Wednesday, July 4, 2012

Idle Thoughts 2

These are untried, untested ideas, mostly"borrowed" from or "inspired" by various rules sets.

Possible turn sequence:


1. Roll for Action Points (AP)
2. Act (Fire, Move)
3. Conduct Hand to Hand Combat


Action Points: The active side rolls 2D6. The result is the number of AP that side has to work with. If the result is doubles also draw a random event (card, chart, or other mechanism). AP are spent to move or fire (or other possible actions). Hand to hand combat is separate and costs no AP. Disciplined troops, like British Colonial armies, can use up to 2 AP per unit. So a unit could move and fire, fire twice, move twice, and in any order, so they could fire and then move or move and then fire. Undisciplined troops, like natives, can only use 1 AP per unit. The player decides which units act when and how.

Each unit spends 1 AP to move or fire, where a unit is defined as 1 individual, 1 stand or group of figures or 1 stand and attached individuals, acting together, doing the same actions.


Some of my thinking behind this: It's simple, with 1 die roll per turn. It gives the player control over which units act if not all are able to. It gives disciplined troops an advantage over undisciplined ones, which, to my thinking, is important in Colonial games and some fantasy games. It gives me freedom and flexibility to add to it later without changing the basics. For example, I could add other types of actions such as demolition of a bridge, breaching a wall or barricade, and other engineer/sapper tasks. I could add some actions that take more than 1 AP to complete (in a single turn or over multiple turns). Or I could have modifiers to the die roll, for example, a very good commander might add 1 to the roll. I'm sure there are downsides to this idea as well. Of course, this is not a new or original idea either.

7 comments:

Bluebear Jeff said...

One thing that occurs to me is that you will only get an "event card" once every 18 turns.

Suggest that you might want to draw a card every time "doubles" are rolled . . . a 1 in 6 probability . . . instead.


-- Jeff

Fitz-Badger said...

good catch! Thanks!
updated

Ross Mac rmacfa@gmail.com said...

Good to see you pondering such things. Don't sweat originality, just about every original rule idea can be found surfacing 20 or 40 or 50 years ago even if it sank leaving few ripples.

I still like the idea of pips or APs. Just a couple of superficial thoughts in no particular order.

1. re Regulars getting to use multiple AP. At 1st glance it seems to make them more flexible but it also means that it makes trained troops HARDER to control than untrained ones, especially if rolling low. Having fewer regular units might be enough to balance it.

2. Having tried it myself, I'm not keen on AP for shooting. 2 reasons. first it robs troops of self defense where I have come to believe that poor shooting dice should be allowed to do that. Second, stopping troops from shooting seems to have been a major command headache, usually because they stopped moving to do so. I've never completely solved that one. again not saying right or wrong just reflecting.

3. What about allowing some of those Individuals and special figures a role wrt to AP. Thinking of something like Gaslight where unit with characters get to move on his card as well as their own. Perhaps allow a unit to be given their AP to move but also be given another one of they have a character? or even a free action?

Have fun! -Ross

Fitz-Badger said...

Thanks, Ross! I value your comments and experience. Yeah, I will make no pretense to being original nor whatever I come up with to be of much interest to anyone but myself. I'm also under no illusion that I can just cobble together some rules and have them work without a lot of trial and error and playtesting.
1. I hadn't thought about the "harder to control" regulars, but I did think there would likely be fewer of them compared to irregulars.
2. I hadn't thought of that either (which is one reason I'm posting these thoughts, to get other viewpoints). I wanted to have firing happening anywhere amongst movement. And have some way to allow regulars to fire and move (or even fire twice without moving). I know Hordes of the Things does not charge "pips" for firing.
3. More food for thought.
Thanks again!

Fitz-Badger said...

Maybe firing is an action for the active player (costing an AP), but a reaction for the inactive player (costing no AP, because the inactive side doesn't have/spend AP)? In other words, the inactive side can fire in reaction to an active unit moving inside the inactive unit's firing arc/range, and/or in reaction to being fired upon. (but they can only fire once, not at multiple units for multiple reactions.)

Danjou's Hand said...

I think AP can be a fun mechanism to play with. One of my favorite free sets of skirmish rules use them: http://www.tabletoptitans.com/rules/0003.php

There's a pdf copy of them available as well if you search for "INRADIC" (the name of the Mythic-like system the author devised).

The only problem I found in solo play was deciding which figures the non-player force would activate given a low draw for AP. A simple decision tree perhaps, or a definite objective for the non-player force helps to alleviate this somewhat.

Fitz-Badger said...

Thanks! I've seen Steven's work around (including mentions on your blog).
For now I think I will give GASLIGHT more tries. After the last game I played I'm thinking it's more suitable for my tastes than I had previously thought (the differences being reading the original rules vs the Compendium with the variants added in, and playing the game). One advantage of GASLIGHT is you can mix and match the various rules to suit the scenario and/or how you want the game to play. So I can keep it simple and quick, play something more rpg-like or larger battles or whatever. I also like all of the customization possibilities for characters, units, contraptions, beasts, etc.
If I play it more and learn the rules better I think I can "get used to" these rules. :)