"IGYG and the OODA Loop game mechanics comparison" Topic

Disclaimer: I wanted to make a fair and equal comparison of these two types of systems. I acknowledge I'm not a know it all and have bias towards OODA.

To overcome these handicaps, I enlisted the use of AI telling it to be fair and balanced in collecting and comparing the two systems. However, I did editing and made additions and corrections so I would not call this an AI generated article, just AI assisted in collecting and evaluating the information to ensure an equal comparison.

I've taken some online AI courses and am aware of it's limitations and not to totally rely on it. If you want to discuss AI with me start a new post, I'd be glad to contribute.

This is a comparison. I'm not going to say one is better than the other as that's up to the player, their individual taste and what they want to get out of the hobby. I will relate my experience and what I like.

Summary: The choice between the two depends on the desired level of realism, strategic depth, and player interaction for the specific game design.

New players will be more familiar with IGYG but OODA is more natural and intuitive once understood.

The OODA Loop emphasizes rapid iteration and continuous adaptation to an opponent's actions, leading to a faster and potentially more engaging game experience.

IGOUGO provides a more structured and predictable experience, prioritizing the completion of a player's plan within their designated turn. With IGYG there are more abstractions and rules needed to parse the action like activations, and separate phases for orders, spotting, movement, shooting, etc.

OODA can smoothly recreate simultaneous action unfolding in seconds, minutes, hours, or days and allow players to pause the game at any time to react to enemy threats. In IGYG they must wait for their turn.

Since OODA reflects real historical action the same Action Timing, and "Play the Loop" (in the same turn you execute an order, loop back to Observe and issue your new order) system can be used for almost any period of warfare.

IGYG works better for large operational level games with dozens of units, OODA works better for skirmishing and tactical level games with fewer units because there is more detail and some record keeping.

OODA is better suited for "Design for Cause" showing the historical reasons behind the actions and results. IGYG is better for "Design for Effect" because you can use a higher level of abstraction to get a quicker result.

Here's a breakdown of the differences between the "I Go You Go" and the OODA Loop mechanics

These are the areas I wanted to compare and pointed the AI at.

Game Design:
IGYG Uses abstracted and semi-historical game rules and mechanics as a playable way to sequentially parse the action of units within a game turn of specified amount of time, generally minutes or hours. Players do not need to have a high level of understanding of combat and tactics. There are normally special rules and exceptions for Opportunity Fire. The turn sequence tells the players what to do, when and how often. This makes it easy for new players as there is very little planning involved. Tactics are mainly special rules and die roll modifiers. Generally, players must wait for their turn to do something.

OODA: The action revolves around individual unit historical OODA Loop Decision Timing to execute an order and parse the moving and shooting action. Movement is simultaneous. Opportunity Fire is more accurate without needing additional rules. There is no turn sequence. Players select an action and/or tactic and determine how many turns (seconds, minutes, hours) it will take to execute.
there is no orders phase. Since units are are always active and observing, they can react at any time to enemy threats including canceling orders. Players must have the knowledge of real tactics and how they are carried out which can make it difficult for new players to fully experience the game.

Player duties and responsibility:
IGYG: Each turn is structured with the action performed in a specific or randomized sequence. In most systems, players wait for their turn to perform an action. There are many variations of IGYG.

OODA: Players record their unit Act Time and pause the game at the future time to execute the order and immediately issue their next order. Because units are always active and observing, they can pause the game at any time to react to enemy activity.

Main Rules and Mechanics:
IGYG: initiative, Order Phase, Unit Activation, Command Points, Opportunity Fire, Turn Interrupts. Random actions can occur if using cards.

OODA: Action Timing, Act Time, Situational Awareness, Engagement Delays, Virtual Movement, Mutual LOS Reactions, Target Engagement. SNAFUs and cards can be used for random actions.

Record Keeping:
IGYG: Minimal. Players track the game through a specific sequence of actions during a turn. There is no recordkeeping for individual units.

OODA: For each unit, players must record the Act Time future turn their order will execute. The game clock keeps track of the turns.

Turn Structure:
IGYG: Players take turns completing all their actions before the next player acts. There are many variations and activation methods.

OODA: Players determine the Act Time an order will be executed. At that time he pauses the game, executes his order and does it over again.

Order Execution:
IGYG: Orders are executed immediately when it is your turn, which is unrealistic but playable.

OODA: Orders take time to plan and have the crews execute them. Better crews are quicker. There are several historical "Risk-Reward Tactical Decisions" for players to trade decreased accuracy for increased speed of order execution.

Player Agency:
IGYG: Limited interaction during the opponent's turn, often restricted to defensive reactions. Players must follow the turn sequence.
OODA: High player agency and interaction. Continuous observation and reaction to opponent actions. Poor tactics will result in a delay to issue an order.

Ease of Play:
IGYG: Players follow a set sequence of actions alternating turns making it easy for all players to follow.

OODA: Using customized unit data cards and in game QR code activated videos eliminates the need to look up rules. There are fewer rules.

Fog of War:
IGYG: Actions (ex. random activations) are normally predictable through the IGYG turn sequence.

OODA: Act Times are secretly recorded. No one knows for sure which unit will execute their order next. Random actions and SNAFUs can easily be integrated.

Movement:
IGYG: Players take turns moving one or more units until all of them have been moved. Some rules allow for the non-moving player to react. Need special Opportunity Fire rules and exceptions.

OODA: Uses the concept of "Virtual Movement" where simultaneously each turn moving units "virtually" move an increment of distance based on their speed. This synchronizes movement and rates of fire without special Opportunity Fire rules.

Pace of Play:
IGYG: Can lead to downtime for the inactive player(s) waiting for their turn. Some designs allow for interrupting your opponents turn sequence.

OODA: Creates a faster, more dynamic and fluid pace of play. It's always your turn to react.

Decision-Making:
IGYG: Players can plan their turn fully, normally without immediate opponent interference.
OODA: Requires rapid assessment, adaptation, and prediction of opponent actions and movement.

Information Flow:
IGYG: Information is processed in distinct segments (turns). You must wait
until your turn to react to new changes and information on the enemy.

OODA: Continuous flow of information and feedback, driving subsequent decisions and reactions based on the increment of time being used.

Game Balance:
IGYG: Easy to balance the game by allowing both sides a limited number of equal actions to perform in a turn. Some systems allow a chance for additional actions or activations and to interrupt your opponents turn.

OODA: is Time Competitive. Historically quicker units will execute more orders within a specific time period than slower units giving them an advantage. Real combat is not balanced and fair.

Historical Recreation:
IGYG: Very hard to recreate historical fluid action except in an abstracted manner as real combat is not IGYG, fair or balanced.

OODA: Using a Game Clock, the action smoothly and historically unfolds in the time slices of the game (seconds, minutes, hours, etc.). By not artificially balancing the game system, you can get a better comparison of tactics and weapons platform performance. You tweak the scenario to balance the game.

My preferences: I've been playing traditional IGYG board and miniature games for over 50 years. For the last 10 years I've been developing and playing OODA games using individual units up to Battalion level WWII, ship-ship and am working on air combat. I prefer OODA for miniatures and smaller board game scenarios and IGYG for large scale games.

My opinion: OODA is more predictable but in the same way if you observed a real battle the next 10-20 seconds the action would be pretty much but not entirely predictable. OODA forces players to concentrate on tactics and timing. They must pay attention during the entire game as they are no traditional turn of move/shoot sequence.

Example: You want to shoot at a moving target traveling 25kph. You know from experience that your tank and crew will take 15 seconds to react, engage and shoot. After 15 seconds the target would have traveled about 100m. Now if the target would have dodged out of your LOS in that time the shooting player can Snap Shoot sooner but with an accuracy penalty. It's his "Risk-Reward Tactical Decision", not the dice or a turn sequence. This portrays opportunity fire with no additional rules or exceptions.

Movement: OODA allowed me, with the help of others, to develop a playable simultaneous movement system without plotting. As each game turn from the clock is announced, all units with a movement marker advance to the next 1-9 segment on the marker. Players can pause the game to maneuver or decelerate to Halt Fire. This synchronizes movement and rates of fire streamlining opportunity fire. Hopefully, this video will give a clear example of virtual movement and how players react to shoot when a new LOS is created from movement:
link

This really speeds up the multi-player games.

IGYG is more about the sequence of play and any particular variations of which there are many. OODA eliminates the need for IGYG rules such as activation, initiative determination, move/shoot phase, orders phase, etc.

At first glance OODA seems more complicated. However, once understood players realize it is natural and intuitive. I've found that many players prefer specific abstracted traditional IGYG mechanics, sometimes because they've developed their own to fit generate the experience they desire in a game, just as I have.

One other interesting thing I've found in an OODA system. No game designer can cover everything in detail that can occur on a battlefield. When we run into something not covered or an anomaly, rather than coming up with a new rule or die roll modifier that can impact other rules, we look for real life examples or look in the manuals. This has allowed us to recreate in detail and playability almost any tactic or maneuver in armored and infantry warfare. Rather than memorizing rules, memorize tactics and how to execute them.

In the end both give a different gaming experience. The best one is the one you prefer.

By January I'll have the intro version of the game available and my YouTube channel finished. I hate reading rules so I'll have many detailed videos available.

Wolfhag

IGYG for me is a game concept and how games have tended to be played and we recognise it and its how games get played.
The thinking I think being… I want to design a game.. how do games work. Then it becomes a self reinforcing concept.

"OODA" is model for the real world that we can and you have used to structure a game. The downside is breaking the mental modelling of what a "game" is, even for the willing. Many nisybreject different ideas as they'd rather stick with what they know.

Certainly "OODA" feels more like the experience we are representing.
In a IGYG model I'm still in an OODA cycle. But my ability to respond is not determined by my choices as much as it is determined by where the game cycle currently is.

Even out of box games like Crossfirw are still locked in to a IGYG thinking. In that when I don't have initiate it can't do anything… anywhere. Adding an OODA element to it would make a different experience.

