$5.00
$20.00
$30.00
$15.00
Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
12 Posts

Wargames» Forums » General

Subject: A proposed new very interactive Sequence of Play. rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Steve Fitt
Thailand
Chang Mai
flag msg tools
Note that both players can make attacks in all Combat Phases.

Sequence of Play –

A] 1st Player's turn.

1] 1st Player moves, incl. RR moves, brings in reinforcements, etc.
2] 2nd Player moves 25% - 33% for Inf. and 33% - 50% for Mech.
3] Combat Phase with advance after combat [1 for Inf. & 2 for Armor].
. . . Both players can make attacks. Phasing Player 1st then alternate, players can pass. After 4 passes in a row the Phase ends.
4] 1st Player moves 25% - 33% for Inf. and 33% - 50% for Mech.

B] 2nd Player's turn.

1] 2nd Player moves incl. RR moves, brings in reinforcements, etc.
2] 1st Player moves 25% - 33% for Inf. and 33% - 50% for Mech.
3] Combat Phase with advance after combat [1 for Inf. & 2 for Armor].
. . . Both players can make attacks. Phasing Player 1st then alternate, players can pass. After 4 passes in a row the Phase ends.
4] 2nd Player moves 25% - 33% for Inf. and 33% - 50% for Mech.


The intention here is to allow players to always alternate moving, but make it possible to make feints by just moving into an attack position to pull his reserves away from where you don't want them.

The truly new [as far as I know] idea is that both players can make attacks in all Combat Phases.


This is just an idea, it is not playtested.

Added with an edit. For the benefit of later readers --
1] I'm starting from an operational WWII game, Panzergruppe Guderian.

2] The ranges of movement in the short MP will become 1 number. The range lets the designer have Inf. move 4, 6, or 8, etc. And Armor move 6, 10 or 12, etc. depending on how he wants to make the game.

3] I want to make my games Vassal friendly because I'll never find even one gamer in the wilds of Thailand. This means that they can't be *very* interactive.

4] Some sort of "Overrun" rule during your MP would be very nice. The problem is that this makes the turn sequence much more interactive. Any need for the Non-phasing player to make any decision will require an email and a response. I just had the thought of letting you "Overrun" empty hexes by attacking the stack or 1 of the stacks exerting the ZOC on the hex you are overrunning. Now, the only result is you grab (advance into) the hex. If we want to let you mop-up remnants with OV then you can only OV when he can't retreat. This means he has no choices to make. Combine this with the grabbing hexes to surround and we may have a good system.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Edward Pundyk
Canada
Ontario
flag msg tools
Is this supposed to work for all wargames?

I'm not sure how well that would work for 18th Century warfare.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Fitt
Thailand
Chang Mai
flag msg tools
fightinlegalist1 wrote:
Is this supposed to work for all wargames?

I'm not sure how well that would work for 18th Century warfare.

No.

I'm pretty sure it is no good for air combat for example.

It's good for those sorts of games where it works good.


2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
"It's good for those sorts of games where it works good."


The Trump School of design....
11 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kevin L. Kitchens
United States
Gainesville
Georgia
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Wilhammer wrote:
"It's good for those sorts of games where it works good."


The Trump School of design....


Definitely a "heads we lose, tails we lose" kinda year...

3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Confusion Under Fire
United Kingdom
Warrington
Cheshire
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
Steve1501 wrote:

2] 2nd Player moves 25% - 33% for Inf. and 33% - 50% for Mech.




What is the reasoning behind the band for movement. Why 25% to 33% rather than up to 33%. This will lead to units moving in an unrealistic way to reach that objective that is only, for example, 10% away.

I do like ideas that think out of the box but I am not sure if this offers a solution to a problem. Most WW2 firing took place stationary and not on the move. I would love to hear your ideas behind this system and your rationale for choosing the system.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Fitt
Thailand
Chang Mai
flag msg tools
whatambush wrote:
Steve1501 wrote:

2] 2nd Player moves 25% - 33% for Inf. and 33% - 50% for Mech.




What is the reasoning behind the band for movement. Why 25% to 33% rather than up to 33%. This will lead to units moving in an unrealistic way to reach that objective that is only, for example, 10% away.

I do like ideas that think out of the box but I am not sure if this offers a solution to a problem. Most WW2 firing took place stationary and not on the move. I would love to hear your ideas behind this system and your rationale for choosing the system.

Ok, its intended for WWII operational games.

The range in values is because the answer must be an integer. So if Inf. moves 6 then it is 33%, if Inf. moves 4 then it is 25%. Mech/Armor is the same but different. In a specific game with specific MF for the units the ranges would be elim and 1 value chosen and used.

