I hate modern rule sets. They're unnecessarily complicated and to my mind illogical in some respects. Here are three things that I don't like about rulesets.
Saving throws
Yes, the Blessed Featherstone had saving throws, but they're just a sop to the attacked player and slow the game.
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.
I would rather a set of rules that incorporated the saving throw into the to hit. As a corollary, there is a difference between "saving" and "effect" rolls. For example, the Firefly hits the PzIV with a 17pdr AP shell. What effect? This could be anything from totally destroyed to pinging off the armour, by way of immobilise, crew killed, turret jammed etc.
Randomised movement
Yer average person moves at 3.1mph. There are many reasons why this is an average. Moving up hill. Moving down hill. Moving through undergrowth. Being tired or having to keep in line with companions. On flat ground for the duration of a wargames, yer average person can maintain a constant speed, and a trained unit is trained to maintain a standard - watch the Trooping of the Colour.
So it may throw an element of uncertainty into a game, but ... no. It's a silly concept.
Activation
Take Napoleonics, 'cos that's what I'm doing at the moment. You are the colonel of an infantry battalion. Your have been ordered to hold that hill. There's a regiment of Dragoons threatening your flank, but oh no! Although you've been observing their movements for 3 moves, your incompetent dolt of a general hasn't drawn a Spade. So you stand in line and get massacred.
Foolishness! Any colonel worth his salt would form square. It's his job to form square in the face of cavalry. Granted, his orders are to hold the hill, so I don't expect him to suddenly decide to take that church, but he should be expected to fight his unit.
I was watching a video of a Team Yankee game and a M1 tank was unable to blaze away at a column of BMPs ... because ... reasons. Unless that M1 was told to stay quiet, I'd expect it to start picking off those APCs.
So there you go. Three things I don't like about modern rulesets. I appreciate I'm a solo gamer, but seems to me some rule concepts have little merit. I'd be interested in (sensible) counters.
Playing Devil's advocate and opening up the point for discussion, Some aspects of modern rules bring definite improvements, for example you want to do a formation change - march column moves to square. One base stays in place and the rest are simply lifted up and moved to make the new formation ... older rules would prescribe exactly how that deployment should be made, with the flanking companies getting a move bonus so that they could reach their correct position!
I also rather like the command chaos that modern rules seek to create, whether that be randomised movement, activations, reactions or whatever. It loosens what has been described as the God-like control that players have over their armies, that allows deployment and reaction to bend to the players wishes and which is in truth far removed from reality.
There are plenty of instances in which units have been caught on the hop, such as the regiment at Quatre Bras (can't remember which one) which suddenly had enemy heavy cavalry upon them, because the high rye grass (seldom replicated in games on the subject) allowed the cavalry to surprise the infantry.
At 2nd Bull Run, 5th New York (Zouaves) came under murderous attack from Confederate Texans. The 5th NY commander ordered his unit to fall back, but under the thunderous noise of battle and the chaos of intense fighting, his order was mostly unheard by the formation, so they stood and suffered for it. Without chaos systems, players would never allow such things to happen and would move their armies with a precision and intention that as pretty much impossible in reality.
For solo players in particular, chaos enhances play by loosening the players grip on both armies, forcing each to do the best with what they have. I think the point is that some players just cannot give up any form of control and so for them, chaos rules just spoil their game, so it is not that the rules are wrong or bad, it is just that they are a mismatch to the players natural inclination towards play, balance is everything. Boardgames have exactly the same issues, especially those that use card decks.
Black Powder has randomised Command, in a single turn a unit could move once, twice or three times depending on command roll or they might fail their command an not move at all (5th New York Zouaves mentioned above). Bonnie Blue Flag rules has a basic movement allowance plus a D6 in inches,which is just another way of doing similar to what Black Powder is doing, though a bit less blunt! In Black Powder under the Glory Hallelujah rules, if a unit can and does move more than once, it will not be able to fire in the same turn, so that movement chaos comes with its own checks and balances.