First like Wofhag I must declaere my bias. I am in favor of Hybrid/element interactive IGOUGOI systems so like Wolfhags analysis mine reflects my opinions and should be viewed in that light. As as Wolhag would expect, much of this I do not entirely agree with but some issues are common. Certainly in our rules which are neither traditional IGYG or OODA we tend to the OODA axis as it is IGOYGO but not on one side goes then the other but on a more interactive Unit by unit level.

Our system is generally optimized for single player gaming. You can play multiplayer games but like the real military (we only deal with WW2 and beyond) that is done by splitting into areas of responsibility (unit boundaries). That probably does not work for games where there are lots of beginners who are insufficiently aware of the historic requirements and are unfamiliar with the rules.

Being a "hybrid" while not being as detailed as the OODA system described, it can operate at company level in an evening game. It certainly dispenses with the rigidity, of the conventional turn sequence which in some convectional IGUGO systems, is long and to my mind painful. Command flows down naturally with delays being more extensive from higher levels as wold be expected. Some immediate data can be passed up the command sequence faster but at the expanse of lower level command. The platoon commander has to beak off talking to his sub units if he wants to pass vital information upwards quickly.

Much depends on the Granuality of the system. In a conventional IGOUGO system you expect 6 to perhaps 8 Bounds in an evening, call them decision points. Our game (it's a bit faster in some ways) can achieve perhaps 10 bounds but in terms of decision point there is at least double the number. We sort of have 1/2 convectional moves but not using rules, look it as interrupt points, plus some opportunities to accelerate in terms of short duration events.

So on balance the OODA analysis stand and the IGOUGO analysis of the conventional IGOUGO systems looks valid to me.

However it does not In my opinion cover the more fluid element/unit IGOYGO systems, which though not OODA comes far closer in a less detailed and faster methodology while achieving a good perhaps 80% of the OODA system with less complexity. It is again about what the players capabilities and requirements are.

PS Wolfhag, on the Bren vs Bar in retrospect I don't think my posts sufficiently my respect for an excellent and informative thread. This more complex issue may well prove as valuable.

Thought about this more. Traditional vs Hybrid IGOYGO vs OODA systems. The OODA and Hybrid systems have not only more decision points they also have many more closer to actuality decisions. In both OODA and Hybrid systems the timing is more precise and shorter. So deciding which tank or infantry group will take the ove watch role, possibly from a distance so they get a wider field of view and fire response arc, vs those closing with the actual or assumed enemy advance.

This is far more fluid when you have lots of decision points so bounding over watch becomes more plausible, you have lots of decision points so that real Bounding over watch can be modelled. Difficult if you only have at best 8 decision points in a Traditional IGOUGO system vs 20+ in a Hybrid system.

This does highlight the need to understand the period tactics.. This is either a great advantage or disadvantage depending the nature of the participant of a game.

We have a player that knows nothing of the game but as it lacks the many abstractions of traditions IGOUGO games he can just describe what he wants to do and it easy to implement in a way he can understand so update his brief as required.

Horses foir courses.

Good points, especially about decision density. OODA and Hybrid systems do allow for far more granular, tactically realistic choices than traditional IGOUGO turn cycles.

Those micro-decisions fit perfectly at the squad or platoon level, where leaders are making second-by-second choices.

Once you move to company or battalion command, timing expands and the friction comes from other sources: delayed orders, lost tempo, morale pressure, and how many meaningful decisions a HQ can manage.

So for me, the distinction isn't which system is "better" — it's matching the mechanism to the level of war.
• OODA-style timing works for small-unit fights.
• Hybrid IGYG fits platoon-level reactivity.
• Higher formations need abstractions of timing rather than literal timing.

I agree that systems with less abstraction allow players to simply state intent and let the mechanics express it.

Also completely agree that traditional IGYG creates a lot of dead time for the non-active player. In my experience, that leads to two major issues:
1. Inactive players mentally drift. They stop observing the battlefield,
stop planning, and stop caring until their next turn arrives.
2. Active players feel time pressure. Not from battlefield friction, but
from social pressure to "hurry up so the other side can go."

Neither of those dynamics reflects warfare, and both distort decision-making.

This is a challenge I run into as I work on a battalion level game design. Downtime breaks immersion, kills tempo, and undermines the feel of a fluid engagement. At that scale, I don't want one side paused while the other side plays out a full sequence. I want both players constantly engaged – tracking degradation, reacting to friction, and managing momentum.

The friction should exist inside the game world, not between the players standing at the table. :)

Mister H, my personal cut off forat lest for hybrid games is Company level command. Many books and a serving officer I was in contact with put this as the "tactical" limit anyway, beyond that it becomes more strategic and logisticly facing.

Otherwise I agree with you.

Battalion games so called in amny cases are not that. They are lots platoon games in reality. Much of the battalion level work has finnished by the time the toys are on table, Artillery allocated and boudaries set. Support systems requested and supplied.

In moderen faster operiod perhaps the artillery could be rapidly displaced but even a battalion game my not extend deep enough to cover artillery positions.

we do use our Hybrid rules at battalion level over multi evening games but the high level functions are about wher/when to re-fuel and rearm. If we need to seen the immediate replenishment group on table to avoid a rapidly deteriorating supply issue. It also covers re-supply of artillery battries ans who gets what and when with artillery support.

I like the OODA loop system and have run many professional wargames for militaries that work on the same concept – you issue an order and X time slices pass before its completion (or the order reaches an adjudiction stage), during which other entities (yours, theirs, gray units) could reach an adjudication stage, and your progress could be interrupted by another unit interacting with your unit while it is in the process of executing an order.
I'm not sure the things you call out for IGOUGO are necessary characteristics of the system itself, but probably represent a fair number of implementations.

One example:

IGYG: Players take turns moving one or more units until all of them have been moved. Some rules allow for the non-moving player to react. Need special Opportunity Fire rules and exceptions.

IGOUGO does not require moving all your figures in a turn. "Action Point" systems do not allow that (in most situations).

The difference between "I gave an order to move to Hill X. Time, distance, uncontrollable conditions, morale, gear status, etc. mean it takes 3 time segments. I wait 3 time segments to give the next order." and "I want to move to Hill X. I move 1/3 of the way due to [conditions, as above]. Then my next turn I move the next 1/3 – I gave a "separate order" technically, but not substantially. Then on my third turn, I get to Hill X and can give a new order the next turn." is one of form, not function.

Both systems allow another unit to see me, suss out what I am doing (the OODA loop system, if it requires the calculation of the time segments in public actually reveals more about what I am doing than the IGOUGO), and shoot at me in segment 2/turn 2.

Both systems allow me to stop at segment 1/turn 1 and turn my attention to Enemy Big Fat Target that just moved into my line of fire.

Because your system focuses on an OODA Loop, you probably gravitate toward a different set of characteristics that affect how an order executes than other systems. For higher levels of command, that is closer to the way many eras high-level commanders tend to think, and certainly follows the way many of them are trained.

"CASSIUS: Did Cicero say any thing?
CASCA: Ay, he spoke Greek.
CASSIUS: To what effect?
CASCA: Nay, an I tell you that, I'll ne'er look you i' the face again: but those that understood him smiled at one another and shook their heads; but, for mine own part, it was Greek to me."

The assessment seems just a little biased with statements like "IGYG doesn't require tactical knowledge". It also seems to be primarily considering more modern warfare at low levels, where OODA loop times are short. I think it is important to consider the OODA process when writing rules, which is why my divisional level Napoleonic rules have a turn time of ~7.5 minutes as this was the rough order of time I calculated a divisional general would need ot get his next order to a brigade or demi-brigade/regiment and get it implemented. This produces some quite large movement distances which players find surprising until they given it a try [or it frightens them off because it doesn't conform to 'wargames standards'.

In the end it's end user satisfaction that matters so their is no 'right' answer that fits everyone, but I think it is a useful exercise to expand the comparison as you've done.

Yes, there are a variety of ways to do bout the same thing.

I think you can look at OODA as "I go before you go because I'm quicker or using better tactics. You can go after me if you are still alive."

The timing through a units OODA Loop will depend on friction from a variety of factors. I think one of the biggest factors is in Observation or what I call Situational Awareness. In the game, as in combat, units are always observing and players can pause the game at any time to react to a new LOS from movement or other enemy threats.

Being unbuttoned/unsuppressed, over watching in the right direction, and good crew is best. The worst friction is from buttoned up/suppressed, flanked or surprised or the enemy appearing in your Blind Spot. Friction increases time through the Loop or what I call an Engagement Delay.

Example: an enemy tank comes into my LOS through a tree line on my 90 degree left flank. Both players pause the game for a Situational Awareness Check. He is fortunate to have his gun pointing at me for great SA, I'm pointing 90 degrees away so poor SA.

His SA Check results in no delay and he can fire in 6 seconds/turns because his gun is already pointed at me. This is an ideal engagement for him.

My result of poor SA is an Engagement Delay of 7 seconds before I actually notice him. It's somewhat arbitrary and abstracted but I've run it by a few former TCs and they said it's fine. He fires one second before I notice him, the round penetrates doing nasty things inside my tank which is my clue that I've been totally surprised. No additional rules are needed.

Lets examine a situation where a Sherman and Panther D engage on equal terms static and flanked 90 degrees to each other. The D model had a traverse of about 6 degrees per second, the Sherman 25 degrees with the TC able to traverse and fire without the gunner. It will take the Panther 15 seconds to engage.

The Sherman TC takes 4 seconds to get the gun on target and immediately fires a Snap Shoot (assume a round in the chamber and elevation set to engage) with a slight accuracy penalty.

Now the gunner takes over Fire Control and another round is in the chamber and fired in 5-6 seconds. We are into the engagement for about 10 seconds, the Sherman has shot twice and the Panther still has 5 more seconds to get off a Snap Shot with an accuracy penalty of take an additional 5-6 seconds without an accuracy penalty. So the Sherman will get three free shots at the Panthers flank before he gets off one shot. Guess who wins that engagement.

Of course the Panther player, seeing this predicament, could decide to move out, evade and try to get out of the Sherman's LOS. He could neutral turn at 10 degrees per second but risks over revving his engine and throwing a track. A tight turn also risks throwing a track.

