"Complexity vs inadequate" Topic

Wow! OFM, thanks for sharing these events in your gaming life that have truly traumatized you. I can now see where you are coming from. It's obvious UshCha is triggering you to mentally relive the trauma.

This may be a solution:

Hopefully, you guys can work things out to be BFFs.

Wolfhag

😉
And as Dr Phil used to say… if we are repeating an otherwise negative behaviour… then we need to work out what it's giving us, the reward… 🤔🤷🫣

Get off my lawn.

I really don't understand genuinely. I only post on topics I have interest in or consider I can contribute to. Very rarely do I post to other boards and then only when I have something that may contribute. On the boards I do post it is almost always on simulation topics and do my best to make that clear. That is just as far as I can see, good manners as I would hate to waste folks time that are not interested in that aspect. Often like minded individuals post thoughtful reply's to my topic which provoke interest in our shared topic Wargame simulation.

That is not a comment that my way is the only way or better it's just I have a limited interest that covers a limited scope. It does not demean other folks approach. It does not indicate a superiority, just that I have a sector I am interested in and only that sector. At no point am I aware of any denigration of other approaches, they just are not of interest to me. Why is that so hard to grasp?

The term "inadequate" comes to mind. I cannot see how that term is used in other than an insulting manner.

Get off my lawn.

OK. But I left a present, so watch where you step and get your pooper scooper.

Wolfhag

The term "deusional" comes to mind. I cannot see how that term is used in other than an insulting manner.

Po-tay-to and Po-tah-to are such good friends!

The stifled dude who called me a liar is mumbling something that I can't quite hear. 🤷

It's funny that the OFM has stifled me, yet seems very intent on announcing that he is aware of me (announcing stifles is one of the things the OFM denounced early on in the Great Stifle Count War – possbily it was only a criticism meant for other people, but when he wanted to engage in that behavior, he changed his mind), and often responds to my posts.

It's also interesting that he repeatedly says "called me a liar", but has never been able to produce a link to a thread where I did so, even when directly asked.

"Get off my lawn.
OK. But I left a present, so watch where you step and get your pooper scooper.
Wolfhag"

😀🫡

It's amusing how often a cold wargame can be come hot…. or at least heated… like a cup of coco…

I don't know what we're talking about.

Nobody does.

What I object to are rules that are clearly designed for two lines to advance mindlessly towards each other and throw lots of dice. If you can do something tactical, and you often can't, it will get you no advantage. I won't name names but there are several commercial sets around that fit the bill.

Yep… and worse… that type of rules that require a lot of work to apply.

With the OP
USHCHA
Youve set up Complexity vs inadequate.

Imo most "complex" rules are inadequate. Either becaue they don't do good job or representing the thing they say they are. Secondly complexity, in a mechanical sense (complicated), as opposed to complexity of choice and interaction, is going to slow things and dstract away from the action.

@mjw

I was looking up Boyd's Observe, Orient, Decide, and Act loop and stumbled across Sun Tzu's Cheng/Zheng versus Chi/Qi, which boiled down appears to be Find, Fix, Flank and Fight(*).

A set of rules that allowed you to do this would be the (mindful) opposite of those that you have described (mindless).

(*) polite version

This is an interesting interpretation. My own thoughts are that; take weapon factors/ranges and effectiveness if the rule result is not within some minimum standard compared to the real world, then the real world tactics won't work.

Taken to absurdity for an example, if British Napoleonic line infantry was individually the same as say A WW2 Bren gun, with no ammunition limitations; then then the French advancing in line against a formed British line would be an unreasonable approach. Obviously this is an absurdity but is for illustrative proposes only. However were there a set of rules that this happened, they would be inadequate on my terms as real world period tactics would not be viable.

Now "Find, Fix, Flank and Fight" is a good basic but how and what can be achieved is greatly dependent on the technology of the period. Telescopes help no end if the effective range of the enemy is beyond say 300m and without such optical devices detection ranges may reduce dramatically. Even more, the point at which the "Fight" begins and it's implementation, scale and tactics are dependent on the technology. Now if that is not represented in "sufficient" detail (you can write your own definition on what is sufficient depending on many factors), then the tactics of the period may not work on the table. That to me is a definition of inadequate.

