"Are the rules you wrote any good?" Topic

I liked the rules a mate and I wrote (he did the concepts and artwork, I was the tech writer) in the mid-80's. Well out of date now, though, and wouldn't appeal at all to current ancients/mediaeval gamers. But I still prefer them to most of the modern "boxes of dice" rules/DBA clones.

I have written so many sets of rules over the years…. or more generally, adaptations of other people's rules.

If you are writing a rule set that includes a version of IGYG, unit activation, command dice, etc. Aren't you adapting to someone else's rules? Has there really been anything new and revolutionary in the hobby?

It is niche audience, your typical minature collectos play lots of periods superficialy an often want minimal a learning curve, not a tool to understand the issues about which they read.

Absolutely! Humans want immediate gratification. When you go to a singles bar, you hope to score that night and not have to go on multiple dates or get to know her. It's all about that dopamine hit.

Video games are successful because they allow immediate gratification of point, click and shoot without reading any rules and the special effects and graphics create reality like miniatures and terrain.

Although historically inaccurate, a commercial tank video game is intuitive because it allows the player to use his natural OODA Loop (does not need to be taught). Our games, because of the limitations forced upon us (we can't simulate simultaneous action) interrupt the players' natural OODA Loop with abstractions like action points, IGYG turn/shoot, activations, random initiative, command dice, etc. Most game systems tell players what they can do, how often, and when. But then that structure is what makes the game playable or not. It allows new players to play.

Our mind fills in the gaps of realism by utilizing past experiences, unconscious assumptions about the world, and pattern recognition to create a coherent perception of reality, even when presented with incomplete information; essentially, our brain "guesses" what should be there based on its knowledge and expectations, often filling in missing details to create a continuous visual experience.

The problem in game design and selecting a target audience is that everyone's mind works differently because no two people have the same experience, knowledge, or expectations of what reality the game is attempting to present.

When players talk about a game getting the right "feeling" or "it scratches your itch" I think they are talking about how their mind creates the reality. If your mind buys into a set of rules or game mechanics you might call them "eloquent." If your mind does buy into the game system then the rules suck.

When you fail a unit's activation roll (a necessary abstraction of reality because units are always active and at least observing) your mind will create a reason based on your past experience, knowledge, or expectations.

Example: Your unit failed its activation roll. Reason: poor communication or didn't arrive, didn't understand the order or ignored it, etc. If you've had military experience you can be more creative. I'm sure you've heard them all.

Intuitively, more details and rules should create a more believable level of reality but that's not always the case. There appears to be a fair percentage of players that are more concerned about playing a simple balanced game with a high level of abstraction because they prefer "quick play" two-page rules.

I think it is similar to the immediate gratification of video games. Discussions of miniatures, painting methods, history, and social interaction are more important than learning and playing a detailed game (delayed gratification).

Then you have the miniature and boardgame cultures, which are very different in their expectations and the level of detail they'll play.

When I go to a miniature convention it's very social, and gregarious, people wear colorful outfits to fit the game period and there are outbursts of laughing and groans. You can show up and immediately play a game you've never played before.

When I attend ConSim World, a monster board gaming convention that lasts a week (some games take that long to complete), it looks like people playing Chess in a library. You need a mentor to learn the game, especially if you don't have a high level of historical knowledge of the period or battle. However, the level of history is normally much greater than miniature games. They are fine with delayed gratification.

I have written so many sets of rules over the years…. or more generally, adaptations of other people's rules.

How often have you seen someone on TMP change their mind about a game system or rule? Hardly ever. You can't have a constructive discussion about "feelings". Just try to do it with your wife and tell her that her "feelings" are wrong.

When you spend a lot of time researching, writing, developing, and play-testing a set of rules I'm sure you are shocked to find out hardly anyone buys into it.

I think this is the reason that commercial game publishing companies can get away with releasing a new version every few years. There are no standards or best practices. No matter what they put out, it will alienate most players. If you've spent a few thousand dollars to buy into their system, models, and scale you can be stuck with it.

