at the speed denoted at the top are
I would call out
16s – any one moving 16 would move their ship / drones / plasma torpedoes etc.
Once that is completed
15s – any ship etc moving 15 would go
Once that is completed
14s – any ship etc moving 14 would go
etc till 8s
then it's 6s
4s
2s
Next impulse

As both sides move and fire this was as close as I ever got to computer games on the table.

As you can imaging, with a few dozen counters on the table (esp with Kzinti firing drones that fired drones) movement was key to tactics and the wrong selection could leave you flying through the opponents weapon arc at the wrong time.

Though it may look horrible, it worked well and soon became second nature to the majority of players!

IGYG has the least demand on the non-moving player so they are most likely to drift off and not pay attention.

If my opponent likes to drift off and not pay attention when it's my turn then it's their loss. When it's my opponent's turn I watch them like a hawk. Not only am I taking note of what they have moved where, but I'm also making sure that they are following the rules. Don't assume that they know what they're doing and that you can safely leave them to get on with it.

I was once in a 5 person per side game pulling dice out of a bag to determine which side goes next. I was in the process of bringing my reserves on the table so I was a low priority and always went last on my side. It was 15-30 minutes between turns for me before I go to the action. The players in the most intense action always had priority. In a two player game I think that system works well but not 10 players.

Andrew, I always liked the phased/impulse movement. How often can a player issue an order or is that not a problem in the game?

I don't think the turn mechanism is as important as the decision granularity and the execution overhead.

I think this is where the actual lenth of a turn comes into play. A 1:1 game that uses a 5 second turn could more realistically simulate a historical rate of fire and interact with a unit that might move 40m at 25kph in 5 seconds. Using a 30 second turn you need additional opportunity fire rules and rate of fire abstractions because moving 240m in 30 seconds could have the unit moving into and out of the shooters LOS a number of times. So where exactly is the target when he shoots?

The longer turn lengths also impacts how many orders/action can a single unit perform and and when and how do you make that interactive with the rest of the units?

Wolfhag

Dead time is as ususal proably not well defined. The thing that certaily, in our games takes the most time, by design' is the moving of figures. So however you do it there is going to be a significant break if player a has to move 20 elements in one go. Arguably moving 20 elements takes time X. Moving all of them in one phase takes as long as moving them in 2 or 4 phases with an opponents move in between. So you might say the dead time is identicle, at least for a two player game. Personally I am in general no lover of multi player games so can make no reasonable input on such games.

Try this to keep all engaged.

Each player has his own card activation deck. it includes:
* 1 card for each unit
* Optional card for any unit or commander activation
* Enough Blank cards to get all decks to an even number of cards

Every phase each player draws one card and activates that unit. As long as the units are not directly interacting everything can be resolved simultaneously. If any units are close/interacting they just roll a quick initiative roll to see who goes first. If you get a blank you don't activate. If you get the move any unit/commander card you can activate a unit in command distance. If a unit is eliminated it's card gets treated as a blank in future turns.

This keeps everyone engaged constantly and thinking about what card will turn up next without having the normal negative of card activation that has players sitting around. When you get through the decks everyone re-shuffles there own deck and you start drawing again.

We use a IGYG system based on process though partly on die roll. So units moving over 1/2 their movement go in phase 1. The side with the highest initiative goes second in this phase. The next phase the units moving just a little bit go in the same initiative order.
When it comes to firing the phase order is reversed. Units stationary fire first, then units surviving that which move less than 1/2 fire next. Finally, units surviving that which move over 1/2 fire. All fire in the same phase is considered simultaneous even though players resolve it IGYG. It is possible that two units on different sides destroy each other in the same phase. That is rare, but is just Chance sorting things out.

It was 15-30 minutes between turns for me before I go to the action.

This is why I focused on player decision scope, rather than turn mechanic.

Our typical games are ten or so rounds (1 round = all (usually 4-6) players get a turn) per hour.

We may also be talking different IGYG. For me, "I" and "You" are people, thus players, not sides. So a system where units on different sides activate in sequence, rather than a whole side in a sequence would still be IGYG.

The longer turn lengths also impacts how many orders/action can a single unit perform and and when and how do you make that interactive with the rest of the units?

