FMA Combat Movement

Much has been written on this lately. There is a problem with using
deterministic movement in an infantry combat game - it poorly models
reality. Regardless of what one might think, movement rates in combat
are widely variable. When it comes to a close assault, even members of
a unit can be quite variable.

The Lt. orders you up, and Pvt. McPike was busy changing mags or
trying to scratch an itch. So he's a little slow off the ground. Plus
he's heavy set, and spools up to combat jog a little more slowly.
Whereas Pvt. McPoke is a real go getter. He anticipated and was moving
before the Lt. ordered things, and his adrenalin is torqued up, so he
sprints like Ben Johnson on steroids for the enemy positions. Hence
quite a difference in individual movement. In Stargrunt, we allow a
unit to close assault as a unit, despite the fact troops tend to
arrive at enemy positions at "varying" times. Within the granularity
of time in SG2, this is probably fair.

In FMA Skirmish, the time granularity is smaller (as is distance). So
these lags should be visible too. In this case, that translates to the
"combat move". It isn't quite the same set of slow ups (the sgt.
getting you all pointed in the same direction, your guys guys not
moving at the same time, etc. etc.), but it rather reflects the
uncertainties of combat. You get up to go... maybe you hesitate
because of nerves. Maybe you stumble on a root or stone as you start
to run. Maybe somewhere a flying bullet (combat happens in a continous
fashion, not the digital on-off of turns in a game) scare you so you
flinch down and that slows your run, or you dodge a bit. Maybe the
path you initially chose had to be modified by terrain. Maybe your leg
cramps. Maybe you are more tired than you thought and the run takes
longer than you hoped. Maybe you run faster due to adrenalin. Look at
it this way - if you've ever been on an excercise with the military or
played paintball, you'll get a feel for the variable nature of
movement. It is far more pronounced in bad terrain (hence the addition
of terrain modifiers to speed), because there are exponentially more
obstacles and things to get in the way or hurt you, but even on a
supposedly flat field, there are gopher holes, ruts, stones, etc.
Runnning on tarmac people even stumble. (You are wearing combat gear,
might well be fatigued, are definitely excited, and things are
happening concurrently on the battlefield - trips and stumbles
happen).

FMA and SG2 aren't chess. They aren't even FT where manoeuvre
envelopes which are predictable (though I loved the emergency thrust
rules someone wrote). They are the chaotic (though in an orderly
fashion... <grin>) movements of ground troops all with differing
physical fitness levels, excitement levels, and paths across variable
terrain. Random factors not only make the game more interesting, but
(to a point) they help model 'fog of war'.

I'm all for the idea that says a combat move is 0.5 * your full move
plus a dice or rolling 2 movement dice and adding. I like that better
than the multiplier, because that REALLY is variable (perhaps too much
so - really hard to predict) and because it tends towards a mean
result (with the multiple dice) while allowing a range or results.
I'm actually running SG2 games where *whenever* a die multiplier is
used we roll the dice and add them - helps give
more-predictable-yet-still-random-and-rife-with-possibilities
results - makes scenario balance easier.

Thomas Barclay
Software UberMensch
xwave solutions
(613) 831-2018 x 3008