Saturday, September 4, 2021

From Pike To Bayonet: A Battle Report

Tuesday's remote game was a return to playtesting Graham's late 17th/early 18th  Century rules.  This time, the battle was set in the 1690s Low Countries where an Anglo-Dutch force faced off against a French force.  The objective was to take control of the bridge separating the two armies.  Troop quality is unknown until contact with the enemy.  How good or how reliable will our troops be on the day of battle?  No one knows with certainty.  

Since I would be commanding the French right wing, I switched webcams from the lead camera view (opening game photo) to better see my troops.  The French Army is attacking from top to bottom with the Anglo-Dutch attacking from bottom to top.  The ruined bridge in the foreground is not a meaningful objective.

How did the battle play? 

Both armies advance toward the bridge
French right-wing horse charge across the river
 and receive an unwelcome volley.
Disordered, French horse charge home as armies close...
and are sent packing back to where they came.
It's a race to find the best defensive ground along the river.
The race continues with volleys exchanged across the water.
The French right charges across.
One clash results in the enemy being driven back.
The other ends in a firefight.
The retreat turns to rout as one Anglo-Dutch
 regiment breaks.
And then a second enemy unit breaks for the rear.
The victorious French follow up.
While the French left is becoming hotly engaged at the bridge,
 clashes continue on my end of the battlefield.
French charge across the river and across the bridge
 into the jaws of the enemy.
My two French regiments are driven back from the river
 while the French left wing drives back its opposition.  The
pursuit of the two broken Anglo-Dutch regiments continues.
At this point, the battle was called due to time.  After about four hours of play, two Anglo-Dutch infantry regiments were in flight and a third regiment was being pushed back.  For the French, two cavalry regiments had fled the battlefield and two infantry regiments were being pushed back.  With neither army broken, Graham declared the battle a draw.  With both armies only approaching the halfway mark to becoming broken, a draw seemed a reasonable outcome given the situation, I thought.

The hard-charging French were not as effective as I hoped and the Anglo-Dutch platoon-firing infantry was more effective than I feared.  With rules in flux, just when one sees workable tactics beginning to formulate and gel, the next rules' iteration throws much of that discovery out of the window.  We begin again from Ground Zero.  Well, not quite Ground Zero but you get the impression.

There are a couple of assumptions in the rules requiring more of my thought.  I am sure these curiosities will be addressed in time but for now, they are puzzling.  In the remainder of this post, I tackle one as I work through the problem.

What is the source of one of the puzzlements?  Initiative determination.  The assignment of initiative at the beginning of each turn has the potential to have an outsized influence on the game.  The turn-starting rule on initiative determination drives the sequence of play.  The player winning initiative has a choice of moving and fighting first in the turn or second.  With that choice, a player could choose to activate second in one player turn.  Then if initiative is won in the next turn, that same player could move first.  This result allows one player the opportunity to activate his army twice in a row.  That is, the army activates second in one turn and then activates first in the following turn.  In Tuesday's battle, the Anglo-Dutch army managed to pull this off twice producing back to back activations two times during the game.  Two sequential activations manifests an advantage; sometimes huge.  An advantage that is difficult if not impossible to counter.

The probability of a double activation is actually increased by the nature of the initiative roll.  The player that loses initiative in one turn is more likely to win initiative the next.  The +1DRM to the initiative loser reduces the likelihood that one side can dominate initiative by allowing the initiative loser a better chance to snatch it away next turn.  True.

All things equal, what the game ends up with is a negative serial correlation to the prior turn's initiative holder.  This seems to violate Newton's First Law of Motion.  In physics, a body in motion tends to remain that way unless an outside force acts upon it.  Given that, an army in motion (holding initiative) ought not be less likely to maintain that motion than its opponent.  Better to have theory on your side, I think.  Taking the initiative should be rewarded; not punished.  

Now that this is identified, what are possible solutions to address this +1DRM Initiative bonus to the prior turn's initiative loser?

First, drop the "+1DRM if lost last initiative."

Since the Initiative Roll already modifies the die roll by commander quality, keep that in place since better generals ought to have a better chance of seizing and maintaining the initiative.  If you want to stop there, that is fine and provides a workable, theoretically sound solution.

Let us not stop there, though.  A more interesting solution is to add,

"+1DRM if moved first last turn."