I think it is the other way around. If you pack multiple orders into a single "turn", you extend the scope, and thus the time of the turn. Multiple orders also tends to geometrically increase the decision space, resulting in geometrically increasing decision time.

We play a game where each unit can be given (atomically) one maneuver and one engagement order per turn.

In practice, we will often break the atomicity of the turn for a coordinated fire, maneuver, or fire/maneuver amoung units, which creates a more natural flow and doesn't affect the outcomes.

Either way, each turn represents a small scope decision space for each unit. This leads to a rapidly evolving battlefield situation, when tends to hold players' interest.

When being engaged (kinetically, or otherwise) there can be a few options on how you defend, so you're still making a decision off-turn. This isn't a function of the turn sequence, and is applied across different types of turn sequence.

I think it is less a function of the type of rules you are using than the people who are playing.

When we have players who know the rules the expectation is that the moment it is your turn you have taken care of the preliminaries and are ready to go. Your opponent's move is the time for you to figure out what you are going to do and to do the preliminaries needed to carry out those plans. Plus we have certain reaction options available during the opponent's turn. Fail to call them though and the opportunity is lost.

Fail to call them though and the opportunity is lost.

Cutthroat. I likes it! :)

I also believe it is the players, not the game. Decisive people move quickly in any system, and indecisive people can slow any game down.

I've seen people bog down over every single activation in a card system, causing far more delay over time than if they had one think and then moved their entire army.

If you play IgoUgo, then you do have to watch the other player (unless you are an idiot) while they are moving. If they take a long time to make up their minds before getting going, then that provides the ideal time to visit the toilet, bar or another game.

Multiplayer games are the ones that cause me the most angst. I make my move and then have to wait for those on *my* side to finish, let alone the other side.

Players are an issue I have to agree. I have players that agonize over what others would consider a trivial issue. Even in a two player game its a pain: I could imagine in a multi player game it would become untenable.

I did many years ago play a multi player game run by a friend. It was a side by side IGYG system. Each side had 3 min to complete there move, If they failed to do so for whatever reason they forfeited the move. Similarly for firing, any firing not completed in the allotted time was forfeit. I thought it was a great idea but as rarely happens, all the players were very capable and knew the rules in detail.

>Since we can't play a game using simultaneous movement and shooting

Well you can. Back in the 60's our games used simultaneous movement facilitated by order pads. These are explained in Donald Featherstones Advanced wargames book. I used his rules
re-fight Zama at the SOA battleday 2010.

I quite liked how players would often not move in order to see what the opponent was going to do and so caused delay when reacting to the enemy.

Unit Activation, i.e. one side activates a unit then the other side. Back and forth like a Chess game. This system has to use Opportunity Fire and Order Counters.

I have Two solutions for the turn sequence issue
With the skirmish game Small Unit Tactical Combat,it is double blind with an umpire or GM at the individual soldier scale
It is done using simultaneous turns! Each side is given info that would be available to the command figure as all other figures are non player figures run to a limited extent by the player as in a role playing games.The umpire gives into to the player with regard to his figure on the tabletop, so if the figure can't see or hear directly he must get info from the non player figures
And he is timed th how long it takes for a decision to be made among other things
And this and other events are correlated one side against the other
The gamers don't get to roll or see the dice results even though they may see the rules and charts
As to the second solution, this makes use of command points that are used by the player to change orders and not necessarily to activate

blank frank,
I'd say what you are describing is players moving their units simutaneously. I would describe real simutaneous movement like a video game. A unit moving at 28kph would move at a rate of about 8m/second. Players should place a movement marker to show the speed and direction of movement and not cherry pick who will move and how after watching his opponent. That's how I'd do it.

Dick Burnett,
It looks like you are describing some type of timing to execute a command or the OODA Decision Loop with limited intelligence.

Legion,
How would faster and better weapon platforms and better crews determine activations? Can players choose the activation sequence?

Why don't more rule systems use impulse movement like SFB?

Wolfhag

A player can activate any 1 unit of his, during that turn phase. Every piece in a unit gets the same order counter. I.e. CHG or ADV or FIRE or Fallback.

Units on Fire Orders can't move but can shoot if any enemy unit/pieces moves within his LOS and expends 1/4 of his current movement rate. This is called Opportunity Fire(OF) or Snap Fire(SF). That firing is considered that piece's activation and is marked as such.

