"How long is a turn" Topic

McLaddie, you have a point. When our rules came out we had an interesting time. The system is quite diffrent for a number of reasons. Interestingly we had some gamers adamant that the way you playerd wargames was absoutely one side moves 6" or 12" then the side other moves. To consider other wise was to them herasy of the worst order.

You can break the mould most famously DBA and DBM did it and to a lesser extent we have done so.

I suspect that is the reason many "commecial" sets are not inovative as they pander to some sort of mainsteam that only wants to play a very "tradition" game despite it's obvious inumerable "flaws".

But take heart, eventually the discering will come. Writr a better set and the discerning will come, not the masses they tend to me more about the models than the game but more historicly interested will come.

In my observation we want too much and then don't like the compromises that causes.
We want big figures we can see a small table size. Time to play and thjngs to do. We want to be Napoleon but don't like the idea that once the battle was begun would nit be actually doing much.
We also stick to old methods even when they show they don't deal with the things we want to deal with.

Is having a turn a thing we want? It's not real and demands a set of assumptions and restrictions that further make things artificial.

Gamesman6 – Not sure the "turn" is the problem" much analysis in engineering uses this principal.

Your first observation may be true, but may really depend on the period. Monty went to bed at the start of Alemaien as he knew he would have lots to do later.

The old method bit is very true of many.

We did even in the early days of Stargunt 2, which was better than many at the time. We had the problem of folk who wanted to tun up, plonk down figures and roll die. Thinking and planning was considered almost bad form, too much like hard work. Hence the reluctance to try something new.
It amazes me how many folk complain if they have to read the rules. The are definitely not the type to try somthing new especially if it requires more thought.
The thinking mans game at least where I am is not of manstream appeal.

But that is not an excuse not to produce a set of rules that does meet your requirement. Sucess is not how many copy's you sell.

Not sure the "turn" is the problem" much analysis in engineering uses this principal.

And in those cases, the usual first problem to solve is how long a turn (or time step, in the vernacular of engineering analyses) you need. Which is exactly what the OP is asking.

A common solution in many modern analyses is to have an unnecessarily short time step (the thing the OP wants to avoid) because for many common types of analysis, we have an overabundance of processing capability (something the tabeltop wargaming for the OP does not have), so overkill on step size becomes efficient.

I think the turn very much is the problem. Might be broken into:

1 – What constraints do you want to put on a commander/player's ability to make decisions?

2 – What is the maximum time you can wait before re-calculating an effect (usually a combat-driven effect, but doesn't have to be)?

3 – What is the 'real' turn? I think it was Sam Mustafa who originally pointed out the difference between the described game turn and the real game turn. The real turn is the smallest sub-division of action a game can be broken down into; so the Quarrie rules which are supposed to have a 2.5 minute turn really have a 30-second turn, because in certain circumstances you break down actions into a fifth of a move. This is what breaks some forms of VLB too.

While I agree that it is a hard problem, I *think* a good deal of the difficulty is the need to 1. go against conventional method and wisdom and 2. To actually provide a more reasonable command process demands the designer go back to square one, [the history] and build out from there--from scratch. That can be interesting to do, exciting and innovative, but will be something that few gamers will recognize. It is harder to write concise rules when new concepts are being introduced that run counter to convention.

Maybe. But difficult to know, I don't have strong intuitions about what that would be like. There are many authors who have said they have gone back to the history; and several who are actual historians.

Like some engineering issues its possible to change resolution if required. Some automatic exchanges of fire can last a very short time so we have a subroutine deal with them. Effectively that allow limited improved resolution of some effect, the duration of which are sufficiently short as not to impact the wider battlefield significantly.

In writing our own different rules it was a challenge as not that much in older rules is really applicable. And yes we did do a lot or research on original sources. It was interesting and highlighted some cases where the "traditional" systems approximations are extremely poor and in some cases very misleading.

Ushcha
– Not sure the "turn" is the problem" much analysis in engineering uses this principal.

G6
In an engineering context it can obviously work. But something as complex an open system as an engagement isn't going to work, for me.

On a TT we then have to model things as they happen or introduce an abstraction.

Fixed or variable turn lengths, which fall down with complexity or compromise.. or to have activations based decision points Al la games like crossfire.

I'm now drawn to the decision point option for TT games, as turn lengths don't work for me.

Turns shorter than the desired decision cycle are meant to address many of the issues.

Above, the Turn Cycle line is the real-world commander's battle rhythm. I used 12 squares, so let's call it 12 minutes.

Unit A is given orders at the start and doesn't need to be told anything else.

Unit B is marching along to the battle rhythm, getting new orders every cycle.

Unit C is the general's problem child, needing correction 1/2 way through the first DC and 3/4 the way through the 2nd.

Unit D was tooling along like Unit A, but Unit C's performance necessitated changing commander's intent for them 1/4 the way into the second DC.

These are typical decision challenges a general faces in synchronizing operations and strategy. There are a few dozen more common archetypes. But it illustrates that common significant changes in the operational and tactical situation don't line up with the clock of a desired command cycle.

If the above represented the type of effects we wanted to present to the general, then a one minute turn would be massive overkill. A four minute turn would be just right. And a six minute turn might be a bit clunky, but probably workable and requiring less overhead.

If you constrain a turn to the desired DC, you would have to either implement some type of rollback (doable)m which is fairly complex, especially with more than one rollback in a DC, or let Unit C and Unit D progress down the wrong path way longer than is representative (also doable), potentially presenting challenges you didn't want and missing ones you do.

If you implement a true variable command cycle, then you introduce significant overhead int maintaining multiple asynchronous states (doable). A hybrid short turn/variable command has you update everything when a event triggers the command cycle (doable, like chain reaction systems) you have the overhead of variable update rates (are we updating three, six, or nine minutes of time?).

The short turn allows simple updates, with many updates being 'trivial". The wasted effort in trivial updates needs to be less than the complexity of another method (subjective). I've seen the simplicity and directness win out with players often. A player would be OK doing four similar actions in a row for Unit B because they are simple and standard (not variable), interested in what is happening to Unit C, and ready for the time when Unit B sees the same thing Unit C is seeing right now.

Overkill like a one minute turn would eliminate other possible clunkiness (like what if the change really happens in minute 5 instead of 4), but will likely feel like an actionless grind to players because of the number of turns between challenging decisions.

