Player Notes: Activation and Resource Management
Having been involved in some of the playtesting before publication and game play after publication, my appreciation for the ingenuity of the rules has grown. Since Graham offers a very good summary of the rules on the For Whom The Dice Rolls homepage and Amazon.com offers a Look Inside including a Table of Contents and several reviews from readers, I will not venture down the review road. What I offer today is a quick look at the interactions between unit activation and resource management. I suppose, this could be considered my Player’s Notes. I suspect more of my thoughts on game player may be forthcoming.
In miniatures’ rules, the turn sequence can be defined in a number of ways although most utilize one of only a handful of tried and tested methods for activating units. Once the turn sequence method is chosen, an explanation is given on activating units and resolving actions in a linear fashion. Other game sub-systems may be synchronous or asynchronous. In a game system as this, play can become routine and one-dimensional. Not so with For Whom The Dice Rolls (FWTDR). FWTDR offers a multi-dimensional and non-linear approach to turn sequencing and process control. In addition, FWTDR presents many opportunities for nuanced, optimized play. Clever.
What does this mean?
To begin, the two driving principles of accomplishing tasks and goals within the game are unit activation and resource management. Unit activation and resource management are both controlled by a hand of playing cards. A brief primer on these two system processes is helpful. Some of the foundational components to unit activation and resource (hand) management are:
- Activation is governed by the playing of a card from a regular, 52 card deck with or without jokers.
- Jokers are added into the 52 card deck to denote the arrival of Off-Table Assets. The number of jokers available and viable missions vary by scenario.
- Hand size is governed by the sum of Army Effectiveness, number of units in play, and an initiative die roll. The player with the largest sum of these three components is awarded the initiative for the turn.
- A player’s impulse is limited to either the playing of one joker or the lesser of Army Effectiveness and the number of cards in one suit.
- When a player exhausts all cards in hand, the opponent is allowed one more impulse before the turn ends.
- Factions may only activate on specified playing card suits. Some may activate on all suits. Others may activate only on one or two suits. Better troops may activate on more suits.
- Each card played allows one unit to activate one time.
- A unit may activate up to three times per turn. Notice distinction between “impulse” and “turn” in this context.
- Activations need not be sequential whereby one unit performs all of its activations before another unit is activated.
- There are never enough resources to accomplish everything on every impulse or turn.
 |
| Standard Activation Table by Type and Suit |
Suppose one army is composed of Spanish Foreign Legion and Moroccan factions with four units on table. With the Legion and Moroccans being highly trained and motivated, one might expect Army Effectiveness to be high. In this situation it is, with the Nationalists having an Army Effectiveness of ‘6’. With a 1D6 roll of ‘4’, the Nationalists’ hand size for this turn is ‘14’ (6+4+4). Foreign Legion/Moroccans can activate on all suits.
The Nationalists are opposed by a mixed force of Anarchist Militia and Communist Militia each having three units. The Republican army in this case has an Army Effectiveness of ‘4’. With a 1D6 die roll of ‘3’, the Republicans have a hand size for this turn of ‘13’ (4+6+3). The anarchists may only activate on hearts and diamonds. The communists may activate only on clubs and diamonds. The Nationalists will hold the initiative for this turn.
Suppose that in this example, suits are distributed evenly within each hand. The Nationalists will have four cards in two of the suits and three cards in the other two suits. The Republicans will have four cards in one suit and three cards in each of the remaining suits.
Since the Nationalist factions may activate on any suit, all cards will be usable by all units and the Foreign Legion and Moroccans will be able to coordinate actions with one another within the same impulse. In contrast, the Republican militias have a much more difficult task activating and conducting coordinated actions. Neither the communists nor anarchists may activate on spades. That makes one-fourth of the cards in hand unplayable in this impulse. To compound this constraint, diamonds are the only suit in which the two militia may coordinate activities. Only communists will be activating on hearts and only anarchists will be activating on clubs. One quickly discovers that playing the Republicans in this scenario offers up a much different experience and challenge than does playing the Nationalists. The use of suit activation tailored to faction provides a very interesting and asymmetrical set of problems for one player over the other. This simple, game mechanism offers much depth to game play. Brilliant!
