"Wargameing - Book Theory into practice?" Topic

This is a very personal view about what makes a good wargame for me. There is a very esoteric and interesting (to me) discussion in TMP link Well off the original topic but hey that's normal.

It did make me think about what makes a wargame interesting to me, in my biased opinion having played almost the same game system for the past 15 years.

Well our quest was to play a game that behaved a bit like the accounts I read in history books. Like engineering, the problem is you can read lots of theory but putting it into practice is hard. As a student you did lab practice, it was a challenge in many cases to put theory into practice.

Now to me I was interested in the very basic physics of why formations were like they were, why you needed infantry and how should it be deployed. To be honest other than very basic lip service, the phycology of war was not really of interest. What I wanted was how you lay out the "perfect" defence and how do you do the "perfect" attack on the perfect defence. There is no such thing as perfect but the fun is getting something that at least works and sheds some light on the accounts you read.

Wargames we bought never did it for us, so we started from scratch, on a system that VERY crudely said tanks did this, Infantry did that, but that is as far as I need to go here, it's not about my rules.

What we got/still are getting out of our games is an understanding of the VERY basics of defence layout, Timing of combined operations and how to conduct attacks, ambushes, convoy escort, delaying actions, be they infantry, vehicle or combined arms. How attacks or defences start to peter out and very basically why and how to make the best of a bad situation is of interest. Its hard because real terrain is rarely partizan so you have to bend theory whichis always shown on an almost blank page and with no devious enemy deployments to counter it.

Our own rules are very crude approximations, just enough to get the gist of how it's done. I would never propose its accurate it misses far too much out by accident or design. For example, in almost all our games the wind speed and direction is optimum for the scenario, we could make it otherwise but the games for us are sufficiently complicated and would not improve our enjoyment for being more complex and lest be honest closer to a more typical engagement in the real world.

The point is rules only need to be approximations to be useful. You may not need anything too accurate to be a useful approximation which by definition is just that a crude approximation but that may be enough for what you want. Detailed studies of casualty rates may be overkill for some approximations. A simple rank order of things may be sufficient.

Comments welcome.

I agree with this philosophy. For me wargaming is more about the tactics and relevant choices commanders have to make. I like the idea of crude approximation. The rules that try to nail every aspect perfectly end up being unplayable and decisions aren't made realistically. There needs to be balance between playability and realism to achieve realistic tactics and decisions but keep a game moving.
In my group we tried various pre gunpowder rules that were deemed realistic and witnessed stupid and gamey tactics win. We gave kings of war historical a shot even though somethings were laughably crude or seemingly inaccurate. It gave us the most realistic outcomes in performance and tactical decisions. The person who played wisely and historically won consistently. It's crude. It's an approximation. It's a fun game. It gives us realistic outcomes.

The point is rules only need to be approximations to be useful. You may not need anything too accurate to be a useful approximation which by definition is just that a crude approximation but that may be enough for what you want.

UshCha:

Considering that how a wargame is 'accurate' has never been established by the hobby, saying something is too accurate or 'crude' makes little sense. For something to be 'accurate', there has to be a target, a scale applied to the attempts to hit the target and some final measurement of the attempts based on that scale…thus the effort is accurate as measured by the scale. Anything else is just talk about what feels good.

Approximates: Almost everything from science, engineering to economics work in 'approximates that work.' It isn't some compromise, that is the way of things. Ever heard of 'renormalization' in quantum mechanics or how orbits for satellites are calculated? Remember the engineering joke about spherical chickens? Approximates are used when they are useful…

Useful: In your comments UshCha, a wargame is 'useful' when it models reality approximately… How well or crude is entirely based on what goals have been set for the design. When the wargame does what it was created to do it is 'useful.'

We gave kings of war historical a shot even though somethings were laughably crude or seemingly inaccurate. It gave us the most realistic outcomes in performance and tactical decisions. The person who played wisely and historically won consistently. It's crude. It's an approximation. It's a fun game. It gives us realistic outcomes.

smithsco:
What connections between history and Kings of War led you to feel the outcomes were 'realistic?' Was the wargame crude, or just the depth of your evaluation?

All simulations have some parts that are 'crude' by any measure. Renormalization is an important tool for quantum physicists, but they call it an 'ugly hack.'

