Yesterday I weighed into an argument I am not really informed enough to join.
The ROAD (Random Over After Dial) initiative changes AMG are introducing to X Wing have split the community into the haters/ambivalent/rare supporters, but also effects people who have never, but may play the game. These last, AMG hope will find it and find it to more to their liking thanks to these changes.
Chasing the unwanted changes out of town or the haters leaving with the ball under their arm?
I personally do not like the artificial nature of “bids”, but never play tournaments, so it does not ruin my play experience (we usually just randomly determine init, a scenario dictates or the newer player gets it). If taken as a game only, then fine, but if any realistic rationalisation is applied, it falls over. Points are a game mechanic, not a simulation of reality.
Did a WW2 fighter pilot pocket a few “points” before lifting off hoping to get the edge on their opponent? If so, then what did these points represent, more carrots or radar? Was the Battle of Britain won by good squad building economics? Certainly the Death Star battles were unbalanced fights. If we care at all about simulation over gamesmanship, then a more realistic way of simulating the differences between pilots of the same level is needed.
As a simulation-ist I came out pretty much in favour of the idea of random order initiative as a way of simulating the frantic free-for-all fighter combat would be, but on reflection, based on reading two, much more informed blog posts and having a night to think on it, I think I prefer a different way of implementing it on the table.
ROAD randomises the turn order after committing to dial selection, which means it introduces player courage to the game, which I like, but this courage is the nerve to commit to an action and then be forced to execute it. Courage to take a chance that luck will decide with possibly dire consequences. Does this simulate the courage felt by a pilot in real combat or does it simply make the game a crap-shoot? It is close, but I can see how serious players find it too luck based.
If randomness is introduced for the right reasons and at the right time, then will it do its job as well as or better at a different point in the game?
I have a lean now towards ROBD (Randon Order Before Dials). Random by turn and still a bit seat-of-your-pants, with the constant risk of favouring one side over the other game to game (as any dice based game will), but at least the players have a heads up how to plan for this turn, just not the turns after. This reduces the pre-determined nature of some games and to me just feels closer to reality. Skill plays as big a part as before, but the “Now I apply plan A (offensive) or B (defensive) for the duration of the game” mentality of bidding is gone. Squads need a little of both A+B to win*. Squad building for a bid will not be game defining so all 200pts can be used without consequence.
Another idea I quite like is the idea of a tie breaker roll if there is an initiative conflict. Any game phase where pilots of the same skill are present and in possible conflict requires a tie breaker roll. This applies to the move/ action and fire phases and to each skill level separately, so the sequence is very fluid. Similar to ROAD, it further randomises the initiative flow during the turn, but unlike ROAD it does not potentially penalise one player’s whole squad for the duration of a turn. This is possibly better for those of us using 1e still as the larger spread of pilot skill levels reduces the need for a roll.
A last thought is the idea of simultaneous play. If pilots share the same skill, then they move simultaneously (requires bumping rule changes) and fire simultaneously. Actions are revealed simultaneously also by stating the action with a token etc then executing. The Action choice is the bit where brinkmanship comes in. Bit thin, but interesting.
*Looking at it from a purely simulation-ist perspective, ROAD means a commitment to a manoeuvre and forced execution of that manoeuvre, which seems a little robotic and fatalistic, where ROBD is closer to reading the situation and flow of battle and reacting to that. I think I like the latter.