Old rules allow cavalry to move around the battlefield at a higher rate than everything else for the whole game .... they didn't do that, they moved at walking pace except when they had short bursts of activity with high movement, but then the horses were blown. Black Powder through its randomised movement, does by abstraction, a better job of showing that, than many 'older' rule sets.
Whatever wordage is used in the rules to 'dress up' an action, the designer will have worked hard at getting the maths right to make it work, that is equally true of Save and Hit systems as much as single dice resolution systems, you have to ensure that the pace of the game is moderated to give a feel for action.
I'm not saying that I am a huge fan of Black Powder, but it probably serves well as the 'example' of modern rules. Sometimes I am in the mood for buckets of dice and other times not. But taking something like General d' Armee (napoleonic) or Picketts Charge (ACW) by Dave Brown, which is more reliant on opposed 2D6 and also using the bell curve of 2D6 on the game charts, then the maths underpinning the system is quite obvious. Hits and saves have a more random spread per use but a statistical average over the course of play or several playings.
Modern sets do have more verbage ... is that better explained rules or all eventualities covered or tight rules for tournament play?
I have just picked up Shadow of the Eagles (Napoleonic) by Keith Flint. It is a gorgeous production, just a pleasure to own, but as you read through it, the strongest ethos that comes through is that the designer is looking at removing things that are a barrier to smooth play and encouraging gamers to actually get a game to the table does seem to be a design objective of the modern rules writer, Absolute Emperor (Osprey) and La Salle 2nd edition being recent notable efforts in that regard. Do these systems move us away from accuracy / Sim towards play value, perhaps, but every design sits on that line and at least with the plethora of rules out there for what is a niche hobby, whether old or new rules, there is something for everyone.
Saving Throws
I'm quite happy with these in games, probably because most games I have ever played have them in. I think there are a few reasons for saving throws
1) keeping both players involved
2) letting the dice do the work - it is possible to combine the effect of saving throws and to hit rolls into one roll, but to do this you need a table to work out the likely results, and then have to roll against this and consult it for the answer. Being able to roll a set of dice find the 4+ ones then re-rolling these as saves is pretty straight forward.
3) It makes it clear to the players whether its the unit being hard to hit that is stopping wounds, or if its the units protection (probably a minor reason) but does help to know if you need to bring up something that is Armour Piercing or something that is better at hitting to attack a unit.
Variable Moves
I play very few games that use these - the only ones that I do use it to represent the effects of rough terrain, which seems reasonable enough - you don't know who dense the woodland will be until you get in to it.
Combing variable moves with activation rolls can really take things to far though!
Activations
I'm a big fan of games which have some friction due to activations - it really helps to break up the 500' tall general effect of the player. But I also dislike games were the activations are too random and disrupt the game too much.
Games like Lion Rampant and Warmaster fall into the too random camp - in LR whilst units can activate about 70-80% of the time any failed activation ends the turn. In WM units can fail around 40-50% of the time which can lead to some brigades sitting around for turns, also the multiple activations can lead to some units/brigades dancing across the table. The WM system has good and bad parts, it can lead to dramatic actions but it also leads to player frustration.
In our home-brew fantasy rules activation is d10 based, a 1 is a failure, a 2-6 is a single order and a 7+ is a double order. The split between single and double orders varies by fantasy race. This seems to work well for us - gives some friction but avoids the doing nothing for turns problem.
I like the card activation in If the Lord Spares Us, which has a card per unit, a commander card, and the Tea Break (turn end) card, along with a few extras. The commander card and the rule that any unit that hasn't activated gets to shoot at the end of the turn, work well to stop the problem of units not activating turn on turn.
As a closing point, I don't play any Napoleonic games so the above isn't about that period in any way at all!
I have written a fair few sets of rules so I am aware of the possible problems :-
1) Gods eye. We as players can see all of it, but troops on the ground would not be able to. So we have observation tests, but these are less than perfect particularly if the random is a D6. Also the are few sets of rules outside the modern period that have one, despite all the smoke on a Napolionic and earlier gunpowder periods.
