Game Rules: Movement

[Vreejack]

Rob mentioned leaving the "rules generation" for a possible spinoff game to the "experts". Well, some of us probably are experts as far as these things go so I thought some of us might want to hash them out. Specifically, I am trying to imagine how any possible game rules—the game rules of the "real" Erfworld, that is—might properly mesh with the story as far as we have seen it.

So far we have a strategic movement phase which consumes "move" points coexisting with tactical movement which seems to happen more or less realistically, as long as the units remain in their hex. These phases may happen in any order in one's turn with the one requirement that if two unallied units occupy the same hex and one of them does not have a restraining warlord then combat must commence.

Strategic movement is somewhat abstract. It does not really consume time. Consider that Jillian's move to hunt the dwagons was one of the longest moves of the game but it did not even begin until Ansom was almost out of move. Apparently the sun does not set until everyone has moved and the "player" ends his turn.

I have played games where the computer would simply highlight an area that your unit could move to without you needing to pick an actual path. Supposedly the actual path was some sort of quantum wave function that traversed all possible paths; whatever, in Erfworld an actual path is selected and the units must traverse that path, or else there would be no chance of randomly stumbling into stuff and it would not be possible to monitor a traveler's progress as Team Stanley does. Still, strategic movement in Erfworld is a lot like—no, it's exactly like—watching your opponent move his pieces around the board by hand.

Tactical combat, on the other hand, does not consume move but is more like real-time. We assume that combat has "phases" because all units seem to attack at the same speed; there is no combat speed characteristic. Thinking of the units as attacking in alternating phases would not therefor be too far from the truth, but what we have seen so far has been highly realistic with regard to movement so it may be that except for obvious characteristics—attack points, leadership bonus—there is no abstraction in tactical. Seriously, there really is no need for any abstraction at the tactical level when real physics is already working just fine. This isn't like SCA where out-of-shape cosplay boys pretend to fight each other with a referee keeping score.

Given these points, how do we reconcile the apparent strategic movement of Ansom during the combat? I can think of two ways, each of which has its own strengths.

First let me re-illustrate the scene: Parson & co. did not notice Ansom right away because their eyes were glued on Jillian. Jillian starts attacking. Parson orders all units on Jillian, and just after he orders Manpower to close he realizes Ansom is there. Tool notices it a moment later. So what actually happened?

1) Ansom actually started his move when Jillian finished her think-O-gram. Since strategic movement takes place in its own reality, he arrived at Jillian's hex before she started combat. Another way of looking at it is this: The alliance player stopped Jillian in the dwagon hex, but did not want to start combat. Then he moved Ansom into the hex. Then he started fighting.

2) If we assume that tactical movement requires time as it seems to, then we might get away with assuming that strategic movement requires time, too (as well as move.) Then a player could be moving pieces around a board while tactical combat is taking place. This would definitely require computer moderation.

Actually, I just thought of a precedent for number 2. Normally in Civiliization when you attack one stack with another only two units from within those stack will engage. Repeat as necessary. Played on-line, however, it has an option whereby you can launch a stack into combat and have it run on automatic while you do other things, so stacks will continue to butt heads until either one stack is dead or a player intervenes. Strategic movement can continue normally throughout. Civilization does not actually have a tactical mode, but it is easy to imagine a tactical mode taking place automatically inside the software. The secret lives and loves of computer bits.

[teratorn]

1) Ansom actually started his move when Jillian finished her think-O-gram. Since strategic movement takes place in its own reality, he arrived at Jillian's hex before she started combat. Another way of looking at it is this: The alliance player stopped Jillian in the dwagon hex, but did not want to start combat. Then he moved Ansom into the hex. Then he started fighting.

