"Wait time between turns" Topic

In the Panzer War miniature game there can be simultaneous firing and results. Though there are quite a number of die rolls involved so two vehicles being knocked out by each is rather rare. Often they will damage one another and one may bail out. In the computer game there is no simultaneous knockouts are fire is resoled one at a time but the division of time is micro-seconds. One thing I don't like about that is that if one tank knocks out a tank or causes it to bail another tank that targeted the knocked out tank immediately realizes that and switches to another target in the same micro-second.

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?

Yes, OF only occurs when an enemy unit moves within LOS and expends 1/4 of it's current movement rate of any enemy unit on Fire orders.

The moving unit can fire at the enemy unit with Fire Orders even if that piece does not fire. Sighting reciprocity. If he can see you … you can see him. The moving piece continues to move. The remainder of its movement rate/speed. If it survives the OF.

Remember Units on Fire Orders get a +1 to it's roll to hit. If that unit or a piece in that unit uses OF it does not get the +1 to hit. That does not effect the other pieces in the unit if they do not OF. The piece that use OF is marked with counter and does nothing for the rest of that game turn.

The other pieces in the unit may wait to fire on their unit's activation when their commander decides.

E.g. Plt of 3 MBTs on Fire Orders.

One MBT uses OF, get NO +1 to hit. And is marked after using OF.

The other 2 MBTs don't use OF e.g. as on other enemy unit/pieces that move within their LOS, etc.

Now a unit or piece may return fire on the OF piece after OF fire is completed. If they survive the OF.

If this occurs the entire unit moving can returns fire on the OF piece or any other target in range. Then continue to move the rest of it's movement rate. The piece can fire at other pieces from the unit using OF. So then you may get a gun duel.

E.g. The 3 MBTs on Fire Orders, one use OFs at an enemy unit of 3 AFVs moving within LOS, range, etc. If the AFV survives, it can return fire on that unit that used OF on it or any other. Then continues/finishes it's move.

The other AFVs in that unit will continue to move unless another piece of a unit on Fire Order uses OF. If this AFVs survives it can return fire at any enemy unit/pieces including the unit on Fire Orders that fired on it. Then finish it's move.

The 3rd/last AFV can/may repeat as above.

So you can see a gun duel occurring with an AFV moving, gets engaged with OF. If it survives it can return fire on the unit that fired at him or any other piece in range. Then finish it's move. The same could happen with the other AFVs in that formation.

Tactics : If a piece uses OF on one of your AFVs. Don't return fire on that piece but on another piece in that unit [or any unit] that has not fired on you yet using OF, or otherwise …

Note : Formations – all pieces in a unit must be at or within 6cms from another piece by end of a move. If a unit takes loses and pieces end up being farther than 6cms. On the next turn that unit much go on ADV Orders, and regroup.

Legion,
If you have an anti-tank gun concealed is he on opportunity fire? Is there a way he could aquire it at long range and wait for it to get closer, get a flank shot or ambush?

Wolfhag

Legion, there's no such thing as Sighting reciprocity. Every unit has a unique sighting equation.
As Wolfhag suggests in your rules start with the most sure thing to hit. So that unit doesn't get a reciprocal shot. Then try more less probable shots. In fact you can work out the odds if some of your hidden units have less chance of killing an enemy than that enemy has in killing them don't fire.

Legion,
If you have an anti-tank gun concealed is he on opportunity fire? Is there a way he could aquire it at long range and wait for it to get closer, get a flank shot or ambush?

The AT gun would have to be on Fire Orders to use OF. If concealed it would get a cover bonus if fired upon. A -1 to the firing piece's roll to hit die.

OF is an option when you are on Fire Orders. And used when an enemy piece/unit is activated and moving into your LOS, in Range of your weapon and expends 1/4 of it's current speed in your LOS. You don't have to use OF. You use OF during an enemy's activation.

When you use OF that counts as that piece(s) activation and marked with a counter(s). That piece can do nothing further in the overall turn. All units only get ONE activation and one order counter per turn.

When that enemy's unit/pieces ends it activation. You can then activate one of your units. And if that AT Gun chose not to use OF during the enemy's activation. It can still engage during it's activation. If it still has LOS, range, etc. to the target.
If you don't us OF, the target may have moved out of LOS and range by the end of it's activation. So you may have no shot. At least on that unit/piece.

