Thinking about a discussion of UGO IGO and turn-based games...I'd like
to have a game which takes into account the reaction times of the
different units--reaction time meaning OODA loops.
Now, in something like FT, and easy way to implement this would be impulses
(but I should call them "turns" instead of "impulses" or the "Death to SFB"
crowd will break out their pitchforks and torches). Nelson might be able to
write orders every 3 impulses; Suffren every 4; Byng might only be able to
write orders every 8 impulses. To some extent, your OODA speed would be a
function of your navy's training, so most NAC commanders are, say about a
4....but you will still get a few 5's and 3's.
This would affect maneuvering, and possibly changing targets; it wouldn't
affect your ROF against a current target.
Comments? And any ideas on how to apply it in a StarGrunt-like context?
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lAt first blush, I
like it. Might be interesting to try something like that for the ships as
well. I don't know whether a simple change in nomenclature would suffice
(something like "Actions"), but it might.
Best regards,
Ken
> laserlight@verizon.net wrote:
Thinking about a discussion of UGO IGO and turn-based games...I'd like
to have a game which takes into account the reaction times of the
different units--reaction time meaning OODA loops.
Now, in something like FT, and easy way to implement this would be impulses
(but I should call them "turns" instead of "impulses" or the "Death to SFB"
crowd will break out their pitchforks and torches). Nelson might be able to
write orders every 3 impulses; Suffren every 4; Byng might only be able to
write orders every 8 impulses. To some extent, your OODA speed would be a
function of your navy's training, so most NAC commanders are, say about a
4....but you will still get a few 5's and 3's.
This would affect maneuvering, and possibly changing targets; it wouldn't
affect your ROF against a current target.
Comments? And any ideas on how to apply it in a StarGrunt-like context?
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lThere's always SG
crossed with Piquet.
Roger
> On 11/8/06, laserlight@verizon.net <laserlight@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 11/8/06, Roger Books <roger.books@gmail.com> wrote:
Need to talk to Beth about that, as she's done a Piquet variant for FT.
G'day,
> Need to talk to Beth about that, as she's done a Piquet variant for
I've always intended to get PK versions of DS and SG up and going but never
got there in the end. A simple but playable first cut was done by "Race Team
Takezou" (sorry long since forgotten their real name). If anyone is interested
I can send you their doc (sequence cards, plus a 1 paragraph explanation of
how to graft the cards in to SG).
Cheers
Beth I would be interested.
Thanks,
Magic
----- Original Message ----
From: "Beth.Fulton@csiro.au" <Beth.Fulton@csiro.au>
To: gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
Sent: Wednesday, November 8, 2006 8:06:10 PM
Subject: RE: [GZG] OODA
G'day,
> Need to talk to Beth about that, as she's done a Piquet variant for
I've always intended to get PK versions of DS and SG up and going but never
got there in the end. A simple but playable first cut was done by "Race Team
Takezou" (sorry long since forgotten their real name). If anyone is interested
I can send you their doc (sequence cards, plus a 1 paragraph explanation of
how to graft the cards in to SG).
Cheers
Beth
> On 11/8/06, Robert Makowsky <rmakowsky@yahoo.com> wrote:
Yes, I would be interested, too!
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn 11/8/06, Allan
> Goodall <agoodall@hyperbear.com> wrote:
Likewise - I know there are some Piquet rulebooks floating around w/
other members of our Sunday gaming group that I could probably borrow.
Any chance of getting permission to stick these up on a website somewhere? If
you've got permission, I've got webspace...
Brian
www.warbard.ca/games.html
> Need to talk to Beth about that, as she's done a Piquet variant for
I'm pretty interested in the PK variant for FT myself.
> On 11/9/06, laserlight@verizon.net <laserlight@verizon.net> wrote:
Nelson might be able to write orders every 3 impulses; Suffren every 4; Byng
might only be able to write orders every 8 impulses. To some extent, your OODA
speed would be a function of your navy's training, so most NAC commanders are,
say about a 4....but you will still get a few 5's and 3's.
> This would affect maneuvering, and possibly changing targets; it
Difficult to implement, impossible to balance, unsure that added paperwork
load would add to enjoyment of the game.