2) Subordinate incompetance. We as players can see everything but our on-table subordinate commanders can't They should only react to what they know, and the orders die is a way of reflecting this so we give low CV scores to armies which have poor command control values, requireing low values for poor armies, such as Napolionic Auistrians or Italians.
3) Saving throws. Yes I can see these as being contentious but again represernt the randoms that occure in warfare. Depite paper stats it's not a garentee that a gun will penetrate a given thickness of armour, or cavalry will break that infantry in line.
Cheers IanS
And this explains why I don't play modern games.
I love modern rule sets. They're not remotely complicated nor, to my mind, any more illogical than their predecessors. Here are the things that I like about modern rulesets.
Saving throws
Keeps all players involved in the game. reduces the risk of,"that's my turn over, I'm off the the bog, then the bar, then I'll chat to half a dozen folk, don't expect me back for the rest of the game."
The more dice you roll the nearer the average they should roll.
Randomised movement and Activation
I'm not a big fan of randomised movement and haven't seen a rulebook that includes it in thirty or forty years. Different rates for certain terrain for certain troop types, fair enough.
Activation, however, I'm a big fan of.
This can subsume the variable movement element into the general buggeration factors that disrupt General's plans.
Yer average person moves at 3.1mph. On the flat, when not having to stop to check if the unit on the left is friend or foe, if not needing to dress lines, if not forming square because they sight cavalry then back to column because the cavalry turn out to be friendly, or because the colonel is a Nervous Nelly who sends light infantry to check every bush and gully for an ambush ... and so many more non-terrain reasons.
Wargames tables may be flat but the terrain they represent won't be.
So it may throw an element of uncertainty into a game, but ... that's the idea.
I can deal with the uncertainty. Yes sometimes it is frustratingly difficult to execute your master plan. It's like life, "sometimes you eat the bear, sometimes the bear eats you" :)
Loads of elements making up a unit
I loathe rules where you are supposed to be a divisional, corps or army commander and are also expected to shuffle ludicrously small components of a unit into shapes to represent some formation or other. At that level I have subordinates to take care of that. The combat factors should take account of formations. If the infantry roll a 1 and the cavalry a 6 then the infantry were caught still forming square - or whatever. Modern rulesets seem to increasingly use elements as units.
The biggest problem with modern rules for me (modern as in currently written, not just modern period) is combat resolution by single D6.
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.
The advantages and disadvantages of differing circumstances are far more subtle than can be conveyed in a single D6 system. Any alleged wargame that uses a single D6 for combat resolution all the time is merely a game, not a wargame.
Most rules writers seem intent on converting real world probabilities to fit they dice they have fixated on. I do the opposite, I pick the dice type to the probability outcomes required, so use everything from D4 to D100, and get a much more nuanced game. D&D players are used to using multiple dice types, so it's not a problem for historical gamers. The other trick is to use the dice inversely for some circumstances, like BKC command rolls, where lower is better. That beats the cheaters who use loaded dice. Doesn't stop lucky gamers being lucky though :(
Using dice in pairs is also good for probability representation.
I do hate saving rolls though. The player doing the damage should get to roll for the damage, it gives agency to his shot/firing/charge. And this is an important part of rules writing, giving agency, if you like, to players rolls. Then if you fail the damage roll, it's your own fault, eg your 88 bounced off that Sherman, for whatever reason, and the luck/probability hasn't been taken out of your hands.
The I-go-u-go methodology where one side moves everything then the other side moves everything is clearly past it's time, and rules like BKC, Black Powder, MeG, Bolt Action, Piquet? that have some kind of randomness is far better, even if in some cases the combat resolution suffers the single D6 disease.
It is a realilty that in battles at least a third of the troops were doing nothing at any one time, whilst others may be making herculean efforts (the so called impulse system in Napoleonics, or what is now multiple activations in some rules sets). So while it may be frustrating for wargamers with their god-like drone recce observation, the grunts on the ground had far less situational awareness. And a lot of these mechanisms are roundabout ways of achieving that.