OF is not an Order per se. Orders are Fire or CHG or ADV or Fallback. OF is an option you can use when a unit is on Fire Orders. And only then.

So the AT Gun(s) can aquire a target as long as it within it's LOS and within the AT gun's range. Again on Fire Orders you don't have to use OF. It's an option. You could wait until the target get's closer and get a flank shot, etc. But that may not be in this turn. Or the next …

So yes you can place a unit of AT guns in cover on Fire Orders and wait for a target to get closer and/or expose it's flank, etc. But again it may not be that turn, etc. You may have to wait as in an ambush. Or engage another target if it presents itself.

no such thing as Sighting reciprocity

I'm not sure how you mean by that ? That was not the way I was taught in both real life and wargames. I was not a scientist or mathematician, just an old Grunt Ldr/Cdr.

So that unit doesn't get a reciprocal shot. Then try more less probable shots.

It only gets return fire if it survives. If a shot KO's a target it's gone/done.

In fact you can work out the odds if some of your hidden units have less chance of killing an enemy than that enemy has in killing them don't fire.

The mechanics of our rules don't really work that way. We use d6s.

I.e. Each weapon system has a Short & Long range roll it hit. [some only have one range]

E.g. Rgs – 36cms Short / 72cms Long.

Roll to hit – Short = 3+ / Long = 5+

There are modifiers:

Target is in cover : -1 to hit roll

Target is on Fallback Orders : -1 to hit roll

Target Armor Rating : + AR[Varies by target, a light AFV would have a +1 ] to hit roll

Attacker on Fire Orders : +1 to hit roll [NOT on OF]

Attacker is on Charge Orders : -1 to hit roll

These are cumulative.

So the odds do not come down to a 2-1 or 3-1, etc.

The "odds" are based on a d6 with cumulative modifiers.

E.g. Firer is on Charge -1
Target is in cover -1
So the roll to hit would have a -2 modifier …
i.e. Roll to hit of 3+ now becomes a 1 …

In turn your odds are 1 out of 6 to hit. Or 16.5 % chance of hitting that target.

Back to the OP, interactive turn sequences (ie interleaved unit at a time type things e.g. Fireball Forward or AK47) minimise wait time for two players, but don't scale well to multiplayer.

If you are doing multiplayer, then IGOUGO or ideally simultaneous keeps everyone engaged. The turn sequence in Spearhead is quite clever, movement is resolved as IGOUGO, but combat is simultaneous so everyone gets a go at doing something pretty quickly.

We are in the second round of testing a new rules set focused on 2-6 person battalion-sized WWII games, where each stand represents a platoon-size element (so on the level of RF, BKC, CD, etc…), for use with 10-15-20mm miniatures. Our solution has been to have an orders phase, where all players place order chits as appropriate, followed by a two part movement phase.

After all the order chits have been placed, both sides have a player roll a d6. The player with highest roll gets to decide whether his side moves first or second during the movement phase. (So basically movement is resolved as a modified IGOUGO.) This approach really helps keep players' attention on the action because there is an immediate aspect of uncertainty.

Combat is resolved as a third phase after both sides have completed their movement and is considered to be simultaneous except for ambush fire and interdiction fire options. Depending on familiarity with the rules and the WWII era determining whether a particular player needs assistance, the players handle their own combat resolution so multiple actions are getting resolved at the same time.

So far, this method has kept players more engaged with events moving quickly enough that no one is sitting around for lengthy periods of time.

Again with Unit Activation 1 side activates a unit, then the other back and forth like a Chess game. Until all units on both sides have been activated once per turn. Closer to simultaneous/"realistic". And like a Chess game you have to watch what your opponent is doing, etc.

@Mobius "One thing I don't like about that is that if one tank knocks out a tank or causes it to bail another tank that targeted the knocked out tank immediately realizes that and switches to another target in the same micro-second."

The way we deal with this is all fire is declared at the start of the Combat Phase before resolution(s) start to take place. Ambush and Interdiction fires would have already been noted in the Orders Phase so that a means only opportunity fires need to be declared. We've also written the rules to note that even if a target is "destroyed" before a firing unit engages with it, the firing unit expends the ammunition (it is only the sequence of the turn that is resulting in the target being "destroyed" when all the combat actions are actually considered to be simultaneous).