What does this addition accomplish?

Say, Player 1 wins the initiative and decides to move first.  Player 1 moves first and Player 2 moves second.  Since Player 1 moved first, the initiative rests with Player 1 this turn.  Next turn, the probability of Player 1 maintaining the initiative is increased by +1DRM.

What if Player 1 wins initiative and decides to move second?  Now, Player 2 moves first and Player 1 moves second.  Player 1 has relinquished the initiative to Player 2.  Next turn, Player 2 has an advantage in attempting to hold the initiative with a +1DRM.  Player 1 not only gave up initiative this turn by choosing to move second but has allowed his opponent an opportunity to maintain this initiative next turn (and subsequent turns) with increased probability.

Now, there is a reward for maintaining the initiative and a cost for giving it up.  As a bonus, no Newtonian law is violated in the process.  Of course, the opposing player could still out roll the initiative holding player despite the +1DRM and snatch the initiative anyway.  With no modifiers, the player not holding the initiative will win initiative 15/36 times. With a +1DRM, the player without initiative will win the comparison toss, 10/36 times.  Maintaining the initiative once taken is no sure thing.

I welcome comments on the original Initiative determination scheme as well as my suggested amendments.

I end with a few photos of the Spokane skyline, Lower Falls and Upper Falls snapped during Thursday's ride.  Weather remains perfect.


70 comments:

  1. H Jonathan, a nice sized battle with a scenario that is ideal for bench testing new rules. I play quite a few systems (boardgames) that produce back-to-back type results and though they can occur at important moments, they generally tend to go either way, with both players being equally served, so luck is averaged out over play, though mostly these seem to be without modifiers of favouring one side or the other - so not earned, just good old Lady Luck.

    The problem that I suspect will fall out of 'Newton's Momentum' :-) is that the initial dice for initiative could have a significant influence over the next several turns, so one piece of luck could become 'very' lucky rather than a 'bit' lucky.

    I presume this is Graham's basic position as his modifier rewards the player who lost the last initiative.

    I suppose it depends upon whether one wants some command 'chaos' by flicking the initiative back and forth, or whether there is a preference towards less chaos and instead the recognition of the more certain gained momentum of action.

    There is also the interesting dynamic with back-to-back systems that your decision to go first could well give the other player a back to back turn in the next turn if they won initiative, so making it more likely that a player with initiative will think twice about using it to get the double turn. i.e. only use it when necessary because of the fear of it being used a against you in the next turn.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Norm. Thanks for your comments. I knew I could count on you for a thoughtful response to the question.

      Like you, I played many games with various initiative mechanisms including games with the possibility of back-to-back activations. Some schemes work better than others and some change how a gamer plays dramatically.

      If you look into the probabilities generated from such mechanisms, the Newtonian Motion school does not produce the significant influence or lasting effect you suggest. Even with the +1DRM suggested for moving first in the prior turn, the 'losing' player can beat the initiative holding player about 28% of the time. That does not count the times in which the 'winning' player opts to hand over initiative.

      Your last paragraph is the crucial one. The player with initiative must make a tough decision as to launching a double turn by surrendering the initiative. I like offering that decision to the players.

      Delete
  2. Interesting game and thoughts and cycling, I’m not going to say I understand the maths but my sense is once a force has gained the initiative then in most cases it should be easier for them to keep it until some key factor or event changes that. There were many historical generals Stonewall Jackson for one who sought to make the enemy play to their tune. A rule that give absolute balance is probably not a good idea, but there should be a chance for the enemy to snatch the initiative back. It is easy to see how in specific scenarios this could be developed. Army A the attackers win the initiative in future turns they get and advantage to their roll. Force B’s reinforcements are scheduled to arrive at a preset time say turn 5 at this point the initiative roll is then put back to an equal chance for both sides ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Matt, you sound like a Newtonian Motion Man! If you look at the probabilities I provide, you see that a player on the wrong end of the initiative rolls still has at least a 28% chance of regaining initiative.

      Your suggestion of having a time varying (or gaming varying) initiative die roll advantage is an interesting one. An idea that could have many applications including the example you mentioned. Good thinking!

