"Friction in Wargaming" Topic

Wargames, by definition, need friction. If every unit always does exactly what you want, exactly when you want, the game quickly becomes bland and predictable. Real commanders didn't enjoy perfect control, so our rules try—often clumsily—to model that uncertainty.

The most obvious source of friction is dice, but friction can be introduced in many other ways: command limits, activation systems, staff quality, range to commanders, or even simple hesitation.

In a recent SYW game, The Battle of Steinbuch Heights, I experimented with a small activation tweak to see if I could inject friction without bogging the game down.
TMP link

The adjusted rule reads thus: 1.1 ACTIVATION
At the beginning of each Game Turn, both players roll for brigade activation.
On a roll of 3+, the brigade is activated:

+2 Skilled brigade commander

+1 Average commander

–1 Unskilled commander

If a brigade fails its activation and the Army Commander is within 3", one re-roll is allowed. When activated, an ADC figure is placed with the brigade for the remainder of the turn.

In practice this worked very well. Better brigades usually activated, poorer ones sometimes didn't, and the Army Commander could be used to mitigate friction rather than eliminate it. Importantly, this created decision-making: where do you commit the Army Commander, and which failed activation is worth rescuing?

I'm interested in how others handle friction in their games.

Where does friction mainly come from in your rules?

Do you prefer predictable command with occasional failure, or constant uncertainty?

When does friction enhance the game—and when does it just feel annoying?

Actually don't think that's a given. Chess involves no random elements, and remains enjoyable. I created a chess-like wargame for historical medieval battles that used no dice (though I did an "advanced" version with some diced-based morale/C&C effects). So it's not necessary for a game to have randomized C&C ("friction") to be enjoyable.

But I also enjoy random elements a great deal, and most of my wargame preferences involve dice or cards or both to introduce random effects— not necessarily because they're realistic, but because they're fun.

Friction can be accomplished by other means, as bidding points for advantages, or direct "cost" to order a unit (as, say, a stack of command tokens that have to be spent). Some units might cost more to command (say a local levy might cost a lot of points to cause to act in the manner desired; an elite unit would follow an order with a single point cost). A situation where knowledge of the enemy's position and/or capabilities, or the nature of terrain, is not fully available to either side produces a form of friction that while not random is in effect unpredictable (typically this sort of "fog of war" would require a referee). And of course enemy action produces the biggest friction of all!

If the elements are varied enough, then friction without randomness is entirely possible without necessarily producing predictable results.

Quite often, game designers choose to add the effects of friction to the rules without explicitly identifying it to the players. For instance, the large majority of black-powder era rules give units movement "ratings" considerably slower than a straightforward calculation of ground and time scale would yield. The "missing" movement allowance, the designer's notes may say, is taken up with delays in order writing and transmission, minor irregularities in the terrain too small to model but nevertheless having some effect, and above all time spent in halting and dressing ranks. A more "realistic" approach would be to randomize movement – which is all very well for a game with a handful of units but impractical when trying to fight out a major battle scenario with scores or hundreds of represented units. So "factoring in" friction seems to make sense, at this level of representation.

Both fair comments.

I won't arguing that randomness is required for an enjoyable game — chess and other deterministic designs clearly disprove that. As Parzival says, friction can come from costs, command economies, or imperfect information just as effectively as from dice.

What I'm interested in is where the player feels the friction. As Eumelus notes, many rules quietly bake it into movement rates or timings. That's practical, especially at scale, but it also makes friction largely invisible — it just becomes "how the game works".

My activation tweak was an attempt to make friction explicit and player-facing: better commanders usually function, poorer ones sometimes don't, and the Army Commander becomes a limited resource to mitigate problems rather than erase them. Whether done with dice, tokens, or points, I'm increasingly drawn to friction that forces players to decide where to accept delay, risk, or loss of control.

I like non-guaranteed movement – where you order your unit to advance its regular 6" but its across rough terrain and thanks to a D3+3 roll they say "nah, just 4" this time". If it breaks up a beautiful line formation so much the better.

Depends on period and level. Did I say that before, recently?

Anyway, I'm happy with morale casts, dice (or cards) for fire effects and melee and uncertain movement distances--and, in skirmish/RPG just flat die rolls to see whether Our Hero can make that jump.

But I approach activation rolls with great caution. I'm OK with Phil Barker's Pips, or Mersey's failed activation and side-switching, but I'd like to avoid the situation in which a gamer drives two hours to a game and is told "well, that's not the right number: you can't do anything this turn." In a six-turn game a few bad--not horrendous: just bad--die rolls can mean turning around and driving home without ever engaging with the enemy. If someone wants to claim that's "realism"--well, fair enough. If anyone thinks it's a great way to spend a day off, PM me and I'll put you in touch with the group.

So, a tentative yes to activation rolls, but a firm no to using them when it means someone's entire command fails to activate. As I said, period and level.

That said, all you REALLY need for friction is multiple players on a side and leaving them to command their own forces.

And you want to have rules for "friction" to "Activate" units to get them moving right?

Well a bigger problem is not getting units to move, but them acting without authorization.

At Gettysburg Heth was told not to bring on a general engagement yet proceeded to commit his division into a major attack.

On the second day, Dan Sickles without orders would advance his entire corp forward from his assigned defensive position and place it in an unsupported position that would soon get crushed by attacking confederates.

And did the French massed cavalry charge at Waterloo fail because they failed to move when ordered by Napoleon….Oh wait.

Perhaps the Light Brigade at Balaclava would have been successful had its commander activated in a more timely manner when ordered.