Legion,
What is the time scale of a turn and can units change thier orders, if so, when and is there some type of penalty?

Question: In a multi-player game, what type or rules would work best for reaction or opportunity fire to keep everyone in the game?

Wolfhag

One thing I don't like about that is that if one tank knocks out a tank or causes it to bail another tank that targeted the knocked out tank immediately realizes that and switches to another target in the same micro-second.

Mobius,
Can't you build in some type of routine for limited intelligence regarding the results of a shot? If the shooter can't notice damage like fire, smoke or crew bail outs wouldn't he keep firing at the target?

Wolfhag

Wolfhag
Legion,
What is the time scale of a turn and can units change thier orders, if so, when and is there some type of penalty?

Not really sure of the time scale. But Order Counters are put out at the beginning of every turn. And cannot be changed. Until next turn.

In a multi-player game, what type or rules would work best for reaction or opportunity fire

Again Unit Activation, IMO … As I described before about OF, etc.

I.e. OF is an option when you are on Fire Orders. And used when an enemy piece/unit is activated and moving into your LOS, in Range of your weapon and expends 1/4 of it's current speed in your LOS. You don't have to use OF. You use OF during an enemy's activation.

WargamerUSA

Our solution has been to have an orders phase, where all players place order chits as appropriate,

Same here …

followed by a two part movement phase.

With Unit Activation, a unit is activated, can move & shoot or, just move or just shoot based on it Orders. No phases.

Clearly many of the comments included here are very specific to the game they apply too. It is true that commanders can within the limits change orders on a Half "Turn" basis in our rules, as real commanders can If they have radios. However certainly in our game the old adage "Order, Counter Order Disorder" applies. A classic in our games when training is to stop the trainee and ask what his plan is. Typically a trainee has a plan to a point which when reached, quite likely with some minor changes, he reaches. It then becomes clearly evident that from that point he has no plan and it is plain that is the case and we have to tell him to create a plan or be terminated forthwith as without a plan his doom is sealed. So clearly something appears to be missing in some rules if no plan beats a plan.

For goodness sake even DBM for all its command simplicity showed some of that effect. If you are still struggling with such items clearly you are playing a game Donald Featherstone would be proud of and that is most certainly not a compliment.

Plus if a player is wandering off in a decent rules set, that would be his demises within a very few bounds as clearly he will be out thought and outplayed almost immediately. It takes time and effort to create and maintain a plan even just in the players head, that is not possible while he is expediting his moves. Failure to move in a reasonable time forfeits his move, reflecting real bad generalship, no need for daft die throwing.

Clearly many of the comments included here are very specific to the game they apply too.

Very much so …

basis in our rules, as real commanders can If they have radios.

Yes, but things are happening at the same time in short amount of time. So in our rules that means you can change orders next turn. Our game turns must be shorter than some others.

After being a Rifle Plt Ldr and Mech Co. Cdr things can happen so quickly you may not be able to give new orders instantly. That is why you develop SOPs, do immediate action drills, etc. So again to have the ability to have half turns to change orders obviously mean your turns are longer than ours.

I know many here have never had the experiences and training I've and other Vets have had. Running thru the jungle with your RTO at your side or bouncing around in an APC in the desert, giving orders, etc., across the net. Been there … done that …

It generally does not always happen instantly. In many cases you can't even see the sub elements of your unit, when moving or even when you stop briefly or longer. You generally know where they are before moving and/or when the hit the fan.

You depend on those sub elements to execute the orders, etc., last given, use SOPs, etc., or most importantly use their initiative and give you updates on their current situation, etc. Once a unit works together long enough it flows more easily. But you still depend on SOPs, battle drills, etc.

E.g. for me to call in FA. I have to tell my FO/FST[if
I have one otherwise I]/he has to tell the FDC. Then you have to await the rounds to come in, etc. That is pretty fast but not immediate.

So again our rule system must have shorter turn times, than others.

I think the shorter times for 1:1 or squad combat works best because it helps synchronize shooting and movement better.

A way to get better interaction and less wait time in multi-player games is is to have a turn that is 10-15 seconds and broken down into 10 phases where the action is executed.

Shooting: To determine how the action and shooting is parsed, at the start of each turn, each unit that is going to shoot rolls a D10. Better crews and faster guns have a negative modifier. Poor crews and slower firing guns have a positive modifier. The result is recorded and kept secret from your opponent. The generates some FoW as no one knows the sequence units will shoot.

