"Firefights and too much rolling" Topic

Does anyone use any clever rules mechanics to limit the amount of dice rolling without just making everything really deadly?

In my games, when I get into a firefight with a few platoons in cover(each base being a section), it's tedious to handle hiring for every platoon for multiple rounds in a row when they are not inflicting many casualties.

I don't want to make everything deadlier because I want there to be time to pin the enemy and then flank with other troops.

I thought about making fires deadlier but only shooting with a small random selection of units each turn but then that means a unit could miss firing even when three are enemies directly in front of them in the open when damage should be all but guaranteed.

Thoughts?

Troops in cover firing at each other with small arms are not going to inflict many casualties.

Do your rules allow firepower to pin other sections? Perhaps you need a greater probability to pin, as opposed to actually causing casualties.

Call in your mortar support.

That's what I'm saying, multiple rounds pass with few casualties which is good, but it means that I do a lot of rolling which gets tedious.

If you are waiting for some action outside the firefight, you could incorporate some mechanism that makes this turn's firefight more or less a rerun of last turn's. Perhaps roll a die, with 2-3-4-5 being the same as last time, while with a 1 you inflict one less casualties, and with a 6 you inflict one more casualty. This presumes nothing has changed, like one side in the firefight receiving reinforcements or the wall the men ae sheltered behind collapsing.

Is this the sort of thing you were thinking of?

Grelber

Grelber, that's the jist of what I am thinking though a little too simple since the firefight is still dynamic. New units could be getting into position almost every round.

Use a modified binomial table.

If 10x soldiers are firing and each have a 5% chance to hit one die roll determines the # of hits and you don't get unrealistic outcomes.

Both sides simultaneously check for causalities every 10 seconds in the game determining the amount of firepower over the 10 seconds. However, you can use any unit of time or turn.

Units under fire are limited in what they can do (decreased firepower, movement and observation) and need to pass an Aggressiveness Check to move under fire.

Units always obey an order to Fall Back and cannot rally until they are out of the enemy LOS or not under fire. Players quickly find out not to hang around if losing a firefight, have alternate positions to fall back on and hold tactical reserves.

We get more fire & maneuver and defenders falling back rather than being wiped out so there is more of a realistic flow. The defenders reserves perform a counter-attack at a certain point.

I use a British War Office Report to determine the causality %. You need fewer die rolls, it's quicker and gives more historic outcomes.

Wolfhag

I think the matrix/table like a boardgame or squad leader, where you have X amount of firepower vs. target type and cover, roll a die and cross-reference for results might work for you. Maybe fire by platoons for combat resolution.

You need to play Crossfire.

You need to play Crossfire.

Seconded

The primary choices for a combat result is a simple range of options, no calculation and lots of dice, or a more complex range of options, calculation and a single D6 (or whatever dice you wish). The latter is the classic combat results table found in boardgames.

Both systems have their pluses and minuses, but if you don't want to spin lots of dice then convert the die rolls into a simple CRT. For example 6xD6 with a 5+ for a HIT can be averaged out to 3 HITS, so a single CRT column called 6 could have 2HITS on a 1-2, 3HITS on a 3-4 and 4HITS on a 5-6. This way stay with your current rules, just replace the Die rolling with a simple CRT.

The advantages of the die rolling system is the result is highly variable, but this could also be a disadvantage. CRT reduces that variability, unless you use 2xD6, or a D10 or a percentage die. But then the CRT gets rather large, so only do this if necessary.

I guess it's not that I don't like rolling dice. I just don't like the time investment of resolving a large number of mostly harmless attacks. Rolling a single die and checking charts doesn't really help.

Crossfire…

If you're trying not to resolve attacks, then use alternative mechanics.

One suggestion in very broad outline:
Establish some kind of threat level identifying "under fire" zones where units could suffer casualties. Rather than resolve attacks every turn, resolve attacks only when a unit in a threat zone does something to expose itself – maneuver, redeploy, displace, open fire, etc. Done right, this could create the effect of units being self-pinning by default most of the time under cover, and you'd only have to resolve attacks when something changes exposure to fire.