I am sure there are a number of things about most wargames that are "seemingly inaccurate" because gamers don't:

1. Have a meaningful, working definition of how game mechanics or the game system are 'accurate' in the first place. It is all under the umbrella of 'seemingly.'

2. The designer of the wargame hasn't told you where they have established historical accuracy.

3. Because of that realism and any assessment of crude really is nothing more than what you like and what matches your 'sense' of the historical.

All fine and good as far as fun and satisfaction go… after some rules experiments regarding what 'seems' to be realistic.'

'Realistic.' There is another word that is seen as a goal for wargames, but there is no design definition. There is no pointing to game mechanics and establishing the 'realism.' It's all just feel, flavor and opinion. All of which is the near opposite of 'accuracy.'

Yet, your play descriptions, smithsco certainly are an approach that could be used to establish accuracy and realism with some methodology and information.

Good thought provoking questions. From my perspective I like big picture realism and accuracy. Basically can armies be represented in a manner that reflects reality, can they use their preferred tactics, and do the tactics lead to realistic outcomes based on similar battles in history. The moment that kings of war historical stunned me was a game between Mongols and a Crusading Order. I decided to try to employ my Mongol army as they behaved historically. Was able to use the same tactics and achieve similar results. I drew the crusaders out and crushed them. Everytime we've played it since then with various armies and periods we are happy with it playing out along similar lines. One game I accidentally left my flank exposed on a phalanx and got shredded by cavalry.

Purely anecdotal but it felt like units moved faster relative to other rules. So a phalanx moves more across the map than in other rules. However the units are internally proportional so cavalry compared to a phalanx is similar to other rulesets. It seemed to create a little fog of war because it was harder to predict what my opponent would do early in the battle which put me in tougher situations with more important decisions later in the game. We discovered you couldn't have massive armies though. If you take away room to maneuver the game is just a dice fest. That's why I avoid fantasy KoW tournament play because that's how it seems to be done.

In terms of the word crude I'm using it as in simple and straightforward. King of War historical is a crude tool that achieves good results. Much like a stone tied to a stick.

To be honest there seems to me, as a practical engineer that somtimes there is too much concentratyion on the esoteric while basic common sence, and a bit of reading gets you a long way. Many wargames seem to be written by folks who never go out in the real world.

I look at spotting rules for some games and they are patently absurd. Go out into your local area and if its not billiard table flat and no vegitation its easy for a camoflarged man to dissapear 100 yds away, his image is really small. Look in windows at 100 yds no chance of spotting anybody if they are standing back from the window as any sane soldier would. So spotting a man not moving at any distance is quite unlikely, yet many games insist its easy. It's easy to be plausible without excessive achedemic study. Certainly where I live spotting a man behind a hedge with binoculars may be possible in some cases if you know where to look. However where I live there are often miles of hedges in view so to scan for 1 man where you don't know where he is is a very tall order and proably too low a proability to bother with in the time frame of a game. Check WW2 and beyond, they invented reconnisance by fire as they could not see folk not far away, the jury is still out about when it worked/does work/is worth the ammo. There you are sytem designed by commonsence and proved by simple reference to procedures.

Couple that with a bit of experience driving cars and very basic documents about the effective ranges of weapons and you are well on the way to a credible model if that like me is your thing. Casualtie rates need only be rank order figures, who cares if its a bit out for every body, it does if you are working out how many troops will need medical treatment but for tactical positioning its not that critical. The theory to practice means the practical application of common sence, and that as we used to say in the buissness, is not that common and some wargames are very short on it.

Much wargameing (in my opinion of course) can be dealt with by very crude, get out there investigations of the real world, not by excessive achedemic study, again dependant on the model you want. Drive your car/bike across a field and you get a handel about speeds, visibility and percepotion without recoruse to complex mathermatics. An thats from a hi-tech aerespace engineer. There are places for complex mathermatics but certainly at the level of detail I need its uneccessay most of the time.

PS I did do some mathermatics once just to convince myself I had not gome mad when I looked at how fast tanks in a model could turn. 8g was a bit much sideways acceleration, If you have to go round a tight bend tou need to go slow. Along a straight bit of road infantry 6" tanks 12" is yet another lack of common sence rule, too crude even for me, the self proclaimed master of crude.

So budding rules writers get out there look at the world and you may be more than halfway to a better model.