"Friction" is far less of an issue than no friction and commanders skidding of the greased rails.

Kim

I've always thought that the players themselves supplied all the necessary "friction".
We are not chess engines, reacting precisely and exactly as the situation requires. We, including myself, are ego driven, and can do no wrong! And we can name players in local group, naming no names, who are even worse.
"We" don't need artificial friction constraints in a 4 or 5 hour game. Life is too short.

Example. The GM designs a scenario where the Slobbovians have the tactical advantage because the control the Shelob Heights. Yet, the Valgorians spoil the scenario… because they roll two 6s on artillery. And the Slobbovians fail morale. Well! That spoils the GMs perfect scripted scenario.

Players and die rolls supply the needed friction.

I play 1:1 and like to show what's happening (Design for Cause).

Where does friction mainly come from in your rules?

Generally, enemy action. Suppression is one way. I like the definition: Suppression degrades your ability to shoot, move, observe, and communicate. If it's bad enough, it can completely stop you from doing it.

Orders take time to execute. Suppression can mean cancelling an order and issuing a new one, which takes more time, giving the enemy a timing advantage in initiative.

Infantry units under fire are at 50% firepower. That's why it's important to keep everyone under fire.

It degrades your Situational Awareness, slowing your reaction time to enemy threats, which can allow the enemy to seize the initiative to shoot or act first. If severe enough, enemy action can result in complete surprise. Think of it as a delay.

Crew-served weapons take twice as long to shoot and reload. They can't pivot their gun or use a rangefinder.

Movement is slowed when under fire, and you must normally use fire & maneuver, which can be very slow.

The chances of successful communications are less and may take longer.

Do you prefer predictable command with occasional failure, or constant uncertainty?

Enemy action, SNAFUs, and being under fire normally determine it. My experience with constant uncertainty is that the dice, not decisions, run the game.

When does friction enhance the game—and when does it just feel annoying?

When a unit must Hunker/Pinned Down with hardly any ability to react and shoot. That can be a player's choice.

SNAFU: Slight chance of something going wrong at the worst time. Normally, it's nothing really serious or game-ending, but I do base them on historical events.

If a unit is suppressed or Hunkered Down, they will automatically obey an order to fall back. That means they must move as fast as possible to get out of the enemy LOS and cannot react or shoot.

Scenarios may include special circumstances, such as soft ground, that could cause bogging or breaking.

Leaders can make their units more effective in several ways. When they attempt to do that, they can become a casualty.

Wolfhag

In your horse-and-musket game, I'd expect that smoke would severely degrade visibility, causing friction with observation, shooting, communication, and movement. It could mask enemy movement and flanking attempts.

A messenger might have a hard time finding the unit to deliver to.

Commanders can fall off their horses.

Friction from the unknown could force a leader to use his initiative to change orders.

I don't use activation or initiative rules, so I don't know if I can be of any help.

Wolfhag

Add more players.

Best way to create friction

Reading these replies, it feels like the real divide isn't for or against friction but what kind.

Most of us seem happy with friction that distorts decisions rather than denies participation: uncertain movement, delays, smoke, miscommunication — things that force choices without switching a player off for a turn.

KimRYoung's point is key: historically, friction often showed up as unauthorised or over-enthusiastic action, not units failing to move at all. Heth, Sickles, Ney didn't "fail activation" — they acted on imperfect control.

Which ties into RP's caution: once friction means a player effectively doesn't get to play, especially in a short or social game, it's crossed a line. NB you don't think the Activation rules outlined above would do much more than temporarily inconvenience a player, do you?

So I'm comfortable with friction that slows rather than stops, misaligns rather than paralyses, and creates risk rather than removes agency. No surprise that multiplayer-per-side games generate exactly that kind of friction on their own.

Maybe the better question isn't "do we need friction?" but "which friction actually improves decisions at the table?"

When does friction enhance the game—and when does it just feel annoying?

Never and always.

Hard to argue with that 😄
Which probably means the real question is which kinds of friction we tolerate before it tips from "interesting" into "irritating".

+1 to John The OFM.

I've always thought that the players themselves supplied all the necessary "friction".
We are not chess engines, reacting precisely and exactly as the situation requires. We, including myself, are ego driven, and can do no wrong! And we can name players in local group, naming no names, who are even worse.
"We" don't need artificial friction constraints in a 4 or 5 hour game. Life is too short.

Too much friction is no fun, but nor is no friction.
The friction should be related to what real commanders experience. Orders delivered late or not at all, misunderstandings, incomplete information.

Channelling the aphorism that corporate life is like a ladder with a bunch of climbing monkeys:

- Leader monkeys up-ladder looking down see grinning workers;
- Follower monkeys down-ladder looking up see @rs3h0l3s…

---

Friction causes and effects:
- Commander's most perfect plans can be derailed by: FUBARs
- Subordinate's options to changing battle conditions are hampered by: SNAFUs

FUBARs:
- Artillery required to displace to firing position can't be found
- Assault line must be perfectly aligned/straight to avoid exposing weak points – wavy line as centre brigade slowed by bad-going
- Left flank brigade ahead of others – appears to have halted – officers milling about; seargeants using halberds to steady ranks

SNAFUs:
- Artillery not been replenished – in park getting more gunpowder
- Centre assault brigade meets bad-going and getting left behind by rest of division
- Left assault brigade flanks are hanging in air.
- – Enemy cavalry squadrons threaten.
- – Some discontent in the ranks
- – Covering flank artillery no-where to be seen – must halt and get more instructions

I don't favour activation rules – a bit gamey; but I do like foul-up rules – they ought give the player something to do which gets in the way of their plan.