The three minute turn also allows things like subordinate commanders' initiative. Two steps in, Unit B may decide that a slight left oblique would be a better way to achieve the objective (for a number of reasons), and the general may be fine with that change, not needing to generate new orders.

Also the situation where Unit C decides to vary from the plan, and it is not accepted by the general, so a "correction" is made. This is a typical causal factor for mid-battle rhythm orders.

Any of those situations can be done with a fixed decision cycle turn or a variable turn, but they start to introduce significant complexity into execution and don't necessarily represent the real world desired situation with any more fidelity.

Turn lengths are whatever feels good if simply designing a game. If the idea is to mimic something of the decision cycle for a commander/player, then questions of historical period [and communication methods], scale, actual level of command come into play.

It makes it very difficult to come up with a generic answer to the question of a turn… because a turn almost invariably models or is constrained by the game's scale time.

For the Napoleonic period, a Brigadier had almost immediate control of his troops until the point of contact, then very little. A Division commander controlled troops within about a 400 to 800 yard front depending on the formation. Unlike the brigade commander, the Division CO had to either send runners or go himself. A British Divisional CO had 1 aide, 1 AC. A French Divisional CO had 3. Assuming he could see the entire line, command required time. A Corps commander, according to Marmont and later Longstreet involved only three decisions during an engagement: When to set the corps in motion with orders, when to commit the reserve and when to withdraw. Anything else in the way of involvement would require LOS and/or his personal/physical attention over a mile or more front. Not much different during the rest of the 19th Century. Point being, depending on the command level of the player, his command cycle would be very different in timing and thus any reasonable turn cycle.

So, what historical period and command level/scale are you looking at Mark?

@ McLaddie, as I explained earlier the divisional commander controlling his brigades, or occasionally something smaller.

Game-Turn is dependent on the number of elements you are moving, the length of the game and the ground and troop scale. As a general rules if you have 50 elements, then 12 game-turns gives you a 4 hour game, assuming you know the rules well. Reduce the number of elements and you can increase the number of game turns, increase the time and you can do the same. Once you have identified how many game-turns a game consists of you need to determine what time frame your game is supposed to cover. If its 12 hours, then each GT will be 1 hour, if its 6 hours it becomes 30 minutes, and so on.

get that order transmitted to the troops. I did some simplistic maths for a Napoleonic divisional general and came up with 7.5-10 minutes.

Mark: Oops, missed that. Well, Let's take Sherbrooke's Division at Talavera. He issued orders before the French advanced. They were to wait until the French were close, fire a volley and charge. That order was given to his brigade commanders who communicated it to the battalions, which was disseminated to the companies. This was SOP for any defense or attack. Once in place, the Division commander had little to do but perhaps put out fires, call back impetuous Guard brigades etc. On the advance, the division commander can control the entire division through the regulating battalion and/or brigade almost instantaneously, changing direction or formation orders. Then it is an issue of how long it would take for the division to complete the change.

To actually change the orders for the entire Division once engaged was difficult if not impossible. Perhaps commit reserves and personally intervene with individual brigades. The time would involve how long it took the Div CO to recognize a situation, think out a solution, issue orders through an aide and/or go personally. Only when the Division was disengaged having won the position or withdrawn, would new orders for the whole division be attempted.

Not knowing where in this process your 7.5-10 minutes is referencing, I can't comment on it. With a turn structure, there are a lot of different ways to structure this process.

@ McLaddie, Assuming that the division is not being thrown in in a single 'line' I think the commander has the ability to e.g. launch a preliminary attack on a part of his front with 1 brigade and by setting the brigades formation impact the way the attack is carried out. He then has the option of reinforcing success or treating this as a feint and launching other brigades on the remaining front. In defence he has control of the reserve. I very much doubt he'd go forward to bring back out of control troops, but I suppose in poorly disciplined armies like the British it might be necessary ;-).

Mark:

As you say, it was quite possible for a Division commander to form up troops to have selective attacks etc. He does that by previous orders and formations. It's done by anticipation and planning, not a spur of the moment decision. And as you say, this is done by how the brigades are formed up in the first place. IF the formation is created properly and the needed orders given or withheld, he can create option for reinforcing success.

There is an example of this in the way the French first, second, and third divisions of Victor's corps formed up at Talavera. The first division formed up with one brigade behind the other. The second formed up two brigades abreast, one half of each brigade forming the supporting line behind. The third division formed up one brigade behind the other. There is a reason the center division formed up differently from the flanking divisions that has to do with your outline of the division CO's ability to control the dynamics of an attack--or defense.

What is important is this: the brigade commanders knew the reasons for each formation and the parameters and goals allowed for their actions within that particular formation. No orders were needed to cover this. A division commander simply set the brigades in motion. There is a great deal of nuance in controlling large groups of men. Previous training provides for simplified methods, but they circumscribe what can be done. It's like a marching band at halftime. As long as everyone is in place and doing the practiced routine, all is fairly smooth. Change the routine mid-performance and chaos ensues.

A great deal of this kind of thing is lost on most rules, partly because of the command rules allowing players to do just about anything with their 7,000 men+ divisions, regardless of previous formations or orders. Assuming orders are part of the rules set. The second is as you noted previously. Players don't want to play under those restrictions, no matter how historical they might be.

That doesn't mean that such rules can't be created. Most all military methods follow the KISS method, which can be translated to the game table. KISS is also a good rules design method.

I wrote a set of rules for the English Civil War. These used a turn of 12 minutes to limit the player's ability to micro manage the tactical plan as I consider that Generals in that period had a limited ability to change their battle plans on the hoof. However, I broke the turn down into two action phases during which the players could spend three action points essentially allowing two minute's of A designated activity such as movement or shooting. To limit the scope for micromanaging, the rules require units to follow standing orders and to stick with their initial orders unless they take and pass a reaction test triggered by observed events.

It's fudge of course, but it has the feel of the constraints that 17th century commanders operated under.

Another thought came to me. There is a relationship between move rates weapon ranges and turn length to be considered especially for pre mechanised periods. That's because a set of rules which allow a unit to start a turn out of the enemy weapon range but end it in contact gives too large an advantage to the attacker as they negate the defenders ability to use fire power as a way to break up attacks. Always assuming that the defender had the ability to do that.

