RE: Initiative - was RE: Piquet

Having never played Piquet, I want to pose some questions based on the 
examples provided.  Again, I'm only asking because I have not seen the 
rules, so I'm not sure as to how they really work...

--On Wednesday, September 29, 2004 4:12 PM -0600 B Lin
<lin@rxkinetix.com> 
wrote:

> Allan,
>	Some of your examples support the points of where Piquet fails
in the
> initative department:
>
> 1) Howard was a known negative factor and Hooker attempted to
compensate
> by moving Reynolds to cover the flank, in Piquet you have no idea
which
> units you are going to be able to move until you get some initative
> points to do something.  You can not compensate for a known break in
the
> command, because there is no fore knowledge of the weak points in your
> command structure.  When you do send orders to any unit, they will
> execute your orders, not 1-3 turns from now, but this turn.
>

Ok, but how quickly were those orders actually acted upon?  I know you
are 
saying, "Not 1-3 turns from now", but what other factors may have
delayed 
the decision, or the execution, which are not explicitly factored into
the 
piquet system, but are *reflected* in the random allowable actions
system?

> 2)  Hooker made a rapid decision to reinforce Howard's flank - the
> decision was made and the orders issued.  But Reynolds did not receive
> the appropriate information (orders) until it was too late.  Again,
the
> decision for action was made quickly, but the reception of those
orders
> lagged.  I'm sure Reynolds did not sit on the orders for hours after
> receiving them, but executed as soon as was possible.
>

Right.	As soon as was possible.  What caused the delays in real life? 
Are 
those *even possible* in the game system, or are they again, represented
by 
*not getting right draw on the cards*?	So, Hooker made a rapid decision

(player wants to reinforce Howards' flank).  The orders are issued, but 
Reynolds did not receive the (orders) until it was too late.  What
caused 
the delay IN GAME?  Likely bad card draws that did  not allow the player
to 
use the reinforcements when the player decided that they were needed.

Sounds this actually works to me.

You may not be interparerting the meaning of the cards as the author of
the 
game intended. :)

> 3) Hooker ordered Sedgwick to take Lee in the rear, again he made the
> decision quickly but as you pointed out, he did not emphasize speed
> enough and Sedgwick was a day late.  If Sedgwick had understood
Hooker's
> emphasis, perhaps he might have moved faster - again it is an issue of
> complete information in a timely manner.
>

And so, the "lack of appropriate emphasis", again - something that the 
GAMER HAS NO CONTROL OVER between his on-table commanders because he is
not 
two human beings passing a note via an ADC to each other - results in a 
loss of appropriate action - which IN THE GAME is the result of bad card

draws or bad initiative rolls.	Again, the game mechanics may very well 
represent exactly what happened in history, without a detailed
explanation 
of the mechanics of the event, focusing on the outcome - that the action

did not happen when Hooker wanted it to.

> So at a company level it appears that there is no difference - whether
> the problem is random statistical chance or a delineated subset of the
> whole, but in practice it makes a world of difference.  Piquet's
> initiative is another example.  It generates results similar to
> historical results, but how it does it doesn't necessarily correlate
with
> how those results were achieved in the historical example.  In Piquet,
a
> unit may sit and do nothing because you don't have enough action
points,
> which is very different than a unit that doesn't move because it never
> received its orders or it's commander is ignoring orders.

Except that you don't *know* that.  And that's the point.  The game 
mechanic is that the unit *does not act*.  The reality *may be* that the

unit did not receive the orders in time (ADC got lost, got shot,
whatever) 
or that the orders were ignored or misinterperated.
The author of the game chose to abstract the human elements of fog of
war 
and mistakes of execution into a system which models the overall effects

without telling you which specific events caused the effect.  Do you, as
a 
Corp commander, really *care* about whether the ADCs screwed up, the 
brigade commander screwed up, or you screwed up by writing ambiguous 
orders?  Or in the heat of battle is all that matters the fact that they

were NOT executed as you wanted/expected them to be?  I guess is comes
down 
to the level of specific detail you want to represent in the game.  "I 
rolled a 12.  Shit, my ADC got shot off of his horse!"	"I rolled a 6,
the 
idiot Brigade commander didn't understand the orders!"	Or, is "I rolled
a 
10 and you rolled a 14.  You get 4 actions and I get none" sufficient to

show the EFFECT of the group of actual events that caused the game
event? 
I'm not really arguing for or against, just presenting a different
possible 
viewpoint. :)

> In Piquet, if
> you get initative points, you can move any unit you want to.	In
> historical battles, you have stubborn commanders who will subvert,
delay
> or plain ignore your orders and will not move under any circumstances
or
> will move in a manner contrary to your orders.
>

Ok, so "contrary to your orders" doesn't happen.  Or does it?  Let's say

that you have two brigades.  And you really want one to take a specific 
action, but you need a specific card draw to allow it (assuming I 
understand what I've heard of the system correctly).  You have the
second 
brigade, who you really just want to have hold ground.	You win the 
initiative and get a card draw for your allowable actions that does NOT 
meet your requirements for the first Brigade, but does allow you an
action 
for the second, though it's not your *optimal choice*.	As a game
option, 
you choose to use the initiative points you have to do something with
the 
second brigade.  Could it be interprated as, "The commander of the first

brigade was a stubborn clod who ignored your orders, and the commander
of 
the second brigade ignored your orders and advanced when you wanted him
to 
hold"?	Sounds in an after battle write up, this could well be the 
interpretation applied.

> Ideally an initiative system would be moot, because the individiual
unit
> actions will generate "initiative".  If you give the orders and they
are
> all carried out, then you have the "initative".  If you give orders
and
> they aren't carried out, then you don't have the initiative.	Factors
> such as communication speed and clarity should also play a role in
> determining those effects.
>

And I've seen game systems where the *mechanic* is done this way.  As
long 
as  your orders and execution continue to achieve your objectives 
(individual unit objectives) you retain the initiative and continue to
act. 
As soon as your opponent stops your actions, or one of your actions
fails 
to achieve a specific outcome, initiative switches to the other player. 
My 
preference would be for a system as I've just described, but I don't see

that my *preference* invalidates the system chosen in piquet.  It's
simply 
a different flavor of tool to achieve the same end.

John