Movement: Units that want to move have a movement marker placed in front of them showing the speed or distance they'll move. They are assumed to be moving throughout the entire turn and at the end of the last phase they are all physically moved. This should save time in multi-player games.

During any phase they can remove a movement marker to stop and are moved a % of their move. Example: If a moving unit was going to move 10" and stops in the 6th phase it would be moved 6" (60% of speed) and then halted. A unit moving at 25kph would move about 80m in 10 seconds and 120m in 15 seconds. This should be a small enough increment to eliminate most specialized and restricted opportunity fire rules.

Shoot & Scoot: Immediately after shooting, a player can place a movement marker to move out and will be a moving target throughout the rest of the turn. If he started moving in the 7th phase he is moved 30% of his movement distance at the end of the 10th phase.

Tracking and ambush fire: If a unit holds fire throughout a turn it is assumed to be tracking a target and can fire in any future 1-10 phase in the next turn.

Shooting starts as the 10 phases are announced in sequence 1-10. This will replace initiative. When the 1-10 turn is announced ALL units that have that # recorded can shoot. If there is no shooting for the current phase announce the next number. If a unit is supposed to shoot at turn 6 and an enemy unit shot at turn 4 and knocked him out, too bad, you're dead.

This system replaces the need for activations and order markers. In reality, all units are active and are under some type of order or immediate action drill. They do need to be in communication with their HQ to change orders, objectives, fall back, etc.

Simultaneous movement? As each of the 10 phases are announced, moving units would be assumed to have moved 10% of their movement distance but not physically moved until the end of the turn.

This method keeps any number of players involved throughout the game with any number of units across the table. It can speed up the game by eliminating activations, initiative and opportunity fire. All players need to pay attention. It should work well for solitaire games too.

The proponents of random/card activations and special initiative and turn interrupt rules probably won't like it.

Wolfhag

Regarding time between turns, there are several levels. At the most small unit end such as single aircraft and single soldiers in close combat and ships in certain close combat situations where actions, reactions and decisions are measured in seconds, any break in the action, such as in Check Your Six, warps any realism. I'm the small unit skirmish game I umpire, I time the players as they make decisions and in say hand to hand combat is run automatically.

I think the shorter times for 1:1 or squad combat works best because it helps synchronize shooting and movement better.

Yes I feel the same and as I explained, we play 6mm individual vehicles and guns, Infantry in 3-5-7 man Fire Tms.

In my experience it has less to do with the type of turn and more to do with the following…

1. If the rules have multiple impulses, phases or charts to consult the game can get bogged down, way too much detail leads to boredom.

2. Far too many units on the table create long turns and if combined with complicated rules creates unbearable down time for the players. Example a skirmish game with super detailed indivdual rules and enough miniatures on the table to field a company per side.

3. Too many players if combined with examples 1 and 2 are going to put me to sleep. Another problem with too many players is when their turn comes up and they are distracted (i.e. outside smoking, texting, working from computer, engaged in non game related conversation then need to be briefed on what happened, taking a phone call and not ending it abruptly). There always seems to be someone in a multiplayer game that slows the game down with obnoxious behavior.

Sounds pretty accurate … Glad I had a small group of gamers that were my friends as well.

@Dragon Gunner "Far too many units on the table create long turns…"

Along with "distracted" players, too many units is the most common reason for game delays.

Dragon Gunner,
I doubt if there are many people that will disagree with you.

A few years ago at GMT West I was having a discussion with the president of GMT, Gene Billingsley about down time and players waiting. There were about 50 people in the warehouse playing games. I pointed out to him how many didn't seem to be very active or had their nose in a rule book. He agreed but then countered with an observation of how involved they were in the game and seemed to be enjoying it and even it not conducting some type of game activity they were not looking at their cell phone. I had to concede that point to him.

On a trip, some people like to take the scenic route and enjoy themselves. Others just want to get to the destination as soon as possible. Many players are willing to go through detailed game mechanics because it helps paint a picture of the activity and historically what occurred. Some people don't care about it but will prefer tricky dice and card mechanics and modifiers to paint the picture.

Some players are satisfied if a Panther's armor is an "8". Others want to know the historical armor thickness down to the millimeter and an exact hit location on 5-6 different aspects.

