"Worst kind of rules." Topic

<q<My original point was that a particular set of rules sucked.

Yes, it was.

Do I, or do I not, have the right to criticize an unnamed set of rules because I found them woefully incomplete and unplayable?

You have the right. Do you have the capability? I have yet to see a critique of the rules, unless you count page count absent any statement of content, as a critique.

Also, aboiding fundamental errors of logic and analysis would help you critique something. For example please point out the part where I said you had to have done a thing or had to have credentials to critique it?

All I did was critique the logic of observing a thing, then assuming a cause. Again, its a farily well known problem in analysis.

I take great pride and stand tall in a thread that I started that was hijacked with blatantly silly criticisms.
👍

UshCha,
So according to Wolfhag we English don't know when Our kings died and we don't know that a Panther Tank Looks like; its all subjective.

did that come from!!!! I'm talking about game rules!

I've been to the Royal Tank museum and have seen the Panther and the rest of their collection.

Definition of Subjective: based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes or opinions.

Yes, there is much hard data available for hardware and weapons platform performance which I use and some games use them but most don't.

If you look at my post I was addressing rules such as activations, command points, and the variations of IGYG. I have yet to find them in a military operations manual. Have you used any in your version of IGYG?

Personally, I don't like rules where you roll some dice and they tell you what you can and can't do, when and how often. It's too much like the tail wagging the dog but they do add structure to the game making it easier for new people to play.

Combat takes place in a time competitive environment (OODA Loop) with simutaneous action – that's an objective reality and impossible to simulate without a computer. The current rules and mechanism available are inadequate so we have to do the best we can with what we have.

At the lower level of combat there is a lot of action that resembles IGYG but is actually a reaction and it does not invovle activating the unit or receiving a command from a superior unit.

There is almost an infinite number of variations of IGYG game mechanics, dice and types, play aids and cards that game designers use to design a game, few of which are time competitive or in training manuals.

So it appears to me they are selected based on or influenced by previous designs, the designers personal feelings, tastes or opinions, play testers, etc. Their personal military experience and other real combat actions can influence him – sounds subjective to me but feel free to disagree.

I'm not saying subjective is bad it's just it's a system I don't like (but will play) which I think in keeping in the spirit of the OP.

If your version of IGYG is based on some objective military manual, formula, AAR or science show me. I'll admit that there are real combat actions that resemble IGYG but it is generally a reaction to enemy activity (immediate action or battle drill) and does not include unit activation. It may or may not involve an order from a superior unit.

The fact that there are so many variations accounts for the multitude of rules and the churn of new releases from commercial game companies which are generally a subjective variation of the previous release.

Bolt Action won an award as a best war game. It was based on civilian judges using their past experience, opinions, popularity and tastes. It was not by a panel of military experts. Sounds like a subjective decision, what else could they go on?

The subjectivity of rules and their variable uses is why we'll probably never have a perfect set of rules that a majority can agree on. I've always said a fair constructive criticism of game systems should be judged by reading the designer notes and their intent and if he's achieved it. However, civilized informed or uninformed opinions and personal likes and dislikes should be welcome too. Free speech, etc.

In my experience visuals don't compensate for a poor game. A poor game is just that and no amount of dressing can make it better. As we Brits say "You can't make a silk purse out of a sows ear"

Opinions vary widely regarding that but you and I agree on that one. However, I've seen a dozen players having a great time with one page rules with excellent miniatures and terrain. You can't fault players for what they like or enjoy. It appears to me the miniatures are more important than the rules for the majority of players.

By the way, since you brought up English kings, what year did King Arthur die?

Wolfhag

So according to Wolfhag we English don't know when Our kings died and we don't know that a Panther Tank Looks like; its all subjective.

did that come from!!!! I'm talking about game rules!

I've been to the Royal Tank museum and have seen the Panther and the rest of their collection.

Subjective definition: based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes or opinions.

Yes, there is much hard data available for hardware and weapons platform performance which I use and some games use them but most don't.

If you look at my post I was addressing rules such as activations, command points, and the variations of IGYG. I have yet to find them in a military operations manual. Which ones have you used to development your version of IGYG?

Personally, I don't like rules where you roll some dice and they tell you what you can and can't do, when and how often. It's too much like the tail wagging the dog but they do add srtucture to the game making it easier for new people to play.

Combat takes place in a time competitive environment with simutaneous action – that's an objective reality and impossible to simulate without a computer. The current rules and mechanism available are inadequate so we have to do the best we can with what we have.