Quote from: sultanbev on 18 July 2021, 10:13:16 AM
. . . The other trick is to use the dice inversely for some circumstances, like BKC command rolls, where lower is better.
Ahh, my personal bugbear. I love Warmaster and it's descendants, but that is just wrong.
Roll high for success, roll low for success. Don't care which is used in a game. But pick one. And stick to it.
Quote from: sultanbev on 18 July 2021, 10:13:16 AM
That beats the cheaters who use loaded dice.
Oh, hadn't thought of that. Is that really a problem?
Interesting discussion, something I've been thinking about a lot while developing my own rules.
I do like activations and the potential chaos they bring but dislike the arbitrary nature of them at times. I've gone with a bit if a hybrid. The number of activations you get is unknown, but when you do get one you can choose which commander to activate, so can focus on the important areas. Each unit in the activated command may move freely, but then there's a random element on top that allows for extra movement or bonuses, again making the player decide how to focus their attention to get the most out of their forces.
I'm also in the consistent highs good, lows bad camp. I don't mind the context switch too much, but do prefer if it's all one way.
I've also gone with a 2d6/1d6 system to allow a bit of variety. 2d6 are used for things like loyalty and melee to allow a greater probability curve while single d6 used for things like charging and shock, where a much more "aggressive" result is needed. There's no saving throws as such, melee is an opposed roll with the victor getting to roll for shock impact that will weaken or rout the enemy making close combat pretty brutal.
I certainly find I like the idea of systems where your decisions are meaningful but they're tempered by the chaos of battle.
On the d6 for combat resolution - a lot of games vary this be varying the number of dice thrown. Whether or not this gives enough nuance probably depends on the rules and what they are trying to represent
In our home brew rules we moved to d10 to give more range for modifiers, but you end up being in danger of having so many modifiers no one can remember them.
There is one guy in our group who really struggles with polyhedral dice - he has no background in D&D - and really can't tell d8s and d10s apart. To the degree we always give him d8 of one colour and d10 of another.
Of the three issues I mentioned, my least favourite is activations. Mostly because it takes the illogical view that subunits are incapable of independent action, and subunit commanders incapable of independent thought. I may be the most thick-headed Royalist general, but Prince Rupert ain't gonna stand still for no-one.
Make it interesting. Units have their orders, or they do what they think they should because they have no orders. This depends upon their commanders, and the character of their commanders.
Take my example of a colonel defending a hill. His orders are to keep the enemy off that hill. If he sees an opportunity to take that church would he? Well, if he was a hothead or a glory hunter or just incredibly green he might. If he were cautious he may pass up that opportunity to possibly take a key position and so swing the course of the battle. His "activation" is affected by a number of things. The presence of a brigadier effectively take activation out of the colonel's control. the General, some distance away exerts remarkably little control.
The fact that the General is concerned about his other flank being attacked by Cuirassiers would have little bearing on the Colonel viewing that church. On this basis the general 5 activation points is, IMHO, meaningless.
How about a rule that allows the opposition to attempt to activate a unit? The enemy could choose to tempt the Colonel into attacking the church in the hopes of his attack failing and so tearing a hole in the line?
Ah, I must admit, I do activations slightly differently. I roll for a unit, in effect, to see if has received orders, rather than to see if a HQ has sent an order. Slightly different. So, in essence each unit commander has a rating against which he can roll. This then represents them having their own initiative, or not. It could also represent the alacrity with which the unit responds to a higher command order. So we don't bother with the -1 per 20cm or whatever distance from the commander. If the unit succeeds in it's activation roll, it gets another go at the -1, and so on. However once that unit fails it's roll, the play then switches to the other side. If two players fail their first rolls in sequence, or one passes and the other fails, the turn ends.
So we have the chance that you can activate every unit, with the added 'pressure' of neither side will know when that turn will end, so you don't actually know if you will get to activate all your units in a turn, and yet you have the chance of a unit doing something spectacular occasionally; and play alternates by unit during a turn, but units have the possibility of doing multiple activations. This is for WW2/modern. but could be applied to your scenario.
