Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 15 posts ] 

Which is better? IGOUGO or Old School?
IGOUGO 60%  60%  [ 3 ]
Old School 20%  20%  [ 1 ]
Neither, I'm all for the sucky system that Infinity uses 20%  20%  [ 1 ]
Total votes : 5

Which is better? IGOUGO or Old School

 Post subject: Which is better? IGOUGO or Old School
PostPosted: Thu Jun 28, 2007 10:57 am 
Offline
Gunner
Gunner
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 12:10 pm
Posts: 131
Here's that age old question: which is better? The somewhat confusing (at least to me) IGOUGO system? Or the tried and tested Old School style of having seperate phases for each action? There's that other system that Infinity uses but we all know that one sucks.

Looking forward to seeing what system comes out in this epic duel!

And no, I'm not on drugs.

cupcake.

_________________
:twisted: I am the cupcake. I like blue. :twisted:


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 28, 2007 2:03 pm 
Offline
Rogue-Psyker
Rogue-Psyker
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2005 12:31 pm
Posts: 1580
Location: Pech, Ultima Segmentum
What is it exactly that makes the Infinity system "sucky"? The Infinity system is one of the better ones available in terms of realism and tactics.

Even what you describe as "old school" is still just another form of "I go, you go" which is chopped in to phases instead of entire turns. Maybe you can give an example of a game which uses the "old school" method since just using phases still describes several ways of doing a turn sequence.

The method I prefer seems to be none of the above. Classic BattleTech divided the turns in to phases and also had individual units rather than whole armies take turns acting.

_________________
"Every man is guilty of all the good he did not do." - Voltaire
"It is to be expected that we will run out of fossil fuels before we run out of optimists, who are, along with fools and madmen, a renewable resource." - Dmitry Orlov


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 28, 2007 2:41 pm 
Offline
Gunner
Gunner
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 12:10 pm
Posts: 131
IGOUGO (or alternate activation) as I describe it is when a model/unit is activated, does all its actions, and then the opponent's model/unit does the same, which can get a bit confusing when you're me. Games which follow this method include Metropolis, Dark Age, and Rezolution.

The 'Old School' method is when the game is littered with phases, each used for different things. Like a whole phase for Moving, a whole phase for Shooting etc... One dude's army goes first, goes through all the phases and THEN the other guy has a go. Like Warhammer, LOTR, Warmachine etc...

I don't really have a problem with Infinity as a game, it's just the system they use for activating models. An action point for every guy on the table, so essentially all (typically the cheapest models) but one model (typically the best model in the list) would stay where they are while the one model that is active, I believe the term was: 'makes like the flash' and deals with the enemy force and goes all one man army on them.

This, so I'm told is one of the more popular tactics with Infinity players, which is kinda, well...sucky.

I put up this poll to see if people preferred one over the other, and possibly find out why.

cupcake.

_________________
:twisted: I am the cupcake. I like blue. :twisted:


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 28, 2007 3:58 pm 
Offline
Master Sergeant
Master Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 25, 2005 7:44 am
Posts: 1675
Location: Australia
What you describe as 'old school' is 'I go U go'.
What you describe as 'I go U go' is alternate unit activation.

Phases suck. I go U go sucks.
Alternate unit activation is the best choice for a table top wargame.
I'll post my own ironclad, foolproof, and arguably perfect, alternate unit activation rules if you're interested.

_________________
Warhammer 40,000 5th edition
The least worst rules for 40K.

The purpose of writing is to inflate weak ideas, obscure poor reasoning, and inhibit clarity.
With a little practice, writing can be an intimidating and impenetrable fog, behind which halftruths and untruths can frolic and procreate unmolested.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 28, 2007 8:59 pm 
Offline
Rogue-Psyker
Rogue-Psyker
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2005 12:31 pm
Posts: 1580
Location: Pech, Ultima Segmentum
cupcake wrote:
I don't really have a problem with Infinity as a game, it's just the system they use for activating models. An action point for every guy on the table, so essentially all (typically the cheapest models) but one model (typically the best model in the list) would stay where they are while the one model that is active, I believe the term was: 'makes like the flash' and deals with the enemy force and goes all one man army on them.
My understanding is that this is a newbie tactic that works well against other newbies but not against people who know how to use teamwork and tactics among their squad members. You can give one unit all your actions, but if it tries to take on the whole enemy squad, it's going to get shot by the whole squad. Many, if not most, of your actions are taken during your opponent's turn using AROs. This is where teamwork and using your models to cover each other is most powerful. We discussed the rules in greater detail in the Visions of Infinity thread.

