Initiative in 4E

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by unipus

@Raellus -- your example doesn't seem to play. In this case, the PC has drawn the worst card. It doesn't matter whether the NPCs act all on the same initiative, or individually, they're all going to go before him anyway.

How is the 1 card the worst card? On p. 54 of the Player Manual:

Participants act in order from lowest to highest number, beginning with card #1, until everyone has taken their turn.

Originally Posted by Raellus

For example, imagine a 6 v 6 engagement. Let's say one of the six PCs draws the one card, and then the OPFOR draws the two. That means the bad guys get six turns before the PCs get a second one. That seems game breaking to me. Am I missing something?

So Player One, who drew the #1 card, goes first. The six OPFOR, who collectively drew the 2, go next. Then the remaining five PCs receive their turns.

Maybe my wording was unclear, or perhaps you were referring to one of the proffered house rules, where the high number goes first?

-

[Ursus Maior]

Originally Posted by Raellus

About 4e's system, as-written, has anyone had a bad experience with the optional rule by which a group of enemy draw one initiative card as a collective, and all act on the same initiative turn? It strikes me that using that streamlining feature could potentially give an enemy force a huge tactical advantage.

Am I missing something?

From experience in other systems that use NPC group initiatives, my opinion is that this rule on NPC Initiative (p. 55) works best, if you also you the optional rule on grouping actions, especially attacks.

Rules corresponding with this idea are Managing NPCs (p. 54), NPC Group Actions (p. 57), NPC Movement (p. 58), NPC Melee Attacks (p. 63), NPC Ranged Attacks (p. 66) and NPC Ammo Dice and Suppression and NPCs (p. 67) plus Explosions & NPCs (p. 68). This allows for combined movement, but also bundles attacks and ammo consumption. Also, remember that per p. 47 NPCs and Skills, NPCs should not push rolls regularly, unless they're key NPCs in important situations.

Combined attacks ease the administrative burden on the referee, allowing for only one roll to be made, but with a +1 per per additional NPC involved (up to a maximum +3), as they use the "helping" rule. Ammunition is not tracked, but one or more 1s rolled on an ammo dice results in empty magazines after the attack, making a reload action necessary; reloading always counts as a slow action for NPCs under this rule.

Key NPCs are advised to be handled separately, however, giving them a special status. I would also recommend to follow this idea.

In essence, this makes it possible for groups of up to four NPCs in one hex to be grouped together, while each NPC still adds something to the whole. An infantry squad (nine soldiers) could e. g. then be grouped into two rifle teams of up to four NPCs and a single special weapons user, such as a light machine gun operator, an anti-tank specialist or a grenade launcher operator. Only three roles would be made for those three "groups".

Other options include special weapons to be employed with more support, e. g. two light machine-gun teams of two persons, one anti-tank team of two persons and three riflemen for only four rolls needed.

[unipus]

Originally Posted by Raellus

How is the 1 card the worst card? On p. 54 of the Player Manual:

Participants act in order from lowest to highest number, beginning with card #1, until everyone has taken their turn.



So Player One, who drew the #1 card, goes first. The six OPFOR, who collectively drew the 2, go next. Then the remaining five PCs receive their turns.

Maybe my wording was unclear, or perhaps you were referring to one of the proffered house rules, where the high number goes first?

-

I think I was simply confused, as I haven't used the book's initiative system in quite a long time. Sorry!

However, I do agree with everything Ursus posted... some of these optional rules probably do not work best unless you're using them with other optional rules, and I would never group more than 4 NPCs (even that is a lot... a +3 to an attack is very significant in the harm it can cause). But that question also comes down to how many NPCs there are to begin with. If there's only 6 in total then I'd probably run them as individuals, or pairs at the most. If there's 20... then yeah maybe some fireteams, and the PCs deserve what they get for trying to fight 20 guys at once. :P

[Raellus]

Here's another idea for a simple mod to 4e initiative rules. Start by drawing initiative, as described in the rules.

After the draw, when an enemy turn immediately precedes that of a PC (i.e. the enemy would act right before the PC in the turn order), the PC can choose to make a CUF roll v said enemy's CUF. If the PC wins the roll, he/she can exchange places with the enemy (i.e. swap turns, essentially). If not, there's no change to the drawn initiative turn order. This process only occurs once, immediately after drawing initiative. PCs may only attempt one swap, if the afore mentioned conditions apply. Any resulting changes to turn order last throughout the remainder of the combat encounter.