Wolfhag

Has there really been anything new and revolutionary in the hobby?

Since thre thread is about rules and such … it depends on how new or what you mean by revolutionary. But WILS does not use tables, but encodes capability on the dice itself. It trades using tables and looking stuff up for managing dice.

If you were only going to use one or two tables for one or two different forces, then you only need one or two different dice. There are ways to compress that, too. If you were going to need seventeen tables and subtables, then you will need to track a bunch of different dice, but you were already committed to some level of complexity. I think it is easier, but YMMV.

Regardless, it is substantively different than any other system I have seen. And it getes more robust when you do more than a one-sentenc description of the rules.

You can't have a constructive discussion about "feelings".

I think you can. You shouldn't tell others that their feelings, or opinions are wrong. But I think it is important to separate out what things are empirical or demonstrable and which are judgements and opinions.

I think its easier to talk about such things when you don't conflate feelings "I like the way this system works." with assertions "This is the best system.", especially onee that rely on you knowing what all means (all wargames, all events, all rules, etc.).

I realised why my rules tucked was because using conventional approaches found in the vast majority of rules wasn't going to get me the experience I wanted and so I needed to look at new ways of thinking about game mechanics and how they were implemented.

I'm always surprised by how often new rules are sold as "new" but really just a reordering of how and when dice are rolled. And they, for me, read and play as dice games, with figures on the table. When different things are used, playing cards say.. the focus is too often on tbe cards and not the table. Or are merely card flipping exercises.. so we substituted a card game for a dice game.
It took me realising, as I've said that I needed to change my thinking on what a mechanism needed to be to get closer to getting what I wanted.
We can't solve a problem with the same thinking that created it.

Has there really been anything new and revolutionary in the hobby?

There certainly have been general trends which have changed the hobby in the last 50 years. A good example is scale, back in the 1970's the common scale was one vehicle equals one vehicle. This scale still exists today and is popular, but now we have moved to one figure equals a platoon, company and increasingly towards a battalion.
At a game system level, examples include the trend is to move away umpires and simultaneously sequence of play to sequential sequence of play. This is more obvious in ancients, as for WW2 this move occurred a long time ago. Other examples is the move away from reaction testing and orders to other systems, such as command points, robust victory conductions with objectives and other command related changes. Reaction testing is still common at a skirmish level, but less so as you move up the scale tree.
I am uncertain if any revolution has ever occurred, its generally all about evolution. The only revolutionary thing I can think of is when a set of rules is complete and packaged well. Flames of War is a good example, Panzer Korps to a lesser extent. Give games a good looking, easy to read and learn set of rules which results in 2-6 hour games with a clear winner and loser and add lots of supporting material and you have a good chance of getting significant traction. Flames of war was revolutionary, even though I am not keen about the rules.

Has there really been anything new and revolutionary in the hobby?

Not much… because they all tend to be iterations of the same format as you say.

I can think of a few things that stood out as they broke away from the norm e ough to be different. But that tended to be parts of an overall morphology thats conversional.

I'd say Wolfhag your armour rolile are revolutionary… becaue they don't build on mist of the normal building blocks of iterative wargame design.

G6,
Thanks for your kind compliment.

I realised why my rules tucked was because using conventional approaches found in the vast majority of rules wasn't going to get me the experience I wanted and so I needed to look at new ways of thinking about game mechanics and how they were implemented.

That's why I started on my own, too. I wanted to get a more accurate representation of the different historical rates of fire and make it interactive. I tried 15, 10, and 5-second traditional turns using variations of IGYG, but it just didn't work and it continued to get more complicated.

After 6 months of trying and failing, I called a good friend who is a gamer and designer. I said, "The only way this can work is with one-second turns, which is ridiculous. Only an idiot would play a game like that." He responded, "Well Steve, you seem to fit that description so give it a try." So I did.

It started looking good right away, and I showed it to a good friend of mine, Dana Lombardy, a historian and game designer. He pointed out to me that what I created was a game based on the OODA Decision Loop which I was familiar with.