Elenderil -
I am afraid that is not really the case, more a designers just doing a poor job.

In our own game (which is modern I agree) our final attaempt to act contact to the enemy is from typically 100m (not that much closer than for a musket assult 180m).

This is resolved as a move to contact. This accounts for the final frantic fire from both sides by both long, (Rifle), and short (Grenade) usage. This to be honest works very well but is somewhat deadly as would be expected. Technically we split it into 2 halves, to be honest there are a lot of reasons for this. Mainly its because it's longer but a more simple means of resolution.

Depending on certain issues an assaut may get terminated before contact if the unit being assuted can drive them off with ranged fire, if not the assult goes in and the defender decides to stand or run off. Standing against an overwheling assult does not favaor those being assulted, they are slautered faster, harder and cause less casualties, so the stupidity of most last stands by wargamers is mostly eliminsted. If the assult is driven off it has to retreat with potentially significant degradation of its fighting potential.

There are other gains, Sharps 6 Rounds a minute can only be maintained for a very limited time and is only used in extremis. Hence ranged fire not part of assulting troops can be set as somewhat less effective as its aimed at doing the most damage given very limited ammunition, not as a final offensive/defensive fire.

I suggest once started an assult cannot be successfully commanded in any usefull way as it will only take about 2 min. !80 yds at 100 paces a minute, Hence can be resolved as a single smallest usefull step in game time frames.

UshCha,

I suggest once started an assult cannot be successfully commanded in any useful way as it will only take about 2 min. !80 yds at 100 paces a minute, Hence can be resolved as a single smallest useful step in game time frames.

A Squad Leader will coordinate Fire & Movement (alternate Fire Team rushes of 5m-10m) to suppress the objective. He'll signal to lift suppressive fire enabling the assault team to make their final rush to deliver flamethrower fire and place demo changes. At least that's how we were trained. Watch videos of the coordination of Ukrainian assaults and trench raids too.

In one minute many grenades and RPGs could be fired too with a mortar barrage on the objective while conducting Fire & Maneuver.

There could be a quick and abstract way to see if the attacking unit does get close enough to assault or not.

Wolfhag

G6,

But what about new information. If its 10 minutes I could see many things in that time I might feel makes me go through a new OODA Loop and issue new commands or decisions.
As such it useful, in a limited actor table top set up to define an actual duration to that cycle?
That can depend, again on period and our representative position.

I've moved away generally from attaching a fixed "real time" in my systems.

You are on the right track regarding the OODA Loop. However, OODA is really about "individual" unit timing as opposed to a set amount of time. Each unit's timing through their decision loop would be different with better units being quicker and poor/suppressed units taking longer.

To effectively duplicate that you would need to use some type of "real time" in your system. I use a manually operated clock to count off the turns. When it is time for a unit to Act (execute their order) the player immediately observes the result, issues his next order, and records the future turn it will be executed.

Quicker units will seize the initiative by getting "inside" their opponent's loop to execute before they do. Suppression increases loop timing.

With OODA, all units are active and either observing to react or the unit is going through the motions to execute their order. That means no activation, command points, or initiative rules are needed.

At higher levels of command at an HQ, Observe would be replaced with Intel. Each turn on both sides could get a number of "Intel Points" based on communications, recon, EW, etc. Each side would need a certain level of Intel to issue new orders or change them. Better commanders would need fewer and poor or cautious commanders would need more.

Wolfhag

How much time each turn will take should be determined by the details you want to simulate while balancing playability and details.

In historic 1:1 tank combat, a vehicle moving at 20kph in one minute will move about 350m. A typical WWII 75mm anti-tank gun could fire up to 10 times in one minute. During the 60 seconds of movement, a target could move into and out of the shooter's LOS numerous times, further complicating Opportunity Fire.

When units "activate" or fire once in a 60-second turn you can see how difficult it would be to have a historical simulation. If an enemy unit already activated for the turn, you can have your unit not in its LOS "activate" and move up close to shoot without any interference.

In my opinion, to get any semblance of a historical simulation of movement and shooting rates you need some type of playable simultaneous game system for OOD Loop timing that would also use a playable simultaneous movement system too. It can be done and be playable.

Wolfhag

Wolfhag I was trying to be KISS. Yes there is target preparation. danger close for motors is about 200 so the guys are not running the lat 10 or so under that.
even in Napolionic times artillery and skirmishers are working on the target in a long et time scale in prep fire. my point is the last run in can be done simply.

what I find interesting is the seemingly massive reluctance to invoke a subroutine to deal with situation that happen very quickly locally but have no major impact elsewhere. I can only give a modern example but I am sure the principal is of wider impact. tanks fight generally in seconds but the relations are already set up. Russian tanks often carry few anti tank rounds, if lucky they will survive half a dozen round before being render combat ineffective or doing so to the opponents, or backing off. This is not going to impact cannon fire even some "modern" guns have rates of fire of 1 or two rounds a minute.

UshCha,
I'm a former infantryman so I like to go into detail at the fire team level. There are abstractions for Fire & Maneuver at the squad level that would give a good portrayal of an assault using one-minute turns.

I agree with KISS. That's why the system I'll describe is pretty simple while it may not appear to be at first glance.

Design Challenge: One of the first steps in designing a traditional game is how long a turn will be or abstract it altogether. Your next challenge is to parse the action and activity of multiple units and guns with different historical values and tactics within that allotted time. Add to that are you going to design a fair and balanced game (unhistorical) or are you going to portray units and guns' historical strengths and weaknesses?

How are you going to balance the overall design with detail versus playability? Will you design a watered-down version for the masses or a detailed one for more knowledgeable and experienced players? You can't have both.

My approach: My basic OODA Loop timing design approach is completely different from the traditional games that have been discussed. I use it because it's the only way I can achieve the historical results I desire. I've tried traditional rules and mechanics, but they didn't work for me.

Timing: I see combat as a Time Competitive endeavor where units are always active and observing to react to enemy threats. The player is doing the same thing during the game too. No walking away. Units with better situational awareness, experienced crew, and weapon platform performance will normally seize the initiative to shoot first and shoot more often within a specific time (rate of fire).