At the lower level of combat there is a lot of action that resembles IGYG but is actually a reaction and it does not invovle activating the unit or receiving a command from a superior unit.

There is almost an infinite number of variations of IGYG game mechanics, dice and types, play aids and cards that game designers use to design a game, few of which are time competitive or in training manuals.

So it appears to me they are selected based on or influenced by previous designs, the designers personal feelings, tastes or opinions, play testers, etc. Their personal military experience and other real combat actions can influence him – sounds subjective to me but feel free to disagree.

I'm not saying subjective is bad it's just it's a system I don't like them which I think in keeping in the spirit of the OP.

If your version of IGYG is based on some objective military manual, formula, AAR or science show me. I'll admit that there are real combat actions that resemble IGYG but it is generally a reaction to enemy activity (immediate action or battle drill) and does not include unit activation. It may or may not involve an order from a superior unit.

The fact that there are so many variations accounts for the multitude of rules and the churn of new releases from commercial game companies which are generally a subjective variation of the previous release.

Bolt Action won an award as a best war game. It was based on civilian judges using their past experience, opinions, popularity and tastes. It was not by a panel of military experts. Sounds like a subjective decision, what else could they go on?

The subjectivity of rules and their variable uses is why we'll probably never have a perfect set of rules that a majority can agree on. I've always said a fair constructive criticism of game systems should be judged by reading the designer notes and their intent and if he's achieved it. However, civilized informed or uninformed opinions and personal likes and dislikes should be welcome too. Free speech, etc.

In my experience visuals don't compensate for a poor game. A poor game is just that and no amount of dressing can make it better. As we Brits say "You can't make a silk purse out of a sows ear"

Opinions vary widely regarding that but you and I agree on that one. However, I've seen a dozen players having a great time with one page rules with excellent miniatures and terrain. You can't fault players for what they like or enjoy. It appears to me the miniatures are more important than the rules for the majority of players.

By the way, since you brought up English kings, what year did King Arthur die?

Wolfhag

A rant so nice he said it twice!

" we don't have jet[packs sir and secondly we don't have jet packs sir. I know it said it twice but I felt it was important" Quote from Red Dwarfe by Cryton.

More seriously. How we treat reality is not neccessarily how reality works. In calculating how fluid flows we do it non locally, there is no ajustable time step in reality and reality does not itterate but the code does and gets it very close. Wholey unrealistic at one level but it still gets the solution. Now I don't play your types of game, just not my interest. In your case the time step is too fine for my application, one second is not great for a game that lasts 4 hours plus real time.. You cam look at a form of IGOYGO, as a time step that is more granular, as we are looking at different detail and use different computing algorithams to approximate shorter time steps more crudely but at an overall faster solution time, for larger numbers of elements over longer time steps but with an acceptable loss of fidelity. Many computer models have to trade fidelity for computing resource comsumption, so this is a known and acceptable optimisation.

Comapareing first hand accounts with game results is not mere subjective opinion but based on a set of actual situations.

The worst for of rules are morale rules, it may even be that they are utterly pointless, and better done another way.

For example we do have a moral rule that if shots fall close the player can run or "hide". Now he does this as it's sensible self preservation. Equally we could allow the player to do nothing. His rate of dying would be high and he would lose his forces in a pointless manner. After a couple of games he would know what his best option is in any situation, you could say you have "trained his soldiers". The response's would be very real and bold players may even be able to make a more informed decisions as to when and what to do under varying circumstances, he becomes "veteran". If he fails to learn he remains "Green/Untrained". This by definition also illustrates you can't make a good trooper out of any materiel. There is some historical eveidence for such bravery or stupidity as above. There are Old Heroes, there are Bold Heroes, ther are no Old Bold Heroes.

This could make an interesting discussion on the philosophical range a wargame should and can meaingfully, address.

Trying to make a few lines of rules represent a complax human being is as absurd as it gets.

Arthor is a legend and not real. An interesting study in Wikipeadia, read learn and then you can talk authoritatively about rules covering him without it being merely a subjective assessment.

OFM,
A rant so nice he said it twice!

You are so nice for having read it twice.
You are so nice for having read it twice.

UshCha,
How we treat reality is not necessarily how reality works.

Yes, that's why it's a game and any level of reality is subjective to the player. We all do the best we can with what we have. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

My experience in discussions on TMP and other sites is that there is very little agreement on what a realistic set of rules is. This is not surprising as the majority have never served in a military combat MOS or were in combat.