Units are always active and observing, react and decide on a tactic or order, and determine how long it historically took to execute (orders are not executed immediately). Upon execution of the order, you observe the results and do it all over again, no orders phase (loop back to observe).

The choices are normally to shoot again at the same target, engage a new target, move (Shoot & Scoot), or go into overwatch (the default order). Other than determining the results of the shooting, it involves one roll of a D6 to vary the timing and no additional rules. You do need to track the future game turn your order executes.

I developed customized play aids for each vehicle type which eliminates QR charts and looking up modifiers. It guides the player through all of the steps for issuing orders, movement, tactics options, and shooting. There is very little you need to memorize.

I don't know if it is revolutionary or not. Later on, I saw that Phoenix Command uses 2-second turn increments. The OODA Loop is nothing new as humans have been using it as long as they've been around, it's just that Col. Boyd got around to documenting it.

The only claim I make is that the timing factors I use are historically documented from manuals, AARs, and observing combat footage. I've had the help of retired armor commanders and drivers/mechanics from Bovington and Kubinka.
I've visited many museums including the Royal Tank Museum.

If someone thinks it's realistic and revolutionary, fine. If not, that's OK too. The main emphasis has been on making it easy for new players to get into. But as you said, nothing is borrowed from other game designs except die rolls.

Trying to develop play aids and write the rules has been a challenge. Mostly because I keep making changes and the inevitable "feature creep." Many times I'll take a two-week break and then look at my last efforts and wonder WTH I was thinking when I wrote that. Right now I see the light at the end of the tunnel.

I have implemented the use of QR codes on the play aids and certain parts of the rule book. Using your cell phone will bring up a short video instruction for clarification. This can be done mid-game to keep from paging through the rule book.

My process is to write the rules, run them through spell check (two versions), and then use the "read" function on the PDF to hear how it sounds with someone reading it back to me and have it make sense. Then more changes. Next is to do Zoom meetings to get feedback from other players. Then make the videos. I'm retired, so I have no deadlines or publishers I need to please.

I've been told by experienced game designers and publishers that you should not be the game designer and developer. Those are two different functions. The developer looks at the design for functionality and streamlines the game from a different perspective than the designer. He puts together the components to fit into the box and makes sure it can be commercially viable. This can lead to disagreements if the designer is very fussy.

I'm going to be using Blue Panther Games in TN for POD and potential KS. He lives 2 hours from me and does great work.

Wolfhag

I've read and played rules where I've thought… wow… that part really captures an aspect of what I understand actual combat to be in a workable way fkr a tablet top game… but generally it's only be one or two aspects and the other parts ended up being standard wargame fare
Your rules were the first where I thought, almost all of it feels like the experience rather than the usual tropes of game rules.

🙂👍🏻

Gamesman6 re read your post 19 Nov 2024 10:12 a.m. PST

I have not replied until now as you deserve a hopefully credible response from me.

What I am struggling with and yes it may be me, is how and what a credible limiting scope rational will be portrayed to me.

As an example:-

I and the Company commander and by definition the platoon commander (1 player a side). I decide on an overall strategy as Company Commander and hence my strategy is the brief for the platoon commander. I now plan the actions of the platoon based on my overall plan. Neither at this stage are perfect as I have only limited knowledge at this time of enemy strength in the platoons frontage.

Now how do I credibly limit/modify the approach as me as platoon commander. What instructions/rational will your "rules" promulgate to me as platoon commander these limitations? What media do I use, some paragraph that for a given situation say retards my response credibly. The idea sort of looks reasonable but a credible way to implement it looks difficult but that may be you have a mechanism for this that is truly novel. First of all Am I aware of the limitations before I plan the platoon plan, seems un-reasonable as then I can plan around them. If I don't write the plan down first, under pressure I may forget what my original plan was and even if not deliberately, dodge round the additional limitations imposed. Are the limitations impoaeds on a bound by bound basis, I assume like all wargames you are going for a time marching solution.