Sherman's, because of the transmission type, could not pivot in place. He could decide to move out, turn and hit the Panther in the rear.

In the famous Pershing and Panther engagement at Cologne (I've been there) the Pershing know where the Panther was and had his turret turned 90 degrees to the right to fire as he went into the intersection. Unknown to the Pershing commander, the Panther had for some reason traversed his turret to over watch the intersection the Pershing had to move into to shoot. The Panther commander survived the encounter and said when the Pershing pulled into the intersection, he delayed shooting because he did not recognize the Pershing and thought it may be a new German model. Poor SA/intel resulted in an Engagement Delay which was deadly for the Panther. There is a chance of that happening in my system too. An Engagement Delay because even with ideal conditions.

Delays (simulating friction) are deadly and give your opponent a chance to seize the initiative to shoot first (no special initiative rules are needed). Where you over watch and tactics to use are up to the player, not the dice.

In these examples you have a pretty accurate historical example of an engagement, rate of fire and multiple decision points and Risk-Reward tactics for both players.

The Sherman could have taken an extra 4-5 seconds allowing the gunner to get off the first shot without an accuracy penalty from a Snap Shot.

In training new Sherman crews would take 30 seconds to engage a target 45 degrees off and fire. The training level was 15 seconds. Combat proven crews could do it in 10 seconds. This is the baseline I use. Better crews are quicker, poor crews slower for the same weapons platform.

I think it's fair to say my system is validated historically to a high degree. Why? Because I designed it that way using historical timing values. Guns with two-part ammo like 122 and 152mm ammo will take 25-30 seconds to reload, etc.

There are accounts of Panzer IIIs flanking an engaged T-34/76 (buttoned up because the TC is also the gunner) and getting off three shots before the T-34 can fire once. It can work that way in my system because I designed it using the historical values.

The most important thing is that it is playable even for new players and the data card has all of the historical choices and decisions you can make and how to make them. When in doubt, use common sense.

Wolfhag

Thanks, UshCha – I appreciate your thoughtful input, and it's reassuring to see how closely our understandings align.

Your point about the practical upper limit for hybrid/OODA-style command systems being around the company level matches exactly how my game is structured. Platoons maintain cohesion as a company-sized formation, not a battalion. The company set the tempo, the platoons follow through with the intent. At a battalion-size game, players are making decisions for roughly three to five command elements, which is precisely the scale where intent-based orders, tempo, and command friction remain meaningful without overwhelming the player.

As you note, real battalion-level decisions are made by the time forces are committed. I agree. For me, those battalion-level logistics and shaping decisions appear only in a campaign system, where they naturally belong, not in the one-off tactical scenarios.

I'm with you on your observation that so-called "battalion games" devolve into oversized platoon bashes with little maneuver and a lot of administrative overhead. I treat the company as the decision-making nucleus and focus the player's attention on intent, tempo, and local combined-arms effects—not on individually commanding 15+ platoons.

As you note, real battalion-level decisions are made by the time forces are committed. I agree. For me, those battalion-level logistics and shaping decisions appear only in a campaign system, where they naturally belong, not in the one-off tactical scenarios.

You can implement like that, but that is not a property of battallion level warfare in the modern era you are discussing.

There are battallion level tasks that don't align with a tactical OODA loop – Mission analysis, COA development, Deliberate targeting, Task organization planning, Annex production, etc.

But there are also many that do: IPR planning/execution cycle, Dynamic targeting, C2 synchronization, Maneuver Control, Network management, Protection, Sustainment, etc.

It depends on what you want to focus on.

so-called "battalion games" devolve into oversized platoon bashes with little maneuver and a lot of administrative overhead

Characterization depends on the point of your sim. I've run staff-level wargames on stuff like the IPR cycle that could hand-wave the tactical details, but more likely had them scripted.

Again, it depends on the focus, which is constrained by the nature of the battle. Since we've mentioned WWII:

Kursk – Preplanned staff level orders, little operational or tactical level interaction. Not a good staff OODA environment.

Normandy – Staffs reallocate effort between Caen sector and US breakout sector, shift air and artillery concentrations, adapt to bocage realities after D+5–10, frequently repositioned Kampfgruppen, reacted to airborne landings and beach penetrations, directed local counterattacks.

These reactions are on the fractions of days time scale, not hourly. Good OODA modeling material. I think that is beneath the "campaign level" action into operaitonal relevance, but not tactical.

Rommel in Africa – Rommel's Panzerarmee Afrika Corps and army level HQs repeatedly reoriented main effort, detached and recombined battle groups, shifted axes of advance during operations at a pace of hours or faster.

Where their staff actions were good, the actually beats opponents to decisions, and has direct tactical level impact the core point of OODA.

Thanks, etotheipi — understood that real battalion staffs handle IPR cycles, targeting, sustainment, and more.

The design choices here are to focus on the decisions that matter at the tactical point of contact. By the time contact happens, the battalion has already done most of its staff work. Players wrestle with intent, tempo, and the interaction of companies and platoons, not administrative overhead.

Shifting pre-battle shaping and logistics to a campaign layer (when a campaign is played) lets the tabletop fight stay fast, meaningful, and engaging. This approach is about where the fun and tactical decision-making actually live. After a 46-year career in corporate management, I have no desire to emulate real-world staff functions. 😜

By the time contact happens, the battalion has already done most of its staff work.

My point is that depends on the nature of the engagement and how it is run.

In the Rommel example (and post-Normandy mobility, the Adrennes, early Barbarossa, etc.) staff actions were at the tempo of ops and did impact tactics. As you move into the modern age, that becomes more common.

Intel is the easiest example. Tactical units forward intel demands, staffs reschedule assets, setup delivery pipelines, deliver the intel. In the other direction staffs have a broader view of the battlefield, enemy reinforcements, civilian evacuees, etc. and provide changes to the initial plan. That's what FRAGOs are all about.

Of course, if it isn't your preference, you don't have to game that. You can script it or randomized it at an aggregate level.

That's what I would do with the tactical engagements for running tactical response staff exercises. If the situation doesn't evolve, there's no need to practice the replanning steps. If the tactical unit never requests additional information, or a shift an air cover, the staff won't run those either.

etotheipi, good points, understood. Staff actions can influence the tactical fight in real time. Many actions happened during the battle, not just before it.

My design intent isn't to deny that reality, but to choose where the player's decision space lives. At the scale I'm working with, I want the tabletop to stay focused on what the player can meaningfully influence inside the immediate engagement: tempo, local initiative, intent….

The staff‑level replanning, intel routing, and asset management you're describing certainly matter — just not at the depth or timescale I want to game. As you suggest, script it or randomized it at an aggregate level – done best if players recognize what the effect represents.

choose where the player's decision space lives

That is something far too many people who write games don't start with.

Thanks – appreciate that. Starting with the player's decision space keeps the whole design focused and grounded. 👍

"choose where the player's decision space lives". I agree entirely and I'd add "and don't let the player be every subordinate commander down the line2.

Question for those of you who play OODA loop rules [which is in effect George Jeffries variable length bound]. Can you do it without an umpire.

No umpire? Yes.

It does take some admin. I've done the same process with a "timing sheet", and with a stack of "order tokens".

The timing sheet is like what I hear in Wolfhag's description. You have a grid, you write the order (usually encoded) in a slot, figure the time, and draw an arrow down to the next time slot where that order finishes.

I suppose you could call the timekeeper an "umpire" of sorts, but really they don't have substantive decision making. You could (though I have not) replace them with a voice controlled data entry app on a spreadsheet.

Order tokens work reasonably when there are five or fewer time steps. You stack order tokens next to your unit, then reveal them in reverse order off the stack, and execute your "mini order" each time step.

and don't let the player be every subordinate commander down the line

Agreed. So, when a player issues a command order to subordinate units on the table, those sub-units are bound by the order to move and engage in a particular manner. No second guessing.

Order tokens work reasonably when there are five or fewer time steps. You stack order tokens next to your unit, then reveal them in reverse order off the stack, and execute your "mini order" each time step

So the orders are strung together to create an order chain? Are there any limitations to the chain length? The number of sequenced orders, chance for orders corruption?

For example, when my wife sends me to the grocery store, the chances that I bring back everything she has asked for decreases exponentially with the number and type of items she wants me to buy. There will be consequences. 🤪

Question for those of you who play OODA loop rules [which is in effect George Jeffries variable length bound]. Can you do it without an umpire.

I was using command chits on a time sheet/clock with 60 squares for one minute. However, that has a foot print, the chits are fiddly and can get knocked about.

Now I put the time sheet / clock on a clipboard. Players write the order they'll be executing in the future time slot. Some players use a 5x7 index card. Whatever works.

Since all players have the clock in front of them any or all players can call out the turns and everyone knows where we are. When the game time gets to your order execution time, pause the game, execute the order (record the result if you like), observe the results, react to a new threat or issue and record your next move or shoot order in the future time slot on the turn sheet/clock it executes.

Over Watch is the default order, no need to record it. Your turret/gun should be pointed at your target so no need to record the target ID. Record the ammo if unclear.

If you missed pausing the game to execute an order you can do it in the current game time, if you are still alive. It's what I call a "Player Generated Delay."

Example: At a game time of 3:27 you were supposed to shoot but realize it at 3:31. Pause the game and shoot at 3:31 if able to.

Having a remote control digital clock to put on the wall would be cool. Put it in "time set" mode, set the game time and them use the remote to advance it second by second. I would not have thought of it if not in this discussion. Thanks guys!

Wolfhag

I think proably a more traditional IGYGO system would do for Battalion battles and above. At most a hybrid system. Even though Higher levels can supply information that peculates to the front line it will take time to acquire and relay the information. In WW2 there would be lots of radio relays to supply data effectively. From say a forward platoon, or even the recon further ahead in the FEOB to its master, then through the network to the unit/units it impacts. Even allocating new batteries to direct support of a critical unit. I believe this was the case in one of the early Ardens Offensives on the Allied side, it takes a fair bit of time and may even have required relocation of the guns, certainly re-orientation.