E.g. a unit may consist of 3-5+ tanks, guns, Fire Tms, etc. So any pieces on Fire Orders can fire at an OPFORs' piece if it moves in his LOS and expends 1/4 of it current movement speed.

The other 3-5 pieces in that unit don't have to fire. Then can be activated as normal in that player's turn. It does not have to be the next unit activated either.

However, each piece in the unit on Fire Orders can fire if an enemy unit's piece moves within LOS and 1/4 current movement speed expended. Or wait until it is activated by that player later in the turn.*

And again any piece that shoots while on Fire Orders at an OPFORs' piece during it's activation. Counts as the shooting piece's activation and is marked.

This is about as close has you can get to simulate simultaneous actions, IMO.

Again this goes back & forth like a Chess game, until all units on both side have activated all their remaining units. And yes at some point one side may have more units than the other.

If the side with less units has activated all it's units during the alternating activation sequences. He can activate no more of his units. But the other side can continue to activate any of his units until all his units have been activated. Units can be activated only once during a turn.

And again when a unit on Fire Orders, pieces of that unit can use Opportunity Fire(OF/SF). Which actually occurs in/during the OPFOR's activation on one of his units.

*On Fire Orders a unit/piece get's a +1 to hit on die roll. But Not when using OF/SF.

I think UshCha's Maneouver Group is similar. But to my understanding the side with the fewer units to activate can force his opponent to keep activating units or he can activate one. I think the player with fewer units could force his opponent to move into a choke point or ambush and then activate multiple units on his side with the "initiative" to shoot while his opponent can't respond. It seems to have some interesting Chess like tactics.

Wolfhag

We played with passing on an activation. But generally we didn't go with it.

force his opponent to move into a choke point or ambush and then activate multiple units on his side with the "initiative"

Roll off at the beginning of each turn for who goes gets first activation. But again in the system we use, you can't have multiple units being activated. Only if one sides has more units than the other that would happen. But each Unit Activation would separate. And again each unit may have e.g. 3-5+ pieces/models.

We have to write orders or at least place markers for types of orders before rolling for initiative. That way players don't devise their turn plans based on if they win initiative or not.

BIG +1 for the below, the second post above. I've found that the granularity is the single largest problem with game slow-down. The worst offender is Games Workshop where it would often take an hour to play a turn once things started to heat up. The main problem is "special rules" and how they interact with each other.

A friend who is a prolific game designer said it best: Warhammer Fantasy is a unit game with skirmish game mechanics – so it slows to a crawl.

"I don't think the turn mechanism is as important as the decision granularity and the execution overhead.

Having to make larger scope decisions that take larger number of steps to execute extend the time per player, which increases the potential "dead time".

That leads to the effect of decisions/player/turn, which in some systems is proportional to the number of units controlled by a player. Some turn mechanisms (like action points) do not make number of decisions proportional to number of units.

The other factor is how involved a player is off-turn. If all decisions are internal to the player making them, then the "dead time" is "more dead"."

I think the best way to phrase this is "what is the best way to keep a game moving and players involved?"

Probably the most interesting design concept I've seen on this lately has been "One-Hour Skirmish Wargames" which uses a card deck. It is a medium complexity game, IMHO, but you can simplify it to low complexity by not choosing many special rules for your skirmish "army".

The constant flow of cards by both players results in constant interaction.

But there are other games that do a great job of keeping both players in volved. I think the impulse system of alternating units within a turn is probably the best, simple way to do this. A good example of this is Alessio Cavatore's excellent miniatures rules for "Terminator Genysis" which gives each side 0,1,1,1,2,2 figures to act with on a d6.

place markers for types of orders before rolling for initiative.

Yes … that is the way we do it as well …

I like some of the ideas posted. However, how do these different activation rules reflect the advantage better crews would have in seizing the initiative to activate first?

Wolfhag

You can give better units a +1 or +2 to their initiative die roll. E.g. 1940 Germans +2 vs. 1940s French +0 …

But we only do the Initiative Die roll at the beginning of each turn. Then after that it Unit Activation back & forth. E.g. You win the Initiative. You Activate a Plt of 5 MBTs

Then it's my Activation time. I Activate an Infantry Plt of 9 Fire Tms.