Some people just want to know what # to roll on a D6 to destroy a target and prefer a high level of abstraction to get the result ASAP. Others want to get an idea of the crew activities, historical factors and the differences of weapons platform performance to get an idea of what is behind the mechanics and how and why the event happens. They like special rules, quick reference charts, die roll modifiers, and national traits as modifiers. The difference between the two preferences is why many people say no one rule system will dominate. I tend to agree.

Well-designed games can educate the players or allow them to use their real historical knowledge to play the game. ASL is still fairly popular despite the vast number of rules. Why do you think that is?

You make a valid point in #3. That's why depending on the level of the game (1:1 to division level) there are aspects of crew actions and mechanics that are pertinent and some that are not. In a division level game a unit's rate of fire is not a factor as it would be in a 1:1 game. The game designer needs to include the valid aspects in such a way to keep players engaged which becomes harder to do as the number of players increases.

My goal was to design a game with a minimum of abstractions that would still keep 5+ players involved and if they looked at the cell phone or didn't pay attention to the game they were penalized. Also to design it so their decisions don't hold up the game. The system I'm using right now in some ways actually speeds up large games with the more players you have.

Wolfhag

Mobius,
Can't you build in some type of routine for limited intelligence regarding the results of a shot? If the shooter can't notice damage like fire, smoke or crew bail outs wouldn't he keep firing at the target?

I don't have it written down. If the knockout is not brewup then they do have to fire at it for the remainder of the phase. If it is a bailout then the firer must be able to see moving troops to know the crew bailed out. Of course you must have a sighting range for moving infantry.

Mobius,
How long is a phase?

I too have a limited intelligence rule where you do have to fire until you see a fire, brew up or bail out. Firing the coax mg at the crew bailing out counts.

Switching to a new target is not automatic. A unit needs perform a Situational Awareness Check and there is a slight delay in detecting the new target and getting the crew to engage it and the first shot will be a ranging shot. Buttoned up/suppressed units, being flanked and poor crews will take longer.

There is an exception that I call the "Ranged In" tactic. If you want to engage a new target that is within 100m range and in the current 20 degree arc (new target is already in the gunners field of view) of the previous target there is no Situational Awareness Check needed as the gunner and TC are already aware of it. The new target is also ranged in on if the previous target was hit eliminating a range estimation error and making the first shot more accurate then a ranging shot. He's using the same elevation to engage the new target. I do have a range limitation of one second time of flight to use the Ranged In tactic.

The amount of time to engage a new target using the Ranged In tactic is the reload time plus 3-5 seconds.

Wolfhag

BTW, some of the Infantry modifiers, rules etc., we use. Think they are pretty good based on my experiences, training and gaming since the '60s, etc.

> Attacker does not receive +1 to hit mod on Fire Orders. When firing at Infantry targets.

> Infantry stands[ i.e. 3-5 or even 7 figures on a base] in open with Fire Orders count as being in soft cover = firer gets -1 to hit role.

> Infantry inside buildings count as being in hard cover = firer gets -2 to hit role.

These rules I feel fairly accurately demonstrates Infantry can disperse, and use every bit of cover available even when moving. Plus in many cases Infantry will be crawling, prone or kneeling, etc. Making them harder to see and hit.

E.g. Infantry on Fire Orders can't move, only shoot[like any other type unit, e.g. AFVs, etc.]. plus will get a +1 to hit on role to hit enemy targets. So again they will be prone, etc., using every little bit of cover available. Trying to get something solid or at least behind any little bit of flora, between them and any incoming fires.

Infantry on Charge Orders can't use ranged weapons. They are moving too fast to have any accurate fires, etc.

Infantry on Advance Orders can only use basic and light weapons, i.e. small arms.

Infantry on Fire Orders can use Heavy weapons and small arms. They are not moving only shooting. Receives +1 to hit as any unit on Fire Orders.

Fallback Orders – any unit i.e. Infantry[or AFVs, etc.] on FB orders get a -1 to the firers roll to hit. They are using every little bit of cover, concealment, using smoke grenades etc., to avoid becoming a target/KIA'd/KO'd.

Again, these seem to be pretty good rules, IMO. Being realistic, easy and logical.

A phase would be half of a 75 second turn.

"and if they looked at the cell phone or didn't pay attention to the game they were penalized. Also to design it so their decisions don't hold up the game."-Wolfhag

I am intrigued tell me more!