This should also have the effect of moving the decision cycle from the minutiae of shooting to the meatier command process – deciding who to move, when to move, where to move, how to move, how to coordinate actions under fire, etc.

FWIW, this is functionally what Crossfire's unusual mechanics achieve already.

- Ix

Maybe you're fighting tedious scenarios?

My inclination is always to explore the original premise first, so yes, maybe a game's particular force structure is insufficient to render dynamic results (if you're not getting dynamic results with a ruleset – bump up your force ratios).

Not too many experienced gamers will say WW2 infantry actions should be fast and dynamic engagements – you'll need the fire superiority to overcome a defending opponent (that is around 3 to 1 superiority in firepower – so usually a lot more attacking troops than some collections will allow – or that some popular game systems [the tourney-oriented affairs] have popularized), or access to combined-arms assets to soften up the enemy before the infantry assault goes in.

As many experienced gamers might relate too, this can mean tedious scenarios that take time to make ready, then to prep the battlefield with artillery strikes, and then to carry out the final foot-born [slow moving] infantry assault, AND, sometimes guys just don't want to take the time to play this sort of a game at the skirmish or tactical level (or play this set-piece style of infantry action more than a couple of times….probably what's to be expected).

All manners of warfare don't necessarily make for rewarding game scenarios to play.

How often do we experience scenarios that might include belts of mines (or hidden fields), and barbed wire entanglements to overcome, and then there's some sort of turn time limit placed on the mission's accomplishment – oh, what great fun…..not.

I am not sure what you want then if you don't want a quick and easy way to resolve scattered or ineffective small arms fire.

Perhaps you don't roll any dice to resolve ineffective fire; you simply state that it is happening. Troops can remain thus all game if they want to but, if they want to do anything but stay in place or fall back, the have to pass a morale check or roll on a table to see if an offense movement or task is allowed. So, troops are engaged in keeping enemy troops occupied but, if they themselves cannot move, they have effectively been pinned by enemy fire. I would still want to add in a rol where casualties are possible even if the odds are small. So, your platoon wants to try a flanking move. OK, roll a 7 or better on 2d6. If you roll a 2 or a 3 you suffered a casualty and are pinned.

I counted three votes for Crossfire. Let me add a fourth! Simple, realistic, and fun.

A lot of good points. Lots of votes for crossfire but I don't think I'm going to go there. My understanding is that you can move indefinitely until fired upon? That won't work for me because my games involve a lot of movement before contact so relative speeds of things need to matter.

@79thPA The problem is that even quick and easy becomes slow if you have to resolve it 6 times every round because you have two companies slogging it out on the flank with no decisive movement. I agree that ineffective fire doesn't usually need to be resolved unless the target increases exposure.

My current working idea is that when a platoon opens fire, you put down a little arrow marker showing what they are firing at but don't resolve an attack unless the target is not in cover. That fire is considered to be ongoing and does not need to be declared on further turns. The arrow marker will have an arbitrary number 1-12 on it. Each round you roll a 12 sided die and resolve any fires that represent the number rolled. This means that attacks against units in cover will rarely be resolved but are still possible to cause casualties at any time. When an attack is resolved, you can take into account the effects of suppression from any markers currently pointing at the firer.

So basically the only time small arms fire is resolved (rolled) is when:

It is against unprotected troops
Against troops that move while under fire
Roughly 1/12 of rounds

Gauntlet, what rules do you use?

I make my own. The focus is on being smooth play while still detailed.

Gauntlet, your ideas sound more than interesting. Do you feel comfortable sharing your rules?

@Big Red, I'm happy to share my rules but I don't have them well documented yet..

I've played my current set about a dozen times with a friend but the concept I'm working on in this thread is very new.