Rant Over

I'm with you on movement. Honestly I love the idea of cold war/moderns but feel that it is so poorly done in most rules I've read that I stick to small skirmish games where vehicles aren't present and almost everyone is in range all the time so it is about good cover and tactics. Even these have their problems. Was doing some math and realized grenades in most 28mm games can be thrown 6 inches with a blast radius of 1-2 inches. In scale that is approximately 28 foot range with a blast radius of 5-10ish ft. Talked to a friend who was a Stryker platoon CO. Grenades are lethal in a 15 ft radius without cover. Average soldier in his platoon threw a grenade around a hundred ft each throw. In game that means a grenade should be thrown 20-22 inches and be lethal within 4 without cover.

Sometimes I think game designers would benefit from having their rules read by total strangers interested in the period to identify basic flaws that are obvious before any miniature hits the table.

smithsco we are diffrent in the rules department and do vehicels better than most in our opinion.
link
But its not a moddlers set, we hide tropps, turn the turrets on tanks and other heinious crimes.

As always if interested load the free stuff first and have a read. If that is not to your likeing not worth buying. I will note that after 15 years experience playing the best scale of models is 1/144. No set of rules is perfect for everybody and ours are their best at about a tank heavy company combat group (1:1 on vehicels, fireteam for infantry), on the attacking side once you get ths hang of it.

Note, it works OK for 1/172 but at a groundscale of 1" represents 10m, inevitably its a bit close for many vehicles to be at their best as in the real world and is best played on an 8ft by 6ft board or in very dence terrain, hence why we personally use the fold flat buildings so you can have lots cheaply in cost and storage space whatever rukles you use, but again they are not moddlers buildings.

If you are a vehicle fan we have commisioned some engineering vehicles in 1/144 as they were impossible to obtain so we made them available through AOTRS Shipyards. There stuff is ideal for our sort of game as the turrets dont fall off the tanks being 3D printed and a lot more sophisticated than some. I even desighed the LUTCHs myself.

Main thing is to have fun whatever the scale and rules.

The point is rules only need to be approximations to be useful. You may not need anything too accurate to be a useful approximation which by definition is just that a crude approximation but that may be enough for what you want.

When you say "approximations" do you mean meeting your expectations and the right "feel"? If so, not everyone has the same expectations and knowledge. If we did there would not be so many rule systems available.

Regarding spotting, that brings in the problem of simulating the Fog of War which is hard to do with all of the toys on the table. I rarely see rules which give a spotting benefit to having the high ground. I use a "Hunker Down" rule that allows infantry units to take advantage of small folds in the ground you can't portray and are immune to direct small arms fire but not indirect but they can't shoot back either.

What I find in most games is that the movement rates are entirely out of sync with the rate of fire of most guns and entirely unrealistic. A vehicle moving at 20kph for 30 seconds covers about 150m. In 30 seconds most guns could shoot 2-3 times. I prefer games that can approximate that. However, IGYG games that allow units to take turns firing based on passing an activation roll, player's decisions, or some random method are not my approximations of how an engagement would unfold.

If you've ever played a game where your opponent moved from out of your LOS and the right next to you and fired while you stood helpless you might agree with me. So for me, a realistic scale of movement and rates of fire is most important, eye candy is second or third on the list. There are many rule sets that attempt to address this with more abstract rules and exceptions that can complicate the game and slow it down.

Wolfhag

Approximation is not feel. For games in the "Advanced Player standard" we may well have some moves where it is obvious due to the scanario that there is no visibility in places so that neither side puts the "toys" on the table. For less able players at the other end of the player ability, the defender has markers and the attackers is placed on the table. However the defender may not move from his marked position without being put on table. For less able players this is as complicated tactically as they can manage. Again they are very crude, simple and intuative rules but they match the players to the situation.

Staionary troops roops may attempt to find Masking Terrain when not in active combat, that shields them from direct fire and observation (when not betraying there approximate position) from a particulat direction even on open sections of terrain.

All troops may Hunker down in our game (but at a cost of losing situational awraeness and a time penalty to recover that awareness). Great if you are facing unescorted tanks for example but not so good when they are escorted by infantry. This is similat but I admit not identical to your approach, again they are usefull approximations.