---

FUBAR: Fecked-up beyond all recognition
SNAFU: Situation normal, all fecked-up
Stoppage-drill: What you do when your equipment suffered a minor failure.

"A Glint of Bayonets" ACW rules has an interesting morale result in which the testing player may end up advancing 45 degrees to the right or left of their declared path forward.

Black Powder & Hail Caesar have something similar as part of their Activation process. Retreat is also a possible outcome.

"NB you don't think the Activation rules outlined above would do much more than temporarily inconvenience a player, do you?"

Ochoin, that's why I was so careful in my first post. What you describe would be fine if the minimum command were a division or corps. If one of those green brigades was some luckless newbie's entire command--and who better to stick with a small, unimportant command than a first-time player?--he could wind up with a very bad experience. There's a 2/3 chance he wouldn't do anything on Turn One, about an even chance of two turns of idleness, and it wouldn't need any extraordinary run of bad luck to go four turns.

This is why I keep harping on period, scale and size of game. The range of miniature warfare is so vast that hardly any rule mechanism is always right or always wrong. It's the context which makes them so.

I see your point, RP. Indeed, I have seen it every time you made it.

I am, understandably, mostly speaking from my own gaming experience, so we don't have any "luckless Newbies" & no-one commands less than a couple of brigades (or 'divisions' as HC confusingly labels them). And failure to activate does not mean you can't re-form, shoot back or defend yourself.

As pointed out above, the SYW Activation rules provide, at most, some limited frustration which, for us, is part of the game. I fully understand others may shun this mechanism. It's a Broad Church, this wargaming.

Indeed, in 'Lion Rampant' the rule when you fail an Activation means you turn over has been abrogated by us for the common House Rule of only disallowing any actions of the single unit you were trying to activate (to move, shoot, charge etc). I only take a half teaspoon of sugar in my tea, as well.

Scenario design and games masters are key. Not rules. Dicey gamey mechanics like diced for activation sequences are pointless wastes of game time and therefore players time. Movement rates, disorder, disrupted, and morale conditions as well as, command ratings/ranges etc., represent friction.

The unit has deployed to the battlefield ready to fight and has its intial orders. Its going to follow them initially, relatively on time. Reading the history of large battle shows this.

If a turn in a large game represents 30 minutes to 1 hour of battle, then the unit will get moving in that initial time frame according to their initial orders. Thge initial orders in this case being the player wanting to move the unit etc.

Therefore I personally dont really understand what diced for activations are trying to achieve relative to the history that you are trying to recreate on the tabletop.

When the dice or cards prevent you from "activating", do you:
A: Go out and get more beer for the guys. I'm going to be inactive for at least an hour.
B: Tell yourself how much fun you're having.
C: Bitch and moan, and vow to never play these rules again. Even though they're a club favorite.
D: Compliment the rules on how realistic they are.
E: Other

Another rule I always liked was in Terry Wise's ACW – when a unit fired there was a smoke cloud which affected lines of sight, and if someone charged through it there was a chance that they could deviate from their intended line of movement, which seemed realistic and also a really simple mechanism.

@20thmaine – thats a good rule – this happened at the battle of Eylau in 1807, though it was freezing fog/snow and the smoke combined. The French 14th Line Regiment ended up trapped, this then caused them to fight to the last man – scenarios, gamesmasters, and rules should try to represent this rather than stopping a unit from moving from the get go.

Thank you, Ochoin. Yes, in that context an activation roll is a very reasonable choice.

As for the rest--ask a broad question, get a nuanced answer.

Where did the term "activation" emanate from?

"Unleash" would be much better (for determined, enthusiastic troops), or, perhaps, "herd-forward" for others.

Stoppage,
Therefore I personally dont really understand what diced for activations are trying to achieve relative to the history that you are trying to recreate on the tabletop.

I think the biggest challenge in game design is realistically parsing actions within a single turn without using a structured IGYG. When you fail an activation, the GM or player can recreate the reason in their mind to create a narrative.

Game Turns: As Stoppage said, the longer the turn length is, the more actions a unit can perform. Failing an activation means the unit freezes for 30-60 minutes, which is somewhat realistic but can happen.

The unit has deployed to the battlefield ready to fight and has its intial orders. Its going to follow them initially, relatively on time. Reading the history of large battle shows this.

Orders: Commanders do not need to be reminded each turn what to do. They are issued an order or assigned an objective and will attempt to execute or achieve it. Friction arises when units don't show up or get lost, vehicles break down, or there are detours or road obstructions (should be resolved in advance by a road recon). Then there is the enemy with interdiction artillery fire, ambushes, and other tactics.

The local commander should know in advance what to do and not have to ask HQ. That's what training does for you. There are different Courses of Action and Immediate Action Drills that a player can perform. You could have a number of these, and the player rolls the dice to see which one is performed, including falling back. You could have bold or timid commanders as modifiers on the actions they perform.

Combat is a Time Competitive activity which is why you train to execute orders as quickly as possible. Better crews are quicker than poor crews and can seize the initiative and control the tempo, keeping their opponent off balance.

When you have a turn length of a specific period of time, you need to come up with a whole set of abstracted rules and modifiers to parse the action.

If you are attempting to recreate a "fair and balanced" game, the result will generally be very unhistorical. This can be especially true when units have different rates of fire.

Example: You have a one-minute turn, unit A can fire 5 times, and unit B fires 3 times. How do you recreate that interactive rate of fire along with all of the other units on the table, and what role will friction play?