Certainly I don't see the mechaism this as much a problem, as the high level games I have seen look like tactical games. The terrain in no way reflects the far more complex sightlines and road networks over the far larger distances involved. In Norther Europe when a company frontage could be 1500m where typically sight lines above 1500m are rare and in many places far less. Typicall (but not always, battles were foaught over 500 to 1500m sight lines if not in say dense forrest or Urban areas where a battalion level game would offer little interest anyway. A Battalion defense could be spead over 3000m (500m a platoon in 2 up 1 back formation).

Are there any limitations to the chain length?

Only practical meta-game ones. Once you go past five, you risk knocking them over, around, and general gooning it up.

That is not a problem with Wolfhag's system.

chance for orders corruption?

Either system can implement that. I think it is easier/feels more natural with order tokens.

For example, prior to order token execution, roll 2d6, execute if you roll higher than the number of tokens/spaces (progressively easier as you get to toward the end, but starting harder with a longer order chain). You can also have something like "low fail" on roll equals number of tokens; high fail roll is less than number of tokens.

Of course, you can have different difficulties (different color tokens) or bonuses for different types of unit (conscripts, regulars, elites), or use a different adjudication altogether.

Having a remote control digital clock to put on the wall would be cool.

You can buy or make a digital one of those. I would recommend a flip counter, like used in sports. It's a little more stable and a little more forgiving.

link

I ordered a digital clock with a wireless remote control. I figure if I put the "set alarm" feature on I can increase the time remotely one by one.

choose where the player's decision space lives

I think two factors come into play:
1- How small the increment of time is you are using.
2- OODA is natural, as soon as you Act you immediately and automatically loop back to Observe the result of your order/action in the same turn.

OODA also states you are always observing. That means while an order is being executed, if you can observe a new threat or get a new intel report (Observe), you can cancel the current order and start a new loop to issue a new one.

This is where the concept of "getting inside your opponents Loop" enters into the picture. If you shoot before your opponent you are starting a new loop (reloading to shoot again) before he gets off his first shot. At the higher levels of command, constantly getting inside your opponents command loop give you the initiative to set the tempo of the battle keeping the defender on the defensive. This makes it difficult to mount a counter attack.

At higher levels of command you are looking at a delay in the command loop. The delay can be from poor observation, communication or commanders unsure and not making a decision.

If your intel is better than your opponent your command loop will be shorter, unless you have an unsure commander that will take longer to make a decision or troops too slow to execute.

At higher levels of command you may get an intel report about an enemy threat. Normally, the commander needs to have the report confirmed before issuing an order. The dilemma is he can issue an order now or wait for confirmation and it may be too late.

This was typical of the carrier wars in the Pacific in WWII where enemy sighting from air recon were unreliable.

It's a nice way of simulating the Fog of War. If a commander puts himself at the FEBA he can have a quicker command loop (no delay in observation and decision) but is most likely having his assistant handle the big picture and more likely become a causality.

In an IGYG game this can be somewhat simulated by a momentum rule or any method to let one player have more than one action in a turn before his opponent can respond.

If I were to scale my system from 1:1 vehicle to platoon stands I'd have a firing loop of a certain amount of time for each platoon depending on the vehicle and gun type and crew that would loosely be based on the gun rate of fire. When they shoot, they immediately determine if they will shoot at the same target, engage a new one or move/fall back.

Combat would be streamlined to a single die roll against a Pk number. Historically, most platoon sized AFV engagements didn't last for more than a few minutes.

Wolfhag

I have to ask – what does OODA mean ?

This sounds like a discussion one of my course teams had where we discussed 'multi-dimensional assessment spaces' and how to define them. We were making the terms up as we went along to try and get a handle on a knotty issue but, to anyone outside the discussion, we were talking gibberish.

GildasFacit,
link

OODA has been around as long as we have.

Below is a miniatures-wargamer-friendly explanation of the OODA Loop, followed by real-battle examples, and finally **three simple explanations for a brand-new player.

What the OODA Loop Means for Miniatures Wargamers

The **OODA Loop**—Observe, Orient, Decide, Act—is a mental cycle used to describe how fast a commander or unit can take in information, interpret it, make a choice, and carry it out.

In miniatures games, this directly maps to:

* **Spotting threats** (Observe)
* **Understanding what they mean for your plan** (Orient)
* **Picking a course of action** (Decide)
* **Executing a move/shot/ability** (Act)

A unit that completes this loop **faster** gets the initiative, reacts sooner, and can force the enemy into a reactive posture.
A unit that completes it **slowly** becomes predictable and vulnerable.

How OODA Was Reflected in Real Battles

Here are three real-world examples showing how loops were sped up or disrupted.

Example 1: **Battle of 73 Easting (1991) – U.S. M1A1 vs Iraqi Armour**

**Why it shows OODA:**
The U.S. armored cavalry had superior sensors, thermal sights, training, and communications.

* **Observe:** U.S. scouts spotted Iraqi tanks through a sandstorm at long range using thermals.
* **Orient:** They immediately understood the enemy formation, terrain, and threat lines.
* **Decide:** Command was able to issue fire orders almost instantly.
* **Act:** Tanks engaged and destroyed Iraqi armor before Iraqi crews fully realized they were being attacked.

**Effect:** Iraqi units got trapped in a huge OODA delay—by the time they *observed* the American tanks visually, they were already taking hits.
This is the textbook example of one side cycling far faster than the other.

---

Example 2: **Battle of Britain (1940) – RAF Fighter Command vs Luftwaffe**

**Why it shows OODA:**
British commanders used radar, observer corps, and centralized control to tighten their OODA loop while stretching the German loop.

* **RAF Observe:** Radar stations and ground spotters detected raids before German pilots were over the coast.
* **Orient:** Operations rooms plotted the paths and predicted targets.
* **Decide:** Controllers scrambled fighters where needed.
* **Act:** Squadrons intercepted raids at altitude instead of being surprised on the ground.

**Effect:**
The RAF repeatedly "reset" the Luftwaffe's OODA loop by forcing German bombers to react to unseen fighters already in position.

For a wargamer:
This is like having early-warning tokens and perfect intercept deployment against an attacker who only sees defenders when they appear.

---

Example 3: **Battle of Marathon (490 BCE) – Athenians vs Persians**

Even ancient battles show OODA concepts.

* **Observe:** Greeks saw the Persian cavalry re-embarking onto ships.
* **Orient:** They realized the Persians were temporarily without their strongest arm.
* **Decide:** Miltiades ordered an immediate full advance across the plain.
* **Act:** Hoplites attacked before cavalry could return.

**Effect:**
The Athenians forced a decision before the enemy could complete their own OODA cycle, turning a risky situation into a decisive victory.

For a wargamer:
This is striking a formation during its "vulnerable state" or while its strongest unit is off the table.

Three Clear, Simple Explanations for a New Player

1. The OODA Loop = How Fast You Take a Turn depending on the time scale of the turn.

Every unit is constantly doing:

1. **Observe** – What's happening?
2. **Orient** – What does it mean?
3. **Decide** – What should I do?
4. **Act** – Do it.

Units with better training or situational awareness "take their turn" faster and interrupt or out-react slower units.

---

2. The OODA Loop = Reaction Time in a Firefight

If you spot the enemy before they see you, your OODA loop is already ahead. This is why Situational Awareness and over watch direction are important.
That means:

* You shoot first
* They're reacting to you
* Their decisions are rushed, confused, or wrong

Getting inside someone's OODA loop means keeping them off balance.

---

3. The OODA Loop = Your Battle Plan Updating Itself

The loop represents how quickly your plan changes to match reality.
A fast OODA loop means you can:

* Adapt to threats
* Exploit openings
* Change tactics mid-battle

A slow OODA loop means your plan stays outdated while the enemy adapts faster.

It can replace traditional IGYG games with the amount of time it takes to execute an order. When you execute you "loop back" to observe the results and issue your next order.

It's the natural way you respond and do and action and carry out a task every day. For some reason, when you explain it to people they get confused.

Wolfhag

I think OODA as wolfhag says will work at whatever level. I think that's what me said 😀

As he says time increment is the decison, to match the unit size.

Obviously the larger unit or higher up the CoC the more of a factor the transmission of information becomes as the Observe is more Awareness.and as the battle space is expanded that has changed.

Ive found the transmission of information interesting. What information was passed along and when.

I remember reading abour subunits contacting higher command. Often either because thjng were going better than expected or worse. If things are OK, you'd be less likely to hear from them… or they've lost comms…. zor their wiped out.. or… Though that could also be affected by the personality of sub commanders. Cautious officer might radio to command more often. Confident or over Confident, may contact less.

UshCha had mentioned a hybrid IGYG / OODA system.

OODA is about timing but also issuing your next order immediately after executing one or shooting (Loop back to Observe). I think using 10 second turns would work to get a better historical rate of fire. A unit moving at 30kph would move about 85m. That should work to synchronize move and shoot rates better not needing additional opportunity fire rules.

Hybrid systems: There can be several ways to OODA-lize (you heard it first here) your turn sequence using a 10 second turn:

Random or chit draw activation for AFV or direct fire combat:

When the unit is activated and shoots, the player must immediately "Loop Back" to issue his next order for the unit. The orders are move (Shoot & Scoot), engage a new target, shoot again at the same target (reload), halt (Halt Fire), or over watch (default order). There are no modifiers.

Movement: All moving units have a movement marker and are simultaneously moved at the end of every turn. If a target moved out of your LOS you can immediately issue a new order.

Initiative determined by unit speed with modifiers:

At the start of a turn, determine when a unit executes/shoots by rolling a D10 for each unit replacing activations.

Modifiers:
1st Shot Snap Shot: If this is the first shot at a new target the player can give up to a -3 modifier but with an increasing to hit penalty for each turn. Reloads do not get a Snap Shot.

1st Shot Traverse Speed: Tanks with a traverse rate 20+ degrees per second a -2. Turrets with a traverse rate 15 degrees or less and assault guns a +2.

