Defined or Random movement in game

[privateer]

The question is.
Do people like the idea of defined or random movement for troops in a wargame?
The defined movement is by movement charts that define distances that can be moved with additions or subtractions for situation and terrain.
The random movement is where a player roles dice, the result being the distance they can move. This can be amended by use of a reference chart to allow terrain and situation to have a bearing if desired.   Below are two examples from a set of War of 1812 rules I wrote.

Example 1 â€" The 1st Lincoln Militia is moving through wood; the unit is trained as light infantry. Two six-sided dice is rolled and the outcome is a nine. The resulting movement will be four inches for the dice roll, nine divided by two rounded down equals four. There is minus one inch for movement in the woods. The company may move a maximum of three inches.

Example 2 â€"Captain Boughton's Company of New York Volunteer Dragoons have initiated a charge against British infantry in an open field. Two six-sided dice are rolled for a seven. The cavalry can move seven inches with an addition two inches being added for the charge, totalling nine inches. They may only use the additional two inch movement for one move as they are a Militia Company.

Comments on these two types of movement would be appreciated. I wrote the random movement for 28mm figures where a company of twelve figures is the basic unit for all actions. With 10mm figures playing a Division or Corps level engagement I was thinking that the basic unit for actions would be a Regiment of three Battalions or even a level higher at Brigade.
Regards
David

[Nosher]

I really liked the IDEA of random(ised) movement when I first came across it but after a game or two quickly dispoed of the idea as it just became another dice rolling mechanism which slowed the game down far too much.

I prefer the warmaster approach

[capthugeca]

Personally I like the HOTT/DBM idea of throwing a die once a turn for the whole army to decide how many can take an action.

[goat major]

if it can be done simply then i like the idea. British Grenadier has this concept and it makes unrealistic micro management more difficult. Units often did move further than a general wanted....

[NTM]

As I tend to play games where the C&C system determines whether or not units can move at all, or how many times they can move, randomising movement distance is unnecessary IMHO. There are some excellent systems using it I have liked Loose Files and American Scramble from when it was first published, in Practical Wargamer IIRC. Also both the rulesets I intent to use for Dark Age battles (Comitatus and Shieldwall by Simon McDowall) use random movement but I have not had chance to try them out yet and I could just end up using Hail Caesar anyway ( forthcoming Ancients version of Black Powder).

[lentulus]

I've enjoyed games with both random movement and random activation (in both the black powder and BKC/Warmaster versions).  The BKC approach works well for reproducing the flow and risk-taking of modern warfare.  The random movement rules I use for SYW (hearts of tin, see http://gameofmonth.blogspot.com/2011/01/change-of-hearts.html ) consolidates the roll at the brigade and so there is not much rolling.

I like the concept in Black Powder of issuing orders then rolling for movement, but I find the resulting curve a bit jerky.

In my current FPW project, I have enough other sources of uncertainty (I think) so I plan to use fairly simple movement rates.

[Luddite]

Depends on the scale.

If you're talking divisional scale engagements then predictable movement distances are preferred as at level commanders generally understood how much time would be taken to cross certain distances.  The vageuries of terrain restrictions to movement are largely irrelevant what a turn represents maybe 30-60 minutes of realtime.  Also, the relative inertia of a formation should be reflected in command systems rather than terrain modifiers.

At say, skirmish scale i can see a benefit to randomising the movement of individual figures as it perhaps models well the individual hestitations, chances for stumbling, and the rolling and potentially micro-difficulties of local ground. 

That said, i'm with Nosher.  Anything that adds one more dice roll to a game turn is best avoided.

[Hertsblue]

I'm with Luddite in that it depends on the scale of the game. The larger the scale (division, corps, army) the more random movement comes into its own (more scope for lost/misdirected orders etc). I would add two refinements: 1) a minimum move distance so that diceophobes like me aren't restricted to impossibly slow movement due to crap dice rolling and, 2) a choice of how many or how few units the player wishes to roll for with one die (e.g. a battalion, a pair of battalions, a brigade or an entire division).

Random movement does two things a sfar as I can see. It helps replicate some of the hesitations present in large-scale combat and also helps prevent the "one-milimetre-out-of-range" measuring so beloved of the rule-mechanics.

[Orosay]

I generally like random movement, mainly because it really annoys some of the guys who exploit normal movement rules to manouvere in a totally unrealistic way! (I,m sure we all know one or two)

I do think that there has to be some kind of justification for it though - Loose Files and American Scramble, one of my favourite rule sets, used it to simulate manouvering through tough terrain in North America - it's maybe less appropriate for well drilled troops in Europe

Our wargames group have mixed things up in some games by allowing standard movement in clear terrain and random in rough going and this can work quite well

[Aart Brouwer]

I like the idea of randomized additional movement because it creates some fog of war without completely randomising movement in the way some rule sets do. Die- or card-driven rules often make ity possible for units or even entire armies to remain pinned on the spot for several turns or even for the entire game, resulting in a turkey shoot for the opposition

I know of at least one player who was turned off Black Powder for good because in his very first BP game his entire British army stood around picking their noses for 3 turns whilst the French were running riot in their faces and behind their backs. Not good.

I believe the most intelligent solution to the movement issue is that provided by Arty Conliffe's Crossfire: no limit on movement except as a consequence of suppressive enemy fire. It's made Crossfire the thinking man's tactical wargame.

Cheers,
Aart

[DaveH]

I like randomised movement as well as randomised activation in a game as it feels more historical to capture 'the fog of war'.

I can see for a higher level game defined movement can be more readily accommodated as in say a 30 minute period it is more likely a brigade would be able to move a certain distance, but I still don't mind a randomised element.

[sixsideddice]

I see merit in both defined and random movement and all the variations of systems in between. Variety keeps games interesting after all.

BUT, I would add... the application of defined and random movement does not always suit the style or genre of a game; so really it depends on what you`re playing and what your aim is. For example imho:

steampunk - really suits randomization.

Colonial - Suits a lot of random stuff and chance cards.

Pulp - is just MADE for random things to be included to screw things up for the players.

Sci-fi - depends on the style of play: whimsical, yes to randomization; Serious, perhaps not quite such a good idea.

Napoleonic - not really, chance cards, yes.

ACW - same as above

etc, etc.

[Last Hussar]

Lentulus - One possible solution to the Black Powder "Two Move Dip" (I plotted the probabilities on a graph, and it causes a valley) is to give 3 moves ONLY if the roll is half or less of the modified CV target.

[Grenadier]

 I like some level of randomness in move and charge distances when using good command control rules such as Warmaster or Impetus but not as a range of 0 to 300% move distance.  If the command to move has been successfully received by the unit, movement should be a fairly predictable distance, modified, of course, by terrain, formation, status etc.  Adding in a die roll for replicating hesitation, redressing ranks, etc could be a result on a 1d6, such as 1= 50% distance, 2-5=100%, 6= 150% distance. 
If the the rules don't have a restricted command control system then, yes, randomized movement can replicate loss of orders, incompetence, bad luck etc. and can run the gamut between retreat full to charge full.
  I do like Fire and Fury's approach as well.

[meledward23]

I do like some C&C, WMA, HC, etc.

But Impetus really has a great method that leaves out dice rolling all the time.

1) You can move full distance one time.
2) You can make a second, third, fourth move, but each time requires a command roll, with decreasing likliehood of success. If you fail the roll you still move, but now you are Disordered.

This is a nice balance. Not a lot of additional rolls unless you try and make it happen. And then, if you are trying to take advantage of an opening and fail, you are a sitting duck.

(ah well a few months late, but maybe of interest)