With a player’s impulse limited to at most four cards in this example, is it advisable to activate one unit three times? Three activations would exhaust that unit’s capabilities for the turn (and impulse). Would it be more advantageous to activate several units one or two times each? Does the active player exhaust the suit in this impulse or save some cards for play in a later impulse? These decisions are situation dependent and introduce even more decision-making into the process. As the Nationalist player, perhaps, coordination among units within an impulse is top priority rather than a prolonged, three-activation strike by one unit? Can a player take the risk of holding cards back for later impulses when the opponent may run out of playable cards before all of his own cards in this turn can be played? More decisions to keep in mind.
This look at activation and resource management only scratches the surface of the array of decisions players face in FWTDR. Much more can be explored on this topic alone. For now, I end this Player Note with the conclusion that FWTDR offers up a decision-rich environment that handles the complications of activating and coordinating disparate forces in a parsimonious manner. When one pulls back the layers and looks a little deeper, there is much interesting and thoughtful design work behind the scenes. Perhaps an element of Poker and risk management thrown in for good measure.
If these insights are of interest to even those not familiar with the rules, please post a comment. If not, I may keep these ramblings to myself.
Thanks for reading!
The Nationalists are opposed by a mixed force of Anarchist Militia and Communist Militia each having three units. The Republican army in this case has an Army Effectiveness of ‘4’. With a 1D6 die roll of ‘3’, the Republicans have a hand size for this turn of ‘13’ (4+6+3). The anarchists may only activate on hearts and diamonds. The communists may activate only on clubs and diamonds. The Nationalists will hold the initiative for this turn.
Suppose that in this example, suits are distributed evenly within each hand. The Nationalists will have four cards in two of the suits and three cards in the other two suits. The Republicans will have four cards in one suit and three cards in each of the remaining suits.
Since the Nationalist factions may activate on any suit, all cards will be usable by all units and the Foreign Legion and Moroccans will be able to coordinate actions with one another within the same impulse. In contrast, the Republican militias have a much more difficult task activating and conducting coordinated actions. Neither the communists nor anarchists may activate on spades. That makes one-fourth of the cards in hand unplayable in this impulse. To compound this constraint, diamonds are the only suit in which the two militia may coordinate activities. Only communists will be activating on hearts and only anarchists will be activating on clubs. One quickly discovers that playing the Republicans in this scenario offers up a much different experience and challenge than does playing the Nationalists. The use of suit activation tailored to faction provides a very interesting and asymmetrical set of problems for one player over the other. This simple, game mechanism offers much depth to game play. Brilliant!
With a player’s impulse limited to at most four cards in this example, is it advisable to activate one unit three times? Three activations would exhaust that unit’s capabilities for the turn (and impulse). Would it be more advantageous to activate several units one or two times each? Does the active player exhaust the suit in this impulse or save some cards for play in a later impulse? These decisions are situation dependent and introduce even more decision-making into the process. As the Nationalist player, perhaps, coordination among units within an impulse is top priority rather than a prolonged, three-activation strike by one unit? Can a player take the risk of holding cards back for later impulses when the opponent may run out of playable cards before all of his own cards in this turn can be played? More decisions to keep in mind.
This look at activation and resource management only scratches the surface of the array of decisions players face in FWTDR. Much more can be explored on this topic alone. For now, I end this Player Note with the conclusion that FWTDR offers up a decision-rich environment that handles the complications of activating and coordinating disparate forces in a parsimonious manner. When one pulls back the layers and looks a little deeper, there is much interesting and thoughtful design work behind the scenes. Perhaps an element of Poker and risk management thrown in for good measure.
If these insights are of interest to even those not familiar with the rules, please post a comment. If not, I may keep these ramblings to myself.
Thanks for reading!
Very good piece of analysis. Whether it'll encourage people to play the rules or just plain put them off, only time will tell! It's good to see that you think I have achieved what I set out to achieve, although I didn't realise I was looking to design a "a multi-dimensional and non-linear approach to turn sequencing and process control", but I'm quite glad I did.
