GW sales down

"Seamus" <fomorianwolf DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1154269811.498795.74460@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

> Andy O'Neill wrote:
>> Alternate unit activations allow for a smoother game than i do everything
>> and then you do ( Igo Ugo ).

> I wrote up alternate rules to Battletech based o Ralph Reeds' Mechforce
> game for the Amiga.

> The basic system I jotted down used a 10-phase movement chart for
> simultaneous movement (sort of like Car Wars/SFB). Players declare fire
> as they wish, as long as the unit has weapons available (i.e aren't
> cycling or destroyed).

> This ruleset plays out much like the Amiga game (or possibly Solaris
> VII), and eliminates the IGo-UGo mechanic entirely.

> In my head, I can't seem to justify using this system for an
> army-vs.-army type of game (i.e. WFB) though, as it sounds like a
> bloody nightmare to coordinate.

Actually, it does work. My first real game design used an impulse movement
system (I loved Car Wars and Star Fleet Battles). It was a very interesting
experience. You definitely got a sense of the battle "developing" in real
time. Maybe not better, but interesting. Try it in a smallish mass combat
game with 10 or so units per side. I would not try it in a skirmish game -
too many stands to move.

--Ty
 >> Stay informed about: GW sales down 

Ty wrote:


>> Both are IgoUgo.
>
> I assume this term means "player 1 moves, fires, etc. with his army, then
> player 2 does likewise". I don't have a problem with this, in and of
> itself. All of my rules are designed with some variant of this engine, for
> what I consider to be very good reasons, which I list below.

It's easy to make a IgoUgo game bad, and hard to make it good (btw. You made
a fine job with FFOT2). More funny mechanisms for the sequence of play
exist.

We have a house rule for sequence of play for HotT. It uses the rolls done
for generating PIPs to determinate also the seqence of play:

1. every side rolls a D8. The side with the higher roll becomes player A
(the other one player B) and makes their moves with a PIP number of his D8
score minus the opponent's D8 score.
2. Player B rolls his D8, A's D8 remains unchanged. The Player with the
higher roll moves with PIPs of his D8 minus the opponent's D8.
3. Player A rolls his D8, B's D8 remains unchanged. The Player with the
higher roll moves with PIPs of his D8 minus the opponent's D8.
4. Goto 2.
 >> Stay informed about: GW sales down 

"Peter Pradelski" <pradelp.DeleteThis@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:4j40c7F661u4U1@individual.net...
> Ty wrote:

>>> Both are IgoUgo.

>> I assume this term means "player 1 moves, fires, etc. with his army, then
>> player 2 does likewise". I don't have a problem with this, in and of
>> itself. All of my rules are designed with some variant of this engine,
>> for
>> what I consider to be very good reasons, which I list below.

> It's easy to make a IgoUgo game bad, and hard to make it good (btw. You
> made
> a fine job with FFOT2). More funny mechanisms for the sequence of play
> exist.

Hi Peter.

That's a fair point...and thanks for the compliment. And you've made me
aware of an interesting fact that I hadn't considered before.

Terms like "panzerbush" arose 30 years ago to describe problems with an
unoptimized sequential system, so you're absolutely correct that an
unenhanced ugoigo system will be badly defective. But unfortunately, the 2
most popular wargames -- Warhammer and WH40K -- have stunningly incompetent
ugoigo systems.

I think I now understand why so many people -- who haven't been playing
since the Reformation -- think ugoigo is inferior. They're not necessarily
obtuse, they just may not be aware that WH/WH40K contain flaws that were
recognized and handled by other designers 30 years ago. They need to
understand that GW's incompetent and primitive implementation is the
problem -- not ugoigo systems in general.

And my experience is that asymetrical games have systemic problems that make
them unsuitable for the kinds of games I like to play. These problems can be
mitigated -- I disclosed one system I'm working on. But it's still a
problem.

Plus, the major problems with ugoigo systems also exist with asymetric
systems. In my experience, it takes at least as much effort to deal with
those problems in asymetric systems.

So I am unsold on the inherent superiority of such systems.

> We have a house rule for sequence of play for HotT. It uses the rolls done
> for generating PIPs to determinate also the seqence of play:

> 1. every side rolls a D8. The side with the higher roll becomes player A
> (the other one player B) and makes their moves with a PIP number of his D8
> score minus the opponent's D8 score.