I fiddled with something similar and posted about it here at BG on the Afrika Korps page. There in order to use the short moves you needed to promise to use a Supply Unit that turn to make an attack. This rule just builds them into the turn sequence.

The idea that both can attack in the Combat Phase came to me in a flash of insight. The idea was to move before [not after] the combat phase. The short turn the enemy gets lets him respond to your main move. But, he might have his own plan going. He might be making 2 short moves to get into the attack location that he wants and then planning on attacking in "your" Combat Phase. The short move after the Combat Phase is a sort of MMP and may be limited to just Mech. Understand? It's interactive, and both being able to attack in the same phase is the key.

I'll try to answer any other questions. Yes, it is out of the box.

BTW -- I hope you got the joke in my other reply better than the other 2 repliers.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tony Doran
United States
Columbia
Tennessee
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I think the new Desert Fox Deluxe already does most of what you are attemting. It does not have simultaneous combat. I am not at all clear how you would make simultaneous combat work on a boardgame anyway.

It looks to me like what you are trying to accomplish is a sort of "interleaving" of player operations to avoid the "time compression" issues in most hex and counter game sequences of play.

Here is the DFD sequence...after a Strategic Impulse, the operational sequence goes as follows:

First Player Initial Impulse
6-first player movement
7-second player reaction
8-first player combat
Second Player Initial Impulse
9-second player movement
10-first player reaction
11-second player combat
First Player Follow-on Impulse
12-first player movement
13-second player reaction
14-first player combat
Second Player Follow-on Impulse
15-second player movement
16-first player reaction
17-second player combat

Who the first player is is decided in an initiative subroutine during the Strategic Impulse.

I am curious how you make simultaneous combat work in any turn based game. If you can successfully do that in an operational game, it would further reduce the time compression issue.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Fitt
Thailand
Chang Mai
flag msg tools
narodynot wrote:
I think the new Desert Fox Deluxe already does most of what you are attemting. It does not have simultaneous combat. I am not at all clear how you would make simultaneous combat work on a boardgame anyway.

It looks to me like what you are trying to accomplish is a sort of "interleaving" of player operations to avoid the "time compression" issues in most hex and counter game sequences of play.

Here is the DFD sequence...after a Strategic Impulse, the operational sequence goes as follows:

First Player Initial Impulse
6-first player movement
7-second player reaction
8-first player combat
Second Player Initial Impulse
9-second player movement
10-first player reaction
11-second player combat
First Player Follow-on Impulse
12-first player movement
13-second player reaction
14-first player combat
Second Player Follow-on Impulse
15-second player movement
16-first player reaction
17-second player combat

Who the first player is is decided in an initiative subroutine during the Strategic Impulse.

I am curious how you make simultaneous combat work in any turn based game. If you can successfully do that in an operational game, it would further reduce the time compression issue.

I think you said the 1st and 2nd players can be reversed by a initiative die roll off. If that is true, there may be a problem. I'm not sure it is a big problem, but after phase 17 [2nd player combat] there can be a phase 6 [reversed to 2nd player movement], this is the same player moving after his combat phase. Just something I saw.

......................................................................
Anyway --
You asked about how is it possible to mix combat in the same Combat Phase?

[You did see where I said it had not been playtested, right?]

Well, as I see it, there are 2 choices --
. A] The 2 players attack in different parts of the combat phase.
. . 1] 1st the Phasing Player makes all his attacks.
. . 2] Then the non-phasing Player makes all his attacks.
. . 3] It is necessary to let some units be attacked once by player 1 and then attack itself and vice versa.

. B] The 2 players alternate attacking.
. . 1] The Phasing Player makes 1 attack.
. . 2] The other player makes 1 attack.
. . 3] Continue to alternate attacks until all are made.
. . 4] Players might be allowed to pass, after 4 passes the phase is over.
. . 5] Again, units can make only 1 attack, but can be attacked also [maybe more than once]. Either before or after it makes its attack.

Obviously, the result of each attack is completed before the next attack is made. This includes the advance after combat part.

I really liked elements of the Panzergruppe Guderian combat system, the one I'm thinking about here is -- no need for soak-offs. You can attack from an enemy ZOC hex to attack a different enemy unit without "activating" the 1st enemy unit.

I can foresee that a player could make a counterattack right after an enemy unit advances next to it, before the 1st player can attack again to support it. This is quite different from what we are used to, but is it non-historical? It does allow monkey wrenches to be thrown into plans, is this non-historical? Note that the only movement allowed during a Combat Phase is advances after combat. So, if he doesn't advance next to your reserve unit it can't attack until he does.