ReplyDeleteThank you! Whether this encourages those interested or half interested to pick up a copy at least this analysis (hopefully) provides a flavor of how the game is played. I gain much more from some thoughtful analysis than a simple recitation of the Table of Contents.
DeleteAs for a multi-dimensional/non-linear approach, sometimes the source of inspiration is unknown and not knowable at the time of conception.
Very clear explanation Jon. It’s a clever way of modelling the difficulty of getting rival factions to work together.
ReplyDeleteThanks. The actual solution caused me some angst getting there, and lockdown and remote gaming forced me to change the original design (which had pre-sorted decks and no limits to runs/impulses) but I think the outcome is a massive improvement on the original concept.
DeleteGlad to see that you thought my explanation was clear enough to understand. One never knows with certainty.
DeleteThe manner in which Graham modeled the interaction of faction is elegant and simple having very little overhead.
Graham, the final result in hand management represents a big step forward over earlier drafts to me too. Nicely done.
DeleteVery insightful. Thanks for sharing
ReplyDeleteYou are welcome, Neil!
DeleteAre you going to link it on the TMP SCW page?
DeleteA clever mechanic. what I find interesting is that your background allows you to drill into the data and make analysis of system and outcomes, which allows you to appreciate exactly what is going on ‘technically’ …… but on the flip side of that same coin, does Graham share that same technical insight or has he arrived at the design by design inspiration based around the ‘feel’ of outcomes rather than the technical route to outcomes?
ReplyDeleteIf the latter then your joint approach to understanding / appreciating the rules compliment each other rather well. But that would then also have me wonder whether you see patterns or consequences or trends that have perhaps not been intended by the designer?
I'm not a systems/data man like Jon, but I worked in an environment that was very heavily data and systems driven. I did a lot of user design specs, and structured workflows. I have a real interest in how things work. On top of that I am a historian (well, I have a BA Hons in History). The technique in most designs for wargames is to read a lot about the subject until I have a feel for what I want to be salient in the eventual model. I don't start from the idea that first I right firing rules, then hand to hand, then movement etc. So Taiping Era started from the Morale vigour tests and worked out from there. The subconscious does a lot of the heavy lifting. Some rule sets have come to me almost fully formed when I wake up in the morning, and I then write them down. Playtesting them kicks them into shape. FWTDR (formerly SNTK) has been kicking around for 10 years in terms of elapsed time for development. The first post I wrote about them was on the 11th April 2011, and the system was really different.
DeleteNorm, I am pleased that you find this analysis and peek behind the design curtain interesting. When I saw what Graham had developed I immediately appreciated how it regulated coordination and activation among battalions within a brigade as well as interactions between brigades. I thought it clever then and appreciate its elegance the more I play.
DeleteGraham will weigh in on his design by "feel" or "analytics" position but I wager the designs are put together by "feel" initially. He may not see what I see when I look at a design so we may complement one another.
Graham has noted on more than one occasion that I bring a different, analytical perspective to both gaming and game designs. Of course, I may see patterns where none exist too!
Graham, you beat me to the punch!
DeleteNorm - Jon is a great paly tester, as although I think I'm analytical, he's the real deal, and he won't let go of things once he has his teeth into it. FWTDR is a better set of rules because of him. All I have to do at times is just remind him to lift his head up an bit and see the bigger picture, and judge the system as a whole.
DeleteVery much appreciated, Graham! Thank you.
DeleteBTW a paly tester is a pal who helps with play testing, not a typo.
DeleteWouldn't that be "pally"?
DeleteShould by pal-y.
DeleteFrom my own design dabbles, I find that I start with an idea and then I write, to put the idea into practice, but I have noticed that once you do that, although words, terms, effects and process are what makes the construct of the rule, you actually create some invisible maths that underpin the whole thing.
DeleteOnce a design is underway, the maths becomes more integrated (and silent, but obvious to the creator) and this in turn creates a rigidity that makes later tweaks difficult, because it is the maths under the tweaks that very often comes under pressure. One reason why the end user should tweak with caution.