Parson would see Ansom's stats in Jillian's stack if Ansom had already merged stacks when she engaged Leeroy. I'd say Ansom only entered the hex, or only merged stacks, when Parson was ordering Manpower into the fight. The duration of the combat scene between Jill and Manpower is for dramatic purposes, in reality Parson should see the change in Jillian's stats as soon as Ansom merged stacks and engaged, although it was likely too late to block him

I'd say game mechanics hold in the no real-time-scenario, but the needs of the story increase the drama. The only caveat is that for this to happen Parson needed to ignore the fact that Archons can thinkagram. If not he should be looking for Ansom's movements, or else that would make him a bad warlord.

[Tirian]

I think that a crucial question is this: if this movement is a routine part of the world engine, why hasn't Ansom been using it all along? Specifically, why did he and Vinnie hunt together, rather than covering twice as much ground along different paths and joining up mid-battle if they found the dwagons?

There are at least two different rational answers to that question:

1) Ansom got frantic when he got the thinkagram and agreed to pay Charlie a booptillion shmuckers to break the usual rules of combat.

2) We had a Neo-esque moment, in which Jillian's declaration of love caused Ansom to become attuned to the Arkenpliers, and this is the primary function.

[The_Alec]

I think people are assuming that the Erfworld rules are closer to that of a board game then they really are.

The only movement rule that we know of are that units get a movement allowance at the beginning of their sides turn and lose it at the end of the turn. There is no stated reason why you can’t have multiple stacks moving at the same time or have stacks moving at the same time as others are engaging in combat. Yet people accuse Ansom of cheating for doing this just because it is not what would be possible in a mere board game.

Look at how Erfworld has been presented. People do not simply freeze in time whenever it is not their turn or they are not taking an action. While Parson may refer to Erfworld combat as being ‘turn based’ it seems pretty clear that actions performed in Erfworld are done in ‘real time’. The movement, healing and other rules simply act as barriers to break up these real time actions into different phases thus giving the illusion of a world based on turns.

As such when creating a board game based on Erfworld some artistic license is going to be needed as it seems clear that there are some things possible in this world that can not perfectly transfer to a board game. Erfworld is a real world that happens to resemble a board game. It is not a boardgame that happens to resemble a real world.

[Zelig the Liar]

I've played TBS games where a unit's move stat was also used in the battles. When battle had commenced, the space the battle was in was zoomed in and revealed to be composed of many smaller 'spaces', and the units had their amount of move to use per 'turn' of battle. The battle would last either until one side won or either side withdrew. Perhaps something similar is at work here.

As for timing, I think there might be something to the 1 turn in combat = 1 move outside of combat theory. Ansom was 3 move away from Jillian when she sent the thinkagram. Then say we count the Archons' opening attack as 1 combat turn, and Jillian's 'Boom! Headshot!' stunt as the 2nd, that would have Ansom arriving right at the 3rd combat turn and getting to Jillian just in time to yoink Manpower.

[Halfpunch]

I also think there is a definable relationship between rounds of combat in a hex (tactical rounds) and strategic movement rate. If there are no active engagements, then the relationship is moot and units travel at the speed of gameplay (i.e. when Jillian began the hunt, no active battles were in place and thus she traversed the distance in a very short time). If there is an active combat, then any stack reinforcing by the offense must conform to the relationship to determine time of arrival, etc (obviously defensive stacks can't be reinforced due to the requirement to move on opponents turn).

This would definitely be easier done with computers, but is still managable (though cumbersome) from an analog standpoint. Units would need to have initiative rolls (possibly a base-score-modifier) to determine sequence of attacks. In a micromanaged battle (such as the Lake Battle) a unit could be defined as small as an indivudal. In less tactical battles, where the offense still wants to use reinforcements, you could use one initiative for an entire stack. Each tactical execution of initiative would then equal some distance (probably 1 hex) of movement possible for stacks not in the current engagement.

[Vreejack]

The one move = 1 round of combat theory is sort of workable, but not as a tabletop game, really. No one would every actually try to play that way. Nor does it make any sense if you try to take into account the fact that these hexes are about 2.5 miles across; that's a long way to go in one round of combat, even assuming the "round" idea makes any sense.