The back to you until both sides have activated all their units.

Which again the unit sizes are generally at Plt level. Or sometimes smaller, e.g. Hvy Wpns Section of 4 Fire Tms, etc.
Or HQ/CP = 2 Fire Tm size Infantry stands. I.e. 3-7 figures on each Infantry type stand … or 2 individual AFVs[we don't base most vehicles], etc.

"players waiting around "

Shorten the turns by making more turns per player (i.e. instead of a player moving his whole force in one game turn, he moves it in parts over several smaller turns.) (By 'move', I also mean 'activate'.)
Ex: Say there are 4 players (A, B, C, D) Player A moves D6 units, then Player B moves D6 units, etc, until Player D finishes, then back to Player A, etc. until everybody runs out of units to play.
Not exactly 'simultaneous', but the players' turns are like the 'impulses' above, and it's to their advantage to stick around while other players play. ;-)
(This is basically the 'activation' system I use in my owm skirmish-level game designs…)

My university club often used a music based timing system to keep players from using too much time on their moves.

Each player prepared a 90 minute mix tape and brought their own boombox to the game. The last song (4-5 minutes in length) on each side was noted. On your turn, your opponent would turn on your tape, when you finished your turn, you'd turn it off.

If your tape side ran out during your turn, and the other player's did not run out, they recieved a bonus – a reinforcing unit, a free movement, off board artillery attack, or some other advantage. The advantage was smaller if they were in their last song when your tape ran out. This was explained as their force taking tactical advantage of slower reactions and decision making by your commander.

Without using music (or a more traditional chess clock), I like a modified IGYG system, such as that used in Squad Leader & ASL, with defender actions as part of each player turn.

However, how do these different activation rules reflect the advantage better crews would have in seizing the initiative to activate first?

This is part of why the system we play does not have a turn system in the rules – just the turn and round definitions. A turn mechanic is much better suited to the scenario. That allows you to tailor the turn mechanic to represent differences in initiative, command and control, etc. with a simple turn mechanic instead of having a turn mechanic in the rules and then tons of complex rules piled on top to get the same effect.

It also means we play lots of turn mechanisms with the same, low granularity rules. This shifts complexity to turn-to-turn rather than inside individual players' turns. I think the emphasis of complexity being across turns also helps players pay attention.

The relative advantages can be represented however you want.

I REALLY dislike the 'pull a die out of a bag' activation system. In a multi-player game not only is there a lot of sitting around for the non-moving players, but there is the inevitable delays while teammates negotiate who gets the next move.

It also really slows the game down because the tactical situation changes slightly after each move. Plans the players might have had in their heads have to be scrapped and re-planned again and again and this takes more time.

It might be more 'realistic' than IGYG, but I still prefer IGYG any day.

As I posted above, Alternating Unit Activation[AUA] has no one waiting for one side to move and/or shoot ALL their units. While the other side stands by and watches.

AUA makes you watch what your opponent is doing with his one activated unit. Then you can react immediately as soon as he is done with that one unit's activation …

Or use OF/SP as I outlined already. During you opponent's activation of one of his unit. Again based on the rules I already outlined. And once again this system requires Order Counters.

Again it seems to me to be the closest to simulating simultaneous actions on the war gaming table …

So … computer wargames (or other computer games) don't give you simultaneous action.

Even when you have different players operating on different computers at the same time (like a military CAX or a MMOG), they are not simultaneous movement. But it really feels like they do. But they don't.

Deep in the core of the code, there is an IGYG sequencer in the adjudication. It allows each participant (however that is defined) an opportunity to execute an action.

So in a "simultaneous action, continuous play" computer game with two players, each player may get 1,000 opportunities to submit orders in IGYG fashion. Usually, the order opportunity is choosing one of several options. Many of those choices may be "passes" – no option selected for this specific millisecond.

This rapid succession of sequential processing of orders creates the illusion of simultaneous and continuous play much the same way a rapid sequence of incrementally different still pictures creates the illusion of continuous motion.

The fact that I have been building and programming this type of algorithm in computers for just over four decades may be the reason I gravitate toward game designs that implement low granularity decisions.

WRT keeping the "off player" involved, I find reaction systems tend to favour keeping the "off player" uninvolved.