Wolfhag

I'm pretty well with Wolfhag on this one. Activation rolls are at their most gamey and annoying when some unit, told to march down a road to a point the mounted officers can actually see from their start point, suddenly stop or march at a half-step because it's a new turn and the CinC rolled low, and/or they're outside of his command radius. But they're most credible when someone is told to move out and draw fire and doesn't.
The fuel and/or ammo supply hasn't arrived. ("People keep an eye on the Special Weapons officer, but the Ammo officer can really mess you up.")
The order as delivered wasn't clear and the ADC didn't help.
The radio failed/no one changed frequencies when they should have, or failed to run the new tape. Or they set up the TOC (with radio) in a quarry, and none of their outbound signals are getting through.
The C.O. got smacked in the head with a tentpole, and he's acting funny--but maybe not funny enough to relieve him.
The C. O. hasn't slept in two or three days. The effect is pretty much as above.
The C. O.'s map is wildly different from the one the army commander is using.

I've actually lived through about half the above, and that was peacetime training. Imagine if someone were actually trying to mess with us. Yeah, you can do as stoppage recommends, but the price of that period flavor is longer rules and/or special card decks, and even at that you'll sometimes get a result which makes no sense.

Potters, we must be reading about different battles, have a different understanding of "large" or possibly a different idea of lost time. (Was D-Day on time, or two days late?) I'd concede that a month or more's prep and training can usually get everything going at H-Hour, but for every El Alamein there are a dozen or more "disengage, pivot 90 degrees and move out tonight." Some of the accounts of the French trying to organize a counter-attack at Sedan in 1940 are just heart-breaking--and exactly where an activation roll shows to best advantage.

I think all this highlights why activation rules polarise so much.

If "activation" means a unit with clear initial orders simply does nothing, especially in a long-turn game, then I'm with Potters — it feels ahistorical and gamey. Units generally did start moving on time; friction showed up later as delay, misdirection, exhaustion, smoke, confusion, or enemy interference.

Where activation rolls seem to work best (as RP and Wolfhag suggest) is when they represent a specific failure of execution: unclear orders, late logistics, lost contact, a commander not functioning properly — not just a bad die roll at the top of a turn. I think Activation rolls that potentially penalise less than enthusiastic units are an elegant device. Duke of Cumberland's Hussars at Waterloo, anyone?

So for me, it's not activation per se that's the issue, but what it's standing in for. Some units really were unreliable — modelling that isn't punishment, it's character. When it creates narrative delay or risk, fine. When it just freezes units because "new turn, new roll," it stops being friction and starts being irritation.

Once when playing a game a Wo4 from 501e rc told us, the problem is when you can't control what "they" are doing, they don't just stay put, or if they do, that'd be the best case. They would do things you have no idea of, and soon no idea where. We were playing ww2.

Binary systems with activations they do what you want, or they sleep have no connection with reality. Units get orders, most of the time these should carry on for a long time till the task is done or something gets in the way.

The points systems still allow you to control what you think is vital, and they nicely do what you want.
Friction should be bottom up, troops might not do what you want, not for you to decide whom, in horse and musket or earlier era, unless "you" are with them.
Then, if failed, for more trouble/ realism (!!) they could do something else. Not easy to apply in games. They also can do nothing.

I seem to be seeing justification here for having General Billy stop in indecision because Marshal Daddy hadn't been telling him to "Move it!"

I enjoy Two Hour Wargames' approach to this, particularly with the NUTS WW2 skirmish system. One of the things that really sets NUTS apart for me is that it simply isn't an IGOUGO game in the traditional sense. You don't take a clean, uninterrupted turn where everything you want happens and then hand control to your opponent. Instead, the game is constantly interrupting itself through reactions, uncertainty, and incomplete information. The flow feels much closer to a real firefight than a chess match.

The Reaction system is the core of that. Every time something happens—movement, contact, fire—the other side gets a chance to respond immediately, not later when it's "their turn." Units don't politely wait while you maneuver into perfect positions. They react when they see something, when shots crack overhead, or when things go sideways. That means momentum is always contested, and initiative shifts organically based on troop quality, leadership, and stress rather than turn order.

The "Potential Enemy Force" (PEFs) rules reinforce this by breaking the idea that the table state is fully known or static. Rather than seeing all the enemy on the table, enemy presence is represeted by markers that may also move depending on the mission. When you "spot" the marker you resolve what it is. So as you move, you're not just executing a plan, you're probing the unknown. A quiet approach might stay quiet, or it might trigger contact you didn't anticipate, and once that happens the chain reaction system kicks in immediately. There's no clean separation between "movement turn" and "combat turn." The game flows back and forth as events unfold.

Because of that, NUTS is mission-driven rather than turn-driven or points driven. You're advancing on an objective, clearing an area, or holding ground, and the rules are constantly injecting friction as you go. You're still in control, but only in the sense that a real commander is in control—issuing intent, responding to outcomes, and adapting when units don't behave exactly as ordered.

That's why it never feels like watching one player perform while the other waits. Both sides are always involved, always reacting, and always under pressure. The result is a game that feels dynamic, tense, and alive, where friction emerges naturally from contact and human behavior rather than from an artificial turn structure.

Good discussion.

Yes, I like NUTS! because it's very similar to my system regarding reactions, friction, and overall dynamic non-IGYG or activation gameplay.

The more units involved, the harder command and control will be, and the greater the chances of friction at many levels. The level and type will depend on the command level and the designer's priorities.

