Rule Heresy

Started by fsn, 18 July 2021, 08:04:42 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Westmarcher

Quote from: fsn on 11 September 2021, 08:06:45 AM
Easy. If I go down the road in my car at say 30mph, I can be pretty sure that I will do 30mph until either I decide not to do 30mph or something else happens - like a junction or a ford or a Belgian Gate.      

But what if a puppy runs out onto the road in front of you?   :P

... or if the vehicle suddenly has a mechanical failure (e.g., if these dodgy spark plugs - which the general knows nothing about - start playing up again and the vehicle can't maintain its speed), or if a nearby explosion prevents the driver hearing the order to drive forward (or static affects the radio or intercom) so there is a delay in moving off or the vehicle suddenly encounters a previously unseen shell crater in a dip in the road or if the gradient is steeper than first thought either increasing or decreasing speed or if the driver is scared or wary about the ground ahead and therefore hesitant ....

Movement can also be unpredictable.

History is full of examples of unpredictable movement. Why is the Light Brigade advancing up the wrong valley?  At Talavera, when Anson's cavalry brigade was ordered to attack, the 1st KGL Hussars advanced at a controlled pace but the 23rd Light Dragoons soon broke into an undisciplined wild gallop and ran into a hidden ravine, hobbling many of their horses and destroying their own charge.  At the Battle of Prague, Prussian infantry was ordered to attack towards some green meadows that looked like good ground only to find they were soon up to their knees and in some cases waists in soft black silt. They had blundered into the drained beds of fishponds which owed their green colour to shoots of oats which fish would feed on when the ponds were refilled.

Sometimes ground can be more broken than originally thought to be, slowing down an advance because of repeated halts to dress ranks, etc., sometimes a random event (like the delayed execution of an order - e.g., sniper shooting an officer or commander arguing with an ADC) and sometimes it's not the physical but the mental - the squaddies are convinced there's a sniper out in front or that ground is just too open to cross with confidence.

I am therefore a fan of 'random' movement. Frustrating as it can sometimes be, I like the fact that a unit may not move at all (Sackville at Minden) or move further than expected. However, I'm not fully convinced about "the three moves" outcome in some rules. Two moves is sufficient for me. I suppose a "3 move" outcome recognises that units can be very well handled from time to time or that units can misjudge the proximity of the enemy or simply do not see them (i.e., our tabletops are not as flat as we thought or football fields) and so can be surprised by a sudden onslaught or flanking movement. It must also be borne in mind that many rules stipulate that a formation change takes one full move so a unit doesn't have to move 3 full moves or for that matter, move at all.   

Predictable movement is more like chess to me. But each to their own.
I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be.

fsn

Quote from: Westmarcher on 11 September 2021, 01:29:32 PM
But what if a puppy runs out onto the road in front of you?   :P
Yes. Exactly my point. A unit will continue to progress at a steady rate unless something happens - certainly over the distances represented by a wargames table.

Your examples support my argument. If there is a crater in the road it will affect every unit that goes over it. It will not slow unit 1, have no effect on unit 2 and hasten unit 3.  The 23rd Lt Dragoons failed a morale check. At Prague, a unit behind those Prussians would also have fallen into the black silt. Terrain affects movement. Agreed. Totally agree, despite Kitty's snide assertion.

The Light Brigade may have gone up the wrong valley, but they did it at a constant rate. That is not the kind of predictability I am advocating.

Let's model the Chinese parade using the two systems shall we? In my model, on move 1 unit 1 moves off, and moves 4". On move 2, it being a nice flat CCP parade ground, Unit 1 moves a further 4" and unit 2 steps out 4". Move 3, units 1 and 2 move 4", and unit 3 begins it's goose stepping at 4". All nice and pretty and impressive. I agree that if there was a stream to be forded across the parade ground, unit 1 would probably slow to 2" but so would units 2 and 3.   

In the "random movement" method, on turn 1 unit 1 moves off at ... throw the die ... 3". Move 2, unit 1 moves 3" again, and unit 2 moves a standard 4". On move 3, unit 1 moves just 2" (bad throws here) but unit 2 continues to stride ahead and ends up running into unit 1. Unit 3? Meh. They decided not to move on.

Quote from: Westmarcher on 11 September 2021, 01:29:32 PM
Frustrating as it can sometimes be, I like the fact that a unit may not move at all (Sackville at Minden)

As I wrote previously "a unit should continue to carry out an order until the order is countermanded or external factors impact ". "It's not what happens to you, but how you react to it that matters" - Epictetus. Going back to your Light Brigade example, they began a course of action, following a misunderstood order, and carried it out.

