Ok I'm designing a skirmish level wargame and I've come up with a system wherein players have a set number of actions per turn (dependent on the size of the game/armies). Each player will take it in turns to resolve actions. However there is a wrinkle, which is what I'm posing about; after each player resolves his action, both players count how many actions they have left. If the current player has fewer actions left than his opponent then, and only then, does the opponent get his action. Furthermore players can declare a sequence of actions during their action, resolving each in turn. No unit can receive multiple actions per player turn (for balance purposes).
What are the pitfalls of this approach? It adds a little uncertainty and depth to the UGO IGO system that I think sounds pretty neat.

So, as I understand it, the other player does not get to take action until, the acting player has spent enough of his actions to be less than his total.

So P1 has 9 actions, P2 has 6. P2 will not get an action until P1 has used 4 or more actions first?

If P1 declares a series of 8 actions,  then P2 gets a turn after? and p1 then gets a turn after p2 gets down to zero.

I am unclear what you mean about this. An example of some of the issues please?

Quote from: MoonHunter;254902So, as I understand it, the other player does not get to take action until, the acting player has spent enough of his actions to be less than his total.

So P1 has 9 actions, P2 has 6. P2 will not get an action until P1 has used 4 or more actions first?

If P1 declares a series of 8 actions,  then P2 gets a turn after? and p1 then gets a turn after p2 gets down to zero.

I am unclear what you mean about this. An example of some of the issues please?

The idea was that it would work as per your first example. However, the declaration thing seems to have confused it.

Basically the idea was that players would start each round with the same number of actions and one player would get the first action through some means.

Let's assume both players have 10 actions per turn.

Right, so player 1, on his first turn, wants to act three times, so he would declare the three actions and then resolve each of them in turn. The point of declaration is to force the player to plan ahead (and to take the pressure off the opponent for not going first a bit). Player 1 can't change his mind once he starts resolving the declared actions, however he can choose to stop acting at any point, at which point player 1's turn ends.

Now having resolved 3 actions before player 2 has resolved any, player 1 has 7 actions left. Player 2 has 10. Since this means he has the most actions he now gets his turn. Had player 2 had at least 7 he still would get to act (opponent takes over in the case of a tie).

Player 2 chooses to declare and resolve 1 action. Now both players check again and player 2 still has the most actions remaining and so gets to act again. The difference here is that he can afford to act without having to declare actions in advance because he has more actions. This is the price player 1 pays for perhaps being headstrong.

Player 2 now chooses to declare resolve 3 actions, but forfeits the last after resolving the second. He doesn't lose that as an action (ie he still has 7 actions remaining), it just doesn't resolve; had he declared more than three the surplus would all have been forfeit.

Now at this point player 2 has 7 actions, as does player 1 (if my maths hasn't failed me). This means that, as players share the same number remaining, the opponent gets to act, and so player 1 now gets his next turn in the round.

And on it goes...

Is that clearer?

Have you played other wargames that use similar ideas, like the Panzer Grenadier series?

Nope. Never heard of it.

You might want to look into existing wargame rulesets before reinventing the wheel.  These kinds of things have been done since the mid '70s in various forms.

Avalanche Press publishes Panzer Grenadier.  You can check out the rules here: http://www.avalanchepress.com/line_Panzer.php

The big weakness I see with your system is that it doesn't account for training/initiative/morale/elan on either side.  It seems to give the advantage to the side with more men, and that seems to be the only determining factor for activation.  You might want to explore methods that allow the outnumbered side to trump the activations of their opponent ala West End's Tank Leader games.

What time period are setting this in?  What scale (unit size, ground scale)?  Without knowing that, it's hard to get a fix on where you might want to noodle with your system at this point.

You examples make it clear, thank you.

The system makes sense and it is a bit different than the similar system above.

Declaration of actions and then resolvings, you must include rules that actions that are contingent on results can not be in your declaration. "We bombard the area near the bridge, my units move onto the bridge. "um wait, can't do that, your bombardment didn't take out my forces, these guys are engaged before they can get to the bridge",  

Contingent actions could be lost if the contingency fails, thus you are "bidding on potential.

This is an okay system, but it does add a layer of complexity to play.

