Rule Heresy

[Chris Pringle]

For example "I need to hit on 4 or over. 5! You're hit." "I need to save on a 5 or 6!" 
Odds of throwing a 4 or more = 50%.
Odds of throwing a 5 or more  = 33%
Odds of hitting is therefore 50% x 33% = 16%.
Odds of throwing a 6 = 16%. Same effect but fewer dice rolls.

But if I need to save on a 6 rather than 5+, it becomes 50% x 16.7% = 8.3%. Much harder to do with a single D6. The opposed roll uses two dice to produce a bell curve of possible results, which is often better than the blunt instrument of a single D6.

Personally I like saving rolls, partly because of the probability maths, partly because of the agency/involvement element others have noted. I didn't use them for "Bloody Big BATTLES!" but I was responsible for them in the "Check Your Six!" air combat rules. These require a to-hit roll, a damage roll, and a robustness (ie saving) roll. This seems like a lot of rolls, but because most shots miss in air combat it's usually only one roll; furthermore, you actually save yourself a lot of redundant calculation that would otherwise have to be involved if you tried to resolve the whole lot with a single roll. It also allows elegance in that these rolls incorporate the chance of running out of ammo (certain doubles rolls in the to-hit roll) or suffering a critical hit (doubles on the robustness roll).

On randomised movement and activation rolls: both of these have the virtue of introducing uncertainty. There are other ways to do that - event cards, dice for command points, etc - but the essential thing is to provide a due quantity of Clausewitzian 'friction'. Depending how it is done, this can add realism (though it can be overdone). Equally importantly, having spanners thrown into the works can give a player more interesting tabletop challenges. I certainly have an aversion to 'automatic armies' where I have guaranteed control over my troops and where their progress is predictable. Hence BBB uses activation rolls.

[Ithoriel]

I am working, at a rate that has glaciers wondering why I'm dawdling, on rules for my Mesopotamia Early Bronze Age games and my Early Sengoku Jidai rules. In both, units start with a an order stance, denoted by a coloured die.

These are currently:

Attack (red): Move at full speed directly towards the enemy and engage them in melee combat until they or you are dead, then find a new target and repeat

Advance (orange): Move at least half speed towards the nearest enemy to your front. If armed with missile weapons stop once in range and engage them with missile fire. If armed with melee weapons engage any enemy with a lower combat factor, otherwise halt and change orders to Stand

Stand(green): May change facing but not otherwise move.

Skirmish (yellow): Move to within skirmish range and irritate the enemy into charging then run away. Rinse & repeat.

Reform(blue): May not be done if within charge or missile range of an enemy. Recover one point of Effectiveness. The first point of Effectiveness, once lost, cannot be recovered.

Road Move(purple): start on a road, end on a road, move double rate. Don't wind up in combat in this formation!

Generals have a small number of points to spend to change orders or rally troops, every turn.

Combat involves units rolling 1D6 per point of effectiveness then comparing die rolls. highest to highest, next to next and so on.

Each dice pair you win (in general) reduces your opponents effectiveness by one.

Effectiveness zero means the unit is not capable, through some or all of  losses/ exhaustion/ morale collapse, of putting up any meaningful resistance.

A minus effectiveness means the unit is routing. Routing units lose a point of effectiveness every turn. When -1xEffectiveness equals the starting effectiveness, or if the unit leaves the table, it is lost. Generals can change a routing unit's orders to Reform if a1D6 roll added to the current effectiveness is 0 or higher. He can add points to raise effectiveness further. Obviously, putting a routing unit into Reform state simply stops the constant Effectiveness drain.

Every unit involved in Melee, Missile or Skirmish combat loses a point of effectiveness at the end of the turn, win or lose.

Combat is nasty brutish and short

Whether it is a better way of introducing friction I am yet to be convinced.

[Raider4]

Variable Moves

I was going to say that I've not come across a ruleset with this, and then remembered the Battle of Britain rules that have been mentioned here a couple of times - all fighters roll a d6 for movement. It works well in this instance.

[fsn]

@Ithoriel - like the simplicity of your idea, but doesn't the enemy get to see what you're planning?  Granted it's probably quite obvious.