Bolt Action won awards and the Italian guy who designed it with Jason Priestly said in a video he has almost no knowledge of WWII. So it appears people are not playing the game because it is realistic.

Comapareing first hand accounts with game results is not mere subjective opinion but based on a set of actual situations.

Yes, absolutely. However, Belton Cooper's book is an example of first-hand accounts not being indicative of the overall picture. It was just from his perspective as any AAR is.

There is an account of German 88 FLAK action in the desert where it took 12 rounds to knock out a tank (I can't find any other details). Other British accounts show them knocking out three of their tanks with three shots from a single gun. Who do you believe and why?

If a soldier fired a bazooka once in combat and it misfired he'd say bazookas are a POS. However, you need more data points to determine the reliability of a bazooka and not have it misfire almost every time it is fired in your game. AARs are just one source.

The other issue with AARs is the individual observations. You could have three guys in a foxhole witness an event and give three different accounts of what occurred.

There are multiple verified historical after-action accounts of Sherman tanks firing 6-10 rounds in one minute in combat in a target-rich environment. This is also documented and accomplished in training. How would you duplicate that in a game using your rules?

Early in WWII, it was documented that if a German Panzer III could maneuver to the flank of a T-34/76 and surprise it, they could get off up to 3 shots before the T-34 could respond and shoot once. How would you duplicate that in a game using your rules?

Morale rules are problematic as there are so many variables. I think much of it would depend on the scenario.

Trying to make a few lines of rules represent a complax human being is as absurd as it gets.

Yes. But one-page rules do have an advantage in getting new players up to speed and are not attempting to recreate the complex behavior of a combat unit nor do they claim to.

I don't think there is a rule set that can duplicate the complexity of human behavior in combat.

I know it may seem foreign to you but many people play historical wargames for social interaction with friends and entertainment and do not take themselves seriously unless it is about painting.

Arthor is a legend and not real. An interesting study in Wikipeadia, read learn and then you can talk authoritatively about rules covering him without it being merely a subjective assessment.

I read the Wikipedia article. You don't need to be an authority on a subject to write game rules. Very few game rules are written by authoritative combat veterans. Even if someone is an authority they are still going to use the same rules and mechanics as a rookie.

Here is one person's interpretation of a King Arthur game: zeitgame.net/archives/6516

Wolfhag

How we treat reality is not necessarily how reality works.

Yes, that's why it's a game and any level of reality is subjective to the player. We all do the best we can with what we have. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

How you explain this one escapes me. A digital fluid solution uses no fluid only numbers, This is not how fgluid solves the same issue. Nature does not have a CRAY computer ner every fluid interaction to solve it. However the digital solution accurately mimics reality though not in the way fluid dose.

Yes. But one-page rules do have an advantage in getting new players up to speed and are not attempting to recreate the complex behavior of a combat unit nor do they claim to.

This to me is an irrelevant comment, you apparent obsession with beginners coupled in some way implying they are and that uninformed seems to me a bit insulting to folk wanting to start in earnest.

How we treat reality is not necessarily how reality works.

Yes, that's why it's a game and any level of reality is subjective to the player. We all do the best we can with what we have. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

How you explain this one escapes me. A digital fluid solution uses no fluid only numbers. This is not how fluid solves the same issue. Nature does not have a CRAY computer near every fluid interaction to solve it. However the digital solution accurately mimics reality though not in the way fluid does.

By your interpretation the commercially produced code only give the right answer if I agree its right. If I disagree with the code it's the code that is wrong not my interpretation of reality. Hate to say but that one does not stand the logic test.

Clearly we both are using too small a statistical sample as we have diametric differences of experience regarding what drives wargames. UK Wargames show for instance have a very high dominance of painting oriented folk as few play at such shows. At Wargames show which is also a Wargames competition, which is not uncommon in the UK, the audience is far less painting oriented. We have a few (and rising number of combined Wargame/Board game shows) and at such shows the dominance is on playing not painting.

Yes. But one-page rules do have an advantage in getting new players up to speed and are not attempting to recreate the complex behavior of a combat unit nor do they claim to.

This to me is an irrelevant comment, you apparent obsession with beginners coupled in some way implying they are that uninformed, seems to me, a bit insulting to folk wanting to start in earnest.

"This to me is an irrelevant comment, you apparent obsession with beginners coupled in some way implying they are that uninformed, seems to me, a bit insulting to folk wanting to start in earnest"

This seems at odds with pervious statements of yours regards the knowledge, real world and game, that players need to function in a rule set.