Lord Oik of Runcorn (You may refer to me as Milord Oik)

Oik of the Year 2013, 2014; Prize for originality and 'having a go, bless him', 2015
3 votes in the 2016 Painting Competition!; 2017-2019 The Wilderness years
Oik of the Year 2020; 7 votes in the 2021 Painting Competition
11 votes in the 2022 Painting Competition (Double figures!)
2023 - the year of Gerald:
2024 Painting Competition - Runner-Up!

Ithoriel

11 September 2021, 06:02:02 PM #47 Last Edit: 11 September 2021, 06:05:31 PM by Ithoriel
Unit one steps out across a field. Part way across it  sees a considerably greener strip of grass. Suspecting a trench, stream or similar the officer in charge halts the unit briefly to check. Finding it nothing but grass he order the unit forward.

Unit two following a little behind also sees the strip of greener grass but has also seen unit one pause and continue so it proceeds unhindered by doubts.

Unit three following the others at a distance has barely set foot on the field when the sound of horses is heard to their left flank. The commander orders them to form square but they have barely started when a general and his aides ride up over the knoll to their left and yells at the unit to get forward. The officer reforms them into column and heads off across the field, sees the greener grass, suspects an obstacle and slows the unit while it is investigated  then hurries forward.

Unit 4, having been ordered to halt at the edge of the field just beyond the treeline, has passed a line of three trees. Hearing firing from the wood ahead they stop without entering the field, asuming they are some sort of reserve.

.... and that, best beloved, is why units don't move like clockwork mice across the table .... YMMV!
There are 100 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who can work from incomplete data

Westmarcher

@fsn:

Unfortunately, I'm unable to focus on the detail of your response, Stewart, there being too many distractions around me at present (one of which appears to be a big sign above my head currently which says to my family, "Talk to me and distract me.").  ;D

I could take each of your points and address them (for example, I've already highlighted a real life example of two bodies of the same kind of troops covering the same ground together yet one advanced at a different speed to the other - why is that a failed morale check, btw?) but I freely admit (and apologise) that part of my problem is that I haven't read all of the previous posts nor do I currently have the time to spare to do so).    :-[

However, I'm wondering if my concept of randomised movement is different from yours - hence the confusion. Perhaps it's also because I'm running Movement and Activation together into one category.   

I'm also curious about what your experience of current "modern rules" actually is considering you have stated in the past that you don't usually buy rules and prefer to write your own and so, wondering if you have any misconceptions on the mechanics of specific "modern rules" that might be clarified by players of said rules.

Anyhoo, I'm not overly keen on throwing a dice and whatever number comes up, that is the number of inches you move (although it can work and produce a fun game as my Battle of Britain game with Steve H proved). But I do like the concept of throwing a dice to attempt to activate a unit in the Movement Phase ~ Will the unit move (normally it will)? How many Movement segments will it get (depending on the rules; one, two or three)? And if it does move, will it obey orders or will some mishap occur while doing so (e.g., commit a blunder). For me, it helps to represent the human factor, unexpected terrain difficulties, fog of war, etc., that unpredictability we've all encountered in the course of our reading of actual events, stuff that happens in the heat of battle and not on the parade ground.

I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be.

paulr

Carefully pops head up over the parapet

I am reasonably comfortable with some moderate degree of movement radomisation, say 20-30%, when moving through going that is not good.

I find the you can move 0, 1, 2 or 3 times your normal movement across an open field based on a die roll unrealistic but understand it is also trying to represent command friction
Lord Lensman of Wellington
2018 Painting Competition - Runner-Up!
2022 Painting Competition - Runner-Up!
2023 Painting Competition - Runner-Up!

fred.

Quote from: paulr on 11 September 2021, 08:33:01 PM
Carefully pops head up over the parapet

I am reasonably comfortable with some moderate degree of movement radomisation, say 20-30%, when moving through going that is not good.

I find the you can move 0, 1, 2 or 3 times your normal movement across an open field based on a die roll unrealistic but understand it is also trying to represent command friction

I'm with Paul on this - I found the Black Powder mechanism annoying with the leaps forward or doing nothing, on some quite odd percentages. Warmaster ultimately suffered from the same problems, although the multi-move percentages seemed more reasonable.

But I do like some friction, in our home brew fantasy rules, which are mass battle have (typically) a 10% chance of unit failing to move, 50% chance of a single move, and 40% chance of a double move. These chances vary a bit between armies, with undead being slower, and Elves faster.

2011 Painting Competition - Winner!
2012 Painting Competition - 2 x Runner-Up
2016 Painting Competition - Runner-Up!
2017 Paint-Off - 3 x Winner!

My wife's creations: Jewellery and decorations with sparkle and shine at http://www.Etsy.com/uk/shop/ISCHIOCrafts

Dave Knight

Test of Resolve - Wars of the Roses has pretty much full variable movement

There are some minor variations but 90% of the army will move the distance of a D12.  Unless they roll a 1 when they don't move at all.