For our Napoleonics we have 3 levels of randomness. THe total number of commands you have (brigades, divisions, corps, armies) determines how many playing cards you get, starting from 2 aces and 2 twos. Each pip is a brigade activation. However, you shuffle your deck, and place your cards face down next to the divisonal, corps and army HQs. SO you could load heavily a lot of cards into one division, or spread them evenly across the force, but you don't know that turn how much you'll get to activate. The total number of pips allows you to move each brigade 1.5 times on average. A Joker is included in each deck, which allows you to activate a whole division.
The 2nd level of random is generated by a second full deck of cards, a control deck shuffled and face down, one side is red, t'other black, and that determines who goes next. Runs of 3-6 cards in one colour are not unknown!
The 3rd level of random is we use Fire & Fury rules to dice individual movement, so sometimes you'll get a unit that is slower than the rest, or one that refuses to budge.
When it's your go determined by the control deck, you pick a command card from one of your piles, and that's how many brigades you activate that phase within that division. A corps or army card allows you to activate brigades from across their force, for example to carry out a combined attack by parts of two divisions, but we limit them to two cards per Corps or Army HQ if they are average, one if they are poor, three if they are exceptional. DHQs can have unlimited number of cards. But you D10 under the F&F system each battalion to see if it does what you want. This is a particular attribute of the F&F system as morale and disorder is factored into the roll in a neat way, there are no separate morale tests.
Quote from: sultanbev on 18 July 2021, 12:59:48 PM
When it's your go determined by the control deck, you pick a command card from one of your piles, and that's how many brigades you activate that phase within that division.
That's the mechanism I don't understand. I have a brigade of three battalions. I order them to advance. Two do, the other one doesn't. Why? Let's shoot that colonel and the major can move his unit. Even if I am with the right hand unit, I would expect the left hand unit to advance in line with the other two. Again, if it doesn't shoot the colonel and get the major to take control.
There is a certain logic in units not receiving orders up until WWII-ish, but the thought of an M1 platoon not being able to communicate with the squadron commander would be a rare exception.
What is a "modern" ruleset? Are they rules that have been released after a certain date? Given that I've been wargaming for over 50 years, perhaps we could categorise them into "old school," "middle school" and "new school?" I'm also puzzled by some comments on so-called "modern" rules - e.g., some rules that I would consider "modern," actually allow the actions that "modern" rules are being criticised for not allowing. To help focus the discussion further, perhaps it would be better to define what a "modern" rules set is first or simply confine the discussion to features from quoted, specific rules to criticise or praise?
[p.s. I don't like Saving Throws. That would be "old school." (Simultaneous movement may also be considered as such?)
I don't like complicated rules - the type when it was the rage to write rules that sought to portray the most accurate simulation of warfare ever. That would be "middle school." Slick, fast play but in keeping with the features of the period would be what I would consider "new school."]
The lack of movement might be a morale thing, the regiment being slow to pick up their packs, or the ground is muddier or rougher than expected, or they all have dodgy engines or the crews are famished. or the regiment is tired or reluctant, or the colonel of the regiment has to explain his orders twice to his dimwitted major, or his O-group has too many questions asked, or the company captains are having trouble keeping the ranks dressed.
Whatever, it reflects the random variables of war, which according to most participants is chaos interspersed with moments of clarity rather than the other way round.
No doubt the slow unit will catch up next activation/next turn.
In the F&F version, if your unit is fresh, in command radii of competent brigadier and DHQ the worst you can do is move half rate for that phase. But then the movement rates are generous compared to most other rules, so racing off at full speed isn't always a good idea anyway. Unsupported units generally get punished in F&F.
As for moderns era, the CV rating is as much about the OODA loop i think it is called, reflecting how quickly units react to changes of circumstance as it is about technology of the comms system.
Quote from: Westmarcher on 18 July 2021, 01:33:14 PM
What is a "modern" ruleset? Are they rules that have been released after a certain date?