      Delete
  3. Good looking game and sounds like a fair result, I like a game with a bit of chaos but where the luck element is evenly distributed, you're amendment sounds like you could get lucky once then keep hammering it!
    Best Iain

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Iain. One could get lucky and maintain initiative throughout a game but, then, that would be no different than an IGO-UGO game wherein one player always moves first. In this mechanism, the player on the losing end of initiative still has a reasonable chance of regaining initiative. Do not overlook the event of the 'winning' player choosing to hand over initiative by choice.

      Delete
  4. In the home brewed rules we generally use (primarily designed by Mark of 1866) on move one, both sides roll 1 D6 and the highets has initiative (naturally) The side holding initiative can choose to give it up ie let the other side go first. Thereafter, the side that ahd the initiative in turn one, rolls two D6 in the second initiative test, if they win, the next time they go up to three D6 - three is the maximum. We have had many games where the same side wins 75% of the initiative - and of course, it can make a huge difference. I assume Graham is trying to off set the risk of the side winning initiative always having initiative, but if he wants more balance, he could just dispense with it after the first roll - whoever goes first in turn one goes first for the whole game - after all, going first all the time is not necessarily always an advantage....I remember rule sets back in the 70's and 80's where there was no test for who went next, it was just UGO IGO.....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Keith, that is an interesting initiative variant for maintaining initiative. Notice that your 75% success rate of holding initiative under your mechanism is very similar to the 72% probability of holding initiative under the +1DRM scheme I suggest.

      I see nothing wrong with having one player hold initiative throughout the game as in the "old days' of IGO-UGO. Those days are still with us.

      You know, I recall one remote game with Graham using and one of his rules in which we were rolling for initiative each turn. The winner (with several initiative bonuses to the roll) got to choose First or Second player movement. One side maintained initiative throughout much of the game and launched a number of double moves. The result was clearly one-sided. In post-game comments, the lopsided activations and double moves were discussed. I went back into the rules and found that the game was actually IGO-UGO activations and not BY TURN Initiative assessment. When I brought this up, Graham said he went with IGO-UGO activations to prevent such double activations!

      Delete
  5. Looks superb, and great action.
    My favourite period. (We have a thing about this slice of history where I'm from LOL) I am always reminded of historian John Childs' comment regarding it being the time when warfare was 'at its most inefficient', due to everything being a little less than professional.
    As to the initiative quandry, I do feel that Field of Battle has some gorgeous mechanisms, but they involve cardplay, and differentials in terms of initiative rolls (can be d12 vs d8 at worst) in terms of the number of cards (be it melee, movement, firing bonus etc).
    Maurice also is a lovely system, which is less than traditional in scope.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks you! The look is all Graham's doing.

      I have not looked at Maurice in many, many years. I will pull it off the shelf and see how it addresses initiative determination.

      With a few modifications, I think the "Fields of Honor" rules we used in our AWI game would work well for this period. If I had figures for this period, we could test this hypothesis.

      Delete
    2. We found Maurice gave issues in the game, with the (I think) Defending side being at a seemingly permanent disadvantage. It's many years since we played but the issues caused us to ditch the rules, which was a shame as they promised so much.

      Delete
    3. Steve, that may be why I ditched Maurice too but so much time has passed since then, I have forgotten. Still, I ought to pull Maurice off the shelf for a relook.

      Delete
  6. Nicely looking game! As it mentioned above the back-to-back results will possible in any cases. Especially if player can decide who acts first. Some systems don’t give this opportunity and require to activate a player who has won the initiative.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your comments, Dmitry! Do you enjoy being the recipient of a double move and does this possibility change how you play a game?

      Delete
    2. I play systems where the initiative is played at the beginning of the turn. I perceive such situations as an alternative to chess, when everything is predetermined in advance and therefore boring and doubtful from the point of realism. I think chaos is a bit more natural.

      Delete
    3. Chaos can present more natural situations, for sure.

      Delete
  7. A very creative set of photos showing the game unfold. Is the initiative approach there to represent any particular aspect of warfare at that time?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Peter! On Initiative Approach and its historical counterpart, we must await a response from Graham for this answer.

      Delete
  8. Replies
    1. Thanks, Michal, but the game set up and presentation are Graham's handiwork.

      Delete
  9. Great game, congratulations Jonathan! According to statistics, in chess, White has a little more wins. It is a pity that the photographs are given only from a bird's eye view.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When playing remotely, I get the webcam view showing the entire battlefield. We must wait from Graham to provide his battle report with close up game photos.