We wrote our own rules, as many wargames have the daft situation you describe in your last paragraph. We have a well drfined system for coping with this. Some long term players have a hard time with this, the daftness is so ingrained that they have a problem with getting closer to plausability. New players find it fairly intuative not having years of daftness ingrained. Again none of these things requires any complexity, they just need crude approximations, they do not cover all the nuances possible as to get workable approximation.

We have a relatively few standard terrain types and limitations. It is possible within the games to specify more types and limitations, indeed we have tryed it out but generally it has not improved tha situation, there are limitations to the overall model responce, so guilding the lilly by adding excessive detail in one aspect does not improve the overall model responce.

Turning turrets is again a very simple approach to approximating the limmts of tanks and is intuative but "Hardened Old School" players consider this far too complex, and warpainters a heinious crime as it requires touching there vehicles. Nothing I can do about that you just have to accept their priorities are not mine ands our rules are unsuitable for them, I don't have a problem with that.

The point is we aee well on the way to a palusible game and no clever check ists of situation HAS been required.

Early on our rules had 5 speeds for vehicles, Halt, slow Fast, Very fast (Transit) and Reverse (Slow in reverse). With the move, to 1/144 scale it did highlight some limitations in the model that we fixed by having a slower version of very fast whare negociatiNG some types of terrain like pre surveyed tracks when relocating positions off road and moving in convoy round tight bends, crossing narrow bridges etc, where situational awareness is sacrificed for speed for example. Again not that complex and fairly intuative.

So why are my ruls not perfect for everybody, well thay come at a price and not the $16 USD they cost ;-). so issues are highlited above alrady. More importantly players need to think ahead, if one side has decided to move fast someweher, you need to have planned a decent defence already as otherwise he can get inside your decision loop. That may be consisdered unfair if you are playing in a very mixed ability group.

If your idea of fun is to chat, and drink while the other player moves it is not for you, it requires 100% concenttation to make sure nothing unexpected happens and you plan its tinkerd with as the situation develops.

All troops may Hunker down in our game (but at a cost of losing situational awraeness and a time penalty to recover that awareness). Great if you are facing unescorted tanks for example but not so good when they are escorted by infantry. This is similat but I admit not identical to your approach, again they are usefull approximations.

I work the rule pretty much the same way. To advance under enemy fire you need to pass an Aggressiveness Check. So to coordinate a close range assault on a bunker your suppressive fire element is trading shots with the defender. The maneuver element is Hunkered Down so not exposed to fire and will be able to quickly advance without having to pass the check. It forces players to use real tactics.

I classify terrain into four types with a maximum speed for vehicles moving in each one.

How do you determine "approximation"? Is there some metric you measure it by?

I use turning turrets but my models are not primadonnas and are ok to be manhandled.

Wolfhag

Not sure how to invent a metric for "approximation" save for the bland dictionary one.

For instance vehicle speeds are really a range of speeds in each category. That is an approximation but making a metric would be difficult. Our turn radius is very approximate. A vehicle in slow or Reverse can rotate as much as the movement allows. In Transit its a limited angle regardless of the movement distance in this mode so even putting a G limit would not be a good metric as it would vary on how far the vehicle actually moved, they don't have to move the maximum they are allowed. So no there is no metric I could define. Some approximations may class as crude or very crude. I guess you have to look at the approximation and judge yourself how to define it's limits.

Turning turrets, welcome to the Dark Side of "Complicated" war gaming ;-).

For my design, I look at "metrics" as historically documenting the performance of weapons platforms. Things like turret traverse speed, rate of speed over different terrain, reload/rate of fire, turn rates, etc which are normally measured in seconds. You can also get this info from combat footage too.

Regarding "approximation" or "feel" I look at that as getting the data to work together in a coherent game that flows logically with simple mechanics. Mostly rolling a single D6 with 0-3 modifiers to use tactics and Risk-Reward Tactical Decisions by the player.

That comes down to tweaking the sequence of action, designing the play aids, and instructional videos, and writing the rules.

Wolfhag

Not sure how to invent a metric for "approximation" save for the bland dictionary one.

UshCha:

That is the whole point. We are talking about wargame design, modeling war with a very finite game procedural. Terms need to be workable, meaningful. As an example:

Phil Sabin designed a simulation which modeled the artillery tactics regarding spotting and shelling enemy artillery while avoiding the same. It has two boards of seven hexes each, one for each player and two counters for each player.