Wolfhags reference to beginners is used it seems as an example that those rules he is referencing clearly don't need much of either if they can function in game quickly.
As beginners… theyvare by defintiinbin some way uninformed… because they are…….. beginners. And why would anything he has said preclude these beginners continue to pursue in earnest? Unless one assumes that earnest wargaming is defined by more complexity etc than wolfhags have.
Speaking personally as someone who isn't a beginner I'd happily play and try to create rules that share the same philosophy as his…

Gamesman6 – Clealy we live in different worlds. They guy's we get are already steeped in the knowledge of there period. Thus over simple rules are too abstract. Such folk are prepared to put time and effort into learning so over simplified rules are not really a good start.

If you expect to do well on a first play of a game, its like expecting to win in your first run at slot cars, simply not a credible expectation.

Those with greater reading and/or experience do learn faster as they merely have to get to grips with the modeling techniques, the underlying theory they already have.

Gamesman6 – Clealy we live in different worlds.

- that's been clear for some time… 🤔🙃😳😆

They guy's we get are already steeped in the knowledge of there period.

- that's good… but clearly not everyone's case. Also given your past comments on making rules for people of different skill knowledge levels. A rule set should not demand I am immersed in the period to be able to start playing the rules. The rules should allow me to play quickly and reward the things the ways things were done at that time. More skill, experience and knowledge should allow me to do better, in the activity, not in applying the mechanisms of the model.

U. Thus over simple rules are too abstract.

- again you go to accusing rules of over simplification and abstraction… not to say those rules can't be those things… but let's assume they aren't… and I don't see how wolfhags rules can described as such. But again that's notnto say you should want to play them. But those things are the same

Such folk are prepared to put time and effort into learning so over simplified rules are not really a good start.

- sure… but just because something is easy to learn doesn't mean it's easy to master. All rules are simplified and abstracted. The question then is what do we accept that meaning. I'd say that Wolfhags rules are about as far from oversimplification as a rule set can be because the player is making the decisions that are being made by the people it represents, with minimal rule mechanics involved.

If you expect to do well on a first play of a game, its like expecting to win in your first run at slot cars, simply not a credible expectation.

- never said I did, BUT I have said a game should not take a long time to learn and operate the rules. I should be mastering the activity the game represents… not the system of representation.

Those with greater reading and/or experience do learn faster as they merely have to get to grips with the modeling techniques, the underlying theory they already have.

- genrally yes. But as Wolfhags rules minimise that by reducing or removing most of the abstractions common to wargame models. Thereby facilitating the entry of beginners and allowing those with RL experience to do better.

Also what you say sits uneasily it seems with the previous statement;

"you apparent obsession with beginners coupled in some way implying they are that uninformed, seems to me, a bit insulting to folk wanting to start in earnest."

But hey, we live in different worlds . 😆🤔😉

It seems to me UshCha's little Band of Brothers are all combat vets and tactics instructors. Unfortunately, that's not the situation for most of us. Different worlds, I'm jealous.

Like many other vets on this site, I went through 6 weeks of infantry training for combined arms, recon, and sniper training. We don't expect a civilian with no military experience to know what we know, even if they are well-read.

The more mechanics and rules a game has the more intimidating and hard it will be for a new player who may just want to roll the dice and blow things up.

Personally, I don't like IGYG and rolling dice that tell you what you can and cannot do. It's like the tail wagging the dog but they are structured for new players. We need new players to grow the hobby, or else we'll all be old cranky guys playing solitaire in our basement.

While UshCha is going through his rules to show me how they simulate:
There are multiple verified historical after-action accounts of Sherman tanks firing 6-10 rounds in one minute in combat in a target-rich environment. This is also documented and accomplished in training. How would you duplicate that in a game using your rules?

Early in WWII, it was documented that if a German Panzer III could maneuver to the flank of a T-34/76 and surprise it, they could get off up to 3 shots before the T-34 could respond and shoot once. How would you duplicate that in a game using your rules?

Gamesman6 and I will show you a simpler way to do it using OODA Loop Timing to execute a move and/or shoot order using historical weapon platform performance timing instead of traditional activation and IGYG rules. It's simpler and more intuitive with fewer rules and exceptions and I think we can fit it on one page.

I'm out of town on vacation right now and will be attending Fall In but after that we can post it. A combat vet and a first-time gamer have one thing in common – the OODA Loop and it does not need to be taught. My goal was to build a game around it so players could use tactics more realistically while more accurately portraying a unit's strengths and weaknesses.

