Legion 4 wrote:
Well I do agree, Overwatch/Oppertunity Fire/First Fire is an excellent game mechanic. And should be in any system ... However, my critism of IGOUGO vs. ACTIVATION, is as I have said, before, ... WHILE THE ENEMY IS SHOOTING/MOVING, WHAT ARE YOUR UNITS DOING ? Beside being shot at or waitiing for some target to move into your LOS and shot at him ... Which you still can do with Overwatch/Opp Fire/ etc. with Activation. If you put your unit on Overwatch/First Fire/etc. orders ... It's like an ambush in some cases. [One of my favorite tactics when I was a Grunt Cdr.] But modern combined arms mobile warfare requires fire & manuever ... That is why with individual unit activation, IMO, it is more "realistic" and almost more like "simultaneous" ... with one unit activating ... then the other side ... back and forth ...
Now C/S, there was an old British Army predilection from early WWII, that you Limey's would wait 24 hrs to see what the enemy was really doing. Before reacting in force. Of course, we all know with Blitzkrieg type tactics, if you wait 24 hours. The ony thing you'll be doing is being overrun and becoming a POW ...
But C/S glad to see you are keeping the tradition !
But you could say the same thing about alternating activation - while my formation is moving and shooting, what are the rest of my army and the entirety of your army doing... standing around? The only real way around this is to go back to Spearhead and Crossfire and Kreigspiel and have a referee and written orders and actions.
On top of that, I dont find it more realistic. My formation moves and shoots, then one of your does. Then, my second formation can move and shoot as a reaction to your first formation, that was supposedly acting simultaneously?
I think that my point really is that I find IGoUGo more in line with a commanders view of the battlefield, where he needs to predict what the enemy will do and move his troops to the right places in anticipation, rather than wait and react, while the activation is more of a 'front line' view of the action.
If anything, IGoUGo should promote MORE movement and fluid unit positioning, if its done right. And, I think thats the real issue. IGoUGo is really dismissed quickly these days based on very few examples done badly. 40K is a very bad implementation of IGoUGo.... and I am struggling to think of another game that uses the system, because alternating activations has become the current vogue in gaming. Thats fine, and I have no desire to change that. I dont dislike alternating activations, but I do feel that when done well, IGoUGo is simply a better system for me. I will accept that it is less 'dynamic' as a game and more 'tactical', but that just shows my bias in what I like in games.
And, hey, nothing wrong with making sure that you know what you are doing before charging at the enemy. A thorough assessment of the situation and a solid plan are what got us through the Second World War against the Blitzkrieg, or the 'four year war' as you Americans call it.
_________________
https://www.cybershadow.ninja - A brief look into my twisted world, including wargames and beyond.
https://www.net-armageddon.org - The official NetEA (Epic Armageddon) site and resource.