Initiative mechanic and modelling modern tactics

[rje]

"Now it´s move phase."
"everybody may move ONE Hex"
"Now it´s Ini phase"
"Increase your Ticks"
"Does anybody want to hasten?"
"Now is combat action phase"

Do I have an older version of playtest? My version states that movement is basically one square (ok hex) per tick.

Of course, I'll have to try it out myself to see where the problem lies, because I can't see it yet. I see optional movement plus combat actions (and you can fire even if you're not "ready" by taking penalties).

 

[SableWyvern]

That's a shock. Of course, it's hard to see when you intentionally keep your eyes shut.

Eh? That's very evasive and unnecessarily rude. I have yet to see anyone give a hard example of infantry minor tactics that can't be modelled effectively using MGTs tick based iniatiative. You certainly haven't.

In any case, the question is moot. Mongoose appears to have finalized the initiative system, so we're stuck with it. My enthusiasm for further dissection has waned considerably. I feel like I've just watched the Titanic leave the Southhampton dock.

Regardless, I remain interested. It is entirely possible there is something I'm missing, but no one has yet backed up an assertion that "MGT cannot possibly model modern tactics" with a single actual example.

 

[captainjack23]

I think that Sables suggestions do add meaningfully to the rules; and I also think the rules work fine for a game that isn't a dedicated squad level miniatures game.

The fights we've been running do seem to have an initial high "huh ?" factor, but part of that is that most games we play have a very similar (read : D&D) structure; plus, its new rules. The players got it and generally enjoyed it quite a bit once the second run happened.

Comment was generally positive as regards to how one has to allocate attention, essentially - and take risks (or at least make important decisions ) just about every round : dodge or shoot; take a hasty action and act clumsily now, or succeed gracefully later if you don't have to dodge; how MUCH to dodge so as not to be faked into overreacting and having a 1 when the really serious attack happens. And let's not forget the begin at 6 act anytime rule....in one case it really messed with the players head- -as it gave him excellent short term options that messed up the long term goals: "stay on target"..."but....he....back turned"...."stay on target".."but.....but...".

Now, I do see where it could drag especially with several serious omnicalculator-type players, or just one REALLY indecisive one...and it is hard to run groups without using the group inititive rule....and with the inititive group rule, the sequence does seem more artificial. If I'd like to see anything changed, its in there. However,we really don't run combat heavy games, so it's less of an issue, I guess. Plus , the characters we have aren't mercs or even combat veterans, just scouts and scientists and one card shark.... so if outnumbered, they are very likely to bug out at full speed, or surrender, and it's even less of an issue.

 

[Settembrini]

"Now it´s move phase."
"everybody may move ONE Hex"
"Now it´s Ini phase"
"Increase your Ticks"
"Does anybody want to hasten?"
"Now is combat action phase"

Do I have an older version of playtest? My version states that movement is basically one square (ok hex) per tick.

Of course, I'll have to try it out myself to see where the problem lies, because I can't see it yet. I see optional movement plus combat actions (and you can fire even if you're not "ready" by taking penalties).

You move one hex free. Then anybody who wants can move up to two hexes more depending on ticks.

The problem is that it´s never ever anybody´s turn. It´s neccessary to have a structured loop around the table asking everybody whethter he wants to take micro action XY or Z.

That totally fucks with the flow of the game.

I reall ywonder how one can ask me of which system does it better. Any system!
In most rpgs, it´s your turn, and you act as you wish.
In my eyes, that´s the default.

 

[captainjack23]

I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying that all of a players actions should only take place in the players turn ?

 

[Settembrini]

Yeah, what a revolutionary concept.

 

[captainjack23]

Yeah, what a revolutionary concept.

you mean, like in white box d&d ? Okay, that's a fair definition of a default.
I guess I can see where this system wouldn't work for you. No worries, just curious.

 

[Settembrini]

Mmm. Or like any other version of Traveller?

I think I made myself very clear, but I´ll try again:

To split two second round into at least three bouts of managing what everybody does in turn order is actually making three rounds out of those two seconds.

Usually, everbody acts, when it´s his turn.
proceed to next round. Interrupts or overwatch is part of that. When it´s my turn, I can say I go to overwatch or covering fire or whatever. Not so in MongoTrav! You can´t state what you are doing, you must manipulate the ticks several bouts in advance so that the end result is soimehow akin to what the player does.
It´s like playing with a sign langage instead of spoken words: doable but needlessly cumbersome.

In MongoTrav, everybody actually has to be asked what he´s doing at least three times before a turn is over, or before a coherent action or progress of the fictious situation can be administered.

That´s the problem with the procedure I have.

It´s even slower than BattleTech, with it´s everbody move- everybody torso-twist -everybody fire-resolve damage turns.

Especially as a Battletech turn gets a lot of things done. Not so MongoTrav.

Much ado about nothing, that´s my experience with the turn structure.
And it´s directly influencing and reinforcing the fact that nothing like infantry tactics can be modelled with it in an efficient way.

 

[SableWyvern]

And it´s directly influencing and reinforcing the fact that nothing like infantry tactics can be modelled with it in an efficient way.