Contact me Gamesman6.

UshCha, we are all waiting. I have your rules so guide me through them, we can do it offline.

Wolfhag

Again You miss the point! The are a lot of records of folk winning the lottery. The reports are numerous and validated. However Countries economic assessments do not take this into account because it is not TYPICAL or significant, so not in some cases useful. Hence I would not account for the events you present because it is not Typical so not worth the computing power. There are lots of accounts of short barreled Shermans using HE on Tigers. This forced then to retreat without firing a shot. Again I would be more prepared if I was inclined to consider it than some of your suggestions. Indeed I did consider it, however again it was not a universal issue and so I decided against it.

There are very significant accounts of certain US troops using marching fire. This again merited investigation. Talking to UK serving soldiers they were not impressed by the technique and considered it would only possibly work on very poor enemy easily scared and was more likely an excuse to keep the shooters troops up instead of taking cover, which in some circumstances may be an advantage. As they rightly said if it was such a great idea it would have been universally adopted, it was not, instead fire and movement was adopted by many nationalities.

The poi8nt is just because an event is credibly documented does not mean it is useful to a very basic simulation. I could include probabilities of tanks falling of bridges or breaking down both well documented. However again the cost in rules needs to be assessed in relation to the objectives of the model. Our own IGOYUGO is not aimed to achieve second by second accuracy its not its prime objectives.

I have pointed out in your own game there are some serious issues, you speeds and turn rates can result in tanks pulling 8g in a turn. While you have concentrated on gunnery your system has a movement system massively unequal in detail to the gunnery. This may be perfectly acceptable depending on what the objectives of your model are. Again your objectives are nowhere near the same as mine even in relation to overall timescales being modelled.

Wolfhag if you want me to contact you not sure how I could?

Gamesman6,
Download and read the PDF, then send me an email. We'll do some Zoom discussions. I'd be interested in your feedback.

PDF link: link

Wolfhag

I have pointed out in your own game there are some serious issues, your speeds and turn rates can result in tanks pulling 8g in a turn. While you have concentrated on gunnery your system has a movement system massively unequal in detail to the gunnery. This may be perfectly acceptable depending on what the objectives of your model are.

All I can say is WOW! What an idiot I am! Show me in the rules where this occurs so I can correct it. How fast have I had my tanks going that they pull 8g? At least 200mph I figure. I'm going to fire the tank commander who helped me do this.

Again your objectives are nowhere near the same as mine even in relation to overall timescales being modelled.

How could they be when they are completely different designs?

So I take it you are not going to or can't show me how to recreate the two examples above using your version of the IGYG rules. If not, that's OK, no problem. I could not duplicate it using different versions of IGYG either. But I can using my approach with fewer rules too.

Wolfhag

UshCha,
While you have concentrated on gunnery your system has a movement system massively unequal in detail to the gunnery.

Well, I guess I'm busted again!

The image below is exactly how it plays out in the game.

As each second (turn) is announced, the Tiger "virtually" (not physically by the player until the 10th turn) advances to the next 1-9 segment on the Virtual Movement marker virtually moving 5.5m per second/turn. Every 10th turn the model is moved up.

At 2:33 a new LOS was created from the movement. The T-34 will have 6 seconds to react, engage, aim, and shoot. The game is paused at 2:33 for both players to roll a D6 for reaction and spotting (units are always active and observing and can change orders).

Let's say the T-34 has a 2-second engagement delay to react to the Tiger (two-man turret, buttoned up, and poor crew) so it does not actually notice it until 2:35. The Tiger will notice the T-34 immediately but will attempt to get to the trees and leave the LOS before the T-34 can shoot.

At 2:35 the game was paused again. The T-34 is engaged (gun pointed at target) because it is within the engagement arc. If not, it would take additional time to traverse the gun to the target.

The T-34 player rolls a D6 for the amount of time to aim and shoot, which is 6 seconds (two-man turret and poor crew) as shown on the T-34 data card. The Tiger will disappear from the LOS in 4 seconds so the T-34 decides to take a Snap Shot, shooting at 2:38 with a fairly severe accuracy penalty.

In this example, the time to shoot and movement (opportunity fire in most games) are synchronized on a second-to-second basis. If I got it wrong, how about some expert constructive criticism rather than just telling me how wrong I am all of the time?

I could not figure out a playable way to do this with traditional IGYG and activation rules. Let me know if anyone can.