I find that writing the design down really clarifies my thoughts. I like the concept of "invisible maths". A lot of designers, I think, shun the implications of the numbers they put in their rules. Why should it be a 4,5,6 to hit at a given range? Why are you sure it is a 50% chance. This worries me a lot. The base hit scores in FWTDR were discussed and agreed a long time a go with a different data cruncher to JF. Once I was comfortable with the base changes I then changed the dice used to alter the %age chance of a hit whilst keeping the "to hit" number constant. In the hand to hand rules I knew what outcomes I wanted from scenarios such as SFL charging militia in a house and made sure that - given both sides rolled the same numbers - the factors would produce that result, whilst ensuring that the extreme 1:36 chance would result in the extreme outcome. Fiddling around with the modifiers will break that without a lot of thought.
DeleteThe notion of "invisible maths" is an interesting topic. While the mathematics behind a design may be invisible (or perhaps even better, unobtrusive), the mathematics and statistics underlying a historical design ought to be well-grounded in theory and defensible in practice. Well, unless, the design is game first and detached from reality, the laws of physics, and historical evidence.
DeleteGraham's tale of designs targeting hitting on 4,5,6 rather than a 5 or 6 or 6 only is telling and far too common, I think. Maybe it is appropriate but maybe not? Same goes for rules that state emphatically that it should be "Don't Roll a One", "Don't Roll a Six", "Roll a One", etc.. The first thing I wonder is, "where does the model or theory suggest that this is the correct assessment?" Is this a design metric of convenience or careful thought? Many times, I am afraid, it is the former.
This is one reason I enjoy reading Designer's Notes in rulesets. That way, I know from which school of thought both the designer and design originate.
Fiddling around with a well-honed system design without understanding the underlying processes that drive the game engine is a recipe for failure.
The decision on the dice number to be rolled is often is this likely or unlikely to occur. With a d6 this ends up being "anything but a 1" for likely, or "you need a 6" for likely. Many players like d6s and don't like "funny dice". You'll be aware that I do resort to "funny dice" in several of my rule sets to enable me to get step changes in "unlikely" or "likely" that I can't get from just a d6, and where rolling 2d6 and adding them isn't the answer because I'm rolling a lot of dice. Back in the 70's when %age dice were introduced I went through a phase of thinking that they were the dice you should use for EVERYTHING, but players just don't like them. Personally I like d6/d12/d24 as it replicates chances being halved, although I haven't published a set with them yet.
DeleteAlas for a lot of weapon systems hard data are not available so you are looking at eventual outcomes and the route you take to get there. If a battalion advances in close order over open ground towards an entrenched line of rifle men with bolt action rifles I know what the end result should be in total, without knowing the hit %ages. I then need to ensure that the firing and hits give me that, so I am simulating morale effects as well as men being physically shot. It isn't always easy.
This sort of activation I'm fine with as it puts some decision making into the player's hand while adding meaningful challenges based on real issues. Seems very well thought out so kudos to the author.
ReplyDeleteWhat I really despise are the stable of games using the popular modern UK trend where 1 bad roll ends a player's turn. I've played too many such where one player goes turn after turn flubbing his first activation and its not a game, just a slaughter. Not so bad if you play weekly but if you only play a couple of times a year.....
Hear Him! Hear Him! I heartily agree with you. Over time I have been less enamoured of PiPs and rolled APs. You won't find anything like that in any of my rules. Of course, it is possible in FWTDSR to be dealt a hand of complete junk, but you should be able to do at least a few things.
DeleteMy corps level SCW rules "If you tolerate this" have a dice activation system where it is easier to pass from some units to others, so you can control your failures to some extent. If you fail to activate, that activation is simply delayed until after your opponent's next fail, you don't have to roll for it. Of course by then it might not be the unit you want to move.
Delete
DeleteRoss, I prefer a "Thinking Man's" game as well so FWTDR punches that ticket.
I am OK with unexpected and abrupt turn stoppage but it must be used for good reason and reasonable effect. As long as these activations are plentiful, the law of large numbers can get a foothold and these aberrations may work out in the long run. Where I especially despise this type of mechanism is when the player is punished in a "Take that!" fashion with little control or recourse. In a small game, this behavior can ruin the experience.
“If you tolerate this" would be a good title for a game that offers the “take that” approach to unit activation mentioned above.