If I'm a Team Leader and I tell the three guys in my team standing next to me to move out and follow me, the delay will be in seconds. However, at that low level, seconds count, and a one-second delay can mean the difference between life and death in combat. You can model that with OODA Loop Action Timing.

If I'm a commanding general and I have to move my unit by rail to a new location, it can take up to a week or more, with many things that can go wrong. That can only be modeled abstractly using factors the game designer feels are important. You could take past experiences and randomize the time it takes, using a bell curve for best, average, and worst outcomes rather than a chance each turn. Now you are using timing so the game turns must have a set turn length.

Where activation rolls seem to work best (as RP and Wolfhag suggest) is when they represent a specific failure of execution: unclear orders, late logistics, lost contact, a commander not functioning properly — not just a bad die roll at the top of a turn.

This is where cards come in: they provide the reasons, effects, and narrative.

The challenge with using activations is that you are attempting to simulate friction delays, which are time-based, but you don't have a timer or clock.

Another problem is the die roll creating an anomaly. You could have a unit that has an 80% chance to activate and fail 2+ times in a row, and all the player can do is blame it on bad dice rolls.

I've found that many activations and IGYG variations the tempo of the battle seems to have no real relationship to reality, just random actions occurring around the battlefield without any prediction.

Even in the chaos of a battle, commanders can scan the battlefield and make a prediction or estimate of enemy activity at least a few minutes into the future. I can do that with my system.

Wolfhag

Wolfhag +1

There's a NUTS supplement called NUTS Platoon Leader in which you manage your platoon in a campaign to meet your missions, and it includes basically NPC squad leader rules if you want an additional friction/fog of war effect. Simple enough -- issue orders to each Squad and assign them a map objective:

So your pre-game for Solo or Co-op could look like this:

• Squad 1 advance through Woods starting in
Section 7 and take the Town.
• Squad 2 advance up the right side of the table
starting in Section 9 and take the Hill in
section 2. Support Squad 1's attack on the
Town.
• Squad 3 advance to Section 5 and Support
Squad 1 and Squad 2 as needed
• If a Squad has to retreat, Rally on Hill 1 in
Section 9

Each Squad will try to carry out that assignment, and if you want to change orders your command figure needs to get within LOS and give hand signals (which could be misinterpreted) or within 4 inches to issue verbal orders (or send a runner figure to do that).

So then you even give up godlike command of units as well.

Good discussion.

Alot of focus on more modern conflicts in the discussion i.e. WW2.

OP was referencing Seven Years War so my responses were more geared towads Horse & Musket.

Personally, I think there needs to be a careful blend between history and the ability to play an enjoyable game in a reasonable time frame (I bet on average people dont want a weekly gaming meet up to go much beyond 3 or 4 hours).

So to play a decent sized battle, of, say a large division with additional cavalry and guns, i think you need to streamline rules.

The other approach therefore, is to remove gamey time consuming mechanics, and instead, allow players more freedom, by this I mean give them enough rope to hang themselves through more subtle rules that arent an apparent issue at the start of a game.

For example, an activation is simply a player nominating a formation to perform an action. The IGOUGO simplicity can still apply but each player takes in turns to activate a formation until the players have acitvated everything that they wish to i.e. in historical terms, each unit that received initial orders before battle commenced proper.

The formations that can be nominated however, can be anything from a battlion, to a regiment, to a brigade, to a division, and even a corps. But, whatever the formation nominated to perform an action, they must all perform that same action, they have then performed their one action for the turn and have to wait until next turn.

If you then put a time limit on each player as to how long they can take to complete a turn, if they want to nominate one battalion at a time to activate in a larger game, they will quickly run out of time.

Assign each player 10 seconds per infantry battalion, cavalry regiment, and artillery battery in their force. So for a force of 6 battalions, two artillery batteries, and a cavalry regiment (approx a reinforced European brigade), you will have 90 seconds/1 minute 30 seconds.

This could then force a player to act more historically and activate the enire force in one go with a simple advance/movement activation. Or still activate the entire brigade but specify only the infantry move up, the artillery and cavalry, however count as having been activated for the turn as part of the brigade activation.

Or you could activate the two rigemints one at a time, move them. Then activate the artillery batteries one at a time, fire. Then activate the cavalry for a charge at the target you have just fired your artillery at, but these will have to be done on separate activations, in which time the opposing player would have had 2 activations themselves.

If firing didnt need to be diced for i.e. the effects of firing a musket at no more than 50 yards is pre-ascribed by the rules then this reduces time an activation will take of an infantry or artillery unit that wants to fire etc.

"Assign each player 10 seconds per infantry battalion, cavalry regiment, and artillery battery in their force. So for a force of 6 battalions, two artillery batteries, and a cavalry regiment (approx a reinforced European brigade), you will have 90 seconds/1 minute 30 seconds."

That's far closer to historical friction than most activation mechanics. Real commanders weren't paralysed — they were overloaded. Brilliant.

The downsides are mostly social rather than mechanical — time pressure can stress casual players and favour veterans.
It would make a fantastic tournament mechanism.

On re-reading the OP…

Rather than a shlocky unleash/activation mechanism/mechanic:

You might be better off with the commander sending an ADC to the particular wing/division/brigade with the appropriate order.

On receipt, the subordinate formation/grouping could dice for go/no-go. On no-go the ADC would return to the issuing authority with the reason:

- Not enough artillery
- Nasty looking cavalry in vicinity
- Run out of ammo
- Too muddy
- Broken fingernail
- Etc

This would then give the commander some decisions to make:

- Grow a backbone
- Get back to it
- I'm sending some backup
- The cheque/check is in the post/mail

Obviously this could be finessed with:

- ADC lost on way to formation
- ADC lost on way back from formation
- Commander runs out of ADCs

This sort of thing would get rid of the activation business and also deal with the "command radius" problem.