_________________
"Every man is guilty of all the good he did not do." - Voltaire
"It is to be expected that we will run out of fossil fuels before we run out of optimists, who are, along with fools and madmen, a renewable resource." - Dmitry Orlov


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 15, 2008 3:35 pm 
Offline
Cadet
Cadet

Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 41
my favor goes
to
tactical action/ unit initiative pondered
phase activation decreshendo creshendo activation.

in this model you class unit by initiative . the bigger the better
then you go through phases

during a phase we start with decreshendo so we take highest initiative units value on the battlefield and check which units get an opportunity to act according to the tactical action they are carrying out this turn. the controlling player can chose the opportunity to act now or pass the hand to another player in which case the unit will have to wait the end of the creshendo to be given another opportunity to act.

then we move on to another unit of same initiative that can act and so on, when there are no more we take the following initiative value and go through the process again until we have given an opportunity to act to any eligible units for the phase we play.

then we start creshendo climbing back up initiative values back to top initiative units and the phase end.

this way units act according to their quickness on a battlefield. and it makes for very tense fighting the decreshendo creshendo thingy enables unit with better initiative so allegedly better tactical knowledge to chose to act first or to wait and see ennemy moves and act accordingly.

the different phases ansures that the orders given to the unit factor as well.

here is a concrete example.

phases
movement
alert shooting
assault shooting
riposte shooting
assault moves
close quarters phase
follow up move.

now lets say we have the following orders



Aggressive action
move - assault shoting - follow up moves
or move assault move follow up move

overwatch action
alert shooting
follow up move

manoeuver action
movement
ripost shooting

marshal
movement

now we have

4 squads
2 squads of marines with initiative of 5 and 2 squads of orks with initiative of 3.

1 squad of marine MA goes overwatch and one MB goes manoeuvering.

both squads of orks OA and OB go aggressive action

this is determined during a secret order allocation sequence that occurs prior to the phases.

once order are revealed we start woith movement phase
Squads MB OA and OB are eligible for movement

MB has the highest initiative and can choose to make its manoeuver move now or wait , they choose to wait. we are done with initioative value of 5 and go to 4 there are no unit we go to 3 both ork squads may move now or wait<

they wait too but that does not make a diffrence as we have gone all the way through all units eligible for moving phase so we restart with initiative three orks may use their move now if they dont move they basically decide to stay stationary, this time they close in on marine units.
we go to ini 4 then 5,
squad MB had been waiting allt hat time checking on enemy moves now that they have seen the ork action they decide to fall back a tad .

all units have used their movement ability we move on to next phase

alert shooting

the only eligible unit for alert shooting is MA they shoot at orks .

we do assault shooting only orks squads are eligible for this phase but if they shoot they will lose the ability to do an assault subsequently. OA shoots OB doesn t

note that though OA has less initiative than MB, OA shoots first because of the course of action both squads have choosen.

then MB gets to shoot during riposte shooting.

OB did not shoot on assault shooting so they can now do a assault move i.e a charge they charge MA.