Now it is possible to go too far in detail such that it takes longer than is necessary to impalement the system without a complementary improvement in the overall system response, this in my terms would be overcomplex.

What I object to are rules that are clearly designed for two lines to advance mindlessly towards each other and throw lots of dice. If you can do something tactical, and you often can't, it will get you no advantage.

This is I agree a definition, from My perspective but not perhaps from all of inadequacy. It was an issue with our rules to address the interaction of command, control/response time and weapon factors such that real world tactics work.

The use of a phased retreat by phase lines as an example requires a fast retreat, at the expense of firepower, and the effective cover for this operation. Many rules do not address such issues as the authors seem to define this as too complex for there target audience, may of whom seem to favor die rolling over all else. Again there are large differences of approach within the broad church of wargaming.

Realistically, every historical action or order, at any level, can be measured using the timing through the unit OODA Decision Loop. At the lowest tactical level, it is reacting to an enemy threat and issuing a shoot, move, or observe order, which could take seconds to minutes.

At the higher strategic level, it is about intel (observation) and how quickly you can plan, deliver assets, and logistics to execute an offensive or defensive operation that could take hours to months.

At the tactical level, the quickest shoots first. At the strategic level, your good planning and subordinates execute your operations before your opponent, who must react correctly or change his order.

The idea of the OODA Loop and seizing the initiative is that you are continuing to execute and start a new loop (order or decision) before your opponent has completed his. This allows you to be "inside" his loop and seize the initiative and be at least one step ahead of your opponent. He can't react and make changes quickly enough. Suppression, poor troops, surprise, and the unknown (lack of intel/observation) create delays in making a decision.

The delay factor is why cautious commanders lose out to audacious commanders. It's about Risk-Reward Tactical Decisions, the speed of execution, and better-trained and more experienced troops executing more quickly. In most games, it is the use of randomized activation rules that determines the delay or chance of acting rather than timing.

In traditional games, a succession of poor activation die rolls can result in a very unhistorical outcome and ruin the game. OODA Decision Loop Action Timing prevents that from happening.

If you keep the Act Turn a unit will execute their order secretly, creating a somewhat realistic Fog of War as no one knows which unit will execute their order as each turn in succession is announced. Quicker units have the initiative.

When designing a game, you need to decide how you are going to simulate or model specific actions and make the game interactive, including initiative, fog of war, etc. You must also decide what to leave out or abstract, as you can't include every factor.

As far as I'm concerned, the most important part of the design is how you are going to parse the action in a historical, intuitive, and playable manner, and what to leave out. Overall, in that respect, IGYG is difficult to model.

It appears that most of the current rule sets are a collection of abstracted rules that are variations of IGYG and mechanics originating in the last millennium. There are a few exceptions.

There is an advantage to using these, as players are familiar with them. Any new system or different rules will normally seem "complicated" to a player first seeing it.

Next, you must consider the type of player you are targeting and who would be interested in your overall system, especially if it is a commercial endeavor.

For some players, anything over one page rules and a single D6 die roll, and any record keeping or reference charts are too complicated. Real combat is not balanced or fair, but games need to be. It's a decision between design for cause (more detail) and design for effect (more abstraction). There is no right or wrong way to do it, as it comes down to personal player preferences.

From my observations, the majority of miniature players are willing to forego detailed historical recreation (too complicated) for playable non-historical abstractions because the enjoyment is more about the visuals and social interactions rather than recreating real historical actions and tactics. Again, there are exceptions, and there is no right or wrong way. Also, players don't like being told what to play and that they are doing it wrong (reference UshCha).

My effort has been to recreate historical tactical interaction (not IGYG) and playable simultaneous movement using the intuitive OODA Decision Loop Action Timing as a basis, rather than traditional rules. Players use a single two-sided rule sheet for 80% of the game (there are a few QR charts depending on the version you are playing), with a single D6 or D20 roll for most of the outcomes.

The result is that rather than a game system that tells players what to do, when, and how often, a player observes the situation, makes a decision considering several historical Risk-Reward tactics, and rolls a D6 to determine how many turns in the future it will take to execute (orders are not magically executed immediately). Hopefully, it is the right order and executed before his opponents or is killed before executing – it happens.

The ODDA Loop timing system shows how better crews in an inferior weapons platform can defeat a poor crew in a superior weapons platform by using the right tactics and being quicker.