This rule only applies to PCs. Enemy NPCs do not get an opportunity to swap with PCs whose drawn initiative places them earlier in the turn queue.

Example:

Enemy A draws a 2; Ruiz draws a 5; Teller draws a 7; Enemy B draws the 10.

Ruiz can roll CUF v Enemy A. If Ruiz wins the roll, she can swap initiative/turn order with Enemy A. Ruiz chooses to roll CUF, and wins. She opts to swap with Enemy A and now acts before same.

Since Teller's turn did not initially follow Enemy A, he can not roll CUF for a chance to swap with same. He still acts after Enemy A. Enemy B does not get an opportunity to swap turn order with Teller.

---

This simple system will allow CUF to have some impact on turn order, but not too much. It could improve the tactical situation somewhat for the PCs, but not for the OPFOR. That doesn't seem game-breaking to me. It also doesn't add too many steps to the process, so it shouldn't significantly slow down combat.

Is that clear? What do y'all think?

-

[unipus]

It's very straightforward and clear (in this example, more on that below though).

It's not my cup of tea because (a) I don't really like the default initiative system anyway and (b) the CUF roll isn't actually a choice. There's no downside so there's no reason you wouldn't roll it every single time.

My big question about the simplicity is what do you do when you have 5 PCs, and 5 NPCs, and their initiative is scattered all over the place?

Say: NPC, PC, PC, NPC, PC, NPC, NPC, PC, NPC, PC

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by unipus

My question remains in this Press/Hold system (I'll buy a new copy of 2013! I cannot find it anywhere and I'd like to support the lads!) though...

What advantage is there ever to Holding? Essentially you've got a prisoner's dilemma except why would I ever not choose Push?

In TW2K13's system, HOLD is often a forced option. A Suppression Attack is when the enemy shoots at you in TW2K13 with the full intention of suppressing you. They do a skill check and success will result in suppression. This will FORCE you to HOLD on the next round. Certain wounds or psychological injuries or Disadvantages will also force a HOLD under certain conditions (ie an animal that's afraid of fire encountering it). I also allowed INTIMIDATION ATTACKS to force a HOLD (psychological Warfare).

Sometimes it's a tactical choice. For instance, you are hiding from a group of attackers and you knife the only guy who detected you. The HOLD option might be a good choice to avoid detection by additional attackers.

[leonpoi]

I love the idea, I just don't know how you bring it in in a mechanical sense in a way that makes sense and flows well.

I feel that you almost want some time of counter or "timer" that is representing loss of group cohesion and short-term morale over time during a battle and as this starts going down then things start to become harder etc ("attrition"). It would happen on both sides and lead to a situation where the sides want to HOLD and regain and then the side that is losing when HOLDing is happening simply says - stuff this - we're out of here, and retreats or at least re-positions.

[edit] - specifically for holding I think I need to answer 1) why would a side want to hold? What's the benefit? 2) does a side need to hold or is it individuals that hold? 3) Why would a side not want to hold? What is the downside of holding?

With these I could start getting my head around what the intention is and then what the best way to implement might be.

An easy way could be to link it to CUF team morale - at some point unit cohesion and communication has suffered enough that everyone just needs to reground and work out wtf to do next?? Also situations where seriously wounded people need to be dealt with. I don't know, as an armchair soldier I'm not in the best place to judge here. I guess you do see the equivalent in team (ball) sports where you have many HOLDs between plays.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by unipus

It's not my cup of tea because... the CUF roll isn't actually a choice. There's no downside so there's no reason you wouldn't roll it every single time.

I see your point and I think in most cases you're right, but there may be instances where players want a chance to suss out enemy intentions before acting. For example, maybe the engagement starts at long range, and the PCs want to let the enemy get closer before engaging. Or the PCs are hoping to pull off a flanking move but they want to figure out where the enemy MGs are first.

Originally Posted by unipus

My big question about the simplicity is what do you do when you have 5 PCs, and 5 NPCs, and their initiative is scattered all over the place?

Say: NPC 1, PC A, PC B, NPC 2, PC C, NPC 3, NPC 4, PC D, NPC 5, PC E

In this case, only four of the five PCs, and four of the five NPCs would roll against each other. A v 1, C v 2, D v 4, and E v 5. Yeah, it would add a minute or two to the turn to make the opposing CUF rolls, but I think most players would find the slight delay worth it for the chance to act before an enemy NPC.