OB and MA resolve hand to hand

now OA OB and MA will do their follow up moves we go into decreshendo creshendo logic again.


of course this kind of order system has more to it than just an interest in the seauence of phases. units get all sort of malus and bonus due to the action they carry out and it also modifies the distance they can move when they move etc...

for example the maneouver action listed above represents a unit moving slowly but crouching and trying to avoid ev=nnemy fire they move a few but are harder to hit by ennemy renaged attack, they can still shoot but shoot last and with a slight malus as shooting was not their priority this turn.

while on the opposite a marshalling unit is able to move a lot during movement phase but ennemy get great bonus to hit them both ranged and in close quarter such a unit sacrifices everything to move as fast as possible.

i have found that this makes for a really high tense game ongoing keeping player active, while most W40k game have one player actually playing while the other does nothing but crossing finger and checking the other does not cheat.......the fact is if you understand random is random and that you dont play cheaters you end up doing nothing but wiating your turn.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 15, 2008 11:20 pm 
Offline
Master Sergeant
Master Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 25, 2005 7:44 am
Posts: 1675
Location: Australia
Sounds weird and complicated and unaccountable and I dislike the arbitrary order models seem to be forced to take actions in. Can you shoot before you move?
Is it possible for a unit with a lower initiative statistic to act before one with higher initiative?

These are the turn sequence rules I use.

Turn Sequence

Warhammer 41,000 uses a form of turn sequence known as 'alternate unit activation'. The basic principle is that each player takes it in turn to 'activate' (move, shoot, fight with, etc.) a single unit, such as a squad, vehicle, vehicle squadron, single character, or monster, until all units on the table have been activated once, at which point, the game turn ends and the process begins again in a new game turn.

For a game of its scale, this turn sequence is considered to give the most desirable balance of speed of game play, detail, realism and accountability, as well as keeping all players actively involved in the action on the table top, as the initiative to act and respond quickly changes back and forth.

Game Turn: The game is divided into manageable segments called turns. A turn represents a period of 5-10 seconds of real time on the battlefield, and a game turn is the division of the game during which all forces involved in the battle are given the chance to take action. Players take it in turn to use a squad of soldiers, a vehicle, a large creature, etc., and once every model involved in the battle has had their chance to move, shoot or fight, the game turn ends and a new game turn begins.

Unit: A unit can be anything from a single infantryman, such as a lone sniper or assassin, a squad of infantry such as riflemen, assault troops, grenadiers or a heavy weapons team, a battery of artillery, a single vehicle like a tank or aircraft, a squadron of vehicles such as bikes or walking machines, a single monstrous creature, or a group of them. Different army lists describe the different units available for use by each race or faction, defining what constitutes each unit.

The exact constitution of a unit may change during a game, for example, two units may join and act as one unit, such as a character joining a squad of infantry, or if a squad of infantry is transported inside a vehicle - the two units combine and act as one. In other situations, a single unit may split into two or more separate units, such as if the unit had previously consisted of two joined units, or if a particular unit is allowed to split during the game.

Activation: Within every game turn, every unit gets its own sub-turn, referred to as an activation, during which it moves, shoots, fights, or takes any other actions it is capable of. A unit is activated when the player that owns it chooses to activate it, when it is his turn to do so. The active unit's activation lasts until it has used two actions to move, shoot, fight or perform other tasks. Once it has done so it is referred to as activated, and may not become active again until the next game turn.

Action: The different options models have for attack and manoeuvre within the space of their activation are called actions, the most common actions being moving and shooting, but also including fighting in close combat, Hiding, setting Overwatch, and performing more obscure technical tasks, such as giving medical attention to wounded soldiers or repairing vehicles. Individual soldiers will always have two actions, but some options for attack or defence require that a model spend both of their actions to do so, rapid firing for example, where a model will often shoot more than twice as effectively than when they spend a single action to shoot.

Vehicles use actions differently to infantry - a vehicle will usually move at a consistent speed, with only the driver having to expend actions to keep the vehicle moving - it will move at a set speed only requiring one action from the driver to do so, and the driver can't make it move faster by spending more actions to move it.

Activation Order

Before play begins, each player counts up the number of separate units in their army. Whichever player has the least number of units gets to act first, if both players have the same number of units, each player rolls a D6 and whoever scores highest goes first. This continues in the same way throughout the game, so at the beginning of each turn, assess who has the least number of units, and that player goes first.

An exception to this is that a player may never activate a unit twice in a row. So the last unit each player activated in the previous turn may not be the first unit they activate in the new turn (regardless of whether they get to go first or second). In this way, if a player only has one unit remaining (which was their last unit to be activated in the previous turn) compared to an opponent's two or more units, then the player with more units will get to go first. If both players have just one unit remaining, they continue to take turns as normal.