So...Player 1 rolls a 7 and Payer 2 rolls a 2. Player 1 gets 5 moves?

> 2. Player B rolls his D8, A's D8 remains unchanged. The Player with the
> higher roll moves with PIPs of his D8 minus the opponent's D8.

Player 1 keeps his roll of 7. Player 2 rolls a 4. Player 1 gets 3 more
moves?

So far, Player 1 has 8 unanswered moves. Wouldn't that be a pretty
significant advantage?

> 3. Player A rolls his D8, B's D8 remains unchanged. The Player with the
> higher roll moves with PIPs of his D8 minus the opponent's D8.

Player 2 keeps his roll of 5. Player 1 rolls a 6. Player 1 gets 1 more
moves?

At this point, Player 1 has 9 unanswered moves.

> 4. Goto 2.

This is reminiscent of the Piquet system -- the difference between d20 rolls
is the number of actions, although the deck can occasionally end the turn
before all activations are done.

I detest that system. A couple of lucky rolls and the lucky player rolls
over his hapless opponent. Not good.

It's been a very long time since I played HOTT/DBA so I can't tell if I'd
hate your system or not. But it seems to me that a player who rolls poorly
on one roll can find himself being overrun by his opponent. The system
exacerbates the effect of bad (or good) rolls because the roll "counts" for
2 turns. just because of a few die rolls. If a player rolls a "2" and his
opponent rolls a "6", his opponent will get 4 unanswered rolls. This will
happen 1 in 16 times. Not so bad. But the player that rolls the 2 is stuck
with that roll for 2 rounds. This will happen 1 time in 4. And a player who
rolls a 7 gets that roll for 2 turns. Seems to me that bad (or good) luck on
a very few rolls could determine the victor, regardless of how well the
players play. In addition, the timing of such rolls is critical. If Player 1
has a string of good luck that allows him to maul Player 2's forces, Player
2 will not be able to recover even if he gets a comparable run of good luck
later. That is the inherent fallacy of arguments like "the rolls will even
out over the course of the game", particularly when we're dealing with a
relatively small number of such rolls -- 20 or so in a typical game,
compared with 5-7 times as many combat rolls.

Bottom line -- I think that if you must highly randomize a mechanic, choose
mechanics that (a) involve a large number of rolls over the course of a
game; and (b) tend to have a relatively modest impact on the game on a *per
roll* basis.

If you highly randomize systems that involve small numbers of rolls, each of
which can have a significant impact, many of your games will be decided by
luck, not skill.

Not to my taste, but YMMV.

I generally randomize combat and leave the sequence of play unrandomized.

--Ty
 >> Stay informed about: GW sales down 

Ty wrote:

> "Peter Pradelski" <pradelp.TakeThisOut@gmx.de> wrote in message
> news:4j40c7F661u4U1@individual.net...
>> Ty wrote:
>
>>>> Both are IgoUgo.
>
>>> I assume this term means "player 1 moves, fires, etc. with his army,
>>> then player 2 does likewise". I don't have a problem with this, in and
>>> of itself. All of my rules are designed with some variant of this
>>> engine, for
>>> what I consider to be very good reasons, which I list below.
>
>> It's easy to make a IgoUgo game bad, and hard to make it good (btw. You
>> made
>> a fine job with FFOT2). More funny mechanisms for the sequence of play
>> exist.
>
> Hi Peter.
>
> That's a fair point...and thanks for the compliment. And you've made me
> aware of an interesting fact that I hadn't considered before.
>
> Terms like "panzerbush" arose 30 years ago to describe problems with an
> unoptimized sequential system, so you're absolutely correct that an
> unenhanced ugoigo system will be badly defective. But unfortunately, the 2
> most popular wargames -- Warhammer and WH40K -- have stunningly
> incompetent ugoigo systems.
>
> I think I now understand why so many people -- who haven't been playing
> since the Reformation -- think ugoigo is inferior. They're not necessarily
> obtuse, they just may not be aware that WH/WH40K contain flaws that were
> recognized and handled by other designers 30 years ago. They need to
> understand that GW's incompetent and primitive implementation is the
> problem -- not ugoigo systems in general.