If a lot of the dice rolling required is for checks to unpin pinned troops, you could reduce that by making pins last for a fixed number of turns, or specifying that they stay pinned as long as an enemy unit is continuing to put "pinning fire" on them, which neither inflicts casualties or requires a roll to unpin. Keeping a pinned enemy pinned with sustained fire could be an element/unit action that doesn't require a roll, with a cool name like "Keep Their Heads Down" or "Suppressing Fire"

As I understand it, an attack that ends up in a protracted firefight is a failed attack (or at least bogged down), as the momentum has been lost. Fire superiority is something you're supposed to attain quickly, and then move on to the objective, no?

So depending on how long a turn is in the rules you're playing and the scale, the defender could claim a victory if the attacker is sitting around. You could eliminate your problem by making clear victory conditions that are not just about holding ground- limit the number of turns. Add the idea that the attackers morale starts to drop if they are not moving and you'll likely find more maneuver going on….

perfectcaptain is on the right track. Any attack should be supported by mortars or guns to suppress the enemy. Small Arms Fire delivers very few causalities against defenders in cover, about 1% per minute according to British War Office Report.

Ideally, small arms fire against defenders in cover should be used for cover fire with fire & maneuver, not to cause causalities.

Also, defenders should have the likely avenues of approach registered for mortars. You first take them under SA fire forcing them to hit the deck and then drop a mortar barrage on them.

In games players normally shoot every chance they get no matter the range or chances of hitting. This could be because the game has a limited number of turns. However, in reality shooting gives away your position for a mortar or artillery barrage. Ideally, you want the defenders to shoot at you at long range to give away their positions.

When you have small arms fire causing causalities on a 1 with a D6 against defenders dispersed and in cover the effectiveness will be completely unhistorical.

When defending in depth the best tactic is a violent close range ambush and immediate withdraw to a new position and repeat. Draw the enemy in, cause causalities and then counterattack his flanks. Don't stick around for a barrage. That;s how we play it.

Wolfhag

Wolfhag, if you don't mind me asking, what rules are you using?

Sorry, I'm a bit confused by this. If shooting is ineffective, then surely that means you should move to close assault, no? Infantry squads do not have any heavy weapons in WW2 and can really only do so much suppression on their own using small arms alone… once they've reached that ceiling, you should maneuver to close assault, which should be very effective. It sounds a little bit like you've got indecisive commanders (i.e. players) and you are blaming it on the rules. WW2 was not ACW. It's not a long ranged shooting match where both sides line up and try to "knock down the pins" on the other side more quickly than they are shooting your men. Everything outside of close assaults should just be considered part of maneuver and that includes these "firefights" you describe. The battle begins and ends with grenades and bayonets.

Sorry, I'm a bit confused by this. If shooting is ineffective, then surely that means you should move to close assault, no?

I think by ineffective we or I mean a low chance of causing causalities from medium or long range small arms fire against troops in cover. My opinion is the winner of a firefight will have the freedom of movement to flank, maneuver, or assault because the other side is suppressed to the point that their return fire is ineffective. If your return fire is ineffective and the enemy is closing on you your only real option is to fall back before being assaulted which is not necessarily a bad thing.

There are a number of research papers written by the "experts" that state that once you win the initial firefight sustained fire will maintain it and keep the defenders heads down. Also, the more a unit is suppressed the fewer causalities it will take because the defenders spend more time in cover and less time shooting back. In that respect, I think Gauntlet is on the right track. Sustained long range small arms fire against opponents in good cover will not give definitive results so why waste your time die rolling. However, if their return fire is ineffective your fire would then be considered "effective" even if not causing causalities.

The battle begins and ends with grenades and bayonets.

Yes, often it does. However, a defender, seeing he is outnumbered and has lost the initiative, will generally attempt to fall back if they can. Most prepared defensive positions allow safe retreats to a new position. Rallying is normally done after falling back out of the enemy LOS as it can be difficult to rally when under fire. However, I rarely see this happening in games for a number of reasons. We would (squad level) set up a "Rally Point" for everyone to get to if we got separated or C&C broke down.

As the game designer you can do it any way you like, to each his own.