What I like is that since it is not IGYG and units are always active and executing an order or ready to react, players are not waiting for their "turn" as in IGYG systems. You need to pay attention as the action unfolds turn-by-turn. You snooze – you lose. No do-overs.

The OODA Decision Loop is intuitive, so it is not complicated, but it seems so at first for veteran players who are used to IGYG and unit activation rules. The downside of the system is that players need to think ahead, know their own and their enemy's weapons system performance, and use the same tactics as their real-life counterparts. That can be very complicated, so I address it in the rules and the game.

For many players, that's too hard and too complicated. The decision-making process may be difficult, but the OODA Decision Loop timing system is not because there are fewer rules, abstractions, and IF-THEN-ELSE exceptions have fewer abstractions so it is easier to understand.

In Sun-Tzu's example, fixing the enemy results in a decrease of his Observation (situational awareness), resulting in a delay in reacting to enemy maneuvering on his flank. This is what Fire & Maneuver is all about.

So, overall, the OODA Loop Action Timing concept seems to be complex (it's new to most layers), but it is intuitive and not complicated because it is the natural way we respond to a situation every day. Does that make sense to you?

Wolfhag

"traditional games, a succession of poor activation die rolls can result in a very unhistorical outcome and ruin the game. OODA Decision Loop Action Timing prevents that from happening"

This was an issue that I reacted to as well. Playing games and reading AARs that were all about good or bad dice rolls, good or bad… I got the same.ick from RPGs where I've felt it was roll play not.role play. Sitting waiting for your own chance to.act.

The object for me is to allow designs and actions tk compete, and as you say that needs to be in a time critical environment.

I remember years and years ago on yahoo groups I was on one that was about a set of rules for a.real.time set of Napolenics. The idea seemed ideal but much diacussion was about things like time it would take a demi brigade to move from column to line. Or.. it wasnt how a wargame.should be… 😉

Personally i play and design games for me and the people I play with so concerns of what others want is of little interst unless they align with mine.

traditional games, a succession of poor activation die rolls can result in a very unhistorical outcome and ruin the game. OODA Decision Loop Action Timing prevents that from happening

While I like the OODA loop as a mechanism and do agree that it provides the ability to analyze interactions in a way you can't in an IGYG system (and the same is true in reverse), I think this is too broad a statement.

The player decision cycle is related to, but does not drive aggregate stochastic outcomes.

It sounds like you have dynamic period OODA loops where one player can "get inside" the other's. This is the classical advantage taught with the OODA concept – if I can execute two (or three, or 2.5, …) actions in the time it takes my opponent to execute one, I gain certain types of advantage.

Let's look at 3:1 speed. If I am still relying on a stochastic process, I can still get outlier reulsts. Assume A (3 speed) and B (1 speed) have the same Pk against each other. If A executes three attacks and B only executes one in a certain time period, the probability of B missing is (1-Pk) and A is (1-Pk)^3. The odds of missing three attacks in a row are signficantly lower than missing one, all other things constant. But, the odds of A missing all three and B succeeding are still non-zero. You get outlier results, just less often because you get that classical tight decision loop advantage.

You don't mention this, but when I design wargames to use OODA loop time differential, I also design in quality differential. If we are "equal" gunfighters and I get off three shots in the time it takes you to get off one, I only have an advantage if my quality of shot going three times as fast doesn't go into the dumper.

So in our high-noon gunfight we both have basic 50-50 odds. You get one shot off with 50% chance to miss. I get three off, but because of speed my Pk drops to 20% so after three shots I have 51.2% chance to miss. (Personal note: me shooting really fast drops the odds much more than that; and I don't start at 50-50, either ;)

In an OODA loop, time pressure can (doesn't always) affect all four stages. You can end up with incomplete/incorrect raw data, analysis, decision, or action from rushing. Compounding two or three (let alone four) performance degradations can signficantly affect aggregate odds.

But, like I said, it doesn't have to. Usually, I find at least one and possibly two stages are not process bound (they complete adequately and have spare time) in the longer OODA cycle.

Just saying that OODA vice IGYG does not eliminate the outlier probability issue, but in some cases, it mitigates it.

Wow! You really took a deep dive into that.

The AFV version of the game is somewhat like What a Tanker in respect to the player must spot, engage (traverse the turret/turn/pivot), aim, fire, and reload.