It's by far not only WHFB and 40K which do have poorly designed IgoUgo. I
would go so far to say poorly designed IgoUgo are the usual case, well
designed a minority. At least by far the most rulesets I know produce some
stupid results under certain circumstances, which effects can be in most
cases (relatively) simply reduced or even removed by changing to a more
randomized sequence of play.

I belive, doing a IgoUgo well is lots more difficult than archiving an
average quality ruleset with a randomized sequence of play.


>
> And my experience is that asymetrical games have systemic problems that
> make them unsuitable for the kinds of games I like to play. These problems
> can be mitigated -- I disclosed one system I'm working on. But it's still
> a problem.
>
> Plus, the major problems with ugoigo systems also exist with asymetric
> systems. In my experience, it takes at least as much effort to deal with
> those problems in asymetric systems.

I disagree. Imho design flaws hit lots harder with a IgoUgo sequence of play
than the same design flaws would do in a asymetrical one. I consider
randomizing the sequence of play as an easy way to turn a bad ruleset into
one of average quality.

>
> So I am unsold on the inherent superiority of such systems.
>
>> We have a house rule for sequence of play for HotT. It uses the rolls
>> done for generating PIPs to determinate also the seqence of play:
>
>> 1. every side rolls a D8. The side with the higher roll becomes player A
>> (the other one player B) and makes their moves with a PIP number of his
>> D8 score minus the opponent's D8 score.
>
> So...Player 1 rolls a 7 and Payer 2 rolls a 2. Player 1 gets 5 moves?

Yes.

>
>> 2. Player B rolls his D8, A's D8 remains unchanged. The Player with the
>> higher roll moves with PIPs of his D8 minus the opponent's D8.
>
> Player 1 keeps his roll of 7. Player 2 rolls a 4. Player 1 gets 3 more
> moves?

Yes.
>
> So far, Player 1 has 8 unanswered moves. Wouldn't that be a pretty
> significant advantage?
>
>> 3. Player A rolls his D8, B's D8 remains unchanged. The Player with the
>> higher roll moves with PIPs of his D8 minus the opponent's D8.
>
> Player 2 keeps his roll of 5. Player 1 rolls a 6. Player 1 gets 1 more
> moves?

Yes.
>
> At this point, Player 1 has 9 unanswered moves.

Not exactly. Getting all the PIPs at once would destroy the game, 5+3+1 in
sequence doesn't.

That's because one efect that cannot occur in a IgoUgo game - the player who
has the luck on his side at moment hast to consider this can change, and
how important it could be to spend a part of the PIPs for moving the troops
in a position good for defence against an opponent with lots of PIPs.

Imho this mechanism is fine for modelling friction and of errors/confusion
in the command chain and dealing with the possibility of them.

>
>> 4. Goto 2.
>
> This is reminiscent of the Piquet system -- the difference between d20
> rolls is the number of actions, although the deck can occasionally end the
> turn before all activations are done.
>
> I detest that system. A couple of lucky rolls and the lucky player rolls
> over his hapless opponent. Not good.
>
> It's been a very long time since I played HOTT/DBA so I can't tell if I'd
> hate your system or not. But it seems to me that a player who rolls poorly
> on one roll can find himself being overrun by his opponent.

Yes, it can happen. Not that often like it maybe seems to be.

> The system
> exacerbates the effect of bad (or good) rolls because the roll "counts"
> for
> 2 turns.

Yes. On the other side the "waves" of luck imho produce the best amount of
predictability of the future course of the game - IgoUgo gives You to much
of this predictability, more randomized systems not enough of them.

> Not to my taste, but YMMV.

I play different games for different kinds of fun. Sometimes I like stuff
and rules I would detest in a different setting. I like squigs and fanatics
in WHFB, for HotT I like our house rule PIP generating mechanism - and I
like completly different things in historical or sf settings.
 >> Stay informed about: GW sales down 

In article <8fczg.77897$Lm5.58579@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>,
tybeardSPAAM.TakeThisOut@sbcglobal.net says...