Saying that the system requires too much work and runs slowly has nothing at all to do with whether or not it can model infantry tactics. Speed of play is an issue on a completely seperate axis to issues of what can or cannot be modelled.

 

[Settembrini]

That´s why I said efficient way.

But you are right, there´s several problems here:

- speed of play
- communication problems

which I explained my gripes with;

and

- turn length

which "prevents" infantry tactics. I can only repeat, if you model that in two second increments, it would take days to model even a single engagement.

Thousands of shots, hours. That´s the categories you need to be thinking in. A two second turn just doesn´t cut it.

It´s like playing out the second world war with daily turns: practically impossible.

 

[SableWyvern]

- turn length

which "prevents" infantry tactics. I can only repeat, if you model that in two second increments, it would take days to model even a single engagement.

Thousands of shots, hours. That´s the categories you need to be thinking in. A two second turn just doesn´t cut it.

It´s like playing out the second world war with daily turns: practically impossible.

First up, an infantry engagement need not take multiples of hours. A quick attack or ambush (quick or deliberate) can easily be over in a matter of minutes -- the planning stages wil add more time, as will withdrawals, reorgs and the like, but the guts of the combat which are being modelled can be quite swift. This is especially true given the size of engagements we're talking about - a PC group of 3-6 is unlikely to participate in hours-long engagements. If they do, I would expect most of the engagement to be handled outside of the actual combat system (if you need the system, then you are constantly manoeuvring, and/or people are exposed to fire, in which case a group of that size will either have won the firefight or been elminated over that period of time).

Secondly, utilising authentic tactics does not necessitate an entirely accurate measurement of time, nor perfect simulation of reality (neither of which MGT gives us, I freely admit).

Infantry minor tactics include principles such as:

- The need to sieze and maintain the iniatiative
- Defence in depth
- Interlocking arcs of fire
- Use of dead ground
- Fire and movement
- Coordination of seperate elements

While an engagement in MGT may well be resolved more quickly than an equivalent engagement in the real world, all those principles can be applied (although, things like the improved movement and sustained fire rules mentioned in this thread will be required). Again, MGT does not simulate reality to the degree one would expect from a dedicated skirmish game, it does allow the application of basic, real-world principles.

There may be important tactical principles which cannot be mapped to MGT, but I haven't yet noticed any, and -- as far as I am aware -- no one else has yet mentioned one.

If you can come up with an important tactical principle that can't be applied, I'd genuinely like to hear about it.

 

[Settembrini]

I don´t see how any of the factors is modelled good by MongoTrav.
How are you goint to model coordination of several elements for example, in .666 second intervals?

How do you even model communicating with another fireteam in two second bouts?

How many ticks to get off a coherent radio message? Here alone the MongoModel implodes under it´s structure.

No sir, it just doesn´t cut it.

The only thing you can model would be some seconds of ultra close combat. Something like securing a room, or two people running around a corner.

Just imagine how long it would take to play out a sniper situation!
Or taking out a pillbox!

As you said, that takes minutes at last. A minute is THIRTY turns!

(according to my critique that´s the equivalent of NINETY rounds at the table)

And it´s several minutes.

No, it´s conceptually unfitted to model any action that´s more than the decisive six seconds of several people fighting in what basically is melee. Like when a SWAT team breaks down a door and makes arrests.

And even that takes long stretches of real time.

And this is my point: It takes as long as a skirmish game, and you also need miniatures etc.
But I do not get any of the benefits of a skirmish game.

Even worse, I can´t SAY I want to do XY or Z. I have to mentally translate it into Tick-based .666 micro action-chains.

BTW, have you ever considered the impact of tactics?

According to MongoTrav, a tactics level of 4 (maybe elite, but not impossible to attain, especially with the exp rules) would allow the squad to act nearly three times faster? Also, the squad would make more damage, every time, as they could always choose the hogh die for effect.

Any suspension of disbelief crumbles right there, and a world that was based on MongoTrav would make tactics skill the penultimate power source.

It would be moronic to NOT train your squad leaders SOLELY in tactics.

 

[SableWyvern]

Obviously we're coming at this from very different angles. I see the ability to implement a particular tactic to be something different than actually modelling a specific, real world event.

I believe you could make a board game that allows players to implement a game plan based on a classic stratagem such as attack in oblique order, envelopment of a single flank, envelopment of two flanks or penetration of the centre -- without giving the game any basis in actually simulating war or reality at all.

You do not seem to be able to make such a distinction, and your comments imply that you would consider such a boardgame impossible.

With such completely different understandings of the topic, I doubt we're going to make any ground at all here.

 

[Settembrini]

Well you can do such a thing.

But why would you?

In an RPG?

I can drape the cloth of war over any resource management and decsion making mechanic.

But please don´t say that´s a good model for modern infantry tactics. because following your logic, chess or poker would qualify too.

Heck I could live with highly abstract or coarse models, if they are fun. Just look a tMemoir 44, that´s fun.

But MongoTrav?
Neither realistic, nor fast, nor convenient.

And I think it´s current state isn´t even fun because of a fourth point:

The decision making and resource management are handled badly in it´s own context. Look at my tactics skill example.