Wolfhag

Big Red,
It's a system I developed based on Boyd's OODA Decision Loop timing concept. Since orders take some time to be executed each team/section or vehicle operates in its own OODA Loop "timing bubble" with the game timing (not real time) synchronizing all units future time to act/execute. As soon as a unit acts/executes it's order it loops back to do it all over again, just as a real leader/commander would (no orders phase or unit activation).

The game timing also synchronizes movement rate and rate of fire eliminating the need for opportunity fire rules.

Good units are quicker and will seize the initiative, poor and suppressed units are slower and may be knocked before getting through their loop to execute their order. Since real units are always observing (no activation or spotting phase) they can react to threats to change their order if needed. I know, complicated right?

Wolfhag

My opinion is the winner of a firefight will have the freedom of movement to flank, maneuver, or assault because the other side is suppressed to the point that their return fire is ineffective.

Unless I misunderstood him, I thought the OP was saying that he found all small arms fire to be functionally "ineffective" by default. If that is indeed the case, then you don't need to worry about "return fire" and can move straight to the next step: close assault. Gauntlet has not shared his rules so I am unable to reply with specifics about how to handle game mechanics. One must assume however that models are always firing when it is appropriate to do and the vast majority of attacks are not individual dice rolls but rather something that is abstracted into the background. Platoon actions were typically resolved at very, very close range. Most rule sets (again, no clue about Gauntlet's own specific system) roll all of that into the close assault mechanics. Suppressing troops is really something that many rulesets leave to the heavy weapons (the very lightest of which are the HMG and the mortar).

In my rules shooting is very effective against units that are not in cover but that doesn't happen too often. Most firing is platoon to platoon between hedges or clumps of trees. Yes, I could just say that shooting at cover with small arms never kills anything and I don't need to roll but that kind of simplification really waters down the game too much.

I agree with Wolfhag on how the game should guide your strategy. I do want the mid-long range fire against cover mostly to be deciding who gets the freedom of movement. I just don't want to spend an inordinate amount of time doing upkeep on the firefight each round before someone is actually in position to launch a close assault.

Wolfhag, is there a video of your group playing an OODA loop game somewhere?

Achtung Minen, I have small arms ineffective at causing casualties against troops in cover at mid-long range. Firing at moving infantry in a field or at ambush ranges is definitely deadly. My scale is 2" = 100 yards so I'm definitely not abstracting small arms into close assault.

Gauntlet,
I think you are on the right track and have the right idea – not that you need to please me. I have some videos, but we are doing an updated one this weekend that I'll post. It will be a tank-tank engagement. If we have time, we'll do an infantry fire & maneuver to assault.

In the meantime, here is a paper to explain how OODA works with low level infantry operations: link

Here is an earlier TMP discussion: TMP link

Nuts! does the above pretty well for man-to-man games.

Clarification: OODA is all about timing. Each "turn" is one second of timing, nothing like a traditional turn. In the game there are two actions players perform with a die roll and up to 3 modifiers. Situational Awareness Checks (combines spotting and reaction time) and Action Timing (how long it takes the crew to execute an order like shooting).

This system has successfully been played by 12 and 14 year old kids with no previous war gaming experience. However, I've seen older and experienced players overthink and complicate the process. The OODA Loop concept keeps it simple and natural. I tell players to think as a real commander and do what would come natural.

Wolfhag

Wolfhag,

I'll be interested to see your new video when it comes out.

I'm curious to see how easy it is to grasp and how much battle can be done in an hour.

When I design rules, I am always looking to pack as much detail as I can into simple mechanics and avoid players having to reference charts.

What about the effect on play of keeping hidden (or no longer spotted) units off the table? You probably wouldn't have so much constant fire, as some units might opt for remaining hidden until the right moment. Probably more reliance on movement and artillery/mortars. The real suppressive fire will probably occur only when enemy forces are close enough to each other to make the fire effective.

Now throw in the idea of not knowing the result of your fire and things might change in the other direction. In one of our games a player was so unnerved by a distant HMG that he kept shooting at it four turns after it had been destroyed….

perfectcaptain,
You're absolutely right. However, most miniatures players want to get all of their toys on the table from the start. Who can blame them, that's why they are painted.