I can see why you would like to do something of this type but personally I am at a loss to se how it can be done. However that could well be as you have created a system I have not thought of, all good inventions need lots of creativity.

Getting back to the original question – Are the rules you wrote any good?

I would modestly say "Yes". The game is a miniature Soccer Game called Corner Kick, and it did finish 2nd in the recent pole for sports games behind Subbuteo which has international tournaments, while our game has only sold 100s of copies. It was a team collaboration with my dad, and he did most of the writing, while I did the proofreading and made many suggestions. The reason for the yes is that almost everyone who plays enjoys the game and we still have people asking about it. At Fall-In, I did not run any games for Corner Kick and at least 3 people came up and asked me about running a game at Cold Wars.

Uscha
Orders vs implementation.
Implementing the orders will be based on the actions the unit carries out.
Those actions can be distilled in to a small number. Move shoot overwatch etc.

So orders will indicate to the subunit what actions they should do and when.

My system provides a way for the player to then implement those orders, filtered though that units training, experience and "personality" with will give that unit a set of actions the player uses.

So it not impeding the player, like unit activations, action points etc can do in some systems.
Rather it's having the player have a subunit that will feel like it's own entity rather than just pieces the player uses as they see fit.

To me some of the questions you are asking relate to more genral aspects of game and scenario design.
Like wolfhag I'm intersetd in the time competitive aspects summed up by the OODA cycle.
So for turns While not perfect the initial cycle of Crossfire is good for me. But I'm also working around the real time turn like Wolfhag uses.
I don't like conventional IGYG, I want both sides "active" at all times. I also use real time constraints on the players

While I've borrowed some.l elements, how they are combined and implemented is something I've not seen before. It only took. Nearly 40 odd years! 😀

I almost forgot. I designed two games for a friend of mine running an ACW Battle of the Crater and Charge of the Light Brigade at a convention, neither of which I was familiar with.

I did the reading and research and designed the game to have the same historical outcome, which was desired. I analyzed the causality number and rate to use to generate casualties and simultaneous movement in 10-second increments, which worked with the cannon and musket rate of fire.

The players could make several risk-reward decisions with their troops and leaders. Everyone in the game had a good time. The simultaneous aspect of the game kept everyone involved better than an IGYG system. With 12 players taking turns to shoot and move, the game would have taken too long.

Frank Chadwick was one of the Union players for the crater battle and he complimented me on the game.

Wolfhag

Gamesman 6 – That explains the differences, personally running a game where I have to give orders to individual fireteams to co-ordinate "one foot on the ground", One moving and two over watching for a couple of companies is not even vaguely practical, hence I understand the differences you are playing at massively different scales of battel and timescales, so rules will have little or nothing in common. Again the target audience is key in setting out appropriate rules and we have different audiences.

Again I'm obviously not explaining my self well… or you're misunderstanding me…. I didn't saying about ordering fireteams,did I? 🤔

I more. Modern games I tend to follow the 1 up two down approach. So in your company commander example where the players top level is the company, they are ordering their platoons who areordering their squads, so I as the player will be operating the platoons and so activity the platoons squads.

If the players level is Bn CO then the player would be operating companies and platoons

The level is Plt CO then squads and fire teams.

The same system works for be because whatever the size of the maneuver unit. The basic frame work is the same, though time scale may vary accordingly.
And yes again… the target audience remains me… and the people I play with. 🙂

G6 and UshCha,
I think I understand what you are driving at by assuming different levels of command. Overall I agree but I think your approach may be too "gamey."

If the players level is Bn CO then the player would be operating companies and platoons

The level is Plt CO then squads and fire teams.

I'm not sure where this comes from. Is it in some military manual or a game rule someone wrote up?

In the end isn't the player going to be moving and shooting with units at the lowest level (individuals, teams, squads) or is there some type of rule that will tell him what to do?

In games, we give "orders" to units each turn as a way of parsing the action because we can't simulate simultaneous action. Is the intent to issue the same order over and over again or is it a way to put the unit into action to accomplish its mission as directed by the commander?