So if we just look at the gamey-part, it´s already broken. But you wanted to make a point here that it´s also a good model.

You are shifting the goalpost here.
But even then: Right now, it´s deficient on an abstract level, even if reality was not an issue. See tactics example or your own fixes.

 

[Settembrini]

You also didn´t answer my question how "coordinating several elements" would be represented in MongoT.

I´m interested what you meant by that.

 

[SableWyvern]

You also didn´t answer my question how "coordinating several elements" would be represented in MongoT.

I´m interested what you meant by that.

I'd do it outside of the actual combat mechanic. That's part of the the point of an RPG -- you don't need a specific mechanic covering everything you do, and there's no need for the combat system to have a rule for that sort of thing.

In a deliberate attack, coordination would mainly be dealt with during the initial planning stages, and may require some sort of tactics check to ensure things work smoothly during the the actual attack.

Multi-unit or sub unit coordination of a more ad-hoc nature, or during a quick attack would only come into play during extended engagements which would likely be broken up with lulls in the fighting, during which normal skill checks can be made to achieve the desired ends.

For smaller engagements, or slighly larger ones using the squad rules, coordination would mainly be achieved through the basic decision making process that is going on in any combat.

My point was never that MGT specifically seeks to facilitate coordination. I was merely stating that it allows for it, along with a host of other things, despite accusations that it does not allow them.

 

[SableWyvern]

But please don´t say that´s a good model for modern infantry tactics. because following your logic, chess or poker would qualify too.

If you can implement a stratagem that mirrors fire and movement in chess or poker, I'd be interested to hear about that.

I can drape the cloth of war over any resource management and decsion making mechanic.

That's the opposite of what I'm talking about -- you're talking here about taking Mechanic X and giving it a military flavour, ala many Eurogames. I'm talking about a legitmate military stratagem and decoupling it from a martial environment.

And I was not suggesting that my extreme example would make for a good combat system -- I'm just pointing out that you can have military stratagems in a game with absolutely no military themes. All the more so, then, you can model infantry tactics in an RPG, without making a perfect military sim.

See tactics example or your own fixes.

I agree that the system, as currently presented, hinders the implementation of IMT in some respects. The comment I was referring to was one which stated that the Initiative system, at a fundamental level, is completely incompatible with modern tactics and situations.

That I can come up with simple fixes that retain the basic structure means that it's not the underlying structure that's flawed, just some of the things that have been built (or not built) around it.

 

[Deniable]

Something I've been thinking about is: how much conversation should the players have per turn?

I'm thinking about the players that want to sit there and have a long discourse on what to do each turn. For long turn lengths this is appropriate, but for 2 seconds I'm thinking a sentence is it. I'm almost thinking of letting them sit there and talk while the NPCs are using ticks to sneak up on them.

It's more of a meta-game issue that I thought I'd throw out there while we're talking about initiative.

 

[SableWyvern]

While I believe some limit needs to be placed on communication in order to keep things moving, I'm loathe to apply strict limits. On the one hand, the PCs would have a very limited capacity to communicat in a combat turn in just about any system.

However, the PCs generally have much greater issues coordinating than the NPCs, who can act coherently or chaotically largely at the GM's whim. Further, PCs are generally superior combatants to the player's controlling them, with much more experience fighting together than the players have playing combats together. Finally, players need to play the system at least a little bit in any game, while for the PCs, there is no system, just the reality of the gameworld.

As such, these days I allow significant coordination betweeen players, ideally carried out between actions, but at any time if necessary. What I crack down on is indecisive players who are slowing the game down for everyone.

Edit: having said all that, I do like to get things moving to begin with. I once had a group that, upon being fired upon by the enemy, took cover and started a long debate over whether to withdraw, engage, flank, cower etc... That particular enemy group did end up assaulting right over the PC position, while they were still busy arguing amongst themselves. :twisted:

 

[AKAramis]

Mmm. Or like any other version of Traveller?

No, not like every other version of traveller.

TNE had multiple actions per turn, with high initiative characters not only acting first, but acting more often. Of course, that could be ignored and just "Go round the table", which many GM's did...

MT had no initiative system, only an interrupt system.
In MT, the ref decides which side goes first, and that side gets one character/vehicle/unit action, which may be interrupted by another side. THe interrupting unit may likewise be interrupted. But any action taken to the point of the interrupt has occurred; and if still capable of action post interrupt, they get to finish their action. Then, if the other side still has characters/units/vehicles which have not yet acted, one of those goes (subject to interrupts by any units not activated yet), and so forth.

T20 has an initiative roll, work in initiative order.

CT left it up to the Ref, but generally was a SIDE at a time.
T4 was much the same.

All the above had 5 second combat rounds.

GT uses an initiative score, and has an option of move phase and act phase, or each takes full turn on their initiative. (Actually, the move each then act each was an option designed for G:Autoduel 1E, and ISTR it made it into Compendium 1 or 2...) But then GT, due to being GURPS, has more options rules-wise than any other.

TravellerForHero will use the Hero System initiative system: typically 2-4 actions per turn by character speed, 12 sec turns (12x 1sec phases), and each declares in dex order within the phases where they get to act.