DeleteRoss - good point and perhaps a battle cry for average dice, methinks :-)
DeleteThe world needs more games with average dice! I like them too.
Delete"If you tolerate this," I love the phrase!
ReplyDeleteThere are a lot of ways to use the humble 6 sided die. I would agree that losing the ability of doing anything with a single unit, much less a group,sticks in my craw too much to have fun.
Yeah, this is a great phrase!
DeleteGame models I enjoy most have a fixed component and a random effects component constructed such that the random effects component does not dominate the fixed portion.
Getting the random element right is the real challenge. Every attack should contain some element of risk, so you need to avoid absolute nailed on certainties, without making the game a crap shoot. One of the interesting pieces of design in DBA is how the factors line up with the "6:1" or "1:6" dice rolls. It's a really neat piece of design. Unlike PiPs, which I hate.
DeleteI agree. Getting the balance right is a real art. Of course, some players enjoy games with more risk and chaos than do others. The task of pleasing everyone is a tough one. The important point is that one must please himself.
DeleteI actually like the Pips concept in the right context such as classical ancient or early mid 18thC periods because it is the simplest way I've seen to encourage players to maintain their battle lines and thing of their army not individual units. For the older periods where such things were considered critical, its a good mechanism. A player who has the discipline to maintain formation despite fleeting temptations can usually beat a playergeneral who bases his plan on exploiting good die rolls and hoping to be lucky. If the disciplined player can also recognize and exploit when circumstances offer a chance to end things by exploiting circumstances (tactical situation + die roll) like an Alexander, he can be very hard to beat.
DeleteFor other periods where things are more fluid with greater local command control, it doesn't work for me any more.
A very interesting review, and comments to match! I was especially taken with the 'invisible maths' thing - it reminded me of the hours spent working out my 'volley-group die range' and 'hit modifier' systems for my Horse and Musket games... All because I HATED 'saving rolls'!
ReplyDeleteCheers,
Ion
Thanks, Ion! Great to see you popping in to leave a comment. Reader commentaries often add much to the discussion. Glad you enjoyed the Player’s Note and reader responses.
DeleteSaving Rolls are certainly a "Marmite" thing. They are useful as a stage in a design process as they enable you to separate out attack and defence factors without over loading the DRMs on a d6 roll, and it means both players are involved when combat rolls are made. I used to run simple participation games at shows using Neil Thomas' AMW and it made explaining what was going on to younger players really easy, and they "got it" really quickly. Generally I prefer to reduce the incidents of dice rolling (although not necessarily the number of dice) so for To Ur is Human I smashed the whole lot into one variable number on a d6.
DeleteSaving Rolls are certainly contentious. I tend to steer clear of them but they can be useful. I hate seeing hard-earned hits being negated by lucky Saving Rolls.
DeleteA very enjoyable read Jonathan, along with the replies. It's always good to make one think about the type of games we like to play and the mechanics used.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Steve. Putting some thought into why we do what we do is a useful exercise.
DeleteA very nice rules mechanism, and very clearly explained Jonathan.
ReplyDeleteI always try to do something different in each set of rules I write. I realise I can't be 100% original, but I like the core mechanisms to be something different so you can get something out of the rule book even if you don't play the period.
DeleteHi Lawrence. Very good to see that my ramblings were coherent! Thank you!
DeleteSome interesting ideas there - might be tempted to see if they could be adapted to other periods.
ReplyDeleteMarkus, my thought is that these concepts could have universal appeal to a number of periods and conflicts. The mechanisms, themselves, should be easily transferable.
DeleteYes, but only if you buy a copy ;-)
DeleteThanks Jon, always nice to read a thoughtful review of a set of rules. Funnily enough, I'm re-reading For Whom the Bell Tolls itself right at this moment!
ReplyDeleteCheers,
Aaron
I never got on with the Hemingway take on the SCW, although it is very quotable. For fictional accounts I'm a fan of Andre Malraux's "Days of Hope", although it is a bit wordy in the passages which discuss the political background. Then again Malraux was much more closely involved in the actual fighting than Hemingway and the accounts of the bombing raids are very evocative.
