ok, why are you guys changing the existing rules to suite your arguments... really 2 activations per turn... since when? Command points allowing repeated actions... pure speculation.
I have no problem saying that using a CP will allow a counter-attack response once you've already activated, if activation by activation CC was the chosen mechanic. But that could be tossed out the window as Command Point function is not well defined at the moment.
So, I have a minor complaint with how you are calculating this. If you have combat happen twice per turn, wouldn't that also extend the length of the turn by one round of combat? You're essentially having close combat resolve twice as fast as shooting would, from what I can tell anyway. So, isn't this speed just relative to shooting? Think about it and get back to me
Sorry, guess I should have defined speed. I define speed of play in a tabletop game as how quickly something is resolved inside the turn limits. For instance in a game with 6 turns per side my CC mechanic would resolve itself in half as many turns as your guys' CC mechanic. Think about, why go into CC if it is going to tie up my unit for 4 rounds (just giving worst case scenario here), in a fast paced deadly game that's a long time to go without one of your units. If it takes too many turns to resolve a CC then it becomes out of place, clunky and tactically unsound and players will avoid it.
DacoTrilar wrote:See what I wrote above, you're causing more deaths per round by extending the length of the round. You could argue that close combat attacks are faster to resolve then shooting, since you only have one potential target. Let me know what you think of this counter argument.
More deaths per round is exactly the intent, the extension on the round length is not significant as the CC would be small and the dice mechanic allows for quick combat resolution. CC should be faster in my mind, it's hand to hand and simultaneous, it's faster.
DacoTrilar wrote:I think your thinking of Warhammer when you posted this and I'll explain why. Dark Potential doesn't have any interaction during activations, right now anyway, however I see the alternating activation system include a ton of interaction. During your activations, you're the only one moving and attacking, but that's only one unit. Once that unit finishes, your opponent immediately gets to do something, since it's their turn to activate a unit.
I was actually thinking of Firestorm Armada when I wrote this. The main reason that I have heard from people as to why they stop playing FA is that it gets boring... fast. We are seriously taking about a mechanic that will not vary the game enough and create enough player interaction to keep people playing past say 2 - 6 months. Think about it. Warhammer is an example of a game that had no player interaction so created variances in how it operated CC and magic in order to build it in... and it is the most successful wargame in the world. Think about it.
DacoTrilar wrote:1) The reason I didn't had a gut reaction to dislike this simultaneous combat was that it seemed to throw off the alternating activations.
[Player A activates a unit, charges and does some damage. Now Player B responds with a counter attack. Now Player B activates another unit.]
Normally the activations go (A,B,A,B,...), however combat adds another B into the activation order. I'm a bit worried that it'll cause people who are rushing a bit to skip over one of Player B's activations. This is a pretty minor issue, but it has been bugging me.
Don't look at as altering the activation sequence, consider the return attack of player B's squad as PART of player A's CC that he initiated... the game still goes A,B,A,B it's just that B gets a dice roll inside of one of A's activations, and then A gets a dice roll inside of one of B's activations. Of course we would need to discuss what happens upon combat conclusion in terms of the winner and loser and what they can then do, but that is the same for the other method as well.
I also argue that there is an equal chance of player B forgetting about the fact that he can activate in CC when using alternating activation CC.
DacoTrilar wrote:Now, where is the incentive for either Player A or Player B to start combat? Lets say Player A's unit has higher initiative, so if Player A were to activate the unit then he could very well finish off Player B's unit. However, then he's just used up his combat action and can only move a little bit. On the other hand, if Player B activates combat, then there is a good chance he just wasted an activation to kill off his unit. Worse than that, now Player A's unit has his full turn to charge another unit. I think the result would be that under most circumstances, close combat activations would always happen last. It's not a tactical choice on the part of the Players, it's just what is hands down the best choice based on the rules. Let me know what you think about this issue.
This is purely situational and there of course will be times when you want to leave the CC alone for a bit in order to achieve some tactical goal. However I don't agree at all with your assessment that all players will leave CC till the end because the rules dictate it. I can think of a half dozen different situations where I would activate CC at different times in my turn... I believe it gives the players an amazing flexibility in tactical planning, not a forced choice as you say.
DacoTrilar wrote:Here are some comments I have on your problem: First, if the game has some objectives to complete, then if one player retreats away from combat then the other player takes the objective. Second, the only situation I could see this happening is when a really good close-combat unit started the turn within charge range of a ranged unit and the ranged unit activated first. In that case, the ranged unit would sacrifice its shooting to get as far away from the close-combat unit as it can...
To the first part I say that we can't tailor the core mechanics to one type of scenario, they should function smoothly for all possible scenarios. To the second part I say that it could happen all the time, because if not in range, then you won't move any units into range unless your a gambler.
DacoTrilar wrote:units get two action points per turn which can be used to (you can only do an action once per activation unless you use command points):
Move (1 action pt): move up to X"
Attack (1 action pt): shoot or melee attack
Charge (1 action pt): Pick an enemy unit within an X" move. Move your unit into combat with that unit.
Wow, not what I meant at all. My idea goes like this.
Units get to do a normal activation if not engaged in CC.
So if they shoot, they can't also charge unless that's a special ability or something Matt wants.
So to charge or initiate CC a unit has to be unactivated. The only exception is that once CC is initiated by an unactivated squad, the activated/unactivated condition on the defending squad is irrelevent as CC begins, which is a two sided affair.