<snip>

>
> > I belive, doing a IgoUgo well is lots more difficult than archiving an
> > average quality ruleset with a randomized sequence of play.
>
> Maybe so. I've personally found igougo to be easier, but that could just be
> because my games have seemed to do pretty well in this area.
>
> I will agree that poor design decisions -- especially in the movement and

I think that both of you are forgetting that in an igo-ugo system both
players segments are supposed to be happening at the same time. The
unfortunate thing is that game designers tend to write this into their
rules and then turn around and forget it.

So here is a solution, don't remove shooting casualties until the end of
the turn, this would be after player A and B both complete their turns.
You would still remove casualties from close combat immediately, but the
idea that all shooting in a turn takes place simultaneously and then
some figures are removed before they get to shoot is silly at best.

Here is an example of how it would work.

Player A:
movement
shooting
closecombat
remove close combat casualties
Player B:
movement
shooting
closecombat
remove close combat casualties
both players remove shooting casualties
end of turn

This would remove some of the ambiguity of the game. The other solution
would be to have

Player A move
both players may shoot some or all of their units
Player B moves
close combat resolution
all units that have not yet fired may do so
removal of casualties
end of turn

Of course there are as many solutions as their are people to think of
them...
 >> Stay informed about: GW sales down 

"Jim M" <hnjcomics RemoveThis @gmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1f37187e61776d5898972c@news.east.earthlink.net...
> In article <8fczg.77897$Lm5.58579@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>,
> tybeardSPAAM RemoveThis @sbcglobal.net says...
>
> <snip>
>
>>
>> > I belive, doing a IgoUgo well is lots more difficult than archiving an
>> > average quality ruleset with a randomized sequence of play.
>>
>> Maybe so. I've personally found igougo to be easier, but that could just
>> be
>> because my games have seemed to do pretty well in this area.
>>
>> I will agree that poor design decisions -- especially in the movement and
>
> I think that both of you are forgetting that in an igo-ugo system both
> players segments are supposed to be happening at the same time. The
> unfortunate thing is that game designers tend to write this into their
> rules and then turn around and forget it.
>
> So here is a solution, don't remove shooting casualties until the end of
> the turn, this would be after player A and B both complete their turns.
> You would still remove casualties from close combat immediately, but the
> idea that all shooting in a turn takes place simultaneously and then
> some figures are removed before they get to shoot is silly at best.
>
> Here is an example of how it would work.
>
> Player A:
> movement
> shooting
> closecombat
> remove close combat casualties
> Player B:
> movement
> shooting
> closecombat
> remove close combat casualties
> both players remove shooting casualties
> end of turn
>
> This would remove some of the ambiguity of the game. The other solution
> would be to have
>
> Player A move
> both players may shoot some or all of their units
> Player B moves
> close combat resolution
> all units that have not yet fired may do so
> removal of casualties
> end of turn
>
> Of course there are as many solutions as their are people to think of
> them...

I like the latter, although you might want to have the Close Combat
Resolution after the "Second Fire Phase" that way the assault armies don't
complain that their units end up as targets. That is assuming that the CC
models are removed as they happen instead of at the end of the turn.

Also, with this type of system, what do you have to prevent "dead units
walking?" Or handle the idea of assaulting a unit which already has dead
models from fire and then has to take more in the assault. With a
simultaneous nature system it would be obvious that players would take
wounds against models which would be dead, raising the ire of the assault
armies.

It would almost seem like it would be better to have the removal of
casualties be a Damage Resolution phase so that players only mark their hits
(or wounds) in the fire and CC phases and then resolve them all at the end
of the turn.
 >> Stay informed about: GW sales down 

> Here is an example of how it would work.
>
> Player A:
> movement
> shooting
> closecombat
> remove close combat casualties
> Player B:
> movement
> shooting
> closecombat
> remove close combat casualties
> both players remove shooting casualties
> end of turn
>

The problem I see here is a unit could charge across an open field in the
face of enemy fire and not take casualties until after they have had their
melee attack.

Back in the Rogue Trader days, I took the Squad Leader sequence and welded
it to the 40k system. Some alterations. Can't recall all the details but
it's sorta like this.