I'm using a Limited Intelligence Rule that you only know what you can observe. A player may think he knocked out an anti-tank gun but in reality the crew is in Full Cover and not shooting. They'll go back into position when the enemy passes. Some players run over and squash the guns to make sure.

You need to keep firing at a tank unless you can see a fire or brew up, that includes firing at bailing crews.

A common tactic was to fire at an advancing enemy to attract their attention and draw them into an ambush a a pre-registered spot for a mortar barrage.

A common rule of thumb is don't fire and give away your position unless you have a really good reason. Long range fire at infantry in good cover is generally ineffective at causing causalities but can pin them down.

Wolfhag

not sure what the problem is. Taking my model, infantry fire is done typicaly by team, upto say 5 bolt action rifles and there LMG. HMG's are done separately. The whole thing is done in 1 D20 roll which gives suppression and or a more serious degradation of "Morale". Its fast as its easy to remember.

Our system is set up to do as Wolfhag says, first win the firefight and then assult. A platoon assault is relatively simple, all the platoon may assist depending on the situation to gain dominance then some remain as the base of fire to keep the enemy suppressed, while the assault group go in for the kill. All on a D20 to minimize rolling die, a D20 can do two things at once half the die.

I'm just confused as to why you are staying put in cover to fire at each other and then upset about rolling too many times? Really, two units in cover are not going to make many kills, if any. You'll be there all night rolling dice. It should be obvious that you need to either use different weapons (Mortar anyone?) or suppress the unit in cover and assault or flank them with another unit. This is exactly what happened in real combat situations. Don't sit there and expect different results unless you are going to use different methods???

@UshCha,

I'm not sure how much time you have but rolling a D20 and consulting a chart twice for every fireteam sounds laborious to me. To each their own but since my friends and I all have jobs and families, I try to shorten the boring stuff so we can get a full tactical engagement done in 2 – 2.5 hours.

@NorthernFront

Not sure you understand the question. My battles are playing out the way I want them to, I just want to streamline them so they take less physical real life time.

Gauntlet, its not that hard, no range effect, and a leadership is always on a 14 or more adjusted role. so only one roll for infantry. Never need to look it up after the first game.

I hate die rolling spoils the game, irrational amounts of random makes a poor game for me and wastes time which should be spent either moving troops to your current plan or updating your plan.

I only roll twice on armored vehicles. the hit roll is easy to remember. Sometimes I do have to look up the effects of a penetrating hit but you soon remember your Armour values.

Wolfhag. How many 1 second turns are you playing out to resolve a game? Many wargames go for about 8 or 10 turns before the conflict is resolved. Would this mean that in game time your firefights last only 8 or 10 seconds? Wouldn't real company level conflicts last much longer?

I re read this thread it was interesting.

Not too many experienced gamers will say WW2 infantry actions should be fast and dynamic engagements – you'll need the fire superiority to overcome a defending opponent (that is around 3 to 1 superiority in firepower – so usually a lot more attacking troops than some collections will allow – or that some popular game systems [the tourney-oriented affairs] have popularized), or access to combined-arms assets to soften up the enemy before the infantry assault goes in.

As many experienced gamers might relate too, this can mean tedious scenarios that take time to make ready, then to prep the battlefield with artillery strikes, and then to carry out the final foot-born [slow moving] infantry assault, AND, sometimes guys just don't want to take the time to play this sort of a game at the skirmish or tactical level (or play this set-piece style of infantry action more than a couple of times….probably what's to be expected).

All manners of warfare don't necessarily make for rewarding game scenarios to play.

How often do we experience scenarios that might include belts of mines (or hidden fields), and barbed wire entanglements to overcome, and then there's some sort of turn time limit placed on the mission's accomplishment – oh, what great fun…..not.

FlyXwire you can't please all the people all of the time. As an experienced gamer the game you define as good, would send me to the bar, not worth playing.
If you are not planning a strategy with support weapons, defensive positions possibly minefields (done properly), proper artillery support even if its just battalion mortars and the like its so un-historic its not even worth putting the figures on the table for me.

