Activate units? Not fair! Not strategic! Boring, right?

I have found a rule-set called "FUBAR" recently (download: http://thegamesshed.wordpress.com/2010/06/17/fubar-one-page-sfmodern-rules/). And there is this rule: The active player can try to activate a unit. If he misses the probe initiative will change and the opponent could try to activate his units. Within a turn the right to act randomly changes.

I had to think about that for a longer moment.

As I mentioned before, we are playing a self-made tabletop game in our wargaming group and precisely this rule was discussed one year ago.

If I unstand the rule right, two things will happen:

1. Not all units get activated in a turn (this can be quite frustrating!)
2. It is not possible to plan a strategy (this can be more frustrating!)

Do you know the game "Don´t get angry!" (german: "Mensch ärgere Dich nicht!")? It is the same effect: You have to roll a 6 on a 1D6 to "activate" your meeple at the beginning. If your are not lucky, you cannot act in your turn. Meanwhile your opponents are playing - hey, don´t get angry! *gg*

Besides that it can be very frustrating to be not allowed to act because of a lack of fortune, it makes no sense to plan an attack or a long term strategy. At any point of the turn your plan is doomed for failure if the opponent has more luck than you. Is this fair? IMHO not! Is this a strategic wargame? IMHO not!

Maybe I should not demonize this rule, maybe "there´s more than meets the eye with you." Sorry, had to lend this quote by Sam Witwicky *bg*

What about a little justification?
New rule: The active player can try to activate a unit. He makes his turn until he will miss the activation probe. The second player gets his chance now. And so on. Main changement: A unit that could not be activated at first try, can be activated later. The unit is not lost in this turn. If one player used all of his troops the other player can act freely till the end of the turn.

What will happen?:

• All units get used in one turn
• You can plan a longer strategic proceeding but sometimes you have to react on things your opponent is doing.

Disadvantage: The rolls of dice for initiative cost too much time.

Maybe even better: Both players roll a dice (1D10 or 1D12). The result is the sum of the roll and their initiative value (INI). The more points one player is above the result of his opponent the more units he can use till the next initiative probe is needed.

Example:
Player A with INI=5 rolls his dice and the outcome is 9. Result: 14.
Player B with INI=3 rolls his dice and the outcome is 5. Result: 8.
Player A can act with 6 (14-8=6) of his units until the next initiative probe decides who will act next.

Hm, just thinking aloud *gg*
What do YOU mean?

In my imagination it could be worth to try this variation out.

Let´s do it! ;-)

It´s your turn! Wargaming with fixed rotating turns and/or unexpected "change of initiative"

Last time I gave you an insight in our self-made tabletop game with the topic "Fog of War".
This time I will write about our general concept of a turn-based gameplay.

There are many options how to simulate a battle:
1. Player A does his turn. He can move and fire. Afterwards player B does his turn. Again player A starts in the next round - etc.
2. Player A does the first half of his turn. He can move. Player B does his first half also. He moves his units. Player A can fire. After that player B has the option to fire - etc.

Up to this point everything goes like in a traditional board game where one player starts first in every turn. Now we arrive at the complexer concepts:
3. Both players move and fire simultaneously. This variation only works if you use hex-fields or other divisions. Movement and firing is done hidden (on a paper). When both players wrote down their actions, the results are played out. Sounds boring? It is...  
4. Both players roll a dice. Winner starts with his turn. Losers turn follows. If the Loser wins next turn, he may move/fire twice in a row.
5. Variation of (4): The Winner can choose if he likes to act first or if his opponent can do his turn first.

Maybe there are other or mixed concepts. We used to play the last variation because of the strategic component to pass the first turn to the opponent.