When a unit is activated, it may move, shoot, fight, etc. in whatever way it is capable, in any order it wants. For example, it may move then shoot, shoot then move, shoot then charge into close combat, move twice (run), shoot twice (rapid fire), move then Hide, shoot then Hide, etc.

It is easiest to represent this by splitting a unit or model's activation into two halves, represented by two actions. They can spend an action moving up to their normal movement statistic, and the other action shooting as normal. They could spend both actions they are allowed moving, in which case they move their normal movement statistic twice, effectively running. They could stand still and fire twice, rapid firing, or, if they were to start their turn within their normal movement distance of an enemy model, they could shoot at the enemy as one action, then charge them with the other action.

Once a unit has been activated, you may wish to leave a marker with it to show that it has been activated in the present turn. At the end of the turn, all activated markers are removed.

Instead of performing normal actions when activated, a unit may also be placed on Hold or on Overwatch.

Hold: A unit placed on Hold takes no actions during its activation, but waits until another friendly unit is activated and acts in conjunction with it. For example, a unit of infantry taking cover behind a tank may be placed on Hold, so that when the tank is activated and moves, they may move with the tank, continuing to take cover behind it. Going on Hold does not take any actions, when a unit on Hold does take actions, it may take its full turn of two actions.

Overwatch: It takes one action for a unit to go on Overwatch. A unit placed on Overwatch takes no actions during its activation, and waits to respond to enemy actions. A unit on Overwatch is allowed to take up to half their regular turn during an opponent's activation. For example, moving or charging their normal movement distance (counter-charging), shooting, Hiding, etc.

A unit will remain on Overwatch until it takes action during an enemy activation, loses Overwatch due to enemy action, or until it is next activated. In this way, un-used Overwatch carries over from one game turn to the next, until the Overwatching unit uses its Overwatch or is activated.

Any conflicting actions units take while on Overwatch (for example, a unit on Overwatch returning fire at an enemy unit that is shooting at it) are resolved simultaneously. The damage both units inflict is resolved before any casualties are removed. Though Overwatch carries over into the next game turn, when or if a unit uses its Overwatch after setting it last game turn, it may still only take a maximum of two actions in the present game turn. So for example, an Overwatching unit could take one Overwatch action, then it could be activated in the owning player's turn, to take another single action. Or, the unit could simply be activated normally, taking two actions and discarding its Overwatch.

_________________
Warhammer 40,000 5th edition
The least worst rules for 40K.

The purpose of writing is to inflate weak ideas, obscure poor reasoning, and inhibit clarity.
With a little practice, writing can be an intimidating and impenetrable fog, behind which halftruths and untruths can frolic and procreate unmolested.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 16, 2008 4:43 am 
Offline
Cadet
Cadet

Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 41
the action sequence you describe sounds very common to me and numerous games use it.

i works of course and as you said it is the best system streamline game use. games like epic armageddon or AT 43 are an example it looks like W40k 5th edition rules you have in your sig too.

the only thing i dislike qith this system is that it reaches its limits when one player has a lot more units than the other.

the other problem is that an army acting thanks to a such system may never carry combined actions with the different units acting in harmony.

Quote:
Sounds weird and complicated and unaccountable and I dislike the arbitrary order models seem to be forced to take actions in. Can you shoot before you move?
Is it possible for a unit with a lower initiative statistic to act before one with higher initiative?


summed up on an internet forum it can sound complicated but it is not it is very straightforward and allow for a very flexible turn design and customiation, weird ..... on the other hand i fail to understand what people playing with little soldiers like us and devising rulesets can call weird.

in fact it is not weird the main task of the game designer is first off to create archetype combat actions. like

overwatch fire : the models are trying to hit something miving from cover to cover, their main concern is shooting first, accurately, their safety is secondary, moving or being ready for hand to hand fighting is a liability.