Such a system is only really useful if the power of "reactive actions" in the system. If reacting actions are effective or powerful, then this system becomes more effective.

I would let units be used more than once, but fatigue or moral loss might be an appropriate result. So yes you can "stress your units" but you pay the price. It is much less than "you can only do so much period" rulings.

What determines the number of moves?  
*Points spent on force (which may or may not be equivalent to the number of units depending cost).
*Overall Efficiency of your army, or something based on the force being used: (So Our Facists will have more moves as they are more organized, but your motivated Libertarians might have a high number too, especially when compared to the disorganized and fractious People who live in a boot shaped country. )
*Leader chosen
Some base number modified by factors above?

QuoteYou examples make it clear, thank you.

No problem.

QuoteThe system makes sense and it is a bit different than the similar system above.

Well my experience of wargames is very limited, but i've read a few rules and I haven't seen this before. What I saw on BGG regarding that game seemed quite different and more complicated.

QuoteDeclaration of actions and then resolvings, you must include rules that actions that are contingent on results can not be in your declaration. "We bombard the area near the bridge, my units move onto the bridge. "um wait, can't do that, your bombardment didn't take out my forces, these guys are engaged before they can get to the bridge",  

Yes absolutely, I didn't make that clear but that was part of the reason for having a declaration element. You'll note however that, if you have more actions then, because you control the sequence of turns, you can feasibly try and do this (assuming you are able to blow up the units that stop you gettong on the bridge) because you won't need to declare actions more than one at at a time.

QuoteThis is an okay system, but it does add a layer of complexity to play.

It's not terribly complicated to play out: everything resolves according to the rules which means that, upon moving onto the bridge, you find yourself in a new situation, you deal with that accordingly. Besides players can choose to not resolve any action prior to doing so, and stop at that point.

QuoteSuch a system is only really useful if the power of "reactive actions" in the system. If reacting actions are effective or powerful, then this system becomes more effective.

I would let units be used more than once, but fatigue or moral loss might be an appropriate result. So yes you can "stress your units" but you pay the price. It is much less than "you can only do so much period" rulings.

What determines the number of moves?  
*Points spent on force (which may or may not be equivalent to the number of units depending cost).
*Overall Efficiency of your army, or something based on the force being used: (So Our Facists will have more moves as they are more organized, but your motivated Libertarians might have a high number too, especially when compared to the disorganized and fractious People who live in a boot shaped country. )
*Leader chosen
Some base number modified by factors above?

Well this will be a smaller scale game - not squads, perhaps more like a large scale version of heroclix.

However I have included an Overwatch rule that allows units to interrupt enemy movement to shoot. Multiple units on Overwatch can respond to the same trigger providing they have LoS etc (the usual stuff). Units can only Overwatch once per turn and if they do they are more vulnerable it attacked from behind (unit facing is not normally relevant except in certain situations including this one); this is because the unit is focussed on watching. I felt some level of interrupt ability was necessary. I don't know how it would work with the turn system. I wanted a more fluid interactive game.

Units have their own movement rate; they can also move more than once per turn. However if they do they move at a different rate. Originally this was going to default to half their regular rate, but then I thought i would assign units a 'reduced rate' which is used for certain effects and most importatnly its their allowance when moving for at least the second time. Conceivably some units might have more than 2 'reduced rate'.

The number of actions will depend on the point size chosen for the game and is the same for all players, though this hasn't been worked out yet. Ultimately this is abitrary but functional.

Quote from: KenHR;254943You might want to look into existing wargame rulesets before reinventing the wheel.  These kinds of things have been done since the mid '70s in various forms.

Avalanche Press publishes Panzer Grenadier.  You can check out the rules here: http://www.avalanchepress.com/line_Panzer.php

The big weakness I see with your system is that it doesn't account for training/initiative/morale/elan on either side.  It seems to give the advantage to the side with more men, and that seems to be the only determining factor for activation.  You might want to explore methods that allow the outnumbered side to trump the activations of their opponent ala West End's Tank Leader games.

What time period are setting this in?  What scale (unit size, ground scale)?  Without knowing that, it's hard to get a fix on where you might want to noodle with your system at this point.

The number of actions a player receives isn't dependent on the number of units/men they control. (I call a single 'man' a unit). I think anything more complex than what i've explained, with regards to dishing out actions, would be too complicated and would, given the turn system, unbalance the game.