WaT is a dice-driven game. Not getting the dice you need is supposed to reflect the chaos and fog of war.

In my system, the player is responsible for the same actions. However, the player can issue the order he needs. Using a customized data card that has the performance timing, he rolls a D6 to tell them how many turns it will take to execute. Ace crews are a little quicker, and poor crews are slower. The timing is based on real vehicles and gun performance, like turning, turret traverse, reload time, etc.

So, if on turn 1:27 it takes 6 turns to shoot, he secretly records his order for turn 1:33. This creates a FoW as no one knows who will shoot next. Game turns are announced sequentially, and players pause the game to react or execute an order. If no one pauses the game, the next turn is immediately announced.

If the player's vehicle is still alive at 1:33, he pauses the game and fires. Then he naturally "Loops back" to Observe the result, issues his next move or shoot order, determines how long it will take to execute, and records it. The game then proceeds turn by turn until someone pauses it.

Two vehicles may shoot at each other at the same time.

The player above does have a Risk-Reward Tactical Decision for his first shot at a target (ranging shot), but not when reloading. To simulate a Snap Shot, the player can shoot 1-5 turns early, but with an increasing accuracy penalty.

Whenever a player shoots, there is a small chance of a SNAFU, such as a jam, misfire, etc.

We don't measure the amount of time spent in each of the four OODA steps; instead, we measure the overall time it will take.

Artillery lands based on the time of flight to the target.

A high-noon gunfight can be portrayed the same way as a Risk-Reward. The longer the shooter takes to aim, the better his accuracy will be, but he risks not being able to shoot first. Choose wisely.

Wolfhag

Wow! You really took a deep dive into that.

Thanks. To be fair, a lot of that deep dive has been accumulated over a few decades of analysis.

The player above does have a Risk-Reward Tactical Decision for his first shot at a target (ranging shot), but not when reloading. To simulate a Snap Shot, the player can shoot 1-5 turns early, but with an increasing accuracy penalty.

Whenever a player shoots, there is a small chance of a SNAFU, such as a jam, misfire, etc.

I like the shift of risk in this approach – 1st shot vs follow on. It's an important non-linearity in artillery focused combat and your system directly mirrors the concerns.

To simulate a Snap Shot, the player can shoot 1-5 turns early, but with an increasing accuracy penalty.

Do you combine the "time to shoot" roll and the "snap shot" penalty for accuracy? F'r'ex, if it takes six turns to get off a shot, is it a diffent set of penalties than if it takes three?

Example:
At turn 2:31, you are shooting at a new target at 800m.

Your D6 roll for the 1st shot timing for a Veteran crew is the result of 7 turns (simulates the gunner estimating the range, aiming adjustments, and firing). An Ace crew is a -2 modifier for 5 turns, and a poor crew is +4 turns for 11 turns.

My gun charts are in 100m increments. Ace crews get a -200m accuracy bonus and poor crews a +200m penalty.

The player can fire on turn 2:31 but has a +700m accuracy penalty. He would use the chance to hit at 1500m.

Other options:
Shoot at 2:32 at 1400m
Shoot at 2:33 at 1300m
Shoot at 2:34 at 1200m
etc.

When a gun is pointed at you to shoot, you are unsure of the time it will take to get the round off because it is somewhat random, with a crew modifier.

If your opponent gets his gun on you before you do, your choices are to snap shoot with an accuracy penalty in an attempt to shoot first, or start moving to be a more difficult target to hit. Again, it's the player's decision.

Reloads cannot snap shoot. Reload times have an Ace crew -2 turns and a poor crew +2 turns.

Timing values are based on historical research I've done, AARs, combat footage, real tank crewmen, and training manuals.

Wolfhag

It interesting to me that the discussion centers around command and control, not say weapon ranges. Is this perhaps because simulator's only use rules that have credible effective ranges? Less simulation oriented games sometimes use strange (to me) compressed ranges that give poor results in simulation's but have advantages for those uninterested in the simulation side of wargaming?

🙄

Ushcha
Without command and control the use of weapons is is rather superfluous.

It's my experience that games focus too much on weapon effectiveness. Rather than the more important, IMO, part, getting the weapons to be used at all, and the response of units being targeted, rather than just casualties and hit markers etc.