My experience was VN era where we normally had one PRC-25 radio per platoon. When you went on a patrol out you were on your own but were given what initial action to perform if making contact. Normally it was to avoid direct contact to observe and report back. We might be gone for an hour or all night sitting in an ambush position with no contact with the rest of the platoon. The patrol leader used his initiative.

From my experience at the platoon level and as a platoon radio man, the squad was given an order by the LT to accomplish a specific mission, assign an objective, move from point A to point B, or defend a specific location. His directives were determined by the Company Commander and his by the Battalion CO.

This process is normally done by issuing OP/Frag Orders at each level as the Battalion Commander is going to be in his HQ or TOC and not in direct combat micro-managing units at the lowest level.

Once a unit at each level is given an order, it does not forget or need to be reminded every turn. There could be a Frag Order (formal or informal) issued to revise or cancel the original one, which may or may not be received, acted upon, or obeyed but you need to be in communication.

For those not familiar with it:
A military fragmentary order (FRAGO) is a shortened operation order that modifies or changes an existing order or carries out a branch or sequel. FRAGORDs are issued when a situation changes before or during an operation, or when time constraints prevent the issuance of a complete order.

If you want to take a deep dive into this for ideas, here is some reading material:
PDF link

German Army version:
link

Someone mentioned that some of these details should be written up in the scenario description. I'm planning on using the Frag Order idea as a template to generate the scenario description.

This should give the player a more realistic understanding of the overall command structure and intent and the restrictions on what he can and cannot do without receiving or requesting a change in addition to supporting arms and units he'll have available.

I'm sure some experienced officers can fill in the blanks or give better guidance on using Op/Frag Orders than a lowly Rifleman like myself.

Writing scenarios is part of writing rules so I hope I'm still on topic.

Wolfhag

Wolfhag.
The level is Plt CO then squads and fire teams.

I'm not sure where this comes from. Is it in some military manual or a game rule someone wrote up

It's from manuals etc I've read. 1 up 2 down. The level of command you are at would have an awareness of some of what is going on 1 level above them, and two levels below.
The platoon CO issues orders to his quads and could be aware of what was happening to fireteam level. So that's the level to which the player is moving pieces in the game.
My understanding is that model applies on a sliding scale. So my players are scrolling units up to 2 levels down the CoC and can call on assets 1 level above.

So I my version of Uschas imaginary company action the smallest level the player will be playing/moving woild be squads.
Am making sense?

Yes orders are issued and re issued once tbe situation changes. A sub unit will attempt to follow orders until they perceive a reason to acti fmdiffereng and or pass along a change to the superiors who may then change orders.

My issue in games is that the top middle and bottom level of the unit is being controlled by the same person then the situation at kne level of lateral action is immediately known by all.

Also orders are issued to describe what the CO wants to happen while they aren't jn direct contact with tbem But most rules don't offer a mechanism to determine what the units actually do. The player determines what they do. And is in my opinion why in many games orders aren't issued as they are in the milatary. What's the point of telling a subunit what I want them to do… when I am tbe person operating that subunit

Those two things made games feel very different to what I was reading about or what I experienced in getting different groups or people to accomplish tasks.

I hope I'm explaining myself a little more clearly?

It's from manuals etc I've read. 1 up 2 down. The level of command you are at would have an awareness of some of what is going on 1 level above them, and two levels below.
The platoon CO issues orders to his squads and could be aware of what was happening to fireteam level. So that's the level to which the player is moving pieces in the game.
My understanding is that model applies on a sliding scale. So my players are scrolling units up to 2 levels down the CoC and can call on assets 1 level above.

I'm not sure of the timescale you are using but normally in a battle the Company and Battalion HQ are not going to be moving but the Company level leaders (CO, XO, Gunny, 3xLT's, 6x Platoon Sgts, 1xLT and Plt Sgt for Weapons Platoon) should be able to move but probably with some restrictions.

