"Action priority idea - semi simultaneous" Topic

Blue sky idea, not tried it.

Determine initiative for the turn.
Winner states
1) who has action priority
2) which end priority starts.

Moving along the table from that end activate each unit as it comes up.
Where two units are equal distance from start the the side with priority goes first.

Where units are in melee then they all activate when the last one does.

I've read something similar in a set of rules, never played it, though. Depending on the genre, it might work, or not.

I can see it working for line formation type battles where each unit is flanked by allies…wouldn't really matter which unit activates first.

I don't think it would work for modern skirmish…moving now or later is a valid and possibly critical decision, that this system would take away.

Try it a few times, see what you get.

I believe I first saw that rule used in Tactica circa 1989. I'm sure it was used before that as well.

I have never liked most 'initiative' rules. In battle initiative is something taken, not a repeating chance event.
I have played game rules where that is the case, but not often.

You can have fun game mechanisms like those suggested above, but they have little to nothing to do with actual battle where one 'gains the initiative.'

In most rules "initiative" is a very bad word for what they model. What they really mean, is that everything happens at once and we need a way to break that down so we go with arbitrary who moves first rules, and write it off to fog of war.

Crispy, that is what I think I am going for. I am thinking you can't do simultaneous, it's just too tricky. IGOUGO gives all the power to the moving player. Alternative move where the player picks leads to moves in anticipation.

This, as noted, is "blue sky thinking ". The basic "go end to end" was the idea minutes before posting, the rest us clarification.

This idea is completely rules agnostic.

So in Black Powder you might have three commanders per side- it is those you are activating, not the actual units. Now you can "game it" and put them right on the edge, but that will then cause you problems with command distances.

Warlord Game, "Black Seas" uses a similar system. The ship closest to the edge/corner the wind is blowing from activates first. Then you imagine an invisible line moving across the table top and perpendicular to the direction the wind is blowing from. Each time that line touches a ship, it activates. Ships in line ahead activate when the line first touches any ship in the line. If two ships from opposing sides activate at the same time, the side with initiative activates first. It's an interesting way of noting the advantage of having the wind gauge on the opponent's fleet.

What they really mean, is that everything happens at once and we need a way to break that down so we go with arbitrary who moves first rules, and write it off to fog of war.

That depends on the game mechanics and the designer's rationales. I have seen a whole raft of explanations of what 'initiative' does and does not mean. There certainly isn't a single mechanism or 'meaning' for rules with initiative.

I'd say about half of all 'initiative' mechanisms are more than arbitrary. For instance, when one side gets a die modifier when rolling for initiative. What does it mean when the winning side gets to decide action priority as suggested above?

"Everything happens at once."

Does it? It isn't action-reaction on the battlefield? It would be really hard to model organizational plans like those of the French at Austerlitz with 'everything happening at once.'

I think a more reasonable approach would be based on planning and organization. Fencing is a good analogy. There are certain points [excuse the pun] where both opponents attack at once, but a far larger amount of time is spent in thrust and parry, with some mutual pausing to plan the next attack or counter-attack. It happens quick, but it does have a rhythm that is not 'everything happening at once.'

Initiative (the military concept, not necessarily the mechanisms that we call that in wargames) is not taken, it is earned. There is a command challenge in knowing the difference between doing nothing (which is almost always bad) and waiting for "your moment".

Busting down the door doesn't always give you the drop on whomever is inside. The advantage of holding the high ground is you are forcing your opponent to take action that ameliorates their advantage.

To the OP, I would want there to be some type of decision significance to the direction of flow, otherwise it might tend to feel too arbitrary and possibly too static (Commander Bob always follows Commander Alice and always precedes Commander Charli).

Good initiative rules (which often more equate to action than to advantage) should leave you both wanting it sometimes when you don't have it and not wanting it when you do.

The random factors should represent the idea that no matter what you earn (or take) through your actions, there are some parts of gaining advantage that are beyond your control.

Good tactics, operations, and strategy rely on being able to dominate in both proactive and reactive modes.

Fundamentally the system you are attempting provide is there because the rules are not upto sratch.