Traditional game rules and mechanics have a hard time portraying the timing between all units on the table. Most traditional game systems have rules and mechanics that tell the player what he can do, when, and how often putting many unnatural constraints on him. With a minimum of record keeping an OODA Loop timing system can do that.

Situational Awareness: On a real battlefield, crews and units are always actively observing and under some type of standing order, even if it is just stationary on overwatch and ready to react to enemy activity that comes into your LOS.

The OODA Decision Loop: The OODA Decision Loop is the natural way we perform actions in our daily lives so it does not need to be taught or need additional rules or abstractions. Don't overly complicate it.

We can't determine how long each step in the loop takes, just the total amount of time. It's a necessary abstraction for playability.

Game Play: When an enemy threat is detected (Observed) they next evaluate if it is a friend or foe, an immediate danger, and the engagement tactics and choices available (Orient). Next, the commander decides on an order or course of action and issues it (Decide). Next is Act.

ORDERS ARE RARELY EXECUTED IMMEDIATELY! Since combat is a time competitive environment executing the order will take a certain amount of time. Fortunately, there is considerably accurate historical data to use without highly abstracting it. It should be somewhat variable with a die roll based on suppression, intel, crew expertise, environmental issues, etc. That makes the game more unpredictable. When the crew executes that is Act in the loop.

After Act (shooting), the player naturally "loops back" to Observe the results and go through the loop again to issue his next move or shoot order. No additional rules are needed. The players "play the loop" for each unit throughout the game, referring to the unit data cards with a minimum of other rules or abstractions to slow down the game.

However, most units were trained to react immediately to specific enemy actions with an Immediate Action or Battle Drill.

Examples: An ambushed unit will immediately and without delay get out of the kill zone or assault the ambushers without needing an order or delay. A recon unit when making contact may have a standing order to immediately fall back. If you detect an enemy and they don't detect you, set up an ambush or call in supporting fire.

OODA Loop Example: In an AFV engagement, when a mutual LOS occurs both sides can immediately react and issue a movement order (reverse out of LOS, dodge, evade) or engage (halt fire, fire on the move). Using a customized unit data card with historical values, both players roll a D6 on their unit data card to determine how long it will take to execute the order and secretly record it. This creates a somewhat realistic FOW as neither side knows how many turns it will take to execute their order.

Getting off the first shot is of the utmost importance for survival. Historically, real crews could trade decreased accuracy for increased speed. We'll call it a Snap Shot. For the first shot, players can elect to fire early but with an increasing accuracy penalty for each turn to shoot sooner. It's a historical Risk-Reward proposition. Using the rangefinder takes longer but delivers a more accurate first shot. Choose wisely.

So the OODA Loop timing mechanics are very simple: When you Observe enemy activity, DO SOMETHING, don't just sit there waiting for your turn as in other games! Decide what to do, roll a D6 to determine how many turns it will take, record it, and wait for that many turns to execute it (Act) hoping that an enemy unit does not Act before you and knock you out. After executing (Act), IMMEDIATELY "loop back" to observe the results, determine what to do, roll a D6 to determine how many turns it will take, etc.

While waiting to execute your order, if you observe a new and more dangerous threat (not in your Blind Spot), you can cancel your current order (or shoot early with a Snap Shot) and issue a new move or shoot order just as real crews could.

The customized unit data cards have all the info on performance, gunnery, timing, movement, and tactics so there is very little to remember. I've successfully play-tested it on teenagers with no historical war gaming experience. After 30 minutes they were pretty much on their own. Getting used to reading the data card can take the most time.

Using OODA Loop timing for each unit with all units active and able to react eliminates the need for abstractions like initiative determination, unit activations, command points, turn interrupts, reaction checks, etc so the game is playable and moves along quickly because there are fewer rules even though there is more historical detail. Just like any other system – it's not for everyone.

Wolfhag

Command, OODA loops and control all comes down to time. How it is expressed in a game matters. It is the backbone of the game process, whether obvious or not. A game 'turn'-that is the established rate at which time passes, often repeating the game system routine can be based on one of four methods--or in combination:

1. By phases: Most wargames use this method. A turn of X time will have fire, movement, morale etc. each done separately.

2. By activities: A set of actions can be done within a set amount of time, often with pips or command chits with chance involved based on die rolls or chit pulls etc.

3. By event: Here a turn or set amount of time is circumscribed by a game event, perhaps a roll of a die ending the turn, or a regular game play event. This choice was used in VLB and La Grande Armee, though expressed in very different ways.

4. By time: This is Wolfhag's method, counting down the time, with all activities circumscribed by that count. This choice is seldom used.

It is very difficult to portray command/OODA loops with a phased game system. It is very easy with a time counting system. #2 and #3 options have their own problems, but the basic one for the first three approaches is that time is chunked in fairly large amounts, making the time and distance relationships hard to portray. In an effort to fix this, there are games which then have 1-4 second or minute turns.

You then have combinations and 'fixes,' such as phased movement with 'opportunity' actions or pip spending by the opponent to break up the phase timing.

I was thinking about this. One issue is as usual player commitment and knowledge. you are going to fail if you stick to the standard one side goes then the other. It was a first maybe 45+ years ago, it was not very good then. It's no better now, if for whatever good reasons, or bad you are wedded to that sequence there is no real hope of improvement. massive improvements are possible, but to some they will be her as it, players will have to read the rules AND practice before the gains become apparent, they may not even then be apparently any better if you have no understanding of the period and only play a few games a year. like in engineering it's possible to model dome areas of the model crudely with an acceptable level of accuracy, other bits will have to be more detailed to get the same accuracy. However those gains are dependent on player ability. Perpetual beginners are never going to cut it.

Better solutions are available but at a price. You can't play golf well on 3 games a year, neither can you be an effective wargames, you can bible about and enjoy yourself but you won't cut it against a good , practiced player.

Wolfhag
You are on the right track regarding the OODA Loop. However, OODA is really about "individual" unit timing as opposed to a set amount of time. Each unit's timing through their decision loop would be different with better units being quicker and poor/suppressed units taking longer.

To effectively duplicate that you would need to use some type of "real time" in your system.