      Glad you enjoyed the BatRep, Valentine!

      Delete
    2. The last days I have been studying your games on the battles of Zorndorf and Kunersdorf ... This is amazing, Jonathan !!! The thorough approach to the study of the topic and the correct conclusions drawn from the analysis of historical events are striking. ... "Although Frederic quickly criticized the Russian army and underestimated its combat effectiveness, he never defeated it in battle" ... I will devote more than one day to these games!

      Delete
    3. Valentine! So happy you found the battle reports and doubly pleased you found them useful. I await seeing your interpretation of these famous battles.

      Delete
  10. Graham has been away for a few days, and has a number of things to think about in this rules set.

    The initiative system is not at the top of my list of things to fix. For a player it might seem a big deal as it can influence the outcome of the game. What I'm interested in at the moment is the balance between movement, melee and firing where the opposing armies have an asymmetric firing system and how that then brings about morale outcomes. That means that I'm not overly concerned about who wins the game, or even if it is particularly well balanced. I'm probably a month or too at least off from being worried about that in a lot of detail.

    On the issue of the initiative generally, my preference is to reward players who win the initiative and then move first. Winning the initiative and requiring your opponent to move first seems inherently counter-intuitive.

    Photo report and write up to follow in a day or two.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Welcome back! I await your game photos, battle commentary and analysis.

      As often is the situation, I ramble with post-game thoughts to make a permanent record of my experience and analysis. One never knows when having these snippets in writing may provide inspiration down the road. You may be surprised to know how often I revisit these discussions.

      Delete
    2. It is a really useful piece of analysis, so it is good that you wrote it down for us all to read.

      Delete
  11. Isn't that loss of initiative characteristic of the period, though? Short of exceptional circumstances (eg, Rossbach, flank envelopment, etc.), didn't most battles in this period tend to grind towards an attrition-y stalemate?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't see the initiative as being central to who wins in this game system. For the period c 1688 - c1745 I'm interested in we have Killiecrankie, Sherrifmuir, The Boyne, Aughrim, Prestonpans, Falkirk, Culloden, Blenheim, Oudenarde, Ramillies etc, so I don't agree with your analysis of battles being stalemates.

      Delete
    2. If that is the situation, would an IGO-UGO turn sequence work just as well to model initiative in an attritional setting without the need for randomizing who goes first each turn?

      Delete
    3. The initiative system has been in use with these rules since their first incarnation, and it has never been a matter of much debate, if my memory serves me correctly. I am not sure what bit of the game is unravelling, or whether I can just blame the problems on remote gaming.

      Delete
    4. I think that I haven't been able to spend the time with players explaining what is expected from them and the game. That is one of the issues of the remote gaming environment.

      Delete
  12. A splendid period to game: wars of Louix XIV. Always interesting to see any system develop for this period. As far as initiative, the mathematical analysis aside, our group used to have this mechanic in our Napoleonic games (winner chooses the move or countermove). More important that the odds, it meant that players really had to break free of the "turn" mentality and instead envision operations as a continium, leading to more "realistic" (if you can use that term) operations on the table. It still left room for boldness: you could gamble on getting the initiative and move accordingly, but if it didn't work out, then you took your lumps. Adding an initiative bonus for one side to reflect superior command also very elegantly added other elements that influenced play. Just some recollections.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your feedback, Ed. A number of rules I have used in the past have a similar initiative determination where winner picks move order. At least at one point in every game can be heard by all players, "getting initiative is very important this turn."

      Delete
  13. The Napoleonic rules we use are simultaneous and work well, although there can be a lot of fine detail required in the order writing where a fifteen minute turn is broken down into quarters. That granularity is only required when units are in close proximity, otherwise units can just move their full fifteen minutes. I like that as it means that, unlike some other rules sets, you aren't sitting there with the enemy across the other side of the table one minute, and then right up under your nose the next before you have had a chance to do anything.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Simo movement and order writing seems very Old School to me. If it works for you that is all that matters. What is the ground scale of your rules and how many volleys can be unleashed in a fifteen minute turn?