A: All manditory movement, rally checks and such.
B: Player A can fire any of his units.
C: Player A can move any unit not firing. You cannot get closer then 1" to
an enemy.
C2: Player B can interupt movement to fire his units at any target that
moves into or through their field of fire
C3: After all movement, Player B can fire any units not firing at moving
targets.
D: Player A fires any units that did not fire in phase B. Moving units take
a penalty.
Some weapons of course can't fire if moved.
E: Any unit able to do so may move 1", including into melee
F: Melee

I also pulled the concept of "Disrupted" from Squad Leader. Any unit taking
hits made a leadership check. A penalty of 1 per casualty (I think, it's
been a long time). Failure meant disrupted. Movement was 1/2, fire was at a
big penalty (-2 I think) and it could not move into close combat. Rout tests
while disrupted also took a 1 point penalty.
 >> Stay informed about: GW sales down 

donovan_borman.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com wrote:
<snip funny stuff>
>
> Brokeback Bolter: "I wish I could quit you Mephiston"

Curse you donovan_borman now I need to clean my keyboard!


joe
 >> Stay informed about: GW sales down 

"Robert Singers" <rsingers DeleteThis @finger.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9811BED8F3C9Ersingers@IP-Hidden...
> Between saving the world and having a spot of tea Ty said
> [snip]
>> If I were GW, I'd sell every single one of those GW stores to local
>> owners. Even if you sold them at fire sale prices, they'd have to net
>> $8 million or so. GW would retain its market, but would wipe out an
>> unprofitable boondoggle that has infuriated half their distribution
>> chain.

> Not quite. IMO they should have a handful of 'MegaStores' in locations
> where people generally visit when holidaying. Make it an experience with
> a
> huge range and bitz for sale. The rest get rid of.

Hey Robert.

Well, I suspect that even their "megastores" make little profit. After all,
they have more employees, higher leases, etc. Even if they are profitable,
they could be sold for desparately needed cash and GW would still get most
of the profit anyway by selling to them.

And why piss off 50%+ of your distribution chain for chump change?

Don't worry; the odds of GW abandoning their retail chain are about the same
as me moving to Aruba with a harem of Victoria's Secret supermodels. There's
way too much corporate ego -- and money -- tied up there. In addition, even
if the CEO and Board had a sudden significant increase in business acumen,
they *still* could not make it happen in any reasonable time frame. The
reason is that the CEO would have to rely on his underlings to make it
happen. And most of them would fight him tooth and nail. The reason is that
80% of GW's staff is in the retail division or provides direct support to
it. In public companies, individual executives are largely judged on the
size of their departments, not on anything as blase as economic performance.
The management team as a whole is judged by the stock price. Not an
unreasonable standard -- if stock price is a reasonable proxy for
performance. In GW's case, it won't be if current trends are not only halted
but dramatically reversed. But the point is that people respond to the
incentives they're faced with. It is little comfort to the head of the
retail division that GW is staggeringly profitable if he's out of a job, or
relegated to a minor status. Hence the phenomenon known as the "golden
parachute".

The head of the retail division (and his political allies) would not be keen
on wiping out his division. Accounting and legal would oppose it, since they
probably spend 80% of their time and energy on supporting retail. As would
IT, marketing, you name it. The only allies the CEO would have are the
manufacturing division. And even they might be lukewarm, since eliminating
the retail line would probably cause a short term disruption in orders,
which would require economies in manufacturing as well. Even the
shareholders would probably be uneasy, since the stock market usually
rewards gross sales more than anything else.

GW is like the guy that has the tiger by the tail. They cannot expand the
retail division much further because (a) it's too expensive and they lack
the cash; and (b) it will erode their remaining support among local
retailers, which is critical for GW to stay afloat. There's also the problem
that most of the Board enthusiastically supported the retail chains. Selling
them off would confirm that they were fools. The strategy was fundamentally
defective from the start. The only advantage chains have over locals are
pricing and selection. GW's retail chain has neither advantage over a
comparable sized game store. I'll bet the shareholders would love to have
that $80 million in cash today. That alone would probably drive the stock
price up 40%.