G6
Yes I'm aware. The issue is that as the scale, units, numbers distances etc. It becomes harder because by definition things become more abstracted if only because we having to do things in the game that also take time.
So at a certain level real time can be used as you do in your afv rules.
I've been drawn to how does the player use the time they have to get their troops on the table to do the things they want.
Beyond the personal or crew level we are dealing as much imo with focus and attention. And in the type of games most of us have the facilities to play we have to be a little creative.

You are on the right track regarding the OODA Loop. However, OODA is really about "individual" unit timing as opposed to a set amount of time. Each unit's timing through their decision loop would be different with better units being quicker and poor/suppressed units taking longer.

Yes, so it would 1. depend on the scale in representing this multi-unit/multi-tiered OODA loop, and 2. Who is making the Loop decisions in the game, the player or a NPC.

G6:

To effectively duplicate that you would need to use some type of "real time" in your system

Yes. It's something to keep track of sequential turns and it's no more complicated than traditional games with a turn start at Turn 1 and progression. In case you have not caught on yet, each "turn" is one second of game time, NOT REAL TIME! It's counterintuitive to think a game at that scale can be playable, right?

However, unlike traditional game turns where you need to use various rules and abstractions in an attempt to fit all of unit's actions into a turn and parse them in a playable manner. In an OODA Loop timing simulation each turn (whether it is one second, minute or hour depending on the scale) is essentially a timing unit getting closer to Act in their loop when they execute. You can think of the game somewhat like a real tank simulator except that each second of the simulation pauses allowing you to react to enemy threats and issue your order. After you are finished it goes to the next second, etc.

Essentially there are an unlimited number of turns in the game depending on the action and player decisions. We can still get through a game with 4-6 players having 4-6 vehicles in a 3-hour game.

The main aspect of AFV combat I wanted to simulate was the interactive firing of guns that have different rates of engagement and reload time. Also tactics like Snap Shot (Battlesight for you real tankers) ,Reverse Slope Defense, halt fire, and shoot & scoot.

Each game turn is announced in sequence out loud by the GM or any player using a clock or sequential turn system. Players pause the game sequence to react, engage or execute an order (and issue their next move or shoot order). If no one pauses the game the next turn is IMMEDIATELY ANNOUNCED, no die rolling or rules needed. What makes the game playable is that it is always moving to the next player's action or reaction without additional rules or die rolls. On any turn the game can be paused and any number of units may end up shooting at each other, including two units shooting at each other on the same turn, no roll offs needed.

Game Sequence: As each turn is sequentially announced, all units with an order to execute in a future turn are one turn closer to executing (nothing the player needs to do). All moving units "virtually" (no player involvement) and simultaneously move to the next segment on their movement marker (this synchronizes moving and firing for more realistic Opportunity Fire without needing specific rules). More on the movement details later, but it is one of the easiest aspects of the game and is a playable way of simulating simultaneous movement which also speeds up the game, especially in multi-player games and eliminates cheating.

At any turn, any player can announce out loud "pause the game" so he can react to enemy threats by issuing a move, halt, or shoot order. To move he places a speed movement in front of the vehicle showing the direction of movement. To Halt he removes the marker and can now Halt Fire. To shoot he rolls a D6 on his data card to show how many turns it will take. He also pauses the game when it is his time to execute an order.

Game Sequence Example: Turns #1 and #2 are announced with no pauses. At Turn #3 Player A observes a target (Player B) and pauses the game. Still in Turn #3, in his mind, he quickly evaluates the situation (enemy threat), looks at his options (move or shoot) and tactics (Engage, Halt Fire, Moving Fire, Snap Shot or Rangefinder) on the data card for Orient and Decides to engage and shoot. The player went through the Observe, Orient, Decide part of the loop naturally just as a real crew would probably taking the same amount of time too.

To engage and shoot, he then secretly rolls a D6 and his data card shows it will take 8 turns to get the 1st shot off. The player secretly records Turn #11 as his time to shoot (Act in his OODA Loop). Simultaneously, Player B does the same (Mutual LOS Spotting and Reaction) thing with the result of 7 Turns Acting/Firing on Turn #10 at Player A.

In the above example, both players did what made sense without any artificial rules, activations, or abstractions limiting or telling them what they could and couldn't do. The entire process may take 10-12 seconds of real-time for both of them to do it at the same time. The crew is assumed to be performing their duties of getting the gun on target, estimating the range, aiming, and firing and are one turn closer to executing without any effort on the player.

After they are finished pausing the game, the sequence continues with Turn #4 being announced. Either player can now pause the game for a Snap Shoot but with a very severe Snap Shot accuracy penalty. At this point, if it seems complicated, forget everything you've played before and pretend you are a real commander in battle or playing a tank video game and do what you need to. The action is slowly unfolding on a turn-to-turn / second-to-second basis.

As Turns #5 through #8 are announced without pause (that takes about 5 seconds of real time), the tension builds and Player A is feeling a bit nervous. On Turn #9 he pauses the game and decides to risk a Snap Shot with an accuracy penalty. Player B did have the initiative to shoot first, but Player A "seized the initiative" by taking a risk with his Snap Shot decision, not a random die roll, chance, or special rule.

If he hits and destroys Player B's unit he immediately "loops back" to Observe the battlefield for new threats to engage or issue a move order (Shoot & Scoot). Just as a real commander would do. If he misses, he can roll a D6 for the amount of time needed to reload and shoot again at the same target hoping he's not killed before getting off the second shot. If he paused the game to Snap Shoot on Turn #10 they both fire simultaneously. Player A with a slight Snap Shot accuracy penalty and Player B with no penalty. If he does not Snap Shoot and Player B shoots on Turn #10 and knocks him out he is one turn too slow. This system naturally delivers historic split-second combat results.

In the above example, you can use a manually operated game clock using seconds rather than turns as they are interchangeable. At 1:03 Player A recorded 1:11 as his Act Time to shoot. I think you get the idea.

All timing data for engagement, fire control and reload time are taken from manuals, training standards, after action reports and/or observing units in combat footage. When rolling the D6 for timing an Ace crew is a few seconds/turns quicker than a Veteran crew and a Veteran crew is a few seconds quicker than a Poor crew. Indirect Fire rounds are hit determined by their Time of Flight/Range so it's pretty difficult to engage moving/maneuvering targets unless you set up a barrage they must move through.