Cover advance : the models care a lot for advancing under cover from ennemy fire they crawl crouch and whatever usefull to hinder ennemy firepower on them. they move slowly shooting is going to be achieved only once they have moved and shouldered their rifles again, their crouching or crwaling position give them poor results should they be rushed upon.

stadart assault. unit moves and fire or move run and chopps ennmy to pieces, their objective is to change position in a timely fashion to get a better angle or range or reach hand to hand if they shoot they wont be ready for a rushing move or absorb a charge and will suffer a penalty in hand to hand while if they dont shoot they are assumed to reach for their close quarters weapons while rushing at opponetns and will have a second move towards the enemy and bonuses for hand to hand fighting.

etc....

then the turn is divided into phases in an order that seems both relevant and exploiting proof. the one above was an example but basically you can decide anything it is just a matter of finding keys to intermingle all the combat actions above in a realistic way.

the phases are then working like the system you describe with strategic value, initiative, leadership however you want to name it. this becomes a very important characteristic on a soldier's profile

Quote:
Can you shoot before you move?


mathematically when you do ABABABABABABABA
apart from the fist A you can always consider A to be before and after B and B to be both before and after A.

so basically the phase sequence is just like a card deck only the order of the card in the deck is relevant cutting it anywhere does not change the order.

so yes you can very much fire before you move, you just wait the next move phase in a subsequent turn....the ability to fire before you move seems paramount in a W40k game because of the poor design of the game's ruleset concerning balance between shooting,moving and CC.

in a game where this is balanced , when you play a lot of turns can shoot far but not always kill half of the enemy it suddenly all make sense to not move shoot and move during the next turn.

now if you really think that the above system is complicated just try to remember what people feel if you put them a rulebook in the hands and ask them to strat reading right away.

every ruleset looks complicated, and they are to some extent, this ruleset is certainly not more complicated than any other one, it is just intermingling the fighting a lot and that may seem confusing, sorting out the ongoing of events is an army commander's job.

Is it possible for a unit with a lower initiative statistic to act before one with higher initiative?

not if they carry out the same combat action one unit is quicker and the only possibility for the slow reaction unit is that the faster one decides to wait creshendo part. of the phase.

on the other hand due to the diffrent combata ction the unit carry out a overwatch slow unit will always shoot before an higher initiative unit that is on covert advance for example. but as i said before moving shooting.charging first or second is secondary the important is that actions are intermingled.

so their is not the impression some unit play for 30 seconds of combat time while the other sit there.

Quote:
I don't really have a problem with Infinity as a game, it's just the system they use for activating models. An action point for every guy on the table, so essentially all (typically the cheapest models) but one model (typically the best model in the list) would stay where they are while the one model that is active, I believe the term was: 'makes like the flash' and deals with the enemy force and goes all one man army on them.

This, so I'm told is one of the more popular tactics with Infinity players, which is kinda, well...sucky.


as for infinity game being sucky well... letws replace 'infinity' by 'chess' in the quoting above.....

Quote:
I don't really have a problem with chess as a game, it's just the system they use for activating models. An action point for every piece on the table, so essentially all (typically the pawns) but one model (typically the queen) would stay where they are while the queen, I believe the term was: 'makes like the flash' and deals with the enemy force and goes all one man army on them.

This, so I'm told is not one of the more popular tactics in chess, because everybody has a queen and because a queen while being by far the most versatile piece on the chessboard can be held which is kinda, well...Ok i think.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 16, 2008 6:37 am 
Offline
Master Sergeant
Master Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 25, 2005 7:44 am
Posts: 1675
Location: Australia
It sounds unnecessarily complicated and very gamist.
It sounds as though you don't simply move x distance, you move x distance in y manner, where you need to keep track of y in case the unit is interacted with?
It's not really any more complicated that sticking a 'hidden' counter next to a squad, but I don't see why keeping track of the manner in which you perform otherwise straightforward actions is necessary.

And I get the impression that troops are assumed to be slow-witted oblivious blinkered dunces, incapable of reacting to even simple eventualities in a timely manner, no matter how much it might be in their own best interests.
I don't know how long your turn is meant to represent, but soldiers are generally capable of doing more than one thing at a time, and of quickly reacting to a situation.
If someone has assumed a shooting position, I would not make the assumption that because they are shooting, they are therefore vulnerable to close combat attack. I would make the assumption that anyone trying to engage them in close combat is going to get shot at, completely negating any perceived disadvantage of having assumed a shooting position.