Wolfhag

I suppose you could say you are playng an IGO UGO system where in effect it's based on one second intervals. You go for a second then the opponent(s) go for 1 second. The only diffrence is perhaps what happens if both players actually have an action on the same second. In that case it begs an interesting question, do both fire at the same time or does one actually fire a faction of a second before the other or is it simpler and more correct to assume perfect symetry and assume both together |At some scale it is very unlikely they fire exactly at the same time unlikely at the micro second scale). Interesting, practically it may not make a diffrence. The Flack 88 has a muzzle velocity of 2,600–3,700 ft/s (about 1000 yds/sec) so the effect of fire should be resolved next 1 second bound if the range is 1000yds or more. Thus is theory there could be mutual destruction occoring if protagonists fire within 1 second of each other.

To be fair I would not call your system IGO UGO as it does stretch a point but it does show the situation where IGO UGO could work but most certainly is not usefull description of the system in many ways.

It's interesting that in some of our complex games with my co-author we sometimes evaluate the situation and decide ther is nothing going to happen worth the time step for X bounds and hence have a "super large" bound comprising in some cases 10's of normal bounds. This occoures usually if one side does not wish to be active such as a defender in some cases, and the attacker is waiting or reorganising in a way the defecder cannot intervien, much like you skipping "inactive" second intervals in your syetem.

I often hear in these discussions the scrape of goal posts being moved… 😉

Assuming there is a bit of a joke there claiming that a second by second action system where both sides are active all the time could somehow igouugo 🤔🙄😉 even if it is then granted as not being such.

Variable length bounds are of course nothing new.
And solving tbe problem of fitting actual time in to a workable "game" is a challenge especially at higher levels where effects are felt in minutes or hours.

In games like wolfhags where we are working sec by sec and from the beginning of an engagement it fucntions

On a related note im sure wolfhag has dealt with simultaneous fire.

In part who fires first is important but as important who hits first.

The resolution we may choose to go to is in large part determined by the data we can gather. I'm the tank game I'm fairly sure that the majority of data is only given to the second. And I'm sure wolfhag mentioned rounding out when flight times were between.

Any discussion of time needs to include space.
We need to consider
speed = time/distance
and
tempo = time/actions
Most games struggle with this… or rather they struggle finding a way to tally the game solution with tbe RW they seek to represent.

When we zoom resolution out the moving parts, the friction and fog lead to making things change in game terms for me.

There it's more for me about the decisions that are being made and filtering those choice and the information they are being made on.

The extra resolution needed to operate the mechanics otherwise change the game and call for me as a player/umpire to spend more time operating them than actually playing the role. If I need that kind of detail I'll play an electronic game where the system is run by the machine

Gamesman6

Assuming there is a bit of a joke there claiming that a second by second action system where both sides are active all the time could somehow igouugo 🤔🙄😉 even if it is then granted as not being such

Clearly you missed the point, the time step is 1 second. The fact that some actions take longer than 1 step is not new or novel, many games require this. This does not invalidate it being an IGO UGO sytem. Ego I did not then deny it as an IGOUGO system, however it is a novel use of the system so simply refereing to it as an IGOUGO syetem is not udseful. Our own system is qualified as modified elemeny by element IGOUGO system. Wolfhags is basically that but the modifications are more extensiv. For the less well informed an alternative description may be better. We refere to wildflowers often by a Common Name, not the more accurate and usefull Latin name. If you are doing technical work then the use of the latin is more uesefull. Similarly if you are descussing the finer points of gamnes systems a more descriptive term is usefull even if it is more of a mouthfull.

It's clearly not an Igo you go,certainly in the way the term is normally used in game usage. It's a bit of sophistry to claim it and obfuscate the diacussion.

A game that works second by second where starting an action before your opponents
That completes before your opponents, is real life.. not IGYG… unless you try to expand its definition to say RL is IGYG! 🤷

Bringing in discussions of genus definitions doesn't improve the point. IGYG if a genus of games that Wolf's doesn't fit in to because on his game actions happen when they happen… not In a pre set turn sequence.

I suppose you could say you are playng an IGO UGO system where in effect it's based on one second intervals. You go for a second then the opponent(s) go for 1 second.

I like to think of it as I Go before You Go because I'm quicker. You Go after me if you are still alive. The quicker unit seizes the initiative to Act first without traditional rules. It's time-competitive, much like real life.

OODA Loop explanation: link

As the game clock "ticks" each turn is announced out loud in succession (1:21, 1:22, 1:23, etc). At that time, all units with a movement marker "virtually" move to the next 1-9 segment matching the game turn. Example: On turn 1:22 all units are on the 2nd segment, etc. If a new LOS is created from movement units with an LOS, it can immediately pause the game to react and change its current or issue a new move or shoot order.