I had a hard time phrasing this in the OP, but to clarify (I hope), one would only roll v an adjacent enemy in the queue. So, in this case, D only rolls against 4, not 4 and 3. And, again, enemy NPCs can't initiate a roll against a PC ahead of them in the queue. It's a PC only perk.

-

[Mahatatain]

Originally Posted by swaghauler

Movement is done the same way. Sprinting is 8m per Phase/Second. Running is 6m per Phase/Second. Trotting is 4m per Phase/Second, Walking is 2m per Phase/Second, and Crawling is 1m per Phase/Second.

This isn't to do with initiative but this struck me as odd, presuming that I'm reading your numbers correctly. I'm sure that you're aware of this but a Sprinting distance of 8m per second works out as sprinting 100m in 12.5 seconds. That's a pretty good pace for someone in running gear and wearing spikes, let alone someone loaded down with combat gear and wearing boots.

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by Mahatatain

This isn't to do with initiative but this struck me as odd, presuming that I'm reading your numbers correctly. I'm sure that you're aware of this but a Sprinting distance of 8m per second works out as sprinting 100m in 12.5 seconds. That's a pretty good pace for someone in running gear and wearing spikes, let alone someone loaded down with combat gear and wearing boots.

The 8m sprint is for an unencumbered runner. This is 80% of the fastest olympiad. You cannot sprint if you are carrying more than 1/2 STR (ru).

[Tegyrius]

Originally Posted by Tegyrius

I've been chewing on this and my inclination is to do away with the card system entirely and adapt the system from Five Parsecs From Home (which, admittedly, is one of my shiny new toys, and thus biases me more favorably toward it). Here's an untested alpha draft:

Each combat round has three initiative phases. In order, these are Quick, Enemy, and Slow.

At the beginning of every combat round, each PC and allied NPC makes a Coolness Under Fire check (adding unit morale if within LOS or voice/radio contact of an ally). This check receives a -1 penalty if facing enemies who predominantly have CUF A and a +1 bonus if facing enemies who predominantly have CUF D. The Combat Awareness specialty's effect becomes a +1 bonus to initiative.

1. Quick phase: every PC/ally who succeeded with the CUF check
   
2. Enemy phase: every opponent
   
3. Slow phase: every PC/ally who failed the CUF check

In each phase, characters may act in any order.

I've been running with this house rule since I started my current campaign (1e timeline, 4e rules) in January. We're currently 12 sessions and about 8 combats into it and it seems to be working fairly well. The final version is a bit more streamlined - I dropped the modifiers for enemy CUF:

At the beginning of each round, each player rolls Coolness Under Fire (adding Unit Morale if the PC is within voice or visual contact of a teammate). With success, they act in the fast phase, before all NPCs. With failure, they act in the slow phase, after all NPCs. Characters in each phase may act in any sequence and players may (briefly) discuss tactics and order of operations before declaring actions.

My observation in play is that this incentivizes keeping the team close (no lone-wolfing), rewards both individual proficiency (Coolness Under Fire) and team cohesion (Unit Morale), and allows the sort of coordinated action that we see in both documentary and cinematic examinations of small unit tactics.

- C.

[kcdusk]

Originally Posted by Tegyrius

I
My observation in play is that this incentivizes keeping the team close (no lone-wolfing), rewards both individual proficiency (Coolness Under Fire) and team cohesion (Unit Morale), and allows the sort of coordinated action that we see in both documentary and cinematic examinations of small unit tactics.

- C.

Agreed.

I have some observations on initiative coming up soon, from my own play experience.

[Tegyrius]

I should note that in our last combat scene, two PCs were detached for sniping and recon. They subsequently separated from one another before combat began. The PCs have no radios and I ruled that the two who'd gone solo were effectively out of voice communication with one another. The difference between using only CUF for initiative and using CUF + Unit Morale was starkly illuminated.

As an additional benefit, this system still works in Forge/Foundry (my group's virtual tabletop of choice) with no software tweaks.

No one has taken Combat Awareness, but the easiest way to integrate it with this system seems to be a flat +1 bonus to initiative checks, in keeping with the functionality of most other specialties.

- C.