Turn Sequence
|
14 July 2008
The decision concerning turn sequence is one of the most important the writer of any wargame rules system can make. The choice made for turn sequence affects the strategic and tactical possibilities available to players a great deal. Wargame players are a particularly finicky lot when it comes to things making sense and fairness.
The more detail and flexibility one allows combat elements in the turn sequence, the longer the game will take to play. Additionally, the wrong turn sequence choice can give an unfair advantage to the side that gets to go first or make the flow of combat predictable by having non-varying sequence of events. Finding a balance between logic, flexibility, playability and fairness that will appeal to every player is an impossible task.
Sequences Considered for Open-Conflict
Phased-Based Approaches - Unit/Army actions occur in a specific sequence of Phases (i.e. Move, Shoot, Assault...)
Army Level I go, You go - One player uses all available options for their army in phase order, then the opponent uses all available options for their army in phase order. Within each phase players use options available, for that phase, one unit at a time until all units have completed the phase.
This sequence is simple to understand and game flows quickly. However, this sequence can provide a significant advantage to the player going first, the sequence of events is predictable, the flow of battle does not develop smoothly and it provides absolute certainty that all actions can be coordinated every turn. In large multiplayer games players can wait a long time before they do anything other than remove casualties.
Unit Level I go, You go - One player selects one unit of their army and uses all available options for the selected unit in phase order, then the opponent does the same for one of their units. This sequence is simple to understand, reduces the advantage to the player going first, the sequence of events is still somewhat predictable, but some uncertainty is introduced since an player does not always know the order in which units will be used. Hwever, keeping track of which units have executed their turn can be difficult to keep track of and markers of some type will be needed.
Action-Based Approaches - Unit/Army actions can occur in any order
Players will normally alternate performing actions at the individual combatant or unit level. While this approach provides the most detailed degree of tactical flexibility, it increases the amount of time needed to play a game. Action-based games at the individual combatant level can become tedious when the number of models in the game increases beyond about 10 models per player. Action-based games at the unit level are faster since all models in a unit are performing the same actions, but large and multi-player games still suffer playing time problems.
Whether an Action-based sequence is at the Army or Unit level, the task of keeping track of which elements have completed their actions can be difficult. Markers of some type will be needed.
For players desiring tactical flexibility in their game and time is not the issue, an action-based approach is definitely superior.
Alternating Phase-Based by Initiative - Unit/Army actions occur in Phases with all sides completing a Phase before going to the next
In this sequence the game proceeds in a phased manner (Move, Shoot, Assault, etc...), but each player rolls for initiative at the beginning of each phase and all of the players will complete each phase for their army in the order indicated by the initiative roll before moving to the next phase.
Although not as tactically flexible as an action-based method, this approach is much faster to play. Player uncertainty is introduced because the players do not know the order of play for any particular particular phase, thereby eliminating any built-in first turn advantage. Multi-player games (individuals and teams) are easily supported because each player/team will roll for intiative.
Goals of the Open-Conflict Turn Sequence
- No additional equipment needed, other than dice
- Be somewhat unpredictable
- Be fair to all players
- Eliminate strategic dependency on going first
- Provide as much tactical flexibility as possible
- Allow for large multiplayer games without being excessively slow paced
The rules for Open-Conflict's "Sequence of Play" is not easily decided. The goal of any wargame is to appeal to a large number of players and making Open-Conflict fast to play and flexible enough for large scale convention or club games is a must. However, there are many players that predominately play one-on-one and want a more demanding set of rules.
The best solution appears to be to create two versions of the game rules. Players desiring a relatively quick sequence and large multi-player games of Open-Conflict would be best served by the "Alternating Phase-Based by Initiative" turn sequence. However, players desiring more detail would best be served by an "Action-based" turn sequence. Since Open-Conflict involves more than a single squad of troops, an Action-based system at the Unit level appears to be the best choice.
Development of both systems can be done roughly in parallel. However, the main focus for now will be refining the Phase-based approach, which will be called "Open-Conflict". An Action-based version has been started and this will be known as "Advanced Open-Conflict". The difficult part of this effort will be making a set of army lists that are compatible between both sets of rules.