I think that my strategy would require either a hostile takeover or a
complete purge of upper management. Both of which are unlikely, IMHO, at
least now. But if that stock price plunges down to 50p a share, I think that
a takeover would be a very smart move for an investor who knew how to fix
the problems (and who had his own management team). If current trends
continue, GW will be insolvent within 18 months. Sooner if they do what I
suspect they're gonna do -- dramatically increase internet marketing by
offering discounts or free shipping, and cut the dealer discount again. Such
moves would infuriate many local hobby stores. The volume and percentage of
sales from local hobby stores would decline even more than it already has.
On the heels of the latest ~20% price increase, this would effectively
destroy GW's market.

I'd suggest that folks who complain about GW's "greed" consider the fact
that GW's overall profits have not been scandalously high -- 13% in their
very best year. Nor is management and director compensation out of line with
similar sized companies. The problem is that GW is needlessly inefficient
due to its bizarre obsession with dominating the retail market. So GW
continually raises prices and their customers pay for the inefficiency.
Unfortunately, they appear to have *finally* gone too far. As noted, in the
last 2 years, they've raised prices an average of at least 20% (and cut the
discount to hobby stores). Yet sales have declined 30%. It's hard to see how
further increases in prices will help them.

The tragedy is that if my numbers and assumptions are reasonably accurate,
GW could make a scandalous profit *and* cut prices dramatically. All they
have to do is get rid of that boat anchor that's tied round their neck --
the retail division.

--Ty
 >> Stay informed about: GW sales down 

In article <puidnUMtAP_FFFDZnZ2dnUVZ_vudnZ2d RemoveThis @comcast.com>,
shaggai RemoveThis @comcast.net says...
> > Player A move
> > both players may shoot some or all of their units
> > Player B moves
> > close combat resolution
> > all units that have not yet fired may do so
> > removal of casualties
> > end of turn
> >
> > Of course there are as many solutions as their are people to think of
> > them...
>
> I like the latter, although you might want to have the Close Combat
> Resolution after the "Second Fire Phase" that way the assault armies don't
> complain that their units end up as targets. That is assuming that the CC
> models are removed as they happen instead of at the end of the turn.
>
> Also, with this type of system, what do you have to prevent "dead units
> walking?" Or handle the idea of assaulting a unit which already has dead
> models from fire and then has to take more in the assault. With a
> simultaneous nature system it would be obvious that players would take
> wounds against models which would be dead, raising the ire of the assault
> armies.
>
> It would almost seem like it would be better to have the removal of
> casualties be a Damage Resolution phase so that players only mark their hits
> (or wounds) in the fire and CC phases and then resolve them all at the end
> of the turn.
>
I screwed up the second one, in the second system you should have had
removal of casualties listed twice, once after each shooting phase.
Shooting in both of the shooting phases would take place in initiative
order (just like close combat). The whole purpose of placing the second
shooting phase after close combat is to be able to shoot those troops
that flee from close combat. Or advance after close combat into an
enemies LOS. Part of close combat is casualty removal. It also allows
both sides to fire their weapons after the other player makes their
initial movement. The imprtant thing is that during a single turn each
figure is allowed to shoot their weapon only once and close combat
happens only once.
 >> Stay informed about: GW sales down 

In article <O_2dnXZkd5zUBlDZnZ2dnUVZ_ridnZ2d.TakeThisOut@comcast.com>, "Tracy Hale"
<saxon-dog (perhaps at) comcast.net> says...
> > Here is an example of how it would work.
> >
> > Player A:
> > movement
> > shooting
> > closecombat
> > remove close combat casualties
> > Player B:
> > movement
> > shooting
> > closecombat
> > remove close combat casualties
> > both players remove shooting casualties
> > end of turn
> >
>
> The problem I see here is a unit could charge across an open field in the
> face of enemy fire and not take casualties until after they have had their
> melee attack.
>

That was why I posted the second system that you snipped out. Though I
left out the first shooting casualty removal phase.