Range Finder: There is a +2 modifier with an accuracy bonus.

Moving Fire: +2 modifier with an accuracy penalty.

Rate of Fire: 122mm+ guns would shoot every other turn. Guns with a rate of fire of 10+ rounds per minute would get a bonus shot at the end of the 10 second turn.

Deceleration and Halt Fire: It takes one 5 seconds to decelerate to a halt (halt at mid-turn). To Halt Fire, roll a D10 with 1st Shot modifiers.

Start units executing their order from the lowest number to the highest and issue your next order for the unit. There may be more than one unit shooting at the same time which is fine. If you are knocked out before your number is up, too bad, you were too slow.

When the unit executes or shoots, the player must immediately "Loop Back" to issue his next order for the unit. The orders are move (Shoot & Scoot), engage a new target, shoot again at the same target (reload), halt (Halt Fire), or over watch (default order).

Movement: All moving units have a movement marker and are simultaneously moved at the end of every 10 second turn. If a target moved out of your LOS you can immediately issue a new order.

Switching targets: If your target is knocked out before you could shoot you can immediately issue a new order. A new shoot order will execute in the next 10 second turn.

both systems:
Hand Held Anti-Tank Weapons: Work the same way

Small Arms Fire: An ambushed unit immediately issues an order but cannot return fire until the next 10 second turn.

Infantry Movement: Moving at 8kph (5mph, double time) moves 20-25m in 10 seconds on good ground.

Small Arms Firefights: Assume the volume of fire is simultaneous over the 10 second turn. Determine the results at the end of a 10 second turn.

Artillery: As part of the scenario setup, indirect fire batteries range is measured in Time of Flight in 5 second increments. Determine how many seconds it will take for the barrage to land. This allows better interaction with the artillery ToF and the target movement.

Example: A ToF of 25 seconds fired at a game clock time of 2:27 arrives on the table at 2:52. If using 10 second turn increments it lands in 2.5 turns. In that amount of time a moving unit of 30kph will move about 200m. This reflects the difficulty of calling in artillery on a moving target.

I think that's pretty simple. You also eliminate the need for activation and initiative rules, orders phase among others. There are many historic decision points for players and you can fit some of the nuances of weapons platform performance into the formula pretty easily giving players more agency and less reliance on die rolls.

You should be able to use any type of gun system from other games to determine hits and damage and small arms fire results. I'm sure someone could build on this.

I hope this makes sense.

Wolfhag

"Small Arms Firefights: Assume the volume of fire is simultaneous over the 10 second turn. Determine the results at the end of a 10 second turn".

but is it; 10 seconds on automatic is long enough to empty all but large ammunition tins so then difficulty of reloading, where's the next magazine introduces a variable

"Artillery: As part of the scenario setup, indirect fire batteries range is measured in Time of Flight in 5 second increments. Determine how many seconds it will take for the barrage to land. This allows better interaction with the artillery ToF and the target movement".

I'd love to see some of the calculations for ToF. I had to do this sort of thing for 'A' level maths and it isn't simple. Do you allow for differing target heights e.g.

Great discussion.

but is it; 10 seconds on automatic is long enough to empty all but large ammunition tins so then difficulty of reloading, where's the next magazine introduces a variable

This is where the Designers Notes are important.

Yes, if everyone fired at their full cyclic rate which can occur. What you want to accomplish when a firefight starts is to immediately obtain firepower superiority. It's effect will be mainly psychological and hopefully let the enemy know they've bitten off more than they can chew and pull back. So most likely that's what you would do but there are many options and tactics.

The job of the Squad Leader is to immediately observe the results of that initial barrage (Loop back to Observe) and decide what to do next.

If the enemy stopped firing he may call for a cease fire or have everyone do sustained fire of 5-6 rounds per minute or one burst every 10-15 seconds from LMG to keep their heads down. If the enemy increases their fire he can again call for a rapid fire to suppress them again.

He may call for sustained fire and have a group maneuver to flank the enemy.

If it was a very close range ambush the unit should be trained to immediately lay down suppressive fire and assault into the ambush without being ordered. A poorly trained unit may immediately suppress in the ambush kill zone and all get killed.

We were told most of the causalities in an ambush are in the first 3 seconds because you are surprised but then take action.

If you are on the losing end of the firefight it may be best to fall back. In my system a command to Fall Back is immediately obeyed and the unit must move as quickly as possible to get out of the enemy LOS and cannot fire back. Hopefully, they had a covered path to egress. If not they'll be cut down running in the open where everyone would fire at full cyclic rate again.

If a fire team or crew served weapon fires at full cyclic rate the next 10 second turn they are not shooting because they are reloading, unless it is a water cooled belt fed MG. This actually conforms to some accounts I've read in close range fire fights where everyone was at full cyclic rate.

I'm not going to get into a long discussion on suppression – again. But here is an old discussion on suppression and how to handle it: TMP link

Regarding Time of Flight: For artillery it is easy to base it on range. The smaller the caliber the shorter the time of flight because they'll be closer to the FEBA. A 155mm Howitzer could be from 15-30 seconds from 10k, depending on many factors. The longer ToF is from firing a at a higher trajectory which is ideal. The higher the trajectory the more the round impacts perpendicular to the ground and you get more of a circular burst pattern. At shallow angles it is oval or kidney shaped so does not cover as much area.

For mortars it's a little different and you can use different powder charges and angle of elevation to get the round dropping perpendicular. IIRC from the 60mm mortar table it was 20-30 seconds ToF for most ranges, even short ranges.

So far I don't see a reason for elevations and I don't want a math problem either. But if you want to do calculations here you go: link

I'm not an arty guy and this is from memory so feel free to add or correct.

Wolfhag

Joe,
Feel free to jump in.

Wolfhag

"If you are on the losing end of the firefight it may be best to fall back. In my system a command to Fall Back is immediately obeyed and the unit must move as quickly as possible to get out of the enemy LOS and cannot fire back. Hopefully, they had a covered path to egress. If not they'll be cut down running in the open where everyone would fire at full cyclic rate again".

Well maybe you'd obey such an order buy I'd keep my head down and stay alive.

Back to the squad leader bit; so do you model all these 3 second loops and do you the player take the decisions for all the squad leaders or are their responses covered in squad morale.

I find the discussion interesting.

However, I'm not really seeing a true "faster" OODA loop v. a slower loop expressed in game mechanics.

And with all due respect to AI [wait, I have none…] I find the original presentation vague and filled with false claims.

11 years of Army staff work – I can see OODA loops working for and against the commander [in the training environment, probly the best place to see such things].

44 years of tabletop gaming, I have seen only one game that literally has a faster OODA loop for one side using "better tactics" within the game's structure.

That game is "A Gentleman's War" of all things. A light-hearted miniatures game about 19th C. brigade combat.

Setting aside the style and genre, it uses cards to provide mechanical friction with how often units can act. To sum up the system briefly [and also because you should buy the game if you want to know the details] you need to "manage" a hand of cards and the placement of your general – he needs to be in the decisive location.

If you manage your hand well, as well as get decent card draws, you will very likely activate a full brigade of units within the game impulses faster than your opponent will activate his units.

This competitive rate is also played out – amazingly – ACROSS GAME TURNS! This is the only game that I know where player decisions [deck management combined with unit / general placement on the battlefield] can result in one side literally getting more activations and Fire Actions than the other side.

While there are games like Hail Caesar and its' precursor / inspiration Warmaster, and most of the Daniel Mersey designs from Osprey, where dice rolls limit your turn length and sometimes your units do nothing [if played RAW], A Gentleman's war is the only wargame rules I know where relative player skills [and a bit of luck / right timing] can result in this OODA loop being played out on the table.

Note that if both sides play skillfully, and – again – have their units set up properly and the general in the right location, and – again – the card decks aren't doing anything statistically outlying, then both sides will activate faster but at the same rate and all that happens then is the game will start to conclude faster as units get shot to pieces and their morale checks start to arrive.

Then it comes down to who can keep the most battered units on the table, which is largely a matter of rolling good morale checks.

All this being said, the question per the OP is "does this system result in a tense and exciting game of skill?" I would say it does. I dislike all the Warmaster activation mechanics games, and all its derivatives. While we do play Mercey's games, we change the result so that all units may activate in a turn, within some restrictions.

Now, another issue for successful games ["success" here defined as "will anyone show up to play this game a second time?"], is does it work in solo, head-to-head play, or with a team / group on each side?

I have one weekly group that averages 6-10 people per game, so one is looking at 3-5 players a side.

All the Warmaster / Hail Caesar / unmodified-Mercey game designs have flopped due to the randomly rolled activation sequence, wherein one dices for each unit / group and if you fail your turn ends. In some of the games, you can fail a first activation and basically do nothing. In some there are mechanics to lessen this impact of "all or nothing". Since they depend on luck rather than skill, I overall say that while the OODA-loop process *seems* to be acted out, it actually isn't because player skill / decisions don't play a part in it, so it is a "false representation" of an OODA-loop competition.

Also, it is not fun, since the players don't get to use their gaming skills [most have played tabletop miniatures for 30-50 years] and are just victims of bad activation rolls. They complain and rebel about those systems so we don't play them anymore.

That being said, why don't we see more games like "A Gentleman's War" where there is an activation system that – literally – lets you activate more often as a by-product of player skill in terms of managing activation cards?

I think it's because that vast – VAST – majority of game designers are themselves trapped in an unrealistic game mechanic mindset where "both sides units potentially get to activate and do things at the same rate, since it is the same amount of time".

In real life, where one side has an elite unit and the other a bunch of conscripts, the key way the elite unit wins is by making more decisions faster and better. In most games, this results in an abstraction whereby the elite unit gets a performance bonus against the conscript unit.

So the only way to present this on the table is to present more decisions points for the one side to out-play the other. This is pretty hard to do.

Also, it makes lesser-skilled players unhappy as they are pretty much getting taken to the woodshed all the time, without the option to "dice their way out of trouble", the trouble likely being caused by bad decisions and such.