It would be impractical to time each and every action. Every 10th turn is an "Admin Phase" to determine communication attempts, the results of small arms fire, rally attempts, smoke dissipation, fire progression, etc.

I've done nothing to balance the vehicles and guns (no nerfing) so they will generally perform as they did historically. So a 37mm AT Gun will reload and fire at the same target every 4-5 seconds. An IS-2 with a 122mm gun will take 30-35 seconds to reload.

KISS Method: I've played games where the Russian guns fire every 8 turns, German guns every 6 turns, and all anti-tank guns every 5 turns. When engaging a new target, add a D6 roll to simulate getting the gun on target, aiming, and firing. You can use whatever crew modifier, gunnery, or damage system you desire. You can also use your own timing values. Pretty simple, right?

This version of the game is packed with LOTS of action. There is die rolling only for timing and shooting. Players have kept track of up to a dozen units on a 4x6 index card.

Designer Notes download link: link

Wolfhag

In an OODA Loop timing simulation each turn (whether it is one second, minute or hour depending on the scale) is essentially a timing unit getting closer to Act in their loop when they execute.

Wolfhag: I think that is easier when you are dealing with seconds and one tank at a time--particularly when you have such nuanced army studies. Once you get to a battalion or brigade-level OODA with all the 'mini-OODAs, timing it all out can be both a logistical and research nightmare. If one simply subsumes all the lower levels and concentrates on the game decision level, that can work, but it requires rethinking the segments of time to be used--certainly not seconds, and even minutes would be in multiples.

You can think of the game somewhat like a real tank simulator except that each second of the simulation pauses allowing you to react to enemy threats and issue your order. After you are finished it goes to the next second, etc.

In the pre-20th century, the OODA process was far more processed into pre-planning and limited choices for both the higher and lower levels of command. This too complicates it. I do agree with your KISS observation. Using time as the method to parse action and decisions is far easier rules-wise in terms of restrictions and exceptions.

McLaddie,
1. depend on the scale in representing this multi-unit/multi-tiered OODA loop, and 2. Who is making the Loop decisions in the game, the player or a NPC.

At the lower 1:1 tactical level second's count.

Everything depends on a prompt identification of a dangerous target Usually seconds decide. What I said above also applies to tanks that have been equipped with periscopes."
Quote from Otto Carius Tigers in the Mud

"Whoever can make and implement his decisions consistently faster gains a tremendous often decisive advantage. Decision-making thus becomes a Time-Competitive process and timeliness of decisions (OODA Loop) becomes essential to generating tempo."
Quote from: Tactical Decision Making, Marine Corps Doctrinal Pub 1, Warfighting

I've tried traditional IGYG 2, 5 and 10-second turns but it does not increase playability and you don't get the historic split second combat results. To use this system for other games my opinion is to decide the level of action you want to simulate. We have played WWII tank-infantry scenarios in 28mm and smaller.

Hand-held AT weapons use the same system with the Snap Shot option. In a small arms sustained firefight there is no initiative and the shooting is simultaneous. Every 10th turn we simultaneously determine the effects of the volume of small arms fire. You could do it every 5 turns using ½ the firepower value.

For ACW it might be a one minute turns which is about the rate of fire for muskets and virtual movement. You could use unit timing for changing formations, command & control/issuing orders (messenger movement). For Ancients it would probably be a Command OODA Loop and messengers.

It works pretty well for solo play because you don't have to decide on the opposition activation sequence. The player would have the NPC making logical and historical decisions.

Wolfhag

Wolfhag:

You are preaching to the choir. The rules I am working on accepts all that you state as the way to go.

"Whoever can make and implement his decisions consistently faster gains a tremendous often decisive advantage. Decision-making thus becomes a Time-Competitive process and timeliness of decisions (OODA Loop) becomes essential to generating tempo."

Terrific. However, say at a Napoleonic Corps level, that raises all sorts of questions:

1. What exactly creates that advantage when both sides are using the same tactics?
2. Do commanders know they have or don't have that advantage in a battle? How?
3. As time is the important factor here, "implementing his decisions consistently faster," The question about how much time is 'faster' than another system or army and where exactly does that advantage impact a battle?
4. At the level of 19th Century Corps, what increment of time makes sense in counting it during play?

I have been studying Napoleonic warfare with all those questions in mind. They are well studied by the Army in comparison to WWII and after. It helps when the military institution is thinking in OODA terms to identify where those 'faster' advantages are seen. I am still struggling through the 1800 answers to those questions.

Thanks wolfhag.
You've explained them before and I've found it interesting for many reasons nor least then OODA cycle. It certainly seems to work for tank combat. I've always found it hard to conceptualise how it works for infantry combat at a similar level or how it functions at high/larger levels.

But there it seems that a different approach is needed.

Gamesman6,
The OODA Decision Loop and the timing to execute an order are universal at every level. As in any game design, it depends on the level of action and what you want to simulate.

I don't make up the timing values, I get them through historical research, training manuals/standards, and AARs.

In one game, the German player complained that the Shermans were shooting more often than his Panthers. I explained the historical difference between the rates of fire and reload time. He then understood why.

In an OODA Loop time competitive game, your orders are not executed immediately or when activated as in most games, you have to know your enemy and think ahead.

Situational Awareness (Observation in the loop) is of utmost importance and units are always observing (default order). It is best in the direction your gun/turret is pointing. When player reacts they roll a D6 and consult the engagement chart. That will tell him if he has spotted the target right away and can go into action of it will take a certain number of turns (Engagement Delay). Delays are deadly and result from suppression, poor crews, buttoned up or overwatching in the wrong direction.

I ran a tank-infantry game in a town with 28mm figures and 5 players to a side. A 14-year-old who had never played a war game had a German Tank Hunting Team. He'd remain hidden and then pop up and fire a Panzerfaust or Panzershreck after the Americans passed by and the Americans didn't have infantry overwatching the tank from the rear.

When he popped up to shoot the American player reacted with his Situational Awareness Check and was too slow because none of his infantry escorts were looking in the German direction. The German player fired and then immediately withdrew (Shoot & Scoot).

Some veteran wargamers on the American side protested as they did not have a chance to shoot back. I had to politely explain their lack of real tactics and how the German player took advantage of knocking out their tank. The kid made decisions in "real-time" while the veteran gamers were stuck in the IGYG mindset.