ASL is a wonderful game as long as you have the right players. My current group has enough attention span to play Steve Jackson's Ogre or GEV…

Pretty cool games though !

Yes they are good games it is the compromise my players can handle. If I want something more complicated like ASL I will need to find other players.

Since we can't play a game using simultaneous movement…

Sorry, but why can't you play a game with using simultaneous movement? Did really no-one mention the WRG ancients rules? THE (more or less – be kind) de facto standard up until 1990. It simply did/does make use of simultaneous movement… (I am no expert here, only played it once or twice).

Shooting is another thing here. First movement, then shooting, so no Moving AND Shooting.

Olivero,
I'm not familiar with WRG Ancients. There are games where all players simutaneously move their units in what may be a turn that is from 30 seconds to a couple of minutes. I don't look at that as true real-world simutaneous movement. I do have a way of tracking movement rates on a second-to-second basis which I call "Virtual Movment". I've discussed it before:
TMP link

Legion,
My infantry rules work pretty much the same way. Units are always active and ready to react or perform an Immediate Action Drill (no activation or initiative rules) the second it happens. I quit playing games where my guys stand up in the open and get shot at and don't do anything until it's my "turn" or hope for some card to appear.

Each 2-5 man team or section has a posture of Improved Position (dispersed taking advantage of available cover and ready to observe and fire), Hunkered down (hiding behind cover out of enemy LOS and immune to most small arms direct fire so cannot return fire), Fall Back to move out of enemy LOS to Rally. All orders are obeyed immediately except for advancing under fire.

To advance under fire they must pass an Aggeessiveness Check with the help of a leader if needed. Their chance is greater if coordinating with a suppressive fire element to "Fire & Maneuver". Moving formations are in column or skirmish line, they have advantages and disadvantages and can conduct things like bounding overwatch. I try to recreate what's in the manual.

When coming under fire they perform their Immediate Action Drill: Fall Back, Hunker Down, Improved Position (hit the deck and return fire), or pass an Aggressiveness Check to advance towards the enemy. Failing an Aggressiveness Check means Hunkering Down for Vets and Falling Back for poor troops.

Dragon Gunner,
Let's say someone is playing a tank video game and he is sitting in an overwatch position waiting for the enemy to appear. He gets a text message which he'll just "check" really quickly and there is no action on the screen at the moment. When he looks up 6-7 seconds later there is a tank that just came into view and with its turret traversing on him and will fire in seconds. The enemy will "Act" or shoot before he does. If he had taken 10-12 seconds checking his messages he'd hear the explosion of his tank going up in flames.

Here's how it works in a game using OODA Decision Loop (timing to execute and order). We'll have a real player and a real world clock. We'll also have a "virtual player" (the unit on the tale) and a "virtual" clock. The virtual clock determines how the action in the game unfolds. The the virtual clock "ticks" second to second as a player or the GM announces them. If a unit has an action to perform play stops. If there are no actions to perform the next virtual second is immediately announced (no activations or initiative rules to slow down the game).

As the seconds tick off all units are one second closer to execution of their order issued at a previous virtual time and moving units incrementally "virtually move" their one-second rate of movement.

When the virtual time on the clock matches the time to shoot the unit the game stops and all shooting takes place, real players issue their new orders and determine the future virtual time it will execute (rates of fire are about 5-15 seconds). Since the game is played in virtual time that simulates real time the game slowly unfolds like a video game including incremental "virtual" movement by moving units each virtual second.
TMP link

Lets go back to the video game example. The virtual clock shows 4:27 the real player has multiple units but the next one shoots at 4:36 (9 more virtual seconds). He does not see any other threats and he knows it's going to take about 30-40 real-world seconds before he shoots, he feels it is safe to check his messages while he's listening for the GM to call out "4:36". No problem right? What could possibly go wrong?

So unseen to him, a hidden enemy tank just moved into his LOS (virtual incremental movement each vertual second – no movement phase like other games) at 4:30 but our real player does not notice because he's busy checking his messages. The moving player wants to shoot and it will take 5 seconds shooting at 4:35. As the virtual seconds tick off second by second 4:35 is announced after about 10 seconds of real time (no one stopped the game to fire). Our texting player is awakened when it is announced he is being shot at. He can react with a Situational Awareness Check (unknown to him he'll be shot at in one more virtual second) but his virtual player will probably only notice the enemy is near when an AP round is bouncing around inside his tank causing all kinds of damage.