So, playability and fun end up being a factor here. A beer'n pretzel game will never succeed if it isn't largely dice-driven as opposed to skill-driven.

If a game is largely skill-driven, the players who either don't have the talent or the drive or the time/energy to be good players will not show up. You'll end up with only a couple of die-hards who love the game.

So what is your game hosting goal?

Stalkey,
All this being said, the question per the OP is "does this system result in a tense and exciting game of skill?"

I think OODA does but it's not the only system that can. As each turn is announced no one is sure who is going to pause the game to shoot or do something else. Where it can get tense is when enemy units detect each other at the same time because it then becomes like a Wild West shootout. For your 1st shot at a target you can Snap Shoot a number of turns early but with an increasing accuracy penalty for each second sooner. It's like real crews traded decreased accuracy for increased speed to seize the initiative to shoot first. Sometimes opponents do shoot at each other on the same turn. Sometimes you were one second too slow and died. Choose wisely as seconds count.

Now, another issue for successful games ["success" here defined as "will anyone show up to play this game a second time?"], is does it work in solo, head-to-head play, or with a team / group on each side?

Sometimes they do and sometimes they don't. At conventions it seems potential players gravitate towards the best looking figures and terrain and the rules are secondary. They are looking for a visual experience. I don't always have the best set up.

The game plays well solo. I gauge success based on does the game meet the designers' goals and is it playable, not whether people like it or not. Toyota makes great cars but not everyone buys one.

I have one weekly group that averages 6-10 people per game, so one is looking at 3-5 players a side.

Our club plays different rule set from different historical periods. I normally have a good turnout but many players prefer different versions of IGYG and gamey mechanics like using cards as tactics or force multipliers.

All the Warmaster / Hail Caesar / unmodified-Mercey game designs have flopped due to the randomly rolled activation sequence, wherein one dices for each unit / group and if you fail your turn ends. In some of the games, you can fail a first activation and basically do nothing. In some there are mechanics to lessen this impact of "all or nothing". Since they depend on luck rather than skill,

I don't like them either. However, a unit activating before you can somewhat simulate getting inside an opponent's Loop. Especially if one side with a faster weapons platform and better crews has an advantage in activating. What you are mentioning is a very "dicey" game.

Depending on the level of the game and how long a game turn is, I can see how failing an activation can somewhat simulate a timing delay of getting inside your opponent's Loop to seize the initiative. If you have a 1:1 game and a 2 minute turn and fail an activation, and do nothing for 2 minutes is ridiculous. Now if the turn is only 5-10 seconds and you fail an activation but automatically are activated in the next 5-10 second turn I can see how that could simulate a delay in timing.

However, ideally, you should have a better chance to activate after a failure. It only makes sense. Overall, abstract die rolls to activate and to do something are not fun for me unless there is some historical reason behind it and it makes sense. My Engagement Delay rule is somewhat like that.

Historically, in WWII a gun with two-part ammo like a 122mm+ would take 25-30 seconds for a tank to reload. The shell and propellent weight about 50 pounds. each It works like that in my game too. A Panzer IV could get off 4-5 rounds in that time. So it's not about activations by timing. OODA is what I call a Time Competitive game.

I overall say that while the OODA-loop process *seems* to be acted out, it actually isn't because player skill / decisions don't play a part in it, so it is a "false representation" of an OODA-loop competition.

Yes, I've seen some games that claim a somewhat OODA Loop but they are generally lacking in a few things. Number on is timing. Number two is issuing an order in the same turn an order is executed. Unless you can "Loop Back to Observe" in the same turn it is not true OODA, just timing. Many IGYG and chit pull games do simulate the variables of shooting first but do not include looping back. Some systems simulate it better than others, if you've found one let me know. Later I'll cover the decision points.

Also, it is not fun, since the players don't get to use their gaming skills [most have played tabletop miniatures for 30-50 years] and are just victims of bad activation rolls. They complain and rebel about those systems so we don't play them anymore.

I've been gaming for over 50 years. The more I learned about tactics and weapons the less enjoyable games were. I've also heard complaints about failing activation rolls. I played Panzer Blitz when it first came out and I thought it was the greatest game ever. Not anymore. There is a die roll in my game that can simulate something going wrong and throwing off the timing of an order. Not everything goes according to plan.

That being said, why don't we see more games like "A Gentleman's War" where there is an activation system that – literally – lets you activate more often as a by-product of player skill in terms of managing activation cards?

GMTs Great Battles of Alexander system uses a "momentum" rules that allows that. Some AFV games like Panzer War and MBT simulate taking more than one shot in a turn based on your initial die roll.

I think it's because that vast – VAST – majority of game designers are themselves trapped in an unrealistic game mechanic mindset where "both sides units potentially get to activate and do things at the same rate, since it is the same amount of time".

Absolutely. I think the reason behind this is to have a fair and balanced game because reality sucks. The big publishers know what sells. Because there are so many variations of game sequences and abstractions publishers can come out with a "new and improved" set every few years. I think OODA is the lowest common denominator for 1:1 action so I don't see much to improve on.

With my system, if you don't like the timing values make up your own. You can use whatever AFV or infantry hit/damage system you want or create your own vehicles. I think it gives an excellent portrayal of ATGM vs armor as the ToF of 1st Gen ATGM is about 150m/second (6" on the table) so once spotted, a tank can have 5-15 seconds to make a decision on which historical tactic to use in avoiding the missile.

Players can "fly" Russian Sturmoviks on the table as they move about 60m/second (150 mph) and I use 1" =25m. This gives an interesting and detailed interaction between the planes and AA fire.

In real life, where one side has an elite unit and the other a bunch of conscripts, the key way the elite unit wins is by making more decisions faster and better. In most games, this results in an abstraction whereby the elite unit gets a performance bonus against the conscript unit.

Again, absolutely. I only see two ways to accomplish this: the elite side has a better chance to activate and perform more than one action per turn. The other would be using historical timing with a game clock to track the turns. However, it's not "true" OODA unless you "Loop Back" to observe your results and immediately issue your next order in the same turn. Without the loop it is just timing, it's a big difference because with the loop you need to take into account the planning and what will happen 5-10 seconds in the future. With a traditional turn based game there is normally minimal planning and your orders are executed immediately.

So the only way to present this on the table is to present more decisions points for the one side to out-play the other. This is pretty hard to do.

Decision points are also very important regarding Situational Awareness. Since I'm using seconds as time slices/turns you can react and decide at any time/turn. I try to use common sense and what you'd do on a battlefield. All units are assumed to be active and Observing in the Loop. Players can pause the game at any time to react with a Situational Awareness Check (roll 1+ D6) if they have a LOS to new LOS from movement, turret traverse, shooting, enemy engaging you.

Of course, your SA is best in the direction your gun/turret is pointing. This would be like reacting and spotting in other games. That's another decision for the players. Your SA is worse in the flanks and rear and if buttoned up/suppressed, moving or a poor crew and 1 or 2 man turrets. Tanks and Assault Guns are blind in their rear 180 degree arc if they are engaged and shooting but can receive a radio warning.

A result of the SA Check can mean that you've noticed the enemy threat right away and can in the same turn issue a move or engage/shoot order, that includes cancelling your current to issue a new one. Poor SA can result in what I call an Engagement Delay of 1-10+ seconds before the threat is noticed so you must continue performing your same order until then oblivious to the threat. It's somewhat arbitrary but is better than rolling for consecutive turns. So if you have an Engagement Delay of 7 seconds/turns and your opponent shoots in less than 7 seconds you've been completely surprised.

Also, it makes lesser-skilled players unhappy as they are pretty much getting taken to the woodshed all the time, without the option to "dice their way out of trouble", the trouble likely being caused by bad decisions and such.

Yes, that happens to even the best players.

So, playability and fun end up being a factor here. A beer'n pretzel game will never succeed if it isn't largely dice-driven as opposed to skill-driven.

Some dice driven games are like the "tail wagging the dog" where the player action is entirely dictated by the dice. Some players like that because it's easy and that as the Company Commander, you would not be issuing orders at the lowest level. . As each game turn is announced, any player can pause the game to react, issue an order, maneuver, etc. If now one pauses the game the next turn is immediately announced so we are always moving to the next player's action without traditional game rules.

If one of your units was supposed to shot at a game time of 3:27 and you just noticed at game turn 3:31 you can shoot at 3:31 – if you are still alive. This is not like some games when your turn is over you have 5-15 minutes before your turn is up again. You snooze – you lose. Just like on a real battlefield.
If a game is largely skill-driven, the players who either don't have the talent or the drive or the time/energy to be good players will not show up. You'll end up with only a couple of die-hards who love the game.

No game is going to please everyone so I don't try. The basic concept of the OODA Loop is intuitive because whether or not they know it that's how they perform actions throughout the day. The design challenge for me was how to get the players to immerse themselves into the finer points of the game.

So what is your game hosting goal?

The game is driven by historical data for actions (what I call Action Timing) so it's pretty data intensive. There are simple and detailed ways to do it. The basics are simple: decide on an action or order, roll a D6 to determine how long it will take using a customized data card for that weapon (Action Timing), add it to the current game turn and record it.

So at a game turn of 2:41 if it takes you 8 turns to execute an order. Secretly record it as 2:49 (this creates a nice Fog of War) and is what I call the Act time (Act in the Loop). When turn 2:49 is announced, call out to pause the game and execute your order. Naturally, without prompting, you will unconsciously "Loop Back" and observe the results. Then decide your next order, Action Timing and record the future Act Time. Pretty simple, right?

Well, use common sense. Your choices are to shoot again at the same target (reload Action Timing), engage a new target (SA Check and then engage), Halt (decelerate at 1 second per 10kph speed), Move (Shoot & Scoot) by placing a movement marker showing your speed.

Normally, I tell players if they don't know what to do I'll tell them their options and available tactics. They pick the action they want to perform and I direct them on the data card how to do it. They then determine the Action Timing for the order and record the Act Time it will execute.

So here is how I present all of the options and tactics and how to execute them. This is for the Sherman tank, it is customized for each unit type:

So far it seems to work well. The QR code is linked to a short video explanation.