It plays sort of like battleship, only artillery can move. A number of veteran artillery officers have said that it captures the real issues and tactics in counter-battery duels and is used for training. Not surprisingly, the rules are only half a page.

So, is that a crude wargame? Why, because it is simple? Is that the design definition of 'crude?' It appears to do what it was designed to do according to artillery officers. Is it 'approximate?' Is it 'accurate?'

If those words,

crude,
approximate
accurate

had working definitions, meaningful design definitions, there would be no question about how to describe the game with those words. I could also use the terms to categorize/evaluate any wargame with those same terms… if they were meaningful design terms.

As it is, you and I 'could say' that the game is any or all of the three terms depending on how one feels about it, defend their impressions and that's it. No help in understanding how to design approximate or accurate wargames or whether a wargame is crude or not. Any metric is as good as any other because they all mean 'I like it' or I believe it is realistic and nothing, nothing more.

As it is, one can substitute wishy-washy, simple and spot-on or gribble-flix. We are still saying very little about game design and how to create games that are 'crude' as opposed to 'Sophisticated', 'approximate' or 'accurate' as opposed to 'inaccurate.'

To grouse about crude games, approximates and accuracy with no meaningful metrics for them in wargame design is about as esoteric as one can get.

Esoteric: obscure, private, secret, hidden, inner, private, mysterious, mystical, mystic, occult, arcane, cryptic, inscrutable.

McKaddie, if you want to talk Technicaly then each approximation needs to be assessed on its own merits. Our move can be defined as an approximation as it only uses only a limited set of speed bands for vehicals. We can have a long, complex and interesting disscussion on the metrics, and objectives of this approximation relative to the objectives of the model and the comparison with the real world and calculate say the maximum G force range on a vehicel turning at the maximum and minimum velocity permitted in each band. That would give you quantataive evaluatuion of the approximation used.

However those metrics would not apply to say how artillery is approximated. I an quite happy to discuss that also.

Terms like approximation are general terms and cannot be used as you seem to demand as quanative expression, nor can I see how they could be turned into such.

I read the whole thread again and realised McLaddie that your reply was a bit off where |I had intended the thread to go. Its not about really objective use of the non qantifieable, terms like crude approximation but acttually what working approximations we use to get a plausible approximation. My 5 jan post for example covers move rates, 3rd Jan spotting. These startements give a basis or what approximations we use. It is true that you can debate whther they are Crude apprximation or just approximations, what counts is how we have approximated the parameter and the logic at least very basicaly of the approximations.

If you want to take me to task on the grounds of my approximations that is a sensible approach, on the why's and wherfores even if we fail to agree we all get a better understanding of where we are relative to some aspects of reality.

Diversifying into "feel"/technical judjement without some form of quantification is not usefull and I am tryig (my wife says very trying) to avoid that age old pitfall and make positive simply validated approximations.

UshCha:

I realize I may have swerved a bit from where you intended the thread to go. But after reading all the game descriptions and evaluations using words that had no game design meaning, I felt the need to point that out.

I wasn't asking you to quantify anything or insist the thread posts use some definition of crude, etc., only that they were meaningless in game design terms in either construction or evaluations of a simulation system.

Its not about really objective use of the non qantifieable, terms like crude approximation but acttually what working approximations we use to get a plausible approximation.

I'm all for working approximations and am not looking for something 'quantifiable', but useful. The problem with this is that ALL simulations are approximations and always will be. All simulations are meant to be 'plausible' if simulating some aspect of reality. The question is how to prove that relationship between plausibility and reality.

As you say, "what counts is how we have approximated the parameter and the logic at least very basicaly of the approximations."

Those approximations can be and should be tested against reality, past or present. That moves the approximation out of the realm of plausible to a true model.

To speak of game design in useful terms, technical terms, one needs a technical language, terms that help us all talk about how to build a effective wargame.

So lets go a bit further on usefull approximations and the way forward.

Spotting make your own rukes by looking out at the real world, you will do far better tan many rubbish spotting rules.

Movement. well our eules are not a typical system but we have Halt, Skirmish and fast.

In the face of no threat (you hope) infantry move at 1 1/2 to 2 1/4 mph. Slower if figting generally.

Fast (walking for longer its more variable) about 2 1/4 to 3.3 mph (that is fast walking) espewcially with heavy gear.