Part of an effective strategy in any system is balancing how my action advances my goals with how my action will change opportunities for my opponents to advance their goals.

In a reaction system, sometimes you have the opportunity to choose actions that do not activate the "off player" over ones that do. Sometimes, those choices are optimal.

I've seen several and played in one such game where one side ended up having less than a quarter of the opportunities for action than the other.

I REALLY dislike the 'pull a die out of a bag' activation system. In a multi-player game not only is there a lot of sitting around for the non-moving players, but there is the inevitable delays while teammates negotiate who gets the next move.

Yes, that and games with movement points where a player checks multiple routes with each unit to see how far he can get. I watched a game that used a card draw activation system that certain cards "ended" the turn. One guy who was supposed to bring in his reserves was a low priority to the ones already in combat and he could not move for the first 90 minutes of the game. That was a majority decision by the players on his team so not necessairly the game rules fault. I understand the concept of game turns randomly ending, FOW etc, some people like it and some don't.

Personally, I find the limitations of activation systems I've seen (I have not seen them all) fail to deliver historical rates of fire. Panzer War and GMT Panzer do allow multiple shots/turn depending the the die roll when you shoot that do it to a certain extent but the multiple shots don't seem to interact with other units that might be shooting too.

It was not uncommon, under good conditions, for a tank to engage 3-4 targets in 60 seconds. That means you'd need to have 10-15 second turns or some really complicated and artificial rules to get an interaction of units that can activate at different times.

However, a gun with two-part ammo like an SU-152 might only fire once in that 60 seconds. So players with SU-152's would be sitting around a lot with no shooting. Allowing them to activate and shoot as often as a Panzer III or Sherman would give them an unrealistic advantage. How should that be handled?

Shortening the turns like Zephyr1 suggested would solve some problems. Also, a shorter game turn would allow more realistic opportunity fire and rates of fire for a 1:1 game.

I think what I'm suggesting is that some units will activate more than others which could be seen as unfair or force one side to sit around and not do anything waiting for his opponent to finish activation units.

Even with alternate activations, as some suggested, what happens when one side has a 2-1 or more advantage? Will the side with fewer units be waiting around? Manouver Group does address that to an extent but depending a player decisions, waiting can still occur – or maybe not.

It appears some systems will work better for 1:1 games and some better for platoon and above games. It appears one size does not fit all.

Legion,
So if a unit activates in the early part of a turn is there any condition that it can activate or react later in a turn? Is there a mzximum number of activations for a unit in a turn?

Wolfhag

etotheipi,
Regarding the computer simulation, when an order is submitted, does the computer allow the player to execute the order right away, or is there a waiting period? If there is a waiting period, what determines the length?

I do agree that no matter how small of a time slice you use it is still going to end up executing in some type of IGYG sequence executed by the players.

Wolfhag

The problem with the short turns is the concept of changing ones orders every 15 seconds. We had an acceptance problem with the computer game Panzer Command (which had 80 seconds between orders) because people wanted to fiddle with their movement paths and target choices every 30 seconds as in Combat Mission.

Regarding the computer simulation, when an order is submitted, does the computer allow the player to execute the order right away, or is there a waiting period? If there is a waiting period, what determines the length?

There are a number of methods to implement this, but there are two basic archetypes.

The simplest way is that committing to an order that takes longer to execute "fills up the slots" for the future. So if you had a 10 second game, a 30 second action might fill three turns.

The second is that instead of your orders being filled for the duration, the "resource" you are using (missile launcher, jammer, machine gun, etc,) is filled for multiple turns. If multiple orders map to a single resource, then those orders wouled be blocked as well. But you could execute orders that required a different resourcing.

Adjudication can happen at any time slot, and would be determined by the design of the orders. For example, an impulse jamming action might adjudicate immediately but tie up the resource for several turns into the future. Conversely, an artillery shot might tie up several turns, but adjudicate in the future.

What it comes down to is we normally think about execution and adjudication as simultaneous things. But they are really two separate events. The separation of cause and effect as separate events is a key core concept for effects based modeling.

Both computer and tabletop games can employ mechanisms where action and effect are split across turns.

The problem with the short turns is the concept of changing ones orders every 15 seconds.