I use real action numbers and do not balance them for fairness. Combat is anything but fair and there are a few crybabies out there.

When I run games I try to keep reminding players of what they should be doing as the game turns progress. The unit data card has everything they need to know.

Wolfhag

Yes I've no doubt.the approach works under the conditions you describe.
And I'm certainly nor averse to buck normal wargame conventions.

My point was I wonder how it works outside that. How many units can 1 player Control?

What unit size are those units?

What's the duration of an action does it model?

Like I say I'm sure it does what it does very well,
The question for me is, like you say is when deciding what I want to play and what approach best suits it. As you say the OODA cycle is always a thing. If im a tank crew or infantry FT it's second by second as I move up the CoC the its cycling at a different time scale and at that point I need to decide how best to represent it. It woild be great to keep it real time but is that viable in a table top game. Or do I'm as we aren't dealing with the actions of specifc AFVs move to a cycle of decision point away from turns or real time. Rhetorically speaking.

My point was I wonder how it works outside that. How many units can 1 player Control?

In my game, 1:1 AFV and infantry a "unit" is a single vehicle, anti-tank gun, or 2-6 man team. New players get 4-6 units. "Controlling" means recording the turn they execute their order and moving them. I've had new people control up to 12. Much of it will depend on the individual.

Outside of tactical 1:1 I think it will depend on the smallest unit you'll use (company, regiment, division). I don't think there is any one way to do it. Ideally, you want to recreate an accurate portrayal and timing between the enemy movement and your rate of fire.

I did run an ACW Battle of the Crater with players controlling a Regiment with 5-6 players per side and one inch = 25 yards. IIRC the time increment was 30 seconds because it matched the rate of musket fire of the Confederate defenders. The Union side moved 50 yards and then the Confederates fired. Artillery batteries fire somewhat the same.

Players can have their Regimental Commander lead from the front or rear. From the front gave him better control and morale but exposed him to danger.

There were no rules to read. I used a chart for casualties and a single die roll using a binomial table for the % chance of removing a figure from their regiment. Union commanders could slow the rate of advance for a lesser chance of causalities but taking longer to get to the defenders.

Everyone seemed to have a good time, and there was very little downtime for the players. The battle ended up being very accurate to the real outcome. Frank Chadwick and Dana Lombardy (commercial game designers/historians) played and told me after the game they liked the system and had a good time.

I also ran a "Charge of the Light Brigade" at a convention that went very well too. I think that was 60-second increments.

Wolfhag

I also ran a "Charge of the Light Brigade" at a convention that went very well too. I think that was 60-second increments.

Wolfhag:
Flipping cards and a continuous time stream as with your tank rules? I don't remember that part of your description of the game.

I did run an ACW Battle of the Crater with players controlling a Regiment with 5-6 players per side and one inch = 25 yards. IIRC the time increment was 30 seconds because it matched the rate of musket fire of the Confederate defenders. The Union side moved 50 yards and then the Confederates fired. Artillery batteries fire somewhat the same.

Now, that is closing in on how I have worked it out. I have made movement and time linked, time and distance. 60 yards [one inch] per minute of movement. There is a 20 minute sync-up across the table. The table is divided up the way Napoleonic operational thinking divided up the battlefield with movement allowed accordingly. It does radically change the dynamics of play. It also makes establishing command and control far easier and closer to the actual limitations and methods.

Wolfhag
Thanks for that info.
Again it all makes sense, in that context where the units are relatively small as is the length of engagement.

In the other two games they are specifc scenarios we we can find reactively decent information on time/distance rof etc.

I've found that beyond that it becomes either abstraction or generalisation when it comes to timing/turns.
And I rather like to put the pressure of time on the player.

McLaddie,
Flipping cards and a continuous time stream as with your tank rules? I don't remember that part of your description of the game.

I don't use the cards to track the game time anymore.

It does radically change the dynamics of play. It also makes establishing command and control far easier and closer to the actual limitations and methods.

In ACW units would normally follow their regimental banner or a leader on horseback that can get their attention. If the overall commander/general is on a hilltop with binoculars he can shorten his command loop as opposed to being in the rear HQ.

It does radically change the dynamics of play. It also makes establishing command and control far easier and closer to the actual limitations and methods.

It can if done right. Once a unit is given an order it attempts to execute it. The commander does not need to be reminded/activated/ordered every few minutes. To change a formation order the upper-level commander needs to communicate or send a messenger or the local commander can use his initiative.

Wolfhag

Gamesman6,
And I rather like to put the pressure of time on the player.

So this is where the pressure and suspense comes in during the game. Remember, the default order is Overwatch (always Observing) with your best observation/Situational Awareness being in the direction your gun is pointing. Most players are not used to this because in a unit activation IGYG game, it does not matter.

Your best Situational Awareness to act first is to have a height advantage, overwatch where the enemy pops into LOS, unbuttoned/not suppressed, panoramic roof periscope for the gunner, and with an experienced crew. Poor Situational Awareness is from being buttoned up/suppressed, flanked/surprised (overwatch in the wrong direction), and poor crews who react slower. One and two-man turrets are slower too, as are vehicles without a turret or gunner panoramic periscope. Not having a radio can be a factor too because friendlies cannot warn you when surprised.

The turn a mutual LOS is created, all units with an LOS "react" by consulting their Engagement Play Aid which will tell them to roll 1-3 D6s and any modifiers for their Situational Awareness Check (replaces spotting and activation rules). The results are recorded in secrecy.

Engagement Delay: If the result is <= 0 they spotted the enemy immediately without delay and can go into action to shoot (get the gun on target) or move (place a movement marker). If the result is > 0 that is the number of turns/seconds of an Engagement Delay before you actually notice the threat (it's somewhat of an abstraction for playability). If your result is 0 and your opponent's result is 3 you have a 3-second initiative advantage to get through your loop to shoot first (Act).

Ace crews can have up to a 10-second advantage to shoot first. This is how an Ace crew in an inferior vehicle can defeat a superior vehicle with a poor crew using the right tactics. This was one of the main reasons the American Shermans and Tank Destroyers defeated the German Panzer Brigades at Arracourt (no recon so poor intel and SA) with Panthers and poor crews.

