Orders and choice of targets

[poet]

Another topic, this one is about orders.
In a game where you have troopers and commanders, it is logical that you will need some kind of orders system to tell your troops what to do. This is especially true if you want to have units, platoons etc.

Also, some games tell you that a model is bound to attack the closest model to him, or at least, one of the models closest to him.

My system attempts to bridge those two systems into a single system to deal with "What can a trooper do during its turn?".


If there are no commanders in sight, a model will always attack the closest, non-engaged, operational, model to him. I'm alone in a fight, my officer is not around, I'm not going to be making tactical decisions I'm going to stick this sword in the first guy I see.

A commander will have the option to "tag" an enemy model/unit. The commander shouts to his fellow men, "kill those archers! fast!" And now, for the near turn, every model that can see those archers, has the option of attacking those archers instead of attacking the closest enemy model.

Some ideas for some special rules:
A huge monster carrying a cannon, is obviously a large threat, and may have a "always considered tagged" rule, or in other words "threatening". A model will always be able to attack it, because he doesn't need to be a genius to know that think would be better dead, and fast.

On the other side, you could have a non-threatening model. Suppose a few gobbers running around and fixing some siege weapons. If the closest model is a non-threatening model, your model may ignore it, and choose the closest enemy model without such rule to attack instead.


Just some thoughts, hope you like them.

[sucramreverse]

another interesting concept poet. but this sort of assumes that troops aren't given orders/briefing before battle. If the commander tells a squad "I want you to go around the side and flank 'em", then the squad should be able to handle that without the commander holding it's hand the whole way. Also, most units have some sort of person in charge, like a sergeant. and that sergeant would be able to handle some basic tactical decisions. Of course, If the squad if completely screwed and has no officer whatsoever, they're probably going to run..

[Lanrak]

Hi all.
The level of autonomy within a unit or element is realy dependant on the scale and genre of the game.
Pre WWI , units are usualy modelled as ONLY responding to direct orders or engaging enemy.
(Historicaly units acting without orders were severly punished.! )

WWII and after far more autonomy was given to smaller squads and squad leaders.
(During WWI military thinking changed as large troop formations went from being the best threat,to a target rich environment!)

If we let the players assign action sets (orders) to units on good moral.And define action of units with moral damage/out of command .
This allows intuitive command and control with minor abstractions for game play.

Most veteran soldiers are not proficient at finding fights, but food and shelter.Battles turn up on a regular basis, food and shelter is far harder to find....

So most games depic this by units on poor moral /without orders, doing nothing or moveing to cover, etc.

Can we assume that elements WITH orders assigned to them, can prioritise visible targets threat levels and respond apropriatley?


TTFN
Lanrak.

[sucramreverse]

I stand corrected. I wasn't thinking historically at all. Though I have always found the idea of ranked units holding a line kind of ridiculous, what were they thinking back then!?

Though I'd like to point out that in a fantasy setting, would they have the same mentality as we did back then? with magic and steam-punk machines running rampant, at what point do people realize that lining up for target practice isn't a good idea?

[Lanrak]

Hi sucramreverse.
If you dont want to follow pre WWI command and control- moral mechanic types, then we can just 'borrow' more modern versions.

But the basic 'orders' = player control/ 'no orders'= predefined action, I belive is still an efficient way to model command and control in a game.

Here is a basic example I have been developing...

All elements on OK moral are given orders at the start of the game turn.
The orders are made up of 2 action from the following list;-

Move, move up to the movement value of the element.

Shoot, make a ranges attack.

Assault , engage enemy in close combat.

Ready, prepare firing positions /weapons that have long set up-recycle times.

This gives orders.
Advance,(A) move then shoot.

Charge,(C) move then assault.

Double ,(D) move move.

Evade , (E) shoot then move.

Fire support,(F) ready then shoot.
(We could add more order if needed... )

The game turn.

Start of turn.
Attempt to rally elements on poor moral.Issue orders to elements on OK moral.Request off table support.(Artillery-Air support, and reserves.)

Action Phases.
Player A , turns over orders counter one at a time and takes FIRST ACTION ONLY.
Player B , turns over orders counter one at a time and takes FIRST ACTION ONLY.
Player A ,turns over order counters one at a time and takes SECOND ACTION ONLY.
Player B ,turns over order counters one at a time and takes SECOND ACTION ONLY.

End of turn Phase.
Resolve assaults, resolve moral, plot arrivals.

I recommend randomising who goes first each game turn.

The moral damage could be supresion -neutralisation- routed?
And perhapos the predefined actions could be..

Supression.
The element MUST retire to cover,OR move to interveening cover within movement value, in the secondary action phase.
When in cover the element may shoot non fire support weapons AT CLOSEST THREAT, during the secondary action phase.

Heavily Armoured vehicles (or monsters) that can not claim 'cover',(just obscurement ) can simply turn to face incoming fire.(Best protection is usualy in the front facing ).They then act like supressed units in cover.

Neutralised . The element WILL NOT take any actions , but will respond normaly if engaged by enemy in assault.

Routed, the element MUST attempt to move away from ALL visible enemy at full speed .If unit moves off designated playing area it counts as destroyed.If element is engaged in asault it is automaticaly detroyed .If element is unable to move because it is surrounded by enemy ,it will simply remain stationary.

A sucessful rally attempt improves moral ONE stage at a time . Routing -neutralised-supressed.

This I think could scale to any game size, and has very limited book keeping, placing and turnning an Order Counter per element.(Elements are model, unit, unit group, dependant on game size.)

Ill stop ther so you can post questions and make comment .
TTFN
Lanrak.

[Kane]

Axis and Allies Minis uses a similar damage system. If the attacker exceeds the defense, the unit is suppressed. If it exceeds by I believe it was 3, they are wounded. If they double it, it is destroyed. If a unit is suppressed, a second suppression becomes wounded. Another and the unit is destroyed. Very simple and satisfying system.

[Lanrak]

HI again.
While we are discussing choice of targets.
Are we going to include a 'fog of war mechanic' a 'roll to see target'?

There are several simple methods...

If an 'awareness' value is given as a distance in inches.

The the roll required to spot a target , is simply the distance to target divieded by the awarness value.
Eg awarness value 6"

Spots enemies up to
(2x6" )12" on a roll of 2+
over 12 to 18" on a 3+
over 18 to 24" on a 4+
over 24" to 30" on a 5+
over 30" to 36" on a 6+.

And use simple modifiers like,
small target +1 to roll required.
light cover +1 to roll required.
heavy cover +2 to roll required.
large target +1 to dice roll.
targeter/scope +1 to dice roll.

Or we could use awarness vs stealth values.
Compare the 2 values to give a dice roll required ' to see 'the target.
And cover type simply add to the stealth value of the target.

(Stealth value - awarenes value = roll required to see target.Modifiers for cover etc.)

Ill stop there as this may be going off topic...

TTFN
Lanrak.

[Sponsored content]