A 1977 'Blast from the Past' on Youtube

[Big Insect]

I received this from a fellow club-mate and it made me chuckle.
I was not allowed to watch the original series back in 1977, as it clashed with my mum's favorite program on the other side (only 3 channels or was it 4? back then) and we only had one TV in the house 

Note the simultaneous movement.
Enjoy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHjZxZz0igg

[flamingpig0]

There is a real moment of tension when Edward Woodward says "that is a measuring stick"

[Steve J]

I vaguely remembering seeing this series first time around, but re-watched some episodes during lock down, which I really enjoyed .

[flamingpig0]

Note the simultaneous movement.
Enjoy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHjZxZz0igg

One of the worst wargame ideas of all time

[steve_holmes_11]

Is this the one where the main use of artillery is sniping the enemy commanders?

[Duke Speedy of Leighton]

I was four!

[flamingpig0]

I met Bob O'Brien ( who appears in the prog)  when I was a kid obsessed with wargaming; really nice guy

[John Cook]

One of the worst wargame ideas of all time

Why?  People and things don't take turn to move in the real world.  Curious.

[FierceKitty]

You are in a tetchy mood today!

[Gwydion]

Tetchy?
Stating the obvious.

[flamingpig0]

Why?  People and things don't take turn to move in the real world.  Curious.

I always felt playing that system meant  that I was  trying to be fair to my opponent whilst constantly feeling  I was being taken advantage of. That might be  a reflection of the people in was playing back in the late 70s/early80s. It also meant that the game almost inevitable  entailed writing orders which is problematic in itself.

I am not sure that simultaneous movement really does reflect reality to a greater extent because in the real world  people and things don't take it in turns to move.  All the systems simultaneous systems I have come across have separate shooting and melee phases and as we know fighting and shooting are going on at the same time as moving.

Out of interest John what rules do you use? I collect wargame rules ( yes I know) so am always interested in  peoples take on them.

[sultanbev]

Must be over 20 years since I used simultaneous movement! I'd just about forgotten it was a concept.
We tend to like maximum chaos, so you are never certain who is going next in our games, for all periods.

Mark

[John Cook]

Out of interest John what rules do you use? I collect wargame rules ( yes I know) so am always interested in  peoples take on them.

This thread has just popped up again, I hadn't seen most of the above.  So I'm sorry I didn't respond before.  You asked what rules I use.  I've used computer moderated rules since they first appeared in DOS versions in the 1980, currently Computer Strategies V7, which has a suite programs covering periods from ancient to future war.  I haven't used paper rules for decades.
As far as shooting and melee is concerned, yes, there are phases but they are all done simultaneously as far as the program is concerned.  Issuing, and receiving, orders is fundamental and without orders nothing happens.  It is not a problem at all.  The unrealistic you go-I go, which I always found unsatisfactory, and the situation where one player seems to have an advantage by going first, is eliminated.
Computer moderated rules are particularly good for campaigns, taking care of logistics, weather, visibility, going, fatigue, command and control etc., and solo gaming which was a Godsend during COVID.
I know that a lot of people don't like computer moderated rules and are wedded to throwing dice, and there was always the problem of entering the data into the PC, which was usually solved by having an umpire who was 'tethered' to the PC, but that isn't so much of an issue these days with tablets and touch screens.
I wouldn't worry about collectings things, I collect Napoleonic drill regulations.

[Big Insect]

There have been various attempts at 'almost' simultaneous movement in rules sets (designed in theory to negate the obvious disadvantages & potential fatalities to players caused by the use of truly simultaneous movement!  ).

Alternative Initiative or 'Random' Initiative is a fairly common rules concept - allowing players to dice for who chooses to take the Initiative or gift it to their opponent. Armati is an obvious set that immediately springs to mind, and I think some of the WRG/DB rules family has similar mechanisms. But that isn't true Simultaneous movement. It works fine, until one side starts to loose any or all influencing factors (more LC lost or Generals/Commanders killed) and then usually the Initiative decision becomes almost a forgone conclusion - as does the result of the game. Although that might not be that unrealistic.

I've played 'true' Simultaneous movement games, where each player starts their movement from opposite flanks and it then takes on a YouGO/MyGO approach once it gets towards the middle - but it takes a lot of trust to make it work equitably.

Armati is also one of those games that uses 'blind/hidden' deployment. Once the terrain has been placed, a screen is put down across the table and each army is deployed, in their respective deployment areas, but unseen by the opposition. How realistic this actually is, is a moot point, but it does speed up deployment and can add real 'spice' to a game. The Colonial set of rules 'Principles of War' also used a similar system with blank sabots - so that you didn't know what each sabot represented or whether there were any troops in it at all, until you dice successfully to reveal them or get within 'spotting' range.

Similarly, there is a terrain system that allows a more random impact of terrain during a game. This works to encourage table-top scouting. So when a scout unit or an actual fighting formation approaches a Wood, for example, the player dices (secretly) for what type of Wood it is (open, medium, dense or even impassable). Until that point neither player has any idea what effect that wood might have on their movement or fighting ability. The player that has 'scouted' the wood, then places a marker (or even just a piece of paper) with the status of that terrain piece on or under the terrain piece concerned. It is only when the opponent either scouts the wood themselves or sees enemy units advancing through it at a certain speed that they will get to know what type of wood it is. This can work exceptionally well for Solo-gamers.
You can do the same even with Open ground - by rolling a random dice for a unit as it moves across it. Rolling 2 x D:6 every movement turn (for the most furthest forward unit) and achieving a score of 12, a previously hidden low-lying obstacle might materialize, such as a stream for example, or a boggy area or a gully. Again, a dice can be rolled to establish the severity of the obstacle and its movement impact on different troop types.
In this instance once the obstacle has been 'discovered' it is placed on-table immediately - for both players to see (which is a gaming mechanism). NB: I once set off walking across what I thought was a nice flat clear open pasture only to get 2/3rds of the way across it and discover a steep-sided, deep and wide drainage ditch running across my path, blocking the way. I had no idea it was there until I was almost upon it!

I've also played a game where troop capabilities are generated randomly (to a certain extent).
So each player deploys their troops and has a basic knowledge of that troop types capabilities. So a basic Anglo-Danish Huscarl will be better armoured and equipped than the local Fyrd. However, once deployed the player dices (again in secret) to establish a deviation from that basic factor. E.G. a low dice for the Huscarls might indicate that they are disaffected or just totally knacked, having fought some Vikings at Stamford Bridge and just marched (ridden) the length of Britain to get to Hastings to face the Normans. Similarly, the Fyrd might dice high and be very highly motivated (who do these pesky Normans think they are, raiding our villages!) etc.
Each player then marks the quality deviation secretly against each unit. So the Norman Commander cannot necessarily assume that the Fyrd are a soft target and the Anglo-Danish Commander needs to keep an eye on his exhausted Huscarls etc. You get the idea. This can work well in later historical periods where units are a lot more 'uniform' in their initial capabilities. Yes, the Old Guard will be good, but they might be having an 'off-day' or equally might be even more highly motivated than usual ... Wellington is going to have to take his chances on that!!!

Lots of interesting ideas to experiment with