DeleteYou are welcome, Aaron! I like Hemingway but as you see from Graham’s comment not everyone agrees. To me, he was somewhat of a regional celebrity to whom both my grandfather and father admired.
DeleteI am always interested in twists of game mechanics and novel ideas. Indeed, Bob Jones has been discussing some novel ideas with Jim Getz, myself and a few others that also uses a conventional deck of cards in a somewhat similar but also quite different way. We'll see if anything actually comes of it!
ReplyDeleteTell us more please!
DeleteToo soon tio say much - Bob has first playtest scheduled, and I hope to try the draft version as well. There are sure to be many tweaks along the road. With Bob, the one thing you know is that he is NOT going to do the same thing that everyone else is! That's all I can really say at present, lest I violate my blood oath of secrecy. :-)
DeleteSounds interesting. Does this system playable and provides balance?
ReplyDeleteThis is a very interesting set of rules, Dmitry. Playable, yes. Balanced? That is in the hands of the scenario developer!
DeleteDepends on what you mean by balance. Good troops are good, poor troops are poor. If you put armies if equal quality and size on the table, then the game is perfectly balanced. The rules were written to play historical or near historical scenarios, not for people to use a points system to create super armies. There's a free resources pack on the Wargaming for Grownups blog, or downloadable from Wargame Vault, which includes a number of scenarios which give either side a fair chance of winning. Go and take a look.
DeleteThanks for your answers, gentlemen.
DeleteAs for balance I mean that good troops shouldn’t be are too much good. So having poor troops you have no chanse against good one. As I understood there is a system of activation with 25% gradual steps. And my question was what if 25% is too harsh, what if 12,5% is required? Theoretically:)
Dmitry, good troops die just like poor troops but, on average, at a slower rate. On activation, if the number of cards in hand are similar and the suits distributed similarly, poor troops will have similar opportunities to activate within an impulse as do the good troops. The difference is that poor troops may not be able to coordinate with other formations and poor troops may not be able to activate on as many suits within a turn. Poor troops can do the same actions as goods troops but maybe not do so as often or as efficiently. For me, this is an elegant solution to a problem of resource management.
DeleteI would say that if you expect equal numbers of Spanish Foreign Legion up against Workers Militia in the open to be a balanced or fair fight then you'd be disappointed. To give Militia an even chance they need to be well dug in and supported by aircraft, artillery or armour. Sort of like what happened in the actual Spanish Civil War.
DeleteSounds like a very neat way of representing the variable quality of forces in the Spanish civil war, as Jonathan says an elegant solution!
ReplyDeleteBest Iain
I think it a neat solution too!
DeleteHow well would this card mechanism transfer to WW2, do you think?
ReplyDeleteHi Danni. The card mechanism, itself, ought to transfer easily to other games in other theaters as I mentioned in one of my comments above. The use of different suits for different factions poses a bigger challenge. How would you bifurcate “factions” in WWII combat to represent friction and cooperation between groups? I think this system could be used on the Norwegian front simulating joint operations between the assortment of allies.
DeleteDanni: The mechanism (they're my rules, by the way) is designed to put grit into the order giving process whilst still giving players control over what they can do to a limited extent. Unlike dice based systems you will know that you will be able to do certain things in the turn, and won't be defeated by an endless string of 1s and 2s on a d6. The system is also used in my Russian Civil War rules, only there it has the added novelty that players can coerce troops to move on card suits they wouldn't usually use at the peril of potential mutiny. The armies used don't have to have factions as such, but if you think that communication was difficult in one campaign between infantry and artillery, then assigning them different suits will do that for you. In some theatres, like the Eastern Front, the Hungarians and Romanians did not get on, so you could simulate that easily enough. The game also works okay if you activate on all suits as the armies often have different efficiency ratings, that is the number of cards that can be played in succession. Blitzkrieg Nazis might by able to play 5 cards, their French opponents only 3 or 4. Of course, even then you need to be dealt cards in sufficient numbers by suit to do that repeatedly. I think the system has a lot going for it in a range of periods, and really shines where you want players to have forced periods of inactivity without turning the game into a borefest.
Delete