If the texting player was paying attention at 4:30 he could have performed a Situational Awareness Check and had enough time to go into action by canceling his order to shoot and move or engage the more dangerous threat. A player needs good Situational Awareness in a game just like on a battle.

Using the above example there is another typical scenario I've run into during games. The real player that is texting is waiting for virtual time to shoot at 4:36. The GM announces 4:36 but the texting player is too busy and does not notice. Unknown to him (Act Times are kept secret and no order markers are on the table – Fog of War) an enemy tank is scheculed to shoot at him at 4:40. The GM announces the virtual time of 4:40 (the virtual time of 4 seconds took about 6 real time seconds as no other firing to stop the clock). Our texting player is awakened at 4:40 being informed he's being shot and then he realizes he should have shot at 4:36 but too bad, you can't go back in time. Now if the enemy misses him at 4:40 he can fire at 4:41, if he's still alive.

The above examples are called Player Generated Delays which gives the initiative to the enemy by extending the amount of time to get through your OODA Decision Loop. Sometimes an inattention span of just 10-15 real world seconds can mean losing a unit. You snooze – you lose.

I hope I've explained it well enough. Players are always in the game because they can react to any enemy activity (shooting, moving, pivot, turret traverse) on the virtual second it occurs (Blind Spot exceptions).

The virual clock, action timing and Act Time through your OODA Loop synchronizes all units to the same virtual second-to-second game play and keeps the action moving with new LOS appearing and disappearing without the need for initiative, activations, IGYG shoot/move or special opportunity fire rules.

Depending on the other action, in a multi-player game a player may end up waiting waiting for a minute or two at the most before one of your units gets to their virtual time to shoot or move.

Wolfhag

I quit playing games where my guys stand up in the open and get shot at and don't do anything until it's my "turn" or hope for some card to appear.

Agreed !

Legion,
For Small Arms Fire results units that want to fire have a fire marker placed showing the direction of their target. Enemy units respond. Now we have several units engaged in "firefights". The results of the volume of fire between units in a firefight is determined every 10 turns/seconds. Units are "locked" in a firefight and must continue to engage, Hunker Down or Fall Back. When locked in a firefight it's harder to engage new targets like enemy units attempting to flank you for an assault. The more a target is suppressed the harder it is to get causalities.

Firefights at medium and long-range result in mostly suppression and very few causalities unless the enemy exposes themselves and not in an Improved Position or occupying a defensive structure.

Units cannot Rally unless they Fall Back out of enemy LOS and fire. I think this gives more realistic results of units falling back before taking a large % of causalities. So when you place defenders you need to make sure they have a covered egress route and fall back positions.

An infantry only scenario plays out very quickly because you are have units in firefights exchanging fire without the need for initiative and activations and movement is quick using the Virtual Movement.

It takes some player skill to use mortars as they normally have a 30 second time of flight so don't arrive exactly when you call for them.

Pinned Down: I don't have a rules for this. Falling Back away from the enemy is automatically obeyed. To advance under fire you need to pass an Aggressiveness Check. If you fail the check you don't advance = pinned down. Failing an Aggressiveness Check lowers your Aggressiveness by one level making it harder for the next time you try it. Multiple failures with poor leadership will bog down an attack.

This allows players to ambush an attacker, fall back to a new covered position and do it again and coordinate attacks with your mortars that can provide smoke screening while you fall back. After you weaken them then counterattack with units you've held in reserve.

Wolfhag

A little more detail you have there, but sounds like it is a good/workable system. Our system the Infantry has a 360 FOF, based on terrain. And any target can be engaged by as many units with LOS, etc. in a turn.

I would like to see it in game. Please post a youtube video tutorial once you have the finished product.

Dragon Gunner,
Email me at:
treadheadgames AT Gmail

I'll put you on the email distribution list. A retired Marine LtCol with Force Recon and Spec Ops experience just joined us and we have some other Marine & Army vets too. The goal is to have a faithful translation of the infantry manuals into the game from the viewpoint of Squad and Platoon Leaders.

Since playtesting is difficult I'll be sending the rules and video to the "Evaluation Group" and then we'll have an online discussion for feedback, recommendations and changes.

Wolfhag