I would buy off on the idea that faster units can move faster in tactical combat, but since Erfworld combat seems to lack the abstraction of turn-based strategic movement it may not matter so much. It looks to me like units in combat behave like real units would necessarily behave, with no abstraction for dice-rolling. This actually makes writing the story easier as Rob has merely to write something realistic instead of having to worry about the rules, but all these combat stats suggest something else.

Are the units in Erfworld locked into some abstraction layer that we cannot see? The fact that Parson was able to extract odds from his wrist computer suggests there is but it must be invisible to the participants who appear to be making continuous decisions according to the current situation, i.e. unpredictable mechanistic chaos. The computer would be considered an artifact in our own world, as well, if its predictions have any useful meaning. That sort of prediction would require a powerful machine. I gave some examples of how to calculate the odds in another thread, and even using a lot of simplifying assumptions each calculation took almost a minute (yah, okay, running under Windows.) In any event I suspect that we will never be able to come up with an abstract combat system that accurately matches what we are seeing in the comic—at least, not one that can be played with dice on a table top. I seriously doubt that Rob had any particular system in mind, either, but meant it to always be suggested, but never actually spelled out. The suggestion is important for the story, but a real system would be a nuisance to follow. I understand that some D&D writers do follow their rules, and some pretend to, but those are very elaborate rules designed at great pain to match the possibilities of fiction. Erfworld is described as having a very simple system, but combat as we have seen it is far from simple.

I am thinking that the Titans created Erfworld as a sophisticated game with very complex pieces in which they would move the pieces around the strategic board but would let them fight it out on their own inside the hexes. This would be very workable as a sort of stylized computer game, akin to an RTS but not quite the same. One example that comes to mind is Dungeon Keeper, which was an RTS but would let you pick up units with your godly hand and reposition them about the map. Imagine the godly hand pushing units around a hex grid counting move while combat was possibly happening automatically in different hexes on the map. The DK analogy works even better when you consider that it would let you "possess" any of your units on the map and control them individually. I suspect that the Titans have done this, though I have no evidence of it. It seems like a feature I would want, however, and it is precisely what Stanley's mancers are doing with the uncroaked.

It appears to me that for some reason the Titans have stopped playing and the pieces themselves have begun to determine their own moves and motivations. Perhaps the Titans got bored playing and abandoned the game, or perhaps some of them are watching now to see what happens. Perhaps they have decided not to interfere with what happens from here on out. If so, then we have the same seat that they do.

[Jasdoif]

Another possibility is that tactical combat is turn-based, but not side-split. Say, there's an initiative order, and everyone acts in turn. And if two units get the same initiative count and have incompatible actions, there's an opposed check to see who completes their action first?

[Revlid]

I wrote up a really long, nice sounding and easy-to-understand post, and then the forum ate it. Ugh.

Summary:
For non Warlord-led Stacks, Hex-to-Hex movement and Combat happen in "real time".
That is to say, you tell the Stack: "Go Here!", and they will go there, but not instantly (as in chess or Total War); they have to make their way there, with varying speed depending on their Move (high base = faster, low base = slower) or Special Rules. Whilst they are on their way other Stacks may be ordered around, heading to support them, merge with them, or do something completely different.
But since the game is turn-based the opponent can't do anything while you're ordering your Stacks around, so this real-time element is largely useful for:
a) Making people think out their turn strategy before throwing Stacks into the fray; no take-backs!
b) Supporting your own Stacks. Order a Stack near to an Engagement, and have them join in half-way through (by simply ordering them into the Hex) if things start going bad; rather than simply waiting until a combat is done and then moving in, or being involved from the start. This allows greater flexibility for your support-dudes.

Movement with a Warlord is largely the same, with the exceptions that Engagement is optional and that the Stack's destination can be changed mid-Move.

Combat without a Warlord in the Stack happens on a similar mathematical basis to other such games, with pretty battle-animation and kill-animations acting as window dressing for the numbers.

Combat with a Warlord is rather different. For a start, Stacks with a Warlord can pull out of an Engagement prematurely (if, for example, you have croaked all the siege). I envision there being several different levels of Combat management with a Warlord in the Stack.

