The Turn Sequence

Two postings today, one that I'd intended, one that just happened.

About the time I wrote Alte Fritz I began to look at Turn Sequence. I looked at it from a programming point of view, as a set of instructions necessary to carry out the turn. Some I examined were rigid. Over the next few years I divided them into a number of categories, roughly:rigid; flexible; and chaotic (there are more, but these will do for now). Here are examples of each of these three.

Rigid - this tells you who does what, and when. You have very few choices about it. Typically it goes something like: Move units in descending order of commander's initiative, and in accordance with their orders. After all Side A's movement is done, conduct that of Side B. Conduct Combat in the same order involving both sides, applying the results as they happen. You almost don't need a player for this one after you draw up the orders. Most computer games use this for the AI.

Flexible - this lets you do things in the order you choose, within certain contraints. But again, Side A moves, Side B moves, then you have combat, then you do morale. WRG reversed that with fire before movement, and while that was really nifty, it never caught on. Most rules use something like this.

Chaotic - an action card comes up and you determine who it applies to. Piquet uses something like this (I will now hear from the Piquet true believers). Personally I preferred a little more structure in my games. And I hated sitting around waiting with nothing to do. It got so bad in one Piquet game I was in that I went out to my car and brought back a book to read. I was told that was atypical, but it happend in three of the four games of Piquet that I played. Most role-playing games use the chaotic model.

Very common in all of this is to separate movement from combat, and have both sides move. This is because there is no true simultaneous movement. In Alte Fritz I used a move-countermove system. Side A moved up to 1/2; Side B moved full; Side A moved their remaining. You had combat and morale, and then Side A and Side B switched. The net result was to break up movement so players conld react to each other. This was within the time scale, and is an important point.

How long should a turn be? One is the critical decision loop length in the game? In a variable length bound game it can be any length. Thus Pickett and Pettigrew's divisions appear, creating a Change of Situation; Union does nothing new, and opens fire, generating a Confederate Change of Situation. Confederates choose to do nothing but follow their orders. They advance to small arms range, which takes them 15 minutes. Fire commences, a Change of Situation for the Confederates, who press on. They are moved into Close Combat Range. Change of Situation for both sides, starting with the Defender. He does not recoil. Confederates fail morale, causing them to stop. Combat ensues and Confederate forces recoil as part of combat. Confederates attempt to rally, but have no reserves, and choose to fall back to Seminary Ridge. Total time is 45 minutes. Total number of turns is 4. Longest being 15 minutes, shortest 10 minutes.

One Civil War set of rules I tried had 30 minute turns, with 28 minutes of standing around doing nothing, and combat and movement apportioned out as 2 minutes (the length of time to load and fire a musket 3-4 times). Thus an attack such as Pickett and Pettigrew's would be "2-4 hours" in game terms, because the movement rate was pegged to 2 minutes.

The turn sequence I adopted for King's War is more rigid than it looks as a card is for a specific brigade. But combat can occur during the turn, and there exist "ways around" the rigidity. I viewed battle in the late 17th Century as chaotic, "a brawl spiced with gunpowder" as someone once put it. I didn't read of any "holding their lines" or some such. Units fought more or less on their own, each trying to help out with the master plan. In smaller games (2-3 brigades/side) the CiC very much drives the battle. In larger games (6-10 brigades/side) he intervenes much as Tolstoy hinted, and tries to dominate a part of the battlefield. This also colored my thinking of how the turn sequence should go.

In my view, up until the widespread use of the rifle and caplock (the latter increasing the number of bullets going downrange) combat was more shock than attritional. After the Franco-Prussian War armies would engage in prolonged exchanges until one side or the other got an advantage. Armies were controlled by voice, and generals were where they could see and decide (making WW1 unique in that this command feature was not present). Thus I think different mechanics should be used for these two eras.

In the former (where my interests are), generals lose control of units, at least to some extent, when the units get close to the enemy. Then it is training, drill, discipline and leadership at the lowest levels that are important. Volley fire has a shock value, and the British utilized that in the Peninsular War, and their charge after a couple of volleys provided a psychological shock (a Change of Situation). Frederick the Great and Der Alte Dessauer recognized this and wanted Prussian infantry to crank off more volleys, generating more shock (sound as well as casualties) than his opponents. The French during the Revolution and early part of the Empire used superior drill and low level leadership to overcome the shock of combat.

Does the King's War turn sequence work for other periods, therefore? I think so, with some assumptions. I may try that after I finish the rewrite of Firestar.

What about making the turn sequence more interactive? I think so. I hate sitting around with nothing to do in a game, which is why I liked the card system of Age of Reason. You could move at any moment. There was a set of rules, I think they were Corps d'Armee, where one player kept moving until his opponent "stole the initiative" from him via a die throw. This, I think, has possibilities. Especially if a unit can move and conduct all combat except melee during the turn. There would have to be a limit on how far you could go and who could take part. This may be worth pursuing, in my "spare time" while rewriting Firestar and brushing up Setosha, Lexeon, and Boabdil. Have to think about that (and suggestions always welcome).