I've seen this behaviour in our games. Generally this represents the difference between an operational order and a tactical execution. You are simulating the ability of tactical commanders to change the specifics of the execution of their orders from higher authority.

Generally, waffling – frequent changes in approach – are suboptimal and lead to wasting advantage in the game. Just like real life.

As I get older, the advantages of IGOUGO seem to become more apparent:

- much easier to fit in bathroom breaks
- more opportunity to make yourself and your opponent a cup of tea / raid the fridge for a couple of beers
- less of an issue if you nod off for a few moments

None of these things disrupt the flow of the game in IGOUGO !

Legion,
So if a unit activates in the early part of a turn is there any condition that it can activate or react later in a turn? Is there a mzximum number of activations for a unit in a turn?

A unit gets ONE activation per turn. I.e. :
A player can activate ANY 1 unit of his, during that turn phase. Every piece in a unit gets the same order counter. I.e. CHG or ADV or FIRE or Fallback.

Units on Fire Orders can't move but can shoot if any enemy unit/pieces moves within his LOS and expends 1/4 of his current movement rate. This is called Opportunity Fire(OF) or Snap Fire(SF). That firing is considered that piece's activation and is marked as such. It can't do anything else in the overall game turn.

E.g. a unit may consist of 3-5+ tanks, guns, Fire Tms, etc. So any pieces on Fire Orders can fire at an OPFORs' piece if it moves in his LOS and expends 1/4 of it current movement speed.

The other 3-5 pieces in that unit don't have to fire. Then can be activated as normal in the owning player's turn. It does not have to be the next unit activated either by the owning player.

So in affect you can activate a piece/unit during an opponent's activation. If the requirements occur as I listed above. Again if a piece on Fire Orders, fires using OF/SF that counts as that pieces activation even if it during an opponent's activation. That piece(s) can do nothing further that turn.

A unit/piece does not have to use OF/SF and await until the owning player activates it when he decides. But you may want to take advantage of an enemy piece/unit moving into your LOS, etc.

However, On Fire Orders a unit/piece get's a +1 to hit on die roll. But Not when using OF/SF.

It is up to you Commander.

Personally our system is aimed at mainly 2 player games typically with enthusiastic players for the period. This means the games are tailored to that audience. What is good for a player who wants to play a different set/period every week is not really the same as say a keen WW2 player who has read all the books and wants to play every week using potentially complex scenarios. Nothing wrong with either but they are too me different sides of the coin

Our own set is very interactive IGOUGO on an element by element basis but has top level subroutines for larger than element groups and subroutines for smaller local actions that resolve themselves in very short timescales such as vehicles trading shots which can occur very quickly. This keeps the players involved,as for example tanks trade shots potentially until they are either destroyed or can evade in some way.

However I would be the first to admit this sequence is optimized for 2 player games. Limited multi player games can be played where each pair (one of side A and one of side B) play there own sequence which can/is expected get out of sequence with both their own and other enemy players, . However this sort of game is only possible with basically experts in the rules and tactics. Again this is attractive to some players wanting to be pushed to their limits but definitely requiring more attention than some are prepared to spare from their "phone".

There is no perfect set of rules, so there by definition is no perfect sequence as the requirements are not common across the patch.

Plus some folk don't like a game where the pressure is on and there is no time to chat as they are required to play the game at all times.

Legion,
So if you have a unit on OF and an enemy unit fires at it can the OF unit immediately return fire even if the enemy unit did not move? Would it be a simultaneous exchange or would on side shoot before the other?

Wolfhag

I don't know so much about other computer games, but i have a fair idea how ours will work.
Both players input orders.
These include a mode or posture. Wait, attack, hold, demonstrate etc.

Turn resolution is done in the abstract and then the results presented.
The resolution loop iterates through a few seconds each loop and resolves where units move to what they spot and how they react.
Sequence within the loop is influenced by posture, morale, random factor and quality.

Posture drives a decision tree which can over-ride orders. Hence two opposing units ordered to move past one another will stop and engage. Or maybe one will turn and move away.

Although one unit will act first this is likely to be the high quality holding static defender unless you've put some suppressive down fire on them.

Or at least this is my current plan. I've not written that loop yet. Fire within that 5 or 6 second phase could alternatively be resolved simultaneously. We might offer a game option allows you to choose that.