You may or may not be in comm one up and two down, it depends. That's what can make the game interesting. I would think as the CO you would have 2x platoons in the attack and 1x in reserve with Weapons Company units assigned to the platoons. Platoons going into the attack would do the same. The CO stays in his CP and gets status reports from the Platoon Leaders via radio or runner. Platoon Leaders oversee the Squad Leaders and assist as needed by sending in the Platoon reserve or attaching to the squad. These should all be outlined in the Frag Order or scenario instructions. If you have an FO (battalion and regimental assets, air support) he should be attached to the assault unit.

At times in VN a battalion commander could be flying over his AO and directing where squads should go and do. Talk about micro-managing!

One of the rules I use that players seem to like is the "Risk-Reward Tactical Decision" players can make with their leaders. Normally, the leaders are kept out of direct combat (they are observing and coordinating, not firing their weapons) but intervene as needed. But suppose they want to add their bonus to the units they are attached to enabling firepower in a fire fight, rally troops, or get them to move under fire. In that case, they expose themselves to enemy fire and can become causality. If their attempt fails you can allow the leader to attempt to act by himself hoping the unit follows his lead. There are many historical examples of this.

The CO can attach himself to a squad in contact with the enemy to get the attack moving if it bogs down by issuing an order without delay or calling in his light mortars. There are numerous accounts of this happening. If he is embedded and in combat, his XO is effectively in command of the Company at the HQ. He could send the XO or the Gunny too. This is where you can give some "personality" to your leaders.

I play it that when units are in a firefight they are "locked in" and must continue to exchange fire until they are ordered to cease fire, fall back, or engage a new target. The exchange is considered simultaneous with the results determined every 10 turns. For a squad to engage a new target for a firefight takes an order to shift fire and time which allows maneuver units to move in a coordinated fire & maneuver. However, a leader may be able to use his own initiative and shoot against a new threat immediately. Players seem to like that because it allows them to do what would make sense but with some limitations.

Leaders can react to new threats but there can be a delay before they execute based on their situational awareness, smoke, flanked/surprised, experience, suppression, etc. This allows players to do what would make sense in combat but there are a variety of factors that may not allow him to act/shoot before the new threat does. That's a nice type of FoW too.

But most rules don't offer a mechanism to determine what the units actually do

Isn't that why you are writing your own rules?

What's the point of telling a subunit what I want them to do… when I am tbe person operating that subunit

I guess eventually someone needs to move the teams and squads. The manual should give you some ideas on plans and how to execute: link

The main thing is that the group likes it.

Wolfhag

Wolfhag

I'm not sure of the timescale you are using but normally in a battle the Company and Battalion HQ are not going to be moving but the Company level leaders (CO, XO, Gunny, 3xLT's, 6x Platoon Sgts, 1xLT and Plt Sgt for Weapons Platoon) should be able to move but probably with some restrictions.

G6

Yep. Time scale is relative to the unit engaged in the action. If the players are sqd or FT leaders, it's seconds. Platoon it's 10s of seconds and so on.

You may or may not be in comm one up and two down, it depends. That's what can make the game interesting. I would think as the CO you would have 2x platoons in the attack and 1x in reserve with Weapons Company units assigned to the platoons. Platoons going into the attack would do the same. The CO stays in his CP and gets status reports from the Platoon Leaders via radio or runner. Platoon Leaders oversee the Squad Leaders and assist as needed by sending in the Platoon reserve or attaching to the squad. These should all be outlined in the Frag Order or scenario instructions. If you have an FO (battalion and regimental assets, air support) he should be attached to the assault unit.

G6 yep. So in a company attack where the player is the company CO. They are also moving on the table the Platoons and in my 1 up 2 down model they will also be moving the elements within the platoon,

At times in VN a battalion commander could be flying over his AO and directing where squads should go and do. Talk about micro-managing!

G6 yes I know… I wouldn't allow that… genrally as it bogs down the game.