Clarification: When an order to shoot is issued, the crew is assumed to be busy performing their actions to execute the order. So if 5 tanks are going to shoot in a future turn, it is assumed their crews are all simultaneously performing their duties, there are no other actions for the player until his time comes to shoot.

Next, during the same turn, any units with an Act Time to shoot or decide to Snap Shoot before their Act Time pause the game to shoot. Immediately after shooting, players "loop back" to Observe the results and issue a new order. If they want to shoot at the same target again they roll a D6 to determine the reload time and record their new Act Turn to shoot. Example: at 1:23 the shot missed. The reload time is 6 seconds. The new Act Time to shoot is 1:29. There is no order phase. If they want to engage a new target they perform a Situational Awareness Check to react to it. Then, as each turn is announced, they can turn, pivot, or traverse their turret to line up the shot.

When a game turn is announced and no one pauses the game to maneuver, react, or shoot the next game turn is immediately announced. That means the game always moves to the next player's action without traditional game rules.

This speeds up the game because it is not being paused after every turn. Sometimes the clock runs for 10+ seconds before it is paused by a player. Of course, the more units in the game, the more the game will be paused for player action and the longer the game will take. As units are eliminated it will speed up. The largest game I've played was 8 players on a side with 5 tanks each. We finished in 4 hours.

The only difference is perhaps what happens if both players have an action on the same second. In that case it begs an interesting question, do both fire at the same time or does one actually fire a faction of a second before the other or is it simpler and more correct to assume perfect symetry and assume both together |At some scale it is very unlikely they fire exactly at the same time unlikely at the micro second scale). Interesting, practically it may not make a diffrence. The Flack 88 has a muzzle velocity of 2,600–3,700 ft/s (about 1000 yds/sec) so the effect of fire should be resolved next 1 second bound if the range is 1000yds or more. Thus is theory there could be mutual destruction occoring if protagonists fire within 1 second of each other.

All players with the same Act Time to shoot do shoot at the same on the same turn. I'm not getting into fractional seconds. I use 100m range increments for the gun charts with the one-second time of flight indicated.

The Tiger I gun has an MV of 800m/second. If you fire at a target over 800m you can place a round toothpick with the tip painted black and the rest white 800m from the Tiger I to indicate a round is on the way. The next turn the round arrives and a hit/miss and damage are determined.

Artillery works the same way. Before the game, the artillery and mortar time of flight is determined. If a round or barrage is fired at 3:21 and it is in the air for 30 seconds TOF it lands at 3:51 (after movement) when direct fire is taking place. This makes it very hard to hit a moving formation.

To be fair I would not call your system IGO UGO as it does stretch a point but it does show the situation where IGO UGO could work but most certainly is not usefull description of the system in many ways.

It's definitely not IGYG in the traditional sense.

It's interesting that in some of our complex games with my co-author we sometimes evaluate the situation and decide ther is nothing going to happen worth the time step for X bounds and hence have a "super large" bound comprising in some cases 10's of normal bounds. This occoures usually if one side does not wish to be active such as a defender in some cases, and the attacker is waiting or reorganising in a way the defecder cannot intervien, much like you skipping "inactive" second intervals in your syetem.

Good point. Normally I play a meeting engagement scenario with both sides starting out of sight. For strategic movement with no LOS, each side plots its movement and speed without knowing the other side's disposition and movement plot.

The game will start off doing several consecutive 10-second turns of movement until a mutual LOS is created. This normally takes only a few minutes of real Earth time. Then the game starts going second-to-second. During the game when no LOS occurs, we go back to strategic movement.

What I like about the time competitive system is that it allows me to portray the advantages and disadvantages of different weapons platforms and guns in 1:1 combat. Players issue the same orders and use the same risk-reward tactical decisions as real crews did. Many traditional games use a die roll as a chance for an action to occur. Failing an activation roll does simulate a time delay. Otherwise, orders are executed immediately.

In a time-competitive game, players can issue any order they want but it will take time to execute. Good crews are quicker and poor crews are slower.

Since all units are active and the battlefield can change at any moment players must pay attention to each turn. You can't walk away unless everyone agrees to pause the game.

I think a big advantage over traditional IGYG move/shoot is that the virtual movement is a playable simultaneous movement system with no effort from the player other than to maneuver. Every 10th game turn the game is paused and all moving units are advanced to the end of the movement marker and the marker is placed to show movement for the next 10 turns. So with 10 players, the actual model movement takes only 1/10 of the amount of time.