Types a) and b) are the minimum of Warlord combat-management, being very similar to regular combat, but with a little more influence over targets, etc.
a) Bare Minimum. Leave the Warlord to get on with it. Just the same as regular combat. Allows for greater tinkering outside of the battle, with regards to support and damage control.
b) Conditional Combat. Leave the Warlord to get on with it, but assign objectives. e.g. Kill That Thing, Withdraw When You Lose X Units, or Kill X Units, etc. Allows for greater tinkering outside of the battle while still having some control over what's going on down in the Hex.

Type c) is more involved. I imagine it as Goblin Commander style interface, does anyone remember that?
c) Goblin Commander Style. Zooming into the hex, you tell what units to move where and to kill what. The maximum of Stack control. The Warlord may also be controlled directly. This style allows far superior control over the way a combat flows, but also leaves the controlling player unable to control his troops outside of the Hex to give support, or to spot enemy troops moving in (if he is defending the Hex on the other player's turn).

So in summary; the game is Turn-Based, except during your turn.

[Vreejack]

That seems to be what I was thinking of, too. Not workable for a table-top game, but if the Titans ever played they weren't using a table top. One oddity, however, is that the turn seems to wait for the player to finish moving no matter how long it takes. This is not, strictly speaking, unusual for a strategic war game, but it means that Ansom can move all his pieces around (in real time, effectively) and then when he is finished moving them all—even the long move ones—he can still have Jillian perform a fifty-something move—again in real time—as if the day were waiting for her.

So I suppose the day actually does wait for her, as it seemed to when she first arrived at Ansom's camp. I expect the sun to set in a page or two, just for them.

[Maelore]

The one move = 1 round of combat theory is sort of workable, but not as a tabletop game, really. No one would every actually try to play that way. Nor does it make any sense if you try to take into account the fact that these hexes are about 2.5 miles across; that's a long way to go in one round of combat, even assuming the "round" idea makes any sense.

Actually there is precedence for this in a strategic 'board' wargame. The game Starfire tracked the movement of units in Strategic and Tactical turns so as to know when in a combat reinforcements from other systems might arrive. Thats a simplification but it has been done before. It really depends on how much book keeping players are willing to put up with.

[Vreejack]

Actually there is precedence for this in a strategic 'board' wargame. The game Starfire tracked the movement of units in Strategic and Tactical turns so as to know when in a combat reinforcements from other systems might arrive. Thats a simplification but it has been done before. It really depends on how much book keeping players are willing to put up with.

I think it was just barely possible with Starfire because space is basically empty, so it was a case of saying "reinforcement arrives in X rounds" without worrying so much about actually moving.

Erfworld has a fog of war, so a tabletop game is really ruled out from the outset unless you have a referee. I think this is why I haven't played a table top game in over 20 years, wth the possible exception of SPI's monster War in the Pacific, which a friend had coded into his Macintosh so that we could keep better records of what was going on. That game was so big that it tended to generate its own fow.

[SteveMB]

I think it was just barely possible with Starfire because space is basically empty, so it was a case of saying "reinforcement arrives in X rounds" without worrying so much about actually moving.

In this case, it's a matter of tracing an unobstructed (no enemy units, no uncrossable terrain) path from where the reinforcements are to where they are to be used. Given that, it boils down to the same thing.

Erfworld has a fog of war, so a tabletop game is really ruled out from the outset unless you have a referee. I think this is why I haven't played a table top game in over 20 years, wth the possible exception of SPI's monster War in the Pacific, which a friend had coded into his Macintosh so that we could keep better records of what was going on. That game was so big that it tended to generate its own fow.

There are ways to partially simulate fog of war in a tabletop game (face-down counters, including a scattering of decoy markers), but it only goes so far. For instance, you could have a one-sided fog of war (one side's counters are face up), but not a situation where one side is unaware that the other side has omniscient-eye intel (which appears to be the case in this battle).