I don't but many rulesets. I think the rot set in with Bruce Quarrrie's "Napoleon's Wars in Miniature" ... which was 1977.
Quote from: sultanbev on 18 July 2021, 01:53:34 PM
The lack of movement might be a morale thing, the regiment being slow to pick up their packs, or the ground is muddier or rougher than expected, or they all have dodgy engines or the crews are famished. or the regiment is tired or reluctant, or the colonel of the regiment has to explain his orders twice to his dimwitted major, or his O-group has too many questions asked, or the company captains are having trouble keeping the ranks dressed.
To a point, m'lord. As the gods of war, we know where the ground is muddy and rough. Terrain factors make legitimate impacts on movement. I accept those, but the battalion has the same dimwitted Major on move 2, 3 and 4 as they had on move 1. Putting in a rule that says "you're off but that field is muddy so you only move 1/2 speed" is fine, and I'd even accept a rule that says "this unit is green/cowardly/slothful/tired so is reluctant to advance, and will only do so if specific conditions are met", but to me that should be consistent within the game and not at the whims of the dice gods. Your grenadiers have been pushing on magnificently, but now has to stop so you can get that militia unit to defend the bridge. At the start of the game, you as general ordered the militia brigade to advance to the bridge and generally you should be able to predict what it is going to do.
There can be a lot of confusion though on a battlefield, and usually a particular turn is only covering a short period of time, so it's not impossible that a commander might misunderstand an order, hesitate while considering the situation, not receive the order due to the messenger ending up in a ditch, or having troops who are less than keen about the idea of leaving the nice safe wall they're hiding behind and throwing themselves into the range of those scary-looking cannons...
That's what activations tend to represent. It depends how you see yourself, as a god simulating the battlefield, or as a General trying to get the troops to do what they're damn well told and stick it to the bally enemy! People, by and large, can quite often be resistant to doing things that might make them...well...die. Shocking behaviour of course, but a truth many a commander has to contend with.
Saving ThrowsKeep both sides involved and allow more subtle probabilities
QuoteFor 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 6 or more = 16%
Odds of hitting is therefore 50% x 16% = 8%.
Odds of throwing a 6 = 16%. Different effect but fewer dice rolls.
Variable MovesI am comfortable with these when used in working out the impact of rough terrain but not for open terrain
ActivationsOne of the things I really like about the activation system in FK&P is that it takes into account what the unit is trying to do as as well as terrain and the training/experience/size of the unit
As commander you have the ability to make decisions that influence the odds of each activation and by selecting the order of activation influence what is most likely to be achieved
This is much more satisfying than you rolled a 9 or a 12... and builds a much better narrative
I also like the card activation system of ITLSU, it generates an appropriate level of command friction when you need to draw two Tea Break cards to end a turn (and units that haven't activated get to fire at the end of the turn rather than do nothing)
I have been developing a set of rules for the French Revolution from a set of 80s rules 'Vive l'Empereur' by Ned Zuparko.
SAVING THROWS
None
VARIABLE MOVEMENT
Only relative to terrain
ACTIVATION
Rules are for Division being the highest Command level, so Brigade activation only. Individual unit Commanders are taken to know what they are doing as regards reaction to circumstance.
Activation failure is taken to represent failure of order interpretation, delay in order transamission, etc. Activation is then automatic
on the following turn assuming this Fog of War element has disappeared.
DICE
D10 throughout with success or lack of based on a percentage chance.
GAME SEQUENCE
Originally Simultaneous but now adjusted to an IGOUGO with as much interaction between players during a turn as possible.
BASING
A major area I fail to understand is the basing of figures in 2 ranks, 4 figures in 2 ranks for example, particularly when Linear formations are
the standard for period being gamed. Base depth has always been an issue for all figure/game ground scale, so why not base figures
In a single rank?