Am I correct in assuming that you essentially cycle through all the units on the table to see who is doing what, up to several times each turn? You resolve all the units doing x action, then run through the units doing y action, then cycle through the units doing z action, etc?

I have never liked systems that arbitrarily dictate that things must be done in certain orders. If I nominate a unit, I really don't see why it should have the order in which it does things dictated to it, or why there should be any problem with it performing actions in any order it likes.
Am I understanding you correctly in that you can fire before you move via not moving in the present turn, then firing, and waiting to move in the next turn?
Similarly, I dislike systems in which the higher statistic always wins or always goes first. I find this sort of yes/no on/off all/nothing mechanic to be inherently imbalanced.
As a simple illustration of why; whatever points a Guardsman pays for his initiative 3 is well worth it when he's fighting Orks, who have initiative 2. But when the same Guardsman is fighting a Space Marine with an initiative of 4, whatever part of his points cost is dedicated to his initiative is wasted; it may as well be 0 in most situations for all the difference it would make.
A Guardsman might be quicker on the trigger than an Ork most of the time, but not all the time.

ajunta wrote:
the only thing i dislike qith this system is that it reaches its limits when one player has a lot more units than the other.
That hasn't been my experience. I've found that an army with numerous cheap units fighting against an army with a small number of expensive units, is essentially balanced.

ajunta wrote:
the other problem is that an army acting thanks to a such system may never carry combined actions with the different units acting in harmony.
This also hasn't been my experience, at least with my system, where combined arms tactics are specifically catered for.

_________________
Warhammer 40,000 5th edition
The least worst rules for 40K.

The purpose of writing is to inflate weak ideas, obscure poor reasoning, and inhibit clarity.
With a little practice, writing can be an intimidating and impenetrable fog, behind which halftruths and untruths can frolic and procreate unmolested.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 16, 2008 9:04 am 
Offline
Cadet
Cadet

Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 41
the whole is about the guessing game that happens in the previous 'commanding phase'

commander decides who is going to try to do what and order tokens are placed next to units.
the orders are reveal all at once and can be change only seldomly in according to comamnding abilities hels by officier units.

the order token is taking care of the remembering of the 'combat action' so there is no need to place another token next to it.

this process is here to mimic the clash of planned action with reality of ennemy squads behaviour. and in such event initiative of a unit does perfectly reflects the edge it gets against slower reacting foes. on the other hand a well planned action will give the slower unit the upper hand on a more seasoned fighter whose commander has issued dumb orders.

it can be labeled gamist but the whole system is fun, intresting, has no down time and not as complicated as one would like to think, and while the feel i have for this ruleset does not come only from the turn sequence, i still think this game sequence is for something in the interest of the simulation.

Quote:
Similarly, I dislike systems in which the higher statistic always wins or always goes first. I find this sort of yes/no on/off all/nothing mechanic to be inherently imbalanced.
As a simple illustration of why; whatever points a Guardsman pays for his initiative 3 is well worth it when he's fighting Orks, who have initiative 2. But when the same Guardsman is fighting a Space Marine with an initiative of 4, whatever part of his points cost is dedicated to his initiative is wasted; it may as well be 0 in most situations for all the difference it would make.
A Guardsman might be quicker on the trigger than an Ork most of the time, but not all the time.


unfortunately it is difficult to have rules without laws and as mere humans there is only so much logic we can or want to process in a game, i can see your point with initiative but in most games weapons have range and so on and they pay points for them too, if a guardsman shoooting range is higher than that of ork and lower than that of marines then basically he pays point for nothin in the second case too.

point system are a bias anyway and can never be perfect. in fact the whole thing of making a point system to try to play even battles is biased. War is never even battles are never balanced.