One of the rules I use that players seem to like is the "Risk-Reward Tactical Decision" players can make with their leaders. Normally, the leaders are kept out of direct combat (they are observing and coordinating, not firing their weapons) but intervene as needed. But suppose they want to add their bonus to the units they are attached to enabling firepower in a fire fight, rally troops, or get them to move under fire. In that case, they expose themselves to enemy fire and can become causality. If their attempt fails you can allow the leader to attempt to act by himself hoping the unit follows his lead. There are many historical examples of this.

G6 yep, in my system the leaders can "use" their "actions" on a subunit, they are with or in direct comms with.

The CO can attach himself to a squad in contact with the enemy to get the attack moving if it bogs down by issuing an order without delay or calling in his light mortars. There are numerous accounts of this happening. If he is embedded and in combat, his XO is effectively in command of the Company at the HQ. He could send the XO or the Gunny too. This is where you can give some "personality" to your leaders.

G6. Yep.

I play it that when units are in a firefight they are "locked in" and must continue to exchange fire until they are ordered to cease fire, fall back, or engage a new target. The exchange is considered simultaneous with the results determined every 10 turns. For a squad to engage a new target for a firefight takes an order to shift fire and time which allows maneuver units to move in a coordinated fire & maneuver. However, a leader may be able to use his own initiative and shoot against a new threat immediately. Players seem to like that because it allows them to do what would make sense but with some limitations.

G6 my approach has the same goal. The unit will have a set of actions, that the player can use dependant on the circumstances of the situation.

Leaders can react to new threats but there can be a delay before they execute based on their situational awareness, smoke, flanked/surprised, experience, suppression, etc. This allows players to do what would make sense in combat but there are a variety of factors that may not allow him to act/shoot before the new threat does. That's a nice type of FoW too.

G6 yes same a before. The circumstances, SA, smoke etc will demand a re roll of options. It may sound complex but is quick in application

But most rules don't offer a mechanism to determine what the units actually do

Isn't that why you are writing your own rules?

G6 yes indeed. 🙂

What's the point of telling a subunit what I want them to do… when I am tbe person operating that subunit

I guess eventually someone needs to move the teams and squads.

G6, yes. Weve got to do all those jobs. The issue isn't so much how we intend them to do it but do they actually do them and if not, what do they do?

And from a design goal, I needed it to be engaging and simple to operate.

The manual should give you some ideas on plans and how to execute: link

G6. I will check that out.

Most of the above I agree with, However if troops don't do what they are supposed to do you do need a credible reason or it looks and proably is, pure random is unrealistic and a game killer, nothing kills a games enjoyment as efficiently as random effects without a plausible reason.

Not sure of your simple to operate statement, it should be as KISS as possible but there has to be enough detail to make it plausible. If you understand every rule in 10 miniutes then to be honest it's not going to be a game some of us would want to play week in we out for years, again the audience you are aiming at is critical.

Most of the above I agree with,

G6 Why thanks 😊

However if troops don't do what they are supposed to do you do need a credible reason or it looks and proably is, pure random is unrealistic and a game killer, nothing kills a games enjoyment as efficiently as random effects without a plausible reason.

G6 is why I've stated multiple times it's not random! It's a set if basic actions tbe players uses, based on the orders the unit has, their training experience and "personality"

Not sure of your simple to operate statement, it should be as KISS as possible but there has to be enough detail to make it plausible.

G6 Again clearly yes. Detail is for me different to complexity to learn and operate.as I've said before. I'm looking at fidelity and resolution. I don't want spend more time teaching the rules of the game than I want people fighting tbe action.
To mirror you're sentiment above. Nothing kills the enjoyment of an experience like having to spend ages learning the rules. Looking at QRS or looking up rules.

If you understand every rule in 10 miniutes then to be honest it's not going to be a game some of us would want to play week in we out for years,

G6… see above. I'm not interested in rules… there is a basic operating system, that is applied to different situation. Can it be learnt in 10 minutes? That of course would depend on what you mean by learnt, be able to stat using them in a game? Or have them ingrained to intuitive, unconscious expertise level?
Given I'm unlikely to encounter everything they could be used for in 10 minutes.
I could learn the basic rules of poker in 10 minutes… and play for years honing my skill and responding to diverse situations.

again the audience you are aiming at is critical.