The mechanics are pretty simple; the tactics and options are historic but you need to learn how to use them – just as real crews do. Reading the real manuals can help, your experience playing OGYG games will not help. Some players are very familiar with them and some player are not. Navigating the two-sided 8.5x11 inch data card can take some time. Normally, after 45 minutes of play time the players can run the game mostly on their own.

Just by watching the QR code videos on the data cards and play aids will enable you to play the game without studying the rules.

Here are two of my play testers who never played a war game before.

Here is a 15 year old with a slight learning disability controlling 10x T-34/76.

And his 17 year old opponent who had 4x Tigers:

I think any veteran player can play if he wants to follow the process that is laid out.

My experience at conventions is that young new players normally out play veterans used to various IGYG type games. Young players who have played real time FPS and tank video games know how to look at and predict the action in real time. Many veteran players' minds may still in the IGYG turn mind set and have relatively little experience with historical tactics because most game cannot realistically portray them. It's not their fault that traditional systems have them used to waiting for their turn and the do what the sequence of play tells them. There is very little thinking and planning involved. That's a generalization, I'm sure there are exceptions.

Most players want a fun, fair and balanced easy to play game. I don't blame them. For many players, social interaction is more important than the effort of recreating historical engagements. I respect that.

My system can be fun, historical, and full of surprises. It's not abstracted to be fair and balanced but there are ways to do it. Games are balanced; real combat is not. It is what it is. You can always design your own scenarios.

It's up to the players to use the right tactics and their strengths against their opponent's weakness to seize the initiative and determine the tempo of the battle by getting inside his opponents OODA Loop which will keep them off balance with little reliance on the dice. It's a completely different gaming experience. For some it's over their head or not interested and for others it's what they've been looking for.

IGYG games can also be fun and full of surprises too. There are some that have really cool rules and mechanics that I can buy into that generate interesting tactics. My OP was to impartially, as much as I could and AI assisted, show the differences. You decide.

Die hards can play the detailed version. Others can play the simplified version which does not go into so much detail on decisions and tactics and will be ready next month.

These were good questions, I hope I answered them sufficiently.

Wolfhag

"little experience with historical tactics because most game cannot realistically portray them".

That most commercial rule sets don't require them and that most players don't want this problem are both things I'd agree with, however I don't think that counts as proof that non OODA loop systems can't achieve the aim, just because they don't use this mechanism. It's essentially an absence of evidence doesn't equal evidence of absence situation.

A gemtlemans war sounds intersting and I'm sure it can produce interesting games.

Does that make it close to working through and OODA cycle? I cant say from what I've read. Im sure it does. Run an OODA cycle in the general sense, like all experiences and games especially card games… SNAP is all OODA. 😉🤷

So the question as I see it is how closely does the players OODA resemble the one of person they are controlling on the table top

My further issue with most card and dice mechanics is they are just that. They are maybe rearranged to resemble something that happens in RL, but, they are still at heart dice or card games. If what I am able to do or when, based on a card, that I do or dont have.

The issue is lessend to a degree with specialist dice and cards but it still an issue for me.

Now theres nothing wrong with that as a game as these are game devices.

If we want to design something more reflective of the war rather than the game, then we need to start from scratch.

I recently read something on an RPG design forum ( i know more torture 😉) someone said they were surprised how much rpg design of the last 50 years was basically house rules for Chainmail ( the wargame that evolved, into DnD)

I feel much the same could be said for wargame design. A few thjngs have stepped outside at least in part, few have really trodden a new path. Id say Wolfhags have, by going back to scratch and actually representing the elements of whats important in the reality if it. Helped by doing at a level where second by second timing works.

The difficulties arise imo when we move to higher links in the CoC. There the Observse phase shifts from just personal observation to information reception. What information, where and how did it get there. How much is there how accurate is it. Etc. And how fo we filter and parse that information, for orientation and decide phase.

@Gamesman6
"A gemtlemans war sounds intersting and I'm sure it can produce interesting games. Does that make it close to working through and OODA cycle?"

-- I'd say the most unusual aspect of the game is that once all units on your side have activated [had an activation card spent on them] you can begin activating them a second time in the same Game Turn. The completion of one Activation spent on each unit is called an "Activation Cycle". A side may have multiple Activation Cycles in one Game Turn. It may also not complete even one Activation Cycle before the Game Turn ends [which is variable and unpredictable – but the Game Turn ends for both sides simultaneously].

To express this in the context of Wolfhag's very interesting OP, a Side's "OODA Loop" is one Activation Cycle. A second [and even a third] Activation Cycle may be achieved by a side in a single Game Turn if they put resources into it.

The resources that must be spent, are cards from a standard 54 card deck [Jokers are used]. As the cards are drawn from a face-down master deck, and there are other useful ways to spend cards besides Unit Activations, managing the deck and your hand as well as how you organize your units on the table and what your general is doing all come into play with how fast your Activation Cycle [OODA Loop] ends and you can begin another one. Therefore you can – potentially – Activate your Units more frequently than your opponent.

If carefully timed – and the right cards are on Hand – you could even Activating a Brigade of 4 Units at the end of your cycle, then re-activating the same brigade at the start of your next cycle before your opponent can Activate any of his Units that you are likely victimizing. However, it would require careless and unlucky play on the part of that Gamer.

So, YES, you could move up your Brigade of British Peninsula battalions and fire upon those French columns at the end of your Cycle [OODA Loop end], then play a strong card that allows you to Activate and Fire them again [start of your new OODA Loop] on those French Columns, potentially trashing them before they could charge you. A competent AGW player should not let their French Columns be caught that way, however!

But we all make mistakes, and we might get distracted with our own plan forgetting that you are executing your "Wiley E. Coyote, Super Genius" plan.

I don't personally know any other table top miniatures games that allow this to happen. There are lots of games that allow you to "buff" a unit to get bonus or better activations, but I have never seen a game that allows this particular play cycle to happen.

This makes the designer, Howard Whitehouse, either a genius or a madman, I leave the decision up to you! As the rules are a modest $30 USD in paperback, I'd say it is worth the price just for a full explanation of how the card sequence works. For more info you can also join their Facebook page which is generally pretty active and Howard is actively on it.

I wanted to complete a – limited – explanation of how AGW's Activation system works compared to an OODA Loop.

Howard Whitehouse's exact game mechanics for activating units is not fully explained by me here, nor should it be as it is his proprietary information.

However, the concept of allowing one side to activate units multiple times in a Game Turn – regardless of the activation mechanics used – is probably of greatest relevance here. To use it in an historical context, let's return to a simple Peninsula War example as used above.

If my historical research indicates that the British Brigadier at Battle X was more decisive than his counterpart, and if the brigade is the main level of command for my rules, I may say that Brigadier Limey's battalions can begin activating a second time after they have all acted, representing one OODA Loop for the brigade commander and his staff / subordinate battalion commanders.

If my research reveals that two of the British battalion commanders were experienced, decisive leaders who handled their battalions well and defeated a well planned and executed French attack, then I may say that those two battalions get 3 activations a turn instead of only 2, or 2 instead of 1. OR they may be able to interrupt the Action of a French battalion to Fire out of sequence which represents an enhancement to unit performance not necessarily better leadership at a high level leading to out-competing the opposing OODA Loop.

Continuing with Horse and Musket examples, I may feel strongly that at the battle of First Bull Run, the Confederate units fought better and some of their generals were more decisive and competent, resuling in either some units or some brigades having more opportunities to Maneuver and / or Fire than their Union opponents.

If I wanted to lean into that set of mechanics expressing an historical commander's OODA Loop, then the amount of subUnit activations are directly related to the competence of a higher leader. One set of rules that does that in the Horse & Musket period is from The Canadian Wargames Group. The same rules are in their excellent publications "Habitant & Highlanders" [FIW] and "Rocket's Red Glare" [War of 1812].

Those games are Brigade Level, i.e. a Brigadier commands several units and is the key level of command and play.

There are four Commander qualities, from Buffoon [love it!] to Brilliant. Each side's commander has a deck of 10 cards with values from 3 to 1 representing the number of Actions all – ALL – subUnits get when that card is pulled for the turn. This results in variable activations over 10 Turns of 17 [Buffoon] to 23 Actions [Brilliant] and thus a real performance difference of every single unit by up to 35%. In other words, the Brilliant Commander's Units will all get 35% more Actions [23] than the Buffoon's Actions [17].

It should be noted that ALL Units will perform equal numbers of Actions in *Close Combat* regardless of what their Commander drew as an Activation Card. So if you are Brilliant, and want to leverage that, avoid Close Combat and stick to Fire and Maneuver! I'm fine with that as even a passive battalion leader will react to and engage enemy units that are "close".

In a given Game Turn, however, one can draw from the deck and get your only '1' Activation Card [Brilliant], and all your Units get one Activation, while your opponent draws their one and only '3' Activations Card [Buffon] and all his units get 3 Activations. To lean even harder into the game mechanic, there is an optional rule that allows players to *choose* their activation card, but one has to play through the entire deck. This allows better players / historical generals to pick when they want intense activity from their soldiers or are content with modest amounts of activity.

I'm sure there are other games similar to this mechanic out there, but I haven't seen that many, probably because it makes some gamer's cry if they have to play a Buffoon! But I have no problem with it, and have had many enjoyable games where I *picked* the Napoleonic Spanish or German Minor Allies [ahem *garbage*, ahem] because it is fun to be under-rated and then out perform expectations.

So overall, what do you think of the CWG's take on an OODA Loop mechanic?

Thanks for putting the time to give that explanation!

Id done some digging and had already joined the FB page and will buy the pdf. $18 USD not sure yet what that is in prope4 money. 🇬🇧

Its certainly an interesting activation system. And certainly has much to recommend it as mechic for game play.

While it has some aspects we can say "corresponds" to an ooda cycle im not sure it really does. Thats nor a criticism of the mechanics or the experience. Especially as the design goal doesnt mention the OODA cycle.