> Back in the Rogue Trader days, I took the Squad Leader sequence and welded
> it to the 40k system. Some alterations. Can't recall all the details but
> it's sorta like this.
>
> A: All manditory movement, rally checks and such.
> B: Player A can fire any of his units.
> C: Player A can move any unit not firing. You cannot get closer then 1" to
> an enemy.
> C2: Player B can interupt movement to fire his units at any target that
> moves into or through their field of fire
> C3: After all movement, Player B can fire any units not firing at moving
> targets.
> D: Player A fires any units that did not fire in phase B. Moving units take
> a penalty.
> Some weapons of course can't fire if moved.
> E: Any unit able to do so may move 1", including into melee
> F: Melee
>
> I also pulled the concept of "Disrupted" from Squad Leader. Any unit taking
> hits made a leadership check. A penalty of 1 per casualty (I think, it's
> been a long time). Failure meant disrupted. Movement was 1/2, fire was at a
> big penalty (-2 I think) and it could not move into close combat. Rout tests
> while disrupted also took a 1 point penalty.
>

I never much cared for SL or ASL... I played it, only because some of
the guys I gamed with loved it...
 >> Stay informed about: GW sales down 

Well....
Geting rid of the retail chain comletely just isn't going to happen.

But.#Here in t he UK, the shops are their marketing edge.
Over the years their shops have enabled them to pretty much stifle any
competition.

--
Regards,
Andy O'Neill
www.wargamer.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/index.htm
or, for no javascript and a faster load...
www.wargamer.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/sitemap.htm
 >> Stay informed about: GW sales down 

"Seamus" <fomorianwolf.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1154269811.498795.74460@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Andy O'Neill wrote:
>> Alternate unit activations allow for a smoother game than i do everything
>> and then you do ( Igo Ugo ).
>
> I wrote up alternate rules to Battletech based o Ralph Reeds' Mechforce
> game for the Amiga.
>
> The basic system I jotted down used a 10-phase movement chart for
> simultaneous movement (sort of like Car Wars/SFB). Players declare fire
> as they wish, as long as the unit has weapons available (i.e aren't
> cycling or destroyed).
>
> This ruleset plays out much like the Amiga game (or possibly Solaris
> VII), and eliminates the IGo-UGo mechanic entirely.
>
> In my head, I can't seem to justify using this system for an
> army-vs.-army type of game (i.e. WFB) though, as it sounds like a
> bloody nightmare to coordinate.
>

I'm unclear whether you're advocating an alternative approach or have
misunderstood what I mean by alternate activations.
So I'll explain roughly how sg2 works.
(It's my slightly modified version of sg2 I'm describing but the differences
are not significant. )

In a bound anyone can only shoot once.
Per activation a squad/tank/thing gets two actions.
Simplest actions are move and fire.
You have a marker next to each squad which you turn up at the start of a
bound.
With the exception of command re-activations you get one activation per
squad per bound.

At the start of a bound both sides pick a squad to activate first.
They roll off quality dice.
The winner decides which goes first.

So the first squad is activated.
It moves ( 1 action ) then shoots ( 1 action ).
The shooting is resolved.

If it had moved into sight of an enemy in it's move action then they could
interrupt with any unactivated and unsuppressed squad has LoS.
So if you pop round a corned someone is covering, they can potentially shoot
you.
An interrupting squad gets one action and uses up it's activation.

Once activated, the chit mentioned above is turned over.
If there player about to activate has less unactivated units than the other
player they can choose to pass.
This is obviously necessary for attack defence where the defender will
usually have less stuff and you don't want the attacker suddenly getting to
move half his things without the defender answering.

The squads etc are organised in fairly standard militarty fashion with chain
of comman.
So there are 3 squads plus a command squad in a platoon and 3 platoons in a
company.
A platoon commander has some different command options.
He may re-activate someone he commands.
This gets harder the further away he is and if terrain is in the way and if
he can't see enemy engaging the target squad.
So if he's up in the thick of the action he is in the best position to
motivate his men and get them moving.
He is also at greatest risk though.
Another action is to rally squads.
Morale drops ithrough 5 states - confident through routed.
He can use an action to try and up the morale of a squad a step.
The original sg2 rules allow cascading re-activation ( company command
re-activates platoon Co who re-activates squad ).
I stop this in my changes.

I also state that each activation is potentially simultaneous with the
preceding enemy one.
Which closes some subtle loop-holes.

With the exception of op fire and re-activation the alternate activation is
simple since it's Igo one squad, Ugo one squad. Repeat until everything is
activated and that's the bound done..

--
Regards,
Andy O'Neill
www.wargamer.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/index.htm
or, for no javascript and a faster load...
www.wargamer.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/sitemap.htm
 >> Stay informed about: GW sales down