messing up the turn system

hi all, i have been thinking lately about the turn sequence used not only in warhammer but also in many other mass battle games. I feel in some ways the 'fog of war' that is present in other games is missing, i mean psychology rules aside troops tend to do exactly as you want, i think it would be fun to play with that idea and come up with some ways to let the troops be a little more 'human' (or 'orky', or 'ratty', or 'swampy mist perve' etc) and react or refuse to react under the pressure of battle. I have put some badly thought out ideas on my blog just to get things rolling http://wronghammer.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/playing-with-system.html. Wondered if anyone else had any thoughts or suggestions?.
 
Way back in the day, Dreamfish and I played a remote game of Warhammer (we've done three, actually) and the key change we made to the game to facilitate the length of time for a turn to be played (by email, in this case) was the turn split you proposed - so IMOVE, UMOVE, ISHOOT, USHOOT and so on. The thing that really stood out to me about this was that the Reserve phase moved from being 'interesting-but-mostly-useless' to 'really-strategic' - because you could use your reserves (presumably as intended) to immediately react to the outcome of combat - redress lines, rotate units for fresh ones and so on. There is also a question around the combat phase, because just flipping the turn sequence as proposed would suggest there are two rounds of combat, one after the other. In our case, we went with it, which was nice as it made combat quite a brutal affair and provided two opportunities to rout in quick succession. I mention it, though, because one could argue there should only be one combat phase - I suppose it depends on how much manouevre vs. combat one wants.

Ultimately, I think it would be one of the best fixes to the game to change the turn sequence as you've proposed.

Your other proposals are all in play in one game or another and all have pros and cons (the card activation one being prone to metagaming by having lots of small units to stack the deck in your favour - see Bolt Action for this one...).

One system you might want to consider is the one used for Chain of Command. It's ... involved, but ultimately wraps itself around the concept of short amounts of time passing and large amounts of time passing very well, which I've not seen in another game. The 'chain of command dice' system also facilitates ambush scenarios very, very well - much better than anything I've seen before. I have not attempted to adapt this to fantasy (or anything else, for that matter) yet.

Always like this discussion - I'd be interested to see other opinions.
 
Thanks for that. Enjoyed the post. Lots of good thoughts there. Fog of war is something that I definitely agree is something desirable in a large game.

Dragon rampant and (I think) Epic 40k/warmaster follow the activation test you describe. I'm not sure I like the fail = turn over as a mechanic, as I think it encourages players to use their best units first (as they are i. most effective and ii. have best chance of success) and to have elite forces. Although some clever rule to modify rolls based on last activation may be possible. I think the major issue with this is that it doesn't scale well. However, if a failure meant the unit stood there/reverted to standard behaviour, I think that could work well. One thing I do really like about DR is how the different actions have different activation scores, and if you could modify these based on other factors (proximity to enemy, casualties etc) then I think you would have a really tactical game.

There was a skirmish game called Skulldred, that never got out of beta, which had a mechanic I liked. Each unit/figure rolled a die, for the action points they had to spend (1, 2, 2, 3) or on the wild face (2/6) the unit reverted to standard behaviour. Elite troops got 3AP, "mindless" creatures shambled forward, "beserk" units charged and so on.

Up Front is another game that has a really neat activation mechanic, won't describe here but worth a read!
https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/586/front/files
It also has a neat terrain system, but that's another topic :)
 
I think partly the problem arrises in putting Psychology aside. Orcs, Undead, Trolls, Halflings can all be a complete nightmare to keep under control, and once routing begins it all just goes to pot.

To my mind many of the solutions provided by other games are too abstract. Most activation systems just seem random, why should that unit go first rather than some other one? Activation tests (I'd suggest using Initiative rather than Ld) almost turn everything Stupid or having constantly jamming weapons, and when added to tests for complex manoeuvres, animosity tests and the suchlike, things get very bogged dow . Have also tried activating units in reverse-initiative order (regardless of which player), so the 'slowest' are forced to move / fight first, but found tracking it was effort.

The Fog of War concept tries to simulate a Generals imperfect knowledge of the tactical situation and how communication occurs on the battlefield. The most direct method of achieving this is to just use written orders. One example is the players simultaneously write orders for each of their units for the turn at the beginning of a turn (before movement), then each player, resolves the actions as per the orders in each round. So all movement, then all shooting, combat ect. I'd like to try having written battle orders at the start of the game, that would set the entire strategy, and then having Ld tests to act counter to those orders, or react to the tactical situation if the player wishes, as that's what most medieval combat would be like.

And while I do like written orders, it just doesn't feel very Orcish.
 
I love the idea of written orders, what level of detail would you use?. Do you do 'advance to the hill and charge any enemy in the way' and let the moves themselves be flexible or do you write each wheel and manoeuvre?. I'm put in mind of fantasy warlord's movement system where movement counters are placed to show the units intended actions, which i think could be bought over almost whole. I get the problem of massed small units to boost card decks but i think thats for cads and bounders!. Hopefully a reasonable opponent would understand that!. I do like the idea of activation tests but i think your right to say the penalty of a 'turn over' could be too harsh in larger games. Maybe it would be better to say 3 fails= a turnover or even break each force into commands that loose the ability to move on a failed activation. Mods according to race, character and previous actions are an interesting idea, and the idea of natural behaviors is very interesting.
 
Sprinkles":vqapaqwn said:
I love the idea of written orders, what level of detail would you use?. Do you do 'advance to the hill and charge any enemy in the way' and let the moves themselves be flexible or do you write each wheel and manoeuvre?. I'm put in mind of fantasy warlord's movement system where movement counters are placed to show the units intended actions, which i think could be bought over almost whole..

Yes, just "advance to the hill" or "charge the flank" or "stand and fire at the big regiment of orcs". Nothing detailed - changing formation etc. is down to the unit leader. Haven't looked at Fantasy Warlord in a while. One of the features of written orders is they should be specific regards enemy units and terrain features, so you can't fudge them if suddenly that regiment of Orcs moves out of range. I think Adeptus Titanicus had very simple orders, not sure if they got further developed in Epic.
 
This is a very interesting and potential productive discussion. I've been involved with a number of games of Rogue Trader that employed the card activation system (BullDogs Rogue Ops: http://heofthreenames.blogspot.com/2016 ... rules.html) and I think it worked out great for small skirmishes...but I can see that applying that to a large scale fantasy game is full of potential pit falls. Like weazil I was involved in some remote games with DF that employed the mixed activation system he described and it did seem to work well for that application...but I'm not sure it would translate as well to an actual table top gaming season.

These are all fun ideas to play around with and I look forward to hearing more thoughts and ideas.

Cheers,

Blue
 
Back
Top