I think most games are designed at least subconsciously around a preferred figure scale, with its associated table size and the ranges etc go from there.
Personally I play platoon and company sized games at 3mm figures something that are often played at 20mm to 28mm. whereas 3mm is often used for bn and above. I've once played a much bigger scale game in 3mm But needed a what was basically a Gymnasium floor to play it on.

I've been listening to a podcast with a Delta operator who was in Mogadishu in 93. Again it emphasis the vital part played by C3i. And how they treated effective communications, for control, relaying intel etc, as more important than weapon skills.

Also the danger of blue on blue, especially when a situation becomes fluid.

All highlights the inadequacy of most rules sets in these areas. Yes because it's hard to do on a table top with minimal players or umpires etc… but… if it's vital in the thing we are representing then it should, for me, be vital in how I approach rule design.

that give poor results in simulation's but have advantages for those uninterested in the simulation side of wargaming?

The majority of players seem to be uninterested in "simulation" – so what? Entertainment and social interaction seem to be the main reasons to play. I doubt anyone is going to change that.

How can you have credible weapons range measurements in inches????

Part of the command and control rules should be in unit frontages, which are different for attacking and defending. They should include unit formations, which UshCha does. The downside is that most players have no knowledge of how to use tactical formations, and the table setup may not allow it.

Wolfhag

while a valid command structure and system is vital ,it is of no use whatsoever if the weapons systems cannot follow the orders. If the machine gun weapons definition does not cover grazing fire and have a representative range then it cannot perform one of its basic functions which is fire protection across a significant frontage of the enemy.

Response to orders in both time and the ability of the rules to reflect actual performance of the system are equally important.

A trench system that's only effective in the forward direction contravenes the actual deployment where the optimum position is firing to the flanks being protected largely from fire directly from the front.

Wolfhag, while there is a large number of folk who are not interested in simulation, that is immaterial as this thread is addressing only those that do care about simulation. I feel sure that folks not interested in simulation have threads that are more aligned with there interests. Hence dwelling on such matters is counter productive relative to this Simulation oriented thread.

There we go… 😉🫡

A weapon system is relevant because of it affect on the enemy.
Many rules focus on hits, casualties etc.
Though the reality is that the effects are a minimal part of their effectiveness or lack of. So again for me most rules are inadequate as they focus only a part of the effect. In part because it's "easier" to quantify.

In researching actually data on pinning and suppression as as well as militaries doctrine or definitions on what constitutes it, obviously inadequate. Ore modern context. What was clear was those effects carried by place. Weapons and effect defended on what people were used to and how people viewed combat.

So saying what is material to rule set or mechanic has to depend on what the goal of the designer is.

UshCha,
TMP is going to be a lonely place if you only want to discuss "simulations." Popping into discussions to inform people that their system is inadequate is not going to win friends or influence people to your side.

These games are for amateurs who want to paint models, roll the dice, move figures, have fun, and blow things up in an easy-to-play method.

To expect amateurs to play a "simulation" that involves real tactical maneuvering, formations, tactics, and fire control is a bit much. It takes months of training to be considered any level of "professional." Amateurs get intimidated by games that represent something different and realistic.

In my first attempt at applying my rules, I used the actual formations, terminology, and nomenclature for AFV warfare from the manuals. It was a bust because only the real tank crewman knew what was going on, and no one else had read the manuals.

I changed the terminology but kept the mechanics the same, and it worked, for the most part. Even when I go over the plan and tactics to be used before the game, players are rarely able to execute them unless they've had combat arms experience in the military. Not everyone is a tactician.

Commercial game companies cater to the amateurs, or they go broke. Some players get into more detailed games, but from my experience, they have a hard time getting other players to join them.

For me and Gamesman6, to get the real feel of a battle, you need dispersion and real ranges. Only micro armor or smaller will do that on a 6-foot table. It's not very popular among most miniature players.

It's my experience that games focus too much on weapon effectiveness. Rather than the more important, IMO, part, getting the weapons to be used at all, and the response of units being targeted, rather than just casualties and hit markers etc.

Absolutely. Historically, this would involve hidden units, flanking fire, and ambushes. Players don't want a game where the majority of their units are kept off the board, or where they get slaughtered in one turn because they didn't use recon and stumbled into an ambush. It's just not fun.