A battle is not a walk in the park.  There are a 100 and 1 reasons why a group of men in probably the most dangerous situation that they would ever be in their life might speed up, slow down or even stop. 

steve_holmes_11

12 September 2021, 01:34:43 AM #52 Last Edit: 12 September 2021, 01:37:57 AM by steve_holmes_11
Quote from: paulr on 11 September 2021, 08:33:01 PM
Carefully pops head up over the parapet

I am reasonably comfortable with some moderate degree of movement radomisation, say 20-30%, when moving through going that is not good.

I find the you can move 0, 1, 2 or 3 times your normal movement across an open field based on a die roll unrealistic but understand it is also trying to represent command friction

My experience has showed that the triple move is the ideal formula for getting yourself killed double-quick.
As in:
   "The West Mercians will advance with all alacrity". Rolls great and off they triple march.
   "The Northumbrians will advance with al alacrity". Rolld badly and turn ends

   Cue a bunch of West Mercian lead men looking around and realising they've been hung out to dry.


Like playing the bagpipes: Just because you can doesn't mean you should,

grahambeyrout

My bugbear is rules that does morale tests assuming that the unit in question has perfect information on the opposition.
One example I have come across recently in Napoleonic rules relates to units testing reaction to being charged which go along the lines of if being charged by veteran troops deduct 1, if being charged by "green" troops add 1.
What I want to know id how on earth they can know the quality of the troops coming at them, when the majority of line troops were dressed more or less the same. The same of course applies to any test on whether to charge.
I have also seen a set where the damage caused by a volley depended not on the quality of the shooters, but of the target. I might accept this in some cases (ACW ?) but cannot see this in a SYW situation.
In the olden days of course of calculations done in figure count rather than base count, the same principal applied when morale related to being outnumbered. 24 figures would happily charge 21 figures but would bulk at charging 22. Presumably they employed one of their number to count the opposition before deciding to charge !



steve_holmes_11

Quote from: grahambeyrout on 14 September 2021, 02:37:00 PM
My bugbear is rules that does morale tests assuming that the unit in question has perfect information on the opposition.
One example I have come across recently in Napoleonic rules relates to units testing reaction to being charged which go along the lines of if being charged by veteran troops deduct 1, if being charged by "green" troops add 1.
What I want to know id how on earth they can know the quality of the troops coming at them, when the majority of line troops were dressed more or less the same. The same of course applies to any test on whether to charge.
I have also seen a set where the damage caused by a volley depended not on the quality of the shooters, but of the target. I might accept this in some cases (ACW ?) but cannot see this in a SYW situation.
In the olden days of course of calculations done in figure count rather than base count, the same principal applied when morale related to being outnumbered. 24 figures would happily charge 21 figures but would bulk at charging 22. Presumably they employed one of their number to count the opposition before deciding to charge !

For the "What quality of troops are charging us" - I can only assume it's the hats (So much in this hobby depends upon the hats).
Big Hat - Better troops.
Hairy Hat - Better troops.
Big plume on hat - Better troops.
Fancy metal plate and dangly bits on hat - Better troops.

If you're set upon by a unit with enormous hats composed of metal and fur, and festooned with dangly bits - sorry pal, you're number's up.



There may be something to be said for better troops suffering less form incoming fire.
Like Graham, I see it as more applicable to the age of the empty battlefield when hiding is soldiering.

Back in the age of straight lines and powdered queues, I'd expect the best units to carry on regardless, while their green neighbours start wobbling when a chap six files away gets shot through the knee.
Those third rank fellows are your reserve, are they motivated men who step forward and fight, or shirkers who'll duck out as soon as the corporal is distracted?

I think the key is for a rules writer to use this sort of stuff sparingly.
Slightly increasing the impact of incoming fire is probably slicker than requiring a WRG style reaction check each time a unit takes fire.
I'm not convinced it's significant enough to worry about for any but the creme de la creme.
Chaps who answer a summons to surrender in the style of Cambronne, McAuliffe, Carlyle/Frost or Onoda.

There are many ways to depict the effect of combat on units.
Sometimes we get bogged down in over-rigid thinking and believe "it can only be done this way".
It's something I see in the sort of rules reviews written by somebody who read the rules once, and has never played.
I guess there's scope for another thread about that called "Blog Heresy".

steve_holmes_11

A question to the forum, and especially the original poster.

Is this a good place to continue discussion of rules mechanisms, or would it be more appropriate to split out specific mechanics in different threads.

Lord Kermit of Birkenhead

I suspect the second Steve
FOG IN CHANNEL - EUROPE CUT OFF
Lord Kermit of Birkenhead
Muppet of the year 2019, 2020 and 2021