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 in your games fsn it seems that you very much want those orders defined at the start of the battle. And therefore command rolls would represent how well they are executing those orders, or when you need to change them. This is a different requirement to most rules. Over the time frame of a typical game turn there feels that a lot could happen to disrupt a units advance. I think it comes down to how many turns you typically play, if a game only has 4 turns a unit doing nothing for a turn is significant, but if you have 16 turns then this is far less of a thing. In a low turn count game you might say a failed order is half-speed rather than do nothing. The chance of successfully completing their orders should reflect typical things such as training, commander experience, threat factors etc - things that are often part of Command Values / rolls - but the key thing is probably where the cut off for success / failure is.
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.
Quote from: fsn on 18 July 2021, 07:04:42 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: paulr on 19 July 2021, 08:52:19 AM
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.
@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.
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.
Quote from: fsn on 19 July 2021, 05:18:47 PM
@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 :)
I've gone from Empire 3 at 20, to Neil Thomas at 61...
Quote from: fred. on 19 July 2021, 11:33:51 AM
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 :-B
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 ;D
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 :o
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.
Quote from: fsn on 19 July 2021, 05:18:47 PM
@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
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
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?
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.
Ah! I posted too soon. FK has of course shown me the error in my ways, or has missed the point.
QuoteThe more dice you roll the nearer the average they should roll.
Bzzzztttt!!! Illogical Captain.
QuoteReal 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!
Quote from: Raider4 on 19 July 2021, 04:36:34 PM
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.
Quote from: fsn on 19 July 2021, 05:24:37 PM
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.
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?
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.
Quote from: steve_holmes_11 on 10 September 2021, 10:50:24 PM
The bestest rules involve shooting matchsticks at your enemy through a Brittains 4.7" gun.
Use the 25pdr mesen
Quote from: steve_holmes_11 on 10 September 2021, 10:48:51 PM
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?
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.
If I am in a road accident at 30mph then there may be a number of different outcomes, from "oops" to "call a hearse".
In other words, movement is predictable. Battle is not. There are more factors affecting battle than there are affecting movement. If you don't believe me, try an experiment. Time yourself walking from point a to point b every day at the same time for a week. Then try challenging different people to a fight.
Quote from: steve_holmes_11 on 10 September 2021, 10:44:24 PM
That does sound like a lot of work.
Not really. It is more realistic though.
Quote from: steve_holmes_11 on 10 September 2021, 10:48:51 PM
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?
They clearly fight on a football field.
Quote from: FierceKitty on 11 September 2021, 08:34:00 AM
They clearly fight on a football field.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
Oh wait. You're serious?
No Kitty, but one can assume that movement of a (for example) trained body of troops A would be approximately equal to trained body of troops B. Agreed that on flat ground this would be speed X, up hill on a 10
o slope Y (where X<Y) and on through a wood speed Z. It is illogical to assume that troop A would move along a road at speeds X
1 then X
2, trip along at X
3 again, then back to X
1, unless acted upon by some change for example a ford, a slope or an ambush.
There is a difference between units of the same type having consistent speeds across the
same terrain and units of the same type having consistent speeds across
different terrain.
Look. Here are bodies of troops marching at the same speed across the same terrain!
Quote from: fsn on 11 September 2021, 07:06:45 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.
If I am in a road accident at 30mph then there may be a number of different outcomes, from "oops" to "call a hearse".
In other words, movement is predictable. Battle is not. There are more factors affecting battle than there are affecting movement. If you don't believe me, try an experiment. Time yourself walking from point a to point b every day at the same time for a week. Then try challenging different people to a fight.
Not really. It is more realistic though.
We're clearly playing different periods.
None of my armies drive along otherwise empty metalled roads in the course of fighting.
Quote from: fsn on 11 September 2021, 07:06:45 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.
Quote from: Westmarcher on 11 September 2021, 12:29:32 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, 12:29:32 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.
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!
@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.
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
Quote from: paulr on 11 September 2021, 07:33:01 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.
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.
Quote from: paulr on 11 September 2021, 07:33:01 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,
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 !
Quote from: grahambeyrout on 14 September 2021, 01:37:00 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".
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.
I suspect the second Steve