There is more to tabletop games than winning, doing your best in a lost anyway scenario is a very enjoyable experience too, immersion is better, terrain looks better because free of constraints, there is no bad feeling for loosing or winning since there was no real surprise in that area and you dont need to count points or whatever you just need to set up an situation and simulate the outcomne of it.

as for weapon ranges there is always a range at which the modifiers change or above which one can't shoot while it would be better to have it smothed out, but who is going to play with a laptop to calculate the dice rolls in function of weapon cover and range......table top games have to resort to 0/1 gimmicks so we can play them from chess to W40k.

But in any case i can understand that one feels it sucks just the same i feel W40k trun sequence sucks heavily.

i think we have to balance planing and simultaneity with freedom of action . the system i described does it in a satisfoctory manenr from my point of view and is my favorite.

W40k system unfortunately does poor at simulating both.
The system you describe favors freedom of action at the expense of planning and simultaneity. but is fairly balanced.

It is not bad it is just not my favorite, it favors small elite armies against large cheap armies as the player with the best troops plays with all his strenght while the other can just use only a fraction of it.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 5:51 am 
Offline
Master Gunner
Master Gunner
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 28, 2007 1:14 pm
Posts: 260
Location: Tigard OR
Well I tend to vote none of the above. I find that activation systems or even turn based games have very few issues in the way of playability, but lack some realism. I am sorry but the ability to take some one out before they can fire, is not really realistic. But anyway I digress, I vote for none of the above.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 8:09 pm 
Offline
Astro-Path
Astro-Path
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 12:02 pm
Posts: 3821
Location: Valic IV
greatimp wrote:
Well I tend to vote none of the above. I find that activation systems or even turn based games have very few issues in the way of playability, but lack some realism. I am sorry but the ability to take some one out before they can fire, is not really realistic. But anyway I digress, I vote for none of the above.


Since you would do none of the above choices, what then would you use for your wargaming? How does the turn sequence work in your games...or that you would like to have it work?

McCragge

_________________
Deadlands 3000 - A Retro style MMORPG set in a Post Apocalyptic wasteland, as close as you will get to Necromunda in a browser game.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 8:34 pm 
Offline
Master Gunner
Master Gunner
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 28, 2007 1:14 pm
Posts: 260
Location: Tigard OR
Well I would like a turn sequence that is based a little more off reality. However, I still play games that use these methods. That is because no gaming company has come up with a turn sequence that I feel is realistic. What I would like to see. Is a game sequence of play where actions are completely real time. Since a system of this type is difficult to run, and play. I do not expect to see one that will satisfy me any time soon. At least not in the table top realm. See the biggest problem I have on these three methods. Is that shots and actions are not real time responsive. Which lends to the inaccuracy of play. If I know I have a full turn to distroy a unit before it responds. Then I will alter my strategy. If the units are activated in separate movements. Then people will abuse the activation with a one trick pony. While I am not knocking the playability of these systems, as they are much easier to follow. They still lack a realism that I would like to see in a wargame system.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 1:09 am 
Offline
Gunner
Gunner
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2008 2:50 pm
Posts: 119
Location: London
For a realistic game I don't think you can beat alternate activation of models in phases other than on large battles by writing down your orders and then revealing them simultaniously or through an umpire.

On the other hand, for sheer fun I enjoy the totally unrealistic mechanic used in Warmachine/Hordes. I activate each block (unit/hero/warbeast/robot) in turn - it moves, it fights (removing casualties as it does so), it finishes, and then the next thing activates - and when I run out it's my opponent's turn. It can lead to great fun combinations and also makes planning your turn a lot more interesting as you can set up chain reactions (as can your opponent, giving you more to watch out for).


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 6:50 am 
Offline
Master Gunner
Master Gunner
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 28, 2007 1:14 pm
Posts: 260
Location: Tigard OR
Look everyone, I am not implying that these systems are not easly functional. They work great for gaming. As for realism, Having units stand still while other bounce around fighting and killing. I am sorry but that does not realy happen in a skirmish. As for standard turns I think I have already voiced my opinion. Now once again I am not saying these systems do not have their good points. I still play Necromunda and 40K. I am not big on most of the other skirmish games except Battletech (we are talking old school here).


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 15 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

cron

Powered by phpBB ® Forum Software © phpBB Group