The Jaffa Tabletop - concept of turn-based gameplay

The initial roll of a dice seems to be a randomized event at the first look - and that is right of course. The players have a 50:50 chance to get the initiative. We added another component to get a "spicier" and more controlled gameplay. The COs (Commanding Officers) and NCOs (Non-Commissioned Officers) in your line-up come with "Initiative Points" (INI points). COs give 2 INI points and NCOs 1 INI point. The ratio for the initial roll will change if one player starts with more infantery (background info: We have more or less fixed rules when a CO or NCO has to be in the line-up). The INI points serve as a kind of balancing factor between line-ups with many amoured forces (less INI) and line-ups with many infantry (high INI). The more two line-ups differ the more important is a fixed turn-based gameplay because amoured forces have wider ranges (movement and firepower) and could decide a battle in two rounds (in the worst case). However sometimes the player with less INI points will win the inital roll. Then this player has a good opportunity to plan a strategic two-round tactic or just shock the enemy. On the other hand he has to plan what will follow after doing a two-in-a-row strike.   

While playing a battle soldiers get lost - even COs and NCOs ;-) - so the INI value can change. Again it influences the balance if one player gets too strong - the gameplay will become more and more a fixed turn-based one if the a player loses more INI than his opponent.  

Hope you get me right, if both players start with an identical INI value both players have a 50:50 chance to get the initiative in a round. Then the game is more open and riskier. A wrong tactical decicion combined with an unplanned "change of initiative" can have a stong influence on the game. This effect is good! We want to end a battle on the same day we started it!

What do YOU think about our system? Which variations are YOU playing?

Two eye-catchers from the archive at the end of this post:

German troops fend off a british attack 



This german guy can´t miss the russian BA-64



Fog of War - A must have for realistic wargaming?

In this post I want to discuss the need for "Fog of War" (FoW) as an essential point in designing a tabletop game.

Short definition of the term FoW in context of tabletop: Without FoW you can see the whole plate and all units of the enemy. Of course that is not a close representation of reality. In a more realistic scenario all enemy units are hidden till they are in the range of effective reconnaissance (e.g. scouts). FoW simulates this natural limits of recon in a tabletop game.

If you are interested in a better definition in context of military: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fog_of_war Greetings to Clausewitz!

We used to play without FoW for many years. It seemed to be very complicated to simulate hidden units with a free movement (without Hex fields or any other type of predefined movement). In our last games we tried "Blips" (papers that represents the infantry or vehicles) and the opinions were divided over this experiment.

Here you can see some Blips in action.

I´d like to discuss some pros and contras of FoW.

Pros:
- The quotation by Molke "Kein Plan überlebt den ersten Feindkontakt" (no plan survives the first contact with the enemy) can happen. You placed your units. The enemy did the same but now you only see some "Blips" - not the units behind. The game starts and you scout some "Blips" to expose the units behind - ouch! Your harmless russian BT-7 tank stands vis-à-vis with a german Tiger. Now you have to proof your skills as a general, right?

- I felt more tension. The Blips were moved. You are thinking "hell, what drives so fast?" or "this Blip could be slow driven scout to buffalo me or a really big tank". This knowledge gap produces a good mood right from the beginning. None of the units are in fire range but the game is thrilling.

- The other way around - FoW is a tool for a general to make strategic or unexpected movements to get an advantage in battle. As a player I have more options.


Contras:
- Blips cannot represent "hidden" units. I see a Blip and I know there is a unit.

- Blips cannot represent the height of a unit and that can become a burden when discussing if this unit (Blip) can be seen by a scout or not.

- Before starting a game you have to tinker the Blips and that costs time. Even more time if you want to represent different classes of vehicles or their specifics like size or weight.

- For risk-avoiding players its even more difficult and time consuming to decide their lineup. More options lead to longer turns.

- A problem rises when a granade scatters on top of a Blip. If it is a vehicle and the Blip represents the right size of it, everthing is fine. If it is a group of infantry you have to call "Scotty" - that´s a real problem! Does the granade damage the whole group? Or just a unlucky number of soldiers? Or should the shot be defined as "missed"?


What do you think? Any more Pros or Contras? Which FoW rules do you play?