Uscha, I can totally agree with you (from your point of view).

I'm speaking instead to game management, or more towards scenario design decisions (not rule mechanics per se) – and that's where my post above did start -

"My inclination is always to explore the original premise first, so yes, maybe a game's particular force structure is insufficient to render dynamic results (if you're not getting dynamic results with a ruleset – bump up your force ratios)."

There's another related thread now currently discussing rule designs/approaches (it is related I think) -

TMP link

So let me relate a recent [maybe illustrative GM experience here] with a game I put on a few months back. This game used my modified Bolt Action rules which enables a Bn.-level game, and the scenario was fairly involved – using multiple entry points for forces, with different times for these entries, there was dug-in defending infantry, AT support, and SPs hidden on-board until spotted, and a counterattack programmed…….this all to occur in a four-hour gaming convention time slot.

Unfortunately, the con's game roster listed the game as Bolt Action (modified)……true, but maybe just too general of a description for a "wider audience". –

Two young players (brothers who insisted on playing together) were amongst the 5 participants enrolled, but I had expected and wanted new players, so I had arranged for a friend to help facilitate new players to the rules as the game progressed. Long story short – around turn 6 of the developing action, the brothers had lost their patience with the game, with the rules, and with us old guys who played a different style of game, at a different command level, and with unknown/evolving scenario occurrences – that's not what they thought they had signed up for – and they were only prepared or expecting a 6-turn Bolt Action match-session!

So the games we host, and the expectations we have for them might be affected by player expectations, by their familiarity with the rules or time period and tactics, by the game venue, by time limits for setting up and tearing down a game (if any), by session time limits……

So now the push-back – are opinions here on the forum judging gaming value based only on ones particular gaming style, its usual venue for presentation, on an expected experience level for the player participants, and of their historical knowledge for a period or with the rules featured?

Wolfhag. How many 1 second turns are you playing out to resolve a game?

It depends on how long the game lasts and how much action there is. It can be for 60 seconds (60 turns) to 5 minutes (300 turns) or more using a concept called "Time Compression". This can be a 2-3 hour real game time game with 20-40 units per side.

I use a "Turn" as one second of time used for determining the amount of time it takes for a crew to execute an order. If the game clock shows 3:37 and it takes a crew 12 seconds to fire they shoot when the clock gets to 3:49.

Most games that are designed with a set game turn of 10-90 seconds need to have a variety of abstracted rules like activation's, IGUG move/shoot, opportunity fire rules and restrictions, etc. to parse the action in within the game turn. Mine is a different approach which at first, seems confusing.

Lets say the game clock shows 2:11 and there are units scheduled to shoot at 2:15, 2:17 and 2:21. The clock progresses sequentially like a game turn being stopped only for a unit to execute an order. As turns 2:12, 2:13 and 2:14 are announced and there are no actions the next turn/second is announced. All units are one second closer to executing their action. At 2:15 the clock "stops" for the player to execute his action. He shoot and misses and enemy units with a LOS can react. He wants to shoot again and determines it will take 8 seconds to reload and aim to shoot. He'll shoot again at 2:23. After units are finished reacting the clock starts again. 2:16 is skipped at the unit at 2:17 executes his shooting order and knocks out the unit that would have shot at 2:21.

Movement is in 10 second increments which allows a good synchronization between shooting and moving. As soon as you complete an action immediately determine your next action and how long it will take to execute. There are very few artificial rules and abstractions.

If you can count, tell time, roll a D6 and add or subtract a few numbers and pay close attention to the action you know how to play. Each vehicle has a customized data card for the timing of actions based on their historical performance.

Infantry units use timing only for firing hand held anti-tank weapons. Small Arms Fire results are determined in 10 second increments. This speeds up the game too. Infantry units react to enemy action and being flanked or suppressed increases the amount of time for them to go into action allowing attackers to get close for assaults.

Many wargames go for about 8 or 10 turns before the conflict is resolved. Would this mean that in game time your firefights last only 8 or 10 seconds? Wouldn't real company level conflicts last much longer?

