Librarium Online - View Single Post - 40k re-design, basic concepts and outline design requirements.

Lanrak · November 11th, 2006, 20:05

Well I suppose it all depends on how realistic you think the game needs to be.

I will try to define fog of war.
The 'fog of war' is the term used to discribe the phenomenom that impede or resrict a combatant/units ability to assess the tactical/stategic situation and respond appropriatley/efficiently.

In ancient to napoleonic conflict,ALL orders were given by the commander on the field.(general/field marshal/king.)
These orders were relayed to the units by messengers.
So the army would act according to instructuions based on the assesment of the information available to the commander on the field.(Like WH.)

If messages were not relayed properly(charge of the light brigade,etc) or the commander was misinformed or unable to see what was going on, this caused tactical errors on his part.This is FOW in these types of battles.

In modern combat the main difference is the improvments in communication,and the tactical decisions are determined at unit level, by the unit leader.

Generals determine strategy,seargents determine tactics used!

Some games that are trying to be accurate simulation of modern factual conflicts/combatants represent FOW in the following way.

Aquisition tables.
This determines what the unit would be aware of.(Roll to see,in simple terms.)

Command control.
What level of communication is available to/between the units.(To give the unit wider awarness of the combat.)

Moral status.
The negative effects of psychological trauma upon the unit.

So in 40k ,perhaps LOS and the to hit modifiers may be enough to determine what the unit can directly respond to at range,and the moral (Shaken ,stunned ,fall back),could give a reasonable indication of psychological trauma.I tried to include command control effects by adding these conciderations to the moral modifiers.

As reguards random movment,I belive this was introduced by GW to arificialy add interest/(exitment?) to the game.

Again this is not included in other non GW rules sets.

Adjusting movment by a set amount for different types of terrain works fine.IMO.
(Determining everything by rolling a D6 is the main cause of the abstraction in GW games.IMHO.And while I am on the subject dictating the effects of fire by only considering casualty removal misses out the effects of supression etc,especialy as 40k has such a preponderance of ranged weapons. )

Please dont think I am doing anything but suggesting some ideas for discussion.

We all have some good ideas,I suppose if we discuss them we could chose the most apropriate ones for inclusion in a new version of 40K.

Clarification.
As a game turn is an arbitary period of time, and the actions that can be performed within this time sets the scope and scale of the game.
I stated a 'combination' of the basic actions move/shoot ,to give basic tactical stances for the units.

So a unit may adopt one of the three tactical stances,(first fire ,advance, charge)which determins how they act/react when activated.

My ideas are quite clear in my head ,untill I try to write them down,(slow typing speeds and poor spelling do not help.)then it goes a bit pear shaped.
I appologise for this.

Thanks for bearing with me.
ATB
Lanrak.

November 11th, 2006, 20:05	#7 (permalink)
Lanrak Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 325 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Rep Power: 40	Fog Of War & random movment. Well I suppose it all depends on how realistic you think the game needs to be. I will try to define fog of war. The 'fog of war' is the term used to discribe the phenomenom that impede or resrict a combatant/units ability to assess the tactical/stategic situation and respond appropriatley/efficiently. In ancient to napoleonic conflict,ALL orders were given by the commander on the field.(general/field marshal/king.) These orders were relayed to the units by messengers. So the army would act according to instructuions based on the assesment of the information available to the commander on the field.(Like WH.) If messages were not relayed properly(charge of the light brigade,etc) or the commander was misinformed or unable to see what was going on, this caused tactical errors on his part.This is FOW in these types of battles. In modern combat the main difference is the improvments in communication,and the tactical decisions are determined at unit level, by the unit leader. Generals determine strategy,seargents determine tactics used! Some games that are trying to be accurate simulation of modern factual conflicts/combatants represent FOW in the following way. Aquisition tables. This determines what the unit would be aware of.(Roll to see,in simple terms.) Command control. What level of communication is available to/between the units.(To give the unit wider awarness of the combat.) Moral status. The negative effects of psychological trauma upon the unit. So in 40k ,perhaps LOS and the to hit modifiers may be enough to determine what the unit can directly respond to at range,and the moral (Shaken ,stunned ,fall back),could give a reasonable indication of psychological trauma.I tried to include command control effects by adding these conciderations to the moral modifiers. As reguards random movment,I belive this was introduced by GW to arificialy add interest/(exitment?) to the game. Again this is not included in other non GW rules sets. Adjusting movment by a set amount for different types of terrain works fine.IMO. (Determining everything by rolling a D6 is the main cause of the abstraction in GW games.IMHO.And while I am on the subject dictating the effects of fire by only considering casualty removal misses out the effects of supression etc,especialy as 40k has such a preponderance of ranged weapons. ) Please dont think I am doing anything but suggesting some ideas for discussion. We all have some good ideas,I suppose if we discuss them we could chose the most apropriate ones for inclusion in a new version of 40K. Clarification. As a game turn is an arbitary period of time, and the actions that can be performed within this time sets the scope and scale of the game. I stated a 'combination' of the basic actions move/shoot ,to give basic tactical stances for the units. So a unit may adopt one of the three tactical stances,(first fire ,advance, charge)which determins how they act/react when activated. My ideas are quite clear in my head ,untill I try to write them down,(slow typing speeds and poor spelling do not help.)then it goes a bit pear shaped. I appologise for this. Thanks for bearing with me. ATB Lanrak.