Vehicles

Skirmish (combat movement if you like) 3mph to 4.5 mph. These are speeds where the creww can still function effectively and you can have the turret off axis. Move where it likes.

Fast is 3 mph to 4.5 mph and has Transit has a minimum curve radious amd you need a half bound to speed up or slow dowm.

Fast is in some ways unlimited but a practical limit is round the board 12 mph but that can include stopping and starting. We say vehicles must be on good going be it road or cross country and be capable of actually doing 20mph to qualify. Now Transit has the same curve radious minimum amd you need a half bound to speed up or slow dowm however the gun must be fore and aft and there is mininimal situational awareness. You drive down a UK motorway and you soon find driving needs a lot of concentration and a heavy vehicle need a commander and a driver to check the road and navigate.

So reasonable approximations without too much reading just common sence.

Turning turrets, well thats just reproducing what happens in the real world. Vuiewing angles, we have far too wide a viewing angle buttoned up according to a reall tank man but it is deliberately over simplified as we have no situational awareness ouside this cone. A bit unrealistiv but players have gods eye view so it seemed a reasonable approach.

Unbuttoned 180 degrees seemed reasonable, looking round 360 would take a lot of effort and would spread your attention span too much. the diver can never see much in an AFV so the commander always has to spend some time looking for him so looking in too wide an arc seems impractica, (letters on a postcard if you dissagree and why).

You are now a long way towards a set of rules just based on reasonable assumptions.

You have now invented formations, I you want to see a wide arc you need turrted vehicles to be looking in diffrent directions just like the real thing especially if buttoned up.

One foot on the ground works, the guy at the back sees more than the guys advancing, real tactic invented, no special rules.

If your not already bored to death I can continue (PROABLY INDEFINITELY ;-). ).

You are now a long way towards a set of rules just based on reasonable assumptions.

Here is my input:
Regarding reasonable assumptions; look around in combat or observe actual combat footage. What do you see?

You see vehicles moving and covering a distance determined by their rate of speed. A unit moving at 20kph will cover 333m in 60 seconds or 5.5m/second. A unit moving at 15kph covers 250m/minute of or about 4m/second. The action is simultaneous as each side does not take turns moving. Based on their rate of speed you can estimate where the vehicle will be in the next 10, 20, 30 seconds, etc.

You observe a gun firing continuously at the same target getting off a round every 7-8 seconds.

You observe a tank turret traversing 90 decrees in 10 seconds or 9 degrees/second.

What do all of these actions have in common? Time. That's why combat is a Time Competitive simultaneous environment. I think that's pretty obvious. It's why squads and crews train over and over again to execute their orders quickly. Quickness determines initiative. Poor Situational Awareness and Suppression degrade a crew's effectiveness and make them slower allowing the enemy to seize the initiative to act first. I don't think this is anything new or profound to the people reading this. It's common sense.

In real combat, you can "approximate" where an enemy unit will be and how often it fires based on your observations of enemy action and timing. Not a die roll or abstracted rule.

These are not assumptions – it's reality.

So if you created a game/simulation of a Time Competitive combat environment the actions would ideally recreate/approximate what you've observed on the battlefield, movement rates, weapons platform performance, or training standards.

At low-level 1:1 combat, the timing increment would be in seconds but actions would most likely vary somewhat depending on crew experience and some randomness. That could be covered with a die roll and a very experienced crew a few seconds quicker and poor crews a few seconds longer.

Players would be able to use tactics to balance speed and accuracy timing in the same manner as real crews do in combat. Shoot sooner to shoot first but with an accuracy penalty.

In a Time Competitive game environment, the action is simultaneous and all units would be active and able to react at any time to new LOS created by movement and other enemy actions. That would eliminate IGYG rules, unit activation, command points, and initiative determination.

The initiative would be "seized" by the quicker unit and the quicker units would determine the tempo of the battle and force the enemy to act more defensively.

You'd have an objective way to measure the game/simulation performance and outcome against real combat actions and not reasonable assumptions or feelings which are not objective.

If you were to design a Time Competitive game/simulation it would be ridiculous to time each and every crewman's actions. You would concentrate on detailing and balancing the important aspects and abstracting the less important aspects, just like any other game. There should also be some way that timed actions are not 100% predictable as things can go wrong at the worst time.

If neither side knew the exact second their opponent would execute an order or shoot you'd be creating a more realistic Fog of War too.

Wolfhag