---

For modern times you could model this with on-radio-net/no-radio-signal

That's far closer to historical friction than most activation mechanics. Real commanders weren't paralysed — they were overloaded. Brilliant.

Thanks Ochoin. You can still have the social aspect, between the turns as there is still a distinctive turn end and new turn begins where you repeat the process. This means the game is still played and played in a reasonable time frame whilst maintaining appropriate breaks and social interaction.

Grande Armee provides friction in several ways.

First, each turn commanders get "Command Points" which are mainly used to activate commanders and their forces. Poor commanders take more CPs, great commanders fewer. BUT each turn has a variable number of move/fight pulses. So budgeting your CPs is risky. Activate everything in the 1st 2 pulses and hope the turn ends early. Or save some CPs for later pulses and hope the turn runs long?

Second, movement is variable. Infantry brigades (represented by a 3" x 3" base) move d6+6 inches. And units are moved one at a time. So if your 1st unit may move 12" how far do you go, knowing other brigades might only move 7"?

Third, units within 6" of the enemy may act on their own. And they may only move straight ahead or straight back. If a unit is within 6" and you spend CPs, it acts as you wish. If it is within 6" and you choose not to move it, it does nothing. BUT if you choose to move it you first roll a die versus the unit commander's rating. Get the right roll and the unit acts as you wish. Otherwise the unit may retreat full, it may charge, it may sit still. The Brigade commander may be aggressive, or cowardly affecting the outcome.

Fourth, the game has a variable number of turns. Depending on the scenario, after X turns, at the end of each turn you roll to see if the game continues. So you never really know how much time you have to achieve your objectives.

@ Stoppage
You've described the SYW/Napoleonic set of rules "Skako".

We've used them (& possibly might use them again?) but in big games it takes forever to change an order. I expect large formation commanders to have a little more Independence.

But I acknowledge your idea is elegant & ticks most boxes.

Here's what really burns my ass! ("Flames this high!")

When we're playing a multi player game. Like always.
When a player's turn comes up, that's when he starts to make up his mind what to do. 🙄

Yeap – thats why you either need to be allowed to flog players, or give them time constraints because otherwise certain players will fart around like a narcissist in the limelight.

Where does friction mainly come from in your rules?

Mostly from enemy action and suppression, sometimes from
SNAFUs and stupid player decisions.

Do you prefer predictable command with occasional failure, or constant uncertainty?

Predictable command. However, it's not the same type of "command" as most games. A unit is given an objective and attempts to accomplish it. There are no command points. As
SBminisguy said with NUTS!, you need to be in LOS or radio to change command.

It actually makes gameplay faster because you eliminate a lot of rules, such as initiative determination. By not using IGYG or unit activations, it's easy to simulate a playable simultaneous system.

When encountering the enemy, units are able to react immediately without being commanded. You don't ask you CO what to do if you get ambushed. Think of it as Frag Orders.

When does friction enhance the game—and when does it just feel annoying?

It enhances the game by creating suspense every time someone shoots. In the AFV version, every time the enemy fires at you, the target player rolls a D20. On an unmodified "1" the shooting player rolls on the SNAFU Chart.

Friction and movement:
So movement would be somewhat variable but predictable. If you are not at the FEBA, the movement would most likely be unhindered unless the enemy was able to interdict it.

Probably the factor that matters most for speed is the unit's formation, but it is a trade-off between speed and security. I can move my squad through light woods in a column, but I have to slow down if I want a guy on each flank for security.

In a column, I'm at a severe disadvantage if I meet the enemy. So I change into a line-ahead skirmish formation. But now I'm even slower and louder.

So what does all of this mean? Formations, speed, and security are tradeoffs that are valid in all periods of warfare and can generate friction in different ways.

They present leaders and players with risk-reward tactical decisions that require judgment, not skill. It's different than a die roll telling you what you can and can't do.

Regarding players being timed for a turn or taking too long to make a decision:

I don't have that problem in the AFV version of my game. Why? Orders are not magically executed immediately; they take time. As soon as a player executes an order or shoots, he must immediately issue his next order. That's the "Loop" in the OODA Loop. It's quick because the choices are limited to shooting at the same target again, engaging a new target, moving, or going into overwatch (the default order).

You need to plan ahead while accounting for other threats within your LOS. You can cancel and change an order to react to a new threat. Each unit type has a data card that tells the player the available options and tactics, and how to execute them, so there is less to remember. This puts new players on par with experienced players and makes decision-making easier and faster.

Wolfhag

Wolfhag +1

Agree with Wolfhag. Orders are issued in anticipation and take time to execute.

Patton called battle "an orgy of disorder." I like to think of games the same way – as a controlled fight against entropy, where players manage both battlefield chaos and the limits of their command.

I see friction in two layers: command friction and combat friction.

Command friction is about units not always doing exactly what you want – delays, partial compliance, or misalignment. Mostly predictable, but with small surprises that keep players adapting.

Combat friction comes from battlefield uncertainty – no attacks miss, units falter, suppression bites. It forces players to weigh risk and adjust on the fly.

Friction works best when its source is clear, and even better when the rules themselves explain how it operates. Understanding why units may not act every turn or why the battlefield misbehaves turns tension into purpose rather than frustration.