When your opponent has an initial timing advantage for the first shot he can take all the time needed to shoot accurately. Players with the initiative disadvantage will most likely be forced to take a Snap Shot to shoot early with an Accuracy Penalty and a higher chance of missing. You can be fast or accurate, not both. It's somewhat like a High Noon quick draw gunfight in the Old West.

If initially disadvantaged, there may be enough time to get out of the LOS by backing up or dodging behind an obstacle. This may force your opponent to use a Snap Shot to shoot before you disappear.

Fog of War unknowns: It is pretty hard to predict enemy timing because you don't know what type of crew he has, Engagement Delays, or Snap Shots so there is a somewhat realistic FOW created because you never know who will execute or shoot first.

Sherman tanks are the fastest because of roof periscopes (better SA), 25-degree/second turret traverse and the commander override for turret traverse which can allow him to engage and shoot without the gunner. They also have a quicker reload time than Panthers and Tigers. After D-Day, they get WP rounds.

Other tactics that can be closely modeled are Reverse Slope Defense (move from turret down to hull down, shoot, and reverse back to turret down and reload), Halt Fire & Shoot & Scoot, and Moving Fire. Rangefinders are used to increase first-round hit chances but take an additional 6 turns/seconds to use.

Ambushes: A concealed unit can engage a target at long range but then Hold Fire and Track the target keeping it in their LOS and field of fire. This allows the unit to shoot at any future turn without delay. You can wait for it to come within penetration range, halt or turn, and present a flank shot. You can also wait for it to get to a range marker (known range so no range estimation error) to increase your first shot chance.

It's not unusual for an emplaced and hidden anti-tank gun to get off 3 shots before being shot at. I guess that makes the game extremely unfair and unbalanced. As I like to say, "Reality Sucks."

One of the downsides to the system is that players need to know the real tactics and how to execute them. Former and current tank crewmen who play the game have no learning curve. Veteran players used to IGYG/activations where their orders are executed immediately and don't have to do any planning may have a hard time wrapping their heads around it at first.

I hope this makes sense.

Wolfhag

It does… we spoken about it before in other threads. It certainly makes sense… because it's "real".
I'm certainly happy to see rules lawyers suffering 😉 as I've been on the end of getting screwed by someone playing the rules or getting good dice 😳.

Again its a great and real approach to rhe circumstances it deals with.

In tank combat those things are all vital and the data is available to determine how things happen second by second.

There's a point where I find that when dealing with a TT game, as opposed to other sims, electronic or multi player role, I think on what aspects of the reality that lend themselves to tbe TT and how done give the players pressure. And do that with no rules… or at least with no more than players can gajnnintuitivly. At that resolution setting a fixed time to a turn doesn't help or isn't irrelevant.

Whirlwind wrote:
I think the turn very much is the problem. Might be broken into:

1 – What constraints do you want to put on a commander/player's ability to make decisions?

Ideally none or only what he has a LOS to react to or be communicated. Players should be able to make the same decisions as real commanders, including the wrong ones.

For vehicle combat, it comes down to moving or shooting with a few variations. If you are not moving you should be shooting. If you are not shooting you should be moving.

2 – What is the maximum time you can wait before re-calculating an effect (usually a combat-driven effect, but doesn't have to be)?

This naturally goes back to the OODA Loop. When the action takes effect (Act), the crew immediately "Loops Back" to Observe and recalculate unless the action is obscured. With direct fire, it's a few seconds. For indirect fire, it can take 15 seconds to a few minutes. For ATGM Gunners a couple of seconds to 30 seconds for 1st Gen ATGMs fired from maximum range.

If you have a 60-second turn, ideally many units will get several actions per turn. The problem then becomes how you realistically parse the action between all units.

One idea to parse the action would be to roll a D10 or D20 and place it next to each unit. Modifiers: If the unit has a Veteran crew flip the die to two fewer than shown (a 7 becomes a 5). For each poor crew a +2 modifier. Faster reload or engagement time minus modifier and slower a plus modifier. Parse the action in a turn starting with the lowest numbers going up or ambushing units going first.

KISS Method: I've played games where the Russian guns fire every 8 turns, German guns every 6 turns, and all anti-tank guns every 5 turns. When engaging a new target, add a D6 roll to simulate getting the gun on target, aiming, and firing. You can use whatever crew modifier, gunnery, or damage system you desire. You can also use your own timing values. Now you get the maximum wait time without calculating.

Here is a link to the game "Last Hundred Yards."
PDF link

I know the designer and have played the game. Starting on page 13 he describes vehicle action using real tactics as I've outlined. He also uses a variable game turn length that forces the attacking player to move quickly but also used more traditional unit activation rules.

3 – What is the 'real' turn? I think it was Sam Mustafa who originally pointed out the difference between the described game turn and the real game turn. The real turn is the smallest sub-division of action a game can be broken down into; so the Quarrie rules which are supposed to have a 2.5 minute turn really have a 30-second turn, because in certain circumstances you break down actions into a fifth of a move. This is what breaks some forms of VLB too.

So it seems to be about breaking down actions into smaller turns. My KISS system does that and is easier to play because you can eliminate traditional rules such as initiative determination, IGYG/activations, and opportunity fire rules and restrictions.

Nuts! has a good 1:1: activation/reaction sequence too.

Wolfhag

G6:
I'm certainly happy to see rules lawyers suffering 😉 as I've been on the end of getting screwed by someone playing the rules or getting good dice 😳.

You bring up a good point. More rules, abstractions, exceptions, and IF-THEN-ELSE rules, the more open to interpretation and arguing there will be.

With timing, it's pretty clear what's going on and how the action is unfolding. Each unit has a customized data card showing performance and tactics. This helps a new player know his options and come up to speed quickly with a minimum of memorizing.

There is not much you can do about a hot hand with the dice. However, there are several "Risk-Reward Tactical Decisions" the player can make to overcome an opponent but that can backfire, that's the risk.

I also have a "You Snooze, You Lose" rule for players who have poor game Situational Awareness (not paying attention). If a player has a unit scheduled to shoot at turn #33 and he forgot to pause the game to shoot at turn #33 until time progresses to turn #36 he can fire at turn #36 – if he is still alive.

What exactly is "TT": I think on what aspects of the reality that lend themselves to tbe TT and how done give the players pressure.

Wolfhag