If it is a significant enough change to matter, it will be hugely frustrating
for players forced to deal with incompetents and idiots.
My impressions of Picquet, fair or unfair, are entirely based on one demo game
where I had a pack of peasants that basically stood there while my enemy ran
them down. Wouldn't even fire their bows, because in Picquet, it apparently
takes hours to reload bows if the right card doesn't come up, and there are
cards which force you to shoot your bows even if there are no enemies anywhere
in sight except those knights on the other side of the river at approximately
twice effective bow range.
This is not a good thing for a new player. (NB to all staunch
defenders of picquet--that is the point of my discussion, not the
merits of picquet)
Most people are going to decide to have good troops who can react. People who
don't, are going to be slaughtered. It might be realistic, but it doesn't make
for an entertaining game.
John A said:
> Difficult to implement, impossible to balance,
You're jumping the gun. We haven't got the concept yet, other than a
suggestion that Piquet *might* be of interest. Wait until we have an idea
nailed down before telling us that it won't work. :-)
> If it is a significant enough change to matter, it will be hugely
There ARE players who enjoy the challenge of a huge army of trash troops.
I don't know that PK is the right solution. I've never played it, I've heard
some criticism of it and I don't know that it'll give the effect that I
want. But I'd be happy to take a look at it--at a minimum, it might
inspire something else.
[quoted original message omitted]
> On 11/9/06, Laserlight <laserlight@verizon.net> wrote:
If you're going to simulate inflexibility of a command system, you have to
permit folks with inflexible command systems to do well what inflexible
command systems do well, namely set piece battles.
In other words, they get to write a plan and stick to it. And when the
intelligence is more or less correct (and it will often be, in
general terms) and the enemy with their vaunted high-speed OODA cycle
reacts in a way which can be predicted by the plan (this is another
difference between Real World and Wargaming--I can study Russian or
German doctrine and predict more or less what a Russian or German
officer will do. Every wargamer is more or less unique--and few of
them publish professional journals or doctrinal manuals) then they get
mousetrapped and hammered flat.
Remember that the whole "OODA cycle" was initially invented to understand
dogfights between individual aircraft or pairs of aircraft. It is somewhat
less relevant to larger scale fights because things
happen on a totally different timescale and split-second hesitation is
much less fatal for an admiral of a fleet than a pilot of a jet aircraft.
> Remember that the whole "OODA cycle" was initially invented to
"Initially invented", yes, but it can be applied to other situations. If it
takes two minutes for Blue admiral to get sensor reports, decide what's going
on, give orders, and his ships execute them, then of course it's not important
if Red takes two minutes plus a tenth of a second. But it would be important
if Red takes three minutes. Same deal if Blue battalion takes three hours and
Red takes four.
John said:
> In other words, they get to write a plan and stick to it. And when
For a ground combat game of the right scale, I suppose you'd do a sktech map
with phase lines and unit boundaries. Your units would have doctrines: "If
ambushed at close range, assault through. If taking direct fire, take cover,
return fire and report." Of course, sometimes the response would be "stop and
wait for orders" even if doctrine says something different. And your CO would
have a limited quantity of order to issue.
Generally your opponent would know your doctrine--unless you're doing a
"first time meeting the Kra'Vak" scenario, or your opponent has militia, or
such.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lI'd like to see it.
AS far as total inflexibility you could always allow a hand of 3 cards instead
of flip and play.
Roger
> On 11/8/06, Beth.Fulton@csiro.au <Beth.Fulton@csiro.au> wrote:
> For a ground combat game of the right scale,
Or if you want to simplify things: "Each turn, select the unit you want to
give orders to and roll a D10. On a 1, the order is "hold in place";
on a 2-3, it's "continue your previous action"; on a 4-10, issue orders
normally.
Sorry if I've lost track of the discussion, but you are still talking about a
game with a variety of dice, right?
Would you want to explore using the various dice for the quality of troop and
the underlying triple C structure?