Ochain,
I'm assuming by "friction" you mean chance or randomness, or perhaps character traits. Or it could mean gaming factors that only become apparent during the game. I've found that some players, especially older ones, can get very worked up if your conception of such things, like what "luck" is and what a dice roll represents differs from theirs.

Mister H
"Friction works best when its source is clear".
I think so. I enjoyed a ruleset called Battlegroup-Panzer grenadier except that the action was slowed down by so many dice rolls: there were rolls for target acquisition then factoring the calibre of gun, then the other side rolls for armour penetration and effect, then morale – it was taking ages. What did the dice rolls represent? Chance. But we know that the more we know about an action, firing under test conditions for example, the less or next to no "chance" there is. And on the other hand, probability is cumulative. If an event is subject to variable factors we can't delineate, then add them all together as you do in maths and have one die roll for them all. I'm pretty sure many rule-writers have dice rolls as a cipher for action but it doesn't work. It kills imagination because then the simplest of actions taking seconds in real life become a series of: look up table, roll, roll, other side: table, roll, later roll. Nuts. I spoke to the author of those rules and he wrote an effects table reached by combining weapon and armour with one dice role. Much better. Now the focus was off the tables and hand rolling, and back on the models, terrain and player decisions.

The less dice rolls the better. Stick weapon and armour factors together and roll once. The results should be consequent including morale effects.

Likewise, I much prefer playing cards to initiate action than dice: just weigh the deck for the attackers and have certain sub-commanders who can initiate action despite the cards so we get:

Potters
Limited time for decision-making.

Yes. Brilliant commanders seize the initiative by taking decisions at the precise moment and at the critical point. One way to do this is to let a unit commander with initiative take some of his movement in the movement phase and some after his opponent has moved in a "charge phase".
This way, you're letting the players cause the "friction".

Similarly, a player with initiative can choose when to shoot: before the other player moves, during or after.

KimRYoung Supporting Member of TMP 27 Jan 2026 5:33 p.m. PST
"Friction" is far less of an issue than no friction and commanders skidding of the greased rails."

Yes, only bringing in probability to stymie action makes a game lop-sided. Bring it on to initiate action too. One way is to give sub-units like brigades character cards but that can get too complicated.

Another way is, each turn the card (or dice) is used to decide army initiative, use the number given, to identify a unit (battalion, warband). The character card for that unit's commander is then activated and a dice roll (I know, I don't like dice rolls) picks the list of characters it has that is going to be activated, such as "rashness" can make for a precipitous charge or make the unit freeze in place. Although rash characters like Ney win battles, they can also lose them. Whearas some of the most reliable battle-winning and morale-inducing commanders like Hill we also the most careful to follow orders.

Wolfhag
"Do you prefer predictable command with occasional failure, or constant uncertainty?"

If the player represents the overall commander looking down on units and generals under his command, how much of a factor is their ability to follow orders going to play? The main uncertainty should be the enemy. Which is why I'd say that how you set up the beginning the game, when almost everything is uncertain, is the most crucial. As the battle progresses chance plays a lesser and lesser part. But this is only "chance" from the point of view of one side. This is not chance = unknown but chance = hidden.

Which is why the most enjoyable way to introduce "friction" to the game is to bring on the attacker, or even both sides in an unexpected way. One way is to leave it hidden where the attacker or his re-enforcements come onto the table. Another way is using markers instead of visible units. The marker has a number representing a unit on its underside. The player moves them across the board in the normal way. Likewise the defender deploys his troops using markers only – plus up to twice as many blank markers. The whole scenario represents darkness before dawn, or mist. Sighting distances reduced to a minimum. Each turn as the darkness lifts sighting distance increases until they can be seen. If they stay in cover, they remain as an unknown marker until they fire.

Having said that, I do like event cards where one is turned per turn. You can tailor them to events in a particular battle. They can do things like being on a thunderstorm that jitters the horses or a sudden surge in the morale of a certain captain. They create "friction" in the mind of the player because they focus attention on a new part of the game in an unexpected, but limited way without detracting from the wider decisions made by the players.

@ Stoppage
"You've described the SYW/Napoleonic set of rules "Skako".

We've used them (& possibly might use them again?) but in big games it takes forever to change an order. I expect large formation commanders to have a little more Independence."

I love Shako. Conliff's M.R. system is a work of Art(y) and easily memorised; making the game flow. As to changing orders, never found a problem. He encourages you to draw your orders, such as divisional deployment and lines of attack on a sketch-map of the terrain. You can activate initiative per each division and give, say, one or two generals on both sides initiative advantage. You can then add limited "if" orders to a division like: "deploy here. If enemy approach within 18", use initiative". The commander representing you can move about the table, as can his aids, to change orders.

The delay forces you to get it right as much as possible first time and then encourages you to have your commander anticipate the crucial point of decision ahead of time. Which seems about right. How would you have it different?

Cacadoress,

Friction can appear to be random, but there is normally a reason.

Event cards should be tailored for the scenario. Historically, skirmish-type battles rarely took more than a few hours. How many events can happen in that amount of time?

Limited time for player decisions: Won't work for me. Simplify the rules.

If the player represents the overall commander looking down on units and generals under his command, how much of a factor is their ability to follow orders going to play?

Is there a chance an officer does not have the "ability" to follow orders?

When I was in Boot Camp, I learned how to obey orders, and I'm sure the training at OCS was even more intensive and professional, but there are incompetent officers, too.

Your CO does not normally micromanage his subordinates. He tells his subordinates their mission or objective, and then Auftragstaktik and Frag Orders take over, and you determine how to do it. This is where the player comes in.