@Chris Pringle -  I was using a simple example to demonstrate a point. My rules tend to use 2d6 or a d10. I'm also opposed to "automatic armies" but don't see activation as a valid response. As a general I should be aware that the 3rd brigade is a bunch of slow moving, slow witted dolts who are likely to run at the first smell of powder. I'm also aware that the 1st Brigade are the Guard and so will do what is required of them with intelligence and alacrity.  Units should continue with their orders until acted upon by an external influence. This could be a wall to climb over, an elephant dying in a mountain pass or a rain of Apache arrows from the cliffs. If the 1st bttn doesn't move because they've run out of foot salve, then the other bttns in the brigade are likely to stay put - though there will be a goodly number of chaps wearing gold braid galloping about the place. To me activation is indiscriminate and doesn't allow a general who knows his troops to make informed guesses. or troops to do things that local commanders would do as a matter of course - like shooting up that column of BMPs blithely pass the front of my M1, or forming square when threatened by cavalry or looting the enemy camp.     

@Fred - I don't think specific orders for each unit is necessary, and my concept of "orders" is that at the start of a game (unless it is an encounter game) yer general will issue general orders like "brigade 1 will advance to the bridge and hold it. Brig 3 will seek to flank the enemy. Brig 2 will maintain link between brigs 1 and 3 "  Where this becomes interesting is when things go wrong (as they invariably do when the enemy gets involved.) For me (and I'm thinking Napoleonic - or pre-radio) the brigadier can either a) continue to try and carry out their  their orders  b) request or receive new orders or c) do their own thing.
   

[fsn]

BTW, in my Napoleonic rules, orders to Brigadiers have to be carried by an ADC. He may or may not make it, but I do give him the ability to find the Brigadier unerringly.

This is why my armies have a number of single base ADC figures. 

[Ithoriel]

@Ithoriel - like the simplicity of your idea, but doesn't the enemy get to see what you're planning?  Granted it's probably quite obvious.

Since this is intended for my own amusement and for solo play, the enemy already knows

[Ben Waterhouse]

I've gone from Empire 3 at 20, to Neil Thomas at 61...

[paulr]

I think a lot of order systems come down to providing something simple and playable, that takes away some control from the player. Most players don't want to create orders for their forces - my group still speaks badly of spearhead and drawing arrows on maps.

...

But I think many of the more recent sets accept that players don't want to spend time writing a formal plan and use the command roll to restrict activity somewhat. A recent exception to this is O Group by Dave Brown, which very much expects plans and company boundaries. But still uses command points to focus effort and action.

We really enjoy the planning required and arrow drawing of Spearhead

So you don't want to see the Appreciations and Operational orders I've written for some of our big multiple player Modern Spearhead games then
A fellow wargamer reviewed one of them and commented that they would have received a pass at the NZ Staff College where he was an instructor

[fred.]

I think a lot probably comes down to how much time and effort people have available to setup a game. We play on Friday evenings, and for many of the players pulling together an army list and their figures in time to get to the game for the start is often significant effort after work etc.

Therefore we tend to fall back on what we know / are familiar with which is army list in the GW style and planning of the game/battle happening during the game.

There are definitely times were a more organised setup works, but these are fewer, and perhaps link more with when we get together for a bigger game. 

[Chris Pringle]

@Chris Pringle I'm also opposed to "automatic armies" but don't see activation as a valid response. As a general I should be aware that the 3rd brigade is a bunch of slow moving, slow witted dolts who are likely to run at the first smell of powder. I'm also aware that the 1st Brigade are the Guard and so will do what is required of them with intelligence and alacrity.  Units should continue with their orders until acted upon by an external influence. [...] To me activation is indiscriminate and doesn't allow a general who knows his troops to make informed guesses. or troops to do things that local commanders would do as a matter of course    

Sorry, fsn, my earlier reply didn't do your valid point justice (I got interrupted and only posted half of what I meant to say).

Activation doesn't have to be indiscriminate. In BBB we might rate your 3rd Bde as Raw, Passive and Fragile and not represent their General. Thus their activation roll would be at a -1; once Disrupted they would also suffer a -1; after the first casualty they would become Spent, another -2. Conversely, your Guards are Veterans and get a General. He gives them a +1 on their activations and most of them will die before the formation is Spent.

