|
Post by bruce on Oct 29, 2016 19:22:10 GMT
Could someone remind me why rules do not allow units to move and fire in the same turn? It seems reasonable to me that close order infantry advancing to attack should be able to halt and fire when in range - and receive fire in return from the target unit.
Is it just a game mechanic to keep each side from doing too much at once? Is it historical - reflecting time needed to dress the lines and such before firing? Does it reflect a natural disadvantage to attackers vs defenders? I feel like I should know this but old age is creeping up on me. Bruce
|
|
|
Post by bandit on Oct 30, 2016 1:55:39 GMT
Could someone remind me why rules do not allow units to move and fire in the same turn? It seems reasonable to me that close order infantry advancing to attack should be able to halt and fire when in range - and receive fire in return from the target unit.
Is it just a game mechanic to keep each side from doing too much at once? Is it historical - reflecting time needed to dress the lines and such before firing? Does it reflect a natural disadvantage to attackers vs defenders? I feel like I should know this but old age is creeping up on me. Bruce Commonly it is simply a game mechanic to balance the flow of action, requiring players to choose between actions rather than allowing them to "do it all" at once. In some systems there is a historical basis for the limitation in respect to the time scale of the game. With that said, I would tell you that while a common refrain, it is rarely true, as the rate of events is generally scaled up so much on the tabletop. Some systems, especially tactical ones such as Johnny Reb, or Guns of Liberty, or the like, don't reflect "volleys" but rather periods of fire. Thus, if you are not shooting for "the whole turn" your fire is reduced or perhaps deemed ineffectual to the degree it isn't even something rolled for. Often one of the game mechanic concerns is to provide an advantage to defenders by balancing the impact of fire such that an attacker will be shot multiple times prior to contact in an attempt to simulate the advantage a defender has in only having to hold their position and fire rather than also move. So, sorry that I'm basically answering in a very long winded way with "yes". But essentially, you are correct, those are commonly the reasons, they aren't very realistic but they are easy design solutions which makes them common. You can also consider this same problem with movement. Most large formations of troops during the horse and musket era could cover an average of 75 yards per minute. They moved faster and slower and paused and halted and reformed and this and that, but they averaged 75 yards a minute across most terrain. Yet, most rule sets, especially tactical ones because they use lower ground scales and therefore smaller scale area tables, have troops moving ridiculously slower. Very practical for game mechanics, commonly doesn't relate to historical events. Cheers, The Bandit
|
|
|
Post by captainchook on Oct 30, 2016 6:08:18 GMT
In the real world move and shoot, yes. But could they shoot and move? My understanding is that it was hard to get troops to recommence an advance once they had started shooting. Otherwise, wot Bandit said.
|
|
|
Post by davidsh on Oct 30, 2016 10:50:50 GMT
Some rules certainly do that, which is unrealistic. Others adopt a more 'flow of action' approach, whereby each turn or round represents a period of time where various activities take place simultaneously - especially where both sides are able to fire and/or move, but with one having the 'initiative'.
In trying to simulate historical action, whilst still enabling a playable game within a reasonable amount of time there are always going to be compromises. I personally like features that allow events like march moves, whereby a body of troops can be brought to a position within a turn by representing their arrival as having happened in the background over previous turns (hope I have explained that properly). It works wonders for flanking moves!
|
|
|
Post by bandit on Oct 31, 2016 18:07:28 GMT
In the real world move and shoot, yes. But could they shoot and move? My understanding is that it was hard to get troops to recommence an advance once they had started shooting. Otherwise, wot Bandit said. Very situation/circumstance specific. Several nations – famously the British but others as well – would "fire and charge". Also depends on the scope of command we are talking about: If a division contacts the enemy and one regiment becomes embroiled in a firefight, ordering other (from the perspective of the division commander) uncommitted regiment/brigade forward could keep the momentum going and prevent the division from pausing or halting. To frame the scope question: Does your game represent divisions, brigades, regiments, or battalions as the unit which players make the most decisions about? Lastly, I should note the consideration of whether this is a conditional mechanic or a turn sequence solution makes a lot of difference. Most systems place fire after movement to prevent an attacker from moving to contact from outside of range – others reduce movement rates or extend firing ranges to achieve a similar output. A more realistic system would be that upon achieving a firefight condition – which is different from just a single volley (going back to the question of what is being represented in scale) – that it is hard to move a tactical unit forward. This is hard to track in most systems as it is yet another per unit condition. Cheers, The Bandit
|
|
|
Post by bruce on Nov 1, 2016 2:48:47 GMT
All very interesting indeed! I am modifying Neil Thomas rules a bit so I can have a small, fast tactical game occasionally when I do not have much time. David, your designer viewpoint is always appreciated. I know you have done a lot of research for ESR, both regarding gaming and history.
And Davidsh is right - it is a question of compromise in almost everything we portray. Is it a game, a diorama, a history lesson? Is it fun, exciting, tedious? The balance of these things depends on preferences.
Captain, your other post about rule sets also reminds me that over some time I have switched back and forth between rules, read a lot of rules, and after awhile its not always clear which concept came from where. In general, I think the best rule designers offer rationales for their many of their rules that connects to what is possible or likely in a given situation and what makes sense to resolve it in a game. David you certainly do this, as does Neil Thomas, and Sam Mustafa. It gives us a better understanding, and hopefully, a better way to recall rules in a game when we know why they exist. Bruce
|
|
|
Post by ooiittee on Nov 9, 2016 2:59:59 GMT
In most cases a unit on the march would be worried aboit forming up to recieve and lay down fire.
The worse thing to happen would ne for a unit to march forward empty its barrels only to be still forming up. The enemy would fire before charging knowing you had played you hand early. As such the forces on the move tend to recieve the firsy round of fire.
|
|