Even at the Platoon level, the LT is not making the decision by himself. He has three E5 squad leaders with 5+ years of experience and a Platoon Sgt. E6 with 6+ years of experience giving guidance, but mistakes can be made.

I think the first thing you have to ask is, historically, what are the occasions where the commander refused to obey orders, and why? Then you can attempt to model it.

Common Situations of Refusing Orders:
Research indicates that refusal typically occurs in three high-stakes scenarios:

Tactical Preservation: Refusal to follow a retreat or attack order when the subordinate believes the move will lead to unnecessary slaughter or missed victory.

Moral/Legal Conflicts: Disobeying orders that, while legally issued, would result in war crimes or the death of non-combatants.

National or Political Interests: Refusal based on "national cards" where a commander believes an order from a multinational superior violates their home nation's interests.

Examples by Command Level
Squad Level: Observation Post Refusal (Salerno, WWII)
During fighting near Salerno, an officer ordered an observation post squad to move deep into a German-held area. The Sergeant (squad leader) refused, stating his entire team would be "dead in five minutes". Despite the order being repeated, the squad leader maintained his refusal to protect his men from certain death.

Company Level: The "National Card" at Pristina Airport (1999)
During the Kosovo War, General Wesley Clark (NATO Commander) ordered British General Mike Jackson to use force to seize the airport from Russian troops. Jackson famously refused, telling Clark, "I'm not going to start World War III for you". While this occurred at a high level, the refusal directly halted the movement of the Company-sized reconnaissance elements and parachute regiments that would have carried out the assault.

Battalion/Higher Level: Daniel Sickles at Gettysburg (1863)
During the Battle of Gettysburg, Major General Daniel Sickles (commanding the III Corps, comprised of several battalions) was ordered by General Meade to hold a specific line. Sickles disagreed with the position and moved his entire corps forward to higher ground without permission. This left the Union flank vulnerable and resulted in his force taking nearly 40% casualties, though Sickles later claimed his insubordination saved the day.

The game mechanic of issuing orders every turn isn't really about historical C&C but more about an attempt to randomly/chaotically parse the action within a turn (my opinion). It's pretty unrealistic, given the problems of receiving intel to get a picture of the battle, and relaying and communicating orders before wireless radios.

I was the radioman for a while in our Rifle Platoon. The LT would be given an order by the CO, acknowledge it, execute it, and report when it was accomplished. Normally, it was a short conversation between the LT and CO on what to do over the radio or at the CO HQ, and then agree on a Course of Action.

Typically, if you have been given an order or objective that you can't accomplish, you'd check with your commander if you can and request what you think the COA should be (Fall Back, attack, defend, etc.)

What gets tricky is when you can't get to your HQ to tell them the situation and request new orders, reinforcements, etc. Then you have to act on your own initiative. That's where the player can implement problems and chaos.

Fear of the unknown can be a factor, too. If you are guarding a perimeter at night and you've lost contact with the units on your flanks and can reach your CO, you may feel cut off and fall back to establish communication.

The main uncertainty should be the enemy. Which is why I'd say that how you set up the beginning of the game, when almost everything is uncertain, is the most crucial.

Yes, hidden setups are important. I use them, but I won't go into detail for now. The scenario should provide an idea of the enemy force's makeup and intentions.

Which is why the most enjoyable way to introduce "friction" to the game is to bring on the attacker, or even both sides in an unexpected way. One way is to leave it hidden where the attacker or his reinforcements come onto the table.

I agree.

Another way is using markers instead of visible units. The marker has a number representing a unit on its underside. The player moves them across the board in the normal way. Likewise the defender deploys his troops using markers only – plus up to twice as many blank markers. The whole scenario represents darkness before dawn, or mist.

I've used similar methods.

Sighting distances reduced to a minimum. Each turn as the darkness lifts sighting distance increases until they can be seen. If they stay in cover, they remain as an unknown marker until they fire.

I haven't used that for WWII scenarios, but it's valid for the blackpowder era.

Wolfhag

Wolfhag, Thanks for taking the time to write that up. I really appreciate you grounding the discussion in lived experience rather than theory. I don't have a military background, so perspectives like yours are exactly the kind of reality check I want when I'm working on command-and-control mechanics.

One thing your comment helped me clarify is that a lot of what I'm trying to model isn't issuing orders every turn, but what happens after orders are issued – especially when communication is delayed, incomplete, or breaks down entirely. In other words, HQ work doesn't stop once the shooting starts.

Based on feedback like yours, I've tightened and clarified a few aspects of my command system rather than adding complexity:
• Order persistence is now explicit. Orders remain in effect until changed; there's no per-turn requirement to "re-order." Changing intent costs limited command attention, which better matches the "acknowledge, execute, report" flow you described.
• Short COA checks are cheap and reliable. A quick request to fall back or adjust posture can be approved automatically if command attention is available – modeling those brief, practical conversations you mentioned.
• Local initiative kicks in when HQ can't respond. When a formation starts to come apart and command can't intervene in time, reserves commit automatically. That loss of control is intentional – it reflects action taken on the ground, not player choice.
• Fear and isolation matter. Loss of contact or disorder can trigger involuntary fallback unless stabilized. That maps directly to your point about uncertainty on the flanks and acting conservatively when cut off.

None of this is meant to simulate radio procedure or staff process in detail. The goal is to expose the decision cycle pressure – the feeling that there are more problems than command bandwidth, and that some outcomes happen before you can react.

So genuinely, thank you. Comments like yours help keep the abstraction honest and focused on command reality rather than gamey chaos.