Hopefully I've explained that.

Wolfhag

FlyXWire – certainly my comments apply to me and the group I game with. Regular players who play once a week using the same rules and period most of the time.

To me multi player games are rare and mostly classed as a social rather than an interesting demanding game. Fine occasionally but not what drives us to play.

Clearly player experience of the rules and the period are key to our games. So yes the venue, regularity and player experience are key factors in defining acceptable rules for a specific group.

Beginners need to work at gaining that experience like any newcomer to a sport (Chess is a sport nowadays) if they want to have fun with us.

UshCha, I wish I could play as regularly as you and your buds do (all I can manage is maybe twice, or very rarely three times a month).

You know (not to hijack the thread here too much), but I wonder what is the average gaming frequency a month for most gamers now? Maybe that was a question on this year's WSS's Wargame Survey, but I wasn't motivated to complete mine (just kinda feeling atypical anymore from the hobby at large)…..

FlyXwire, its not just how often you play but how often you play a givem period/st of rules. If you played once a week but only gamed a period/set of you rules ay once a month it would be a diffrent demand/desire culture. You would not read so much about the period and you would be inexperienced in the application of tactics for any given period.

we have been playing our rules since before 2008 pretty much unchanged. However understanding real world tactics and being able to apply them intelligently is not easy and has taken a lot of time and fun.

So rolling 1 die for infantry and 2 die for armoured vehicles is second nature and rarely needs even a QR sheet. The fun is where it should be; what is the best plan and why and where will the enemy be.

Very true!

Most of my gaming at the moment is at a local game shop. We do a retirees weekday game at random times each month, this with guys I regularly game with, and I also organize a monthly games day that's open to the public, on each 1st Saturday of the calendar. The latter event can draw 20-40 people on average, and I change the period/focus themes monthly (this month's focus, happening in 4 days now is WW2 – with three games planned).

Because each month can feature different game periods (and their specific rules), and for the weekend events mentioned, different players of varied ages, gaming skills, or familiarity with the themed period and/or rulesets, a more "generalist" approach must be taken to enable such a varied group to feel welcomed and/or capable of joining in on our tabletops…..and first, there's the shop's operating principle – 1) Open to the Public, with our group's second operating parameter – 2) We can teach you the Rules (cold), so players can anticipate having a decent afternoon experience, and so they might like to show up again, for some friendly, historical-themed wargaming.

Last month's games were American Civil War presentations, in 15mm, 6mm, and I put on a 1/600th scale Mississippi River gunboat scenario. So there's a game variety for players to choose from when they attend, but with some focus too. This all pre-arranged each month, pre-publicized with the shop, and notices emailed out to the local gamers and advertised on our group FB page.

With Covid lurking (it having shut down gaming at the shops for over a year), resuming these public meetups over the past 4 months has, and still remains challenging. Local gaming became more "insular" because of the pandemic here, guys lost some of their motivation or presentation skills and ability for coming out of the basement back to the public scene (my go-to list for reliable/willing GMs has been cut in half, maybe up to a third of what it was pre-pandemic).

So for how we game here in "these parts", there's a lot of moving parts that affect getting people out to our type of events.

FlyXwire just shows there is no one perfect set of rules. One mans meat is another mans poise. You and my requirements have little in common at all.

Well said my forum friend.

UshCha, you did Manoevre Group, right? I was just reading those rules last night :). Gonna have to give them a go…some cool concepts in there.

Just to chime in again on this subject, another game that always keeps moving at a very good clip is Battlefront WWII. If you close with an enemy and give a round shooting at each other, you very quickly get a decision: either one of you will fall back or you can maneuver in for the close assault and at that point either your infantry or theirs will be the victors, destroying or routing the other. Friction in that game is not defined (as it is in certain games) as a "slowing down" of combat as units get mired in close-ranged shootouts. Rather, friction is defined as losing control of your men as some fall back and some charge forward. So it's friction that facilitates a fluid and in-motion battlefield, not a cemented one.