This is assuming that the 2 players are both strong in the same sector of the front. Since this is a common occurrence in real campaigns it is OK if it happens in a game.

If the players are attacking in different sectors then I don't think there is a problem. The problem comes if they are attacking in the same sector.

I have to think about what happens if we are using Vassal because I live where there are no other players. With Vassal it would be necessary to have the 1st option with 2 separate Combat Sub-phases, so that the Combat phase would not involve many back a forth "emails" and maybe multi-hour waits.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Cameron Taylor
New Zealand
Auckland
flag msg tools
Die Ostfront, 1941–1945
badge
So serious...
mbmbmbmbmb
I'm in favour of using chit–pull activation, not just to avoid the incredible breakthroughs seen in IGOUGO systems (e.g. c–c–combo!) , but also to keep players interested. The Grand Tactical Series (GTS) are monster games, yet they play so incredibly fast when units have two possible activations per game turn, with each activation being quite short.

There's definitely innovation still to be had in the sequence of play (e.g. East Front Series, Third World War series). The tricky bit is elegance of play—something I've always criticised about ASL given a cursory reading of the rule book (which acronym in the what now on what page?).
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tony Doran
United States
Columbia
Tennessee
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Steve:

Yes, it is possible for one player to have a movement turn immediately following his combat turn. This is deliberate in systems which force a new initiative die roll or card draw each turn. It introduces a touch of chaos in any game.

There are a lot of games which create the illusion of simultaneity, usually through chit pulls or card draws. The main thing which more recent games have done is stopped the old ways in which one player has an entire turn of movement and combat while the second player just watches. They do this with interleaving both movement and combat so that each player has some movement before combat.

Some of these thing were at least experimented with many years ago. For example, the old SPI game Next War had a system in which movement and combat happened together. But they still did not interleave the player turn. I think your proposal might be interesting if you made combat a function of movement, but used chit pulls to decide who gets to move.

Advanced European Theater of Operations simply requires the players to alternate movement and combat phases, and limits how many units can be involved during a given impulse.

Either of the ways you suggest might work. They have been done before, but perhaps not all together in one game.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Fitt
Thailand
Chang Mai
flag msg tools
narodynot wrote:
Steve:

Yes, it is possible for one player to have a movement turn immediately following his combat turn. This is deliberate in systems which force a new initiative die roll or card draw each turn. It introduces a touch of chaos in any game.

There are a lot of games which create the illusion of simultaneity, usually through chit pulls or card draws. The main thing which more recent games have done is stopped the old ways in which one player has an entire turn of movement and combat while the second player just watches. They do this with interleaving both movement and combat so that each player has some movement before combat.

Some of these thing were at least experimented with many years ago. For example, the old SPI game Next War had a system in which movement and combat happened together. But they still did not interleave the player turn. I think your proposal might be interesting if you made combat a function of movement, but used chit pulls to decide who gets to move.

Advanced European Theater of Operations simply requires the players to alternate movement and combat phases, and limits how many units can be involved during a given impulse.

Either of the ways you suggest might work. They have been done before, but perhaps not all together in one game.

How about if I include "Overruns" as a sort of combat that happens during your Movement Phase? This may need to be limited because on Vassal we can't have the other player having to make decisions, that would require 2 more "emails" = real time.

One problem with most chit pull rules that I understand is that they are so interactive that they could never be played using Vassal.

Does anyone want to comment on why limiting a game to being "Vassal friendly" is too much of a limitation?

The rule I proposed would at least be doable, even if it took a lot of time, days or weeks to finish a "short game".

Some sort of "Overrun" rule during your MP would be very nice. The problem is that this makes the turn sequence much more interactive. Any need for the Non-phasing player to make any decision will require an email and a response.
. . I just had the thought of letting you "Overrun" empty hexes that ZOC don't let you enter by attacking the stack [or 1 of the stacks] exerting the ZOC on the hex you are overrunning. Now, the only result is you grab (advance into) the hex on a CRT result of D2 [which can only happen at 2-1+ odds with a roll of 1* (and this would be 4-1 odds except that you are halved to make an OV)].
. . If we want to let you mop-up remnants with OV then you can only OV when he can't retreat. This means he has no choices to make. Combine this with the grabbing hexes rule to surround him and we may have a good system.


. * . At 3-1 odds, a roll of 1 or 2; at 4-1 odds, a roll of 1 - 3, etc. So, this is only possible if the defending units are weak.
. . Added with an edit.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.