They want balanced and easy-to-play scenarios that concentrate on attrition. That's what commercial game publishers give them. If you don't like it, don't buy it.

UshCha, if you want to recruit players, show them an alternative, post examples, and videos of your game. Telling players how superior your simulation system is and everything else is inadequate is not going to gain any followers.

TMP is a tough group to please, as many are professional and amateur designers who are not going to change what they already have.

Wolfhag

@Wolfhag

It looks like your modifiers are independent of each other and they focus on time and the range curve as effects.

It looks like there are a good spread of inputs. Are there other key factors you consider, or is that pretty much the list?

TMP is going to be a lonely place if you only want to discuss "simulations."

Only if it's what he and the OFM assert simulations are against the entirity of people who run them (including the people who do it and don't know it).

It goes back to the title of this post (I can't engage on the topic directly, since it is internally inconsistent) – it posits "complexity" (a range) against "indequate" (a state).

Again, John and Ush are the same in their desire to assert that simulation inherently means some minimum level of complexity against the actual definition of the term.

Frigg & Reiss (2009) (Philosophy of Science):
"Simulations are the process of using a model to study the behavior of a target system by generating state transitions according to the rules encoded in the model."

Winsberg (2010) (Science in the Age of Computer Simulation):
"A simulation is the process of generating the behavior of a model system through computational means."

Hartmann (1996) (Models as a Tool for Theory Construction):
"Simulations are experiments with models."

Zeigler, Praehofer & Kim (2000) (Theory of Modeling and Simulation):
"Simulation is the discipline of designing a model of an actual or theoretical system and conducting experiments with that model."

Shannon (1975) (Systems Simulation: The Art and Science):
"Simulation is the process of designing a model of a real system and conducting experiments with this model for the purpose of understanding the behavior of the system."

In philosophy of AI / cognitive science (Grush 2004):
"Simulation is the running of a model that produces sequences of states mirroring those of a process or system."

Merriam-Webster
"The imitative representation of the functioning of one system or process by means of the functioning of another."

Cambridge Dictionary
"A model of a set of problems or events that can be used to teach someone how to do something, or the process of making such a model."

Dictionary.com
"Imitation or enactment, as of something anticipated or in testing."
"the representation of the behavior or characteristics of one system through the use of another system, especially a computer program."

Vocabulary.com
"The act of imitating the behavior of some situation or some process by means of something suitably analogous (especially for the purpose of study or personnel training)."
"The technique of representing the real world by a computer program."

Next, someone is going to make up their own definition by saying: "Well, to me it means blah blah blah."

Military definitions: ms.army.mil/glossary.html#s

Simulation Game: A simulation in which the participants seek to achieve some agreed-upon objective within an established set of rules. For example, a management game, a war game. Note: The objective may not be to compete, but to evaluate the participants, increase their knowledge concerning the simulated scenario, or achieve other goals. Syn: gaming simulation

I think every rule, die roll, or modifier is designed to model or simulate something. Why else would you do it?

I think that over the years, more rules to simulate more detail gained a poor reputation as being too complicated.

Wolfhag

Next, someone is going to make up their own definition by saying: "Well, to me it means blah blah blah."

Next? Maybe. Past? Yep. Already been done.

I think every rule, die roll, or modifier is designed to model or simulate something. Why else would you do it?

One of the problems of rules that have capability without direct utility related to the purpose is trying to leverage someone else's rules. They just glom stuff on instead of also critically analyzing the role of the stuff they are leveraging or doing it themselves.

There is a long trend of that. It's what WH40K feels like to me.

Wolfhag.
It was a bust because only the real tank crewman knew what was going on, and no one else had read the manuals.

Indeed. Language or vocabulary/terminology is a short hand to convey knowledge, information for the initiated. The flip being it's a barrier to the initiated.

But as you say the goal is to get the initiated involved.

That ties back to other aspects we've discussed. We know Ushcha has a strict sense of what things should be.

As has been said before, we're all playing games…. some are more on the simulationist direction and some are more gameist.

If we can't recognise the differences and see the connections. Then as wolfhag says, it becomes difficult to have meaningful discussions.

etotheipi
Yep. The topic started with two incompatible points and dispersed from there. 😀

I think I preferred it when he'd gone dark…

Though I've noted that when he's dark
.. the forum is largely a ghost town. 😉🫡🫣

It looks like there are a good spread of inputs. Are there other key factors you consider, or is that pretty much the list?