Morale will be a factor in two ways: units have a Willpower rating used to test against courage-breaking effects and stimuli as well as used to generate the maximum distance (called Contact range) a unit can be from another friendly. Units thus out of Contact with their team mates (by team I mean the entire army, there are no squads or subdivisions within that army) are limited in how they can operate and vulnerable.

The setting is SF, though not hard SF. More like Dune (some ideas I've had for a setting for a while): fueding houses, races, psychic powers, evil. The usual. Scale will probably akin to Heroclix - regular miniature size using inches as the measurement (I find cm too fiddly and too small).

Do remember this is a personal project for fun - I'm no more trying to reinvent the wheel than I am in a position to open my own miniatures foundry.

I'm not trying to be harsh, though it looks like I came across that way.  I really wanted to suggest some similar ideas you might want to look into.

Re-reading your activation explanation, I understand it better now.  I think you can still incorporate experience/elan into determining who gets the first action in a game turn, even if it's in the form of a bonus to the die roll.

Your morale ideas are solid.  Contact is a good one...how are you handling that?  Simple radius (probably best considering the genre)?

Quote from: KenHR;255135I'm not trying to be harsh, though it looks like I came across that way.  I really wanted to suggest some similar ideas you might want to look into.

Re-reading your activation explanation, I understand it better now.  I think you can still incorporate experience/elan into determining who gets the first action in a game turn, even if it's in the form of a bonus to the die roll.

Your morale ideas are solid.  Contact is a good one...how are you handling that?  Simple radius (probably best considering the genre)?

Thanks.

I haven't decided how to resolve who gets the first action; so most likely a simple die roll + modifiers.

Contact just means that a unit, while active (it's only ever checked form the perspective of the acting and/or target unit), cannot be further from any friendly unit than it's Willpower score/inches. This means you won't need to check every unit all the time, just the ones involved in the current action. I guess it's like a radius effect - the unit will have a permanent 'willpower radius' around them which determines if they are in contact with any friendlies.

Everything does jive at this point.

If this scale is individual, you could actually utilize an RPGish approach. Adopt some mechanics and such and utilize those from a favored game. Thus you can adopt someone elses wheel and add a few wargame appropriate elements. Just a thought.

Declaration: Are you going to be formal, write the orders with the unit # and action OR informal, we are moving these units over here?

First action or action when both have equal number of actions should go to the side with the highest average morale.  

You could do "Cardboard heroes" (folded paper triangles or weighted cardboard) instead of minis or other markers (making the game cheaper from productions and more playable) in a larger 1" scale sort of unit. You can do the same thing for terrain (search paper miniatures and you can see the state of the art hiding around the net).

I am a firm believer in gridded maps as a Hero Click and micro wargame player, but I am biased.

If you are not gridding, do not forget the joy of templates. The "are you in contact", the "away" template, and the ever fun, arc of fire/ blast zones.

I suppose you could include some simple character creation rules. That would be an interesting approach for skirmish level gaming. Though character improvement schemes and experience don't appeal to me (especially given that the scale of these sort of games is precise).

The physical components are the last thing I'm going to worry about. I've no problem with girrded maps though. Easy enough to do 1" squares/hexes.

I don't see 'initiative' being a function of morale however.

Morale measures how gung ho your troupes are. High Moral armies are more likely to do things - like charge, out flank opponents by going through swamps, to spend the time to set the lances and hold their position, rather than just standing there.

Just a thought.  

Oh and I agree about character advancement being out of scope for your game. I was just thinking that some custom development (character development) in terms of effects and mechanics might be an interesting twist. Man to Man gaming is something that RPGs do, and can do fairly well. It is just another wheel you can use for your game, rather than re-inventing another one.

If you want initiative at the human scale, then you can stick to the Dexterity/ agility or alertness+dex or some appropriate combo of the characters.

Quote from: MoonHunter;255383Morale measures how gung ho your troupes are. High Moral armies are more likely to do things - like charge, out flank opponents by going through swamps, to spend the time to set the lances and hold their position, rather than just standing there.

Just a thought.

I agree here.  Experience, which might factor into morale, could also be a consideration.