      Delete
  14. Not entirely sure about dicing for change if initiative during the game as a mechanism of rules, no doubt many will disagree but I think ones opponent can often give that away without the rules dictating it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Having said that I use and enjoy the Black Powder rule set, and the command rolls failing can do just the same thing really, hmm.

      Delete
    2. I agree, Phil! Some of the constraints that rules put into place to drive a frictional combat model can be equally duplicated by simply allowing the players to interject their own personality traits. I can recite almost countless examples of games where player tendencies introduced much more friction than game constraints could model.

      If a player wants to seize the initiative, take it through tabletop actions.

      Delete
  15. An impressive game nonetheless. I've become less enamored of IGOUGO games over the years, in part because I used to play Warhammer where the larger the game, the longer one side is just standing there, and random initiative can exacerbate that. The Wally Simon articles I've been reading are big on semi-simultaneous, allowing both players a role through the turn. I am having especial difficulty figuring out how to run a 1-to-1 man skirmish without leaving some players waiting on end, but have had a little success with simultaneous orders, followed by a gamemaster interpreting the events. Problem is my live player group won't do order-writing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your comments and thoughts on turn sequence, Jennifer. Nothing wrong with an IGO-UGO turn sequence. I think it rare in today's IGO-UGO mechanism for one side to act solely and completely in isolation without opponent interaction.

      Rather than using a 'pure' IGO-UGO turn sequence wherein one side moves and conducts combat completely before turn over the turn, I prefer activations by command with the two armies alternating activation by command. Even within an activation there is interaction between the two combatants with defensive fire, reaction, joint close combat, etc..

      For your 1:1 skirmish games, have you considered adding one chit for each figure into a draw cup and activating each figure randomly through a chit pull from the cup? I cannot imagine that a single figure's activation would require that much time and play would quickly pass to the next activation.

      Order-writing? I don't care for it either for F2F gaming although it works perfectly for large, multi-player email games.

      Delete

      Delete
  16. Lots of interesting comments. I'm not up to applying Physics theories to my games so I'll just report on what I usually do. Rather than dicing, I usually use a deck of cards. One side is red the other black. The colour that is drawn is the side that goes first. (Face cards double as 'chance' or 'event' cards).
    The players have no choice nor are there modifiers. Basically, if you are going first you can sieze opportunities but must remember that you might go first again you might not so the senemy Might get a double move you can't so if you go for something you need to assess the risk and the reward. If you go 2nd, its worth keeping in mind that you Might get a double move so may want to keep an eye on opportunities.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The commentary has been very interesting.

      Thanks for providing your techniques for assigning turn sequence or initiative. There are so many solutions to the same problem. If your technique works for you then that is the perfect solution.

      Delete
    2. I forgot what was supposed to be the main point. That above is a game mechanism. The real initiative in the game belongs to the player whose plan is working and who is forcing his opponent to react regardless of who is going first in any given turn.

      Delete
  17. Impressive gaming as always, Jonathan. Lovely weather too!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Weather has been perfect except for the occasional smell and haze of wildfires burning.

      Delete
  18. Interesting piece. In War and Conquest you ‘buy’ initiative points and use them as a die roll when you feel the need to make an effort to grab the initiative, the enemy of course can also try this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks! Buying or bidding for initiative is an interesting mechanism. I am thinking more about initiative bidding.

      Delete
    2. Bidding for initiative is fundamental in the other game we played recently. As and there is a cost for gaining it I think it makes players really consider what they want to do.

      Delete
    3. One of my favorite Wargames from the early ‘80s had an initiative bidding system. Each player secretly bid for initiative by committing to a number of assaults for the turn. Player with the largest number of assaults was awarded initiative. The player with initiative HAD to launch that number of assaults even if it became unwise as the turn progressed. This commitment produced some interesting feints, diversionary attacks, and soak offs to fulfill the requirement.

      Delete
  19. Great report Jonathan- and clearly the concept of initiative generates some debate. For our group it boils down to two clear ideas. In an historical scenario no one complains if the umpire states that one side or the other has the initiative for the entire game or it is directed in such a way to allow some historical replication/authenticity etc. If, however , it is a pick me up game ( or a straight ‘head rip’) the idea that one side will gain the initiative and rarely lose it, generates howls of outrage. You know the cry “it’s not fair’ and ‘what about balance and playability’ etc etc This is mitigated somewhat if ‘national characteristics’ are involved or you’ve paid an enormous points cost for a Caesar of Gustavus Adolphus. So I tend to use different systems to generate initiative depending on the game being played. That said, I can’t please them all!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, John. Different initiative mechanisms for different games makes good sense. I smiled when I read that an initiative system in one setting is acceptable while that same system in another setting is panned. You are right! Cannot please them all. Thanks for sharing your initiative experiences. Very interesting and enlightening.