There are four concepts for Action Timing:
Situational Awareness: Units are always active to react to threats in their LOS. A D6 handles spotting and reaction times. The quickest reaction times are for unbuttoned/unsuppressed units reacting against a threat in their overwatch direction. A delay results in a # of turns before the unit can issue an order. Delays are deadly and can give the initiative to your opponent.

The slowest reaction times are for buttoned-up/suppressed units reacting against a threat on their flank or rear.

Better crews are quicker, poor crews are slower. Non-open-top vehicles are blind in their 180-degree rear arc when engaged and shooting.

Engagement Time: How long it takes to traverse or maneuver to get your gun on the target. I use historic traverse rates. If a threat is in your front 10-degree arc, it is automatically engaged. The overwatch direction is important.

1st Shot (Ranging Shot) Action Timing: As explained above. This is somewhat subjective as I can't find any real hard data. Guns with poor optics, poor ergonomics, buttoned-up, one or two-man turrets, and moving fire will take longer. Using a rangefinder is +6 turns. Commander Turret override takes less time.

Ground units and anti-tank guns Action Timing is x2 when under fire/suppressed.

Reload Time: Use historical values with a D6 roll to make it slightly variable and less predictable. Better crews are quicker, poor crews slower.

All of these timing factors are accounted for on the unit data card. Players do not have to modify actions on a base # plus modifiers. Of course, there are ways to combine and abstract the above, too.

If it seems complicated, remember, there are no die rolls or special rules for activations, initiative, command points, or turn interrupt rules, orders phase, or movement plotting.

There are no special rules, limitations, or exceptions for opportunity fire. Since the movement and the shooting action timing are synchronized on a turn-to-turn basis. Units are always active, so they can react at any time. Overwatch is the default order.

Players do not wait for their turn to shoot or move as in IGYG. Once an order is issued, it is assumed the crew is performing their duties. While waiting to execute an order, a player can react to a new threat and cancel his current order, and issue a new one.

After executing an order, immediately issue the next move or shoot order and the future turn it will execute.

I'll be starting a discussion soon as I'm almost done with the design, unit data cards, and videos.

Complexity vs Inadequacy: I think that using the Action Timing – OODA Loop concept (issue an order after executing one) isn't that complex, and it is adequate for me to portray the action more historically.

Wolfhag

👍🏻
"Complexity vs Inadequacy: I think that using the Action Timing – OODA Loop concept (issue an order after executing one) isn't that complex, and it is adequate for me to portray the action more historically.

Wolfhag"

As you say, the abstraction, imo also leads to complicated (I've talked e forever about how I view complicated ≠ complexity. The things were are modeling are complex, but we don't want it to become complicated. 🫣)
One abstraction leads to others needing to be made.
Understanding what we're trying to represent in itself and keep the representation in line with that.

Games tend to work from how games normally work as a starting point because we tend to stick to what we know and then approach the problem from there.

However as I've said before, we can't solve a problem with the same thinking that created it.

I guess that I embrace Inadequacy, at least in the context of this thread.
Particularly since I have no clue what an OODA Loop is, and have no desire whatever to learn. I've gone all these years without a clue, and I can go on for many more.
So, I guess the OP can claim victory. 😄

link

Funnily this came up given some of what was discussed earlier about terminology and the uninitiated. 😉

Particularly since I have no clue what an OODA Loop is, and have no desire whatever to learn. I've gone all these years without a clue, and I can go on for many more.

With all due respect, John, this has to be the most amusing post I've ever seen on TMP.

It's like saying, "I have no clue what breathing is, and have no desire whatever to learn. I've gone all these years without a clue, and I can go on for many more.

I'll let you remain clueless, but maybe etotheipi can clue you in.

LOL.

Wolfhag

I was going to say… I've rejected many things, but not before understanding about them.
🤷🫣🫡

I'll let you remain clueless, but maybe etotheipi can clue you in.

I could try, but the OFM seems to take pride in posting about how I am on stifle for him and he doesn't read my posts.