G6. Er yeah… as ive always said My target audience is me… and the group I play with 🙂 I'm not trying to convince anyone to play my system, just explain that it works, to a degree why…. and what it is, as opposed to what some might assume it to be. 🤟🏻

I used ChatGPT to write a Frag Ord for a combined arms company assaulting an enemy position:

Fragmentary Order (FRAGORD) Format
1. Situation
• Enemy Forces: Update on the enemy's strength, location, disposition, and likely course of action.
o Example: "Enemy platoon-sized element with fortified positions in grid AB123456. Anticipated reinforcements within 2 hours."
• Friendly Forces: Significant updates or new friendly assets.
o Example: "2nd Platoon supporting with suppressive fire from the north; artillery and air assets available."
2. Mission
Clear and concise statement of the task and purpose.
• Example: "1st Platoon will assault and seize the enemy's defensive position at grid AB123456 NLT 1500 hours to deny the enemy freedom of movement and secure a foothold for follow-on operations."
3. Execution
a. Commander's Intent:
State the desired end state.
• Example: "The enemy position is neutralized, friendly forces control the area, and are postured for counterattacks."
b. Concept of the Operation:
Describe the overall plan for the assault.
• Example: "This will be a deliberate assault with combined arms support. Suppression by artillery and air will precede the ground maneuver."
c. Scheme of Maneuver:
Explain how subordinate units will move and fight.
• Example:
o Phase 1: Suppressive fire by mortars and artillery begins at 1445 hours.
o Phase 2: Infantry advances under cover of smoke. Armor provides direct fire on fortified positions.
o Phase 3: Breach teams clear obstacles, secure entry points.
o Phase 4: Consolidation and reorganization on the objective.
d. Fire Support Plan:
Coordinate artillery, mortars, close air support, etc.
• Example: "Mortar platoon will initiate suppression at 1445 hours. Close air support available on call."
e. Tasks to Subordinate Units:
Detailed tasks for each unit.
• Infantry: Assault and secure objective.
• Armor: Suppress and destroy enemy defensive positions.
• Engineers: Breach obstacles and provide mobility support.
f. Coordinating Instructions:
Key timelines, control measures, and contingencies.
• Example:
o "Actions on contact: suppress and maneuver."
o "Boundaries and phase lines as per OPORD."
4. Sustainment
Updates on logistics, casualty evacuation, resupply, etc.
• Example:
o "Resupply point established at grid AB113455."
o "Casualty collection point at grid AB114460."
5. Command and Signal
a. Command: Chain of command and succession.
• Example: "2nd Platoon leader assumes command if 1st Platoon leader becomes a casualty."
b. Signal: Communication plan.
• Example:
o "Primary: Frequency 123.45 MHz."
o "Emergency: Use prearranged flares."

I think this has a few advantages. It puts the overall operation into a better perspective in a multi-player game. It outlines what each sub-unit is expected to do and their overall objective. It's also easier to write scenarios too.

Wolfhag

Yes. We can get more intrestjng "truthful" situations when we have multilayer games

The issue I had was even then how would I get my sub units to follow the orders but not feel like I'm moving chess pieces.

The action system, for me works. It means orders have to be "written'

While I agree a multi players game is better its not possible in the UK to get enough players with even half an idea how to lay out and execute a plan in a particular period. Its like
putting a tennis pro against a player who only stated last week. It's not a match, training session perhaps but the game is about matches not training. Now Multi player games seem more popular in the US so maybe you have a decent pool of players to draw on.

There's this thing called the Internet, mobile phones, messenger platforms and real time video links… 😉

even half an idea how to lay out and execute a plan in a particular period.

It's a very high bar to join his Band of Brothers. I'm assuming he and most of them are former military trainers.

Wolfhag

😒 hmmm 🤔😉