As wolfhags mentioned before. Units are always active, whether that arw doing something or not. So much of what we are doing as a brigade or above its less about when the units are active and more about me relieving and processing information, transmitting orders etc.

This mechanics does annjhterstkngbjkbbof abstracting aspects of that but it doesnt imo deal with with an actual OODA cycle.

It also suffers like all "game: mechics m on learning the mechanics. Which serves as another degree of seperation. From reading some reviews it seems like some people statebit took a while to get comfortable with how the system works.

Agian not a criticism of it as a game, but doesnt make nit a pro for me when I comes down to making it align with what we can call a OODA based game.

Thanks again for taking the time. 🙂

There's a couple of "A Gentleman's War" batreps here:
link

I checked, and they do mention the Activation Cycle not being synched to the Game Turn.

This has been a pretty cerebral discussion. I will leave it to Wolfhag to chime in regarding the AGW game mechanics. I do think it checks the box in two areas, however:

1) With planning and luck, brigaded units can implement a plan faster, Activating more often to achieve it, collectively.
2) With some luck, a unit can Activate more often, but it is more opportunistic. However, that unit could be part of the above Brigade, furthering it's plan.

My second example is from Canadian Wargames Group, which has a Horse & Musket set of rules that allows for up to 33% more Activations in a game by a side commanded by a Brilliant general compared to a Buffoon general.

However, if using the optional rule allowing players to choose their Activation cards, it would be possible for a Brilliant General to achieve 3-2 or 3-1 Activations over a couple of turns.

This system is still married to the Game Turn, however.

I think the question is, what does a planning cycle look like in game terms? If it is a superior unit acting faster and outperforming a local opposing unit, than the OODA Loop for its leaders may be abstracted into more activations as the leaders push the unit harder to achieve more than the opposition.

If the planning cycle is to be the implementation of the player's plan, then we'd need to dig more into defining that. My experience is that most gamers are only able to plan in multiple short-term goals, and often have no larger plan.

The exception to this would be the competitive tournament games and their players.

In any system there is some compromise regarding time. Even with our Hybrid system a major action was delayed for a good time as the vehicle aspects had to wait for the infantry battle to finish in very close country before the vehicles could pass a potentially lethal flank. A strict timescale in some situations is too detailed where long timescales and short timescales are involved. Our hybrid solution allows some faster timescale effects to be modelled as subroutines, not perfect but no simulation is.

Reading and re-reading some of the details, it would seem to me that in the Horse & Musket period, with units being multiple companies / a battalion / a squadron, which is a typical, popular level of play, The Complete Brigadier could be tweaked to accommodate an OODA Loop Game Sequence [as there won't be a turn].

TCB has all activities categorized, most of which are variations on Move, Shoot, and Change Formation. TCB has 5 Unit Qualities, from the best – Crack, Veteran, Regular, Green and the worst, Raw. They could have time differences in executing actions, which could correlate to 'impulses' of time.

The game uses written orders, which you can write out in sequence, by Game Turn, each Turn you can achieve one written Order. If the orders take variable amounts of time, however, and the 15 minute turn is broken down into 3-minute pieces, then instead of 4 Turns per hour you would have 20 impulses of 3 minutes per hour.

Armed with this system, Crack troops could execute an Order in 3 impulses, Elite-Regulars-Green in 4 Impulses, and Raw in 5 Impulses. Additionally, you can have a friction element whereby upon the impulse when a unit is to complete it's action [so Impulse 3 for a Crack Unit, 5 for Raw and 4 for the other three] you roll a die to succeed in finishing your order on time. Crack Units pass on a 2+, Elite on a 3+, Regulars on a 4+, Green on a 5+, and Raw on a 6+. If you fail, you automatically finish next Impulse. This could lead to a total possible length of 4, 5, or 6 Impulses to execute an order.

When one approaches the enemy, one could try to speed up an order, perhaps "Fire!" and thus try to "outperform" one's usual rate of doing things. Penalty for failing might be that you fall into indisciplined "Running Fire" against the enemy unit. Success would mean that you get to do things a little faster, which could result in a critical edge at some point.

The main issue I see here is that altho we have some general ideas of how long things take in the Horse & Musket period, we don't know for certain as stop-watch timing trials wasn't much of a thing in that period. Still, one could define the lengths in game terms, and it would certainly present, in an understandable way, why the British and French managed to out-perform the Russians in the Crimea, for example.

Overall, it is intriguing, but I'd have to actual tinker with it to see if it would soar like an eagle or fly like a pig.

Just getting rid of the Game Turn and defining the passage of Time using actual "Time" would be a huge first step to getting players into the "feel" of what is "real".

Interested in hearing what you think, Wolfhag.

Stalkey thanks for the links. I've not read these but have read a few others.

Some observations.
A system of activation whether you get more or less is dealing with only one step on the cycle. Thr final part.
As wolfhag says, in reality all units are avtove all thr time. So an activation system tells us we can operate that units in game. Whatsbit doing the rest of the time.

OODA vs IGYG can only be compared like to like. It seems to me that we cant compare if we are looking at wolhags tank rules vs say AGW. The action units are different as is the time scale. A tank is fighting second by second a blackpowder brigade plus isnt.
But also decisions are based on information that isnt immediate nor will be the transmission of orders or activation based on it.

Ushcha this makes me think again on these discussions on the infamous Variable length Bound.

I thjnknthjngs gets further complicated because we sit at the role of Division o commander but then also want to fightback the contact of the individual Battalions. Though really they woild have their own OODA cycle going on too.

Wow! You guys have really taken off with this. I'm impressed.

I'm not expert on the musket period but I'll try to contribute.

The action units are different as is the time scale. A tank is fighting second by second a blackpowder brigade plus isn't.

Absolutely. My approach is if you are going to design a game based on the timing of execution of an action or order (OODA), you need to determine what actions are most important that you want to portray or the lowest common denominator. You can't time everything. Like you guys said, it depends on the command level. At the lowest level, you use the lowest level of timing, etc.

For 1:1 AFV combat, Wild West shootouts, man-man, SpecFor ops, ship-ship naval warfare and air-air combat I use seconds. Scale that up to platoon vs platoon I use minutes. Above that can be hours or days.

I'm not sure how the Variable Length Bound works but with timing you can use different lengths.

In a meeting engagement I use consecutive 10 second movement turns until a mutual LOS is established or an ambush is triggered. When there is no LOS both side secretly plot their movement which we do in 10 second turn increments until a new LOS is established and go back to one second turns.

We have had units fall back out of the enemy LOS and call in artillery which could take a few minutes of game (not real) time. If the opponent does not want to take any action that few minutes of game time can be over in less than 30 seconds and start again when the artillery arrives.

In one game we had a T-34/85 and Tiger I firing at each other from 1200m. The Tiger fired one second before the T-34 and got a hit and flamer so did the T-34 get to fire back – YES! Why? Because the MV of the 88 gun is 800m/second. At the end of one second it is 400m away from the T-34 so he was able to fire and then the damage was adjudicated. No special rule, split second results are built into the physics of the game.

The difficulties arise imo when we move to higher links in the CoC. There the Observse phase shifts from just personal observation to information reception. What information, where and how did it get there. How much is there how accurate is it. Etc. And how fo we filter and parse that information, for orientation and decide phase.

Yes, observe shifts to intel. Commanders get intel and then have to have to make a decision on what to do, that can take time. Does the report need to be verified and confirmed? Is the source trusted? How well can his staff perform in executing his order? How quickly can the new order get to the troops and will it still be valid? Can the front line troops use their own initiative? Should the commander go to the FEBA and see for himself? Is the commander bold or cautious. Many variables for timing.

For my game I wanted to reflect the different rates of fire. My knowledge of the black powder era is limited but I do have a muzzle loader.

I did a game on the ACW Battle of the Crater using one minute turns. Why? Because that about the rate of fire of a musket. Now some units could fire faster so could fire more than one volley. Units suppressed or under fire may fire a half volley.

For movement I determine how far a Regiment could advance in one minute which could be variable and different fire & movement tactics can be used. When a unit is going to move a speed marker is placed in front of it and it is assumed to be moving for the one minute turn.

You can find historical documentation on how long it took for a cavalry unit to form up, infantry to build brest works, etc. Anything taking more than a minute would need to be written down and tracked.

Depending on the situation you could use a different time frame depending on different rates of fire for gun and cannon. You could have a regiment advancing with 25% of the figures firing every 10-20 seconds.

So in the battle the Union commanders had a variety of orders and Risk-Reward move/fire tactics to use. The Confederates determine their rate of fire/volleys for the turn.

Moving at 2.5mph is 75 yards in one minute. Moving faster means the unit becoming disorganized and not as effective in the final assault. Moving slower the unit could take cover or fire more often.

In the final charge moving at double-quick is 3.7mph and covers 110 yards in one minute. To get a more accurate portrayal you could have the charging unit cover the final 110 yards at double quick in 20 second turns for 3 volleys, 55 yards for 2 volleys.

It gives the designer and players a lot of latitude for rules, orders and tactics. You would need record keeping like I do if units have different rates of fire.
I still have the files for the battle if anyone would want them.

Personally, I think many game systems that are at the higher command level players micro-manage units. Normally a unit is assigned an objective and will attempt to achieve it and does not need to be "reminded" every turn. If they run into trouble they normally know what to do without needing an order from HQ but depending on the condition they may.

When an infantry unit is caught in an ambush they don't stand around waiting to be ordered what to do – except in many wargame rules but not mine.

I've found that using a timing system is more intuitive because when situations occur not covered in the rules players can figure out what will happen based on history and common sense, not an additional special rule. OODA allows me to portray the action in a more historical way with fewer rules but it's not the only way to do it.

Wolfhag

I never really understood variable length timescales. The only system (many years ago) I saw assumed that a platoon and a section timescale, was different to that of a company or battalion. But it only covered elapsed time, nothing was actually covered by different move lengths or times.

Our rules with its subroutine system, to my limited knowledge, is the only one that attempts to address some effects of a variable timescale. While better than nothing there is room for improvement, but we have yet to define an efficient way of doing so.