The_Beast
Chris wrote on 11/09/2006 08:23:29 AM:
> >For a ground combat game of the right scale,
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lThis is somewhat
reminiscent of the Fire and Fury (American Civil War) system. If you modify
the tables to reflect the actual state of the officer corps, it can work. What
happens more often is that the system is transplanted
whole-cloth fashion and you get phenomena like Prussian brigades of 1870
haring off on their own or refusing to move even when not under fire, exactly
as if they were led by a Union political general of volunteers of 1862.
Best regards,
Ken
> laserlight@verizon.net wrote:
Or if you want to simplify things: "Each turn, select the unit you want to
give orders to and roll a D10. On a 1, the order is "hold in place";
on a 2-3, it's "continue your previous action"; on a 4-10, issue orders
normally.
> On 11/8/06, John Atkinson <johnmatkinson@gmail.com> wrote:
> My impressions of Picquet, fair or unfair, are entirely based on one
I have Piquet and have read two of the rules books (the main book, and the WW2
book). I haven't played more than one or two demo games, so someone else can
comment.
My understanding is that you should have had Opportunity Fire chits available,
so that your peasants could have fired as the enemy advanced.
And I don't think you are required to use any particular card. If you turn
over the Attack card and there's no one to attack except the aforementioned
knights, you burn a point to turn over a new card.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lIt seems to me that
what's described in the second paragraph can be handled by the idea originally
sketched at the top of the thread.
Blue's OODA cycle lets it issue new orders every three
phases/impulses/cycles. Red's more deliberate cycle lets it issue new
orders every four bits of time.
Units act according to plotted orders (move simultaneously).
Combat takes place at whatever point in the phase is catered for by the rules.
Individual units (ships, vehicles, stands, what have you) can react
appropriately (or according to training and doctrine, if one likes)
Example: Both sides issue orders on One. On Three, screen units come into
contact and begin to engage under local control. On Four, Blue issues new
orders, if desired, based on information actually available to HQ. On Five,
Red may do likewise.
That's how I saw it going under the original proposal, in any case.
Best regards,
Ken
> Laserlight <laserlight@verizon.net> wrote:
"Initially invented", yes, but it can be applied to other situations. If it
takes two minutes for Blue admiral to get sensor reports, decide what's going
on, give orders, and his ships execute them, then of course it's not important
if Red takes two minutes plus a tenth of a second. But it would be important
if Red takes three minutes. Same deal if Blue battalion takes three hours and
Red takes four.
> Sorry if I've lost track of the discussion, but you are still talking
Well...I was initially thinking about Full Thrust (or any other "write orders,
then simultaneous move" rules).
I suppose we should have a separate thread for SG (or other UGO IGO rules).
> Allan Goodall wrote:
> And I don't think you are required to use any particular card. If you
There is the "Undisciplined Fire" card, which could be used to FORCE a unit to
fire. But getting back to John's point that these systems, Piquet or something
to model OODA, isn't good for new players. Although,
new players do NOT appear to be the target group for either the OODA variant
rules or Piquet.
-Mike
> On 11/9/06, Ken Hall <khall39@yahoo.com> wrote:
And on any given planet, where you might have units varying in quality from
the 891st New Devonshire Fencibles (Provisional) led by a 98 year old Baron
who has to be awakened by his aide during staff meetings (and is under the
impression that the entire war is rather like a very
large-scale foxhunt) to the flippin' SAS, a system that can deal with
them all is going to be pretty complex.
Or you get absurdities like the above-mentioned.
G'day,
> My impressions of Picquet, fair or unfair, are entirely based on one
I think you ran into a poorly thought out demo game myself. There should have
been a bunch of opp chips for you to use to fire, the undisciplined fire
shouldn't have been across the board (and should have been down played anyway
in a demo game) and they shouldn't have used "classical duelist initiative"
they should have used one of the many variants that moderates impetus runs. PK
is like cooking with a cupboard full of spices, you have to make careful
thought about which ones to put. Just a few of the right ones are great, the
wrong ones or too many sucks badly.
PK is in the end only one option, there are an increasing number of
games with more flexibility than classical UGO-IGO systems.
And as others have pointed out this kind of modification wouldn't appeal to
all. For instance even though I play and enjoy Attack Vector and Derek's home
grown space combat rules in my heart of hearts there is something about the
simplicity yet effectiveness of FT that keeps drawing me back;)
Cheers