Initiative is when one players makes an early decision to do X. In a good set of rules initative is not required, any realistic or even vaugely relaistic time lagg in the responders system. That is the responder has to react after seeing an effect that was instigated some time ago, meaning that he has lost the initative he is responding out of real time as he connot repond untill the time lag between orders and initiation of those orders id complete.

You would be better looking at your rules command and control to see if it has an unrealistic immediate responce. Many old style IGOUGO based on The 40 odd year old Featherstone system have no appeciable command and control lag and hence will always suffer from failing to rewarding initative. As they can be responded inrealistcaly fast.

Rolling a die for it does nothing, it could go the wrong way and be even worse.

Initiative (the military concept, not necessarily the mechanisms that we call that in wargames) is not taken, it is earned.

At a higher level, I think you could also say it allows you to execute your plan quicker than your enemy. You execute before him so he cancels his current plan and attempts to execute a new one, etc. keeping you one step ahead of him and establishing the tempo for the battle.

At a 1:1 level and with timing, the OODA Loop comes into play with the most important factor being Observe (Situational Awareness). If you surprise your enemy on his flank or rear you've pretty much achieved surprise/initiative.

In a prepared assault, the initiative is seized with the prep bombardment that suppresses the defenders allowing your attackers to close without being fired at. Fire & Maneuver works by suppressing the defenders allowing your maneuver unit to assault.

Ambushes work because being concealed and letting your enemy come into the kill zone gives you the initiative to shoot first. However, if the defender responds correctly with superior return fire he can now seize the initiative to assault the ambushing unit or extract themselves.

Trained and experienced units use SOPs, Battle Drills, and Immediate Action Drills to quickly take the appropriate action with a minimum of command (no activation needed). Poor units will be delayed in taking the appropriate action, may make the wrong move, or may need command influence to get them moving thus giving the initiative to the enemy.

So in certain situations, you may have the initiative but then lose it. Keeping your reserves unengaged until the right moment can swing the initiative in your favor, especially if all of the enemy units are tied down in combat.

In a low-level 1:1 combat like man-man or vehicle-vehicle the factors in play are Situational Awareness, training/experience to evaluate the situation and make a decision. This is where better troops are more effective.

Since orders take a certain amount of time to execute, there is a delay from Observe to Act as UshCha pointed out and there are very few random factors but fatigue could play a part as could poor weapons performance like slow turret traverse and slow reload speed in a tank. Suppressed and buttoned-up units will take longer to observe and react.

To determine initiative or who shoots first in a low-level 1:1 engagement you could roll a D10 for each unit. Give a minus modifier for veteran crews and if surprising your target. Give a + modifier for poor and suppressed crews. Then parse the action going from the lowest to the highest results.

So the result is that all vehicles/unit crews are in simultaneous action performing their duties to shoot throughout the turn but some are quicker than others by seizing the initiative. There would also be no need for activations either.

Wolfhag

Last Hussar; try it, if it works for you and your opponents carry on.

To me randomised initiative is representative of the noise in the command chain that means that you may have earned the initiative but your subordinates then threw some of it away. Some players can't cope with that idea, so if that includes your opponents it won't be popular.

A lot depends on the game. As noted, modern skirmish combat is not 18th Century linear warfare. Big games are not small ones.

I like the Mersey system in which you can lose the initiative at any time for solo games. For two players and up to a dozen units per side, card draw works nicely so long as all units in road column move with the lead unit.

Beyond that, my only two guiding principles are (1) avoid "simultaneous" movement, unless you really want to spend an afternoon arguing about the meaning of written orders and map drawings and (2) never let a player end his action KNOWING that he will get to move or fire before his opponent can respond. Life and warfare are not so certain.

In my example of direct-fire guns above, if the players record in secret the turn their units shoot there is an interesting FOG created as no one knows who goes next.

You could also have players give a + modifier to shoot later but with an accuracy bonus (taking additional time to estimate the range and aim). They could also have a – modifier to shoot sooner but with an accuracy penalty (snap shot).

I consider units locked in small arms firefights to be simultaneous, with the results determined after several turns. No activations or initiatives are needed.

I've been using a playable si-move system where players can't argue about or cheat but it won't work with any type of IGYG system.

Wolfhag