He would probably have to avtually read this thread, as well, since the OP doesn't mention the OODA loop, nor has UshCha in this thread. Only people arguing against the content of the OP have mentioned it. So, I'm not sure what mocking the OP on something it doesn't talk about means.

Also, we're accessing this over the Internet, so a simple web search would give plenty of basic info. My fist result was the Wikipedia article, which is perfectly adequate for an initial understanding. Really, just getting "Observe Orient Decide Act" and knowing what a loop is is enough to start you down the road.

There are four concepts for Action Timing:

This looks like a decent implementation with enough variability to create a challenge and not let the tech specs of weapons and platforms dominate.

I especially like how you treat "situational awareness" as the ability to use information to inform a decision instead of (what militaries too often default to) granularity, volume, and scope of information available.

I have a couple of colleagues at work who were army tankers. I'll run these ideas by them to see what they think. Honestly, with a couple other considerations added this is a solid baseline for capital ship combat through modern naval engagements.

So, I broke down and Googled "OODA Loop". 🙄
I found mysterious cabalistic diagrams that seemed to be summoning demons. Pentagrams!

From Wikipedia, sub paragraph Criticism.
"Some scholars are critical of the concept. Aviation historian Michael Hankins, for example, writes that "the OODA loop is vague enough that its defenders and attackers can each see what they want to see in it. For some, the OODA concept's flexibility is its strength, but for others it becomes so generalized as to lose its usefulness." He concludes that "The OODA loop is merely one way among a myriad of ways of describing intuitive processes of learning and decision making that most people experience daily. It is not incorrect, but neither is it unique or especially profound.""
So, yes. I tried to enlighten myself. Old dog new tricks. 🤷
I succeeded only in confusing myself. How that is supposed to aid me in playing, or designing wargames escaped me.
I left theology behind when I graduated college. I gather it had something profound to say about decision making. I've achieved my "three score and ten" without needing it, and I'll continue being blissfully ignorant. 👍
But, carry on! It seems to amuse you lads, and far be it from me to discourage you.

I know! Let's have a spelling contest!

Pentagrams!

You should probably tackle basic math, first.

From Wikipedia, sub paragraph Criticism.

The fact that someone makes a criticism means it has merit. You might as well believe a criticism of Elon Musk for making cars that catch fire and can't be extinguished.

It is, in fact, a top-level framework. The Hankins critique treats it like it was intended to be a fully-formed implementable model. You might as well critique the set of counting numbers for being "so generalized as to lose its usefulness".

I left theology behind when I graduated college.

If you count military operations analysis as theology, I can see why you left it behind.

I may have a reading comprehension problem myself, since I don't see the mandate from anyone that you learn it. Or you just attacking statements nobody made again? One of your specialties.

I keep seeing these wide open blank spaces from some dude who called me a liar.🤥
Not worth the effort to un-stifle. It's not as if he ever has anything useful to say. 🤷
Just like it's not worth the effort to wade through the fever swamp that is OODA. My life would not be enriched either way.
Would someone, preferably someone I haven't stifled, please take the time to explain why I would need OODA for a Comanche raid with a counterattack by Texas Rangers? Or Pandours vs Freikorps?
It is a puzzlement.

😀😃😄 and I thought Ushcha could be bad.

No one said you should use… or even understand… just questioned your blanket statements about not wanting to know about it.. to then fo some work and then seem to misunderstand or claim it so you can make inaccurate statements about applicability and usefulness 😀🤷 then ask other people to tell you why you would need to use it. 🤷😵‍💫

Unless of course the point is to maintain the conflict? 🤷

Design your games as you choose.

Though for someone who claims disinterest in so many things and people, you like to engage with those things/people… i mean as doctor Phil would say if one keeps engaging in negative situations.. it must be giving you something 🤔

Would someone, preferably someone I haven't stifled, please take the time to explain why I would need OODA for a Comanche raid with a counterattack by Texas Rangers? Or Pandours vs Freikorps?

That is what I said. It's not like I'm telling a Calvinist that he's a fool for believing in predestination. I'm not telling a Catholic that the Trinity is absurd.
I'm simply wondering why I need to utilize "OODA Loop", or whatever it is, when I've been gaming since the 1970s and didn't think I needed it.
If I have offended any Loopists…. Oh, so what. Jargon users need to be offended! 😄 Harrumph! Harrumph, I say!
And I don't have a blog either!