The action is parsed based on unit action timing so with 4-6 vehicles you're never waiting very long until you pause the game to shoot, react, or maneuver.

Most units shoot between 5-15 seconds. Guns with two-part ammo like the Russian 122 and 152mm guns historically took 25-30 seconds to reload. A Panther or Tiger can get off 3 shots in that time. That's one reason the IS-2 was instructed to stay out of tank-to-tank engagements.

Once you shoot/execute an order you do what comes naturally, observe what happens, and issue your next move or shoot order (determine the Act Time) or go into overwatch. Record keeping can involve writing the Act Time for your units on a 4x6 index card.

I've developed customized data cards and play aids to make it easy to see what you do next and your options and tactics. I start new players with 4-5 vehicles but I've seen players operating up to 12 at once.

You can use whatever gunnery, armor, and damage system you like. All of the ranges are meters so you can play any scale. I play 1" = 25m for micro and 10mm. For 28mm infantry, I use 1" = 2m. The board game version uses 33m hexes (measuring one inch) inside a 100m mega hex.

Traditional IGYG rules can't do any of the above, which is why I don't like them anymore. I've found that old-timer players tend to overanalyze the system and try to see how it relates to other game systems, but it doesn't. It's natural to assume more details equals more complications. Fewer rules make the game more playable.

I'll be at Fall In this weekend doing demos and videos but not running a game. In a few weeks, I'll have a free one-page rule sheet for the movement, mechanics, and timing. You use your favorite gunnery and damage system. In January I'll have a print-and-play version for miniature and board games.

FYI: I've been successfully playing the game for over 7 years, mostly with new players not reading the rules before the game. This is not a new WIP.

Wolfhag

Wolfhag. Read your linked designer notes again.
Can't say I disagree with anything I've seen. 🙂✌🏻.

Gamesman6,
You need to read it over again and find something wrong. We can't have people agreeing with each other on TMP, it will give the site a bad reputation.

Thanks

Wolfhg

😉🙂😉😀 it's OK I'm sure there are plenty of other people we can disagree with or they with us. 😉👍🏻

But I'll read it again and see what I can come up with.. 👌🏼

"They all know the rules."

HA! I wish. We play so many periods and rules that it can be a year or more between playing any one set. We forget even our own AWI rules. We sometimes get the rules mixed with the others. I read them each time and we start each game with "How do we decide who goes first?" We are not selling our rules. You can have them for free.

We play so many periods and rules that it can be a year or more between playing any one set.

That is so far from our approach that we have nothing in common.

😀😄 that's a shame… 😉

Gamesman6 – no offence ment.

Arthor is a legend and not real. An interesting study in Wikipeadia, read learn and then you can talk authoritatively about rules covering him without it being merely a subjective assessment.

Looks as if Wikipedia needs to be updated: link

CORNWALL, ENGLAND—BBC News reports that excavations at the site of King Arthur's Hall on Bodmin Moor, which scholars once thought had been constructed in the medieval period, yielded evidence that it actually dates back some 4,000 years earlier. The monument consists of standing stones sourced from the immediately surrounding area that archaeologists began to suspect were erected during the Neolithic period. To confirm this hypothesis, a team led by the Cornwall Archaeological Unit (CAU) took sediment cores from the site that contained insects, pollen, and parasite eggs. Radiocarbon and optically stimulated luminescence dating yielded a date between 5,500 and 5,000 years ago. CAU archaeologist James Gossip said that people used and renovated the site multiple times until the medieval era. "Knowing when King Arthur's Hall was built will help us understand this unique monument form better, how it might have originally been used and how it could have been used over time," he said. To read more about Cornwall's Arthurian lore, go to "A Dark Age Beacon."

Of course, it's not absolute proof but there is additional evidence but we'll probably never know.

Wolfhag

And of course the seeds of legend arr inherent in any significant period or event.
Wwii has plenty.. i was recently listening to the myths of British bankers stopping for tea during market garden.
A legend are such because we know accepted elements of the narrative are fantastical.
If we want to game Arthor or Troy we have plenty of aspects to choose from.
Are we gaming the subjective retelling or the probable historical period.
Of course that doesn't discount that at those times people believed to be real what we now don't…
But how different is that to the beliefs held about Tiger tanks etc etc.

We also have to accept that in some or many aspects of whatever period we have to apply some subjectivity.