      Delete
    2. I'd say that different initiative systems are essential as they say something about the style of warfare as well as the style of game. Sometimes it doesn't make a lot of difference, but in a system like Armati it can mean the difference between winning and losing.

      Delete
  20. That's very interesting to see you playing something different. Very nice report.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Rather than fixed alternate IGO UGO turn sequences, I’m partial to rules that reflect differences in army and command competence by allowing them to deploy second and move first or second depending on what is most advantageous at the time, thus modelling the better force getting inside the enemy’s decision cycle. However, the player with the inferior force might find such a system too remorseless to be much fun, especially if the other fellow is regularly doubling up on turns. Too Fat Lardies includes temporary, more random advantages in its more recent rules. The dice system in Chain of Command and Command Cards in Too Fat Lardies are good examples where the initiative can temporarily be interrupted.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is always a problem for me in rewarding the player who has the army with the best general, as that is the role of the player. The quality of an army's staff work and organisation is another matter. Breaking up turns into bursts of alternate activity is attractive, which is what "For Whom the Dice Rolls" does quite effectively. I'm looking for something a bit different here, but there needs to be a coherence and relevance to the period. I've played several TFL games and they often have neat mechanisms. I'm not always sure that they are relevant or what they are simulating. I could say the same for Piquet.

      Delete
    2. Thanks for your thoughts on initiative, Michael. I will pull my dusty copy of CoC off the shelf and reread the section on initiative since I have forgotten how it works.

      Delete
  22. I've enjoyed the 'Honours of War' system for choosing whether to go first or second etc. It gives and advantage but not a game changing one I've found. The new 'Shadow of the Eagles' rules have a variant of this which again works well too.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I like the HoW system too. What makes it work for me is that activation is by brigade/wing/etc. with sides alternating and not Player 1 moves/fights with everything and then Player 2 does the same. Losing initiative is only momentary and only one brigade gets that benefit.

      Delete
  23. Lovely game Jonathan! Whatever the casualty points say, to me the French have the tactical advantage on the field so I wouldn’t call it a draw.

    Regarding the initaitive conundrum it's a very subjective issue and most players will have differing views. We mostly play Age of Eagles (initiative based) and Fire & Fury (IGO UGO) and they both work well for me. Then again, the historical aspect is crucial to determining which system works best for which period. The command structures of the french in 1796 and 1805 were way above the Austrians for example but things evened out by 1809.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ah...but the mostly undamaged allied cavalry had turned their left flank...

      Delete
    2. Mike, I will not disagree with the assessment of an unbiased observer on the French holding the advantage. I also agree that the initiative system used ought to fit the situation. If AoE works for you, great!

      Delete
    3. Trebian, yes, but that is part of the calculus. I expect Phil’s command to never lose a fight, never waver, and sweep all before him.

      Delete
  24. Dicing for initiative is fine by me as long as unit type or force commander's ability can influence that roll with modifiers.

    Enjoyed the batrep very much and once again, those pics of your cycling adventures are lovely. Nice to see blue, smoke-free skies!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Dai! Very good to see smoke-free skies adding.

      Delete
  25. Zimmermann, which I believe you have a copy of from comments on some of my posts of yonks ago?, had an excellent take on game sequence. He divided the turn into two half phases. Charges are declared then moved (both sides), then initiative is determined. The winning side can elect to move first or second in the first half-phase. In the second phase the order is reversed. It's a great way of allowing for I go you go, without giving such great advantages to one or the other or resorting to cards, dice or whatever for sections of an army so as to artificially break-up the movement of an entire side.
    The old time rules have much to offer, as I am discovering with Kriegsspiel!
    Regards, James

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I do have a copy of Zimmerman and, I think, a copy of your amendments. I ought to pull that off the shelf and look through the turn sequence and initiative process. Thanks for the suggestion!

      Delete