But it is true that activation produces erratic effects that don't entirely reflect how a military machine operates, even one subject to friction. Take the oft-quoted views of Archduke Charles on the difference between the Austrian and French armies. The rigidly hierarchical Austrians were hidebound by duty and rules and extremely wary of doing anything not explicitly ordered or sanctioned by the noble above them. The revolutionary French were brought up on breaking rules and seizing the initiative and gambling, because the risk of failure was less than the risk of being guillotined if the Directory thought you weren't trying hard enough. This meant that on a regular linear battlefield, the tidily organized Austrians were utterly dependable and superior; but when it came to operating in multiple independent columns in Switzerland or the more rugged parts of Italy or Germany, the French danced all over the paralysed Austrians. BBB's activation mechanism can do a reasonable job of reproducing that (only make the Austrians Passive or leave their Generals off if they are split up?) but it is not perfect. Other methods might portray it better.

Chris

[T13A]

Hi

Interesting discussion!

I think that it was Phil Barker who pointed out that in real life, orders, chains-of-command, doctrines, staff, etc. are there to reduce the amount of 'friction' that happens in any army, on any battlefield (not a direct quote). But with wargame rules 'activation' systems, regardless of the type used, are there for the exact opposite, in effect to re-create that friction. I think the best rules are those that have the 'friction' but allow the players to mitigate that friction to a certain extent (whether it is having units in certain formations, positioning generals etc.) via the rules.

Cheers Paul

[FierceKitty]

I'm having difficulty believing this thread is still running. How many ways are there of saying battlefields aren't flat, brigadiers argue with ADCs, generals pen ambiguous orders, morale goes too high, morale goes too low, shooting often causes smoke, and bad language can be a major obstacle to communication?

[fsn]

Thank you Chris for your measured response. I think we're not too far apart actually.

To summarise my thoughts on activation:

• Units should be able to take local actions. (Form square, shoot up the BMPs) because it is appropriate that they should do so without referring to higher command.  
• A unit should continue to carry out an order until the order is countermanded or external factors impact  

I agree that my 2nd point is much easier to manage in solo or umpired games. I agree with you that the alacrity and enthusiasm that units obey orders is variable, and rules should recognise that, but once kicked, cajoled or threatened into action, a unit can reasonably be expected to carry that action out according to their lights. You would not expect the 17th Lancers to pause half way through the Valley of Death saying "go on, we'll catch you up." If they ran into an unknown ditch, their halt would be explicable.

To me the crunch point is that receipt of orders and the way they are carried out.  Nolan may have trotted up waving a bit of paper, but once the course of action was begun, it was likely to continue - the die, as they say, is cast.  Agreed if the Light Brigade had been an irregular unit of irregular irregulars, they may have spent a good while getting their act together, may have taken advice on the clarity of the orders or found that union rules called for a tea break. Conversely they may have been off a whoopin' and a hollerin' leaving Nolan spluttering in their dust.

Again, I realise that this is easier to model in solo or umpired games. When your 2nd Brigade suddenly turns left an avoids the carefully contrived trap, your opponent may well ask for some proof that that was the order that they had received.


I would like to thank everyone who has contributed to this thread. Thought provoking and well tempered.  

As has been said many, many times, "don't put that there, that's dirty", and also wargaming is a wide and varied church wherein for every 4 wargamers there are d6 opinions.

   

[fsn]

Ah! I posted too soon. FK has of course shown me the error in my ways, or has missed the point. 

[steve_holmes_11]

The more dice you roll the nearer the average they should roll.

Bzzzztttt!!! Illogical Captain.
 

[steve_holmes_11]

Real warfare wasn't measured in 16% intervals. Period. If you had a mere 5% advantage over your enemy, you'd probably win most of the time.

Bzzzztt!

[steve_holmes_11]

I was going to say that I've not come across a ruleset with this, and then remembered the Battle of Britain rules that have been mentioned here a couple of times - all fighters roll a d6 for movement. It works well in this instance.

I cannot say whether it's realistic (I'm far to bulky in both dimensions to fit into a BoB single seater - besides, I cannot pilot a plane).
I can vouch for the fact that it's great fun.

[steve_holmes_11]

BTW, in my Napoleonic rules, orders to Brigadiers have to be carried by an ADC. He may or may not make it, but I do give him the ability to find the Brigadier unerringly.

This is why my armies have a number of single base ADC figures. 

That does sound like a lot of work.

[steve_holmes_11]

Two simple question for all you chaps who don't like rolling dice for movement.

Why do you like rolling dice for fighting?
Why do you like dice to determine whether troops run away?

[steve_holmes_11]

I think that all the sensible grognards can agree that dice are rubbish.
.
The bestest rules involve shooting matchsticks at your enemy through a Brittains 4.7" gun.